Expanding the Six Nations and allow "lesser" nations compete

BOHtox

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/26/six-nations-georgia-romania

Just a few snippets:

The Six Nations has been urged to consider expanding in order to give emerging European nations such as Georgia and Romania greater exposure to international rugby at the highest level.

Rather than seeking promotion and relegation to and from the Six Nations, Morariu will suggest more teams be added when World Rugby’s congress meets in London this week.

“Teams like Georgia and Romania proved themselves able to compete at the World Cup and need regular fixtures against top European teams,”
“We can all see the progress Argentina have made since entering the Rugby Championship.

“The greatest legacy of this World Cup could be opening the game up to more countries.


I think I'd be in favour of this. The 8 Nations has a ring to it. But I don't think you could have any more. And if there were to be future expansion perhaps a two-tiered 6/8 Nations is the best option where the team that finishes last either gets relegated automatically or goes in to a play-off with the team that finishes first in the second tier.

The main arguments are in the article. Playing against top team regularly is only good for the game. Argentina have benefited from playing in the old Tri-Nations tournament and I think European teams can benefit from the same.

pickarooney

I still reckon Japan would be the best fit. Not great for travelling fans or kick off times, mind.
Two more physically strong but creatively blunt sides aren't going to improve the tournament.

WarZ

I would add Georgia. It would be an exciting fixture and I think they've shown that they would be able to handle themselves.

errlloyd

I said this in another thread, I have no problem with 8 nations in theory, but I'd want the rugby championship to follow suit with Japan and the PI teams.

I don't think we should be compromising on the standard of rugby we play regularly while the best teams in the world operate a closed shop.

CatFromHue

Our season is too long already though so I don't see where they could fit these games into it.

I'm still not convinced that playing top teams regularly is the main driving force behind nations getting better.

There's a strong argument that Italy and Argentina were stronger than they are now, or around now, before they got into the 6N/4N

seachto7

errlloyd wrote:

but I'd want the rugby championship to follow suit with Japan and the PI teams.

What about a competition with Japan, the PI teams, USA and Canada? Another 6 nations.

errlloyd

seachto7 wrote: »

What about a competition with Japan, the PI teams, USA and Canada? Another 6 nations.

You mean the Pacific Nations Cup?

It exists, it's not taken seriously enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Rugby_Pacific_Nations_Cup

The Lost Sheep

BOHtox wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/26/six-nations-georgia-romania

Just a few snippets:

The Six Nations has been urged to consider expanding in order to give emerging European nations such as Georgia and Romania greater exposure to international rugby at the highest level.

Rather than seeking promotion and relegation to and from the Six Nations, Morariu will suggest more teams be added when World Rugby’s congress meets in London this week.

“Teams like Georgia and Romania proved themselves able to compete at the World Cup and need regular fixtures against top European teams,”
“We can all see the progress Argentina have made since entering the Rugby Championship.

“The greatest legacy of this World Cup could be opening the game up to more countries.

I think I'd be in favour of this. The 8 Nations has a ring to it. But I don't think you could have any more. And if there were to be future expansion perhaps a two-tiered 6/8 Nations is the best option where the team that finishes last either gets relegated automatically or goes in to a play-off with the team that finishes first in the second tier.

The main arguments are in the article. Playing against top team regularly is only good for the game. Argentina have benefited from playing in the old Tri-Nations tournament and I think European teams can benefit from the same.

8 Nations is too much and I don't want to see a group stage and I doubt any of the IRFU/RFU/WRU etc do either. Players probably play too much as it is. And people suggesting play games on rest weeks of 6Ns no as they are needed. We need to be doing more and we need to firstly be giving Georgia more games in November and June but none of the 6Nations sides will give up home games to travel to Georgia in November.

pickarooney wrote: »

I still reckon Japan would be the best fit. Not great for travelling fans or kick off times, mind.
Two more physically strong but creatively blunt sides aren't going to improve the tournament.

Japan are not the best fit in any way. Travel is too much. They don't suit tv or fans who make 6Nations.

pickarooney

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

8 Nations is too much and I don't want to see a group stage and I doubt any of the IRFU/RFU/WRU etc do either. Players probably play too much as it is. And people suggesting play games on rest weeks of 6Ns no as they are needed. We need to be doing more and we need to firstly be giving Georgia more games in November and June but none of the 6Nations sides will give up home games to travel to Georgia in November.

Japan are not the best fit in any way. Travel is too much. They don't suit tv or fans who make 6Nations.

