Petition asks for changes to Six Nations Championship

[Rich Taff]

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. Creating a competition for 8 teams that fits within the six weeks is fairly straight forward. You simply place the teams in two pools of four with the top two advancing to the playoff rounds in each. You could even give the winners of each pool a bye and force the other too two teams in each pool to play each other in a "quarterfinal" while the losers play a "wooden spoon" match. This would guarantee maximum profits and each team would be guaranteed four games up to a maximum of six.

This would mean that you don't play every team but the pools would be randomized yearly so their would be more variety which is important in sporting competitions. Of course, money needs to be taken in to account but an easy way to do this would be via a revenue sharing agreement much like what is used in the National Football League, ie the richest, most successful, sports league in the world.

You'd have more teams, which means a potentially larger TV deal could be struck as the population your covering is now significantly larger. You're also helping build your own national teams brand, something the All Blacks are very good at, which is why they can fill a 65,000 seat football stadium in Chicago, but the Home Nations can not.

Just going to post regarding this first response.

Wow! Just Wow!

I have family in Canada. They have a seven year old child. That child has more understanding of rugby than you appear to have.

 

[psychic duck]

The AB's brand is built solely on the fact that they have the Haka as their (very sucessful) gimmick, and the small matter of laying claim to one of the most brutally dominant winning records of any major sports team.

The All Black brand is built on far more than that. The iconic jerseys, some of the greatest players in the sport's history, and most importantly the decades upon decades of success. It's nonsensical to just say a little pre match jig is solely what their brand is built on. The unrivalled success in the sport both present day and historically is the core of their brand.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Just going to post regarding this first response.

Wow! Just Wow!

I have family in Canada. They have a seven year old child. That child has more understanding of rugby than you appear to have.

So rather than try and counter anything I've said you simply try and discredit me. "I'm not from a traditional rugby nation" what could I possibly know about the sport?

You'll note that I've been a member of this forum since 2004 and have been involved in this sport since around the year 2000, when I first started playing. I have rarely posted here in the past 4-5 years because this forum has slowly gone downhill since the numerous ownership changes it has undergone. It's now filled with a bunch of fairweather fans.

I've played for a number of different clubs in a couple of different countries and my brother is also a player who spent two seasons playing rugby "down under"

So yep, I find it mildly humorous that you are telling me I don't know anything about this sport.

With that said, are you saying that it's impossible to hold a tournament with eight teams in Six Weeks? Or are you literally incapable thinking outside the box?

 

[Deleted member 59246]

I signed your petition alexvoica, because I think it's a noble cause and a fine idea. But unfortunately, I don't see the Six Nations being changed any time soon. Frankly, rugby is run by (to quote Will Carling) "old farts". Much of rugby is based on tradition: the Lions, the Barbarians, the Home/Five/Six Nations, the Bledisloe Cup, etc. And for this reason, it probably won't change in such a drastic fashion as you propose.

The Home/Five Nations tournament is a tournament like no other with its long history, great rivalries, 'sub-trophies' like the Triple Crown and Calcutta Cup and the romance of the chase for a Grand Slam. Adding one team - Italy - didn't do much to tarnish that. It just meant one more (fairly winnable) game for each team. But the addition of any more new teams would have to be paired with a brand new format. Which would probably mean there could be no Triple Crowns or Grand Slams anymore.

So the IRB/World Rugby may have expanded the Pacific Nations Cup and given Japan a World Cup to host and may even - down the line - expand the European club rugby tournaments to include actual Romanian, Georgian, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese clubs (instead of made-up teams like the Bucuresti Wolves). But they won't make any changes that go against the traditions of the big teams.

Like I said, I signed your petition because I love to see the likes of the Georgias and Romanias do well. I try to follow the ENC as best as I can each year and can name most of the players from each of the teams off the top of my head. I'd love to see the rest of Europe get a fair crack at Test Rugby and if that meant the end of the Six Nations, so be it. But, as an Irishman, I can't say I wouldn't be sad to see the old championship go. As ratsapprentice said: it's not a league, it's an event.

So, what I'm trying to say is: I understand both sides, but it's irrelevant, because the old farts won't change a thing.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

I signed your petition alexvoica, because I think it's a noble cause and a fine idea. But unfortunately, I don't see the Six Nations being changed any time soon. Frankly, rugby is run by (to quote Will Carling) "old farts". Much of rugby is based on tradition: the Lions, the Barbarians, the Home/Five/Six Nations, the Bledisloe Cup, etc. And for this reason, it probably won't change in such a drastic fashion as you propose.

The Home/Five Nations tournament is a tournament like no other with its long history, great rivalries, 'sub-trophies' like the Triple Crown and Calcutta Cup and the romance of the chase for a Grand Slam. Adding one team - Italy - didn't do much to tarnish that. It just meant one more (fairly winnable) game for each team. But the addition of any more new teams would have to be paired with a brand new format. Which would probably mean there could be no Triple Crowns or Grand Slams anymore.

