EPCR Cups - 2020/21

Top 14 chiefs postpone decision on next season's Champions Cup places https://the42.ie/5093207

Its interesting that the French are delaying the decision on which teams enter as the HCup could be going back up to 24 teams.

Which opens a few questions, was going to 20 teams a bad idea, along the lines of getting 8 sponsors? Would it feel like the old HCup again?

More importantly is this the door opening to allow SA teams to qualify?

I believe the Pro 14 unions were always going to push for SA to join HCup as part of them joining the Pro 14 and this is first chance to do it. If it brings more money in, I don't think French or English will have issues with it.

24 team split, Top 7 England, and France, top 4 in each Pro 14 conference, and last 2 places go though similar system currently used to decide the 20th team (giving more weight to challange cup to improve it), ie 1)Hcup winner if not already qualified 2) challange cup winner if not already qualified 3) hcup losing finalist if not already qualifed 4) challange cup losing finalist if not already qualifed 5) challange cup losing semi finalist if not already qualified 6)H cup losing semi finalist if not already qualified 7)Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the prev season HCup winner 8)Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the prev season challange Cup winner

From a increasingly neutral viewpoint (sadly) the reduction in teams brought about a much better competition. The selection of games throws up far fewer encounters where you know the winner before kick off and nearly every group is now more like an old group of death. As a fan of rugby it's been good. Whether it's been good commercially or in terms of development is a different matter.

The SA teams joining was always just a matter of time. Just like the Pro 14, European Rugby wants to tap into the SA market. Opportunity for more TV deals and sponsorship and more access to players seemingly genetically created to play rugby. What's not to like.

True sam, but in the orginal Hcup a number of pro 14 teams got in just because of the union they belonged too, it meant that (even when weak) edinburgh, Glasgow, Bennetton and Zebre/Aroini were guarenteed a place in the groups. This wouldn't happen now as all teams qualify on merit, meaning there really shouldn't be the soft pool or two each season that we had in the past.

For me the bottom 2 seeds coming from the Pro 14 now, would be a lot stronger than the bottom two seeds in the old HCup (given they could have been last 2 teams in table, which cannot happen now). Add in that Cheetahs have been pretty decent, makes it tougher as well. I think now the 7th/8th team in the Pro 14, stand up equally with 7th in Prem and top 14. I'd actually say the Pro 14 team are more likely to make an effort in europe than the 7th placed Top 14 (not always the case but its well known a number of french teams prioritise the Top 14). As an example this year would have been Castres, Sale Sharks, Scarlets and Ospreys qualifying as 7th and 4th each in conference. Apart for Ospreys complete drop in form (who still made the current format) the others are around the same standard, reinforcing my belief that 24 teams now would not create the weak pool or two as it did in the past, due to everyone qualifying on merit now, and the top 8 in the Pro 14 being tougher to get with the addition of Cheetahs (hopefully SK will improve as well to make it even tougher).

Apoears the delay is the French may boycott next years HCup if they dont get to enter 8 teams.

Don't see how the pro14 would be getting more teams in. 3 leagues, 24 places means 8 places each. The french and english want to be playing SA market for the money. That means they want more teams in the pot to take advantage of it, not less.

I wouldn't be surprised if PRL/LNR flirt with this idea to increase the number of weekends 'clubs' need for fixtures only to try and reduce it back to 16-20 teams in 3-4 years time in order to carve those weekends out for expanding their own top flight.

International windows getting reduced for domestic is a fight, this move would sweeten some of the unions to switch sides, move the weekend from an test to HCup weekend, then once it's a club weekend, clubs decide how they want to use it.

hmmm

Pro 14 must drop the SA teams, then SA can revive the Currie Cup, and if they do join Europe they can join the Heineken Cup.

I thought one possible plan was that SA teams would enter a European Competition instead of Super Rugby. This would probably mean much more emphasis on the Domestic competitions in SANZAR.

If SA does join Europe where are they going to fit in other than European champions cup?

Better teams in the Champions Cup, others in the Challenge Cup I assume. It only really works if they do leave both SR and Pro14.

There has to be a doubt about any cross border competitions for the rest of this year, and possibly well into next. NZ have announced their "Super Rugby Aotearoa" and I assume Australia and SA will do something similar (or may have announced it and I missed it).

Yes Australia is planning a similar comp in July. SA sounds like September only.

If you read between the lines with a tinfoil hat, this sounds like the end of Super Rugby.

So if SA is going to join Europe this will be the opportune time.

