Squeeze a 7th team into the 6N?

elastico

Watching Canada put it up to Italy and Romania not getting overrun by France got me thinking, should we have some sort of "back door" system in the 6N.

Something along the lines of Canada, USA, Romania and Georgia play each other during the opening weekends of the 6N.

The winners of this get to replace the traditional team who are coming last prior to the final round in the 6N.

For example if Italy are coming last before the final weekend, and Canada have won the qualifier tournament they get to play the game instead.

Italy play the second placed team in the qualifier instead, so if its a home fixture the tickets can be sold as normal.

Overall this would raise the profile in several countries and perhaps in future years lead to a first and second division in the 6N.

pickarooney

Nonsense. That would completely distort the tournament with teams not playing the same opponents.
Bad as Italy and Scotland can be, Georgia are still some way off the pace. These teams need more regular internationals in the June and November windows first.

elastico

pickarooney wrote: »

That would completely distort the tournament with teams not playing the same opponents.

Not really. Its just the last match that's affected, and the team coming last will hardly be in a position to mount a serious challenge to the team coming first, if its for the title.

I agree the suggestion is not perfect but Scotland and Italy can be quite poor, and this gives the other countries an avenue in the higher levels of the game.

irishbucsfan

Personally I'd be much more in favour of scrapping the 6 Nations altogether and just converting the current tournament into a new top tier of Rugby Europe's ENC and then work on promotion/relegation within that structure. The whole concept of the 6 Nations is antiquated as far as I'm concerned, we need to stop pretending we're not a part of European rugby and come into the fold.

sydthebeat

i wouldnt have an issue with a play off game between the winner of the european nations cup against the last placed 6n team with the winner getting a 6N spot.

as it is georgia have won it 5 years in a row with a glass ceiling above them currently

elastico

sydthebeat wrote: »

i wouldnt have an issue with a play off game between the winner of the european nations cup against the last placed 6n team with the winner getting a 6N spot.

as it is georgia have won it 5 years in a row with a glass ceiling above them currently

One issue with a playoff is that if Ireland (or whoever) get relegated into the lower division then the following year we would lose serious revenue. Ireland V England sells out regardless of how bad the Irish team are. Same goes for almost every other 6N games.

At least if its just the last game of the season then the tickets can be sold in advance and we play the second qualifier instead.

sydthebeat

elastico wrote: »

One issue with a playoff is that if Ireland (or whoever) get relegated into the lower division then the following year we would lose serious revenue. Ireland V England sells out regardless of how bad the Irish team are. Same goes for almost every other 6N games.

At least if its just the last game of the season then the tickets can be sold in advance and we play the second qualifier instead.

if ireland finished last in the 6N AND were beaten by teh ENC winners then they would deserve to be in that position.

elastico

sydthebeat wrote: »

if ireland finished last in the 6N AND were beaten by teh ENC winners then they would deserve to be in that position.

That's true I suppose!

I still think the concept of swapping in the best qualifier for the last game has its merits, as much to raise the profile of the game in the other countries as anything else.

Scotland going to Toronto for example in the final game of the season would draw enormous publicity and would be a tough one for them to win.

efb

Def think there should be a playoff game

Avatar MIA

elastico wrote: »

Not really. Its just the last match that's affected, and the team coming last will hardly be in a position to mount a serious challenge to the team coming first, if its for the title.

I agree the suggestion is not perfect but Scotland and Italy can be quite poor, and this gives the other countries an avenue in the higher levels of the game.

You really haven't thought this through. It doesn't just affect the bottom team.

Nermal

Add Georgia and Romania. Two seeded but random groups of four play among themselves (two home, two away matches). Winner of each group plays at home to runner-up of the other, location of final rotates yearly.

titan18

I'm with the playoff idea. It's most likely Italy vs Georgia to see who goes in.

Think also one of the Autumn tests should be marked for one of the 6 nation teams to play against the next group of European/North American teams, so Ireland/England/France etc would have to play one of Georgia, Romania, Russia, Spain etc

Should do the same for South Hemisphere sides so they'll have to play Uruguay, Namibia, Japan etc

Most likely they'll be hammered, but think it's needed if there's any intent at growing the game.

martingriff

elastico wrote: »

Not really. Its just the last match that's affected, and the team coming last will hardly be in a position to mount a serious challenge to the team coming first, if its for the title.

