Rugby Champions Cup 2015-16 - Tiers

First topic message reminder :

Early days I know to be thinking about the RCC for 2015-16 with the Top 14 still not passed through the semi final stage, but as things stand this seems how the four tiers will work out:

Tier 1 – Glasgow, Saracens, Winner Top14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final

Tier 2 – one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, Ospreys, Northampton, better Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF

Tier 3 - one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, Leinster, Exeter, Racing Metro

Tier 4 – Scarlets, Wasps, Oyonnax, Treviso, Bordeaux

For Tiers 1 and 2, anybody know how the two from Munster, Bath and the losing Top 14 finalist who will go into Tier 1 and the one from that group who will go into Tier 2 will be picked - do they pick them out of a hat or what?.  Likewise for Tier 2 and 3, do they pick one from Ulster, Leicester and the worse Top 14 semi-finalist  to go into Tier 2 and the two others go into Tier 3.

From a Leinster point of view we're paying for our sh1te season and could potentially face the Top 14 winner - presume it'll be Toulon of Clermont, Bath and Scarlets - not a nice prospect.  Alternatively we could face Saracens, Northampton and Treviso - not easy but certainly more palatable. Quite happy to be in same tier as Exeter - wouldn't fancy playing them.  

Lots of permutations for all you fans of the other 19 teams to contemplate

****

Edit: Draw has now been made for both competitions and the pools look like this:

2015/16 Champions Cup pools

Pool 1: Saracens, Ulster Rugby, Toulouse, Oyonnax
Pool 2: ASM Clermont Auvergne, Ospreys, Exeter Chiefs, Bordeaux-Bègles
Pool 3: Glasgow Warriors, Northampton Saints, Racing 92, Scarlets
Pool 4: Stade Français Rugby, Munster Rugby, Leicester Tigers, Benetton Treviso
Pool 5: Bath Rugby, RC Toulon, Leinster Rugby, Wasps

2015/16 Challenge Cup pools

Pool 1: Connacht Rugby, Brive, Newcastle Falcons, Eniset-STM
Pool 2: Sale Sharks, Newport Gwent Dragons, Castres Olympique, Pau
Pool 3: Montpellier, Harlequins, Cardiff Blues, Cammi Rugby Calvisano
Pool 4: La Rochelle, Gloucester Rugby, Zebre Rugby, Worcester Warriors
Pool 5: Edinburgh Rugby, London Irish, Grenoble, Agen

Personally I hate the tournament every bit as much as I decided I would before it started.

Lame attempt at sarcasm there Fuzzy.

I don't think anyone has said they hate it. As for myself, I have said that although there are things I would like to see change, I still look forward to the next seasons competition.

The fact that some of us aren't drooling over the competition just yet seems to irate some of you. Some of you need to get a grip.

Munchkin wrote:The fact that some of us aren't drooling over the competition just yet seems to irate some of you. Some of you need to get a grip.

Likewise, anyone commenting on the positives gets told Toulon have 'bought' the cup, that it's devalued and predictable, and that French and English money has ruined it.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but there was so much nailing of colours to respective masts that I doubt there will be any backing down on here now.

rodders wrote:Well it does because, there is less incentive now for teams to go for bonus points because there are tighter and more predictable pools. Previously you had 3-4 pools where only 1 team could realistically qualify and 2-3 maybe where there was a chance for the runner up.

There was also the incentive of amlin qualification for 2 more teams and European ranking points at stake, so for all but a few teams there was something to play for until the final round.

Now you have 5 pools and 3 runner up spots, no second tier qualification or points for next years qualification  - its a duller, more predictable and devalued competition.

I think we might have some semantic issues here. You say "tighter" AND "more predictable". I don't really understand this. If the pools are tighter, doesn't that mean more teams are on similar points and therefore the outcome is less predictable? And in these cases are bonus points not more important? If everyone wins their home games then the only difference is bonus points.

Oh and fuzzy, I hate it just as much as I began to hate the HEC. Would have preferred it scrapped completely. But I have BT sports and will watch it if I haven't got anything better to do.

Munchkin, it was an important point that needed making (whoops). Also, you only know if something is predictable after it's happened.

HammerofThunor wrote:

rodders wrote:Well it does because, there is less incentive now for teams to go for bonus points because there are tighter and more predictable pools. Previously you had 3-4 pools where only 1 team could realistically qualify and 2-3 maybe where there was a chance for the runner up.

