Okay, so let's work with that idea. Where do you draw the line for the top tier? Six teams? And what about the second tier - does that include Afghanistan and Ireland? The 'Big Three' boards are likely to implement some means by which they cannot be relegated, because TV rights.
Ideally it would be six team, but to be fair I really don't see a six team top tier league working (with 4 and a few associates in 2nd tier).
The reasons -
1. No Money for Tier 2 -
The trouble with a two-tier system is that we all know that all the money will be with the top-tier, and the second tier will be starved of both money and global TV rights. With teams like WI struggling financially already, just think of the blow that will be for them. It will be a serious case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
While the upside is that it will make a tier 1 slot even more coveted, but it would kill teams in tier 2.
If it was a one year thing, where by WI could get promoted easily at the end of year and atleast be a yo-yo team, fluctuating between the two tiers in alternate years, then one could perhaps make a case for their finances. One year they will be starved of money, but next year they will be right in the mix. However the league will realistically last 3 years to complete one season. So can teams like WI who are already struggling to pay the players financially really afford to be in tier 2 for 3 years. I think that blow will be just too much. The same goes for Zimbabwe. Right now Zimbabwe don't get too much test cricket anyway but they are treated at par with the big boys, if they were to go down to div 2, with no realistic shot at promotion anytime, that could seriously kill cricket in Zimbabwe.
2. Promotions and Relegation would be a Sham
As you rightly said, 3 of the 6 teams competing will ask for no relegation stipulation. So that really leaves 3 teams with something to lose. Also imagine if the two of the big three did end up in the relegation slots, and didn't get relegated, there would be no promotion. I mean one cannot force teams above them to be relegated. In turn that will imply no promotions from tier 2 either and that will be a big blow for say WI, who were ready to get promoted, but can't so now have to continue to remain in tier 2, and take a step towards bankruptcy.
The alternative is you tell the big three to shut up, and take relegation. However if that happens then money in tier 1 gets a serious hit. Just picture if India got relegated, then the money goes away, the sponsors go away, tier 1 suddenly loses a billion viewers and a billion customers, something that is hardly going to thrill any broadcaster. Could Tier 1 afford to take that hit?
I would suggest something a little bit different, but retaining the idea of a Test league, which I do think is necessary if Test cricket outside a few countries is to have any worthwhile future; I think that such a league should have twelve teams, with promotion and relegation.
I agree with you here, that more than 6 teams are required to make the league meaningful. I would personally say 10 teams (the present 10 test teams) start. Tier 2 could have 5 or 6 of the best associate nations. The target would be that each team plays every other team for one series home and one series away. How many tests would be in one series can still be left to the two boards in question, but should not be less than 3 (ideally), but could be 2 if its more practical. Points shall be given for series results and not individual tests. So if a team wins a series it gets 3 points, a draw series gets 1 point and a loss naturally gets not point.
Promotion and relegation - Can work as neither of the big three will realistically be in a chance of relegation. Since tier two has only 5 or 6 teams, only 1 slot should be open for promotion and thus 1 relegation slot. Teams rotate every cycle, its makes it easier for the associates to get test status, as there is no arbitrariness involved, if you are good enough to qualify you play with the big boys. No more nonsense of ICC deciding who all can play test cricket, by a method which no one quite fully understands. In '99 WC B'desh beat Pakistan and that was good enough to get them test status, but in '03 WC Kenya got to the SFs and still no test status. Work that out somebody.
This would still leave teams with plenty of time to schedule series outside the WTC programme
Why schedule series outside of test champions, as all series can fit within the league. The Ashes for Instance, Eng and Aus can (as explained above) decide that their matches will be five tests each and that will be the Ashes. Both sides can go all out to win, and at the same time points for the win will also add to the league total.
There done. Easy :P
Jokes apart, I am really keen for this to happen, but hopefully ICC don't completely butcher it. An alternative is as you said a 3-tier system. 4 teams 3 divisions (10 test sides and Ireland and Afhghanistan), and each team in the tier plays everyone else, and 1 relegation and promotion from each division to the next tier. With just 4 teams in a division, the leagues could all end a lot faster and still be exciting.
South Africa (1) (
)
)