I agree the suggestion is not perfect but Scotland and Italy can be quite poor, and this gives the other countries an avenue in the higher levels of the game.

Except that last team might be playing a team who could win the championship if scoring enough points.

elastico

martingriff wrote: »

Except that last team might be playing a team who could win the championship if scoring enough points.

The logic is that the qualifier would be similar standard to the team that are coming last after 4 rounds of matches.

bilston

I don't think it will ever be expanded to 7 nations. More likely as IBF says it will go to 8 teams with maybe 2 groups of 4 with semi finals and a final with promotion and relegation play offs. That would also offer some protection to the established Six Nations as well which might make them more open to the idea down the line.

However I can't see it happening anytime soon. The new TV deals go to 2022 I think so it definitely won't happen before that and even then it would probably take Georgia or Romania making a breakthrough at the WC.

connemara man

The best idea imo would be a second tier 6 nations run in tandem with the historic 6 nations.
The bottom placed team would then go into a playoff vs the winner of tier 2 6 nations during the autumn Internationals and the winner goes up or stays depending on result

padser

There are great reasons to include more European teams in a top tier competition, or at least give them a route into top tier completion.

There are a number of good ways to try and integrate the other teams. Most of these ways will face opposition from existing 6N teams if they include any prospect of relegation etc (that's why in the past both France and, more recently, Italy were added to the X Nations thereby expanding the competition at no cost to the existing teams).

But.....

The notion of pulling one team mid tournament and replacing them with another team is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It's been suggested (charitably in my view) that this notion is just "not thought through" by the OP. To list just one of the many problems with it, consider how we would have felt earlier this year if Wales had been allowed to play Canada rather than Italy on the final day......

its_phil

elastico wrote: »

Not really. Its just the last match that's affected, and the team coming last will hardly be in a position to mount a serious challenge to the team coming first, if its for the title.

I agree the suggestion is not perfect but Scotland and Italy can be quite poor, and this gives the other countries an avenue in the higher levels of the game.

Commercially and logistically an awful idea. Not against giving more oppurtunity to minnows either

PTH2009

A European team made up of players from Romania, Georgia, Russia etc similar to the Pacific Islanders team a few years ago

Neil3030

Looking at a map of where the 21 most viable teams are located, there's no easy solution that springs to mind that considers both logistics and an evenly balanced tournament.



Possibly the best solution would be to treat Japan as a Southern hemisphere team and split the teams into two annual competitions.

Six Nations + Canada, USA, Romania, Georgia + Russia
Rugby Championship + Uruguay, Namibia, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa + Japan.

Southern Championship could be a 5,5 tiered split, with one up one down relegation each year.

Northern Championship could be a 6,5 tiered split, with one up one down relegation each year.

CurryFlavoured

I'd be happy with giving Georgia a chance, these teams won't improve by constantly playing 2nd and 3rd tier teams with amateur players, they need a step up. Georgia aren't that far off Italy judging by this WC either.

AbusesToilets

The recently announced American Tournament (is it 6 nations?) is a real step in the right direction. I think the other European nations might be better served by having some teams compete in top level club competitions before they could look to take part in an expanded 6 nations set up. Something along the lines of a Super 15 franchise team, which is a national team in all but name could work. It could help to build exposure and skill levels which could improve the overall level of the national team in the long run.

A proper conference system Europe wide would be the best set up below international level tbh. Allow for a better rugby season calendar, get some control over salary caps, and allow for the above scenario.

bilston

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The recently announced American Tournament (is it 6 nations?) is a real step in the right direction. I think the other European nations might be better served by having some teams compete in top level club competitions before they could look to take part in an expanded 6 nations set up. Something along the lines of a Super 15 franchise team, which is a national team in all but name could work. It could help to build exposure and skill levels which could improve the overall level of the national team in the long run.

A proper conference system Europe wide would be the best set up below international level tbh. Allow for a better rugby season calendar, get some control over salary caps, and allow for the above scenario.

