Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Online
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 16:10

TheStroBro wrote: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?

The 2nd, 6th and 8th most populated countries in the world, who by theirselves give Cricket World Cup a potential audience already bigger than all 16-20-24 potential Rugby World Cup entrants. Let's be realistic... I know it's a shitty situation, but it's the way it is.

STMKY wrote: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.

We may have the right, but we won't convince anyone following that path.

Posts: 196
Joined: Tue, 12 Apr 2016, 14:19
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sammo » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 16:11

RugbyLiebe wrote:
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


Uruguay first qualified in 1999 and also played in 2003, there were no national debuts in 2015

Posts: 1428
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, 16:38

sammo wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
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


Uruguay first qualified in 1999 and also played in 2003, there were no national debuts in 2015



Which is what RugbyLove said originally. Antlat clarified an earlier post to say that by "new team" he meant a different team from the previous World Cup. This is only over the last couple of pages.

Posts: 196
Joined: Tue, 12 Apr 2016, 14:19
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sammo » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 17:07

sk 88 wrote:
sammo wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
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


Uruguay first qualified in 1999 and also played in 2003, there were no national debuts in 2015



Which is what RugbyLove said originally. Antlat clarified an earlier post to say that by "new team" he meant a different team from the previous World Cup. This is only over the last couple of pages.


Ah! Understood! By that measure every single World Cup has seen a team compete that wasn't st the previous one

Posts: 359
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, 18:05

Armchair Fan wrote:
TheStroBro wrote: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?

The 2nd, 6th and 8th most populated countries in the world, who by theirselves give Cricket World Cup a potential audience already bigger than all 16-20-24 potential Rugby World Cup entrants. Let's be realistic... I know it's a shitty situation, but it's the way it is.

STMKY wrote: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.

We may have the right, but we won't convince anyone following that path.


Who do you think will pay more for television rights though? Not those countries.

Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 18:54

The problem is that it is just one new team.

But I can say if we had a proper Qualy tournament, with everybody involved, it would be ok for me to have 20 teams in 2023.

BTW, Cricket is MUCH bigger than Rugby. There are more countries with cricket as a Top 3 sport than Rugby. Of course Cricket is usualy more nule than rugby in countries where they are not popular sports. Also cricket looks more conservative, although I was realy impressive to see Afghanistan now as a Test nation. Amazing.

Just to make it clear:

India > almost all rugby nations together
Pakistan > Japan + Argentina
Bangladesh > France + Italy
Sri Lanka > Ireland + Scotland + Wales
West Indies > Pacific Islands
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 669
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 20:56
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby fullbackace » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 20:11

Neptune wrote: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.

I don't think there are many people in t2 who think RWC doesn't need expansion. However we know very well how Tier 2 has been treated by the big boys so how do you think they will treat Tier 3 ? I don't think they'll agree to increase teams anytime soon. And until they do, all the Tier 3&Tier 2.5 teams need to find another more viable tournament.


victorsra

Those are big by population but it's not where you make money really... unless we count human and drug trafficking.
Don't Pray For Easy lives, Pray for enough Beer!

Posts: 199
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby jservuk » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 20:49

fullbackace wrote:
Neptune wrote: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.

I don't think there are many people in t2 who think RWC doesn't need expansion. However we know very well how Tier 2 has been treated by the big boys so how do you think they will treat Tier 3 ? I don't think they'll agree to increase teams anytime soon. And until they do, all the Tier 3&Tier 2.5 teams need to find another more viable tournament.


victorsra

Those are big by population but it's not where you make money really... unless we count human and drug trafficking.


Oh dear. Leaving side the dubious undertones of that comment, if money be the major factor in declining where to invest for rugby expansion, how fruitful would Georgia be for enriching the coffers of Rugby?

Posts: 156
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby antlat » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 21:11

Let me clarify my position.

I am not against Rugby World Cup expansion.
Eventually I would love to see a 24 team World Cup.

I am deeply concerned that if we expand now, the product will diminish.

Yes the gap is closing but not enough yet.

I would rather have the qualification system improved and a lot fairer before expanding the Final Tournament.

Has anyone seen the new FIBA Competition system? I like it a lot. Would be great if we can adapt it to rugby.

Posts: 4
Joined: Sun, 05 Feb 2017, 15:38
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Higgik » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 21:17

A plan could have been sorted at the last WR meeting.
My plan would be, assuming it all happens from 2020.
1. Remove July and November tours and replace with a 7 week international season from mid-September to end Ocotber, the same dates as RWC.

2. Have a 4 year rotation of fixtures for this season,
2020 Regional Championships -
E.g. European Championships 6 Nations plus top 4 from ENC1, 2 groups of 5, followed by semi finals and finals 7 weeks of action, means T2 nations get a 'proper' tests.

2021 Lions tour to South Africa
Full 6 week tour allowing for full matches

2022 Champions Trophy - new event of cross hemisphere in formal competition, to stop the financial standoff between Eng and NZ.
The winners from each regional championship have a home or away series against each other, the winners being the team winning the league. The other teams play in mini quadrangular events in SH and NH concurrently.
E.g.
Div 1. Eng, NZ, SA, Arg play home and away (6 matches each over 7 weeks)
Div. 2. ire, Aus, Afr 2, Am 2 these play at 2 venues, 1 NH & 1SH.
others as div 2,


2023 RWC
As current leave as 20 teams, as the more integration between T2 & T1 teams will mean more movement of new nations.

Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Coloradoan » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 21:44

antlat wrote:Let me clarify my position.

I am not against Rugby World Cup expansion.
Eventually I would love to see a 24 team World Cup.

I am deeply concerned that if we expand now, the product will diminish.

Yes the gap is closing but not enough yet.

I would rather have the qualification system improved and a lot fairer before expanding the Final Tournament.

Has anyone seen the new FIBA Competition system? I like it a lot. Would be great if we can adapt it to rugby.


The product shouldn't diminish because we already see farces like USA putting out a B side against South Africa as a result of the scheduling issues a 20 team tournament causes. Moving to 24 means getting rid of this.

I'd much rather see a fair RWC than a fair qualifying. Any issues with qualifying's fairness at the moment don't have much impact on who goes to the RWC. The best teams still pretty much make it from each region. However, we all saw what happened to Japan against Scotland after the short turnaround from South Africa in the last RWC. Sadly, the conclusion most coaches will draw is that they should have rested players against South Africa, and they're right. To have not had that Japan-SA result from the last RWC would have been a major detraction. Let's fix the RWC so they don't have to make that decision in the future. The easiest way to do that is with 24 teams.

Posts: 669
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 20:56
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby fullbackace » Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 22:33

jservuk wrote:
fullbackace wrote:
Neptune wrote: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.

I don't think there are many people in t2 who think RWC doesn't need expansion. However we know very well how Tier 2 has been treated by the big boys so how do you think they will treat Tier 3 ? I don't think they'll agree to increase teams anytime soon. And until they do, all the Tier 3&Tier 2.5 teams need to find another more viable tournament.


victorsra

Those are big by population but it's not where you make money really... unless we count human and drug trafficking.


Oh dear. Leaving side the dubious undertones of that comment, if money be the major factor in declining where to invest for rugby expansion, how fruitful would Georgia be for enriching the coffers of Rugby?

We aren't otherwise we'd be in Tier 1 already. Same with Romania.
Don't Pray For Easy lives, Pray for enough Beer!

Posts: 793
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 04:23

We seem to be going round and round in long and endles circles with a thread of 15 pages and counting.

The bottom line is that the RWC needs to expand with growing demand on the sport, plus to keep in tandem with the competitiveness of other sports

that are encroaching on it's territory. The rest is just yada yada.

For upcoming generations, if you look at the sporting pie, rugby does roughly 14 - 17 degrees out of 360 degrees. ( Using the scale of a circle of 360 degrees).

Football takes the lions share globally with about 120 degrees, and to stop football's strong dominance, a step in the right direction needs to be taken.

In this case being, expanding the premier competition to 24 teams. Is that too much to ask?

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Bogdan_DC » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 06:19

Not so big money in cricket...really?! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017 ... dding-war/
Like it or not but populous countries will play a big role in the world and in sport in particular.

Posts: 669
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 20:56
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby fullbackace » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 06:28

Bogdan_DC wrote:Not so big money in cricket...really?! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017 ... dding-war/
Like it or not but populous countries will play a big role in the world and in sport in particular.

Yea that's cause it's also big in the Empire countries. otherwise sky wouldn't be paying a dime.
Don't Pray For Easy lives, Pray for enough Beer!

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 07:34

antlat wrote:Let me clarify my position.

I am not against Rugby World Cup expansion.
Eventually I would love to see a 24 team World Cup.

I am deeply concerned that if we expand now, the product will diminish.

Yes the gap is closing but not enough yet.

I would rather have the qualification system improved and a lot fairer before expanding the Final Tournament.

Has anyone seen the new FIBA Competition system? I like it a lot. Would be great if we can adapt it to rugby.