Yeah, those were the two specific drawbacks I mentioned. In every other way they'd be perfect though. Level, style, money...

Pudsy33

CatFromHue wrote: »

.


There's a strong argument that Italy and Argentina were stronger than they are now, or around now, before they got into the 6N/4N

That's definitely not the case. Italy are poor at the moment but they've had strong periods over the last decade. Argentina are definitely at their strongest point now and playing better rugby than ever before. They have better players.

I'm not sure what the ssolution is but there needs to be some way to grow these nations.

Losty Dublin

Georgia and especially Romania are nowhere near close to even consider entering the 6N system. By all means they need to be exposed to a higher level of international football but they'd be better facilitated through the likes of the Churchill or Tblisii cup competitions or A internationals and with November tests against the Pacific Island nations than with getting murdered by the home nations.

Italy's future is good as efforts there have gone into developing a youth structure in the country; give them a decade and they will be a lot stronger than at present. Japan's future is best served either in a Pacific cup with Fiji, Tonga and Samoa or to look long term into coming into the Championship. As with Italy their youth game needs to develop new talent; this will take time but they'll get there.

CatFromHue

Pudsy33 wrote: »

That's definitely not the case. Italy are poor at the moment but they've had strong periods over the last decade. Argentina are definitely at their strongest point now and playing better rugby than ever before. They have better players.

I'm not sure what the ssolution is but there needs to be some way to grow these nations.

Italy's record against us is far better before they got in the 6N than since.

Granted we were ****e then but Scotland are ****e now and the Scots are still doing better against them than we used to against them.

Argentina lost in the QF to the eventual winners in the 11RWC and in the SF to the 07 winners. In 99 they were QF's too. They've been good for awhile now

Shurimgreat

More international games can only be a good thing. We need our players playing more internationals and less against lowly European club teams.

The 6 nations has run its course. Its the most over hyped competition out there. It has become meaningless to win the triple crown, championship, even the grand slam. The standard in the 6 nations is frankly poor compared to the SH.

And there's no excitement to it. Some sort of European Cup would definitely be more exciting. Two groups of four, semi finals and finals. Knockout rugby always encourages ruthlessness.

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

8 Nations is too much and I don't want to see a group stage and I doubt any of the IRFU/RFU/WRU etc do either. Players probably play too much as it is. And people suggesting play games on rest weeks of 6Ns no as they are needed. We need to be doing more and we need to firstly be giving Georgia more games in November and June but none of the 6Nations sides will give up home games to travel to Georgia in November.

Japan are not the best fit in any way. Travel is too much. They don't suit tv or fans who make 6Nations.

The answer is simple. I've said it repeatedly on here. Kill the 6 Nations and merge everyone in Europe into the ENC.

It'll never happen but it's the fairest solution.

Pudsy33

Even in a thread about an expanded 6 nations have people tried to turn it into a SH wankfest

BOHtox

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Even in a thread about an expanded 6 nations have people tried to turn it into a SH wankfest

SH?

[Devils advocate]
Before we start with an 8 Nations, there could be a second tier 6 Nations, if one currently doesn't alreaedy exist. With a promotion/relegation system.

First Tier:
Ireland
France
England
Wales
Scotland
Italy

Second Tier:
Georgia
Romania
Spain
Russia
Portugal
???

Winners of the Second Tier play the bottom team of the First Tier in a play-off. You can make it two-legged, aggregated anything you want to make it more entertaining.
[/devil's advocate]

Pudsy33

Southern Hemisphere. I agree with the above to some degree.

irishbucsfan

BOHtox wrote: »

Before we start with an 8 Nations, there could be a second tier 6 Nations, if one currently doesn't alreaedy exist. With a promotion/relegation system.

There's an entire seperate competition called the European Nations Cup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9316_European_Nations_Cup_First_Division

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

It includes everyone else in Europe. It's run by Rugby Europe. It has relegation and promotion all the way from the bottom to the very top.

The answer couldn't be more simple. Move the 6 Nations under the auspices of Rugby Europe and make it the first division of the European Nations Cup.

Unfortunately the current powers of the 6 Nations would be entirely unwilling to do that and it's entirely up to them. Despite being rugby nations in Europe they are not under Rugby Europe, and so we're going to see the progression of rugby in Europe stunted for a long time. Adding two teams to the 6 Nations just makes the problem much worse, increasing the power of the few and decreasing the power of the nations within Rugby Europe.

Nermal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The standard in the 6 nations is frankly poor compared to the SH.

How will adding more lower-ranked teams make it better?

