Should the 6 Nations be an open competition (w/ relegations and promotions)?

[Chistera]

There's been some talk going on about Italy recently being on its way to another wooden spoon, and some have (again) questioned whether Italy should be part of the 6 Nations. Even though I personally believe that Italy deserves to be part of the 6 Nations, it'd be nice to have a more inclusive rugby policy on an European scale (as we can see in the club system now or for the accession to the World Cup).
Currently, the European Nations Cup (6 Nations B) is completely cut off from the 6 Nations (nations can move up and down divisions within the ENC though). Yet there are some decent teams in that competition, as Romania and Georgia. It'd be a great motivational boost for these aspiring nations to actually had a shot at joining the 6 Nations. Not being blocked from potential sportive advancement would for sure help the development of rugby in these countries.
Rugby is a first and foremost a competitive sport and spots shouldn't be awarded solely on tradition and reputation. As of now, Georgia is only 1 place behind Italy in the World Rugby ranking. A double confrontation playoff (1 game home & 1 away), between the last of the 6 Nations and the winner of the Division 1 A of the European Nations Cup would reestablish some sportive equity. It seems fair, even if I don't see any ENC nation beating Italy, Scotland or whichever team is the wooden spoon, in the near future, it would elevate the level of these inferior divisions and help promote rugby throughout Europe.
Fairly reasonable overall, any reason not to go ahead with it?

 

[Peat]

No.

If it was just about what's fair, then I'd say Yeah, and fair enough to anyone who thinks that for that reason.

But for me, it's about maintaining and improving the standard of world rugby. And that's a no. It won't improve the Six Nations, which would face some awkward financial questions should a team get relegated. It won't improve Georgia or whoever, who need a streadier future than that, and more exposure to elite rugby than the odd match here and there.

It should be the end goal. That, or an expanded Six Nations, or a second European competition equal to it, or something. We should be engaging in intermediate steps - 1st in the 6N B already has a tilt at 6th in the 6Ns if memory serves in the Autumn. More should be done to get players for minor European nations at a top club level. But nobody's ready for it right now.

 

[j'nuh]

Nope, and I'm not even sure Georgia/Russia being better would change my mind either.

1. 5 matches aren't enough to dictate a relegation. Relegation would depend a lot on the fixture list. Typically, whoever has the home tie in the Scotland-Italy match will be the one staying up.
2. It creates two tiers, one the established Six Nations teams (England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland) and the other would be teams that yo-yo between the first and second tier. I would rather a concerted effort, along with stability, going into developing one nation, than a few teams never given the stability to do anything serious.
3. No team currently deserves to be there ahead of the Six Nations teams. If Italy gets relegated, they'll still be better than the team coming up. Maybe a play-off between Italy and the top second tier team could sort this out.
4. Six Nations works because of rivalries built up over the years. I wouldn't want it being broken up.
5. You get situations where the best teams in Europe would be relegated/come close to being relegated, even though they have a good team that is worth keeping in the Six Nations. For example, Wales were points difference away from relegation in 2007 and then won a grand slam in 2008.

 

[Conal]

Nope, and I'm not even sure Georgia/Russia being better would change my mind either.

1. 5 matches aren't enough to dictate a relegation. Relegation would depend a lot on the fixture list. Typically, whoever has the home tie in the Scotland-Italy match will be the one staying up.
2. It creates two tiers, one the established Six Nations teams (England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland) and the other would be teams that yo-yo between the first and second tier. I would rather a concerted effort, along with stability, going into developing one nation, than a few teams never given the stability to do anything serious.
3. No team currently deserves to be there ahead of the Six Nations teams. If Italy gets relegated, they'll still be better than the team coming up. Maybe a play-off between Italy and the top second tier team could sort this out.
4. Six Nations works because of rivalries built up over the years. I wouldn't want it being broken up.
5. You get situations where the best teams in Europe would be relegated/come close to being relegated, even though they have a good team that is worth keeping in the Six Nations. For example, Wales were points difference away from relegation in 2007 and then won a grand slam in 2008.

i like the play off idea

 

[Every Time Ref]

Nope, and I'm not even sure Georgia/Russia being better would change my mind either.

