Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 187
Joined: Tue, 12 Apr 2016, 14:19
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sammo » Mon, 26 Jun 2017, 22:00

RWC Debutants
2003 - Georgia
2007 - Portugal
2013 - Russia

All on merit, just saying...

Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Mon, 26 Jun 2017, 22:56

If Uruguay and Namibia are there, there is no reason to think Russia, Kenya, Spain can't be in the same tournament. It is one of those teams for each group.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun, 10 Apr 2016, 03:59
National Flag:
BoliviaBolivia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Osmanperalta » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 02:39

Yeah i think the same that victor and for some countries that have rich sport history like brasil spain germany the only way that rugby gets to the media is by playing the world cup

Posts: 728
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 05:06

sammo wrote:RWC Debutants
2003 - Georgia
2007 - Portugal
2013 - Russia

All on merit, just saying...


I think you mean 2011?

Posts: 728
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 05:11

antlat wrote: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.


You are right on this one. One thing I must say is that it will not be business as usual for Namibia and they will definately find it rough on the African terrain.

The only aspect I don't agree with is stopping the expansion.

I mean, for crying out loud, even the stingy cricket world welcomed Afghanistan and Ireland as test nations.

Rugby should follow suit, plus a 24 team format would expand the game to more nations plus make it interesting.

I mean just making the RWC for any nation is an added plus, the rest are neither here nor there.

Posts: 665
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 20:56
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby fullbackace » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 05:32

I'd like to see 24 team world cup but if it doesn't happen, wouldn't it also be viable to creat a world trophy tournament, similar to u20 world trophy. Winner gets the ticket to the real thing. Instead of lets say repechage, 2 teams from each region could compete.

For example if Georgia and Romania get EU tickets next 2 teams can go into trophy instead of 1 repechage
Don't Pray For Easy lives, Pray for enough Beer!

Posts: 728
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 05:43

fullbackace wrote:I'd like to see 24 team world cup but if it doesn't happen, wouldn't it also be viable to creat a world trophy tournament, similar to u20 world trophy. Winner gets the ticket to the real thing. Instead of lets say repechage, 2 teams from each region could compete.

For example if Georgia and Romania get EU tickets next 2 teams can go into trophy instead of 1 repechage


I actually love this idea, if RWC remains a closed shop, someone somwhere will try and create an avenue for people to participate.

It's like if you close a lid tightly and the pressure is immense, the pressure will force the lid open like a champagne cork.

Brilliant idea, im all for it, but it should be strictly for the runners up regionally to avoid watering down the competition.

Posts: 1211
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 07:05

antlat wrote: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.


Do the simple math. Thanks to World Rugby protectionism, there are just three positions on contest for new teams. America? all qualified. Europe? 1,25, but out of 6 remaining contestants 4 (Romania, Spain, Russia, Portugal) already took part the other two have won or lost within defensive bonus points against Romania (Germany won and lost within bonus point) and Georgia (Belgium lost within bonus point). Asia? Fighting for the 0,125 repechage spot Europe fights for. Oceania? 0,125. Africa? 1,25 with two favourites were already there So if hell break lose 3 positions up for grabs. But you have 7 (!) former RWC participants (Romania, Spain, Russia, Portugal, Uruguay (or America3), Zimbabwe, Namibia) als in contest for those 3 places. Only if ALL of them are beaten you'll see 2 new teams in a world-cup. If they are beaten a second time in another round you will see 3.

So where do expect your bloody merit coming from? But still this wouldn't be a problem, but then we have the biggest problem of all:
On the playing level: so how often have you seen 6 Nation teams or Rugby Championship teams play tier3 nations in the last 10 years outside of RWC? Complaining that they are not on the same level, but denying them even the chance to play and adjust to a higher level is simply vicious. Or do you expect those teams just suddenly being on the same level, because a miraculous god sent them on the level of the All Blacks without ever having a game on that level?

In total, I call it hypocrisy und unsportsmanlike and I don't know how this illness of "felt superiority" against minors came into rugby. But we have to get rid of it. And the FIFA WC is not comparable. We are not talking about 48 teams. We are talking about 24 teams which would still be a fight to qualification because there are more nations on that level not qualifying then.
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: 2902
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 07:38

Ultimately whenever expansion does happen we need an overhaul of the entire qualifying system. I've been working on a simplified qualification system that I will share soon, just finalising it.