If SA does split the Currie cup into 8 and Six, then top four can join Champions Cup and bottom four Champions I

Which means we can get rid of the franchises and just retain the provinces (which in reality was the franchises)

formerly known as Sam wrote:From a increasingly neutral viewpoint (sadly) the reduction in teams brought about a much better competition. The selection of games throws up far fewer encounters where you know the winner before kick off and nearly every group is now more like an old group of death. As a fan of rugby it's been good. Whether it's been good commercially or in terms of development is a different matter.

The SA teams joining was always just a matter of time. Just like the Pro 14, European Rugby wants to tap into the SA market. Opportunity for more TV deals and sponsorship and more access to players seemingly genetically created to play rugby. What's not to like.

Not sure I agree with the HC having improved. By reducing the amount of celtic teams in it (who always fielded first teams in the tournament no matter what placing they had in the group) and having increased the numbers from both England and France, in my mind the tournament has got worse. If you look past the front runners in each group at the French and English based sides - it became fairly obvious how many of those sides knew they didnt stand a chance of winning the tournament and past the inital opening 2 pool games they started to field weaker sides. For me its exactly the reason why pool qualification should not be awareded straight off the bat. If they played a round or two of straight knockout before the group stages they could eliminate teams doing this at least as any groups after this point would probably field better teams with a view of winning it. You only have to look at Bath, Harlequins and Sale to see what I am saying. I dont blame them either for the way they approach this but my view is if you want to have an elite european tournament you need to remove all the teams who have no chance of winning it - not just the Pro 14 teams. Personally I wish they would just scrap the Challenge Cup althogether and have top 4 sides of each league (based on playoffs) qualify for group stages and then throw all the remaining teams in Europe in a pool and let them duke it out to the last 4 who then also qualify for the pool stages. That way you won't have complacent teams qualifying for the pool knockout stages. You could invite 32 teams for the preliminary draw with 3 rounds to get to a final 4. Random draws, 1 leg, 8 English sides, 10 French, 10 Pro 14 Sides, and then you could give 4 spots to qualifiers from other European sides (although I wouldnt allow any Italian entries which currently they do under the challenge cup model). That way sides from Georgia and Germany probably would get access to the opening rounds of a European Tournament.

Forgot to mention the final 4 would then join the auto qualified 4 Pro 14 Teams, 4 English Sides, 4 French Sides in a 4 Pool 16 Team tournament.

Personally that would add more value to the tournament in my eyes and make it a better spectacle.

Old Man wrote:Yes Australia is planning a similar comp in July. SA sounds like September only.

If you read between the lines with a tinfoil hat, this sounds like the end of Super Rugby.

So if SA is going to join Europe this will be the opportune time.

If SA does split the Currie cup into 8 and Six, then top four can join Champions Cup and bottom four Champions I

Which means we can get rid of the franchises and just retain the provinces (which in reality was the franchises)

Yep I think Super Rugby may be numbered.  

If they do add more South African teams to a expanded Pro 14 tournament I hope that they have the sense to turn it into a league where you only play each team once.  That way we are more likely to see top teams first teams on the field far more often.

The real issue however would be what value could the Stormers, Lions, Sharks & Bulls add to the Pro14.  If they cant hold on to their best players probably not a lot.  We are already seeing Cheetahs and Kings getting turned over by a lot of sides with greater international experience in them that those 2.  The only way I could see the league address this is by putting restrictions in place such as every Pro18 side having to be made of 100% home grown squads.  Don't think Ireland, Wales or Scotland would go for that though....partly because our best sides like to supplement their squads with other international standard players for periods they dont have access to their own. Suppose they could restrict this by a shorter format and changing the league window to make sure there are not matches around international windows.

Welshmushroom wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:From a increasingly neutral viewpoint (sadly) the reduction in teams brought about a much better competition. The selection of games throws up far fewer encounters where you know the winner before kick off and nearly every group is now more like an old group of death. As a fan of rugby it's been good. Whether it's been good commercially or in terms of development is a different matter.

The SA teams joining was always just a matter of time. Just like the Pro 14, European Rugby wants to tap into the SA market. Opportunity for more TV deals and sponsorship and more access to players seemingly genetically created to play rugby. What's not to like.

Not sure I agree with the HC having improved.  By reducing the amount of celtic teams in it (who always fielded first teams in the tournament no matter what placing they had in the group) and having increased the numbers from both England and France, in my mind the tournament has got worse.  If you look past the front runners in each group at the French and English based sides - it became fairly obvious how many of those sides knew they didnt stand a chance of winning the tournament and past the inital opening 2 pool games they started to field weaker sides.  For me its exactly the reason why pool qualification should not be awareded straight off the bat.  If they played a round or two of straight knockout before the group stages they could eliminate teams doing this at least as any groups after this point would probably field better teams with a view of winning it.  You only have to look at Bath, Harlequins and Sale to see what I am saying.  I dont blame them either for the way they approach this but my view is if you want to have an elite european tournament you need to remove all the teams who have no chance of winning it - not just the Pro 14 teams.   Personally I wish they would just scrap the Challenge Cup althogether and have top 4 sides of each league (based on playoffs) qualify for group stages and then throw all the remaining teams in Europe in a pool and let them duke it out to the last 4 who then also qualify for the pool stages.  That way you won't have complacent teams qualifying for the pool knockout stages.  You could invite 32 teams for the preliminary draw with 3 rounds to get to a final 4.  Random draws, 1 leg, 8 English sides, 10 French, 10 Pro 14 Sides, and then you could give 4 spots to qualifiers from other European sides (although I wouldnt allow any Italian entries which currently they do under the challenge cup model).  That way sides from Georgia and Germany probably would get access to the opening rounds of a European Tournament.

Talking from an outside perspective, any competition where teams field weaker sides is compromise.

Though it could also be that the prioritising of domestic comps such as French top 14, Premiership and Po 14 has too long a season and the cris crossing between that and European Champions Cup causes problems.

If each competition was run to completion you most likely won’t have a scenario where clubs prioritise one over the other in their quest for success in one comp or another

Can't argue with that logic either. But would you get a total buy in from all 3 leagues to run a tournement in this way? Additionally my understanding why the HC is split this way was primarily because of sponsors who wanted to see similar formats to how Football deals with the Champions Cup.

I'm not sure you would be able to get all parties to agree on this sort of format - although I agree this would also be a fix to the current issue.

Yeah, probably not, these unions don’t favorably look at change.

Or the sponsors either. They want to see a product stretched out so people talk about it over longer periods, which is understandable as often they are using these sorts of things to promote products. Doesnt make it right for the game though, but I understand where they are coming from.

I understand media requirements are a high priority, but in the end should it not be what is best for rugby?

I dont disagree with you. But money talks. The kind of money club rugby is generating through the gates is minimal compared to the money from sponsorhip or TV revenue. I recently saw a discussion with Stade Francais and the owners there said playing games behind closed doors would be even worse in the TOP 14 than not playing the games as they cannot survive without their corporate/sponsorship income and mentioned the 16K attendances they get dont get anywhere near the money from other revenue streams.

It may not stay like this however in some leagues. I hear Aviva will seriously reduce the crazy offer they originally gave to the Premiership and the RFU are also looking to drop big amounts from the totals they signed away to their English clubs. So in those cases gates may actually end up making a lot more revnue for those club sides.

Yeah I fully agree money talks, just sad for me that media has that much power in dictating and in a sense controlling how seasons are planned.

I think that league position should determine qualification but tournament performance (excluding the winners of each league which should be first seed). It's how UEFA do it. Why should teams be rewarded for throwing your competition to do better in another.

Regards The future I would to see 4 leagues (including SA). Each league gets 4 with the Pro14 getting an extra place due to 4 unions. You then have the finalists of last year plus challange cup winners. The remaining 4 teams would be a quailifing round to of the next to best in each league draw against each other meaning the best not qualified times will get through.

Welshmushroom wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:From a increasingly neutral viewpoint (sadly) the reduction in teams brought about a much better competition. The selection of games throws up far fewer encounters where you know the winner before kick off and nearly every group is now more like an old group of death. As a fan of rugby it's been good. Whether it's been good commercially or in terms of development is a different matter.

The SA teams joining was always just a matter of time. Just like the Pro 14, European Rugby wants to tap into the SA market. Opportunity for more TV deals and sponsorship and more access to players seemingly genetically created to play rugby. What's not to like.

Not sure I agree with the HC having improved.  By reducing the amount of celtic teams in it (who always fielded first teams in the tournament no matter what placing they had in the group) and having increased the numbers from both England and France, in my mind the tournament has got worse.  If you look past the front runners in each group at the French and English based sides - it became fairly obvious how many of those sides knew they didnt stand a chance of winning the tournament and past the inital opening 2 pool games they started to field weaker sides.  For me its exactly the reason why pool qualification should not be awareded straight off the bat.  If they played a round or two of straight knockout before the group stages they could eliminate teams doing this at least as any groups after this point would probably field better teams with a view of winning it.  You only have to look at Bath, Harlequins and Sale to see what I am saying.  I dont blame them either for the way they approach this but my view is if you want to have an elite european tournament you need to remove all the teams who have no chance of winning it - not just the Pro 14 teams.   Personally I wish they would just scrap the Challenge Cup althogether and have top 4 sides of each league (based on playoffs) qualify for group stages and then throw all the remaining teams in Europe in a pool and let them duke it out to the last 4 who then also qualify for the pool stages.  That way you won't have complacent teams qualifying for the pool knockout stages.  You could invite 32 teams for the preliminary draw with 3 rounds to get to a final 4.  Random draws, 1 leg, 8 English sides, 10 French, 10 Pro 14 Sides, and then you could give 4 spots to qualifiers from other European sides (although I wouldnt allow any Italian entries which currently they do under the challenge cup model).  That way sides from Georgia and Germany probably would get access to the opening rounds of a European Tournament.

That's not true. Even just looking at my team, Cullen sent out a very youthful side when we were bottom of our group in the 15/16 season against Bath, which was expected to be hammered but ended up winning. It is nonsensical to send out and risk your first team when you can't qualify, given the length of the season. I really don't understand why people get upset about this, it's just good squad management.

If group seeding was based on European performance you would still have something to play for.

Exeter over the previous years were over seeded in Europe because their league dominance (with Sarries) but their lack of Euro experience.

In 16/17 season Connacht were 1st seed as Pro12 winners while Munster were 4th seed. Munster topped their group with 5 wins. Connacht finished 3rd though they did pick up 4 wins.

I am fairly sure if everyone did an objective top 8 teams in Europe most would have very simillar teams and probably no more than 10 teams would be picked.

In the UEFA club competitions your club gets a ranking based on two parts, their countries UEFA ranks and then the club's ranking from their European performances.

I would be in favour of each league being given a ranking based on the average performance of the teams (or by union based on 4 years of 6 Nations)

Rules for the 20/21 Season just published:

https://www.epcrugby.com/2020/09/02/new-epcr-tournament-formats-agreed-for-2020-21-season/?dm_i=4BJH,WOND,5GCIW8,41EYV,1

https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/epcr/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/26163234/NEW-Heineken-Champions-Cup-Rules-for-2020-21.pdf

https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/epcr/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/26163229/NEW-Challenge-Cup-Rules-for-2020-21-.pdf

My interpretation:

Champions Cup -

Two Pools of 12 teams with four from each league in each pool. Teams will play four pool matches against sides NOT in their league based on the tiers they are assigned. Tier 1 teams will play the two Tier 4 teams not in their league home and away. Tier 2 & 3 teams play each other. Thus you play two tems twice for your four games.

Home and away 1/4 finals, then single game semi and final.

With the top four qualifying from each group - and the three Tier 1 sides having the "easier" matches it may be rather predictable.

Not 100% sure, but the following seems to give Saracens a way to be in the tournament:

*NB If not already ranked number one, the winners of the 2020 Heineken Champions Cup will become the second-ranked club from its league.

My interpretation:

Challenge Cup -

Pool Stages - 14 teams divided into two tiers. Teams will play four matches against sides not in their league and in the other tier (ie Tier 1 only play Tier 2). Top 8 sides qualify for Round of 16.

KO Stages - R16 featuring top 8 sides from Challenge Cup and the 8 teams ranked 9-16 from Champions Cup. The four highest ranked Chllenge and Champions Cup teams get home advantage and will host a team from the "other competition". 1/4 Finals hosted by highest ranked teams.

I like the format. Seems like a fair split and nobody from the same league will play each other in the pools, apparently. I would love to avoid Leinster in this competition, and probably Racing. The rest I'll be hopefully optimistic about turning over at home.....

LondonTiger wrote:My interpretation:

Challenge Cup -

Pool Stages - 14 teams divided into two tiers. Teams will play four matches against sides not in their league and in the other tier (ie Tier 1 only play Tier 2). Top 8 sides qualify for Round of 16.

KO Stages - R16 featuring top 8 sides from Challenge Cup and the 8 teams ranked 9-16 from Champions Cup. The four highest ranked Chllenge and Champions Cup teams get home advantage and will host a team from the "other competition". 1/4 Finals hosted by highest ranked teams.

A great opportunity for Blues and Ospreys to re-form and grow. Saying that, look how poorly Blues did against Leicester 2nd's.

The fact that Clermont and Toulouse are down in 6th and 7th for the French means there will be some tasty fixtures. Exeter 50% chance of getting Toulouse for two of their four games. That's nice for a pool stage.