Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Americas Rugby

Posts: 7467
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby victorsra » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 17:20

Depends on the division. The 2nd division had pretty long travels (Uruguay-Samoa, Tonga-Canada, etc). The 3rd division only in the finals.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 19:18

NaBUru38 wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:I don't support any structure which ignores the relative strength of teams or ignores the distances between places. That World Rugby Nations Cup video did both. I don't know how they produced that video without realising how ridiculous it was.

Any structure needs to minimise mismatches. 100-0 games benefit no one. And excessive travel should be avoided. Tier 3 teams don't need to cross continents and oceans to play a similar standard team.


The Nations Cup proposal required long travels, but did not create mismatches.


It did create mismatches. Canada was in the same pool as tier 3 Central American and Carribbean teams.

Posts: 7467
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby victorsra » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 19:20

Wasn't. That was just an exemple of the system using the Ranking. And easily solved, if the 2nd division had 6 instead of 5 teams in each conference. They proposed 5 I don't know why but probably due to $.

The 2nd division wasn't logical, because why Europe had one group and "the rest of the world" was another group (putting Uruguay together with Tonga... nobody saw the map, right?). But that was a detail. It could be transformed in different sorts of groups. Detail that would be part of the negociations.

The core concept was to have an anual league with promotion-relegation applied to everybody. How many teams each divison would have would be a second phase of the negociations, obviously. What killed the league was 6N don't wanting to be subject to relegation.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 21:06

There should have been a play off for promotion/relegation. You can't just have Canada swapping between a Carribbean league and a tier 2 league. That video was clearly made by someone who loves graphics but knows nothing about rugby or the size and shape of the earth.

Posts: 7467
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby victorsra » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 21:10

Indeed! That was an exemple of application of a system. That's the important thing to mind.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 21:17

victorsra wrote:Indeed! That was an exemple of application of a system. That's the important thing to mind.


It was a really silly example

https://youtu.be/aoH3xDV8LD4

Whoever put that together should be embarrassed.

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 21:30

I just watched the video again. Namibia got relegated to the Caribbean league.

Posts: 7467
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby victorsra » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 21:33

Yes, but the system had a big flaw. The flaw is to make a rest of the world conference in the 2nd division. I criticised Pichot's system at that time about this. What's the logic of Europe being an independent conference if you are putting together North America, South America, Asia, Oceania and Africa (basicaly a completely trip around the world)? I do understand why the 1st division had those 2 conferences (to preserve 6N-TRC split). But bellow it it is bizarre to have a global conference.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 22:05

The European part actually wasn't that bad. It could be possible in 10 years or less, once Europe's tier 2 is professional and at the same level as Georgia. The good news is Russia, Romania, Portugal, Spain and Belgium are all at a similar level to eachother. The bad news is that level is not very high. But with professional leagues and new facilities in Russia and Romania that standard should rise. Hopefully the western teams will raise their standard at the same time. Then when Georgia beats Italy in a relegation play off, Italy can play competitive tests in the tier 2 tournament and not go bankrupt.

Posts: 7467
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby victorsra » Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 23:01

The 2nd division should be Europe, Africa, Americas and Asia-Oceania, 4 conferences, with some system of inter-conference matches to promote some duels like Samoa-USA, Georgia-Tonga, Uruguay-Russia, Canada-Spain, etc.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1757
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 02:08

victorsra wrote:The 2nd division should be Europe, Africa, Americas and Asia-Oceania, 4 conferences, with some system of inter-conference matches to promote some duels like Samoa-USA, Georgia-Tonga, Uruguay-Russia, Canada-Spain, etc.


Use the current structures while expanding them from 6 to 8 teams each. Playing one another once for 7 games. Top 4 from each progress to the Round of 16. This would provide cross conference games while allowing for teams from stronger overall conferences opportunities to progress as well. Overall winner gets promoted or at least gets a playoff for promotion.

All this would exist under a 16 team 1st Division split into two pools of 8 with the 6Ns and RC being played in the current 6Ns window and not counting towards the competition.

Posts: 132
Joined: Wed, 20 Jun 2018, 10:15
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby welshdragon2000 » Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 02:51

Here is an idea as an alternative to the Nations Championship. Instead of having divisions of 12 teams, have divisions of 4/5 teams when each team plays each other twice. The bottom ranked team in each division is relegated while the top ranking team gets promoted (or in division 1’s case, is champion). I was just looking at the rankings to look at how these groups would form and you really can’t predict the winner of really any division in the top 30.

E.g:
Division 1:
Sth Africa
New Zealand
England
Ireland

Division 2:
France
Wales
Australia
Scotland

...Division 6
Portugal
Hong Kong
Canada
Namibia

These games could be played as home and away or, to limit travelling, the top ranking team from the division in the year before could host the first 3 games and the second ranking team could host the second round of games. There is a clear pathway to the top this way and each division represents an increase in level of opposition meaning that after a couple of years of pro/rel, we will be seeing rewards for those who perform well and get promoted. An example of this could be if Georgia won their division and were able to play against 3 tier 1 nations over the course of two rounds. This provides an incentive to improve and it provides a reward for good performances.

I’d be interested to hear peoples’ thoughts of this idea. To me, it solves the issue of too many games and it ensures that all matches remain at a very competitive level.

Posts: 1757
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 03:08

welshdragon2000 wrote:Here is an idea as an alternative to the Nations Championship. Instead of having divisions of 12 teams, have divisions of 4/5 teams when each team plays each other twice. The bottom ranked team in each division is relegated while the top ranking team gets promoted (or in division 1’s case, is champion). I was just looking at the rankings to look at how these groups would form and you really can’t predict the winner of really any division in the top 30.

E.g:
Division 1:
Sth Africa
New Zealand
England
Ireland

Division 2:
France
Wales
Australia
Scotland

...Division 6
Portugal
Hong Kong
Canada
Namibia

These games could be played as home and away or, to limit travelling, the top ranking team from the division in the year before could host the first 3 games and the second ranking team could host the second round of games. There is a clear pathway to the top this way and each division represents an increase in level of opposition meaning that after a couple of years of pro/rel, we will be seeing rewards for those who perform well and get promoted. An example of this could be if Georgia won their division and were able to play against 3 tier 1 nations over the course of two rounds. This provides an incentive to improve and it provides a reward for good performances.

I’d be interested to hear peoples’ thoughts of this idea. To me, it solves the issue of too many games and it ensures that all matches remain at a very competitive level.


Good luck with convincing literally every other Union not in your 1st Div. to vote for a proposition that publicly states they don't even consider themselves a 1st Div. side. Also, I imagine the likes of Japan having beaten both Ireland and Scotland at the RWC would feel that they would deserve to at least feature in the 2nd Div. competition.

Posts: 1757
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 04:03

My preferred model would be a 32 team tiered knockout system featuring a similar set up to the Sevens World Series in regards to having progressive Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield divisions. Where each team starts the season on equal footing. Instead of competing for a Championship it would be for overall rankings. Being at the beginning of every year the slate is wiped clean. And teams use this structure to compete to determine their final rankings for the year. This would then be used to determine qualification for and pool placing of teams in a expanded 24 team RWC.

Teams are drawn for the 1st round with the winner of each fixture continuing in the Cup division while the losers fall into the Bowl division. In the 2nd round of games once again the winners in the Cup division would continue on while the losers would fall into the Plate division. Similar in the Bowl with the winners in that division continuing while the losers fall into the Shield. The 3rd round would then see the winners continue in their divisions with the losers falling into separate pools competing for final placing. So for example. The losing 4 teams from the Cup division would then play off for rankings 5-8. The losers in the Plate would play off for 13-16 etc.

The 4th round of games would be to determine final rankings games. With the winner of each divisional game progressing to the divisional final and the losers competing for 3rd and 4th, 11th and 12th etc. Similar for the rankings games not in contention for the divisional finals. The 5th and final round being the games to determine final rankings 1 through 32.

Below this there would be 4x6 regional conferences set as the Challenger tier with the winner of each conference playing in a mini tournament to determine the two teams that will get a promotion game to move up to the top tier. In the case of the winner playing the 32nd ranked team and the runner up the 31st ranked team.

And I'm more than aware that there would be mismatches. They're unavoidable. But the draw could be doctored in order to ensure certain criteria are met and attempt to minimise the beatings. The point would be not only to develop a broad commercial product being 80 games featuring 32 nations over 5 rounds of games but to provide both higher levels of competition particularly for those ranked 17 and below but to provide greater exposure to T2 and even a few T3 nations. Providing them with insights and opportunities to assess what they need to work on in order to improve.

If it were to garner close to what the original offer was and the funds were distributed equitably (which I know is a bit of an assumption) the influx of funds could be incredibly trans-formative for quite a number of the competitors.

Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Americas Rugby

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 04:24

Your division 6 is problematic. Could you have found any further apart countries in the world?
The lower ranked teams should be doing less travelling not more.

Quick Google search, best flight times.
Toronto to Windhoek: 1 day 11 hours, 3 stops.
Lisbon to Windhoek: 12 hours
Hong Kong to Windhoek: 2 days 13 hours, 3 stops.

These teams could play each other in a mini tournament in Portugal. That's still quite a long way to travel but it could be done. Played single round robin, double headers, over 3 weekends in the November test window. That's how all of these could be played, with first place moving up a division and last place dropping out for a season, replaced with the next highest ranked team, currently Netherlands.

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Figaro, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests