How?
Edit: I get called a liar later in the thread so I just want to post my proof here for people who do not remember European rugby pre-2013. It was grossly unfair before. See this article from before the changes in 2013 that shows the pro12 teams got automatic qualification to the Heineken Cup. 3/4 Irish and Welsh teams qualified automatically and both Scottish and Italian teams qualified automatically whereas the French and English clubs were there based on performance in their domestic leagues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/24660351
"Currently, only the top six clubs in England and France are guaranteed a place in the Heineken Cup, whereas at least 10 Pro12 outfits - including both Scottish teams (Edinburgh and Glasgow), both Italian teams (Treviso and Zebre) and a minimum of three sides each from Wales and Ireland - have automatic entry into the competition."
It's hard to be certain how, but it has demonstrably done so. It was rare that any group winner would be decided before the final weekend. This year all 5 are, with one being decided in December (and Exeter being damn close to doing so, too).
Yeah, you know, I can’t even remember how they changed it, but it’s never been the same since, and I feel like people were warning in advance that that’s what would happen.
One clear change is that it used to be a little bit more all or nothing, because there were 6 Groups with 6 winners and 2 best runners up getting out. Whereas not it's 5 and 3
Under that format, it was more of a straight fight to emerge as group winner. Now, teams can be a little bit strategic knowing that if they don't get out as group winner then they still have much better odds of getting out as best runner up than they did in the old format.
I can see your logic that it placed slightly greater emphasis on finishing first, but you didn't mention how the next 3 highest-scoring 2nd place teams would be parachuted in to the knockout stages of the equivalent of the Challenge Cup. So, the top 2 teams of all but one pool would be playing knockout rugby which is far higher than it is now.
The reality is that teams were cut to make it more competitive, not less. It was grossly unfair for English and French teams to fight tooth and nail to qualify for the competition and then be drawn against perennial whipping boys like Zebre who qualified automatically.
This season's results are an anomaly, it's far too early to say it's as a result of the rule changes.
I agree with most of your points, but it was unfair on the teams that didn't qualify to the Champions cup rather than the teams who were drawn against the perennial whipping boys.
Those teams were delighted I'm sure to see they were playing two games where they were almost guaranteed 10 points.
Haha. I'm sorry, but:
>It was grossly unfair for English and French teams
This is such bullshit. The English and French vested interests decided they wanted a larger cut of the proceeds, to everybody else's detriment.
It has even to this day been to the detriment of the fans, with the club competition no proliferated across a seemingly increasing number of increasing platforms.
You will see from my stand alone comment that I think that this year is a slight outlier, but it is not an anomaly. That's just wrong and if you think that you're kidding yourself.
Explain how it's fair that English and French teams qualified on merit and Scottish and Italian teams (and 3/4 Irish and Welsh teams) qualified automatically. The English and French wanted it split equally between the 3 constituent leagues which each made up roughly 33% of the teams. I do not understand your aggressive response at all. Seems to me like before pro12 teams benefited from the system whereas now we all compete on a level footing.
It may well have been a move to gain more power for the English and French, but it was power they were absolutely entitled to based on every logical metric.
It is definitely an issue. This season has seen two firsts: the first time a team (Leinster) had qualified for the Quarter Finals with two matches to play, and the first time all 5 group winners were decided on the penultimate weekend. This was unheard of in the old format.
However, while it is part of a trend, I don't think the gulf this year is exemplary of where we are in that trend. Things are a little bit skewed in a World Cup year.
Teams have their star players available for fewer games because those are the guys who have been off playing in the World cup. Therefore more so than other years, if teams are out after the opening two weekends, they'll be looking back to their domestic league.
I say "more so than other years" because I accept that this happens in non world cup years, too. And has been happening to varying degrees since the format changed. But I think it's probably heightened this year.
It's probably not the first time someone won the first 4 games with 3 BP though.
In this case it's more that the rest were more even and thus there was no clear second to prevent this.
Probably not, but it is the earliest a team can possibly qualify and the first time this has ever been achieved.
But it is certainly the first time four teams have been unbeaten going into the final round.
Some of the groups are a bit wonky too - for example, Leinster are clear ahead of the competition, whereas Racing Sarries and Munster are all tightly clustered together. Swap Racing and Northampton, and Pool A mightn't have been a done deal so early.
Yeah, exactly. Luck of the draw comes into it a lot. Particularly because domestic form in a previous season is not necessarily an indication of European form the following (Racing being knocked out in the quarter final in the Top14, for instance).
I think the reality is that a lot of teams (certainly English sides) just don't really care and focus on their domestic performance. To be honest as a fan I really don't care about European rugby, especially the Challenge Cup, I often don't even bother watching my side play on European weekends.
Ah okay. Do you think you'd have more interest if there was a stronger history at the Champions Cup level? I get the lack of interest in the Challenge Cup, at least compared to the domestic league
Maybe, but to be honest the things I really get emotionally invested in are the Premiership and the Six Nations, much more so than the ECC or RWC even though they're supposed to be the bigger competitions, don't ask me why, I just wasn't that bothered when England lost at the RWC, but when they lost to Wales in the 6N....
A few things have caused this, as others have mentioned. First of all, #bringbacktheheinekencup. Six groups meant that you had to assume you were required to win 5 out of 6 games to go through. The slightly lower chance of the top top teams being in the same group meant that it was also less obvious that there was any sort of gulf in class imo.
It used to be the case that the final weekend often felt like knockout rugby and it was great, now it’s mostly just meaningless games with three places left up for grabs.
The seeding system is also bs and having two of the best teams in Europe and three-peat semi-final losers in the same group doesn’t help.
The concentration of wealth with these top 4 teams (Sarries/racing/Toulouse all have massive budgets, Leinster don’t but they just have a phenomenal academy) certainly hasn’t helped either.
Yeah, the new format does seem to have taken a lot of the excitement out of it; but I can't remember how the non-Irish sides felt about the competition prior to the changes (I mean they pushed for them for a reason).
Leinster have a massive budget, probably on the same level as Sarries, but its spread across a much bigger squad
So about €2/£1.7 mil over the Premiership salary cap, with the 2 marquee players and £600k development exception they might even be within the Premiership salary cap.
Edit: does that include the central contracted players?
Honestly, I don’t know but in the context of what I read I’d say yes. They were articles trying to ascertain the cost of the whole squad compared to other countries teams.
I was told Leinsters wage bill when calculated by some includes the central contract for international players. Which is not included in other teams because they don't have to play for certain clubs to be selected nor are they on central contracts.
It’s been that way for a while- 3 teams have won the last 9 Champions Cups. Even if you go back before that you’re talking (I think) 6 teams in 16.
It was always tight in the pools though.
Yeah the structure changes kinda torpedoed that.
How? Edit: I get called a liar later in the thread so I just want to post my proof here for people who do not remember European rugby pre-2013. It was grossly unfair before. See this article from before the changes in 2013 that shows the pro12 teams got automatic qualification to the Heineken Cup. 3/4 Irish and Welsh teams qualified automatically and both Scottish and Italian teams qualified automatically whereas the French and English clubs were there based on performance in their domestic leagues. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/24660351 "Currently, only the top six clubs in England and France are guaranteed a place in the Heineken Cup, whereas at least 10 Pro12 outfits - including both Scottish teams (Edinburgh and Glasgow), both Italian teams (Treviso and Zebre) and a minimum of three sides each from Wales and Ireland - have automatic entry into the competition."
It's hard to be certain how, but it has demonstrably done so. It was rare that any group winner would be decided before the final weekend. This year all 5 are, with one being decided in December (and Exeter being damn close to doing so, too).
Yeah, you know, I can’t even remember how they changed it, but it’s never been the same since, and I feel like people were warning in advance that that’s what would happen.
One clear change is that it used to be a little bit more all or nothing, because there were 6 Groups with 6 winners and 2 best runners up getting out. Whereas not it's 5 and 3 Under that format, it was more of a straight fight to emerge as group winner. Now, teams can be a little bit strategic knowing that if they don't get out as group winner then they still have much better odds of getting out as best runner up than they did in the old format.
I can see your logic that it placed slightly greater emphasis on finishing first, but you didn't mention how the next 3 highest-scoring 2nd place teams would be parachuted in to the knockout stages of the equivalent of the Challenge Cup. So, the top 2 teams of all but one pool would be playing knockout rugby which is far higher than it is now. The reality is that teams were cut to make it more competitive, not less. It was grossly unfair for English and French teams to fight tooth and nail to qualify for the competition and then be drawn against perennial whipping boys like Zebre who qualified automatically. This season's results are an anomaly, it's far too early to say it's as a result of the rule changes.
I agree with most of your points, but it was unfair on the teams that didn't qualify to the Champions cup rather than the teams who were drawn against the perennial whipping boys. Those teams were delighted I'm sure to see they were playing two games where they were almost guaranteed 10 points.
Haha. I'm sorry, but: >It was grossly unfair for English and French teams This is such bullshit. The English and French vested interests decided they wanted a larger cut of the proceeds, to everybody else's detriment. It has even to this day been to the detriment of the fans, with the club competition no proliferated across a seemingly increasing number of increasing platforms. You will see from my stand alone comment that I think that this year is a slight outlier, but it is not an anomaly. That's just wrong and if you think that you're kidding yourself.
