Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 851
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Sat, 08 Apr 2017, 06:50

thatrugbyguy wrote:
jservuk wrote:The weakness I have found groups of 4 teams is that by the end of game 2 you can get 1 or 2 teams eliminated (England in 2014). This is especially a pity for teams who rarely get to go there. Losing the first game often makes the second game in the group much more tense and nervy, and very enjoyable for the neutral. Perhaps this is why international football has declined -0 the group mentality dominates long term thinking for most teams. Have 4 or 5 games means there is more time for a group to unfold. It would also mean more big games as each group would have 2-3 big teams fighting it out. When was the last time Germany, Brazil had really tough group games in FIFA WC? This is where RWC has it right - each group does have a t least one blockbuster.


The truth is a lot of nations are just happy to be there, it's not really about progressing to the second round.


Yep, just making it to the RWC is a big plus for many teams. Making it past the pool stage is neither here nor there, it's just an added incentive.

Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 08 Apr 2017, 12:16

For rugby it's a bit different I feel. In football's World Cup at least 25% of the teams know they really don't stand much of a chance to progress, for rugby it's hard for 50% teams to look beyond finishing third at best. The scheduling doesn't help things either. This is why I think the 6 pools of 4 method can help change that by having a round of 16. Yes, you will get pools that are much stronger than others. However, it will also means you'll get a more unpredictable tournament. Based on current world rankings you could get a pool that looks like this:

Ireland, Wales, Japan, Samoa

That's a pretty cut throat pool.

Online
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 08 Apr 2017, 23:14

So here's a question...what's the weakness with saying we can't extend the length of the WC? 2026 FIFA WC will expand to 48 teams...is that not insane. Push to 24. Bring the younger and smaller Rugby Playing nations up.

Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby YamahaKiwi » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 01:30

IMHO 48 teams is insane. it's just too big for what is supposed to be a team sport's elite event. There will be teams there that quite honestly don't deserve to be. I think even the Oceania Confederation will get a direct place which is ridiculous, and I'm saying that as a NZer. Even the Euros have been destroyed by expanding to 24 from 16, which now means 50% of teams reach the Euros, when before you had a nice format 16 team competition which was a real dogfight to qualify for. Even Scotland might get to play in the Euros again! :lol: IMO the max number of teams in a RWC, or any team sport should be 32. More than that and it starts getting farcical.

Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 02:52

I actually wouldn't be opposed to reverting to a 16 RWC if it meant the 6N and RC teams having to actually qualify. But that's not going to happen. I do wonder what happens if multiple T1 nations fail to get automatic qualification for the next world cup. England and Italy could easily have come 4th in their pools in 2015. The last time a T1 nation had to qualify was back in 2002.

Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 07:34

thatrugbyguy wrote:I actually wouldn't be opposed to reverting to a 16 RWC if it meant the 6N and RC teams having to actually qualify. But that's not going to happen. I do wonder what happens if multiple T1 nations fail to get automatic qualification for the next world cup. England and Italy could easily have come 4th in their pools in 2015. The last time a T1 nation had to qualify was back in 2002.


A 16 team world cup would be a catastrophy for the global exposure, growth and future of rugby.

If a 6N team fails direct qualification they should be told that they weren't part of Rugby Europe competition, the governing body of Rugby in Europe and they need to start from the buttom. The European qualification system does allow them to still qualify. As easy as that. No exceptions to rules they otherwise break as they like.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 851
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 08:03

It's actually good to make a 24 team format.
There are too many casualties of the 20 team format, and teams are improving everyday.
Personally, the best way to reward teams for their hard work over the years, is to give them a rugby world cup spot.
Incentives are important to keep people focused and motivated.

Posts: 206
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby jservuk » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 10:43

Is one of the advantages of a expanded competition a general (albeit slow) progression of the level of "smaller" nations? If yes, then let's get on with it.

With 48 teams, FIFA will be able to improve the chances of emerging big markets India, China, Indonesia making it there, whilst also ensuring better chances for football mad countries like Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Scotland, Nigeria, South Africa and others in Far East making in there. I don't think the World Cup has been just about "elite" level for many years now, but also a celebration of the football world. The pity is that winning/progressing has become such an important goal that it has led to stifling of the spirit with which most people love to play and watch the game for.

For me, as for many others, I think a World Cup is like having Christmas for a whole month. I have often thought that even a poor World Cup match is better than any other form of entertainment. Though I have tempered this view over the recent years, I am sure there are many who still lap it up. So, for many, an expanded WC is dream land. That is from the general fan and casual viewers point of view.

From a sponsors point of view - wonderful, the value of the sponsorship must go up if there are more teams there, and if you get India and China in there, bingo!!!. Which means it would be better for the sport in terms of money coming in.