Hopefully the American tournament works, but 10-15 years ago there was the Pan Pacific Cup which was USA, Canada, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and I think Japan and Argentina, but unfortunately it didn't survive. Hopefully this has more success

AbusesToilets

bilston wrote: »

Hopefully the American tournament works, but 10-15 years ago there was the Pan Pacific Cup which was USA, Canada, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and I think Japan and Argentina, but unfortunately it didn't survive. Hopefully this has more success

Game needs it tbh. That and a proper professional club competition in the Americas. Geography is such a hindrance though, travel times are no joke there.

locum-motion

padser wrote: »

...

The notion of pulling one team mid tournament and replacing them with another team is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It's been suggested (charitably in my view) that this notion is just "not thought through" by the OP. To list just one of the many problems with it, consider how we would have felt earlier this year if Wales had been allowed to play Canada rather than Italy on the final day......

That's the answer to the OP's question right there.

/thread

RedemptionZ

It's too idealistic to say Georgia or Romania should be in the 6N. Georgia aren't far off Italy at the moment, but there's so much obstacles. They're very far away and don't have anywhere near the infrastructure that Italy have.

They need more internationals during November, although as most play in the Top 14, they probably wouldn't be given international leave.. IMO the best possible solution, although very long term would be for the Russian domestic league to develop and Georgia to have at least two teams in it. While Romania have their domestic league developed to the point that they can have two teams either play in the Top 14(very unlikely) or the European Cup(whatever it'll be called by that stage).

This way you'd have Georgian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level and Romanian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level, this will translate to international success.

Italy's two clubs Treviso and Zebre have only been playing at the highest level possible for a few years now so they haven't had the chance to reap much rewards, but eventually if their domestic teams grows you'll see them edge ahead of the fringe European teams. Whether they will grow is another question...

bilston

RedemptionZ wrote: »

It's too idealistic to say Georgia or Romania should be in the 6N. Georgia aren't far off Italy at the moment, but there's so much obstacles. They're very far away and don't have anywhere near the infrastructure that Italy have.

They need more internationals during November, although as most play in the Top 14, they probably wouldn't be given international leave.. IMO the best possible solution, although very long term would be for the Russian domestic league to develop and Georgia to have at least two teams in it. While Romania have their domestic league developed to the point that they can have two teams either play in the Top 14(very unlikely) or the European Cup(whatever it'll be called by that stage).

This way you'd have Georgian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level and Romanian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level, this will translate to international success.

Italy's two clubs Treviso and Zebre have only been playing at the highest level possible for a few years now so they haven't had the chance to reap much rewards, but eventually if their domestic teams grows you'll see them edge ahead of the fringe European teams. Whether they will grow is another question...

If the Pro 12 is looking to expand in the future then they could do worse than getting a Romanian and Georgian team on board. I actually think there is more potential in those countries than Italy. Rugby is way down the agenda in Italy. In Georgia and Romania it is actually a popular sport and as a result I think teams from there would have better prospects long term than Treviso or Zebre.

Obviously travel to and from Georgia could prove an obstacle.

RedemptionZ

bilston wrote: »

If the Pro 12 is looking to expand in the future then they could do worse than getting a Romanian and Georgian team on board. I actually think there is more potential in those countries than Italy. Rugby is way down the agenda in Italy. In Georgia and Romania it is actually a popular sport and as a result I think teams from there would have better prospects long term than Treviso or Zebre.

Obviously travel to and from Georgia could prove an obstacle.

Well according to the IRB in 2011 (numbers plucked from wikipedia but the IRB are cited as the sources), Georgia had only 4,181 registered players and Romania had only 9,612 registered players, compared to Italy's 66,176 players. Registered players of course can be an unreliable way to judge a sports popularity, but I can't say I believe that they are rugby mad as a country in Georgia, or especially in Romania where they've got a pretty decent football league as an alternative. I don't know about Romania, but in Georgia there's a big competitive weightlifting and wrestling culture, which obviously translates well to the front and back row, coincidentally where all the top Georgian players play.

AbusesToilets

RedemptionZ wrote: »

It's too idealistic to say Georgia or Romania should be in the 6N. Georgia aren't far off Italy at the moment, but there's so much obstacles. They're very far away and don't have anywhere near the infrastructure that Italy have.

They need more internationals during November, although as most play in the Top 14, they probably wouldn't be given international leave.. IMO the best possible solution, although very long term would be for the Russian domestic league to develop and Georgia to have at least two teams in it. While Romania have their domestic league developed to the point that they can have two teams either play in the Top 14(very unlikely) or the European Cup(whatever it'll be called by that stage).

