Reducing number of teams playing in RWC

[lado]

It looks like most of the rugby fans are strongly opposed to the idea of cutting down number of competing teams down to 16.
If you look at the current IRB ranking, it means that teams like USA, Japan, Portugal, Namibia might be out of the next WC.

Do you think it's a good idea?

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Organizers have raked in more than $140-million in TV rights revenue for this year's tournament, up substantially from about $95-million in 2003. British broadcaster ITV alone paid £30-million ($60.9-million), triple its cost for the 2003 event in Australia, although it acquired both in the same package. As recently as 1999, when the cup was staged on its home turf in Wales, ITV's price tag was only £12-million.

[/b]

Link:Despite imbalance, World Cup cashes in

That's from a Canadian article one week ago. Instead of closing off the World Cup to developing nations (the likes of the USA and Japan are potentially big TV markets) as the plan seems to be doing, the iRB should invest a lot of this money in tier 2 and 3 nations to bring them up to speed.

With just 6 months of iRB aid in the form of extra coaching, these nations who'll likely be culled next time have improved their performances drastically. What sort of improvements would be likely with 4 years extra aid? The World Cup is a cash cow for the iRB and this money would be wisely invested if it went towards improving the standard of nations outside the usual suspects. I fear that it will instead go to butressing top teams still further thus creating a bigger gap between the haves and the have nots.

A 2nd tier tournament is a good idea however it should not be at the expense of culling 4 teams from the biggest stage. I feel those countries who don't automatically qualify for the World Cup (ie those who finish 4th and 5th in their group) should be entered into a 2nd tier event two years out from the World Cup along with 8 other qualifiers. The top 4 teams in that competition gain entry to the World Cup and are immediately thrust into a schedule against the worlds top 12. The 4 remaining places can be determined over the course of the following year via a qualifying tournament. That gives every nation at least one year of full preparations for the World Cup, which is what the iRB are stating as their intention, without the need to cull teams.

 

[Hamster]

Stupid idea.

Minnows play with as much spirit as the top teams do.

USA and Japan wouldn't make it then.

 

[Ripper]

With the support they've seen for teams like Portugal and the way teams like Canada and Georgia have gone down fighting I don't think the IRB will cut the tournament anymore - Money talks and with the minnows improving out of sight in the past 4 years, the attention on those teams will only increase. No way the IRB flushes down the potential earnings stronger minnows would provide.

 

[T.Rugby]

the most stupid idea, before this world cup tonga would definetly have been one of the teams cut....how can a country's rugby team develop if they dont have a chance to play better nations for example england france...

 

[goraph]

Hm, seems like I'm first who vote that its good idea.
I need to think again maybe?

 

[rodryliff]

I think that had we been asked this question after Australia 2003, where the Wallabies put 142 past Namibia, we would have all agreed that 20 teams is too much.
However, this World Cup has shown how the smaller nations are getting better and how the gap is not that huge anymore. Besides, if you think about it, teams like Argentina and Italy used to be easybeats until 1999, and yet nowadays they are among the world's strongest teams. Have a look at Georgia. This is perhaps the team that has improved the most, and due to their performance in this WC they'll be given extra funding by their government, which will definitely help rugby develop over there.
Let's not turn rugby into cricket, where you got 10 teams enjoying all of the cake while the rest have a go at their crumbs. (This comes from an Argie cricketer heheh)

 

[moriap90]

yes but then ther must be a better qualifiyn system so weaker teams still have a chance

 

[Ruggerboy]

It's just ridiculous to reduce the number of teams with the excuse that matches like Portugal - New Zealand or Australia - Japan aren't attractive to the crowds. Besides, the only way of these smaller nations improving is going to the RWC because of the support they get from it.
And Georgia has proved that the gap between teams is getting smaller with that impressive exibition against Ireland and Argentina

 

[moriap90]

It's just ridiculous to reduce the number of teams with the excuse that matches like Portugal - New Zealand or Australia - Japan aren't attractive to the crowds. Besides, the only way of these smaller nations improving is going to the RWC because of the support they get from it.
And Georgia has proved that the gap between teams is getting smaller with that impressive exibition against Ireland and Argentina
[/b]

portugal getting beaten by 100 points imroves them?

 

[lado]

portugal getting beaten by 100 points imroves them?
[/b]

It might.