I also reckon the TV revenue from nations varies depending on whether they qualified or not. (Although, note that the Russians are refusing FIFA asking price of $120m for 2018, an increase from $40m ... so we could have the host nation without it being shown on local TV!!). So again, with expansion would come more revenue to help grow the sport.

I think for RWC, it has to be about expansion. Expansion also brings its own excitement.

My one lament is I hope with expansion it doesn't all become about using mega stadia. I would love to see traditional grounds used even in FIFA, and a real push to give free tickets away to local schools.

Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby YamahaKiwi » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 11:03

I actually think until the last FIFA WC in Brazil which was a real festival of football, the last few WCs had been pretty crap in terms of quality with heaps of boring, dud games. In my biased opinion the RWCs have been better quality spectacles, especially as the T2 teams have become steadily more competitive.

as far as traditional stadia are concerned, the Japan v Scotland game at Kingsholm was a terrible joke! That game should've been held at a stadia with at least double the capacity. I'm sure many people who wanted tickets to that game missed out because it was so easily and quickly sold out. As a Japan fan I was disgusted with the ignorant decision to hold one of the bigger games of that pool at such a small ground. It was very obvious that the local organizing committee were ignorant of Japan's improved results post 2011RWC.

Posts: 103
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2016, 04:18
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby eal22 » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 20:20

I think a World Cup should showcase the game at its finest, but also understand that it serves the purpose of growing the game. A 48-team FIFA World Cup is a disaster, much-like the 24 team Euro 2016 where an undeserving Portugal scraped their way to the championship. A 24 team RWC doesn't seem too unsuitable, although how many quality teams are really missing out with the 20-team format?

Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 20:42

I thought Euro 2016 was brilliant! Don't see how Portugal are more undeserving than loads of other teams that have won it. Greece were crap and they managed to win, that's the joy of sport.

Posts: 206
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby jservuk » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 22:07

YamahaKiwi wrote:I actually think until the last FIFA WC in Brazil which was a real festival of football, the last few WCs had been pretty crap in terms of quality with heaps of boring, dud games. In my biased opinion the RWCs have been better quality spectacles, especially as the T2 teams have become steadily more competitive.

as far as traditional stadia are concerned, the Japan v Scotland game at Kingsholm was a terrible joke! That game should've been held at a stadia with at least double the capacity. I'm sure many people who wanted tickets to that game missed out because it was so easily and quickly sold out. As a Japan fan I was disgusted with the ignorant decision to hold one of the bigger games of that pool at such a small ground. It was very obvious that the local organising committee were ignorant of Japan's improved results post 2011RWC.


I think I've said it before but the greatest (and most heart breaking) football World Cup game I have ever seen was Brazil Italy in 82. Played in Barcelona .... in front a packed 45,000 . No, not at Nou Camp, but poor old Espanol's less palatial ground. The atmosphere was as magnificent as the game itself, though the result was an absolute travesty.

I think there is a balance to be struck, but I know I am a lone voice. Everyone wants their event to capture that spellbinding shot in a mega stadium filled with corporate ticket holders all too busy looking out for when they appear on the big screen in the stadium. The bump and grind of an old school ground and atmosphere is often missing from these big events.

Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Sun, 09 Apr 2017, 22:30

I think I've said it before but the greatest (and most heart breaking) football World Cup game I have ever seen was Brazil Italy in 82. Played in Barcelona .... in front a packed 45,000 . No, not at Nou Camp, but poor old Espanol's less palatial ground. The atmosphere was as magnificent as the game itself, though the result was an absolute travesty.


The three Brazilian football national tragedies: 1950, 1982 and 2016. But 1950 and 1982 there is nothing to be ashamed of...

I think even the Oceania Confederation will get a direct place which is ridiculous, and I'm saying that as a NZer.


That's why I started a thread in "Other subjects" about the split of AFC in West Asia and East Asia/Oceania confederations.

thatrugbyguy wrote:
I actually wouldn't be opposed to reverting to a 16 RWC if it meant the 6N and RC teams having to actually qualify. But that's not going to happen. I do wonder what happens if multiple T1 nations fail to get automatic qualification for the next world cup. England and Italy could easily have come 4th in their pools in 2015. The last time a T1 nation had to qualify was back in 2002.



A 16 team world cup would be a catastrophy for the global exposure, growth and future of rugby.

If a 6N team fails direct qualification they should be told that they weren't part of Rugby Europe competition, the governing body of Rugby in Europe and they need to start from the buttom. The European qualification system does allow them to still qualify. As easy as that. No exceptions to rules they otherwise break as they like.


For countries where rugby is not popular it is crucial to be in a World Cup to expose rugby. A Qualy tournament, even if with strong teams, wouldn't make much difference, specially if the Tier1 teams smash their opponents. 16 teams-WC world kill countries like Spain, Germany or Brazil, because local media would keep giving a damn to the sport. We need the WC.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 00:00

victorsra wrote: The three Brazilian football national tragedies: 1950, 1982 and 2016.