This way you'd have Georgian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level and Romanian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level, this will translate to international success.

Italy's two clubs Treviso and Zebre have only been playing at the highest level possible for a few years now so they haven't had the chance to reap much rewards, but eventually if their domestic teams grows you'll see them edge ahead of the fringe European teams. Whether they will grow is another question...

Only problem with those countries joining the Russian league is Russia's unfortunate habit of invading their country.

bilston

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Well according to the IRB in 2011 (numbers plucked from wikipedia but the IRB are cited as the sources), Georgia had only 4,181 registered players and Romania had only 9,612 registered players, compared to Italy's 66,176 players. Registered players of course can be an unreliable way to judge a sports popularity, but I can't say I believe that they are rugby mad as a country in Georgia, or especially in Romania where they've got a pretty decent football league as an alternative. I don't know about Romania, but in Georgia there's a big competitive weightlifting and wrestling culture, which obviously translates well to the front and back row, coincidentally where all the top Georgian players play.

Georgian club matches seem to attract big crowds from what I read (admittedly on the internet) which already gives it an advantage over Italy in terms of the growth of any club that would join a professional league.

thomond2006

It's easy for me to say but something needs to be done. First of all the Tier 2 European nations should all have at least one Tier 1 opponent during the AIs. Competitions like the Tiblisi Cuo must continue. World Rugby will have made a fortune from RWC and the ticket prices were justified as funds needed to 'grow the game', so therefore opportunities for Tier 2 nations should be part of this.

bilston

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's easy for me to say but something needs to be done. First of all the Tier 2 European nations should all have at least one Tier 1 opponent during the AIs. Competitions like the Tiblisi Cuo must continue. World Rugby will have made a fortune from RWC and the ticket prices were justified as funds needed to 'grow the game', so therefore opportunities for Tier 2 nations should be part of this.

Yeah get Romania to maybe play England, Wales and Scotland and Georgia could play Ireland, France and Italy in November and then swap it round the following year. The unions may not be impressed with that as they'd probably lose money. Maybe World Rugby could compensate them, however an increasingly global game would generate more income in the long term anyway so the Unions and World Rugby should look at it as a long term investment in the business!

My hope is for a 24 team World Cup in the next 12 years and that is the sort of thing that can help with that as you could have knock on effect, if the likes of Georgia and Romania get better then countries like Russia and Spain would have to get better as well.

The Lost Sheep

elastico wrote: »

Watching Canada put it up to Italy and Romania not getting overrun by France got me thinking, should we have some sort of "back door" system in the 6N.

Something along the lines of Canada, USA, Romania and Georgia play each other during the opening weekends of the 6N.

The winners of this get to replace the traditional team who are coming last prior to the final round in the 6N.

For example if Italy are coming last before the final weekend, and Canada have won the qualifier tournament they get to play the game instead.

Italy play the second placed team in the qualifier instead, so if its a home fixture the tickets can be sold as normal.

Overall this would raise the profile in several countries and perhaps in future years lead to a first and second division in the 6N.

Replacing bottom team for last round of 6 nations is a non runner with all teams not playing same teams etc...
There already is divisions in European international rugby with there being 7 divisions below the 6 Nations competition we compete in. A back door system is not the answer. More games for the likes of Georgia in November/June and perhaps a European wide championship of 12 teams every 4 years or so????

pickarooney wrote: »

Nonsense. That would completely distort the tournament with teams not playing the same opponents.
Bad as Italy and Scotland can be, Georgia are still some way off the pace. These teams need more regular internationals in the June and November windows first.

I don't think Georgia are some way off the pace but I agree more games against "Tier1" countries is needed before this step.

connemara man wrote: »

The best idea imo would be a second tier 6 nations run in tandem with the historic 6 nations.
The bottom placed team would then go into a playoff vs the winner of tier 2 6 nations during the autumn Internationals and the winner goes up or stays depending on result

The European nations cup is played same time as the main 6 nations. A playoff like that wont ever happen for financial reasons

RedemptionZ wrote: »

It's too idealistic to say Georgia or Romania should be in the 6N. Georgia aren't far off Italy at the moment, but there's so much obstacles. They're very far away and don't have anywhere near the infrastructure that Italy have.

