Expansion of the IPL

[honestbharani]

Ok... I know this is waaaaaaaaay too early to start this kind of speculation and this thread is probably a good 2 years ahead of its time, but what if the IPL becomes very successful and pulls in a lot of eyeballs, both at the grounds and on the telly, over the next 3 years or so?


Do we see an expansion of the IPL in terms of the no. of T20 games or do we actually see the IPL start to have a 50 overs competition and then later on, a 4 day FC competition?


Personally, even though more T20 games would probably mean more money and better return on investment for the owners, I would LOVE to see them expand to 4 day and 50 over competitions.. Ultimately, THAT would benefit cricket as a whole, and esp. Indian cricket, that much more than juz a Twenty20 league. Imagine a Brett Lee to Ponting in an Indian FC game.. We could simply juz allow 3 overseas players max per team, because given the international schedule anyways, not THAT many of the IPL overseas signings will be available. But if they start making money out of this, the owners might be willing to spend on some of the domestic FC cricketers from other countries and also on some of the guys in our country itself, esp. players from the catchment areas....


Maybe the Ranji and other premier domestic comps of India would juz end up becoming feeders in that case, but I don't think it is such a bad thing at all. With cricket not really in that much of health in places like New Zealand and Windies, THIS could be the spark that could make the kids take up cricket again in a big way and as a career option. I am sure it has its downsides, but with lesser number of teams and more money involved and probably more professionally run teams, (and with the owners controlling the stadiums and stuff during the IPL matches, I am sure they will take good care of the spectators as well, which MIGHT bring back at least some crowds to domestic cricket), I think it would help our game as a whole, not juz the BCCI....


Thoughts??

 

[Goughy]

Common sense expansion and significance would be the IPCL.

Like the ABA and AFL, merging with the official legaue and joining 2 products together to make a stronger whole

 

[Richard]

The ICL is a private league, though, run by someone who formed it because the BCCI did not give him what he wanted.

For the ICL and IPL to be, in effect, "merged" would require submission on one person's part. It seems likeliest to be Subhash Chandra - that he would accept that Zee have lost the chance to gain rights to Indian cricket and fold the ICL. Or it would require (and this currently seems highly unlikely, but then so did the outcome after the first year of WSC) the ICL to gain potency and manage to steal most of the best cricketers from around The World, forcing the BCCI to give Zee all Indian cricket rights.

This would require Chandra having a Neville Wran figure of his own, which doesn't currently seem likely given Sharad Pawar's political connections.

 

[Richard]

Ok... I know this is waaaaaaaaay too early to start this kind of speculation and this thread is probably a good 2 years ahead of its time, but what if the IPL becomes very successful and pulls in a lot of eyeballs, both at the grounds and on the telly, over the next 3 years or so?


Do we see an expansion of the IPL in terms of the no. of T20 games or do we actually see the IPL start to have a 50 overs competition and then later on, a 4 day FC competition?


Personally, even though more T20 games would probably mean more money and better return on investment for the owners, I would LOVE to see them expand to 4 day and 50 over competitions.. Ultimately, THAT would benefit cricket as a whole, and esp. Indian cricket, that much more than juz a Twenty20 league. Imagine a Brett Lee to Ponting in an Indian FC game.. We could simply juz allow 3 overseas players max per team, because given the international schedule anyways, not THAT many of the IPL overseas signings will be available. But if they start making money out of this, the owners might be willing to spend on some of the domestic FC cricketers from other countries and also on some of the guys in our country itself, esp. players from the catchment areas....


Maybe the Ranji and other premier domestic comps of India would juz end up becoming feeders in that case, but I don't think it is such a bad thing at all. With cricket not really in that much of health in places like New Zealand and Windies, THIS could be the spark that could make the kids take up cricket again in a big way and as a career option. I am sure it has its downsides, but with lesser number of teams and more money involved and probably more professionally run teams, (and with the owners controlling the stadiums and stuff during the IPL matches, I am sure they will take good care of the spectators as well, which MIGHT bring back at least some crowds to domestic cricket), I think it would help our game as a whole, not juz the BCCI....


Thoughts??

Really, Honest, isn't it already the case that the Ranji and Duleep and Premier tournaments, while obviously not franchise investments and defined strictly along geographical lines, are basically the 50-over and 4-day equivalents of the IPL? The IPL, for all intents and purposes, is just the Indian domestic Twenty20 competition, with liberal amounts of overseas players and with corporate\geographical, rather than purely geographical, overseeing organisations.

Obviously, we really don't want to see overseas players become the common currency of Indian domestic cricket, not least because it'd essentially take-up the entire SH summer (and subcontinent winter, both of which are "cricket season" type) and leave no time for international cricket.

TBH, I think we want to see the corporate wing left in Twenty20. It's exactly what Twenty20 is best used for. I've said several times that I hope maybe the IPL, if it becomes internationally popular rather than just in India, will alleviate the need for international Twenty20 games.

If it alleviates the need for Tests, though, that would be, well, rather a shame to put it mildly.

 

[honestbharani]

Really, Honest, isn't it already the case that the Ranji and Duleep and Premier tournaments, while obviously not franchise investments and defined strictly along geographical lines, are basically the 50-over and 4-day equivalents of the IPL? The IPL, for all intents and purposes, is just the Indian domestic Twenty20 competition, with liberal amounts of overseas players and with corporate\geographical, rather than purely geographical, overseeing organisations.

Obviously, we really don't want to see overseas players become the common currency of Indian domestic cricket, not least because it'd essentially take-up the entire SH summer (and subcontinent winter, both of which are "cricket season" type) and leave no time for international cricket.

TBH, I think we want to see the corporate wing left in Twenty20. It's exactly what Twenty20 is best used for. I've said several times that I hope maybe the IPL, if it becomes internationally popular rather than just in India, will alleviate the need for international Twenty20 games.

If it alleviates the need for Tests, though, that would be, well, rather a shame to put it mildly.

I am not sure if you understood what I was trying to say there...


IPL is juz the domestic T20 tourney of India and in that respect, it is similar to our Ranji and Duleep and other tourneys. But the main difference is, the teams are professionally managed and they will have access to better facilities. Juz look at how the corporatizing of the teams has helped them with the branding and stuff...


The main point would be that there are only 8 teams, which would mean the quality will be higher.

Secondly, even though it seems superficial as of now, at least each team is based on one city, and therefore, given a decent number of guys from the catchment areas and not too much chip-chopping of the overseas players currently signed up, it would or could create some amount of loyalty with the fans and therefore, help out with (atleast slightly) better attendances at the grounds.


Thirdly, and it is related to the second point, with the corporates taking over the stadia management during the IPL matches, they are sure to treat spectators at least a little better than how they are being treated right now, at the very least. It might make watching cricket a popular pastime for the casual person.


And fourthy, no, the international game need not be threatened by this as it will always remain as the domestic tournament of India and that's it. IT will involve foreign players, mainly guys who are free of international and/or domestic commitments at that time, but the majority will still be Indian players playing and if it does reach those levels, I do think performance in the IPL (I mean the 4 day and 1 day comps here) might end up determining whether a player can play for India or not ....

 

[Richard]

The thing is, though, players who are not playing internationals can't be skipping around the globe for a week to play a game or two in India. It's just not practical. Players must be devoted properly to either domestic or international cricket - barring a vast reduction in the international calender. And while some amount of reduction is needed and has been for a long time, I don't want too much.

And on the spectator issues... domestic-First-Class cricket is not, never has been and almost certainly never will be a spectator sport anywhere in The World (bar England up to about the 1920s and very briefly following WWII). There's no way anything is going to make it so... unless it overrides the international game. And I don't want it to.

Domestic cricket is juuuuuuuuuust fine without spectators. I'm sure the IPL will see packed stands (I certainly hope it will) and if it's managed well long-term it'll continue to do so. But there's no need, at all, for this to knock-on to domestic FC cricket. India is no different to anywhere else in having no spectators for the domestic FC game.

 

[honestbharani]

The thing is, though, players who are not playing internationals can't be skipping around the globe for a week to play a game or two in India. It's just not practical. Players must be devoted properly to either domestic or international cricket - barring a vast reduction in the international calender. And while some amount of reduction is needed and has been for a long time, I don't want too much.

