But to have 4 IPL teams in a Champions League when their win% is considerably lower than the Aussie, South African and West Indian franchises is just plain disgusting and pathetic.
Have you got the stats to back it up? (I'm sure you do, I just want to see it.
)
----------
It is ridiculous though, I agree. If I were to do it, it'd be like this;
without qualification.
India - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Australia - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
South Africa - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Pakistan - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
England - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Sri Lanka - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
West Indies - 1 team, winner.
New Zealand - 1 team, winner.
Bangladesh - 1 team, winner.
Zimbabwe - 1 team, winner.
16 teams, the competition will be longer than say I'd like, but this is the fairest way you could do it.
Or you could do something like this;
with qualification.
India - 2 teams, winner, runner-up.
Australia - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
South Africa - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Pakistan - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
England - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Sri Lanka - 2 teams, winner and runner-up.
Qualification:
India - 1 team, table topper.
Australia - 1 team, table topper.
South Africa - 1 team, table topper.
Pakistan - 1 team, table topper.
England - 1 team, table topper.
Sri Lanka - 1 team, table topper.
West Indies - 1 team, winner.
New Zealand - 1 team, winner.
Bangladesh - 1 team, winner.
Zimbabwe - 1 team, winner.
4 teams(16 total) move on to the next stage, this way the likes of Trinidad & Tobago have a chance.