Tier 1 expansion - the great debate.

[Leonormous Boozer]

I do get your logic I just feel it's too unfair on those countries on the way up... also what if for arguments sake Georgia won the Euro Championship 10 times in a row but all of those ten times there wasn't a wooden spooner 3 times in a row (though, let's say Wales were on the second consecutively at Georgia's 10th). Then the following year Portugal came from nowhere and won the Euro Champs and Wales picked up their third straight spoon... hey presto Portugal are in the 6 Nations when they have had nowhere near the consistency that Georgia had shown.

At least with an annual play-off you can have a bad 6 N (which is possible for ANYONE) and still get the opportunity to fight for your right to party the following year. Italy beat Georgia convincingly last Autumn and was the deciding factor for me in this format choice.

Agree with you on this, I think a playoff in the 6N sides home ground is the way to go if we keep the 6n in its current format. And if we're being realistic, with the exception of maybe Italy (and even then I'm not sure) it'll be years before Georgia or anyone else is good enough to beat any 6 nations team away.

The only thing about this is that it just assumes that the 6 nations is a European competition, for all intents and purposes it is but it never markets itself as such. It's a shame that the US and, to a lesser extent, Georgia crashed and burned at this world cup after good form leading up to it. I'd have been all for Japan and another joining an 8 team competition if the logistics could be sorted out. As I see it now though there's just not enough good teams about and Japan's best route to the top table is South where they'll be desperate for increased revenue.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Japan are in an awkward position, geographically, to join a major comp - 12hrs from London, 10-11 from South Australia/New Zealand, shortest flight I could see between Tokyo and Buenos Aires was 26hrs. It'll be tough getting sides to agree to that + the time difference (i.e. jetlag) despite the stacks of cash they could bring in (and how much they deserve to be playing in a top level comp).

 

[TRF_heineken]

Japan are in an awkward position, geographically, to join a major comp - 12hrs from London, 10-11 from South Australia/New Zealand, shortest flight I could see between Tokyo and Buenos Aires was 26hrs. It'll be tough getting sides to agree to that + the time difference (i.e. jetlag) despite the stacks of cash they could bring in (and how much they deserve to be playing in a top level comp).

One of the partners at our firm is flying out tomorrow to the WC. From Jo'burg to Singapore - 10hrs. Then from Singapore to Tokyo - 8 hrs (plus add the stopover times and so on). Travel is the probably one of the main factors making it difficult for them to join an already settled tournament...

 

[bushytop]

Agree with you on this, I think a playoff in the 6N sides home ground is the way to go if we keep the 6n in its current format. And if we're being realistic, with the exception of maybe Italy (and even then I'm not sure) it'll be years before Georgia or anyone else is good enough to beat any 6 nations team away.

The only thing about this is that it just assumes that the 6 nations is a European competition, for all intents and purposes it is but it never markets itself as such. It's a shame that the US and, to a lesser extent, Georgia crashed and burned at this world cup after good form leading up to it. I'd have been all for Japan and another joining an 8 team competition if the logistics could be sorted out. As I see it now though there's just not enough good teams about and Japan's best route to the top table is South where they'll be desperate for increased revenue.

It's a tough one about whether the 6N (or indeed any non World Cup Rugby Tournament) should be geographical. I think, ultimately (like Endgame, when nations like Germany, Brazil... Korea? etc) they 'should' be but until that point I guess it's fair game.

Eventually I'd like three decent annual championships along the lines of @TRF_heineken suggestion. A European, a Pan-Pacific & and America's... all with promotion and relegation play-offs.

European speaks for itself: 6N & Euro Champs

Pan Pac: TRC, Pacific Islands and South-East Asia

America's: Canada, USA, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil Chile etc.

Long (lllloooooooooonnnnnnnggggggg) way off like but you know what I mean.

South Africa is the only sticking point really as it's more in line with Europe than Pan Pac. I guess an African Champs would be needed too in that case but I've a feeling that would be even further down the road. Not an easy route to this either.

 

[Which Tyler]

My prob with promotion relagation is kind of a selfish one as i dont want to see a tier 1 team go down and it can happen due to injury crisis 1 year, especially scotlant as they dont have the depth. The closed comp as long as you dont lose 3 times in a row at least means you have to be consistent or least competative. Or your out and someone else gets a chance it gives a tier 2 team time to grow then if they dont then its their own fault.

There's always the compromise position of promo/rele every other year, which I believe is the precedent set from the ENC, and also takes home advantage out of it.
You then get a play-off to ensure that the upcoming team is actually better than the downgoing - however hard it is to find that space in the schedule (non-Lions, non-RWC) years would be easier.

To determine top/bottom - agragate championship points > agragate head-to-head > agragate tries scored > Whoever swapped less recently.
You could even put in a fudge-factor. If team A finish bottom of the 6N AND team B finishes top of the ENC for both relevant years, then no play-off.

FTR, I'm in favour of this whether we bring in the NH teams into the ENC or not

 

[Scotty]

Problem is Georgia have scored 62 points this WC with 1 win and 3 losses. 122 conceded. Taking out Uruguay who while improved arnt at any level bar beating a fiji second team. So that means scored 32 - conseced 115.

Are they going to be a better fit for the 6N than Italy?

I just dont want promotion and relagation to come in and be up and down between the same teams year in year out with the odd upset where we end up with 2 tier 2 teams for a year then back to just 1. If a team is going to come into the 6N they need to have something in place like their own league or some way to prove they will get better by playing vs tier 1 teams. Georgia dont too good for ENC, not good enough for 6N... it is a tough one though.

