We're in D2 this season and we're finding that D2 isn't very interesting. At the moment, we're 4th and we're going up with the 8th and 9th, who only have 45 points... We don't deserve to go up. Agreements with second-placed teams distort the championship, even if they can't do anything about it.
It would be cool if we only played teams who were fighting for the title and the promotion.

This is also the case in regional national championships (N2, N3, R1, etc.), where reserve teams, even if they win the championship, cannot move up in line with the first team.

I think the way it's done on VF is pretty good.

Yes, I don't see the problem
You're going up, you want adversity
Tkt next season, you're going to be served mdr

You'll have some good mates in Div with names full of "S" at the end 😅

After that, there's still a bug with the LFP, who don't have the arrow for the climb

When you propose projects to make a special division for the sister agreements, you have to reply
I had posted the topic a few seasons ago, nobody or few reacted now the topic is dead and I don't feel like looking for it 😁😁😁

That's exactly it, bastoun.
And even so, we're fine as fourth-placed teams. It's more for those who finish in the middle of the table with barely 100pts at the end of the season, who will be going up and probably doing the lift without really competing.

After the strong clubs in the Ententes 2, maybe they should go and play in the small Ententes that are moving up to D1 to challenge their mates who play in the dominant Ententes. That would be a great challenge rather than staying in D2 every season... (This is just a comment and in no way a provocation)

It's funny that it's division 4 and 5 that come to send arrows to be polite
It's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game, it's just a game.
I'd remind you that it's only a game, I've got more than enough players to keep me in 2 in D1 as you say
That wasn't the question.

At the same time div 2 should be lower than div 1 but you are right that it can help improve the level of the agreements, div 3 is starting to be raised too my poor nwo will have trouble finding div 2 😪😪😪

Whether it's LR, LV, RTG, Chope (and others but I'm too lazy to check) none of them are even half full. Why don't these associations get more of the big D2 clubs into their first associations, since the points won in D2 are completely useless anyway?

Why create a second agreement in the first place if the first is never full?
That's a "problem" too.

Alex, for the reasons given above by me small clubs in training

Maybe it's because the big clubs want the d1 title and put their 15-20 best clubs in to win it?
It's a lot of work to have so many top clubs in an agreement like.lv lr cp
Perhaps you should ask yourself the question instead of looking at other agreements, look at your current clubs in your agreement in order to develop them?
You will see with a little help and motivation some will be able to reveal themselves

Whether it's LR, CP, CERCLE, LV, FYM, etc
What do you think?
We arrived with 2/3 agreements by taking the titles directly?
No, no, just like you, we had to be patient and put together a coherent and united group in order to maintain our position and take things one step at a time.
Any agreement is very complicated the passage from d2 to d1 but that's the charm too ....
The easy way is anything but good

In any case, it doesn't matter that the 5th, 7th and 9th are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the pro season (after deducting the second agreements), they will still be yo-yoing between D1 and D2

So frankly, come and rub shoulders with the lr2 teams or any other 2 team and I don't think we'll lose out at all in terms of our level of play (besides the fym, how many entente premières have won D2).
In fact, the level of the Ententes 2 represents a fairly good level for gauging whether we have what it takes to move up to D1.
Par contre c'est assez ridicule qu'une entente qui finit 8eme ou 9eme monte en D1, de mon point de vue si tu ne finis pas au moins dans le top 5 tu ne devrais pas pouvoir monter alors ça limitait les montée certaines saisons mais la D1 c'est le top du top faut le mériter

Si seul être dans le top 5 montent du coup il faut viré les ententes soeurs de la d2 car plus aucune chance de montée
Arrêtons un peu l'abus il y a 6 ententes soeurs en d2 imaginons sur 10 saisons ces ententes font 7 fois le top 6 il y aurait que 3 montées en d1 et la d1 serait pénard sans pression de descente
Frankly sorry zejl but the 3 ascents descents must be preserved
Mina you say that the big agreements are not made in one season but at the time there was no classification with 15 or 16 clubs it was a classification directly with all the agreements
We just need to find a happy medium that satisfies everyone, at the time of the descent of the sister teams into D2 I warned that it would create a lot of problems and now we're right in the middle of it
The Ententes Soeurs want to be well ranked but can't go up - that's where the mistake lies, it's not having left things as they were at the time
You can turn the problem every which way, the best solution was 20 clubs, at least no excuses if you're in the top 3, you go up, you're not there, you stay, full stop

I'm dreaming of agreements without a second agreement, with no more than 30 members. It would be much more open and would stimulate competition...

At worst, we'll have a d1 LR CP LV FYM RTG and 2 3 others
And a D1 for the rest of the agreements?
That way you'll be happy to stay at your level and avoid thinking internally about how to improve
2 vf would be great

That's why I said you and not you 😉

There's a lot here that I disagree with.
But there is one good idea cited by one person.

The previous problem with sister agreements in D1 has been resolved.

As far as I'm concerned, sister agreements don't spoil D2.
But there's a problem in D2, that's for sure.

A few seasons ago I spent a season in D2 with the LFL, and when I look back at that season when I've just moved up to D3, I find that the level in D2 is totally similar to that in D3 if you don't include the sister agreements.

Hearing people say that dv3 is much weaker than D2 and that if we move the top 6-7 from dv3 up to D2, these people are welcome in my agreement to do IE in D3. On the other hand, D4 is much weaker than D3.

As far as I'm concerned, if non-sister agreements that are 8th-9th in D2 move up to D1, I'm not surprised if they go down the following season.

In my opinion, the idea of creating a division with only sister associations would be a good one and would add a lot of pep and challenge to the associations below. In addition there will be more IE between them and we will see the members of the cp and the other agreements which play the title in D1 and D2 to continue their championship between them.
On the one hand, there will be a number of teams promoted from D3 to D2, which will make the level of D2 more homogenous and will make those who are between 8th and 16th place in D2 shake more.

After that, if it could make some members who are in agreements 2&3 want to join other agreements 1 that are struggling to survive that are in D1 and + that would be cool.
Because I remember that in D1 many members leave and prefer to play in sister agreements and top of the table in D2 than to play the maintenance in D1 in particular.

But as I keep saying, there's a gap in level between D1 and D2, and if the top 3 in D2 are three sister associations, it's because these three associations are much more capable of being in D1 and competing with the other associations in D1. And this avoids the 8th to yo-yo in D1/2/1/2/1/2 ...

So very complex.

Sister agreements in d3, or in a special championship.

Removal of sister agreements

The only use of sister companies is to be able to recruit at will and to think that out of the ten or so managers recruited there will be a top profile.

My god what you shouldn't read ... 😅🤭😁

Déjà au lieu de se plaindre , commencez par faire un effort de votre côté, j'attends par là de la communication, un discord ou forum pour votre entente juste pour commencer m.
It's easy to criticise and complain, but I don't see any effort or desire to do better!
It's easier to hit the big guys 🤭
On the other hand, don't think that by disbanding our sister agreements you're going to get the members back, we're giving ourselves the means 😉

Concerning D2, how many of these agreements have an active discord where they talk about the IE of the agreement of how to do better to go for D1?
Je pense que c'est plus sûr ça qu'il faudrait creuser , parce que croyez le ou non , nos ententes soeurs hormis se donner a fond lors des IE ils font rien de magique ou d'impossible et la preuve en est on a bien vu des ententes comme les AFU ou la sweet en émergé et être bien en place en D1 mtn

The debate already took place a few months ago anyway... It's going to start to show that VF is an old hand, it's rambling like crazy.

It's surprising to draw conclusions when only 50% of the IEs have been played. There's still plenty of room for battle and for improving the ratios and points of the agreements.

"Sister agreements' remains an old debate, with pros and cons. Despite everything, they are made up of members who are as attached to their community as anyone else. They are also an important part of the VF universe and a very strong entity.
Personally, even if I was sceptical at first, I now feel that positioning them in D2 is an excellent barometer for judging the real level of this division and preparing the promoted teams for D1 with committed matches and quality managers.
It's still possible to challenge them by preparing a group, with organisation, advice, mutual support and time to devote to it. There are some more or less recent examples of agreements currently in D1.

It's a shame not to refocus the debate on the homogeneity of the agreements.

We could also look at things another way by reforming the competition.
Let me explain...

It's just a suggestion, but the idea would be to have 2 periods in the season.

First phase: 16-team championship format (current system) with a maximum of 50 matches to be played by the clubs in the agreement in IE mode from day 1 to day 28

Second phase: MAIN play-off phase for the top eight teams. It would be played solely by the selectors in IS mode. The winner of the regular season plays the 8th-placed team, the 2nd-placed team plays the 7th-placed team and so on. The 2 finalists advance to the next division.
or
play-off phase for the last eight agreements. This would be played solely by the selectors in IS mode. The 9th-placed team in the regular season plays the 16th-placed team, while the 10th-placed team plays the 15th-placed team. The 2 lowest-ranked first-round losers in the regular season are relegated to the lower division.

Advantages: makes the competition more indecisive - makes IS matches and the coach's role easier to understand

I still think that the current formula is the best we've ever had in terms of agreement.
However, adjustments can always improve things:

In order not to favour the big agreements, IS points should no longer be taken into account in the rankings.

In order to give newcomers time to adapt to d1, there should only be 2 ascents and descents

-1 in direct cellars 😉