So I ask you again, what would make you think that a 24 team RWC would be justified? "not enough yet" is to nebulous for having a discussion about it. About diminishing an equal schedule has already been mentioned to provide a better product. And yes Japan-Scotland is what everybody for a 20-team-RWC should keep in mind.

The FIBA system is extremely complicated in my eyes. (if you mean this http://www.fiba.com/en/Module/c9dad82f- ... f0be5857c5 )
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: 777
Joined: Thu, 17 Jul 2014, 10:29
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Horsehead » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 09:55

Have World Rugby discussed a 24 team world cup? Is it being considered for 2023 or are all bids for 20 team tournaments?

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 10:14

Ok here's my remodelled qualifying idea. I've only tested this with Europe at the moment but I believe it's adaptable for the other regions. I'll have to double check though.

Image

First things first, the idea is based on all European competitions coming under the branding of the 6 Nations with promotion and relegation between all divisions. Key points:

• Model is based off 8 teams automatically qualifying for RWC instead of the current 12. However the new model can still be altered for use with the current format of 12 auto qualifiers if the 6 nations are removed.

• First qualifying stage begins the year after the last world cup and lasts 2 seasons during the 6 Nations window. Home and Away matches to determine who qualifies for the next stage.
• Second qualifying stage (European Qualifiers) begins in November 2017 with a 4 team tournament featuring the winners of the lowest leagues.
• Third qualifying stage (European Playoffs) begins in June 2018 with an 8 team tournament hosted in a neutral venue over 3 weekends. 2 Pools of 4 with the winners of each pool advancing to RWC, the runners up in each pool progress to the Repechage.
• Fourth qualifying stage is the Repechage tournament in November of 2018. 8 team tournament featuring the runners up from each region (2 x Europe, 2 x Americas, 2 x Africa, 1 x Oceania and 1 x Asia). Played over 3 (or 4) weekends at a neutral venue.
• The first two seasons are locked down, promotion and relegation will recommence after the first stage of qualifying, this gives nations two years to get themselves promoted to a higher division and therefore an easier path for the next world cup cycle.

• Each division is allocated a number of slots for each stage of qualification. The higher the division the more favourable the path is to the world cup.
• Teams who have automatically qualified from the previous world cup they will take up one of the slots allocated to their division.
eg: If England, Ireland, France and Wales automatically qualified from RWC 2015 they will automatically be assigned slots 1 - 4 for 2019, leaving Scotland and Italy to playoff for slot 5 over two legs in 2016 and 2017.

This took a long time to figure out so let me know how this all sounds, I probably missed something along the way and haven't accounted for all potential problems.
Last edited by thatrugbyguy on Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 13:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu, 17 Jul 2014, 10:29
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Horsehead » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 11:15

thatrugbyguy wrote:Ok here's my remodelled qualifying idea. I've only tested this with Europe at the moment but I believe it's adaptable for the other regions. I'll have to double check though.

Image

First things first, the idea is based on all European competitions coming under the control of the 6 Nations with promotion and relegation between all divisions. Key points:

• Model is based off 8 teams automatically qualifying for RWC instead of the current 12. However the new model can still be altered for use with the current format of 12 auto qualifiers if the 6 nations are removed.

• First qualifying stage begins the year after the last world cup and lasts 2 seasons during the 6 Nations window. Home and Away matches to determine who qualifies for the next stage.
• Second qualifying stage (European Qualifiers) begins in November 2017 with a 4 team tournament featuring the winners of the lowest leagues.
• Third qualifying stage (European Playoffs) begins in June 2018 with an 8 team tournament hosted in a neutral venue over 3 weekends. 2 Pools of 4 with the winners of each pool advancing to RWC, the runners up in each pool progress to the Repechage.
• Fourth qualifying stage is the Repechage tournament in November of 2018. 8 team tournament featuring the runners up from each region (2 x Europe, 2 x Americas, 2 x Africa, 1 x Oceania and 1 x Asia). Played over 3 (or 4) weekends at a neutral venue.
• The first two seasons are locked down, promotion and relegation will recommence after the first stage of qualifying, this gives nations two years to get themselves promoted to a higher division and therefore an easier path for the next world cup cycle.

• Each division is allocated a number of slots for each stage of qualification. The higher the division the more favourable the path is to the world cup.
• Teams who have automatically qualified from the previous world cup they will take up one of the slots allocated to their division.
eg: If England, Ireland, France and Wales automatically qualified from RWC 2015 they will automatically be assigned slots 1 - 4 for 2019, leaving Scotland and Italy to playoff for slot 5 over two legs in 2016 and 2017.

