RU World Cup should be 32 teams

[dudeabides]

Group G
Ireland
USA
TRF All Stars feat. cyRil
Referees XV

Please no! The USA had enough of an impossible task when placed in the pool with Ireland/Australia now they would have to get past not only Ireland but the most likely squad to cheat their way to victory without being caught because of their connections... oh yeah, and the refs might be tough too. Heh, seriously who could improve on the RWC anyway it's the best sporting event in the world?

 

[usausa]

Group A
New Zealand
Italy
The Harlem Globetrotters
Iceland Supermarkets (by virtue of a clerical error)

Group B
Australia
Scotland
The Channel 4 News Team
New Zealand Juniors

Group C
South Africa
Fiji
The 15 most recent Wrestlemania champions
Psychic Duck's complete nobodies XV

Group D
England
Tonga
New York Jets
New Zealand Maori

Group E
Wales
Japan
St. Mary's College Rathmines
Crewe Alexandra FC

Group F
France
Canada
French Canada
Andy Powell

Group G
Ireland
USA
TRF All Stars feat. cyRil
Referees XV

Group H
Samoa
Georgia
New Zealand, again.
The Nation of Joe

Average Joe's upset Globo Gym and White Goodman again in qualifications but will not go to the RWC due to the fact they cannot not field their best player, female Kate Veach, due to the incompetence of Bernard Lappaset.

 

[Draggs]

I fancy Andy Powell upsetting France.
What about a Georgian Prop XV? They would easily win the World Cup.

 

[smartcooky]

Currently the RU World Cup is played by 20 teams. However, a 20-team competition is not very good, because group stage is played by 5 teams in every group. 5-team group is not good, because there is inevitably inequality of game calendar.
The RU World Cup should be played by 32 teams. 32 teams should be divided into 8 groups. The winners of every group proceed to the quarter-final, and the 2nd teams of every group are qualified to the next World Cup.

Group division and world rankings:

Group A 01 16 17 32
Group B 02 15 18 31
Group C 03 14 19 30
Group D 04 13 20 29
Group E 05 12 21 28
Group F 06 11 22 27
Group G 07 10 23 26
Group H 08 09 24 25

Brilliant, absolutely bloody brilliant: This is just what world rugby needs

► less matches of substance.
► more one-sided thrashings.
► a 60% increase in accommodation costs
► a 60% increase in organisational costs
► a dozen extra teams in the RWC who will get lots of practise at just two skills in Rugby Union.

1. Restart Kicking
2. Tackling

Go back to sleep mate, we're all better off without your hare-brained schemes.

 

[Tony Manx]

Why do you say that I am spamming? A 32-team World Cup is a serious suggestion, isn't it?
And I have explained why the current 20-team system is not good.
Alternatives are 16, 24, or 32. Reducing to 16 has been clearly rejected, as far as I understand. 24 can be an alternative, but I think 8 teams from 6 pools is not fair. So I am for 32.
Will there be smashing games like 120-0? Is that bad? I do not think so. Participating in a World Cup itself promote interest in RU.

All ideas are worth considering, else lots of things would never have been invented. However, I have considered this idea in detail and must say, in true McInroe style, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Group A
New Zealand
Italy
The Harlem Globetrotters
Iceland Supermarkets (by virtue of a clerical error)

Group B
Australia
Scotland
The Channel 4 News Team
New Zealand Juniors

Group C
South Africa
Fiji
The 15 most recent Wrestlemania champions
Psychic Duck's complete nobodies XV

Group D
England
Tonga
New York Jets
New Zealand Maori

Group E
Wales
Japan
St. Mary's College Rathmines
Crewe Alexandra FC

Group F
France
Canada
French Canada
Andy Powell

Group G
Ireland
USA
TRF All Stars feat. cyRil
Referees XV

Group H
Samoa
Georgia
New Zealand, again.
The Nation of Joe

There could be a few groups entirely made of BG8 XV's.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, actually 24 teams could be a good thing to do, because of the fixtures issues. Make it 4 groups of 6 teams (just adding one team to each group in current 4x5 format) and each round we'll have 3 matches in each group and no problems with time to rest as has been the case in the last RWC. No further change, two teams from each group advance to quarterfinals. Now let's think what the additional four teams could be - one place for Americas, let's say Uruguay; one for Europe - e.g. Spain; two for intercontinental repechage, which could result in Portugal and Chile let's say. Now would these teams be really that less competitive than Namibia or Russia? I don't think so, at least there could be some close matches between Tier 3 countries. And teams like New Zealand hammer the Tier 2 opposition with 50+ points as well (actually even Tier 1 sometimes ), and I don't think anyone would like to throw Japan or Canada out of RWC because of that.

This suggestion is hundreds of times more sensible that ziggystardust's dip-**** idea.

Going up to 24 teams (in four pools of six) doesn't push the envelope of teams' capabilites as much going up to 32 would. It would mean proper recovery times for all teams with no team needing to have less than six days between matches.

 

[William18]

This suggestion is hundreds of times more sensible that ziggystardust's dip-**** idea.

Going up to 24 teams (in four pools of six) doesn't push the envelope of teams' capabilites as much going up to 32 would. It would mean proper recovery times for all teams with no team needing to have less than six days between matches.

It's a terrible idea IMO. The tournament is already very long and extending it to 24 teams will make it drag on for one more week. The bottom team in each pool will be thrashed by even more. Not to mention it stretches a country's resources. I think in New Zealand we would have struggled to cater for four extra teams and the crowds for those games would have been terrible. These problems would be less in a country like England but still relevant.

 

[nickdnz]

It's a terrible idea IMO. The tournament is already very long and extending it to 24 teams will make it drag on for one more week. The bottom team in each pool will be thrashed by even more. Not to mention it stretches a country's resources. I think in New Zealand we would have struggled to cater for four extra teams and the crowds for those games would have been terrible. These problems would be less in a country like England but still relevant.

I'm a fan of the idea at least in terms of the next few years. You can't realistically expect the game to grow internationally without giving more oppertunities for countries to compete. As it stands the generation of interest in rugby for one team whose become more competitive has always come at the expence of another country, where the interest wanes. Yes it would expand it one more week (which would make it more fair), and when you're considering somewhere like Japan hosting a RWC game, Japan v A team they could be expected to win I'm sure would sell quite well. I agree that it would be worth looking at after 2019, where we could learn a little bit more about the rate at which the game is growing, but I think it's a good thing.

I think we have to accept that we can't prepare an international tournament based purely on what New Zealand is capable of. As it we, we do have enough stadiums to deal with four more games every round, but regardless I think 2011 will be the last tournament we'll host in the foreseable future, in which case by the time it comes around again we may have a few more stadiums / half a million more people. If England/France/Japan/Anywhere managed to get even a remotely similar attendance per capita as New Zealand did, then there would be very little difficulty selling out.

 

[Big Ewis]

just imagine the triple digit scores we'd have...
it would obviously be a little out of focus, as the real world class teams would have to spend energy in a wasteful fashion against tiny teams...for nothing basically, because no upset is possible at that level.
Germany isn't beating Wales, India isn't beating France lol etc...
it's just an utter waste of time, but it does promote rugby, it gives us a chance to finally see those other nations play (never seen Belgium, Spain, Germany, Netherlands...), and it's a bigger event with just *more* rugby...

It'd be nice...but with major issues.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I do like the idea of more teams in the World Cup, if not for the same reasons as the OP.

If 32 teams was the case there would be a greater number of '3rd tier' teams and I think that would leave to a 'competition within a competition', with a greater number of close matches. I think it would do the lesser teams from the last world cup such as Japan and Namibia some good to have beatable competition in there, for example Madagascar, Spain. Because I think for entertainment purporses it would be great for each place to be contested, whereas now many group stage matches you feeel pretty apathetic about because it's usually two teams from different tiers playing one another with the likely outcome already know.

Not to mention it's a huge step towards making rugby a more universal sport at the professional level. We talk about wanting to close the gap between the top tier of teams and the 2nd tier, but if you want to make rugby a less elite sport you have to start from the bottom and give access to bottom tier sides.

I know its logistically more complicated than that though. Perhaps squads would need to be bigger to compensate for the extra games.

 

[Nielsch]

I can agree with adding 4 more teams in - let's say - 2023 or 2027. The IRB really should start thinking about that. Sure, these extra teams wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of New Zealand, South Africa and England but it would help spreading the gospel of rugby in those countries. Think about it; 4 more teams would mean countries like Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal and Belgium would have more chances of qualifying. Their defeats won't be much bigger than the current defeats Russia, Japan and Namibia are facing and yet these teams are more than welcome to participate as it helps developing rugby in said countries.