They need more internationals during November, although as most play in the Top 14, they probably wouldn't be given international leave.. IMO the best possible solution, although very long term would be for the Russian domestic league to develop and Georgia to have at least two teams in it. While Romania have their domestic league developed to the point that they can have two teams either play in the Top 14(very unlikely) or the European Cup(whatever it'll be called by that stage).

This way you'd have Georgian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level and Romanian players playing together in their clubs at a relatively high level, this will translate to international success.

Italy's two clubs Treviso and Zebre have only been playing at the highest level possible for a few years now so they haven't had the chance to reap much rewards, but eventually if their domestic teams grows you'll see them edge ahead of the fringe European teams. Whether they will grow is another question...

If Georgia have games in the international test window French clubs have to release players under World Rugby regulations. Getting Russian league to develop more would be great and having Georgian sides compete there would be nice but these sides need more games against sides from the traditional powers

Neil3030

Can't speak for Romania & Georgia, but I lived in Italy for years and once I wash away any inherited sense of allegiance, and the romance of supporting the underdog, there really isn't much to get excited about Italian rugby. National team have made some progress, but once Parisse retires it will hit them pretty hard, domestic game virtually unheard of amongst the Italian public (I lived in the North, not far from Parma and I'd say 99 people out of 100 couldn't name you the two Italian teams in the Pro 12), no coverage of the game on national TV outside of some (not all) Six Nations matches. Italians just don't care about the sport; it's probably behind soccer, basketball, volleyball, skiing, swimming, water polo, athletics, cycling, tennis, gymnastics and probably a few more sports in terms of popularity. Not saying we give up on the Italians, but if countries like Romania and Georgia give more of a crap about the game, we really should be supporting that.

Quin_Dub

I'd be in favour of them running a 2nd tier 6N's alongside the main one and as other have said have a play-off between the winners of the 2nd Tier Comp and the last placed 6N's team.

I'd have the play-off at the end of the season , over 2 legs (bit like the English Premiership promo play-off) with the winner playing in the 6N's the next season..

The downside of that at present it that in reality what we'd have would be Italy playing Georgia in a play-off every season for at least the next few years..

As regardless of who wins the play-off those same two teams are odds-on to be the play-off contenders the next time around.

This would give Georgia exposure to the a higher standard , but probably not the rest of the teams..

That's where there has to be more of the Summer tournaments where the Tier 1 A teams (wolfhounds, saxons etc.) play against the tier 2 teams giving them exposure to the full pro game much more often.

The Lost Sheep

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd be in favour of them running a 2nd tier 6N's alongside the main one and as other have said have a play-off between the winners of the 2nd Tier Comp and the last placed 6N's team.

I'd have the play-off at the end of the season , over 2 legs (bit like the English Premiership promo play-off) with the winner playing in the 6N's the next season..

The downside of that at present it that in reality what we'd have would be Italy playing Georgia in a play-off every season for at least the next few years..

As regardless of who wins the play-off those same two teams are odds-on to be the play-off contenders the next time around.

This would give Georgia exposure to the a higher standard, but probably not the rest of the teams..

That's where there has to be more of the Summer tournaments where the Tier 1 A teams (wolfhounds, saxons etc.) play against the tier 2 teams giving them exposure to the full pro game much more often.

As mentioned already the European Nations Cup is played at same time as the 6 Nations... a playoff between bottom of 6 Nations and winner of ENC 1A wont happen due to chances of a France finishing bottom(they did in 2013....) and
The Georgians/Romanians etc don't need more games against Wolfhounds/Saxons. They need more games against our full sides. Saying the Goerigans etc need to improve but we wont give them the respect of playing our full test side against them isn't the way to go

CIARAN_BOYLE

I know there is an World Rugby tour schedule but I would love if the bottom team in the six nations had to tour Eastern Europe or host 3 tier 2 teams in the autumn

The Lost Sheep

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I know there is an World Rugby tour schedule but I would love if the bottom team in the six nations had to tour Eastern Europe or host 3 tier 2 teams in the autumn

Why just the bottom team? All should be playing 1 team from tier 2 from Europe or elsewhere every year.

Quin_Dub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

As mentioned already the European Nations Cup is played at same time as the 6 Nations... a playoff between bottom of 6 Nations and winner of ENC 1A wont happen due to chances of a France finishing bottom(they did in 2013....) and
The Georgians/Romanians etc don't need more games against Wolfhounds/Saxons. They need more games against our full sides. Saying the Goerigans etc need to improve but we wont give them the respect of playing our full test side against them isn't the way to go

Agree totally Politically they won't vote for a play-off but they should..Perhaps some kind of financial windfall for the relegated teams might help? - They do that in soccer in the EPL don't they??

In terms of the Rugby I guess my point was that there is a fairly big gap to the next team after Georgia...

After all a largely 2nd string Irish side just comfortably put 44 points on Romania..

I think that the summer tournaments would act as a bridge for the weaker tier 2 teams (Spain,Portugal etc.) and that each November the top 2 teams from the 2nd tier should get games against the Tier 1 sides..

Development has to happen progressively... even if we scrapped the 6N's in the morning and created a 2 or 3 group European tournament having a few sides shipping 60+ week in week out won't really develop them any quicker than giving them a few seasons of regular higher quality matches against 2nd string/weakened Tier 1 sides...

ArmaniJeanss

Have a bona fida European Championship every 4th year and scrap the 6 Nations that year.

2 seeded groups of 4, and use the same dates.

Week 1. Group games.
Week 2. Group games.
Week 3. rest week.
Week 4. Group games (organise it so that in each group 'First seed' plays 'second seed' on this weekend).
Week 5. Semi Finals, winner Group 1 at home to Runner Up group 2.
Week 6. rest week.
Week 7. Final (pre arranged venue).

All the excitement of semi finals and a final brought into European rugby.

Minor Problems.
Some teams get 2 home games and just one away in groups, the highest seeded teams should have this advantage imo.
Can't sell semi and final tickets months in advance as no-one knows if they will be playing, hopefully the excitement factor will get around this.
Some teams will only have 3 games and be knocked out instead of the guaranteed 5 games they have in the six nations.

snotboogie

Neil3030 wrote: »

Can't speak for Romania & Georgia, but I lived in Italy for years and once I wash away any inherited sense of allegiance, and the romance of supporting the underdog, there really isn't much to get excited about Italian rugby. National team have made some progress, but once Parisse retires it will hit them pretty hard, domestic game virtually unheard of amongst the Italian public (I lived in the North, not far from Parma and I'd say 99 people out of 100 couldn't name you the two Italian teams in the Pro 12), no coverage of the game on national TV outside of some (not all) Six Nations matches. Italians just don't care about the sport; it's probably behind soccer, basketball, volleyball, skiing, swimming, water polo, athletics, cycling, tennis, gymnastics and probably a few more sports in terms of popularity. Not saying we give up on the Italians, but if countries like Romania and Georgia give more of a crap about the game, we really should be supporting that.

Water polo? The Italian water polo men's grand final couldn't half fill a 2,000 seater stadium, Treviso averaged nearly 4,000 in the pro 12 last season. Rugby is battling with Basketball to be the number two team sport after football. The likes of volleyball and water polo are a million miles off.

AbusesToilets

I like the proposals to have regional tournaments. You could have it North and South, in place of the two main championship. Give the smaller teams bigger exposure and allow them to play meaningful games against top ranked teams.

RedemptionZ

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Only problem with those countries joining the Russian league is Russia's unfortunate habit of invading their country.

It's only one country, however yeah it's yet another long term obstacle. The solution to that problem isn't however, to bring them into the 6N. Russia is the only country that could support a high level league in Eastern Europe/Central Asia so we should be looking at developing rugby there imo.

P_1

So how would a European rugby contest work? First it's have to be on the year before or after a World Cup as the Lions tour will surely not be scrapped.

First do we have 16 teams to enter? Looking at the rankings we probably can manage:

1st Seeds: Ireland, England, Wales, France
2nd Seeds: Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Romania
3rd Seeds: Russia, Portugal, Spain, Germany
4th Seeds: Belgium and take your pick from the rest

It could work and any of the 6 Nations teams could easily host it

The Lost Sheep

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agree totally Politically they won't vote for a play-off but they should..Perhaps some kind of financial windfall for the relegated teams might help? - They do that in soccer in the EPL don't they??