1. 5 matches aren't enough to dictate a relegation. Relegation would depend a lot on the fixture list. Typically, whoever has the home tie in the Scotland-Italy match will be the one staying up.
2. It creates two tiers, one the established Six Nations teams (England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland) and the other would be teams that yo-yo between the first and second tier. I would rather a concerted effort, along with stability, going into developing one nation, than a few teams never given the stability to do anything serious.
3. No team currently deserves to be there ahead of the Six Nations teams. If Italy gets relegated, they'll still be better than the team coming up. Maybe a play-off between Italy and the top second tier team could sort this out.
4. Six Nations works because of rivalries built up over the years. I wouldn't want it being broken up.
5. You get situations where the best teams in Europe would be relegated/come close to being relegated, even though they have a good team that is worth keeping in the Six Nations. For example, Wales were points difference away from relegation in 2007 and then won a grand slam in 2008.

Yeah, all of this basically

 

[Irishkid]

Think it could make Italy better and is more inventive for lesser nations.

 

[Tony Manx]

This topic was only discussed recently on another thread?

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I'm all in favour of growing rugby in Europe however I don't think relegation from the 6 Nations does that. While it would likely help Georgia improve, the negative effect is they'd bring in far less TV revenue than the team they replace and it would do untold damage to the sport in the relegated country.

More needs to be done to bring the ENC teams up to closer to the level of the established 6 Nations teams. I think there should be an onus on the 6 Nations to play these countries more often in November and Jone test windows.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Theoretially I'd be in favour but in practice I think it would simply be Georgia and Italy swapping places every year or 2 with everything else the same.

 

[Goodey]

Can't see a more efficient way to destroy Italy as a rugby nation than relegate them out of the six nations.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope, and I'm not even sure Georgia/Russia being better would change my mind either.

1. 5 matches aren't enough to dictate a relegation. Relegation would depend a lot on the fixture list. Typically, whoever has the home tie in the Scotland-Italy match will be the one staying up.
2. It creates two tiers, one the established Six Nations teams (England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland) and the other would be teams that yo-yo between the first and second tier. I would rather a concerted effort, along with stability, going into developing one nation, than a few teams never given the stability to do anything serious.
3. No team currently deserves to be there ahead of the Six Nations teams. If Italy gets relegated, they'll still be better than the team coming up. Maybe a play-off between Italy and the top second tier team could sort this out.
4. Six Nations works because of rivalries built up over the years. I wouldn't want it being broken up.
5. You get situations where the best teams in Europe would be relegated/come close to being relegated, even though they have a good team that is worth keeping in the Six Nations. For example, Wales were points difference away from relegation in 2007 and then won a grand slam in 2008.

6. You'll get "up-down-up-down". A relegated Italy or Scotland will be far too good for the next level down and will be back up the following year.

 

[oldprussians]

I am an Italian and German Rugby fan and I am all in favour of it!

Why?

well I DO NOT BELIEVE Italy would go down.

I will quote myself from another forum cause I am lazy!

"
There have been games that were badly reffed that meant Italy came last. But the have been championships where Italy didn't come last and in 2013, for small margins of error Italy could have come much higher.


The real villains of the piece is the Old boys network of the British Isles keeping a closed door club so that Wales and Scotland are guaranteed to have pro rugby and not end up like the Soccer counterparts.

England couldn't careless if they stopped playing Wales or Scotland, but the are part of the same sovereign state, so they will not break the club.

Any change would have to forced by either the Latins leaving, (which there is no financial reason to), or World or Europe rugby to enforce it, ( but that won't happens since it is in the hands of the Anglo group), which leaves the EU courts! Teir 2 teams would have to take it to the European courts as it goes against fair competition rule in the EU

and one more thing... since the Anglo group own the refs is P/R was forced upon them, I would not bet against games being reffed to make sure the Home nations stayed up.

Look at the RWC in NZ! France should have won that game, but weren't allowed to. If Jurbert had blow for just 1/4 of the offsides NZ were in... "

So how would this Promotion relegation work...

Well I think it would have to take the format of the European cup of Nations... so it is take over 2 years so that all the teams get a home and way aggregate and the promoted team gets one year to get up to speed and the next to see if they survive.

In practice because the 6N is every year and the top of the tree their would be need to change the way teams are crowed champions and it can stay yearly but the over all relegation would be in table over 2 years!

Clear as mud?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Sorry but Italy would be the team going down. Since it became the 6N, Italy have had the wooden spoon 10/15 times. Maybe occassionally others would go down but Italy are the main contenders.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I am an Italian and German Rugby fan and I am all in favour of it!

Why?

well I DO NOT BELIEVE Italy would go down.

I will quote myself from another forum cause I am lazy!

"
There have been games that were badly reffed that meant Italy came last. But the have been championships where Italy didn't come last and in 2013, for small margins of error Italy could have come much higher.


The real villains of the piece is the Old boys network of the British Isles keeping a closed door club so that Wales and Scotland are guaranteed to have pro rugby and not end up like the Soccer counterparts.

England couldn't careless if they stopped playing Wales or Scotland, but the are part of the same sovereign state, so they will not break the club.

Any change would have to forced by either the Latins leaving, (which there is no financial reason to), or World or Europe rugby to enforce it, ( but that won't happens since it is in the hands of the Anglo group), which leaves the EU courts! Teir 2 teams would have to take it to the European courts as it goes against fair competition rule in the EU

and one more thing... since the Anglo group own the refs is P/R was forced upon them, I would not bet against games being reffed to make sure the Home nations stayed up.

Look at the RWC in NZ! France should have won that game, but weren't allowed to. If Jurbert had blow for just 1/4 of the offsides NZ were in... "

So how would this Promotion relegation work...

Well I think it would have to take the format of the European cup of Nations... so it is take over 2 years so that all the teams get a home and way aggregate and the promoted team gets one year to get up to speed and the next to see if they survive.

In practice because the 6N is every year and the top of the tree their would be need to change the way teams are crowed champions and it can stay yearly but the over all relegation would be in table over 2 years!

Clear as mud?

You're nuts.

 

[oldprussians]

You're nuts.

How polite!

 

[Feicarsinn]

How polite!

At least I didn't swear.

Seriously though, if you think that the reason Italy are continuously finishing at the bottom of the table is due to some big conspiracy by the home nations to keep rugby outside of the English speaking world down then not only are you kidding yourself, but you're also feeding an attitude that is damaging to Italian rugby.

Italian rugby is where it is because it is incapable of producing players of a high enough quality. It's that simple. Look at the under 20's six nations results. They're getting slaughtered every year. The same goes for their clubs sides in the Pro12 and the European Cup (although I will admit that the entry fee they were required to pay didn't exactly help here.

If Italian rugby wants to be able to bring something more to the table than the occasional upset every couple of years they need to completely revamp their underage structures and find a way of bring more talent into the game. It'll be a long process and undoubtedly hard work, but convincing yourself that it's all a big conspiracy isn't going to make it any easier to get the job done.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If relegation were a factor then I've got no doubt that Italy would be relegated every season.
They don't have the 10/kicker to play relegation rugby. Winning the wooden spoon isn't ideal, but isn't the end of the world, so teams will still play a bit of rugby in a "decider".
If relegation (and as such, all the money associated with 6N/TV deals etc) was at stake then teams would terrified to lose and it'd turn into 10man slogs (and we get a few of those regardless!).

 

[ncurd]

Voted yes but more on someday it should. Once tier 2 teams get on par with pacific island teams I'd say it's time to look at it. Currently even Italy can't match them.

Argentina got in the Rugby Championship from years of pushing their way through.

We don't want London Welsh incidents in international rugby. Italy are getting better but it's been an incredibly slow process.

 

[smartcooky]

You're nuts.

This!

 

[goodNumber10]

At least I didn't swear.

Seriously though, if you think that the reason Italy are continuously finishing at the bottom of the table is due to some big conspiracy by the home nations to keep rugby outside of the English speaking world down then not only are you kidding yourself, but you're also feeding an attitude that is damaging to Italian rugby.

Italian rugby is where it is because it is incapable of producing players of a high enough quality. It's that simple. Look at the under 20's six nations results. They're getting slaughtered every year. The same goes for their clubs sides in the Pro12 and the European Cup (although I will admit that the entry fee they were required to pay didn't exactly help here.

If Italian rugby wants to be able to bring something more to the table than the occasional upset every couple of years they need to completely revamp their underage structures and find a way of bring more talent into the game. It'll be a long process and undoubtedly hard work, but convincing yourself that it's all a big conspiracy isn't going to make it any easier to get the job done.

think it's the only major nation to not produce an international ref......