Of course I'm going to get the response that it's already been proposed
but I'd still like to reiterate my proposal to change the league table system to make it more exciting and suspenseful, with :

1. divisions with 8 teams (and not 20 as before or even 16 as now), and with an IS match (1 per week) against the 7 other teams in its division
2. special divisions for "sister" agreements with a specific title

This season's rankings are indicative of the need for change.
1°) Only 6 (and maybe 7) D1 teams will have played their 100 matches. That's not exactly normal, given that many of these agreements have a plethora of players with more than 30 clubs.
The main reason for this is that many of the 'average' clubs in the 'average' - not to put too fine a point on it - associations don't dare play IE matches for fear of coming up against the behemoths of a big association.
The result is a "soft underbelly" in the rankings, with unmotivated teams who know they will be between 7th and 12th, so they play nothing and risk nothing.
2°) The D2 standings are just incredible, with the top 6 places occupied by...6 2-a-side teams!
The climb up the table is therefore being played with teams that are in fact 7th, 8th or 9th out of 16!
image](https://i.imgur.com/YWCLuEb.jpeg)

And the more things go on, the more these phenomena increase.
Hence the repetition of my previous proposal

• 1. With divisions of 8 and with 2 or even 3 ascents/descents each season, this would boost the motivation of almost 100% of the associations, which would all have something at stake, whatever their level and whatever the division
• 2. With a specific championship for sister associations, I think it would rekindle the interest of all clubs, from the smallest to the biggest, including the medium-sized ones, in playing more IE matches.
• 3. By freezing 7 IS matches against the 7 agreements in its division (and by increasing the value of the result, for example 10 points for a win, 5 points for a draw and 0 points for a loss), this would revive interest in IS matches, as at present there is virtually nothing at stake in end-of-season IS matches between "average agreements".

......A your criticism, which is bound to come from all quarters and from supporters of the status quo of an "ageing" model that is undermining the competition between the agreements, which is nonetheless an original feature and one of the essential driving forces of this game.

Your idea is a good one, especially for the organisation of the is cups, because it would make the 8th finals directly by division
I'm obviously in favour of the sister agreement ranking
However, the difficulty is the number of 8, I think it would always be the same in division 1 and in the long run always the same in division 2
But on the whole your idea is a good one

With 3 ascents/descents each season, it won't always be the same teams! quite the contrary
whereas at the moment, it's always the same, with "soft sales" bringing together agreements that play nothing and risk nothing, and that know this even before the championships start.

I really like the project.

Your proposal is excellent, it will boost the level of D1 even more because there will be a lot more direct encounters and therefore more interesting matches.

I vote Ouï 👍🏾

I say why not .....
The IS Cup would in fact be a championship, which isn't a bad thing. I'd even add that they'd have to be on neutral ground (I don't know what that would mean in terms of coding).
As for the sister associations, why not too, we'd only have matches against direct rivals, which would add a bit of spice, as the current system is also based on luck of the draw.
It's a very good idea, but as usual it's hard to get unanimous support...
And I've got the impression that it would mean big changes and big "work" on the game, but for a good cause.
Such changes would be beneficial to the game

We could even add a -1 point penalty for ie not played. This would force the agreements to play as many matches as possible.

100 games minimum in D1 (especially if there are 8 players in D1) shouldn't be a problem.
But it could be 80 in D2 and, for example, 60 minimum games in D3.

There's no need to give negative points for matches not played with myforsan's way of playing, naturally in a pool of 8 if you don't play your matches, you'll be behind, you'll join the lower divisions and so on... today it's this "soft underbelly" that doesn't encourage teams to play. Fewer teams = less difference in level = more matches with teams of a similar level = more interesting for everyone...

I'm in favour of what Myforsan is saying, but I'm not sure it will do much good

Lol the elitist speech par excellence...
Let's punish those who don't make 100 IE
Let's punish those who aren't part of the big clubs that are there to play for the title
Let's form a closed group of big clubs and throw all the others into D2 where they belong ^^

A championship is a whole. Just because you're in D1 doesn't mean you have to aim for the title and make 100 IE. Each agreement has its own objectives and internal rules.
In football, no matter what league you're in, some teams are in it to win the title, others to stay up, while others are simply aiming for the top half of the table. Just because a club doesn't have the resources to fight the big boys doesn't mean it has to reform everything in order to oust them.
The fight to stay up has its charm too...

If we project ourselves onto your model, it would basically condemn the competition to the current soft underbelly agreements (like the ELU). We'd certainly be a very good D2 club, one of the favourites I'd imagine, and then we'd get smashed every time we went up to D1 because there wouldn't be any clubs of our level left to play against. Basically, we'd be enjoying ourselves every other season, instead of enjoying playing our heads off every season in D1 as we do at the moment.

