United Rugby Championship

[Dave Cahill]

The quarter-finals aren't going away, they're an extra four games worth of ticket sales, television money and advertising revenue. They deepen the competition and until the geo-lock on qualification is removed, they give teams who might have missed out on European qualification because of it a second shot. I'd seriously question the value of the round of 16 in the EPCR competitions though

[Dexter]

It's just too many KO games in a row with no gaps, particularly for a successful team trying to compete on 2 fronts.
There's an element of KO match fatigue for the supporters, so it must be very tough to manage the squad. It used to very difficult to do the double but it's now nigh on impossible.
I don't think 3rd vs 5th proves anything really. If you can finish 5th in the league and still win it, or get to the final anyway, I'm not sure that's a good thing for the regular league season.

[Blueberry]

The quarter-finals aren't going away, they're an extra four games worth of ticket sales, television money and advertising revenue. They deepen the competition and until the geo-lock on qualification is removed, they give teams who might have missed out on European qualification because of it a second shot. I'd seriously question the value of the round of 16 in the EPCR competitions though

Agree think they are daft. Think the format used to be pretty much perfect with just qtr's to qualify for but hey ho.

To create some space reducing the number of regular season games and removed the round of 16 in the EPCR would perhaps allow a run in which wasn't like the current knock out marathon.

If that doesn't work then extending the season is the only other fix but that is late enough as it is.

[Blueberry]

If we want to promote the URC as the premium competition that it is, we need to give it space to breathe and flex it's muscles. Squeezing in so many knockout rounds of multiple competitions week on week doesn't do either competition any favours. We need to leave two weeks lead-in to the semi-finals of Europe and the semi-finals in the URC. Now if that means the URC has to go deep into June, so be it

This and/or eliminate the 1/4 final of the URC.

Personally don't like the URC qtr finals but suspect we are stuck with them going forward. As a purist I don't like the idea of a league qtr / semi / final at all, its not really a league just a qualification round !! But can't see that changing !!

[Dave Cahill]

It.

Is.

Not.

A.

League.

[Dave Cahill]

Okay, to be more precise, it's a league in the sense of "a collection of people, countries, or groups that combine for mutual protection or cooperation."

It is not a league in the sense of "a group of sports clubs which play each other over a period for a championship."

[Blueberry]

It.

Is.

Not.

A.

League.

I know....

[hugonaut]

I think Connacht and Munster haved proved the case for the top 8 QFs tbh.

There are different points of view here. I think it's an interesting argument – how do you find the balance between rewarding performance in the regular season against keeping interest in the league alive for more teams?

I said before that I think the best solution is a barrage-style system: [3rd place places 6th, 4th place plays 5th with 1st and 2nd places having a bye week].

The more teams you add to the playoffs, the less jeopardy there is in regular season games. And regular season games are what pay the bills.

Why should seventh and eighth place teams in a league play in finals rugby? There is already a reward for finishing seventh or eighth – you qualify for the Champions Cup*. That's it. That's all you should get. You only finished seventh/eighth over 18 games.

Teams finishing fifth and sixth get rewarded more than that by going into the play-offs, but they're on the road. Teams finishing third and fourth get a bigger reward again, by having home advantage in the playoffs. Teams finishing first and second get the biggest reward, by getting a rest at the end of a long season, minimising the risk of bans or injuries and having a better chance of winning the competition. They also have a chance of selling out their stadium by having two or three weeks to market the game, rather than four days.

If you asked either Ulster or ourselves [or ourselves or the Stormers last year] whether we wanted a bye or a quarter-final at home, we'd have said a bye. The idea that the quarter-finals are some sort of financial bonanza for the hosting clubs is a nonsense. F*ck all people go to those games. The market is saturated with knock-out rugby and URC QFs are the last on the list.

Ravenhill's capacity is 18,200: 12,844 [70% capacity] turned up for Ulster vs Connacht [a derby] in the QF this season; 10,252 [56% capacity] turned up for last season's QF against Munster, also a derby.

The RDS's capacity is 18500; about 14640 showed up in the Aviva for this season's QF against the Sharks, 2200 less than showed up for the regular season fixture between the two sides, when the Sharks fielded a weaker team. 9,346 showed up for the QF against Glasgow last season; we had more people through the gates for the regular season fixture against Zebre.

These games are not a commercial draw. There is loads of downside to them if you're a first or second ranked team, far more than there should be. You have to pay to open your stadium, staff it, sell tickets on six days notice [maximum], market same ... and then you come to the rugby aspect, where you run all sorts of risks which wildly outweigh the rewards that a mid-table team should earn.

[Blueberry]

It's the United Rugby Championship

But I think we are all in essence trying to fix a problem that is pretty tricky to fix. I suspect the one thing we can probably all agree on is that ideally you want 2 week gaps between key knock out games how we get there is hard to see without some significant changes.

[Blueberry]

I think Connacht and Munster haved proved the case for the top 8 QFs tbh.

There are different points of view here. I think it's an interesting argument – how do you find the balance between rewarding performance in the regular season against keeping interest in the league alive for more teams?

I said before that I think the best solution is a barrage-style system: [3rd place places 6th, 4th place plays 5th with 1st and 2nd places having a bye week].

The more teams you add to the playoffs, the less jeopardy there is in regular season games. And regular season games are what pay the bills.

Why should seventh and eighth place teams in a league play in finals rugby? There is already a reward for finishing seventh or eighth – you qualify for the Champions Cup*. That's it. That's all you should get. You only finished seventh/eighth over 18 games.

Teams finishing fifth and sixth get rewarded more than that by going into the play-offs, but they're on the road. Teams finishing third and fourth get a bigger reward again, by having home advantage in the playoffs. Teams finishing first and second get the biggest reward, by getting a rest at the end of a long season, minimising the risk of bans or injuries and having a better chance of winning the competition. They also have a chance of selling out their stadium by having two or three weeks to market the game, rather than four days.

If you asked either Ulster or ourselves [or ourselves or the Stormers last year] whether we wanted a bye or a quarter-final at home, we'd have said a bye. The idea that the quarter-finals are some sort of financial bonanza for the hosting clubs is a nonsense. F*ck all people go to those games. The market is saturated with knock-out rugby and URC QFs are the last on the list.

Ravenhill's capacity is 18,200: 12,844 [70% capacity] turned up for Ulster vs Connacht [a derby] in the QF this season; 10,252 [56% capacity] turned up for last season's QF against Munster, also a derby.

The RDS's capacity is 18500; about 14640 showed up in the Aviva for this season's QF against the Sharks, 2200 less than showed up for the regular season fixture between the two sides, when the Sharks fielded a weaker team. 9,346 showed up for the QF against Glasgow last season; we had more people through the gates for the regular season fixture against Zebre.

These games are not a commercial draw. There is loads of downside to them if you're a first or second ranked team, far more than there should be. You have to pay to open your stadium, staff it, sell tickets on six days notice [maximum], market same ... and then you come to the rugby aspect, where you run all sorts of risks which wildly outweigh the rewards that a mid-table team should earn.

Good post and yes the barrage style is a fairer and more interesting idea and still keeps the league interesting. It is comical in a way that a team finishing 8th in the URC which means they are really pretty average....can still walk away with the Title....

[hugonaut]

The quarter-finals aren't going away, they're an extra four games worth of ticket sales, television money and advertising revenue. They deepen the competition and until the geo-lock on qualification is removed, they give teams who might have missed out on European qualification because of it a second shot. I'd seriously question the value of the round of 16 in the EPCR competitions though

I thought the Home & Away Round of 16 in the European Cup worked surprisingly well last season. I expected it to be pretty terrible but it ended up being really interesting.

If that happened at QF stage with no second round, it would fill the TV slots and allow both teams the period from end of January through to end of March to sell tickets to their respective home games.

[ronk]

The quarter-finals aren't going away, they're an extra four games worth of ticket sales, television money and advertising revenue. They deepen the competition and until the geo-lock on qualification is removed, they give teams who might have missed out on European qualification because of it a second shot. I'd seriously question the value of the round of 16 in the EPCR competitions though

I thought the Home & Away Round of 16 in the European Cup worked surprisingly well last season. I expected it to be pretty terrible but it ended up being really interesting.

If that happened at QF stage with no second round, it would fill the TV slots and allow both teams the period from end of January through to end of March to sell tickets to their respective home games.

One of the disadvantages of the 2 leg last 16 was that it took away home advantage. You'd get a home quarter but you still had to go away for one leg of the last 16.

The jeopardy of the URC QFs was entertaining, but it makes a mockery of the league. You get home advantage for a match that fans have little interest in. It's a waste of time putting effort into the league when other teams sleepwalk through it and then ambush with a big performance on the day. It's driving fans away.

Teams this year and last managed to lose 8 games and still qualify.

[Dexter]

I think Connacht and Munster haved proved the case for the top 8 QFs tbh.

There are different points of view here. I think it's an interesting argument – how do you find the balance between rewarding performance in the regular season against keeping interest in the league alive for more teams?

I said before that I think the best solution is a barrage-style system: [3rd place places 6th, 4th place plays 5th with 1st and 2nd places having a bye week].

The more teams you add to the playoffs, the less jeopardy there is in regular season games. And regular season games are what pay the bills.

Why should seventh and eighth place teams in a league play in finals rugby? There is already a reward for finishing seventh or eighth – you qualify for the Champions Cup*. That's it. That's all you should get. You only finished seventh/eighth over 18 games.