Thats why i think japan with a 3 year net and then evaluate.(i guess 3 year constant bottom team doesnt work).

Putting georgia in the 6N for a year for them to be comprehensivly beaten to put them back down to get italy back up and repeat doesnt help anyone IMO.

 

[profitius]

Let's see how Italy develops first. They're a lot better that Georgia but still struggle to win any game in the 6N.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Bring back Australia A, toss em in a competition with NZ Maori, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga. Gives Australia the opportunity to develop some depth. Gives Japan and NZ Maori better opposition

 

[Brigantine]

Ultimately the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship are fundraisers, and the main criteria for participants is that they contribute to the business case.

For Japan, this RWC performance is still just a burst of form on home ground. They won't gain much from regular games vs All Blacks, Wallabies, Springboks and England, but frequent tests against teams like Argentina, Scotland, France and Italy would be valuable.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Remember that we are to start seeing Tier1 games hosted Tier2 nations in the new July Test window next year and a supposed 39% increase in Tier1 vs Tier2 matches. This had better materialise and could be a the last chance saloon for improving the development of the best Tier2 nations (which in turn could make promotion / relegation conversations more positive in the future).

https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/calendar-changes.38841/

Has anyone's test schedule for next year been announced at all?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Japan are in an awkward position, geographically, to join a major comp - 12hrs from London, 10-11 from South Australia/New Zealand, shortest flight I could see between Tokyo and Buenos Aires was 26hrs. It'll be tough getting sides to agree to that + the time difference (i.e. jetlag) despite the stacks of cash they could bring in (and how much they deserve to be playing in a top level comp).

The Sunwolves managed it for a few years

 

[powerfulduck]

A potential way around the travel would be for the championship to become the 5N and each team hosts it for a year. Commit to an initial 5 year plan.

That way the loss of revenue due to not playing would hopefully be recouped by the additional revenue of other games. World Rugby would have to subsidise this for the first 5 years however and it would suck for fans not getting as many home games.

From an investment point of view, to truly capitalise World Rugby need to pick 2-3 t2 unions and invest heavily while this 5 year program runs in the hope that you could split to 2 4N tournaments off the back of it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The Sunwolves managed it for a few years

Didn't they play in Singapore?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Didn't they play in Singapore?

they mixed up their home games between singapore, hong kong and japan, trying to rev up some support in the region

 

[Scotty]

I do think im in the minority here that likes the 6N as is and thinks if it is to change there must be a team holding there hand up saying not that they are better than italy because georgia still getting beat 9 times out of 10 isnt much better. IF it is to change we need a team that has enough in place that they will be good in years time. For example Japan America(as in their own home league not logistics) with there own leagues, be great if Japan USA and Fiji could make their own super rugby type league above the one in each of their own countries.

Big contrast in play styles in 1 league.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I do think im in the minority here that likes the 6N as is and thinks if it is to change there must be a team holding there hand up saying not that they are better than italy because georgia still getting beat 9 times out of 10 isnt much better. IF it is to change we need a team that has enough in place that they will be good in years time. For example Japan America(as in their own home league not logistics) with there own leagues, be great if Japan USA and Fiji could make their own super rugby type league above the one in each of their own countries.

Big contrast in play styles in 1 league.

is the point tho there isn't enough opportunity for these team to put their hand up against the top teams?...if Italy are good enough they would be georgia in the promotion game

 

[Scotty]

is the point tho there isn't enough opportunity for these team to put their hand up against the top teams?...if Italy are good enough they would be georgia in the promotion game

No thats the thing georgia is the only team thats available for promotion, they deserve a play off with italy or even straight promotion and im not against it. Thing is i just dont care because as i said they will go the way of Italy. Barely winning any games with no solid structure beneither them to compete. Dont get me wrong i want to grow tier 2 rugby i just dont associate playing in the 6N and growing as a direct correlation. There needs to be alot more in place.

 

[powerfulduck]

Long term the suggestion that Japan and US can be lumped in with Fiji is mad to me, if the sport catches fire in these countries you will have powerhouses of the game within ten years and the like of Fiji can't compete. I think if Rugby grows at its current rate the Pacific Islanders will get left behind.

The only way I can see the Pacific nations being truly competitive long term is pooling their resources like the Windies do in cricket and competeting in a barbarians style fashion.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

What about instead of hemispheres, we go with time zones. Then the UK, France, Italy and South Africa have a grouping. Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the PI have a grouping, Argentina, USA, and Canada has a grouping. That way the viewers in that region will get to view most of the matches at acceptable times to see their teams play.

That is already in place. It's called America's Rugby Championship. It's

Chile
Uruguay
Canada
US
Brazil
Argentina XV (our second team)

No chance UAR sends the pumas there.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Long term the suggestion that Japan and US can be lumped in with Fiji is mad to me, if the sport catches fire in these countries you will have powerhouses of the game within ten years and the like of Fiji can't compete. I think if Rugby grows at its current rate the Pacific Islanders will get left behind.

The only way I can see the Pacific nations being truly competitive long term is pooling their resources like the Windies do in cricket and competeting in a barbarians style fashion.

too much tension between countries for that...would be easier getting the home nations to do it, theyve done like the lions, the odd special game but not long term

That is already in place. It's called America's Rugby Championship. It's

Chile
Uruguay
Canada
US
Brazil
Argentina XV (our second team)

No chance UAR sends the pumas there.

and this is my problem...what do any of these teams get for winning?...the pride of beating other tier 2/3 teams...yay..if we want to keep the current comps we need to connect them, give the teams a real reward, a promotion shot...currently we just have loads of reasonably pointless comps..."im the best!...of the teams allowed to play in this comp"