 

[admartian]

I can agree with adding 4 more teams in - let's say - 2023 or 2027. The IRB really should start thinking about that. Sure, these extra teams wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of New Zealand, South Africa and England but it would help spreading the gospel of rugby in those countries. Think about it; 4 more teams would mean countries like Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal and Belgium would have more chances of qualifying. Their defeats won't be much bigger than the current defeats Russia, Japan and Namibia are facing and yet these teams are more than welcome to participate as it helps developing rugby in said countries.

I agree.

24 teams isn't so bad. And one extra week is definitely not the end of the world. There are issues indeed, but definitely not major.

Mountain out of a molehill really.

 

[BZHopenside]

Remember, the soccer World Cup didn't go to 32 teams until the 90's. 24 would be a good expansion soon. But 6 groups of 4, not 4 groups of 6.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Actually, the FIFA World Cup had a very steady increase of teams.

Until 1978 there were 16 teams, from 1982 until 1994 it was 24 teams and since 1998 we've had 32 teams.

Going from 20 to 32 is just too much.

 

[sigesige00]

Remember, the soccer World Cup didn't go to 32 teams until the 90's. 24 would be a good expansion soon. But 6 groups of 4, not 4 groups of 6.

However, don't you think that 5 pool games are too much?

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

No, he is suggesting 6 groups of 4, making the schedule having 3 group stage games.

 

[Zed]

The idea could work and give exposure to some of the lesser nations like Chilie, Germany etc But you can't have these teams playing the top nations, you will get 100+ point floggings which no-one wants to see. An option would be to have different tiers in each pool and the bottom tier don't play the top tier teams. So for example Germany, Spain, Italy & Samoa would all play each other, but Germany & Spain wouldn't play NZ & SA.

pool A
NZ
South Africa
Italy
Samoa
Germany
Spain

 

[William18]

I'm a fan of the idea at least in terms of the next few years. You can't realistically expect the game to grow internationally without giving more oppertunities for countries to compete. As it stands the generation of interest in rugby for one team whose become more competitive has always come at the expence of another country, where the interest wanes. Yes it would expand it one more week (which would make it more fair), and when you're considering somewhere like Japan hosting a RWC game, Japan v A team they could be expected to win I'm sure would sell quite well. I agree that it would be worth looking at after 2019, where we could learn a little bit more about the rate at which the game is growing, but I think it's a good thing.

I think we have to accept that we can't prepare an international tournament based purely on what New Zealand is capable of. As it we, we do have enough stadiums to deal with four more games every round, but regardless I think 2011 will be the last tournament we'll host in the foreseable future, in which case by the time it comes around again we may have a few more stadiums / half a million more people. If England/France/Japan/Anywhere managed to get even a remotely similar attendance per capita as New Zealand did, then there would be very little difficulty selling out.

Obviously it shouldn't be based on what New Zealand can do but I think you are going to struggled to get a good crowd to Romania vs Spain whether you play it in Romania, Spain, England, New Zealand or Japan. I don't see how a game like that does a lot to market the tournament. I think as countries get better, qualification should become more competitive and hopefully that can serve to generate some interest. I also think that you risk just creating another lower of tier rugby teams. Whereas currently Namibia is in the lowest tier then maybe you just put in another team for Namibia to thrash and there is still a bottom tier.

I could probably stand the expansion if you had six groups of four. That would create a messy playoffs system and few hyped up pool games like NZ vs France.

 

[William18]

The idea could work and give exposure to some of the lesser nations like Chilie, Germany etc But you can't have these teams playing the top nations, you will get 100+ point floggings which no-one wants to see. An option would be to have different tiers in each pool and the bottom tier don't play the top tier teams. So for example Germany, Spain, Italy & Samoa would all play each other, but Germany & Spain wouldn't play NZ & SA.

pool A
NZ
South Africa
Italy
Samoa
Germany
Spain

Then Italy and Samoa play 5 games with all other teams only playing 3 games. Scheduling would be a nightmare. Teams from the second tier would be advantaged as they would get ten easy points against Germany/Spain.