There was also the incentive of amlin qualification for 2 more teams and European ranking points at stake, so for all but a few teams there was something to play for until the final round.

Now you have 5 pools and 3 runner up spots, no second tier qualification or points for next years qualification  - its a duller, more predictable and devalued competition.

I think we might have some semantic issues here. You say "tighter" AND "more predictable". I don't really understand this. If the pools are tighter, doesn't that mean more teams are on similar points and therefore the outcome is less predictable? And in these cases are bonus points not more important? If everyone wins their home games then the only difference is bonus points.

Oh and fuzzy, I hate it just as much as I began to hate the HEC. Would have preferred it scrapped completely. But I have BT sports and will watch it if I haven't got anything better to do.

Munchkin, it was an important point that needed making (whoops).  Also, you only know if something is predictable after it's happened.

If you're talking about the point Fuzzy made, I don't think it did need making. You would have to convince me otherwise.

It was predictable you would try and catch me out on something again. So are you really saying that you can't use the word 'predictable' unless it's after the event?



                       

Munchkin wrote:The fact that some of us aren't drooling over the competition just yet seems to irate some of you. Some of you need to get a grip.

I do not wish people to drool over it. The tournament after all contains most of the flaws of the previous one. Main flaw is the number of pools. 5 and 6 are both a crap number when you wish to generate 8 teams. I really wish the Celtic nations had chosen to negotiate when English and French had tried to get changes made, rather than assuming they were grandstanding. Instead they waited years till the 11th hour when they realised that they needed the English and French more than the Franglos needed them. Once we had arrived at that point, I wish we had not had a tournament last year, nor one this coming season. I wish we had taken the time to draw up a mutually beneficial tournament. Sadly the old ERC deal with Murdoch meant that was impossible.

My beef was your claim that the new tournament is more predictable than the last - then failing to display how that is so, well to any logical definition of predictable. More like Nostrodamus predictions, in my opinion anyway. That and changing the question asked to the one you wished to answer. Should become a politician.

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The fact that some of us aren't drooling over the competition just yet seems to irate some of you. Some of you need to get a grip.

Likewise, anyone commenting on the positives gets told Toulon have 'bought' the cup, that it's devalued and predictable, and that French and English money has ruined it.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but there was so much nailing of colours to respective masts that I doubt there will be any backing down on here now.

There are positives, Cyril, but I guess sometimes the positives are missed when focusing on the negatives. This works both ways. I view Toulons buying power as a negative for the competition, and then you view my perception as a negative. We then both argue about the negatives, and neglect the positives. That's just an example by the way

I don't think those that view the competition as lacking will be convinced by arguments on these forums. Only the championship itself can convince the unconvinced. That will take time if it is to happen.

I am sure you are not one, munchkin, but some view Toulon's buying power a new negative. In fact if it is a negative it was also present in the old tournament.

LondonTiger wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The fact that some of us aren't drooling over the competition just yet seems to irate some of you. Some of you need to get a grip.

I do not wish people to drool over it. The tournament after all contains most of the flaws of the previous one. Main flaw is the number of pools. 5 and 6 are both a crap number when you wish to generate 8 teams. I really wish the Celtic nations had chosen to negotiate when English and French had tried to get changes made, rather than assuming they were grandstanding. Instead they waited years till the 11th hour when they realised that they needed the English and French more than the Franglos needed them. Once we had arrived at that point, I wish we had not had a tournament last year, nor one this coming season. I wish we had taken the time to draw up a mutually beneficial tournament. Sadly the old ERC deal with Murdoch meant that was impossible.

My beef was your claim that the new tournament is more predictable than the last - then failing to display how that is so, well to any logical definition of predictable. More like Nostrodamus predictions, in my opinion anyway. That and changing the question asked to the one you wished to answer. Should become a politician.

I'm not getting into the old ERC V's PRL/LNR arguments again. Suffice to say I don't agree with you.

"My beef was your claim that the new tournament is more predictable than the last - then failing to display how that is so, well to any logical definition of predictable. More like Nostrodamus predictions, in my opinion anyway. That and changing the question asked to the one you wished to answer. Should become a politician.[/quote]"

My claim was that some pools are far more likely to produce 2nd place qualifiers than others. You then asked me to name those who qualify, but that wasn't the prediction I was making. Unless you're completely brainless I'm sure you can grasp that?

I din't change the question asked of me. I answered exactly as I should have. The problem wasn't with me. The problem was with you asking the wrong question, and then behaving like a stroppy brat because I didn't answer as you wanted.

LondonTiger wrote:I am sure you are not one, munchkin, but some view Toulon's buying power a new negative. In fact if it is a negative it was also present in the old tournament.

I am, and it was. That's not the fault of either competition. The fault for that lies with LNR.

I disagree that was your claim as you were comparing one competition with the other when saying the new one is predictable, thus inferring the old was not.. But I guess as a spoilt brat I would think that. Suffice to say we will not agree, so I shall shut up.

LondonTiger wrote:I disagree that was your claim as you were comparing one competition with the other when saying the new one is predictable, thus inferring the old was not.. But I guess as a spoilt brat I would think that. Suffice to say we will not agree, so I shall shut up.

No I wasn't. Look at the context:


Post by LondonTiger Today at 2:10 am

rodders wrote:
"Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless."

You - "How?"



Post by Munchkin Today at 2:16 am

LondonTiger wrote:
rodders wrote:
Rodders - "Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless."

You - "How?"

Me - "I would say it's predictable that the pools with Treviso and Oyonnax will have two of the runners up, and also that only one team will qualify from pool 5."

That's obviously all I was saying, LT. Nothing about any other competition there and when I did mention the ERC it was to ask a question of whether you thought 5 first place + 3 runners up was fairer than 6 first place + 2 runners up? That was all. You got it wrong.

There was a lot of predictability with HC fixtures, there is a lot of predictability with Champs Cup fixtures - similarly with Amlin/Challenge. The bookies will still make a profit, though.

Personally I like the line up of the champions cup and the challenge cup - some excellent match ups.

It's freshened up by an improvement in teams. Glasgow, who were normally the HC whipping boys have now turned into Pro 12 champions, two old winners Bath and Wasps look to be re emerging, Exeter continue to improve, Racing Metro will expect to get better too.

These teams as they gain more European experience with their current players could pose quite a few problems for the other teams.

Pool 5 also gives a chance of Toulon not making the quarter finals. Another winner would be a nice change. I wouldn't say any pool looks easy. Plenty of unpredictable factors.

Munchkin wrote:

Me wrote:

Munchkin, it was an important point that needed making (whoops).  Also, you only know if something is predictable after it's happened.

If you're talking about the point Fuzzy made, I don't think it did need making. You would have to convince me otherwise.

It was predictable you would try and catch me out on something again. So are you really saying that you can't use the word 'predictable' unless it's after the event?

my point was that you said it was predictable, but unless you mean that predictions can be made (in which this is always the case) then it's only predictable if they regularly were accurate. The Italians were always predicted to provide the runners up but I had a look at the last three years of the HEC and 3 out of 6 RU had Italians in their pool. So that's not THAT predictable when they're repeatedly the 'worst' teams in it.

As for me trying to catch you out. Sorry, I'm like that with everyone in real-life and my wife hates it. You have the unfortunate bonus of being someone I often disagree with (often due to my own misunderstandings) but enjoy talking to.                       

In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Sorry. Probability doesn't work that way. That would only be the case if it was random, which it's clearly not.

Edit: just had look and you had 7% chance of randomly guessing which pools the 8 QF would come from before, and now you have 10% chance at randomly guessing the 8 QF.

Edit: just for context, if both competition has run for 10 years and each year you mean your random prediction you would have got it right about 0-1 times for the old system and 1 with the new system (if it was just random).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Me wrote:

Munchkin, it was an important point that needed making (whoops).  Also, you only know if something is predictable after it's happened.

If you're talking about the point Fuzzy made, I don't think it did need making. You would have to convince me otherwise.

It was predictable you would try and catch me out on something again. So are you really saying that you can't use the word 'predictable' unless it's after the event?

my point was that you said it was predictable, but unless you mean that predictions can be made (in which this is always the case) then it's only predictable if they regularly were accurate. The Italians were always predicted to provide the runners up but I had a look at the last three years of the HEC and 3 out of 6 RU had Italians in their pool. So that's not THAT predictable when they're repeatedly the 'worst' teams in it.

As for me trying to catch you out. Sorry, I'm like that with everyone in real-life and my wife hates it. You have the unfortunate bonus of being someone I often disagree with (often due to my own misunderstandings) but enjoy talking to.                       

Certain groups are predictable because they have teams which will likely cough up bonus points to first and second place teams. I predict that based on teams of a certain standard coughing up bonus points to much stronger teams throughout the competitions history. If you look at all 5 pools it isn't difficult to predict which of them will have those teams which will qualify in 2nd place. It's fairly predictable.