We should see can we tempt SA away from the Championship...

errlloyd

Just while we're all here can we bust one myth.

There is plenty of time for an 8N. The current competition is played over 7 weeks, a game a week and not a bother. Even if it wasn't the rugby championship is 6 games and spans 3 continents. (7 games for Australia and new Zealand). They make time in their seasons becuase their internationals rarely play a level under super rugby. The only real reason we can't do that (I mean gradually phase internationals out of the pro12, AP, T1) is the French and English clubs would kick up a fuss.

If there could just be a little bit of cooperation between the leagues, European cup and unions we could solve this easily. It's only an extra two games a year.

The Lost Sheep

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Georgia and especially Romania are nowhere near close to even consider entering the 6N system. By all means they need to be exposed to a higher level of international football but they'd be better facilitated through the likes of the Churchill or Tblisii cup competitions or A internationals and with November tests against the Pacific Island nations than with getting murdered by the home nations.

Italy's future is good as efforts there have gone into developing a youth structure in the country; give them a decade and they will be a lot stronger than at present. Japan's future is best served either in a Pacific cup with Fiji, Tonga and Samoa or to look long term into coming into the Championship. As with Italy their youth game needs to develop new talent; this will take time but they'll get there.

How are Georgia nowhere near close to be considered for entry to 6N? They don't need more games against our A teams they already are beating them. They need full tests against us, Scotland, Italy.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

More international games can only be a good thing. We need our players playing more internationals and less against lowly European club teams.

The 6 nations has run its course. Its the most over hyped competition out there. It has become meaningless to win the triple crown, championship, even the grand slam. The standard in the 6 nations is frankly poor compared to the SH.

And there's no excitement to it. Some sort of European Cup would definitely be more exciting. Two groups of four, semi finals and finals. Knockout rugby always encourages ruthlessness.

The 6 Nations hasn't run its course by any means. Who are the lowly European club teams you are referring to?
Has it become meaningless to win the triple crown? Winning the championship and grand slam is far from meaningless.

errlloyd wrote: »

Just while we're all here can we bust one myth.

There is plenty of time for an 8N. The current competition is played over 7 weeks, a game a week and not a bother. Even if it wasn't the rugby championship is 6 games and spans 3 continents. (7 games for Australia and new Zealand). They make time in their seasons becuase their internationals rarely play a level under super rugby. The only real reason we can't do that (I mean gradually phase internationals out of the pro12, AP, T1) is the French and English clubs would kick up a fuss.

If there could just be a little bit of cooperation between the leagues, European cup and unions we could solve this easily. It's only an extra two games a year.

There isn't really. Playing 7 weeks back to back just wont happen and is that needed. The SH has time in season as their competitions are smaller. The Super Rugby teams play about 16 games. Sides in Europe play 28. It may only be "an extra two games a year" but we already play too much rugby up here as it is.

Riskymove

errlloyd wrote: »

There is plenty of time for an 8N. The current competition is played over 7 weeks, a game a week and not a bother.

TBH if the world cup showed us anything it is the effect on a squad of playing intense games on a weekly basis

the attrition would likely to be very high on a first XV expected to play 8 games in a row like that

It would also mean that Irish internationals would be unavailable for provinces for about 10 weeks having a significant impact on the Pro12 and ERC

captbarnacles

Shurimgreat wrote: »

More international games can only be a good thing. We need our players playing more internationals and less against lowly European club teams.

The 6 nations has run its course. Its the most over hyped competition out there. It has become meaningless to win the triple crown, championship, even the grand slam. The standard in the 6 nations is frankly poor compared to the SH.

And there's no excitement to it. Some sort of European Cup would definitely be more exciting. Two groups of four, semi finals and finals. Knockout rugby always encourages ruthlessness.

No excitement to it? Did you watch the six nations last year.

Grand slam is meaningless?

I think you'll find you are in a tiny minority who think this.

bilston

There is not a chance that the clubs in England and France would agree to an expansion of the 6Ns. Adsing more teams means more games.

Promotion and relegation isn't an option as it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Two pools of four is a non starter because it would mean you could go a couple of years without matches such as England v Wales or Ireland v France and financially that would be a challenge as it might impact on the value of TV rights.

I don't necessarily agree with all the above but those are reasons an expansion is very unlikely.

Short term measures are possible.

1) Guarentee Romania and Georgia get three home tests each season in November. 2 matches against Tier 1 opposition and 1 match against Tier 2 opposition.

2) Expand the Pro 12 to 14 teams so it matches France and potentially England. Invite a Romanian team and a Georgian team and let them compete like the Jaguars will in Super Rugby next season. It would also give both sides a passage into the Champions Cup.

stadedublinois

errlloyd wrote: »

Just while we're all here can we bust one myth.

There is plenty of time for an 8N. The current competition is played over 7 weeks, a game a week and not a bother. Even if it wasn't the rugby championship is 6 games and spans 3 continents. (7 games for Australia and new Zealand). They make time in their seasons becuase their internationals rarely play a level under super rugby. The only real reason we can't do that (I mean gradually phase internationals out of the pro12, AP, T1) is the French and English clubs would kick up a fuss.

If there could just be a little bit of cooperation between the leagues, European cup and unions we could solve this easily. It's only an extra two games a year.

Of course French and English clubs would kick up a fuss. They pay the players.

The European set up isn't comparable to the SH as the leagues aren't a level under the European competitions, so what you suggest would require a complete overhaul of the system creating new franchises. It will never happen, and I wouldn't want it to, but It would likely lead to a reduction of teams from Ireland and Wales.

Neil3030

What would people say to an NFL style format. In the NFL teams play 16 regular season games, but there are 32 teams in total.

You play each team in your division home and away (6 games in total), then the remaining 10 games are selected from the other 28 teams. It's a little bit too much to go into here, but it's a mix between selecting fixtures on rotation (so you play each team in other division every 3 or 4 years) and a mix between selecting teams that finished at the same level as you the previous year (thus, in theory, giving each team a relatively weighted schedule). More on the exact process here.

Were the 6 Nations to become the 8 Nations, teams could still play 5 games a year, just with schedules selected in such a way as to give each team the same relative difficulty across the 5 games. This would mean the better teams would play each other more often, while the weaker teams would play the weaker teams. Could decide the schedule each year based on rankings, where they finished the year before, or a combination of the two.

ulster_Beef

To be honest, Im not fussed on the idea.... just yet.

Too many armchair fans jumped on the bandwagon and called for 'this'... due to an upset.

Celtic football beat Barcelona, shall Celtic play in the Spanish league next? Moving back to rugby, it was only in June on this year when Italys B Side beat Georgia by like 20 points in Georgia.

These world cups bring out the best in teams and shouldnt be used as an argument.

People called for a promotion relegation two tier system. That sounds all well and good but it was ONLY 2/3 YEARS AGO when France came last and would have been booted into the 2nd tier of such a system. Would you rather watch France or Georgia? I know its not about 'would you rather'... but people need to see the big picture.

Would we want to lose Scotland and Italy... sure Italy beat France two years in a row there.

What I am for however, is a 2nd league with no promotion... not just yet anyway.

The Lost Sheep

bilston wrote: »

There is not a chance that the clubs in England and France would agree to an expansion of the 6Ns. Adsing more teams means more games.

Promotion and relegation isn't an option as it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Two pools of four is a non starter because it would mean you could go a couple of years without matches such as England v Wales or Ireland v France and financially that would be a challenge as it might impact on the value of TV rights.

I don't necessarily agree with all the above but those are reasons an expansion is very unlikely.

Short term measures are possible.

1) Guarentee Romania and Georgia get three home tests each season in November. 2 matches against Tier 1 opposition and 1 match against Tier 2 opposition.

2) Expand the Pro 12 to 14 teams so it matches France and potentially England. Invite a Romanian team and a Georgian team and let them compete like the Jaguars will in Super Rugby next season. It would also give both sides a passage into the Champions Cup.

Problem with guaranteeing Romania and Georgia home games is again like turkeys voting for Christmas. Who of the 6 Nations will give up home games to travel to play them in Tbilisi/Bucherest etc? I suppose we could look at playing a test in June and then going to SH to play 2 tests against New Zealand etc
Expanding the pro12 would be great especially if we could use it in future to expand again and have European league with 2 divisions????

stadedublinois wrote: »

Of course French and English clubs would kick up a fuss. They pay the players.

The European set up isn't comparable to the SH as the leagues aren't a level under the European competitions, so what you suggest would require a complete overhaul of the system creating new franchises. It will never happen, and I wouldn't want it to, but It would likely lead to a reduction of teams from Ireland and Wales.

Would it lead to a reduction in irish teams? If there was a change to system it wouldn't necessarily mean we would have less than 4 sides

ulster_Beef wrote: »

To be honest, Im not fussed on the idea.... just yet.