Posts: 23
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby rey200 » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 07:58

I am all for expansion: Maybe the missing 4 teams are not that strong (AS today btw), but the 20 team modus is shit. But actually the qualifying should be more professional for EVERY frigging country. FIFA is corrupt, but they manage to get you to know the modus with the day they draw the qualification for the world cup. Why is that not possible in the rugby world?

Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 08:07

It's because rugby's competitiveness levels differ far more than football. Regardless though the qualification process for RWC has always been awful and imbalanced. My goal has been to create a system that is far more balanced and easy to follow.

Posts: 23
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby rey200 » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 08:19

I am aware of that. The North American path to the FIFA world cup is more complicated than in South America, and there's a good reason for it. I am not against better teams starting in later stages etc... but when I think about the Americas qualifier... why has Uruguay to suffer from the disadvantage of playing 2 games less than USA/Canada? They all participated last time. I look forward to your posting.

Posts: 1211
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 08:23

thatrugbyguy wrote:It's because rugby's competitiveness levels differ far more than football. Regardless though the qualification process for RWC has always been awful and imbalanced. My goal has been to create a system that is far more balanced and easy to follow.


Which is the case because some nations never even bothered to play other nations. But someday you have to break the vicious circle. And the old "they will get injured" argument is bullshit. Why should a German 110 Kilo forward be less up to the task than a Kiwi forward. The Kiwi might run around, but not injure him.
But we are all aware that due to commercial reasons they won't suddenly break up the 6N or RC or change their habit of playing nobody from "outside".
So the only possibility to break this circle is a 24 team world cup. IT costs nobody a thing leads to an equal schedule more nations involved, more (!) meaningful games all in the same time frame, higher tv-money due to more games (while less for some teams) and more nations involved. We are not talking about 46 or whatever. We are talking about 24, which is absolutely reasonable on so many aspects atm.

Also looking forward towards your posting! SHould be interesting.
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: 153
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby antlat » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 09:35

Do the simple math. Thanks to World Rugby protectionism, there are just three positions on contest for new teams. America? all qualified. Europe? 1,25, but out of 6 remaining contestants 4 (Romania, Spain, Russia, Portugal) already took part the other two have won or lost within defensive bonus points against Romania (Germany won and lost within bonus point) and Georgia (Belgium lost within bonus point). Asia? Fighting for the 0,125 repechage spot Europe fights for. Oceania? 0,125. Africa? 1,25 with two favourites were already there So if hell break lose 3 positions up for grabs. But you have 7 (!) former RWC participants (Romania, Spain, Russia, Portugal, Uruguay (or America3), Zimbabwe, Namibia) als in contest for those 3 places. Only if ALL of them are beaten you'll see 2 new teams in a world-cup. If they are beaten a second time in another round you will see 3.

So where do expect your bloody merit coming from? But still this wouldn't be a problem, but then we have the biggest problem of all:
On the playing level: so how often have you seen 6 Nation teams or Rugby Championship teams play tier3 nations in the last 10 years outside of RWC? Complaining that they are not on the same level, but denying them even the chance to play and adjust to a higher level is simply vicious. Or do you expect those teams just suddenly being on the same level, because a miraculous god sent them on the level of the All Blacks without ever having a game on that level?

In total, I call it hypocrisy und unsportsmanlike and I don't know how this illness of "felt superiority" against minors came into rugby. But we have to get rid of it. And the FIFA WC is not comparable. We are not talking about 48 teams. We are talking about 24 teams which would still be a fight to qualification because there are more nations on that level not qualifying then.


Spain, Russia, Germany and Belgium can still qualify as Europe 1 or Europe 2(by beating Oceania 3) or as Repechage winner.
Portugal can still qualify as Europe 2(by beating Oceania 3) or as Repechage winner.
Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, Cook Islands and Tahiti can still qualify as Repechage winner.
Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Tunisia, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Botswana and Morocco can still qualify as Africa 1 or as Repechage Winner.

That is Europe 1, Europe/Oceania Playoff winner, Africa 1 and Repechage winner can result in a new nation qualifying. By new I mean a team that did not contest the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
If anyone of the above nations listed manage to qualify, then it is also likely they would have met at least one of USA, Romania, Uruguay, Tonga, Samoa, Canada and Fiji to make it. This is qualification by merit.

Is the current qualifying system good.. HELL NO. But the reason World Rugby structures it like this is to save money on meaningless fixtures. It is meaningless fixtures to them because they can guarantee who will qualify from each region regardless of what system they implement.