Don't forget the 1998 final.

victorsra wrote: But 1950 and 1982 there is nothing to be ashamed of...


Brazil was too confident of triumph in 1950.

For countries where rugby is not popular it is crucial to be in a World Cup to expose rugby. A Qualy tournament, even if with strong teams, wouldn't make much difference

Exactly.

Posts: 103
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2016, 04:18
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby eal22 » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 03:52

If World cup exposure is crucial to the growth of rugby, we should just give China and India automatic berths, they are the biggest markets who don't really play Rugby.

Online
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby TheStroBro » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 04:55

eal22 wrote:I think a World Cup should showcase the game at its finest, but also understand that it serves the purpose of growing the game. A 48-team FIFA World Cup is a disaster, much-like the 24 team Euro 2016 where an undeserving Portugal scraped their way to the championship. A 24 team RWC doesn't seem too unsuitable, although how many quality teams are really missing out with the 20-team format?


They're not undeserving if they win...

Posts: 851
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 10:17

eal22 wrote:If World cup exposure is crucial to the growth of rugby, we should just give China and India automatic berths, they are the biggest markets who don't really play Rugby.


Please don't be sarcastic eal22. There are so many good countries out here, who want to join the elite RWC but are not given a chance. Which competition has 12 automatic slots apart from rugby? It's so unfair to the rest. :cry:

Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 11:46

eal22 wrote:If World cup exposure is crucial to the growth of rugby, we should just give China and India automatic berths, they are the biggest markets who don't really play Rugby.


That's a poor strawman. No one is arguing for unearned access.

The points being made repeatedly are that there are already at least 4 teams at about the level of Nambia and Uruguay. So with more spots to earn as an ancillary benefit we would see growth in new countries. Its a good job people didn't think like this at 16 teams, because USA would surely have missed out several times in that instance.

Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 11:54

The main reason it was expanded to 20 was to get the US into the world cup. 1999 was the worst possible time to expand the world cup because the gap between professionals and amateurs blew out massively in the 4 years between 95 and 99.

Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 14:41

Yes, we are talking about nations that are already knocking the door of the RWC. And we are talking about an expansion that might just happen for 2027.

No one that follows T2/3 rugby doubts about Kenya, Spain, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Portugal, Belgium, Zimbabwe... all team that failed to go to 2015 but are able to be there until 2027. And of course Uruguay can keep improving, Canada can recover, Namibia is not dead, and Asian can appear and so on... (btw, I am seeing many good things in India on development actions and China is set to have a huge amount of investment from Alibaba).

Don't forget the 1998 final.


Yes, but in 1998 we were playing at Paris against a French team that could be regarded as favorite. In 1950 and 2016 we were playing at home and 1982 we were clear favorites.

Brazil was too confident of triumph in 1950.


Biggest football lesson: NEVER underestimate Uruguay. NEVER.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 35
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BertSolomon » Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 20:35

victorsra wrote:Biggest football lesson: NEVER underestimate Uruguay. NEVER.


Brazil didn't underestimate them last month...

Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sun, 11 Jun 2017, 20:56

How will we ever get to 24 teams if even the president of a union on the edge (Uruguay) doesn't understand that a 24 teams RWC would actually mean the same or even less games and length.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/0 ... -far-away/

Hope something was lost in translation. If not I am truly stunned.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

User avatar
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Mon, 26 Jun 2017, 14:24

RugbyLiebe wrote:How will we ever get to 24 teams if even the president of a union on the edge (Uruguay) doesn't understand that a 24 teams RWC would actually mean the same or even less games and length.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/0 ... -far-away/

Hope something was lost in translation. If not I am truly stunned.


Which 24-team tournament format would have less matches than the current 48?

Posts: 544
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Mon, 26 Jun 2017, 14:56

The issue is surely the number of games per side, not the number of games in total in the tournament. A 24 team contest could (and probably would) be shorter in duration than the current 20 team format and would help alleviate fixture congestion in the global calendar.

Posts: 157
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby antlat » Mon, 26 Jun 2017, 21:45

Rugby World Cup is NOT ready for expansion.

I am thrilled that tier 2 and some tier 3 teams are improving steadily but they are not at a high enough level to warrant more positions at a World Cup.

The fact that it is likely the same 20 nations will compete again proves this point. Perhaps Africa 1 is the most vulnerable with Namibia possibly facing a challenge.

Until we have a new nation that has a breakthrough and qualifies into the World Cup on merit, they MUST not expand the Rugby World Cup. I truly believe that 20 nations out of 103 is the right balance.

I will never watch the FIFA World Cup again. What a disgrace to have 48 teams.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheStroBro and 15 guests