Don't be sorry, Hammer. It's entertaining. A bit like a game of chess. Correctly understanding moves on the board can win or lose games.

That predictability was brought on by teams being included because of where they are rather than what theyve done and would be present anyway. Personally im annoyed by that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That predictability was brought on by teams being included because of where they are rather than what theyve done and would be present anyway. Personally im annoyed by that.

Why would you be annoyed? Treviso is there because they are the elite of their country. They are there on merit.

Its a club comp not the 6Ns they have not earned their place and it does no one any good.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Sorry. Probability doesn't work that way. That would only be the case if it was random, which it's clearly not.

Edit: just had look and you had 7% chance of randomly guessing which pools the 8 QF would come from before, and now you have 10% chance at randomly guessing the 8 QF.

Edit: just for context, if both competition has run for 10 years and each year you mean your random prediction you would have got it right about 0-1 times for the old system and 1 with the new system (if it was just random).

Sorry, but are we not discussing predictability rather than probability? Obviously with a reduced number of teams the competition is more predictable. If you extrapolate reducing the number of teams down to having only one left then it becomes completely predictable.

Equally there have been "upsets" in the past because one team was given no chance of a win yet they did win and now most of that level of unpredictability has been removed. Treviso could be argued to be the only team left that if they win away people would be saying that was 'unpredicatable'.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its a club comp not the 6Ns they have not earned their place and it does no one any good.

So presumably you would propose that the competition be made up of the top16 ranked European teams?

As its created from 3 leagues i d have liked to have seen equal representation from those leagues based on qualification from the league placings. Id prefer to see a knock out FA cup style as well but that will never happen.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its a club comp not the 6Ns they have not earned their place and it does no one any good.

They have earned their place. They finished above Zebre. They are there on merit. It is a club competition, but it's a European club competition. We have teams which represent England, France and then those nations in the PRO12 (Ireland - Wales - Scotland - Italy). All the various nations being represented by their elite.

You say it does no one any good... I disagree. I personally get more satisfaction on watching teams like Treviso, Zebre, Connacht and Cardiff play. It enriches, or did, the competition for me. So you're wrong. It does at least one other person good and I don't think I'm alone in that.

So you would cut more teams out of the championship, or just the one? .... because you don't like it. Maybe if they stamp on the neck of Treviso then AP can add another elite team of their own. One which would be there on merit, and so obviously add something that weaklings like Treviso can't. A team that will so obviously not cede bonus point to other teams....... yeah right.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:As its created from 3 leagues i d have liked to have seen equal representation from those leagues based on qualification from the league placings. Id prefer to see a knock out FA cup style as well but that will never happen.

What's the name of the competition again?

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Sorry. Probability doesn't work that way. That would only be the case if it was random, which it's clearly not.

Edit: just had look and you had 7% chance of randomly guessing which pools the 8 QF would come from before, and now you have 10% chance at randomly guessing the 8 QF.

Edit: just for context, if both competition has run for 10 years and each year you mean your random prediction you would have got it right about 0-1 times for the old system and 1 with the new system (if it was just random).

Sorry, but are we not discussing predictability rather than probability? Obviously with a reduced number of teams the competition is more predictable. If you extrapolate reducing the number of teams down to having only one left then it becomes completely predictable.

Equally there have been "upsets" in the past because one team was given no chance of a win yet they did win and now most of that level of unpredictability has been removed. Treviso could be argued to be the only team left that if they win away people would be saying that was 'unpredicatable'.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

You have a very simplistic view of it if you think the probability distribution is linear. And the outcome you predict is the result of the game. In your example you're saying the outcome IS predictable (Treviso will probably lose away from home). Them winning away from home isn't unpredictable, it's unlikely. You've just said that there is now only one team who is unlikely to win away from home, which means out of all 30 games that occur, only 3 are predictable (10%). Previously, if you assume that both Italian teams would be likely to lose away you have 6 out of 36 being predictable (17%). What you've just argued is that the current competition is less predictable not more.

Can't follow your logic I'm afraid. Perhaps say it simpler if you can.

It weakens the comp thats all munckin I understand why some like to see it done but my annoyance comes from the fact it could have been done better by not deliberately weakening it. Whats the name got to do with it?

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Sorry. Probability doesn't work that way. That would only be the case if it was random, which it's clearly not.

Edit: just had look and you had 7% chance of randomly guessing which pools the 8 QF would come from before, and now you have 10% chance at randomly guessing the 8 QF.

Edit: just for context, if both competition has run for 10 years and each year you mean your random prediction you would have got it right about 0-1 times for the old system and 1 with the new system (if it was just random).

Sorry, but are we not discussing predictability rather than probability? Obviously with a reduced number of teams the competition is more predictable. If you extrapolate reducing the number of teams down to having only one left then it becomes completely predictable.

Equally there have been "upsets" in the past because one team was given no chance of a win yet they did win and now most of that level of unpredictability has been removed. Treviso could be argued to be the only team left that if they win away people would be saying that was 'unpredicatable'.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

You have a very simplistic view of it if you think the probability distribution is linear. And the outcome you predict is the result of the game. In your example you're saying the outcome IS predictable (Treviso will probably lose away from home).  Them winning away from home isn't unpredictable, it's unlikely. You've just said that there is now only one team who is unlikely to win away from home, which means out of all 30 games that occur, only 3 are predictable (10%). Previously, if you assume that both Italian teams would be likely to lose away you have 6 out of 36 being predictable (17%).  What you've just argued is that the current competition is less predictable not more.

Can't follow your logic I'm afraid. Perhaps say it simpler if you can.

Predictability is the number of outcomes (fewer)
Probability is the likelihood of each outcome

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Since when?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It weakens the comp thats all munckin I understand why some like to see it done but my annoyance comes from the fact it could have been done better by not deliberately weakening it. Whats the name got to do with it?

The name? Because it is the European Rugby Champions Cup. You talk about 3 leagues as if the nations those leagues represent means nothing. Not true. It is European. Where the clubs are from does matter.

Do you really think Treviso weakens the championship much more than brining in whoever would replace them? I'm not convinced. It misses the point anyway. The point being that Treviso is the best of their nation and are there on merit.

Anyway, being annoyed is your right, and you're entitled as much as anyone else to tell us that you're annoyed that the best of a European nation is allowed into a European championship.. As much as I completely disagree with you.

If it was for the best of European nations then it would be the best of ALL European nations that wanted to take part wouldn't it? With perhaps playoffs at various stages to ensure the mismatches were reduced. But it's not. It a closed shop to generate money for the old boys.

It should have been run by Rugby Europe (or at least be working towards that).

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It weakens the comp thats all munckin I understand why some like to see it done but my annoyance comes from the fact it could have been done better by not deliberately weakening it. Whats the name got to do with it?

The name? Because it is the European Rugby Champions Cup. You talk about 3 leagues as if the nations those leagues represent means nothing. Not true. It is European. Where the clubs are from does matter.

Do you really think Treviso weakens the championship much more than brining in whoever would replace them? I'm not convinced. It misses the point anyway. The point being that Treviso is the best of their nation and are there on merit.

Anyway, being annoyed is your right, and you're entitled as much as anyone else to tell us that you're annoyed that the best of a European nation is allowed into a European championship.. As much as I completely disagree with you.

Next season, there'll be more champions in the Challenge Cup than the Champions Cup - so much for names.

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It weakens the comp thats all munckin I understand why some like to see it done but my annoyance comes from the fact it could have been done better by not deliberately weakening it. Whats the name got to do with it?

The name? Because it is the European Rugby Champions Cup. You talk about 3 leagues as if the nations those leagues represent means nothing. Not true. It is European. Where the clubs are from does matter.

Do you really think Treviso weakens the championship much more than brining in whoever would replace them? I'm not convinced. It misses the point anyway. The point being that Treviso is the best of their nation and are there on merit.

Anyway, being annoyed is your right, and you're entitled as much as anyone else to tell us that you're annoyed that the best of a European nation is allowed into a European championship.. As much as I completely disagree with you.

So where are the Romanians, why isnt it just made up of champions. Name isnt important.Treviso arent as good as anyone finishing above them in the Pro 12 and are only there because of where they re from not what they ve done. The overall point though is thats inclusions like them which creates more predictability. We disagree whether it worth it which is fine.

HammerofThunor wrote:If it was for the best of European nations then it would be the best of ALL European nations that wanted to take part wouldn't it? With perhaps playoffs at various stages to ensure the mismatches were reduced. But it's not. It a closed shop to generate money for the old boys.

It should have been run by Rugby Europe (or at least be working towards that).

No it wouldn't. That would be totally impractical with time and financial constraints, not to mention undesirable. It's only a European championship as much as is practically possible.

What old boys?

5 Nation unions (and now they've let Italian more into their club). The ones who make a mint out of the 6 nations.

And about the practicality, that's fine but don't pretend like the term Europe is important then.

I'm not pretending anything. The term 'Europe' is important. It's still a European competition, as much as is practically possible. It's a competition for professional sides. How many professional sides are there in Europe once you exclude 6N's sides?

So EPCR is set up to benefit the blazers? Very clever of them to fool PRL/LNR. There's merit in what you say though, but only as far as unions get the benefit of having players selected/honed for international duty. Can't say they get much change out of competition monies. Not when the clubs are reliant on the 6N's revenue to help fund them.

Should the title of the Challenge Cup be changed to European and Siberian Rugby Challenge Cup?

Georgians and Russians are professional. Not idea how good they are because they've been kept in isolation. But there are more levels in Europe than the very top. It should have been brought under a single pathway, with a routine to the top (just like the 6 nations and ENC should). I wait to see how the 3rd tier turns out, as it is growing, but I'm not holding my breath. Also, I have no idea what happens if one of them wins the 2nd tier.

By unions, I didn't mean the Unions. I meant the teams from those unions. Applies to the PRL and LNR just as much.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Should the title of the Challenge Cup be changed to European and Siberian Rugby Challenge Cup?

Same longitude as Bangladesh.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Should the title of the Challenge Cup be changed to European and Siberian Rugby Challenge Cup?

That's a good question. Maybe they have an office in the European part? Some authorities include all of Russia in Europe though; Siberia. Maybe it's convenient that that the rugby authorities do so as well.

I think it's just that the Russian rugby federation is affiliated to Rugby Europe rather than Asia Rugby.

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Indeed -- the whole aim of the changes - to give English teams a greater chance at qualifying as best losers. More best losers places - more english teams thru.

Got to say on the surface it appears that the groups remain very unbalanced. Glasgow get a decent draw tho. Pool 2 looks the easiest right now - 1 and 5 much harder. Bath and Wasps must be thinking they are hard done by. - 3 good teams that would grace the QFs might go out there

HammerofThunor wrote:Georgians and Russians are professional. Not idea how good they are because they've been kept in isolation. But there are more levels in Europe than the very top. It should have been brought under a single pathway, with a routine to the top (just like the 6 nations and ENC should).  I wait to see how the 3rd tier turns out, as it is growing, but I'm not holding my breath. Also, I have no idea what happens if one of them wins the 2nd tier.

By unions, I didn't mean the Unions. I meant the teams from those unions. Applies to the PRL and LNR just as much.

Not that many professional sides. I would be all for having Russian and Georgian sides in the championship and hope some day they will. They wouldn't be ready for such a big step just yet though. Hopefully the Challenge Cup and the third tier can provide that path. The problem for these sides, like the Italians, is keeping their players from being poached by other clubs. If they can really invest in grass roots and development, it will be less of a problem over time, although expensive.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:I think it's just that the Russian rugby federation is affiliated to Rugby Europe rather than Asia Rugby.

Yes that makes sense. I would quite like a trip to Siberia. Not a working holiday.... It will be interesting to find out what some of the Connacht fans make of it.

Rugby Europe (who administer the Qualifying Competition) made Enisey play at Sochi on the Black Sea, 4 timezones west of their home at Krasnoyarsk (and still outside Europe). Seems likely that EPRC will do the same for the Challenge Cup, so Siberian tours may have to wait.

Btw, from sniffing around on Tier 2 fora, probably only 3 of the top ten Russian teams are fully pro, and possibly just 2 of the Georgians.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Rugby Europe (who administer the Qualifying Competition) made Enisey play at Sochi on the Black Sea, 4 timezones west of their home at Krasnoyarsk (and still outside Europe). Seems likely that EPRC will do the same for the Challenge Cup, so Siberian tours may have to wait.

As the daytime temperature in Krasnoyarsk never really gets above -10C in December and January and at night hangs below -20C, playing at home is not really feasible.

If Ollie Phillips and Tim Stimpson can play rugby at the North Pole, I'm sure Siberia wouldn't be a problem.  

TJ wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:In the old competition there was a 33% chance of predicting which pools would have runners up. Now there is a 60% chance of predicting that.

In the old competition there was a 4% chance of choosing a winner, now there is a 5% of that.

Ergo the new competition is more predictable.

Indeed -- the whole aim of the changes - to give English teams a greater chance at qualifying as best losers.  More best losers places - more english teams thru.

Hey TJ. You might have missed but I looked back at previous years at who finishes 2nd. It might surprise you.