It sucks, its unfair but that is reality.

On the playing level: so how often have you seen 6 Nation teams or Rugby Championship teams play tier3 nations in the last 10 years outside of RWC?


This is the reason I have always advocated proper all encompassing regional championships. This is the critical missing link in Rugby. I believe regional championships should be established before expanding the Rugby World Cup. As many of the regions have nations that are massively ahead of everyone else, I would create the following Championships
1. Euro - Africa Championship 2. Americas Championship and 3. Asia-Pacific Championship. This is how the regions are grouped in Davis Cup and Fed Cup Tennis so it can be done. Each championship should have a qualification rounds followed a Finals Tournament as is the case in 90% of World Sports. Further once established, I would utilise these championships for qualification to World Cup.

Well that would be my dream.

User avatar
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 17:46
Location: Electoral Palatinate

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby ultravioletu » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 09:55

thatrugbyguy wrote:My goal has been to create a system that is far more balanced and easy to follow.

Let me give a shot here:

A system where top 36 teams, minus the 12 automatic qualifiers, are involved in a final tournament that determines the other 12. This tournament is held in the July or November window of the year prior to RWC. Tournament mode: double KO. In Round 1 - 12 vs. 12. Then 6 winners vs. 6 winners (the six win+win teams qualify after two rounds, the six win+loss teams go to round 3) and 6 losers vs. 6 losers (the six loss+loss teams are eliminated, the other six loss+win teams go to round 3). In the final round the last six teams are determined. A "double KO" system has the advantage that lessens the effects of "unlucky" draws.

The continental distribution of those 36 places would be something like: Europe 14, Oceania 6, Americas 6, Africa 6, Asia 4. The exact number of qualification participants per continent is determined by subtracting the automatic qualifiers (e.g. based on RWC 2015 results, Europe would have 7, Oceania 4). It's up to each region to determine the path towards those numbers (e.g. Europe would use ENC).

In a 24-team RWC with 6 groups, the above win+win qualifieres would be seeded at position 3, the remaining (win+loss+win or loss+win+win) qualifiers would be "band 4".

Posts: 1396
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 10:30

antlat wrote: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.



So you don't want expansion if the 21-24 sides close the gap and the top 20 stay strong but would be happy to have it if one or more side collapses and someone new gets in without improving their level?

Just engage your brain for a second. The number of debutants tells us nothing on the merits of expanding the World Cup.

Posts: 234
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Bogdan_DC » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 11:23

Ok keep the actual status but with one condition: let's play ALL qualifiers!
I am pretty sure that one in a time, some of the grands will make a blunder. And suddenly more voices will raise for a 24 countries World Cup.
Wake up boys, T1 will not raise a finger if is not about them. So make it to be about them or bring a good economist to show THE MONEY! :))

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 09:37
National Flag:
BelgiumBelgium

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby bolleje » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 11:52

I agree that instead of waiting for an expansion of the World Cup, the smaller nations could also target Regional Championships. Especially in Europe, next to the Olympics and the 'World Cup' the general sport brand 'European Championships' is also pretty significant. I would even dare to say that in Belgium the participation of our national rugby team to an official European Championships would be bigger in general media then the inclusion in the Six Nations (which nobody outside the rugby world knows about). Recently, the Belgian basket girls took bronze in Eurobasket which made them almost stars. If they would have won some high-level prestigious tournament... nobody would've cared. In the same way, I think rugby could profit from adapting the term 'European Championships'.

The British & Irish Lions tour makes a good opportunity in my opinion to schedule this. There is an international window and the home nations would have to do it without some of their stars. Maybe that would impact the prestige of the tournament a little, but it might also make it a little more competitive. And the Home Nations would get a perfect event to create some new stars.

For the format: Currently max. 9 European teams can participate in the World Cup. So everything above that means at least some teams without World Cup participation (that year) get a chance to participate in a big tournament. I think to start 10 or 12 teams would be a good number (to have some inexperienced teams but also keep the level sufficiently high).

The 12 teams I would divide into 4 groups of 3 teams.
Band 1: England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland
Band 2: France, Italy, Georgia, Romania
Band 3: Russia, Spain, Germany, Belgium

Group winners play semi-finals and final, the second-placed teams play for 5th place and the last four for 9th.

For a big country like England, that could for example mean they play Italy first, then field their second team against Germany, qualify for a semi final against Wales and the final against Ireland. Italy, Germany, Wales, Ireland... qualitywise and scheduling wise it's about the same as they play now during the mid-season friendlies. And with a lot less traveling...

For the smaller country (Germany), they get the chance to play tier1-opponents Italy & England first, then maybe have some 'easier' games against Russia and finally Belgium.

Georgia would be a great first country to organize it. Imagine Georgia battling France for the 5th place before the Euro final England-Ireland in Tbilisi... .

Posts: 1211
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 12:17

antlat wrote: By new I mean a team that did not contest the 2015 Rugby World Cup.


So every world cup so far, there was a new team. So you are now for expansion?

2003 - Georgia
2007 - Portugal
2011 - Russia
2015 - Uruguay

So where did this teams come from? Europe, Europe replacing Americas, Europe replacing Europe, Americas replacing Europe. That's what you call a bottle-neck.

nations sitting out in 2015 who had already taken part: Russia, Spain, Portugal, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast. And apart from the Ivory Coast, all are still competitive.
Also we had other RWC 2015 participants beaten since the cup by teams who have never qualified (Germany (Uruguay+Romania), Brazil (Canada+USA). And than some other teams more than capable like Kenya, Uganda, Belgium, Hong Kong.. Especially, if they get the 6-8 weeks preparation together RWC participants get

This makes at least 30 teams capable of playing in a 24 teams world cup. Will they challenge the 6N and RC teams? Off course not. Will they be an enrichment to the rugby world? Off course!

But I am really curious what exactly would your definition of merit be to expand the RWC?


Apart from that I've always been a big friend of bolleje's idea of a true Euro championship. But lets be honest, especially after the Home Nations even chickening out of U18-Euros, when they don't like the result, the most realistic and only option is a 24 team RWC.
Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 12:49, edited 1 time in total.
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: 728
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 12:49

I find it extremely shocking, and in bad taste for someone above to write that the RWC does not need expansion to 24 teams.

If you knew how most T2 and T3 nations spend alot of time and money, only to be frustrated year after year.

Just because you come from one of the few priviledged nations to make it, doesn't mean that you look down upon others.

It would be good to trade places with some of you to know how it feels like.

You have no idea what people went through for Kenya to move from position 34 in 2014 to be in the top 25 3 years later.

Some of you here are just T1 chauvenists, but with time and more effort, I am hopeful there will be a change in the pecking order.

It may take time, but t2's and t3's will finally reach there.

FYI, there have been cases where players went into depression after failing to qualify for major tournaments like World Cups.

Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 15:00

To be honest, Rugby World Cup doesn't need 24 teams. Maybe not even more than 16. Money flow would be almost the same, number of games would be reduced for the sake of player welfare and most fans would have their favourite teams in.

However, rugby as a whole needs 24 teams in the Rugby World Cup to expand and fight against other sports at a global stage, increasing earnings for all actors in the long run.

Unfortunately I often find T2 and T3 nations/players/fans fail to understand asking for 'fair play' isn't an adequate enough reason to justify their/our cause. Big boys don't give a damn about little performance gaps between 18th and 25th ranked nations.

Posts: 234
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Bogdan_DC » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 15:39

Armchair Fan wrote:To be honest, Rugby World Cup doesn't need 24 teams. Maybe not even more than 16. Money flow would be almost the same, number of games would be reduced for the sake of player welfare and most fans would have their favourite teams in.

However, rugby as a whole needs 24 teams in the Rugby World Cup to expand and fight against other sports at a global stage, increasing earnings for all actors in the long run.

Unfortunately I often find T2 and T3 nations/players/fans fail to understand asking for 'fair play' isn't an adequate enough reason to justify their/our cause. Big boys don't give a damn about little performance gaps between 18th and 25th ranked nations.

16TH!

Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 15:49

I don't even put Romania in the same basket as Uruguay, Namibia, Spain, Russia...

Posts: 305
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby TheStroBro » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 15:56

It's a question of whether the IRB wants to truly grow the game. Because if they do, there will be more money for everyone over time. More broadcasters in more countries will want to pay for rights. Whereas, Cricket WC has 10 teams...who wants to watch that?

Posts: 177
Joined: Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 16:02
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby STMKY » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 16:00

If rugby is a sport, then we have every right to demand a sporting principle. I know that the rugby leadership was usurped by the Anglo-Saxons. Only recently there appeared one Argentinian. We need 24 teams, 10 European teams must get straight and another 1 or 2 teams in qualifying with other continents.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests