Would European Rugby Benefit By....

prospect

I know this is a 'pie in the sky' type of thought but humor me for a minute.

Do you think it would be for the benefit of European rugby if the switched the Heineken Cup, and 6 nations tournaments to a biennial basis.


If each competition was held every other year that would mean it would allow for the inclusion of other countries and free up scheduling conflicts.

I think the inclusion of Italy has had a positive impact on both the 6 nations and the [Currently Named] RaboPro12 league. I believe that, after a year or two of development, the addition of extra nations to both competitions would raise the standard, and profile of rugby across Europe.


Like I said, far out there, will never happen, but I figured I'd get it out of my system.

irishbucsfan

That would cut our revenue in half though

justsomebloke

prospect wrote: »

Do you think it would be for the benefit of European rugby if the switched the Heineken Cup, and 6 nations tournaments to a biennial basis.

I'm pretty much going to look at it from a financial point of view but for me the answer is No. The Unions would lose vast amounts of income if they were to change it to every 2 years

JustinDee

No.
The game would go broke at every conceivable level.

LeinsterDub

After 12 years Italy are only just getting up to standard and it could be argued it's been Scotland's falling standards have made it appear they have improved more than they actually have. All this plus Italy came from a pretty decent base to begin with. None of the other nations are near the level Italy where when they joined the 5 nations

ArmaniJeanss

I'd like to see the 6Nations scrapped every fourth year anyway (the competition scheduled for 2 years after each World Cup), and replaced with a European Nations Cup.

This would be the current 6 Nations, and the top 2 from the previous running of the 6NationsB division.

Its faintly embarassing that we wheel Georgia, Russia and Romania out for the World Cup every 4 years, give them a rotten schedule, then tell them to fcuk off back under their rock and don't even consider them worthwhile opposition for as much as a test match in the next 4 years.

As a relative outsider to the game, it strikes me as fairly shocking that such a European Championship doesn't happen already. The evidence of the World Cup is that they are close enough quality wise to ensure very few mismatches, and giving them something to actually aim at is surely good.

Quite shameful that the fact they don't bring lots of moolah to the table, in the form of a rich tv audience for sponsors, or lots of highspending away support, seems to be one of the main obstacles to this idea.

Monty Burnz

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its faintly embarassing that we wheel Georgia, Russia and Romania out for the World Cup every 4 years, give them a rotten schedule, then tell them to fcuk off back under their rock and don't even consider them worthwhile opposition for as much as a test match in the next 4 years.

This bit is very true.

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd like to see the 6Nations scrapped every fourth year anyway (the competition scheduled for 2 years after each World Cup), and replaced with a European Nations Cup.

This would be the current 6 Nations, and the top 2 from the previous running of the 6NationsB division.

Its faintly embarassing that we wheel Georgia, Russia and Romania out for the World Cup every 4 years, give them a rotten schedule, then tell them to fcuk off back under their rock and don't even consider them worthwhile opposition for as much as a test match in the next 4 years.

As a relative outsider to the game, it strikes me as fairly shocking that such a European Championship doesn't happen already. The evidence of the World Cup is that they are close enough quality wise to ensure very few mismatches, and giving them something to actually aim at is surely good.

Quite shameful that the fact they don't bring lots of moolah to the table, in the form of a rich tv audience for sponsors, or lots of highspending away support, seems to be one of the main obstacles to this idea.

You post as if these countries lie dormant outside of a RWC year. They don't. Any professionals they have are playing for clubs/franchises in the main Six Nations countries. The countries play in a European Championship each year (this year in Romania, in June for example). The top-tier Six Nations countries also take part in development assistance in conjunction with the IRB in these countries, supplying equipment, holding coaching & development seminars and running promotional campaigns.

There isn't a lot of "moolah" to bring to the proverbial table in the first place. You can't just pluck a team out of thin air and make it a high profile professional sporting entity by simply putting it in a competition. You can also tell how worthwhile the rugby-going public consider a team to be by a likely or past attendance.

DeDoc

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd like to see the 6Nations scrapped every fourth year anyway (the competition scheduled for 2 years after each World Cup), and replaced with a European Nations Cup.

This would be the current 6 Nations, and the top 2 from the previous running of the 6NationsB division.

I really like this idea - but I'd suggest you could run it either the year before or year after the World Cup (so it doesn't clash with Lions tours)

What I'd do, would be as follows:

Seed the teams 1-8 (IRB World Rankings) after the previous years 6NationsB. On current form, this would be:

England, Wales, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, Georgia, Romania in that order

Make 2 groups of 4:
England, Ireland, Italy, Romania
Wales, France, Scotland, Georgia

You play every team in the competition over a 10 week period (2 on, 1 off, 2 on, 1 off, 1 on, 1 off, 2 on) from the end of January to the start of April.

That would require 2 extra weeks, thus seeing the regular season extend by 2 weeks (possibly one in each direction)

Then, at the end of the season (which would now likely be the middle of June) you could play a grand final game between the top nation in each pool, which would also act as a warmup for those teams going on tour. If the extra match was a bridge too far, you'd just have a single pool of 8 teams playing 7 games each.

