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.

estac: On pourrait même ajouter un malus de -1 point en cas d'ie non joué. Ça forcerait les ententes à jouer un maximum de match.

I am not sure that this is a good thing, for example a small agreement plays between 40 and 50 IEs max per season so that would make them between -50 and -60 points of malus all because they would not play their 100 IEs ?? 🤔🤔🤔

bluethunders26: Suis pas sûr que ce soit une bonne chose , par exemple une petite entente joue entre 40 et 50 ie max par saison donc cela leur ferais entre -50 et - 60 points de malus tout ça parce qu ils joueraient pas leur 100 IEs ?? 🤔🤔🤔

There's nothing to stop them playing the 100ie.
We'll have to make sure we have a group that can make the 100.

After that, this change can only be applied to the 3rd division

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

Tazz26: Pas besoin de mettre des points négatifs pour les matchs non joués avec le mode de jeu de myforsan, naturellement dans une poule de 8 si tu ne fait pas tes matchs, tu seras derrières, tu rejoindras les divisions inférieures et ainsi de suite.. aujourd'hui c'est ce "ventre mou" qui n'incite pas les équipes a jouer. Moins d'équipe = moins d'écart de niveau = plus de match avec des collectifs de niveau similaire = plus intéressant pour tout le monde..

Je suis favorable à ce que dis Myfor

I think a large part of the vf is in favour of this proposal.
As you say, it's more fun to play big games. The championship title will have a stronger flavour. As the proverb says: to conquer without peril is to triumph without glory.

The only question is: does Aymeric want to make this change?

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

Nicularo: Lol le discours élitiste par excellence...
Punissons ceux qui ne font pas 100 IE
Punissons ceux qui ne sont pas des grosses ententes qui sont là pour jouer le titre
Formons un groupe fermé de grosses ententes et balançons tous les autres en D2 là ou devrait être leur place ^^

Un championnat c'est un tout. C'est pas parce que t'es en D1 que tu dois forcément viser le titre et faire à l'arrache tes 100 IE. Chaque entente a ses objectifs et ses règles en interne.
En football, peu importe

I don't think this is an elitist approach. Quite the contrary. The aim of this project (which remains just that, a project) is to make competition much more interesting and much more fun. And this would result in an increase in the level of the so-called 'average' agreements.
Going back to your example of the Elu, I think you're right, in D2 you'd break everything, but once in D1, your objective would be the same as it is now, i.e. to fight to stay in D1, and if the objective is achieved, then the pride would be even greater. To achieve this goal, there would be no other option than to increase your level...
The IS competition, meanwhile, would become a championship, smoothing out the levels...
Where I'm more sceptical is the amount of points for wins and draws, because that would give too much importance to IS matches. The league championship is a collective competition, and the final results would depend too much on a single person...
When it comes to the Sulphur Entente Championship, I think it would be fairer for everyone.

estac: Je pense qu'une grande partie de vf est favorable à cette proposition.
Comme tu dis, c'est plus plaisant de jouer de gros match. Le titre de champion aura une plus forte saveur. Comme dit le proverbe : a vaincre sans péril on triomphe sans gloire.

La seule question est : est ce qu'aymeric souhaite faire cette modification ?

The only question is: is Aymeric there?

image](https://i.imgur.com/N14uLLq.jpeg)

Not sure I'll have a new one for the new season 😅

Nicularo: Lol le discours élitiste par excellence...
Punissons ceux qui ne font pas 100 IE
Punissons ceux qui ne sont pas des grosses ententes qui sont là pour jouer le titre
Formons un groupe fermé de grosses ententes et balançons tous les autres en D2 là ou devrait être leur place ^^

Un championnat c'est un tout. C'est pas parce que t'es en D1 que tu dois forcément viser le titre et faire à l'arrache tes 100 IE. Chaque entente a ses objectifs et ses règles en interne.
En football, peu importe

You talk about elitist discourse when it's the fact of envisaging no longer being part of this elite that makes you react. It's quite paradoxical

The purpose of my intervention is not to punish any particular agreement, nor is myforsans'.
The only aim is to make the divisions more homogenous and to favour those who take the trouble to play their 100ie.
Agreements playing in the top 5 would not be affected, as they all play their 100ie.
The 100ie are not insurmountable, you just have to make the effort to play them, even if it means losing one or 2 league or cup matches.

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

k3vin59218: L idée est interessante cela donnerait que de gros matchs et ca peut etre interessant pour vous ( le top 8 ) mais il est aussi vrai que l acces en D1 sera encore plus difficile et il y aura un vrai Yo-yo comme actuellement presque mais pas toujours 😅

Je rejoins Nicularo ( pas parce que l on est ELU ) meme si chaque entente ne realise pas ses 100IE ce n est pas uniquement par " peur " de tomber sur un gros , ayant une equipe a 88NG , j ai tenu tete a ces gros , perdant de peu sur mes 3 def

Frankly, if this reform were to succeed, your agreement is the very type of agreement that would benefit from it.
In your speech, you talk about your case, but I don't think that what you say is representative of the majority of the members of your agreement, given that

