Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

It's a complicated comparison to make though. One one hand you have to consider that the Heineken Cup is a much shorter competition than any of the others you have mentioned. You notice the burden of lower attendences and uncompetitive teams that much more as a result. Secondly, the draft system is hugely beneficial to US sports with regards expansion. It allows weak teams to become an awful lot stronger over the space of a season or two, whereas builing a team from the bottom up as a rugby club must do takes an awful lot more time.

Taking it point by point:

It's a complicated comparison to make though.
Indeed it is. It's hard to export ideas which work in one sport to another. What I'm trying to do is show there's another way to the football model.

One one hand you have to consider that the Heineken Cup is a much shorter competition than any of the others you have mentioned.
Significantly shorter than the MLB, NHL and NBA seasons, yes. As a whole in terms of games played, the European rugby season (compromising both domestic and pan-European competitions) is roughly similar in size to the NFL and MLS seasons.

Secondly, the draft system is hugely beneficial to US sports with regards expansion. It allows weak teams to become an awful lot stronger over the space of a season or two, whereas builing a team from the bottom up as a rugby club must do takes an awful lot more time.
Good point. The draft system would be impossible to implement here. We could level the playing field somewhat by introducing a hard salary cap (like the NFL) or soft salary cap (like the NBA) and revenue sharing between clubs. Help the teams at the bottom and everyone grows together regardless of the size of our market.

I think we're hurtling along to a single European competition with no domestic leagues. Under PRL/LNRs stewardship this would likely be just 10-15 teams from across Europe playing home and away against each other (Mark Evans of Harlequins said something along these lines a few years ago). That would be bad for the sport since it dilutes the player pool for international teams. A larger 40 or so team where there's a cap of say 26 club games (22 league and 4 end of playoff games like a supersized Heineken Cup) which all mean something can co-exist with international rugby and grow the sport beyond it's present borders.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Taking it point by point:

It's a complicated comparison to make though.
Indeed it is. It's hard to export ideas which work in one sport to another. What I'm trying to do is show there's another way to the football model.

One one hand you have to consider that the Heineken Cup is a much shorter competition than any of the others you have mentioned.
Significantly shorter than the MLB, NHL and NBA seasons, yes. As a whole in terms of games played, the European rugby season (compromising both domestic and pan-European competitions) is roughly similar in size to the NFL and MLS seasons.

Secondly, the draft system is hugely beneficial to US sports with regards expansion. It allows weak teams to become an awful lot stronger over the space of a season or two, whereas builing a team from the bottom up as a rugby club must do takes an awful lot more time.
Good point. The draft system would be impossible to implement here. We could level the playing field somewhat by introducing a hard salary cap (like the NFL) or soft salary cap (like the NBA) and revenue sharing between clubs. Help the teams at the bottom and everyone grows together regardless of the size of our market.

I think we're hurtling along to a single European competition with no domestic leagues. Under PRL/LNRs stewardship this would likely be just 10-15 teams from across Europe playing home and away against each other (Mark Evans of Harlequins said something along these lines a few years ago). That would be bad for the sport since it dilutes the player pool for international teams. A larger 40 or so team where there's a cap of say 26 club games (22 league and 4 end of playoff games like a supersized Heineken Cup) which all mean something can co-exist with international rugby and grow the sport beyond it's present borders.

If we were to take the European rugby season as a whole though you'd compare the domestic leagues to conferences and the Heineken Cup to a form of the playoffs (obviously not a direct comparison, but close enough to illustrate a point.) In that scenario, expansion would require the integration of new clubs into the domestic leagues, with places in the Heineken Cup being earned through a meritocracy, as is what we can expect in the new European cup.

European club rugby is a complicated beast no doubt. Part of me wold love to see a format very similar to the NFL adopted, where we still see all the local rivalries, you'd still get domestic league (read conferences) winners and the European Champion would be determined by a play off at the end. The French and English leagues bring with them the difficult issue of promotion and relegation to their second tiers and any attempt at ring fencing would probably be met with stiff opposition from the old guard.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

If we were to take the European rugby season as a whole though you'd compare the domestic leagues to conferences and the Heineken Cup to a form of the playoffs (obviously not a direct comparison, but close enough to illustrate a point.) In that scenario, expansion would require the integration of new clubs into the domestic leagues, with places in the Heineken Cup being earned through a meritocracy, as is what we can expect in the new European cup.