And on the spectator issues... domestic-First-Class cricket is not, never has been and almost certainly never will be a spectator sport anywhere in The World (bar England up to about the 1920s and very briefly following WWII). There's no way anything is going to make it so... unless it overrides the international game. And I don't want it to.

Domestic cricket is juuuuuuuuuust fine without spectators. I'm sure the IPL will see packed stands (I certainly hope it will) and if it's managed well long-term it'll continue to do so. But there's no need, at all, for this to knock-on to domestic FC cricket. India is no different to anywhere else in having no spectators for the domestic FC game.

I am not fully sure what you meant and I don't have time to reply fully anyways, right now...


But one thing I will tell is that, while I can see why domestic FC will never really be a big spectator sport, I do think at least some amount of interest can be generated to it, esp. if IPL's T20 version takes off and they decide to stage 4 day and 1 day comps as well as part of the IPL.... The loyalty and fan base (however small) that has been created will at least create passing interest in domestic FC, AFAIC. And that can only be good. IF it will at least make you check scores off the internet or even on TV from time to time......

 

[Richard]

As I say - for mine, it's not realistic to expect IPL teams to play anything more than Twenty20, without disrupting - badly disrupting - the international schedule.

I don't think international cricket (or, really, domestic cricket anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere and subcontinent) would be viable any more should IPL-style domestic teams start playing First-Class and one-day cricket.

 

[ret]

Let's start with the 20T first .... instead of 8 teams, i would want that reduced to 6 with each team having 6 overseas players in the squad with a limit of playing 5 in the X1 .... the squad size should be limited to 16 or in the worst case 20

the same formula can be adapted for 50 overs games and 4 day games .... the overseas players can be different for the different formats, depending up on the availability of players

 

[honestbharani]

As I say - for mine, it's not realistic to expect IPL teams to play anything more than Twenty20, without disrupting - badly disrupting - the international schedule.

I don't think international cricket (or, really, domestic cricket anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere and subcontinent) would be viable any more should IPL-style domestic teams start playing First-Class and one-day cricket.

Well, simply include a clause that says international and national FC games take preference over the IPL and then we will see.. Anyways, given the way the international and national seasons are distributed across the cricket playing nations, there will always be SOME players who are available and the IPL teams will have to make do with whoever is available and play other Indian guys in the other spots. If the T20 championship does take off, it MAY create a star or two out of the hitherto obscure domestic or under 19 players and it might give us a reason to follow the IPL in those formats too, although maybe not with the same amount of enthusiasm...

 

[Richard]

Really, though, Honest, look at the calender. During the October-March period, very few teams have more than a few weeks off at a time. And those few weeks, the players need all the rest and escape from the game of cricket they can get.

I honestly (no pun intended) just don't see that the idea you have is practical, TBH. There's a reason overseas-players have almost always been restricted to domestic competitions over here. There just isn't time for countries whose home season is played concurrantly to 5 others (there's Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all playing at the same time, then West Indies a bit later).

It's not a bad idea - just unworkable. If the IPL was played in the UK it'd be a different matter.

 

[honestbharani]

Really, though, Honest, look at the calender. During the October-March period, very few teams have more than a few weeks off at a time. And those few weeks, the players need all the rest and escape from the game of cricket they can get.

I honestly (no pun intended) just don't see that the idea you have is practical, TBH. There's a reason overseas-players have almost always been restricted to domestic competitions over here. There just isn't time for countries whose home season is played concurrantly to 5 others (there's Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all playing at the same time, then West Indies a bit later).

It's not a bad idea - just unworkable. If the IPL was played in the UK it'd be a different matter.

tbh, given how big India is and how unpredictable the weather generally is (it is raining out here in Chennai, in MARCH, which I haven't ever seen and I lived all my life here), I don't see why we can't have the season somewhat later or whenever. And secondly, I said only those overseas and Indian national team players who ARE available need to play... For the rest of the team, they can use the other domestic players and guys coming through from their academies (if they have them) etc...


I am not talking about overworking players at all here... Players can get all the breaks they need.... And I am talking well out in the future here, at least a good 5 years hence.