What you're proposing is simply to widen the gap between the 5-6 best teams and the rest.

I agree, though, that the sister teams should be put in a separate category.

The idea is interesting, it would give us some big games and that could be interesting for you (the top 8) but it is also true that access to D1 will be even more difficult and there will be a real yo-yo as at present almost but not always 😅

I agree with Nicularo ( not because we are elected ) even if each agreement does not realize its 100IE it is not only by "fear" to fall on a big, having a team with 88NG, I held out against these big, losing by little on my 3 defeats, and personally that motivates me to play these big, sometimes there are even surprises, that has its charm!

So maybe we should reduce the number of D1 clubs to 12? But not to 8

Against .
If group of 8 , estac will not even pass 12 pts IE
😁

After that, we could very well find a balance, i.e. reduce the number to 10 or 12 for the time being and follow the evolution over 1 or 2 seasons

I agree with the idea, but with a few adjustments. Only one rise for D1, 2 for D2 and D3 (if D3 is also at 8) then back to 16. Ententes 2 blocked at D3 (this would allow new ententes to get to grips with the situation before moving up to the next level) and if no entente other than ententes 2 manages to move up to D3, no move up to D2 (it's just that they're not ready and it's not a big deal, it effectively avoids an entente fed up with having moved up too quickly)

I made this proposal at the time:

IS: Keep the 6 matches per season: 6 pts in case of a win and 2 pts in case of a draw.

IE: Recast the divisions as follows:
D1 with 12 agreements (4 descents)
D2a: 12 teams (2 up and 4 down)
D2b: 12 teams (2 up and 4 down)
D3a: 12 teams (2 up and 1 down)
D3b with 12 teams (2 up and 1 down)
D3c 12-team (2 up and 1 down)
D3d with 12 teams (2 up and 1 down)
D4 with 20 teams (4 up and 4 down)
D5: 20 teams (4 up and 4 down)
D6: remaining groups with 4 ascents.

Separate championship for groups 2.

Bye for now,
In any case, it's high time we had a bit of a change on VF to revitalise the whole thing. Revamping the agreement divisions would be a good start...
Good evening
Platoche

I support this idea

And what does the boss think? @Aymeric?

Hello community,

The idea of reforming this classification is a legitimate one. The question arises. In the season that has just ended, we had one of the lowest scores to ensure our survival. In D2, the rising associations are a long way from first place, often falling prey to association 2. An entente 2,3 classification would make more sense.

As for the number of matches, I think 100 is a huge number for an association like ours, where we only have a dozen clubs capable of playing IE. It's not always easy for everyone to play 10 games. We're still short of clubs, and it's not for lack of trying to recruit or do well in IE. We ended the year with 89 matches and clubs with a NG of 75 launched in IE, without any miracle on the exits. Today, recruitment is complicated for an association like ours, so we're making our clubs progress internally, but it takes time.

So I'm going to agree with our elected representatives, because we're an association that frequently finds itself in the top 10. With 8-10 associations, we'll surely be making the grade. Over 100 matches, the gulf widens over time with the best teams and it's difficult to keep up such a pace. As Nicularo said, we'll have fun every second or third season doing the yo-yo with our current strengths.

The debate is interesting, in any case, to restructure and make the competition more interesting.

Yes, we need to reduce the number of entebtes in d1, that's for sure

The 8-club championship system, where everyone plays each other in a single match, would be a plus

We have to pay tribute to the organisers of this cup because it's a lot of work, not always recognised, that is done for the community, but we have to recognise that this cup also has a lot of detractors.

A selections championship with 1 day of the week determined in advance, for 7 weeks, a multiplex of 4 matches taking place at the same time for the 8 selections in a division would, I think, have a certain appeal.

After that, the number of points awarded for the results is another (secondary) debate, it could remain 6 pts for a win and 2 for a draw or a little more 9 - 3 - 0, or 10 - 5 - 0, in the end it doesn't really matter but what would be the real innovation is the 7 matches against the 7 other agreements in your 8-team division in a multiplex.

And to avoid any difficulties over the fact that the matches are on a fixed day and at a fixed time determined in advance:

• 1. the players selected for the IS all arrive at 100% fitness and leave at 100% fitness (same system as the federations, I don't understand why there is a difference in treatment between the 2 selection systems)

2. each agreement has a coach and an assistant coach who can take over if the coach is not available at match time.

up

I'm taking advantage of A45's slightly greater presence among us to re-launch some major ideas for overhauling the game. I think this one, without going into the details of the proposals, could be interesting. There really is an important step to be taken.
A reduction in the number of D1 agreements to 8, 10 or 12 seems sensible to me. A limited number of descents, such as 1 or 2 agreements only. So the rise of D2 much harder with the same number of 1 or 2 agreements.
D2 to Dxx could be more numerous if feasible.