I'm not sure I'm reading this properly. You could have a 40 team league with multiple divisions compromising the 12 Pro 12 clubs, the 12 Premiership clubs, the 14 Top 14 clubs and 2 others, either 1 each from France and England or new teams in new markets. The former would be the safer option. A 22 game regular season (the NFL has 16 games) and a 4 game end of season playoff to determine the champion (the NFL has 3 to 4 playoff games depending on where you finish in the regular season standings).

Sure, it would be messy initially and we could see a contraction or relocation of a couple of teams but after 4 or 5 years, the ship should be steadied and European club rugby prospers to a greater extent than ever before.

Maybe I'm looking at it through rose tinted glasses as a fan of the NFL and how it's run. As a collision sport, I think club rugby could easily run and succeed along those same lines.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

The issue you get with NFL and NHL style sport is the "Lose to win" mentality. Because your team can never be kicked out of the competition you are able to change your strategy.

It becomes common practice at the mid/end point of seasons for teams to start selling all of their players in order to be able to buy "big names" combined with their draft picks and actually create a team that can win or get close to winning the whole competition. Teams can spend years at the bottom collecting great draft picks before setting themselves up for a big run at play offs and a win. (See Penguins, Coyotes, Colorado, and soon enough Edmonton (all NHL), I can't think of great examples in NFL, but the turn around of Kansas could be an example.

On top of that you also get complacency in that model, The "doing enough" style... aka the GOD DAMN MAPLE LEAFS for the last 25 years. They would buy old, but great players to help get their teams to the playoffs, they would lose as not being a full, top to bottom great team. Then just repeat this process, never creating a team that would build on itself from the year before, because they will always make money and as long as you make playoffs fans can't be that upset.

Having Rugby have games between a team that is in last at the end of the season and a team fighting for a playoff, would turn into huge blowout games. The NFL and NHL system would take out the heart, passion, and history you have with teams. I love the NHL and I love rugby, but I think the focus needs to be taken away from the leagues and in turn focused on the Owners (management).

NHL and NFL are successful because almost all of the owner and management focus on helping everyone make money, Not just themselves, they understand that if the "product" is good then they can all be rich together. That is why all of their decisions are about providing as much money to all of the management while keeping a great product. Once again: The Maple Leafs - Top 10 most profitable team in the WORLD, agreed/promoted a salary cap in the NHL. Instead of us being the Yankees and allowing us to continually buy a great time.... it sucked, but it did make the "product" far better.

I don't have a solution, or even what could be done. I think the biggest issue is that international rugby is still the best part of rugby and it is hard to develop great Pro leagues that are not actually the "pinnacle of the sport". There is nothing higher than NFL, there is nothing higher then NHL… don't listen to the KHL, and Olympic Hockey is better, but that is only an issue every 4 years. It comes down to the Unions, Owners, and Management of all the similar leagues, Pro 12, Top 14, and Premiership to understand that a great "product" (aka the H Cup and their leagues) leads to them all making more money and building on momentum.

 

[coolbawn]

Can anyone suggest how relevant it might be to all this that BT Sports seems to be struggling - at least according to News International's The London Times on 21st Oct ?

8,000 people watched the flagship midweek Clare Balding programme, 13,000 watched the two Danny's on Friday nights. "Opening the channels to non-BT subscribers has not helped". "Live matches are failing to score". "Audiences for the first 7 Prem League [football] games were 9% lower than ESPN, its predecessor which struggled to make a mark".

I don't know how popular their rugby coverage has been. Could this strengthen Sky's hand and the hand of unions/ERC ?

 

[smartcooky]

The issue you get with NFL and NHL style sport is the "Lose to win" mentality. Because your team can never be kicked out of the competition you are able to change your strategy.

It becomes common practice at the mid/end point of seasons for teams to start selling all of their players in order to be able to buy "big names" combined with their draft picks and actually create a team that can win or get close to winning the whole competition. Teams can spend years at the bottom collecting great draft picks before setting themselves up for a big run at play offs and a win. (See Penguins, Coyotes, Colorado, and soon enough Edmonton (all NHL), I can't think of great examples in NFL, but the turn around of Kansas could be an example.

Isn't this what they call "tanking"?

 

[smartcooky]

As a whole in terms of games played, the European rugby season (compromising both domestic and pan-European competitions) is roughly similar in size to the NFL and MLS seasons.

Not at all in terms of the NFL

A typical European Domestic rugby season

Premiership & Pro12
22 Regular season
2 playoffs
TOTAL 24

Top14
26 regular season
3 playoffs
Total 29

ERC
6 regular season
3 playofs
TOTAL 9

So a team will end up playing a minimum 28 (32 in France) and a maximum of 33 (38 in France) depending on how far into the playoffs they get. Crucially, the entire season takes almost 10 months (far too long IMO).

However, in the NFL, there are only 16 regular season matches (in 17 weeks) and 4 post-season (playoff) matches. Teams play a minimum of 16 and maximum of 20 matches depending on how far into the post season they get. The important bit though, is that NFL only lasts from the first Monday in September (Labour Day in the US) to the first Sunday in February. That is a total duration of 5 months from beginning to end.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Not at all in terms of the NFL

A typical European Domestic rugby season

Premiership & Pro12
22 Regular season
2 playoffs
TOTAL 24

Top14
26 regular season
3 playoffs
Total 29

ERC
6 regular season
3 playofs
TOTAL 9

So a team will end up playing a minimum 28 (32 in France) and a maximum of 33 (38 in France) depending on how far into the playoffs they get. Crucially, the entire season takes almost 10 months (far too long IMO).

However, in the NFL, there are only 16 regular season matches (in 17 weeks) and 4 post-season (playoff) matches. Teams play a minimum of 16 and maximum of 20 matches depending on how far into the post season they get. The important bit though, is that NFL only lasts from the first Monday in September (Labour Day in the US) to the first Sunday in February. That is a total duration of 5 months from beginning to end.

Which is why I said it's roughly similar and not exactly the same! I'm an avid NFL viewer who has been to every NFL London game since the International Series was announced and have watched the sport as a fan for the last 20 years. A Super Bowl winning team will play 19/20 with no squad rotation. A Euro rugby team will play more games but with plenty of squad rotation. That makes it roughly similar in terms of games played when compared with the size of with the NBA, NHL (both with regular season's of roughly 80 games) and the NBA with a 160something game season. I'm not talking about the time frame of the rugby and NFL seasons being in any way close to each other.

What I want to see is a European season with less games, less squad rotation and where every game means more thus increasing revenue for everyone making it more like the NFL than the current system which is loosely based on the football model. I think it would be good for TV, good for fans (who won't be shortchanged like they were with Dragons v Leinster last night) and better for player safety.

 

[coolbawn]

"less squad rotation" and "who won't be shortchanged like they were with Dragons v Leinster last night".

Hmm. There will be people who agree with you. Equally, if you go to the fans forums before and after matches (esp during the internationals), it is clear that "many" people are *completely fascinated* by the challenge of squad rotation caused by injury and international calls and the resulting opportunities to choose between blooding promising youngsters and/or using more established squad players. These people would, I guess, far prefer to see their club use closer to 46 players a year than 23; they want variety to the extent that they can get whatever points they deem to be necessary.

I have no idea what % of fans enjoy or hate rotation but the two camps definitely exist. It would be nice if the "legislators" knew but ....

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

@coolbawn
I agree with you largely and love seeing young players get a chance. I don't like seeing situations like last night where Leinster were without 17 players due to Ireland commitments on top of a significant injury list. I think the best way to blood new players is to surround them with experience rather than throw them in wholesale. That's an argument for another thread though.

 

[Peat]

I do enjoy rotation. I do enjoy watching lots of games with varying circumstances. I think it is the sensible thing to do with the way the season is and feel there should be more as things stand.

But if someone came up with a workable model that led to a shorter, more intense and presumably more high quality competition I would be all ears.