1. you have 38 wealthy members
2. but you've only played 89 matches
3. 9 clubs have played a total of 73 matches, which is almost all of what you've played
4. 3/4 of the members of the agreement have played 0 or 1 IE match only
   I think that this kind of reform would, on the contrary, be extremely attractive for a club like yours in terms of the overall interest of its members
   Maybe I'm wrong but next season it's certainly going to be the same, you have no chance of being threatened by the drop (thanks to the clubs who monopolise the matches) but unfortunately for you you have very, very little chance of being at the top of the table and even next season 3/4 of the members will be spectators at their colleagues' IE matches.

estac: Tu parles de discours élitiste alors que c'est le fait d'envisager de ne plus faire parti de cette élite qui te fait réagir. C'est assez paradoxal

Mon intervention n'a pas pour but de punir tel ou tel entente, celle de myforsans non plus.
Le seul but est de faire des divisons plus homogènes et de favoriser ceux qui se donnent la peine de jouer leur 100ie.
Les ententes jouant le top 5 ne seraient pas impactées, car elles jouent toutes leurs 100ie.
Les 100ie ne sont pas insurmontable, il

You're completely wrong. It doesn't matter to me whether we're in D1 or below. What worries me is the fact of having my arse between two chairs

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

myforsans: Franchement si cette réforme aboutissait ton entente est le type même d'entente qui y trouverait son compte.
Dans ton intervention, tu parles de ton cas mais j'ai pas l'impression que ce que tu dis soit représentatif de la majorité des membres de ton entente vu que

1. vous avez 38 membres affrichés
2. mais vous n'avez joué que 89 matchs
3. 9 clubs ont totalisé à eux seuls 73 matchs, soit la quasi totalité de ce que vous avez joué
4. les 3/4 des membres de l'entente ont joué 0 ou 1 ma

We're not aiming for the title.
Is it really that hard to understand that an agreement can aim to finish in around 10th place?
I don't understand why you're all talking about the title. Are Angers, Strasbourg or Rennes aiming for the Ligue 1 title?

Secondly, we have an eternal rotation in our agreement. While some are competitive, others are training youngsters. We've never had a bunch of clubs ready to fight. We impose a minimum NG to play matches. We try to recruit members who want to make a long-term commitment. And so far so good. We're probably the last agreement still using a forum, we've chosen not to go down the discord route, we're purists and we represent those values.
We probably won't be playing 100 IE next season or the one after that.
We have a different approach to the big deals and we'll probably never do another top 5 in our lives. But we're here and we like who we are and what we do.

Nicularo: Nous n’avons pas vocation à viser le titre.
C est vraiment si dur que ça à comprendre qu’une entente peut avoir pour objectif de finir aux alentours de la 10e place ?
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous parlez tous de titre. Est-ce que Angers, Strasbourg ou Rennes visent le titre de ligue 1 ?

Ensuite, on a une rotation éternelle dans notre entente. Pendant que certains sont compétitifs, d’autres forment des jeunes. On a jamais eu une flopée de clubs prêts au combat. On impose une NG

Can you change the name to a club other than racing 😂

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.

Morten34: Pour ma part, j’avais fait cette proposition à l’époque:

IS: Garder les 6 matchs par saison: 6 pts en cas de victoire et 2 pts en cas de match nul.

IE: Refondre les divisions de la façon suivante:
D1 à 12 ententes (4 descentes)
D2a à 12 ententes (2 montées et 4 descentes)
D2b à 12 ententes (2 montées et 4 descentes)
D3a à 12 ententes (2 montées et 1 descente)
D3b à 12 ententes (2 montées et 1 descente)
D3c à 12 ententes (2 montées et 1 descente)
D3d à 12 ententes (2 montées

Pro!

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

myforsans: Franchement si cette réforme aboutissait ton entente est le type même d'entente qui y trouverait son compte.
Dans ton intervention, tu parles de ton cas mais j'ai pas l'impression que ce que tu dis soit représentatif de la majorité des membres de ton entente vu que

1. vous avez 38 membres affrichés
2. mais vous n'avez joué que 89 matchs
3. 9 clubs ont totalisé à eux seuls 73 matchs, soit la quasi totalité de ce que vous avez joué
4. les 3/4 des membres de l'entente ont joué 0 ou 1 ma

As Nicularo said, we have a rotation in the competitive members. That's not the problem, things run smoothly in the ELU, and each member knows how many IE they can play!
I don't know about ALL my entente colleagues, but a lot of us want to play against the big boys, and that helps us progress too!
A D1 with 8 agreements, we know that we ELU we will do that to go up and down, but it can also motivate us to become stronger

Then, as with every club on VF, you have to give yourself the means to achieve your ambitions, that's for sure!

If the idea (and it's a good one) comes to fruition, who knows, the ELU will be at the top like the CPs are 😍

I support this idea

And what does the boss think? @Aymeric?

thomas33980: Tu peux modifier et mettre un autre clubs que le racing ? 😂

Sorry 🤣

franck40: Et le patron il en pense quoi ?? @Aymeric??

The boss is preparing for the summer, he doesn't have time to read what he's been reading for 19 years :D

Nicularo: Pardon 🤣

You put strasbourg in while we're playing for the title now 😁

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.