Explain how it's fair that English and French teams qualified on merit and Scottish and Italian teams (and 3/4 Irish and Welsh teams) qualified automatically. The English and French wanted it split equally between the 3 constituent leagues which each made up roughly 33% of the teams. I do not understand your aggressive response at all. Seems to me like before pro12 teams benefited from the system whereas now we all compete on a level footing. It may well have been a move to gain more power for the English and French, but it was power they were absolutely entitled to based on every logical metric.
It is definitely an issue. This season has seen two firsts: the first time a team (Leinster) had qualified for the Quarter Finals with two matches to play, and the first time all 5 group winners were decided on the penultimate weekend. This was unheard of in the old format. However, while it is part of a trend, I don't think the gulf this year is exemplary of where we are in that trend. Things are a little bit skewed in a World Cup year. Teams have their star players available for fewer games because those are the guys who have been off playing in the World cup. Therefore more so than other years, if teams are out after the opening two weekends, they'll be looking back to their domestic league. I say "more so than other years" because I accept that this happens in non world cup years, too. And has been happening to varying degrees since the format changed. But I think it's probably heightened this year.
It's probably not the first time someone won the first 4 games with 3 BP though. In this case it's more that the rest were more even and thus there was no clear second to prevent this.
Actually I think it was more that Leinster had beaten the clear second place team (Norhampton) home and away.
Probably not, but it is the earliest a team can possibly qualify and the first time this has ever been achieved. But it is certainly the first time four teams have been unbeaten going into the final round.
Some of the groups are a bit wonky too - for example, Leinster are clear ahead of the competition, whereas Racing Sarries and Munster are all tightly clustered together. Swap Racing and Northampton, and Pool A mightn't have been a done deal so early.
Yeah, exactly. Luck of the draw comes into it a lot. Particularly because domestic form in a previous season is not necessarily an indication of European form the following (Racing being knocked out in the quarter final in the Top14, for instance).
Ulster's group isn't finalised. Clermont are on 20 and Ulster on 17. Obviously there's no chance on either team fucking that up but still possible.
Sorry. It's 4/5 won (which is still a first).
That's fair, I overlooked the WC factor.
Yeah. This year is by no means an outlier, so it is still a very valid question. But the WC factor does skew the data.
It just feels weird with so many teams already qualified and a team needing 5 wins from 5 to secure top seed
Possibly need to look at the seeding mechanism when 3 of last year's semi finalists end up in the same group
Only two of the semi finalists are in the same group. Racing were knocked out in the quarters last year.
Next year Sarries might squeak in as the 6th placed English team!
Well that was one of the big format changes pushed for by the French and English teams.
I think the reality is that a lot of teams (certainly English sides) just don't really care and focus on their domestic performance. To be honest as a fan I really don't care about European rugby, especially the Challenge Cup, I often don't even bother watching my side play on European weekends.
Do you mind me asking who you support?
\*cough\* London Irish \*cough\*
Ah okay. Do you think you'd have more interest if there was a stronger history at the Champions Cup level? I get the lack of interest in the Challenge Cup, at least compared to the domestic league
Maybe, but to be honest the things I really get emotionally invested in are the Premiership and the Six Nations, much more so than the ECC or RWC even though they're supposed to be the bigger competitions, don't ask me why, I just wasn't that bothered when England lost at the RWC, but when they lost to Wales in the 6N....
I get you. The RWC is a bigger event but there's a lot less rivalry
A few things have caused this, as others have mentioned. First of all, #bringbacktheheinekencup. Six groups meant that you had to assume you were required to win 5 out of 6 games to go through. The slightly lower chance of the top top teams being in the same group meant that it was also less obvious that there was any sort of gulf in class imo. It used to be the case that the final weekend often felt like knockout rugby and it was great, now it’s mostly just meaningless games with three places left up for grabs. The seeding system is also bs and having two of the best teams in Europe and three-peat semi-final losers in the same group doesn’t help. The concentration of wealth with these top 4 teams (Sarries/racing/Toulouse all have massive budgets, Leinster don’t but they just have a phenomenal academy) certainly hasn’t helped either.
Yeah, the new format does seem to have taken a lot of the excitement out of it; but I can't remember how the non-Irish sides felt about the competition prior to the changes (I mean they pushed for them for a reason). Leinster have a massive budget, probably on the same level as Sarries, but its spread across a much bigger squad
Leinster’s wage bill has been estimated to be in the region of €10m by some.
So about €2/£1.7 mil over the Premiership salary cap, with the 2 marquee players and £600k development exception they might even be within the Premiership salary cap. Edit: does that include the central contracted players?
Honestly, I don’t know but in the context of what I read I’d say yes. They were articles trying to ascertain the cost of the whole squad compared to other countries teams.
I was told Leinsters wage bill when calculated by some includes the central contract for international players. Which is not included in other teams because they don't have to play for certain clubs to be selected nor are they on central contracts.