- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,502
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Its interesting to see groups laid out like that. In only 3 of them is the top 2 nailed on, then with BPs, the race for the four best placed 3rds would add interest. Personally, I'd happily swap out one extra round of group games for the spectacle of a round of 16. And it would overcome the major issue of uneven amount of days between games.That does put more jeopardy on making it out of the pools for tier1 but doesn't help tier 2/3 that much. They need to be part of the main tournament and have a more decent chance of making the knockout rounds themselves.
eg.
Pool A: Australia; Scotland; Samoa; Portugal
Pool B: South Africa; Fiji; Italy; Russia
Pool C: England; Georgia; Tonga; Canada
Pool D: France; Japan; Uruguay; Namibia
Pool E: Ireland; Wales; USA; Romania
Pool F: New Zealand; Argentina; Spain; Chile
Six pools of four, top 2 per pool plus four best 3rd place finishers qualify for the KOs. That doesn't increase the current length of the tournament (you'll still have to play 7 games to win it) and guarantees tier 1 v tier 2/3 KO games.
eg. Last 16:
France v Chile
Fiji v Scotland
Australia v Argentina
South Africa v Samoa
Ireland v Italy
Japan v Georgia
New Zealand v Uruguay
England v Wales
Some of those will still be walkovers but as you can see, the chances for meaningful upsets and tier 2 teams in the QFs increases. Something tells me this is the biggest reason tier 1 doesn't want a 24 team tournament with this kind of format.
Before your post I was pretty comfortable with 20 teams. The main barrier to 24 is that this would potentially increase the voting rights of 4 unions, which might challenge the status quo.