This took a long time to figure out so let me know how this all sounds, I probably missed something along the way and haven't accounted for all potential problems.


Sounds good to me, it is clear and concise. I would be much happier with this process than the current one.

I always liked the idea of no automatic qualification for anyone except the hosts and then regional qualifying tournaments being held the year before so for Europe you would have something like this;

8 qualifying places, 1 Repecharge.

2018 6 Nations and Nations cup replaced with 15 team European qualifying tournament

6 Nations qualify, 6 nations cup teams qualify, top 2 from nations trophy, 1 team to qualify from the rest of Europe drawn into 3 groups

Group A
England
France
Belgium
Georgia
Czech Republic

Group B
Ireland
Italy
Germany
Romania
Netherlands

Group C
Scotland
Wales
Russia
Spain
Portugal

all teams play home or away so play 4 games each before advancing to play offs

Play Offs

European Cup - all teams qualify for RWC
1st Pool A vs 1st Pool B
1st Pool B vs 1st Pool C
1st Pool C vs 1st Pool A

European Trophy - all teams qualify for RWC
2nd Pool A vs 2nd Pool B
2nd Pool B vs 2nd Pool C
2nd Pool C vs 2nd Pool A

European Shield - top 2 teams qualify for RWC, 3rd goes to Repecharge
3rd Pool A vs 3rd Pool B
3rd Pool B vs 3rd Pool C
3rd Pool C vs 3rd Pool A

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 11:37

Nice graphics and overall congrats for your great effort.

My biggest problems are that a
1. a private entity, that has basically shown
2. the middle finger to everyone outside
should overlook a qualification process and
3. not the recognized (by both world union and Olympic federation) continental union.

Also it makes no sense why Scotland and Italy should play for a spot on their own? Based on what? That they are part of a closed shop?
4. The qualification timing is also a problem. Some minor unions like Finland, Sweden and other Northern or Eastern European countries will have massive problem to play due to heavy snow in February.
5. It looks extremely expensive to have two-times 8 teams for at least 4 weeks together like in your proposed match-ups.
6. Especially the Euro 8 team round is unnecessary in my eyes. Why play three teams from a lower division and 2 teams your already played AND exclude one team from the higher division? Makes no sense. There the playoff system as of now with the best team from each division still having a chance makes way more sense.

Tbh I thought about getting rid of that qualification chances for lower divisions for good. Would make things way easier. On the other hand playing a RWC qualifier game is good promotional material.

If you introduce one 6 Nation team to the qualification process, have them play the 8-team format with ALL REC teams and one RET team with the RET team being in the group without the 6N team. The best 4 teams go to the RWC. The 5th and 6th best (group 3rd) go to the repechage.
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.

Online
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 11:57

It reminds me of Women's Rugby World Cup qualifying setup... A private tournament should never give bigger chances of qualification.

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 13:49

RugbyLiebe wrote:Nice graphics and overall congrats for your great effort.

My biggest problems are that a
1. a private entity, that has basically shown

2. the middle finger to everyone outside
should overlook a qualification process and
3. not the recognized (by both world union and Olympic federation) continental union.

Everything would still fall under the jurisdiction of Rugby Europe, 6 Nations would control only the branding of the entire competition. Purely a branding and marketing thing. I didn't clarify that well.

RugbyLiebe wrote:Also it makes no sense why Scotland and Italy should play for a spot on their own? Based on what? That they are part of a closed shop?

6 Nations wouldn't be a closed shop. There would be promotion and relegation after the first two seasons of qualification across all divisions. Should Scotland and Italy for instance fail to automatically qualify their two 6N matches in 2016 and 2017 would count as a 2 leg series, with the winner qualifying on aggregate. Should more than two teams have to qualify from the 6N the results between the teams across the two season will determine who qualifies directly and who is forced into the Playoff series.

RugbyLiebe wrote: 4. The qualification timing is also a problem. Some minor unions like Finland, Sweden and other Northern or Eastern European countries will have massive problem to play due to heavy snow in February.
A valid point, the dates however aren't set in stone.

RugbyLiebe wrote:
5. It looks extremely expensive to have two-times 8 teams for at least 4 weeks together like in your proposed match-ups.
6. Especially the Euro 8 team round is unnecessary in my eyes. Why play three teams from a lower division and 2 teams your already played AND exclude one team from the higher division? Makes no sense. There the playoff system as of now with the best team from each division still having a chance makes way more sense.

