RU World Cup should be 32 teams

[Nielsch]

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.

You just have to find stadiums that will match the expected ticket sales. You are right; a Spain - Romania game won't fill Wembley or Twickenham. However stadiums like Welford Road, Ricoh Arena and Kingsholm would be perfect for a match like that.

In 2007 at the RWC in France, the Romania - Portugal match still managed to draw 35,000 to the stadium. Georgia - Namibia had 32,500 people in the stands. 33,000 people saw Japan - Canada in 2007. Do not underestimate the drawing power of the lesser matches at a RWC.

 

[norcalbuff]

I think 20 is fine but the next 4 teams aren't significantly worse than the worst couple teams in each RWC. As far as 24 teams, I'd go with:

Round 1: 6 pools of 4, top 2 in each advance.
Round 2: 4 pools of 3, top 2 in each advance.
Then you have 1/4s, semis and a final.

It would be 8 games to win the whole thing instead of the current 7, but you'd get more even matches and more matches between the top teams. Taking away a match from the Tier 3 and lower end Tier 2 countries isn't a big deal anyway as the current scheduling format forces us into fielding B sides as the Eagles did against Australia in the last RWC. That really serves no purpose for anyone.

 

[welshglory]

I think 20 is fine but the next 4 teams aren't significantly worse than the worst couple teams in each RWC. As far as 24 teams, I'd go with:

Round 1: 6 pools of 4, top 2 in each advance.
Round 2: 4 pools of 3, top 2 in each advance.
Then you have 1/4s, semis and a final.

It would be 8 games to win the whole thing instead of the current 7, but you'd get more even matches and more matches between the top teams. Taking away a match from the Tier 3 and lower end Tier 2 countries isn't a big deal anyway as the current scheduling format forces us into fielding B sides as the Eagles did against Australia in the last RWC. That really serves no purpose for anyone.

I don't think that's actually true. In the 2011 world cup the worst team was Namibia, then between Russia, Japan, Romania and USA. Now i wouldn't say any of those teams are significantly better than say Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal or even Tunisia.

 

[norcalbuff]

You're agreeing with me...

 

[Feicarsinn]

Expanding the WC would be a mistake. As is about 4 of the teams in it aren't competitive at all. Diluting the quality of your showpiece event isn't going to attract more people into the fold. The group stage is by and large a tiresome affair, expanding it with weaker teams isn't going to help anyone.

 

[norcalbuff]

Expanding the WC would be a mistake. As is about 4 of the teams in it aren't competitive at all. Diluting the quality of your showpiece event isn't going to attract more people into the fold. The group stage is by and large a tiresome affair, expanding it with weaker teams isn't going to help anyone.

The group stage is tedious for a couple of reasons. The first is probably too many games and the second is that scheduling forces teams, in particular the Tier 2 and 3 sides with the least depth, to field B teams making the whole thing into a farce. My proposal shortens the group stage by a game while providing more games between the top 12 countries. At the same time it offers the opportunity for 4 more countries to take part. I think it's a win-win situation for all.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Nah, the main reason is that the lower tier teams aren't good enough to challenge the top ones. No matter how much preparation time they were given, Ireland were never going to drop points to Russia, Namibia weren't going to pick up a win, and Japan weren't going to beat New Zealand. No point watching the games, because they're going to be incredibly one sided and essentially a waste of time. 4 more games that aren't worth watching will not help the competition.

 

[profitius]

I'd be in favour of 32 teams but not for another 2 or 3 world cups. At them moment there isn't enough quality teams that could keep the scoreline respectable against the top nations.But as we have seen in the last world cup, the points gap is closing.

The value of competing in a world cup could do wonders for development in a country. The Georgian government got behind Georgia after the performences in the 2007 world cup.

 

[norcalbuff]

Nah, the main reason is that the lower tier teams aren't good enough to challenge the top ones. No matter how much preparation time they were given, Ireland were never going to drop points to Russia, Namibia weren't going to pick up a win, and Japan weren't going to beat New Zealand. No point watching the games, because they're going to be incredibly one sided and essentially a waste of time. 4 more games that aren't worth watching will not help the competition.

Where do you get that there would be 4 extra games not worth watching?

 

[irelandfan123]

only 32? well i reckon that the 96 teams on the irb ranking should all be together have 24 group stages (named group qualifiers a) top 2 teams from each group go into the group qualifiers b which contains 12 groups, then the top 2 from each group qualify into group qualifiers c which contains 6 groups then the number on enter a playoff system until there are only 2 teams left and everyone kills themselves with boredom (because even the 20 team one lasted too long for me)

EDIT: ignore my math ..... I am just terrible with math

 

[Tony Manx]

only 32? well i reckon that the 96 teams on the irb ranking should all be together have 24 group stages (named group qualifiers a) top 2 teams from each group go into the group qualifiers b which contains 12 groups, then the top 2 from each group qualify into group qualifiers c which contains 6 groups then the number on enter a playoff system until there are only 2 teams left and everyone kills themselves with boredom (because even the 20 team one lasted too long for me)

EDIT: ignore my math ..... I am just terrible with math

Why not dispense with all other rugby such as Top 14/Aviva/Rabo/Super whatsit and just start the nexxt RWC as soon as the last one finishes.....................!!

 

[smartcooky]

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

The suggestion is another four teams. Germany (ranked 31) and India (ranked 68) aren't going to be among them

More likely the extra teams would come from four out of Spain, Uruguay, Belgium, Chile, Korea and Portugal


EDIT:

BTW, Tonga isn't beating France either....

.....hang on!!!

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I don't see a problem with adding 4 teams since the likely additions already have played in previous World Cups so the debate over them being thrashed is not really one to go by. They might qualify anyway. Uruguay, Spain and Portugal will definitely be among the 4 additional teams.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[Black_Magic]

even the 20 team one lasted too long for me

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

 

[big ginger 8]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

No need for that.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

At least they qualified for the World Cup. Neither Poland nor Netherlands managed to do so so we should not throw stones

 

[irelandfan123]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

Ouch... we'd get a lot further with the 96 system

 

[Black_Magic]

At least they qualified for the World Cup. Neither Poland nor Netherlands managed to do so so we should not throw stones

True! But it was no stone thrown, just a little acrimonious remark

As for the subject, I'm with those stating that 4 extra teams wouldn't be of a worse quality than current wooden spooners like Namibia or Russia. The evidence can easily be seen in RWC qualifying matches.

On the other hand, I do agree that narrowing the gap between Tier 2 and Tier 1 is much more important for world rugby - for the time being.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, the issue is that the Tier 2 teams only play the top teams during World Cups because the SANZAR teams for instance, never travel to Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Japan or Uruguay.

I also think the Pampas team in the Vodacom Cup has been very important in the development of Argentina as a top team. Maybe they can do something similar with other teams. Have 4 teams from Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Namibia added to the Super Rugby competition and dump the freaking conference system. Not sure how to work out the schedule but the IRB/SANZAR has to do something for it.

In the 1990's when the Super Rugby competition was still amateur-based, there were some invitational teams from the PI's. The biggest need is for those players to match up against the big talents, let them develop.

Oh well, just going nuts again over a brainfart

 

[norcalbuff]

What people fail to consider with a 24 team RWC is that if you have 6 pools of 4, you end up with 36 matches in the initial pool stage as opposed to 40 under the current format. This allows you to have more matches between the top teams later on. My proposal would add 8 games overall but with 4 fewer first round matches and 12 extra matches between the top 12 teams in the world. This would both make more money and be better for the fans.