 

[psychic duck]

"less squad rotation" and "who won't be shortchanged like they were with Dragons v Leinster last night".

Hmm. There will be people who agree with you. Equally, if you go to the fans forums before and after matches (esp during the internationals), it is clear that "many" people are *completely fascinated* by the challenge of squad rotation caused by injury and international calls and the resulting opportunities to choose between blooding promising youngsters and/or using more established squad players. These people would, I guess, far prefer to see their club use closer to 46 players a year than 23; they want variety to the extent that they can get whatever points they deem to be necessary.

I have no idea what % of fans enjoy or hate rotation but the two camps definitely exist. It would be nice if the "legislators" knew but ....

Ugh. You are talking complete and utter bull****. Nobody would rather see the likes of Cai Griffiths and Rhys Webb do their stuff in place of Adam Jones or Kahn Fotuali'i.

And no many fans don't want to see it either. That's why internationals get 80,000 and big Heineken Cup games can sell out football stadiums or Lansdowne Road. Whereas the LV Cup games with no internationals and kids and squad players getting a run out will get nearer 2,000.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Ugh. You are talking complete and utter bull****. Nobody would rather see the likes of Cai Griffiths and Rhys Webb do their stuff in place of Adam Jones or Kahn Fotuali'i.

And no many fans don't want to see it either. That's why internationals get 80,000 and big Heineken Cup games can sell out football stadiums or Lansdowne Road. Whereas the LV Cup games with no internationals and kids and squad players getting a run out will get nearer 2,000.

Jesus, calm down. The post directly above yours starts with the sentence "I do enjoy rotation," so maybe don't be so dismissive. And, while scenarios like last night aren't ideal, I like seeing guys like Tadgh Furlong and Noel Reid play, people who aren't around the first team but might be some day. Something different. For the casual supporter it's a different matter of course.

 

[psychic duck]

Jesus, calm down. The post directly above yours starts with the sentence "I do enjoy rotation," so maybe don't be so dismissive. And, while scenarios like last night aren't ideal, I like seeing guys like Tadgh Furlong and Noel Reid play, people who aren't around the first team but might be some day. Something different. For the casual supporter it's a different matter of course.

Watch the B&I Cup then. But there's a reason those games and LV Cup games would be lower priced, played at outgrounds.

As snoopy says, it's not a youngster given a chance by the coach, it's essentially mostly a B&I Cup team playing through necessity. There's an obvious difference between that and whether Eoin Reddan or Isaac Boss or Trimble or Gilroy start type of rotation, or promotion of a new youngster like Eli Walker. Nobody or very few turns up or switches on the TV excited to see a Cai Griffiths & Tom Isaacs XV though. It's just plain facts, see LV Cup attendances. Those games are just minor intrigues for fans of a side, nobody cares outside of that.

Nobody for that matter thinks those French games where a side sacrifices a match with a weak lineup are great either. Coolbawn is the only one outside of Munster fans who has suggested he would find Racing's pathetic pea hearted effort in the final H Cup game as something "completely fascinating".

The clubs in the Rabo are effected by international call ups/training camps like no other with Leinster/Ospreys/Treviso providing so many. With Euro qualification and something to actually play for in the season the clubs will surely not be so tolerant of this when it could be the difference between a side's qualifying or not. Embarrassing for Dragons they couldn't beat that Leinster side by the way, if they can't beat that at home then they could be a while waiting to ever beat them.

 

[Amiga500]

I see BT are now shelling out more than 300 million a year for Champions League.


I can see already this is gonna end in tears. That is far too much money already on two sports competitions (Champions League and Premiership Rugby) than they are ever going to make back in additional subscribers or incremental increases on the subscription fee.


ITV Digital here we come.

 

[Tony Manx]

Nearly 900 million!!!

 

[Amiga500]

Nearly 900 million!!!

That is over 3 years is it not? Hence 300/yr??

 

[Tony Manx]

ooops!

 

[Amiga500]

I *think* that was the deal - only glanced at it - so don't take that as certain.

 

[Tony Manx]

897m for 2015 to 2018..............per BBC