A lot of people have been complaining about sister leagues for a long time. Do we have enough sister leagues to make a subsidiary championship out of them? Is this manageable, as the number could vary?

When you look at the ratios between the top and bottom teams, it's pretty brutal.

Same as rull, I can't understand the reasoning behind the little ones...
What's more, I was talking about it yesterday with a friend of mine. I was having a quick look at the d2 d3 d4 agreements and the managers' squads.
Let's face it, club management is pretty disastrous.... before taking a swipe at the big boys, you might want to take another look at how your club operates.
Many of your teams are 32 or 33 years old and there is no succession behind them or they are poorly trained...
Sa whether you're a small or large agreement, having rigour in vf esr accessible to everyone. Something to think about 😀

You're just forgetting the fact that when you move up to d1 you have new arrivals, not necessarily for the good reason of your agreement, but to play in d1.
After that, if you drop to 10 teams, you might as well abandon the agreement, the history of sister agreements is the big problem, not the small agreements in d1.
For me, learning means playing against the best so that I can come back stronger.
My club will be celebrating its 10th season next season. For the moment, we're helping the smaller clubs to form, but once they've formed, the bigger clubs will come looking for our members, which also proves that we're not as bad as you seem to think.
I'm not just talking about the nwo, I'm talking about all the small clubs.
We at nwo are proud of the fact that we've gone up to d2 twice with a lot of young players.
Today, some of the young players have gone from strength to strength and we hope to be back in D2 and above all to maintain our position over the next 2 seasons.

If you remove all the "average" deals from D1, there will be no one to give you a carrot in IE, you won't be able to cry about the VFo, is that really what you want???? :p

So my point wasn't to debate with you, but apparently I have to 😅
It does propose 12 deals in d1?
It does propose 4 descents?
And so with 1 or 2 divisions in d2, it's a detail, he's proposing 2x 2 = 4 ascents?

To replace 4 downgrades, you need 4 upgrades. Are we in line here?

And you think that there are currently 4 d2 agreements that have the same level as the d1s?

We're proposing to restrict the number of d1s because the levels vary too much, and so the proposal would be to allow more ascents? Isn't that contradictory? 😅

I'm just proposing an overhaul without going into detail. But if you restrict the total number, you normally restrict the descents, that would be the logic. After logic...

As a member of a "small" D1 club, I'd like to comment on some of what has been said. Judging by some of the messages, we should restrict ourselves and not play our 100 matches in D2 because we really shouldn't go up, the level is too high at the top level for a club like ours. But that's what this game is all about! We want to play against the best, even if we take monumental beating, we'll have had our fun for 1 season, and we'll get stronger the following seasons to come back better.

So I don't understand why we should make this first division elitist, without the 'small clubs' ever being able to compete in it. Put yourself in our shoes, I think that when you started out, you would have liked to play in the top flight of the game!

The reduction in the number of cartel championships from 10 to 16 per division was supposed to "boost" motivation across the board.
In reality, as expected, this was not true, as it was a 'half-measure'.
And once again this season (no. 143), a very high number of D1 teams have not completed their 100 matches
6/16 will make their 100 matches
3/16 will be fairly close to doing so
7/16 are between 10 and 20 matches short

In D2, paradoxically, there are more associations that have played their 100 matches or are close to doing so. One possible explanation for this is that many associations do not play their 100 matches in D1 because many of their members are afraid of playing IE matches against teams that are too big.

The plethora of teams in D1 really needs to be drastically reduced, because there are too many associations that don't play the league table to the hilt and are content to stay in the 'soft underbelly', knowing at the start of each season that whatever they do they won't be playing for the title and they won't be going down.

It would be high time to reduce the divisions to 8 agreements per level with 7 IS matches against the 7 agreements in its division and to ensure a good and motivating shuffle, 3 ascents (except for D1, obviously) and 3 descents per season.
That way, all the associations will be motivated to play their 100 matches to go up or not go down. With this kind of shuffle, I'm sure that the agreements in the soft underbelly of D1 would find it to their advantage and would suddenly be more motivated to play their 100 IE matches.

I don't agree with your analysis, Myforsans.
As far as we're concerned, since we don't have any sister agreements, we bring together clubs that go through various phases, the competitive and the training phases, so some clubs don't do any IE during their training period, and that's quite legitimate, before being able to reschedule when their team is ready.
It's also to their credit that they fight to stay in the competition using their own strength, and these associations have cycles that are sometimes tough, sometimes in the 8-12th percentile.

I agree in principle. The agreements with a hundred members have the advantage of numbers, they can renew the teams in D1 according to the level required to aim for the top.
Agreements that don't have 100 IEs just don't have the capacity to do so, because they don't have enough members with the level.
We play our IEs for the fun of it, just so we can take on new quality teams, but we're clear about the situation. The system is not efficient enough to ensure fair and equitable competition.
In my opinion, there are several possible solutions. My preference is for this one.

1. Drastically reduce the number of agreements per division (12). 3 places on the podium rewarded in the prize list. 3 places in the lower division.
2. Reduction in the number of IE matches per agreement. (60) All agreements will be able to play all their matches at maximum competitiveness. Today, teams are being asked to sacrifice their league to try and make up the IE, or to ask teams that are not at all competitive to play just to play... but that doesn't make sense. And this is the case for 30/40% of D1 agreements.
   The big clubs will have to select their dream team each season and allocate matches scrupulously. Agreements with smaller teams will be able to dream bigger. Today, 90% of clubs are not thinking about the title.
   Positive effect:

• The D1 "Elite" will be as attractive and valued as possible, and as the saying goes, to conquer without peril is to triumph without glory.
• Small groups of people can hope to create an understanding and shake up the hierarchy, it creates links and affinity.
• Matches that are more balanced.
• Should also raise the level of the lower divisions. Clubs not selected to play matches in D1 could change colour to give them a chance too.
  There you go
  I doubt anything will happen, but you never know! Tchous

Well, you're exactly right.
Those who are training would not play more if you were in D2 and those who are competitive would surely be more motivated to play every game to try and win the D2 title or play for promotion to D1 rather than starting a new season knowing that no matter what IE games they play they will be 9th or 11th in D1.
And I'd even add that those who are training and starting to become competitive will find it easier to start playing IE matches in D2 than to start by playing D1 matches.
Seems pretty obvious to me, doesn't it?
Well, to each his own.

Ced That's the case for you because you've all got insane numbers, stamina and quality... and among the 10 LR clubs, it's easier to find 10/15 guys to make the 100ie than an agreement with 30 members...
Proof is that 40% of agreements struggle to play 80 matches...

We're aware of our level tkt not Ced, we're doing what we can, we've been through a lot of turbulence in recent years.

If you take away the 15 matches we've been given, we end up with 60 matches... what do we do? It doesn't change the fact that we can only play 60 competitive matches...
The more you increase the number of IE matches allowed, the more it encourages more agreements...

I don't care what the reform is, it's bound to be better than what we have now lol

Perhaps there is a compromise to be found by simply reducing the number of EIs to be played in a calendar that is often considered too full?
By lowering the 100-match limit and, at the same time, reducing the number of EIs per club, perhaps a greater number would win.
At the same time, the group concept would be strengthened by avoiding each club sending its top 3 managers to play 30 matches each season.

To put it plainly, every season we see agreements that send a group of 3-4 over-armed parachute commandos to wreck the checkpoint of an outpost manned by 10 regular army infantrymen fighting with shotguns.
Let's maybe give them one more chance by sending just one infantry section for the 2nd wave?

And then the invaders might be more afraid of taking to the field with less ammunition in their possession. The victory will be all the sweeter for it.

With all due respect to the agreements that are fighting it out in D2, it's like sending to the slaughterhouse an agreement that finishes 8th or 9th in the D2 rankings. If we reallocated the D1 to 10 or 12 agreements with a single ascent, this would allow the agreements to move up to D1 once they are fully ready, rather than going back and forth.
And it would make for a very interesting D2 championship at a very high level, where sister associations would be much more likely to be pushed around.

Above all, victory is better when you win against someone who is present and involved.
Not by attacking the camp of novices training with dummy weapons from the opposing army; if you prefer a military metaphor.

The only way to do that is to reduce the number of agreements. Staying at 16, whether with 10 IE each or less, will still allow you to score easy points. It all depends on what you want, a title by draw or a title by merit.

A45, at the very beginning of the reduction in the number of agreements (a while ago now) was thinking in terms of tiers. 16 was just the first step.
8 seems excessive to me; but you can go from 4 to 4. 12 would be a good compromise.

As it stands, without changing the number of matches per agreement... if you only go to 12 agreements, you'll still have 30% of the agreements that won't play or will send foot soldiers to play their 100IE.

I think that the number of matches per agreement should also be changed. But don't reduce the number of matches per club, otherwise you'll end up with the same problem, sending infantrymen who aren't ready for battle.