So the IRB/World Rugby may have expanded the Pacific Nations Cup and given Japan a World Cup to host and may even - down the line - expand the European club rugby tournaments to include actual Romanian, Georgian, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese clubs (instead of made-up teams like the Bucuresti Wolves). But they won't make any changes that go against the traditions of the big teams.

Like I said, I signed your petition because I love to see the likes of the Georgias and Romanias do well. I try to follow the ENC as best as I can each year and can name most of the players from each of the teams off the top of my head. I'd love to see the rest of Europe get a fair crack at Test Rugby and if that meant the end of the Six Nations, so be it. But, as an Irishman, I can't say I wouldn't be sad to see the old championship go. As ratsapprentice said: it's not a league, it's an event.

So, what I'm trying to say is: I understand both sides, but it's irrelevant, because the old farts won't change a thing.

Top class post right here and pretty much telling it like it is. Honestly though, the PNC is going to be dead in a couple of years. I won't be surprised when Canada and the US ditch the tournament.

 

[nik]

I cannot see teams like Georgia, Romania etc. included in 6 nations. For sure these 'minnow' nations need regular games against stronger opposition. The only way I see it is with introduction of new tournament which includes stronger teams. There needs to be another global however less significant tournament in between world cups. In soccer you have Asian Cup, Euro, Copa America played in between world cups.

Few suggestions, maybe every 4 years the 6nations can be ditched for a Northern Hem cup. Same thing for Rugby Championship ditched for a Southern Hemisphere cup. This way all the Tier 2/3 nations can be pitted against Tier 1 nations.

My personal favourite would be a knock out competition between the top 16 nations held 2 years before the next world cup.
The format:
1) Top 4 teams from each pool from this years RWC qualify for the 16 nation knock out tournament.
2) There will be 8 games each weekend for 4 consecutive weekends. 'This isn't exactly knockout rugby'
3) In consecutive rounds the winners play winners, the losers play losers. At the end of the 4 weekends you will have an over all winner which is unbeaten ranked number 1 followed by other teams ranked 2,3,4..... to 16.
4) So the losers doesn't go home after a loss, they continue playing until the end of the tournament and a ranking is confirmed for them.

Incentives?
1) Tournament rankings can be used directly to determine seedings for the next world cup OR heavily weighted against the official world rankings to determine seedings for next world cup.
2) Money! to participate, to win, large sums, get some sponsors on board, tv rights etc, which shouldn't be too difficult I imagine as this is more attractive than your normal one off test matches and tours.

Scheduling?
1) If the next world cup is in northern hemisphere, the knockout tournament will be held in southern hemisphere in June instead of the usual tours from NH teams.
2) Vice versa, if SH world cup then, NH knockout during November test matches period. Personally this is the best, a tournament across europe is logistically more viable rather then a tournament across southern hemisphere. Plus all teams are usually playing test matches around this period.
3) Once every 4 years between world cups

Benefits?
1) Every team players 4 matches
2) Good spread of competition across, i.e. minnows experience matches with top nations
3) Knock out rugby experience

Problems?
1) Possibly NZR, ARU and other nations might have a hissy fit about it if they cannot secure revenue from the tournament. ABs earn NZR large sums of revenue when touring the NH and playing games against USA/Japan. The mitigation is in the incentives.
2) May devalue RWC?

What about the bottom 4 teams that make up the 20 in RWC?
1) Well they have to go through the normal qualification (whatever that it is).

 

[vasysm]

May devalue RWC?

Absolutely.

As for the 6N dilemma, baby steps are the only way. As long as World Rugby doesn't award Tier 2 teams at least one or two Tests against Tier 1 teams per year, you can't just throw them to the lions abruptly and mess with a historic competition.

Give Romania at least one Test per year against the likes of France, Scotland, Italy and see how they do over 10 years. As long as we keep losing at home to Japan and USA, there's no way we can compete in an extended 6N.

 

[Tony Manx]

So rather than try and counter anything I've said you simply try and discredit me. "I'm not from a traditional rugby nation" what could I possibly know about the sport?

You'll note that I've been a member of this forum since 2004 and have been involved in this sport since around the year 2000, when I first started playing. I have rarely posted here in the past 4-5 years because this forum has slowly gone downhill since the numerous ownership changes it has undergone. It's now filled with a bunch of fairweather fans.

I've played for a number of different clubs in a couple of different countries and my brother is also a player who spent two seasons playing rugby "down under"

So yep, I find it mildly humorous that you are telling me I don't know anything about this sport.

With that said, are you saying that it's impossible to hold a tournament with eight teams in Six Weeks? Or are you literally incapable thinking outside the box?

In the current six weeks there are inbuilt rest periods that would be missing from your suggestion!

And yes, the 6N is about traditions just like the Haka!!

The thought that the AB' s are expanding the game by playing in different countries would be more pertinent if it were not really about money and financial guarantees were not in place!

 

[Hulkster]

But this is why the Six Nations will never expand, because the people in the Home Nations don't want it to. They would rather play 10 games against Wales a year than one game against Georgia, Romania or even Italy. This is the ugly truth and why Rugby remains a fairly small sport in terms of money, overall popularity, etc...

another way to do it would be still have pools but after the three games have been played you have a cross-over playoff.

Pool A 1 vs Pool B 4
Pool B 1 vs Pool A 4
Pool A 2 vs Pool B 3
Pool B 2 vs Pool A 3

then you have semis and finals, the combinations and possibilities are endless. With the proper revenue sharing model in place the unions wouldn't need to really worry about lost revenues either. We could even give teams that win finanical bonuses to reward performance.

This is how NFL teams only play 16 games a season yet make boat loads of money. It's not necessary to play the same teams every season, in fact it adds an air of uncertainty to the games as you never know what cross-conference teams you will need to play.

Off topic slightly and it will never happen, but I would love to see this approach adopted to form a Brirish&Irish or even a European league.

As you say, 32 NFL teams play 16 regular season games a year.

With a bit of thinking you could incorporate all of the top level European clubs in one competition, or restrict the numbers for quality if you preferred.

The pools can be arranged so that all of the big derbies are still played every year.

This would have so many benefits; the competition in itself would be even more appealing than any of the current ones. Players from every country would regularly be exposed to international competition - it would be their bread and butter. Countries that can't support a professional domestic league would be able to manage one 'franchise", so you could have a Georgian team and Romanian team playing in a European version of Superb Rugby, which would help the game enormously in those countries.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The All Black brand is built on far more than that. The iconic jerseys, some of the greatest players in the sport's history, and most importantly the decades upon decades of success. It's nonsensical to just say a little pre match jig is solely what their brand is built on. The unrivalled success in the sport both present day and historically is the core of their brand.

Why did you ignore the second part of my claim?

One which I clearly attach (pretty much all, in fact) significant importance to...

The two facts I mentioned (along with the jerseys, as you mention) make them incredibly easy to market.

 

[Peat]

Sorry, but I won't be signing this.

I'd sign a petition for the likes of Romania and Georgia to get more love in terms of Tier 1 games but they aren't good enough to be in the Six Nations. I would love to see the Home Nations do more to help them and other European countries and I'm all up for expanding European international rugby at the top level some day, but the quality is not there to make that day today.

Also, when the day comes, I want expansion and not promotion/relegation. I don't think yo-yo'ing will help develop the game.

 

[alexvoica]

Sorry, but I won't be signing this.

I'd sign a petition for the likes of Romania and Georgia to get more love in terms of Tier 1 games but they aren't good enough to be in the Six Nations.

If they aren't good enough, why not let them prove it? All I'm asking for is a match between the Six Nations wooden spoon and the ENC winner. If the ENC winner is indeed not good enough, nothing changes.

I guess the problem is if/when they are.

 

[barkinghooker]

I'm against the petition. I'm more for making the ENC and Rugby Europe (Fira) a better product ?!

Get a TV deal to cover the first two divisions . Highlights for the lower divisions . Perhaps have some ENC matches at the 6 nations stadiums as an appetiser to let the British Isles know other countries play the game ? It would also be an opportunity for the ENC teams to play at stadiums will high attendances.

6 nations is soo stiff I doubt there will be changes but I'm sure Rugby Europe and ENC would be open to more changes with less money being juggled .

Perhaps down the line the ENC will be a product that the 6 nations will want to be part of.

I'm very much for tests between the top and bottom just to give substance to the argument.

 

[Peat]

If they aren't good enough, why not let them prove it? All I'm asking for is a match between the Six Nations wooden spoon and the ENC winner. If the ENC winner is indeed not good enough, nothing changes.

I guess the problem is if/when they are.

I don't think a one off match that can have a freak result proves anything. I have no problems with making that match between Wooden Spoon and ENC winner a thing, but nothing should ride on it until we see consistent signs of being able to hack it.

Bluntly, it's questionable whether Scotland and Italy are good enough to be in the Six Nations. I don't want to make rugby smaller, sever traditions, or boot developing nations, so I'm not saying remove them, but I do not think being able to beat one of those teams once in a while makes you good enough to be in the Six Nations.

 

[alexvoica]

But aren't surprinsing results part of what makes sports so exciting?

Please tell me you didn't remotely enjoy Japan v South Africa or Samoa v Scotland.

 

[Peat]

But aren't surprinsing results part of what makes sports so exciting?

Please tell me you didn't remotely enjoy Japan v South Africa or Samoa v Scotland.