In WC2003 Georgia lost all four games
84-6 to England
46-9 to Samoa
46-19 to S.Africa
24-12 to Uruguay

In WC2007 one win + one bonus point + very close to the biggest upset in the history of RWC
3-33 with Argentina
10-14 with Ireland
30-0 with Namibia
7-64 with France

There is clearly a progress and a good chance that they will play much better in WC2011. If they have not participated in th WCs would we have the same progress? I do not think so.
Sometimes getting beaten in a good high quality game improves you more then worthless wins.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotemain'>
It's just ridiculous to reduce the number of teams with the excuse that matches like Portugal - New Zealand or Australia - Japan aren't attractive to the crowds. Besides, the only way of these smaller nations improving is going to the RWC because of the support they get from it.
And Georgia has proved that the gap between teams is getting smaller with that impressive exibition against Ireland and Argentina
[/b]

portugal getting beaten by 100 points imroves them? [/b][/quote]
Portugal being exposed to top tier opposition like New Zealand, Scotland and Italy definitely improves them. While they shipped a ton against New Zealand, Italy, an established nation who won two games in the last 6 Nations, shipped almost eighty. Portugal were competitive against Italy and almost got a victory against Romania so they're deserving of their place.

For Portugal to improve they need to play in World Cups due to the exposure it gives the sport in their home country. They also need to face tier 1 and tier 2 nations on a more regular basis outside the showpiece event.

 

[nikolass]

<div class='quotemain'>
It's just ridiculous to reduce the number of teams with the excuse that matches like Portugal - New Zealand or Australia - Japan aren't attractive to the crowds. Besides, the only way of these smaller nations improving is going to the RWC because of the support they get from it.
And Georgia has proved that the gap between teams is getting smaller with that impressive exibition against Ireland and Argentina
[/b]

portugal getting beaten by 100 points imroves them?
[/b][/quote]
It does. It might promote the sport in that country. It will help to develop younger players. Its a long term help. Check other sports. Look the basketball world cup. There are teams that cant shoot. But it does help them a lot.

 

[Mr. Laxative]

Well, to be honest the IRB would be stupid to reduce the number of teams for 2011. Look at all the great matches involving so called "minnows" in this tournament. Tonga, Fiji, Georgia and even Romania have posed some serious threats. It would be murder for them to be kicked out. On the other hand, at least the IRB is letting the top 3 teams in from each pool next time so that means Tonga automatically qualify - that could put Samoa in a spot of bother though.




However, the greatest thing to come from this tournament is the performance of Argentina. For a few years there has been talk that they may be included in the Tri-Nations in 2010 or '11, but judging by there dominance in the pool stages they should be rushed straight in - next year if possible. They don't have a tournament to play in and yet they are firming as favourites for the semi-finals and possible the big one!!

 

[ezefachi]

I don'¡t think it would be a good idea, in first instance, reducing at that level the amount of teams atempt with the spirit of the tournament wich is a competition between national teams from all parts of the world. Making it for 16 teams relies in a tournament for just european and pacific islands teams.
Also the minnor teams are proving that even don't having the same quality and technique that the bigger ones they can do a respectable job focussing their game in their spirit and will to win.
Sorry for this terrible english, but i don't speak it very well..

 

[Fasolin]

It looks like most of the rugby fans are strongly opposed to the idea of cutting down number of competing teams down to 16.
If you look at the current IRB ranking, it means that teams like USA, Japan, Portugal, Namibia might be out of the next WC.

Do you think it's a good idea?
[/b]

What for to reduce - the rest it is necessary to grow. And hit on the championship - the main stimulus for growth. By the way, the increase in number of commands up to 20 IMHO nevertheless has yielded positive fruits - the result is available.

It looks like most of the rugby fans are strongly opposed to the idea of cutting down number of competing teams down to 16.
If you look at the current IRB ranking, it means that teams like USA, Japan, Portugal, Namibia might be out of the next WC.

Do you think it's a good idea?
[/b]

And here the scheme of draw could and be changed - to make QFial groups - as in the hockey championship, for example.

 

[chinwaggler]

i dont think the potential profits should be a gauge to whether the number of participants in a world cup should be reduced or not. it should be decided purely on the games of rugby that will happen.

even though there have been some big point differences this world cup, the fact that wales, ireland, italy and almost scotland didn't make it to the finals shows that the quality of rugby is evening out between the top and lower ends of the rankings. also i'm sure more countries are starting to become interested in playing rugby at a high international level. that old 'communist bloc' has a larger audience than ever and reducing the number of participants wouldn't do them any good.

also, even when losing, some of the lower ranked teams are excited because they are losing by less :cheers: . i vote no