Champions Cup Draw

[gaston le gaff]

Whatever system you use the teams that play the better rugby and win their games should qualify!!!!!!!!!! so at the 1/4 final stage the teams will be those who have not been knocked out............. n'est pas. this system always works without fail!!!!!!!!!

 

[Feicarsinn]

Why don't we just copy the IRB rankings? Make it so every competitive game played domestically or in Europe scores/loses a team points based on the number of points each team currently has. Form the tiers out of the rankings. Still not totally accurate, but may be the best we could do.

This actually does exist, and wouldn't differ too drastically from what the ECC rankings are: http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php

For example, their tiers would be:

Tier 1: Toulon, Leinster, Saints, Saracens, Glasgow
Tier 2: Munster, Bath, Ulster, Leicester, Quins
Tier 3: Clermont, Racing, Castres, Montpellier, Toulouse
Tier 4: Sale, Scarlets, Ospreys, Wasps, Treviso

Compare this to the ECC tiers:

Tier 1: Saracens, Leinster, Toulon, Glasgow, Saints
Tier 2: Munster, Castres, Leicester, Montpellier, Racing
Tier 3: Clermont, Quins, Ulster, Bath, Ospreys
Tier 4: Sale, Wasps, Scarlets, Toulouse, Treviso

So tier one is identical, while tier four differs only by one side (Toulouse instead of Ospreys.) Obviously tiers two and three are more mixed, but this is due to the semi-random nature of the ECC draw, with teams dropping between pools essentially based on the order that they're drawn on. However, given that most of the sides in these two tiers are of comparable strength (Clermont being a possible outlier) this shouldn't have a large effect, given that the upper and lower boundaries (ie. tiers one and four) are essentially fixed.

 

[j'nuh]

Interesting. I guess the point is that tiering by domestic competition doesn't take into consideration the relative strengths of each league. e.g. how can we evaluate the relative strength of 3rd place French team vs. 3rd place Premiership team? Whereas tiering by European success is an absolutely atrocious idea for so many reasons (small number of games, biased towards those who won in previous years,

tbh, I'd be more in favour of scrapping tiering altogether. Tiering makes sense in the WC, because you want to avoid the top tier one teams taking early exits. (As will be the case for one of Australia, Wales and England.) In the European Cup, there are enough high quality teams to randomise the groups and keep it competitive throughout. Especially since only the top team in each group progress (as well as some highest runner-ups).

 

[munstermuffin]

I never said the old seeding system was better, I think this is better too, however I still think it's not completely there yet if we're basing it 100% on league form. .
It's absolutely nothing to do with what my personal team got - because I could easily just say if we qualify there's more of a chance of getting an easier team in the knockout stages.

What teams do I think should change MM? Glasgow, Ulster, Toulouse, Clermont, Montpellier, Saints, Castres from what I've glanced at.

I'm only talking a change of 1 tier in most cases - I'm basing it on league and European form which in my opinion, should be how it's based.

Again I'm going to make the same point that I posted earlier and tell me what you disagree with:

To me the tiers should represent the quality of teams based on all performances (League + Europe) over recent seasons. In that case, I don't think this is as good a representation as it could be.

Can I ask why you would change those teams. Out of curiosity.
My views on each -
Glasgow have been performing well past 2 years and had great league as well as it being great to have Scottish team going well.
Ulster - I presume if you base it on anything fact is they've won nothing and I can't see how you can argue it based on what they've done. Bad luck played a part but that's life.
Toulouse. Haven't done much in a while so again they can't argue.
Clermont were beaten French Semi Finalists but haven't much to change seedlings.
Montpellier were French Semi Finalist and consistent there. They aren't wrongly seeded
Saints haven't done much in HEC and yes they won the AP playoff but not the league and it's not based on 1 off games
Castres. French champions last year and runners up this year.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Glasgow have been performing well past 2 years and had great league as well as it being great to have Scottish team going well. (yes but they've done absolutely nothing in Europe.. and that is exactly my point, it shouldn't in my opinion just be based off the league)
Ulster - I presume if you base it on anything fact is they've won nothing and I can't see how you can argue it based on what they've done. Bad luck played a part but that's life. (you can't judge every team by trophies, how could that possibly work? Munster haven't won anything either in quite a few years so by that logic it doesn't work. I'd say Ulster should be tier two, based on the fact they're the only team to qualify for the knockouts for the last 4 seasons and top seed last year - including a recent final)Toulouse. Haven't done much in a while so again they can't argue. (True, but tier 4? Along with Wasps, Sale, Treviso etc? Not a chance.)
Clermont were beaten French Semi Finalists but haven't much to change seedlings. (looking over their last few seasons they've consistently made semi-finals.. doesn't sound like a tier 3 team to me?)
Montpellier were French Semi Finalist and consistent there. They aren't wrongly seeded (Again, they didn't even qualify for the knockouts last year and haven't done much in Europe which is what I'm getting at. I do rate them but I think there's other teams more worthy)
Saints haven't done much in HEC and yes they won the AP playoff but not the league and it's not based on 1 off games (thank you for making my own point, yet they are classed as tier 1)
Castres. French champions last year and runners up this year. (fair enough on this - but again they haven't done much in Europe but tier 2 is understandable..)

My reply to you is in brackets..

Again in case I didn't make it clear, I think this is a great improvement and undoubtedly will make for more high quality match ups and less thrashings of weak teams. As an Ulster fan personally I'm very excited for the big games next season but also disappointed I don't think we'll be able to compete as well this year - just depends on how our new transfers go.

 

[munstermuffin]

Glasgow have been performing well past 2 years and had great league as well as it being great to have Scottish team going well. (yes but they've done absolutely nothing in Europe.. and that is exactly my point, it shouldn't in my opinion just be based off the league)
Ulster - I presume if you base it on anything fact is they've won nothing and I can't see how you can argue it based on what they've done. Bad luck played a part but that's life. (you can't judge every team by trophies, how could that possibly work? Munster haven't won anything either in quite a few years so by that logic it doesn't work. I'd say Ulster should be tier two, based on the fact they're the only team to qualify for the knockouts for the last 4 seasons and top seed last year - including a recent final)Toulouse. Haven't done much in a while so again they can't argue. (True, but tier 4? Along with Wasps, Sale, Treviso etc? Not a chance.)
Clermont were beaten French Semi Finalists but haven't much to change seedlings. (looking over their last few seasons they've consistently made semi-finals.. doesn't sound like a tier 3 team to me?)
Montpellier were French Semi Finalist and consistent there. They aren't wrongly seeded (Again, they didn't even qualify for the knockouts last year and haven't done much in Europe which is what I'm getting at. I do rate them but I think there's other teams more worthy)
Saints haven't done much in HEC and yes they won the AP playoff but not the league and it's not based on 1 off games (thank you for making my own point, yet they are classed as tier 1)
Castres. French champions last year and runners up this year. (fair enough on this - but again they haven't done much in Europe but tier 2 is understandable..)

My reply to you is in brackets..

Again in case I didn't make it clear, I think this is a great improvement and undoubtedly will make for more high quality match ups and less thrashings of weak teams. As an Ulster fan personally I'm very excited for the big games next season but also disappointed I don't think we'll be able to compete as well this year - just depends on how our new transfers go.

But Glasgow are deserving of spot.
Ulster haven't done anything and you say look at Munster but we aren't 1st tier either. We got same treatment as Ulster and being honest have no complaints. Why should we be judged on performances 3/4 years ago. If you went by your logic yes Ulster made 4 knockout but have 1 final and 3 QFs or whatever but means nothing. Your so hooked on HEC and fail to realise this is totally new competition. Northampton are tier 2 not tier 1. Saracens were tier 1. A tier 1 team is a winning team. Clermont people would even say they're not tier 1 at this time.
Again with Montpellier what will in past have to do. HEC isn't the same competition. But well again I like Munsters logic. We got ourselves in to this so we have to get ourselves out. And if you want to win then you have to try beat them all

 

[Feicarsinn]

It's an interesting argument. The old ranking system was far too slow to react to change, and as such some teams were 'protected.' Not intentionally, but rather because they'd have some great seasons and build up a lot of points, then become tier one sides and get easier groups making it easier for them to stay in tier one for the foreseeable future even if their standards dropped. Biarritz would be the best example of this.

The new system is far more reactionary, which is good. I can understand complaints about it not including European form, but what do you expect from a competition that's trying to distance itself as much as possible from the ERC? In the case of Ulster it wouldn't have made a huge amount of difference anyway. They might have been second seeds instead of third, but that's a minimal enough difference given the standard of the two tiers.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

But Glasgow are deserving of spot.
Ulster haven't done anything and you say look at Munster but we aren't 1st tier either. We got same treatment as Ulster and being honest have no complaints. Why should we be judged on performances 3/4 years ago. If you went by your logic yes Ulster made 4 knockout but have 1 final and 3 QFs or whatever but means nothing. Your so hooked on HEC and fail to realise this is totally new competition. Northampton are tier 2 not tier 1. Saracens were tier 1. A tier 1 team is a winning team. Clermont people would even say they're not tier 1 at this time.
Again with Montpellier what will in past have to do. HEC isn't the same competition. But well again I like Munsters logic. We got ourselves in to this so we have to get ourselves out. And if you want to win then you have to try beat them all

Tier 1

Tier 1 will include the three number one ranked clubs from the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 and the Pro12.

Tier 1 will also include two of the three clubs which are ranked second from the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 and the Pro12 Leagues. The two clubs will be decided by a draw.

Therefore Tier 1 includes Saracens, Toulon, Leinster, Glasgow and Saints.

How are Glasgow deserving of a top seed? Honestly, am I missing something? They had a great season in the League but absolutely nothing in Europe. Do you really put them with the likes of Toulon, Saracens and Leinster?
Not even 4 seasons ago, I'm talking about the last couple of seasons, of course that will be an indicator on how well a team will do, how else do you judge it?
I'm not 'hooked' on the HEC, I understand that it's a new competition, but again we're not playing a bloody new sport just a different format - so are you arguing that teams like Scarlets have as much a chance of winning as say, Munster, since it's a new competition? The only way you can base that is on previous performances in Europe.

They might have been second seeds instead of third, but that's a minimal enough difference given the standard of the two tiers.[/B]

Yeah that's a completely fair point, so personally I don't mind where we ended up. I just think this method has created some groups that are out of proportion compared to what the tier system should provide.

Edit: trying to bold your comment keeps messing up, was replying to what you said about the fact for Ulster it wouldn't make much difference.

 

[munstermuffin]

Tier 1

Tier 1 will include the three number one ranked clubs from the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 and the Pro12.

Tier 1 will also include two of the three clubs which are ranked second from the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 and the Pro12 Leagues. The two clubs will be decided by a draw.

Therefore Tier 1 includes Saracens, Toulon, Leinster, Glasgow and Saints.

How are Glasgow deserving of a top seed? Honestly, am I missing something? They had a great season in the League but absolutely nothing in Europe. Do you really put them with the likes of Toulon, Saracens and Leinster?
Not even 4 seasons ago, I'm talking about the last couple of seasons, of course that will be an indicator on how well a team will do, how else do you judge it?
I'm not 'hooked' on the HEC, I understand that it's a new competition, but again we're not playing a bloody new sport just a different format - so are you arguing that teams like Scarlets have as much a chance of winning as say, Munster, since it's a new competition? The only way you can base that is on previous performances in Europe.



Yeah that's a completely fair point, so personally I don't mind where we ended up. I just think this method has created some groups that are out of proportion compared to what the tier system should provide.

Edit: trying to bold your comment keeps messing up, was replying to what you said about the fact for Ulster it wouldn't make much difference.

Ok to put it simply who has great history in this competition. It's only being created with new owners, new men in charge and ERC/Heineken are irrelevant. This is fairest way any I just can't see your point. Your failing to see HEC/ERC is irrelevant. If Ireland has greatest Clubs does that mean they should be ranked #1 internationally as it's same sport. Leagues are being recognised under new umbrella HEC isn't so it's easy to understand.
How am I arguing Scarlets have as much chance as Munster although logic is if a team ranked tier 4 wins all 6 pool games and 3 knockout then they win it out. So every team has equal chance at this moment.
Who cares who's with who because you got to win games regardless

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Ok to put it simply who has great history in this competition. It's only being created with new owners, new men in charge and ERC/Heineken are irrelevant. This is fairest way any Ijust can't see your point. Your failing to see HEC/ERC is irrelevant. If Ireland has greatest Clubs does that mean they should be ranked #1 internationally as it's same sport. Leagues are being recognised under new umbrella HEC isn't so it's easy to understand.
How am I arguing Scarlets have as much chance as Munster although logic is if a team ranked tier 4 wins all 6 pool games and 3 knockout then they win it out. So every team has equal chance at this moment.
Who cares who's with who because you got to win games regardless

I really just can't see how you made that logical connection with what I just said. I'd say why that was a silly comment, but it's really not worth it. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make then that's fine, just agree to disagree then.

 

[munstermuffin]

I really just can't see how you made that logical connection with what I just said. I'd say why that was a silly comment, but it's really not worth it. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make then that's fine, just agree to disagree then.

And likewise with yours. It's the same sport. My point is what happened in ERC/HEC is, correctly, irrelevant as it has nothing to do with new competition. The domestic leagues do so correctly the seedings are based on those leagues to start

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Hahahaha jeeeeeze, that group!
Kind of wish we didn't qualify and could just concentrate on the Premiership instead.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Yeah, we can complain about tough groups all we like, but clearly Sale got shafted hardest of all.

 

[munstermuffin]

Hahahaha jeeeeeze, that group!
Kind of wish we didn't qualify and could just concentrate on the Premiership instead.

Should've been Tier 1
But could be cracker of group and regardless of results I think Sale will be a lot better for it.

 

[RedWhiteGreen]

One thing about the draw ceremony that in hindsight is bugging me - it's supposed to be a new era for European rugby, but they've kept Industrial Revolution Part II by Jean Michel Jarre. Jean Michel Jarre is a legend, but surely it's time for music not associated with the ERC?

 

[welshglory]

One thing about the draw ceremony that in hindsight is bugging me - it's supposed to be a new era for European rugby, but they've kept Industrial Revolution Part II by Jean Michel Jarre. Jean Michel Jarre is a legend, but surely it's time for music not associated with the ERC?

They use the same track in the RWC or at least in 07 they did.

 

[munstermuffin]

One thing about the draw ceremony that in hindsight is bugging me - it's supposed to be a new era for European rugby, but they've kept Industrial Revolution Part II by Jean Michel Jarre. Jean Michel Jarre is a legend, but surely it's time for music not associated with the ERC?

It's more a rugby theme as opposed to ERC. Have heard it before for Celtic League games before it was in HEC.

 

[Basco]

Industrial Revolution Part II by Jean Michel Jarre is a magnificent song and it should be kept. RCC is the continuation of the HEC, so it makes sense to keep a connection to it.

 

[gaston le gaff]

Industrial Revolution Part II by Jean Michel Jarre is a magnificent song and it should be kept. RCC is the continuation of the HEC, so it makes sense to keep a connection to it.

why is everyone so concerned about the now defunct H Cup its over we have a new competition, nothing whatsoever to do with the H Cup, embrase it and put the H Cup into the history books where it belongs (you know the story "this parrot is dead, it has gone to meet its maker, this parrot is no longer, etc )

 

[munstermuffin]

why is everyone so concerned about the now defunct H Cup its over we have a new competition, nothing whatsoever to do with the H Cup, embrase it and put the H Cup into the history books where it belongs (you know the story "this parrot is dead, it has gone to meet its maker, this parrot is no longer, etc )

Gaston the man with the words of wisdom I applaud you sir.
But do you think French clubs will take this competition more seriously?