Of course surprise results are exciting. I just don't think Romania or Georgia are about to surprise any of England, Wales, France or Ireland. That's the standard.

I would be happy to give you guys tests to prove me wrong, but the Six Nations should only come when that's happened.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

In the current six weeks there are inbuilt rest periods that would be missing from your suggestion!

And yes, the 6N is about traditions just like the Haka!!

The thought that the AB' s are expanding the game by playing in different countries would be more pertinent if it were not really about money and financial guarantees were not in place!

So you agree with me though that you could easily fit an eight team tournament in to six weeks. Another way to do it if you only want to play five games is top two from each pool play in crossover semi-finals while bottom two from each pool play to avoid the wooden spoon.

In this format, every team gets five games still.

In the other part of your answer you've substantiated what I'm saying. An eight team tournament is going to bring in more money than a six team tournament because it's going to have a larger tv deal. When you build in a proper revenue sharing model, it's a win for everyone. This would of course require individual countries to put aside their own self-interests.

The expansion of the Six Nations isn't about money though, a larger tournament would bring in more cash. It's about preserving tradition which you admit is the reason it won't expand.

Off topic slightly and it will never happen, but I would love to see this approach adopted to form a Brirish&Irish or even a European league.

As you say, 32 NFL teams play 16 regular season games a year.

With a bit of thinking you could incorporate all of the top level European clubs in one competition, or restrict the numbers for quality if you preferred.

The pools can be arranged so that all of the big derbies are still played every year.

This would have so many benefits; the competition in itself would be even more appealing than any of the current ones. Players from every country would regularly be exposed to international competition - it would be their bread and butter. Countries that can't support a professional domestic league would be able to manage one 'franchise", so you could have a Georgian team and Romanian team playing in a European version of Superb Rugby, which would help the game enormously in those countries.

It would clearly provide a lot of benefits, especially with a revenue sharing model like the NFL's and a salary cap, even teams like Connacht would be able to compete.

I doubt it will be ever happen though for the same reasons the Six Nations won't be expanded. Plus, the club game isn't setup atm to be a dominant force and really plays second fiddle to the international game. With all the clubs in Europe playing under one banner and marching to the same tune, that could put the international game in real jeopardy.

 

[Deleted member 59246]

Unfortunately, I don't think Italy have done the Eastern European teams any favours. They've been particularly poor for the past few years and their club teams haven't really made any impact. Again, I don't mean to be so negative about the Italians, I'm a big fan of their's. But it's true. Until Italy - and Scotland, too - start to become properly competitive, there won't even be whispers of a Six Nations expansion.

Growth of the game, country-by-country is a slow process. World Rugby is focusing on Italy, Argentina and Japan for the moment. I think the best bet for the likes of Georgia and Romania is to get more serious tests in against the traditional teams in summer and autumn and to get their actual club sides into the European Challenge Cup (like I said, clubs not made-up franchises).

 

[barkinghooker]

England usually play the Barbarians in May. Romania or Georgia could replace that game ? Maybe play two games against AP teams not in the finals ?
Or play the Super Rugby Teams on tour ? They'd be good tour games !

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Unfortunately, I don't think Italy have done the Eastern European teams any favours. They've been particularly poor for the past few years and their club teams haven't really made any impact. Again, I don't mean to be so negative about the Italians, I'm a big fan of their's. But it's true. Until Italy - and Scotland, too - start to become properly competitive, there won't even be whispers of a Six Nations expansion.

Growth of the game, country-by-country is a slow process. World Rugby is focusing on Italy, Argentina and Japan for the moment. I think the best bet for the likes of Georgia and Romania is to get more serious tests in against the traditional teams in summer and autumn and to get their actual club sides into the European Challenge Cup (like I said, clubs not made-up franchises).

I can agree with this, I also think that Georgia, in terms of playing ability, is probably slightly ahead of Italy already although it's impossible to prove given the fact they never play each other.

The Georgian U20 has bested the Italian U20 for a number of years now and the Georgian pack is probably better. The back lines are both crap tbf but Georgia has better age grade talent coming through.

On the club front, Romanian and Russian clubs have beaten Italian clubs in qualification for the Challenge Cup. This is why Krasny Yar is playing in the Challenge Cup this year as opposed to another Excellenza team.

There is a new qualification tournament starting this year with clubs from Italy, Romania, Portugal, Spain and Germany that will feed in to the Challenge Cup.

England usually play the Barbarians in May. Romania or Georgia could replace that game ? Maybe play two games against AP teams not in the finals ?
Or play the Super Rugby Teams on tour ? They'd be good tour games !

This is the thing, T2 countries don't want to play against Super Rugby teams or clubs, they want regular competition against T1 nations.

We wouldn't even care if the 6N or RC remained a closed shop, as long as we were offered games in June/November. One T1 match during each touring season would make up for being excluded from the top tournaments.