Every one of the 6N sides would get one extra home game against Georgia or Romania. Not the biggest draw in the world, but I think with extra TV revenue for the competition and the extra ticket sales, you'd cover the costs of the extra games with enough to spare to 'compensate'/buy-off the clubs for the extended season. Obviously if you went with the grand-final idea you'd have an extra marquee game which would bring in a lot of revenue - both for the competition as a whole, and for the two participating teams - especially the home side.

ArmaniJeanss

JustinDee wrote: »

You post as if these countries lie dormant outside of a RWC year. They don't. Any professionals they have are playing for clubs/franchises in the main Six Nations countries. The countries play in a European Championship each year (this year in Romania, in June for example). The top-tier Six Nations countries also take part in development assistance in conjunction with the IRB in these countries, supplying equipment, holding coaching & development seminars and running promotional campaigns.

You see to me (as an self-confessed outsider who never played the game, and didn't even become a fan until my 30s) this reads to me like 'we will do so much to make a pretence at helping them, but will always shy away from giving up a precious date in the calendar to actually play a full international game of rugby against them'.
I aware of the 'B' competitions, I just don't see why this and the 6N are completely seperate in European Rugby, my suggestion of having a more 'open' competition one year in 4 doesn't really seem that radical.

JustinDee wrote: »

There isn't a lot of "moolah" to bring to the proverbial table in the first place. You can't just pluck a team out of thin air and make it a high profile professional sporting entity by simply putting it in a competition. You can also tell how worthwhile the rugby-going public consider a team to be by a likely or past attendance.

We 'pluck' far worse teams than Georgia and Romania and place them in a top tier World Cup, so why not a top tier European Championships?

The evidence of the last 2 World Cups would be that whilst they would clearly not win a European Championship, but that despite their 'amateur' status there is nothing to fear in terms of them being mismatched on the scoreboard, or there being any extra risk of physical injury.

JustinDee wrote: »

You can also tell how worthwhile the rugby-going public consider a team to be by a likely or past attendance

I genuinely think this should be not be a consideration in any sport. If they merit it on the field then that should be the key thing.

Podge_irl

The 6 Nations isn't changing anytime soon and nor should it. However, I would like to see more test matches against Georgia/Romania/Russia in the autumn.

rrpc

The problem with rugby as a tournament sport is the time it takes up. The six nations takes up seven weeks and the RWC even more.

This is why rugby sevens has been developed. Cricket took the same path with ODIs and 20/20.

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You see to me (as an self-confessed outsider who never played the game, and didn't even become a fan until my 30s) this reads to me like 'we will do so much to make a pretence at helping them, but will always shy away from giving up a precious date in the calendar to actually play a full international game of rugby against them'

Well, don't assume so then. There is a lot more behind this, as already explained, than a "precious date", whatever that is.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

We 'pluck' far worse teams than Georgia and Romania and place them in a top tier World Cup, so why not a top tier European Championships?

Because, as I've said, of money required. The investment put into these unions is gearing towards that RWC. It is not a case of, again as I said, slotting them into another tournament.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I genuinely think this should be not be a consideration in any sport. If they merit it on the field then that should be the key thing.

The amount of money spent on it would be proportional to its possible returns. This applies to any sport in any region.

profitius

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd like to see the 6Nations scrapped every fourth year anyway (the competition scheduled for 2 years after each World Cup), and replaced with a European Nations Cup.

This would be the current 6 Nations, and the top 2 from the previous running of the 6NationsB division.

Its faintly embarassing that we wheel Georgia, Russia and Romania out for the World Cup every 4 years, give them a rotten schedule, then tell them to fcuk off back under their rock and don't even consider them worthwhile opposition for as much as a test match in the next 4 years.

As a relative outsider to the game, it strikes me as fairly shocking that such a European Championship doesn't happen already. The evidence of the World Cup is that they are close enough quality wise to ensure very few mismatches, and giving them something to actually aim at is surely good.

Quite shameful that the fact they don't bring lots of moolah to the table, in the form of a rich tv audience for sponsors, or lots of highspending away support, seems to be one of the main obstacles to this idea.

+1 Good idea.

Money could be the biggest stumbing block along with tradition. The 6 nation countries are slow to break with tradition and to be fair the 6 nations is great for rugby. But having a European championship once every 4 years at the expense of the 6 nations sounds good to me.

Including the new nations would do wonders for the growth of rugby in their countries. They would then have 2 big tournaments to look forward to every 4 years, it would get more people taking up the sport and more interest in general. That - in the long term - means more money. Even if the Russians along because slightly interested their market is big enough to make an impact.

It would also give other countries something to aim for. Even Belgium is making good progress too in terms of underage teams.

For the 6 nation countries it would be something different to look forward to and provide a bit more variety than the usual matches.

I'd like to see 2 mini leagues with the top teams meeting in a final and the others playing off for ranking points etc on the final day. Also a promotion relegation system should be in place for new teams to enter.

I am pie

In the Autumn series I think Romania/Georgia/Russia/ + whoever else might have some hope of competing should be playing against the Wolfhoundsin an Autumn B series. No games in Dublin - have em in Belfast, Galway and Limerick - make them Friday night games with a 7.30 kick off, time for the after work crowd to get there.