Teams finishing fifth and sixth get rewarded more than that by going into the play-offs, but they're on the road. Teams finishing third and fourth get a bigger reward again, by having home advantage in the playoffs. Teams finishing first and second get the biggest reward, by getting a rest at the end of a long season, minimising the risk of bans or injuries and having a better chance of winning the competition. They also have a chance of selling out their stadium by having two or three weeks to market the game, rather than four days.

If you asked either Ulster or ourselves [or ourselves or the Stormers last year] whether we wanted a bye or a quarter-final at home, we'd have said a bye. The idea that the quarter-finals are some sort of financial bonanza for the hosting clubs is a nonsense. F*ck all people go to those games. The market is saturated with knock-out rugby and URC QFs are the last on the list.

Ravenhill's capacity is 18,200: 12,844 [70% capacity] turned up for Ulster vs Connacht [a derby] in the QF this season; 10,252 [56% capacity] turned up for last season's QF against Munster, also a derby.

The RDS's capacity is 18500; about 14640 showed up in the Aviva for this season's QF against the Sharks, 2200 less than showed up for the regular season fixture between the two sides, when the Sharks fielded a weaker team. 9,346 showed up for the QF against Glasgow last season; we had more people through the gates for the regular season fixture against Zebre.

These games are not a commercial draw. There is loads of downside to them if you're a first or second ranked team, far more than there should be. You have to pay to open your stadium, staff it, sell tickets on six days notice [maximum], market same ... and then you come to the rugby aspect, where you run all sorts of risks which wildly outweigh the rewards that a mid-table team should earn.

Good points about the URC QFs essentially being duds in terms of supporter interest.
Agree with pretty much everything here.

[LeinsterLeader]

A couple of questions for next season and I'd be grateful if anyone has an answer:

1) Why can't the URC extend the knockout games until after the ERC final like France (I'm assuming there's a reason they squash it all in at he end)?

2) Is it possible that any knockout games (fingers crossed) next season will be effected by RDS events like we had this year resulting in us using only part of the Aviva, or was this just a once off?

[Theleinsterlad]

A couple of questions for next season and I'd be grateful if anyone has an answer:

1) Why can't the URC extend the knockout games until after the ERC final like France (I'm assuming there's a reason they squash it all in at he end)?

2) Is it possible that any knockout games (fingers crossed) next season will be effected by RDS events like we had this year resulting in us using only part of the Aviva, or was this just a once off?

I could be wrong but I’d say the reason for the games this season happening was that the nations wanted the comp to end earlier this year due to World Cup. If you remember last year the semi-final took place the week after the Euro final

[Serb]

A couple of questions for next season and I'd be grateful if anyone has an answer:

1) Why can't the URC extend the knockout games until after the ERC final like France (I'm assuming there's a reason they squash it all in at he end)?

2) Is it possible that any knockout games (fingers crossed) next season will be effected by RDS events like we had this year resulting in us using only part of the Aviva, or was this just a once off?

As for the events, I don’t recall that being an issue previously, and we’ve played a lot of knockout URC games over the last few years, so I’d say it was likely a once off.

[ronk]

URC is a competition with 5 unions. So we have to fit with 5 international calendars, including Southern Hemisphere.

We were a bit shocked with a spare week at the end of the season, but other teams are used to finishing a lot earlier. What works for us doesn't work so much for them, especially in a RWC year.

I'd say they'll figure out a way to change it. The format has held for 2 years and the schedule has case a shadow over the knockout stages that led to highly unexpected results. That's good in sport, to a point.

[cormac]

A couple of questions for next season and I'd be grateful if anyone has an answer:

1) Why can't the URC extend the knockout games until after the ERC final like France (I'm assuming there's a reason they squash it all in at he end)?

2) Is it possible that any knockout games (fingers crossed) next season will be effected by RDS events like we had this year resulting in us using only part of the Aviva, or was this just a once off?

Next season I suspect the ko stages of the URC will come after the Heineken Cup Final as they did in the 21/22 season.

[Colmodon]

A couple of questions for next season and I'd be grateful if anyone has an answer:

1) Why can't the URC extend the knockout games until after the ERC final like France (I'm assuming there's a reason they squash it all in at he end)?

2) Is it possible that any knockout games (fingers crossed) next season will be effected by RDS events like we had this year resulting in us using only part of the Aviva, or was this just a once off?

Next season I suspect the ko stages of the URC will come after the Heineken Cup Final as they did in the 21/22 season.

Martin Anayi was recently on the 42's podcast and pointed to this season being three weeks shorter due to RWC. I certainly took that to mean they expect URC knockouts to go on into June in a normal year. I happen to think that's madness but it is what it is.

[neill_m]

If as widely suggested the 23/24 season starts on the 3rd weekend of October (RWC Semi Finals), then you will only get 7 league games played pre Europe v 9 this year. So very possible, the two weekends between the H Cup Semi Finals and Final which were used for the QF & SF this year will be needed to complete the 18 rounds and the URC playoffs in 23/24 will start last weekend of May and as already said go to the 2nd / 3rd weekend of June.