Too many armchair fans jumped on the bandwagon and called for 'this'... due to an upset.

Celtic football beat Barcelona, shall Celtic play in the Spanish league next? Moving back to rugby, it was only in June on this year when Italys B Side beat Georgia by like 20 points in Georgia.

These world cups bring out the best in teams and shouldnt be used as an argument.

People called for a promotion relegation two tier system. That sounds all well and good but it was ONLY 2/3 YEARS AGO when France came last and would have been booted into the 2nd tier of such a system. Would you rather watch France or Georgia? I know its not about 'would you rather'... but people need to see the big picture.

Would we want to lose Scotland and Italy... sure Italy beat France two years in a row there.

What I am for however, is a 2nd league with no promotion... not just yet anyway.

I think that's unfair to say too many armchair pundits looking for x and y....

That game in Georgia in June didn't have Georgias first team playing. That was a Georgian B side. It shouldn't have to be about who we would rather watch.
There already exists a second league with no promotion and relegation to the top tier.

stadedublinois

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Would it lead to a reduction in irish teams? If there was a change to system it wouldn't necessarily mean we would have less than 4 sides

It would depend on the system, but if there was a European superrugby competition, of say 20 teams, I couldn't see there being more than 2 or 3 teams from each of the pro 12 countries (I don't like the idea of one team from a country, effectively having the international team as a club team but we'll see how it works with Argentina and Japan).

Just based on population you couldn't have the same number of teams from Ireland and Wales as France and England.

For example you could have:

3: Ireland
3: Wales
2: Scotland
2: Itlay
5: England
5: France

My main point though is that European rugby can't fix its problems by implementing/creating the SH model.

Help!!!!

I would leave the 6 nations as it is for the moment but there could be a northern hemisphere competition every 4 years ( as in world cup/euros in soccer )
Invite USA/Canada/Japan & whatever European nations wanting to play

endabob1

bilston wrote: »

There is not a chance that the clubs in England and France would agree to an expansion of the 6Ns. Adsing more teams means more games.

Promotion and relegation isn't an option as it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Two pools of four is a non starter because it would mean you could go a couple of years without matches such as England v Wales or Ireland v France and financially that would be a challenge as it might impact on the value of TV rights.

I don't necessarily agree with all the above but those are reasons an expansion is very unlikely.

Short term measures are possible.

1) Guarentee Romania and Georgia get three home tests each season in November. 2 matches against Tier 1 opposition and 1 match against Tier 2 opposition.

2) Expand the Pro 12 to 14 teams so it matches France and potentially England. Invite a Romanian team and a Georgian team and let them compete like the Jaguars will in Super Rugby next season. It would also give both sides a passage into the Champions Cup.

I agree to a Certain extent here, Romania & Georgia are the 2 in Europe that need to be given games to advance, but there are also teams beneath them that benefit from playing those 2, it's a cascading process. If you simply lift them out of the ENC then what happens to Portugal, Russia etc.. they just get cast adrift completely.
There is a structure there, it needs tweaking as opposed to an overhaul


On point 1 - as long as they are getting matches, home or away; There are 6 tier 1 European nations 4 SH T1 plus Samoa & Fiji who tend to tour, I would suggest that the IRB should be ensuring that the touring sides in the November make a stop in Romanian or Georgia, even if it's Samoa & Fiji it would make a difference.
Then the 6 nations sides should play one of them, I know Ireland played Georgia a couple of years ago but England, Scotland & France have never played them outside of World Cups, Wales have never played Georgia, they are ranked 2 places behind Italy in the world but of the 6 tier 1 nations in Europe only Ireland and Italy have ever played them outside of a world cup.
I would Insist that the 4 of the 6 nations play one of the 2 each Autumn, I don't get it really, if you have 4 weekends to play then you would want a wee bit of rotation anyway, good chance to play "emerging" players


On point 2 , this in theory looks a good idea but most of the Georgian Squad and a lot of the Romanians are playing in France, so the club side would be weak unless it could repatriate some of the bigger names, this seasons European challenge cup qualification tournament is a good idea but I actually prefer the idea of a pro12 expansion IF those sides can be competitive, given how comparatively weak the Italian sides have been, that is a big IF.....


I think the idea of a promotion relegation play off to the 6N is one that should be pursued, even if it's unlikely in the short term (Turkeys for Christmas as you rightly point out) but I would expand the ENC and include Canada & USA (assuming it can be scheduled to not clash with the pacific Nations) it would make the Tier2 in Europe more competitive and help push the argument for 6N expansion