In terms of the Rugby I guess my point was that there is a fairly big gap to the next team after Georgia...

After all a largely 2nd string Irish side just comfortably put 44 points on Romania..

I think that the summer tournaments would act as a bridge for the weaker tier 2 teams (Spain,Portugal etc.) and that each November the top 2 teams from the 2nd tier should get games against the Tier 1 sides..

Development has to happen progressively... even if we scrapped the 6N's in the morning and created a 2 or 3 group European tournament having a few sides shipping 60+ week in week out won't really develop them any quicker than giving them a few seasons of regular higher quality matches against 2nd string/weakened Tier 1 sides...

EPL moneywise different league
I don't see summer games being changed as Ireland are going to go to NZ/SA/Aus/Arg/US not Europe. November is where we should be playing European tier 2 sides.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Have a bona fida European Championship every 4th year and scrap the 6 Nations that year.

2 seeded groups of 4, and use the same dates.

Week 1. Group games.
Week 2. Group games.
Week 3. rest week.
Week 4. Group games (organise it so that in each group 'First seed' plays 'second seed' on this weekend).
Week 5. Semi Finals, winner Group 1 at home to Runner Up group 2.
Week 6. rest week.
Week 7. Final (pre arranged venue).

All the excitement of semi finals and a final brought into European rugby.

Minor Problems.
Some teams get 2 home games and just one away in groups, the highest seeded teams should have this advantage imo.
Can't sell semi and final tickets months in advance as no-one knows if they will be playing, hopefully the excitement factor will get around this.
Some teams will only have 3 games and be knocked out instead of the guaranteed 5 games they have in the six nations.

A European championship would be great but wont ever happen due to there being less money and the IRFU and most of the unions depend on the 6Ns for survival.

loyatemu

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

a playoff between bottom of 6 Nations and winner of ENC 1A wont happen due to chances of a France finishing bottom(they did in 2013....)

there's no way France would lose to Georgia or Romania over 2 legs though. You'd imagine only Italy or Scotland would be in any danger (and even then, over 2 legs you'd expect them to have too much).

The 6N is about money though - Italy may not contribute as much in revenue as the others (I'm guessing) but probably still far more than the other options, and Rome is a much more attractive away-day than Tblisi or Bucharest (for numerous reasons).

The Lost Sheep

loyatemu wrote: »

there's no way France would lose to Georgia or Romania over 2 legs though. You'd imagine only Italy or Scotland would be in any danger (and even then, over 2 legs you'd expect them to have too much).

The 6N is about money though - Italy may not contribute as much in revenue as the others (I'm guessing) but probably still far more than the other options, and Rome is a much more attractive away-day than Tblisi or Bucharest (for numerous reasons).

Again there is the potential for them or us etc to finish there and IRFU/RFU/WRU wont/don't want to run risk of a playoff
A two legged playoff would only be able to be played in June/November inside international test windows and wont happen in summer as sides wont want to miss out on tours down under
You are spot on about second paragraph...

elastico

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why just the bottom team? All should be playing 1 team from tier 2 from Europe or elsewhere every year.

Because at the moment its the bottom teams IE Scotland and Italy that are most likely to be beaten by Canada, Romania etc.

There is no point in having 50 point hammerings each game either. At least Canada for example might be competitive with Italy, especially at home.

The Lost Sheep

elastico wrote: »

Because at the moment its the bottom teams IE Scotland and Italy that are most likely to be beaten by Canada, Romania etc.

There is no point in having 50 point hammerings each game either. At least Canada for example might be competitive with Italy, especially at home.

That doesn't mean the others shouldn't be playing them. Yes the bottom sides are most likely to be beaten but they wont really do many tours to these places in summer

dregin

Is it true that when italy joined the 6 Nations, Romania were actually the better team, but their potential for ad revenue was lower than that of Italy?

The Lost Sheep

dregin wrote: »

Is it true that when italy joined the 6 Nations, Romania were actually the better team, but their potential for ad revenue was lower than that of Italy?

Not really. Romania were very strong in the 80s/very early 90s but upheaval in the country following fall of communism meant the sport suffered as the country went through all changes politically. Italy were quite strong in the late 90s - in 97/98 they beat us twice and also beat France and Scotland and narrowly lost to England