Ultimately I look at it this way, the higher you climb the the pyramid the better your path to the world cup is. No system is going to be perfect in rugby due to the differences in class and this is no different. In terms of cost you may have a point, you'd have to compare the expensive of a mini-tournament to what it currently costs for qualification.

RugbyLiebe wrote: Tbh I thought about getting rid of that qualification chances for lower divisions for good. Would make things way easier. On the other hand playing a RWC qualifier game is good promotional material.

I look at it this way, this gives lower ranked teams more chances for matches against higher quality opposition. And to me that's a good thing.

RugbyLiebe wrote:If you introduce one 6 Nation team to the qualification process, have them play the 8-team format with ALL REC teams and one RET team with the RET team being in the group without the 6N team. The best 4 teams go to the RWC. The 5th and 6th best (group 3rd) go to the repechage.

That is another method to consider. Ultimately my goal was to bring about a more balanced qualification process. At the moment across all regions it's difficult to follow.

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 15:09

Horsehead wrote:2018 6 Nations and Nations cup replaced with 15 team European qualifying tournament

6 Nations qualify, 6 nations cup teams qualify, top 2 from nations trophy, 1 team to qualify from the rest of Europe drawn into 3 groups

Group A
England
France
Belgium
Georgia
Czech Republic

Group B
Ireland
Italy
Germany
Romania
Netherlands

Group C
Scotland
Wales
Russia
Spain
Portugal


Groups with 5 teams have always sucked, do suck and will always suck.

A more radical idea. Euro-Asians championship with 13 Euro and 3 Asian teams which doubles as the RWC qualification.
4 groups of 4

Band 1 (based on WR rankings this week)
England, Ireland, Wales, Scotlan

Band 2:
France, Japan, Georgia, Italy

Band 3:
Romania, Spain, Russia, Germany

Band 4:
Hong Kong, Portugal, Belgium, Korea

Best 8 qualify directly and play for the championship.

Worst 8 (or group 3rds to shorten the tournament) play for one more spot (and maybe one repechage).
After a group phase nobody can complain about bad opposition in the championship quarters.
Games every 5 days. Group phase


But apart from this mind games, the only realistic thing to happen is a 24-team-world-cup. Everything else is way more complicated to implement and will gather more opposition.
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: 1847
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby iul » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 15:38

If we are to have multi continent qualification processes it would make more sense to have Eurafrica, Australasia and the Americas. Makes more sense from the time-zone point of view.

Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 15:43

The major problem about any new Qualification system is really obvious: calendar. World Rugby has huge problems in enter a tug of war with the European leagues, as they pay players' salaries. This is the reason why the Qualy process is the sh*t it is now.

I also don't like the continental split.

If they keep the 20 teams-WC, a possiblity is:

Automatic Qualified: Host country + World Champion = 2 spots

2021 (july, during Lions Tour):
14 best teams of the last World Cup (4 from each group, except the World Champion and the Host Country) + 2 best ranked teams on January 1st 2021)
*The Home Nations and the Lions Tour host team enter with their second squads, whatever
4 groups of 4, 3 matches each team (2 matches home or away, 1 match home or away) - 2 from each group qualify = 8 spots

+ Nations Cup in the RWC Host Country, with the World Champions, the Barbarians and another best ranked team, as a promotional thing

2022 (split between july and/or november)
20 teams, split in 5 groups of 4 - the 8 2021 losers + 12 teams (2 Europe, 2 Americas, 2 Africa, 2 Asia, 1 Oceania, 3 best ranked teams among the rest on January 1st 2022)
3 matches each team (2 home or away, 1 home or away)
2 from each group qualify = 10 spots

Exemple:

If NZ is the World Champions and France the host country...
South Africa with its Emerging team, England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland without its Lions (as 2021 is Boks vs Lions year):

2021

Group A: England, Italy, Georgia, Canada
Grupo B: South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Romania
Group C: Australia, Scotland, Samoa, USA,
Group D: Argentina, Ireland Tonga, Japan

Nations Cup: New Zealand, France, Barbarians and Uruguay

2022

Group A: Italy, Namibia, Russia, Papua
Grupo B: Fiji, Uruguay, Spain, Korea
Group C: Samoa, Canada, Germany, Portugal
Group D: Tonga, Romania, Kenya, Belgium
Group E: Japan, USA, Hong Kong, Brazil

Note: with the ranking used together, Europe got 3 extra spots, with Germany, Belgium and Portugal
Last edited by victorsra on Wed, 28 Jun 2017, 17:05, edited 5 times in total.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests