Proposed Nations Championship

[Omar Comin']

it'd have to be in an agreed test window. Then the clubs have to release the players

There's already a release window for the Rugby Championship now. But the clubs can and do still pressure players to make themselves unavailable. Nadolo just made himself unavailable for the world cup for this exact reason. And if a top player like him can be persuaded to skip a world cup, how many more would be persuaded to make themselves unavailable for the RC?

 

[RoffsChoice]

I had a model that I threw together a year ago, which I'll summarise here. (edit: the table formatting screwed up and I can't really be bothered to fix it at the moment.)

Tier One is created from the top 10 teams in the world rankings. They play a home-away round-robin of eighteen games over three years, for a total of six games per year.
There are nine other weekends per year designated for international rugby, which allows for the Rugby Championship, Six Nations, and mid-year tests to remain as desired; this also avoids the problem of teams outside Tier One being prevented from developing through exposure to higher-level teams.
In the third year, two of the nine "other" weekends are given to a set of finals: 1st hosts 4th; 2nd hosts 3rd; winners progress to a final, hosted by the upcoming World Cup host nation. The winner is the Tier One champion.

Tier Two is created from the next 8 teams in the world rankings. They also play a longer set of games, with a triple round-robin of 21 games over the three years, or seven weeks per year; this leaves them eight "other" weekends per year: enough for their current annual competitions, but not enough for a full three-week mid-year series.
In the third year,

two of the eight "other" weekends are given to a set of finals: 1st hosts 4th; 2nd hosts 3rd; winners progress to a final, hosted by the upcoming World Cup host nation. The winner is the Tier Two champion.​

Tier Three is created from the next six teams. They play a quadruple round-robin of twenty games over the three years; seven games in year one and two, six games in year three. The team on the top of the table after twenty games is the Tier Three champion.

Becoming Tier One champion is designed to be second only to the winning the Rugby World Cup.
Becoming Tier Two champion is the only way to enter Tier One, barring World Rugby disqualification, etc. The Tier Two champion replaces the 10th placed team in Tier One for the next World Cup cycle.
Becoming Tier Three champion entitles the team to play the 8th palced team in Tier Two. The winner plays in Tier Two for the next World Cup cycle, the loser plays in Tier Three.
The 6th placed side in Tier Three is always relegated. The highest-ranked team that is not currently in the Tiers model takes their place in the next World Cup cycle.

We made this model using the rankings from immediately after the 2011 RWC, so imagine the initial setup as:
Tier 1 Ranking Tier 2 Ranking Tier 3 Ranking
New Zealand 1 Samoa 11 Namibia 19
Australia 2 Italy 12 Russia 20
France 3 Canada 13 Uruguay 21
South Africa 4 Georgia 14 Spain 22
England 5 Japan 15 Chile 23
Ireland 6 Fiji 16 Portugal 24
Argentina 7 USA 17
Wales 8 Romania 18
Tonga 9
Scotland 10

If we imagine the rankings at the end of 2014 as indicitive of how the finals would go, etc., then the three Tier Champions would be:
Tier One: New Zealand
Tier Two: Samoa
Tier Three: Russia
Highest non-tiered team: Germany

The associated losers would be:
Tier One: Tonga
Tier Two: Canada
Tier Three: Chile

As a result, the following cycle would be set up as follows:
Tier 1 Ranking Tier 2 Ranking Tier 3 Ranking
New Zealand 1 Japan 11 Canada 18
South Africa 2 Fiji 12 Uruguay 20
Ireland 3 Tonga 13 Spain 21
England 4 Italy 14 Portugal 22
Australia 5 Georgia 15 Namibia 23
Wales 6 USA 16 Germany 24
France 7 Romania 17
Scotland 8 Russia 19
Argentina 9
Samoa 10

Run through again, and, if we use the same assumptions about the end-of-2018 rankings as indicitive, then the

three Tier Champions would be:​

Tier One: New Zealand​

Tier Two: Fiji​

Tier Three: Uruguay​

Highest non-tiered team: Netherlands​

​

The associated losers would be:​

Tier One: Samoa​

Tier Two: Russia​

Tier Three: Portugal​

​

And that would make the competition in the next World Cup cycle look like this:​

Tier 1 Ranking Tier 2 Ranking Tier 3 Ranking
New Zealand 1 Japan 11 Russia 19
Ireland 2 USA 12 Canada 20
Wales 3 Georgia 13 Spain 21
England 4 Tonga 14 Namibia 22
South Africa 5 Italy 15 Netherlands 23
Australia 6 Samoa 16 Germany 26
Scotland 7 Uruguay 17
Fiji 8 Romania 18
France 9
Argentina 10

Anyway, the point is that it gets every top team to play each other, and it recognises that the situation in international rankings is pretty fluid (apart from #1, sadly). The spare weeks should probably be committed to playing teams in the other tiers, which would help reduce the gap further, but we weren't able to come up with a reasonable model for this.​

 

[Braveheart81]

http://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/03...VSA6R0LGgDbaubbt9IJHlq87Dj2zZRJ9LqBIZfYSKVGuY

Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle has issued the below statement following reports in New Zealand media on World Rugby’s proposed annual international calendar model.
Castle reiterated Rugby Australia’s support for an international competition model that benefits Australian Rugby from a commercial, fan and player perspective and confirmed that it had not yet agreed to any competition format.
“World Rugby and the National Unions have been in discussions over the past six months to find an International Rugby competition format that delivers increased fan engagement and improved commercial opportunities. Rugby lives in a competitive sport and entertainment landscape and it is World Rugby’s role to find options that will help us remain at the very top of that landscape,” she said.
“Finding options to review that will deliver increased commercial revenues that allow Australia to have a high performing Wallaby team, keep our best talent in the country and invest in community Rugby, are not easy to find but must be explored.
“These exploratory discussions have been robust and complex, with player welfare, the growth of developing nations and protecting the great history of the game front and centre in the conversation. The competition model must provide opportunities for the Pacific Islands nations and other developing nations to continue to grow and compete with tier one nations.
“While these discussions are progressing with representatives from World Rugby and the National Unions in the room, nothing has been agreed or finalised. We continue to work to find a proposal that could have universal stakeholder support, deliver to Rugby Australia’s growth targets and grow International Rugby’s footprint.”

 

[Rebels3]

http://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/03...VSA6R0LGgDbaubbt9IJHlq87Dj2zZRJ9LqBIZfYSKVGuY

Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle has issued the below statement following reports in New Zealand media on World Rugby’s proposed annual international calendar model.
Castle reiterated Rugby Australia’s support for an international competition model that benefits Australian Rugby from a commercial, fan and player perspective and confirmed that it had not yet agreed to any competition format.
“World Rugby and the National Unions have been in discussions over the past six months to find an International Rugby competition format that delivers increased fan engagement and improved commercial opportunities. Rugby lives in a competitive sport and entertainment landscape and it is World Rugby’s role to find options that will help us remain at the very top of that landscape,” she said.
“Finding options to review that will deliver increased commercial revenues that allow Australia to have a high performing Wallaby team, keep our best talent in the country and invest in community Rugby, are not easy to find but must be explored.
“These exploratory discussions have been robust and complex, with player welfare, the growth of developing nations and protecting the great history of the game front and centre in the conversation. The competition model must provide opportunities for the Pacific Islands nations and other developing nations to continue to grow and compete with tier one nations.
“While these discussions are progressing with representatives from World Rugby and the National Unions in the room, nothing has been agreed or finalised. We continue to work to find a proposal that could have universal stakeholder support, deliver to Rugby Australia’s growth targets and grow International Rugby’s footprint.”

Actually a pretty good response from RA.

I wonder if in 20yrs time we will look at the past 24hrs and the outrage as a time that shaped the game. Either as a closed shop forever or towards a more inclusive game.

 

[Omar Comin']

The UEFA Nations league format is the best and WR (World Rugby) should just copy it. It involves multiple division of 4 x 3 groupings. Under this format teams play either each other twice for home and away or their group once in July and a corresponding group in November with the respective winner of these playing in the final and the last ranked team playing the winner of the 2nd division for their survival in the 1st division. This would involve 5 games per team which with the 6N's and say a expanded RC would mean around 12 tests a year.

I don't think it would be ideal having 3 team groups in rugby due to the bye weeks that would be required (not so much an issue in soccer as they can play every 3 days).

If you had groups of 4 it'd be better to have 16 teams. Then you could have 2 European groups and 2 Rest of the world groups, with each group only playing the teams in another group followed by semi finals. But even then the scheduling would be a nightmare. And if you mix the groups (e.g. a group with 2 6 Nations teams and 2 RC teams) and play home and away within the group then you'd either have to have 6 Nations and RC games count towards the world league (meaning no promotion / relegation) or you'd have several teams playing each other 3 times in a year.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I don't think it would be ideal having 3 team groups in rugby due to the bye weeks that would be required (not so much an issue in soccer as they can play every 3 days).

If you had groups of 4 it'd be better to have 16 teams. Then you could have 2 European groups and 2 Rest of the world groups, with each group only playing the teams in another group followed by semi finals. But even then the scheduling would be a nightmare. And if you mix the groups (e.g. a group with 2 6 Nations teams and 2 RC teams) and play home and away within the group then you'd either have to have 6 Nations and RC games count towards the world league (meaning no promotion / relegation) or you'd have several teams playing each other 3 times in a year.

That would work as well. The beauty of such a format it that it would provide a degree of flexibility to change the numbers if need be.

 

[southsider]

I’m not a huge fan of everyone playing everyone each year. As mentioned previously it kills a bit of the mystery of playing some teams and essentially turns it into a World Cup every year

My Proposal:

Make 6 Nations promotion/relegation

Make rugby championship into a 6 team comp with promotion/relegation

Teams who are ranked 7th at end of year from respective hemisphere will travel for an away fixture against 6th places team to fight it out for a spot in the following year

The two 6 Nations comps do their usual thing, then play against their equal ranked rival from the other competition, while it isn’t a perfect method and won’t truly be accurate rankings at the end (that’s what actual world rankings are for anyway) it limits player workload (unions can then decide how many other tests they want to do throughout the year) and it stops everyone playing everyone all the time and destroying the World Cup

With the extra money this brings in for each Union, the top 4 ranked teams have to then provide a “B” team for the following year to play X amount of games against tier 2 and 3 opposition to help build the game and give them quality opposition

In terms of a 4 year cycle:

World Cup year
World League
Lions Tour
World League

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Pacific Rugby Players Welfare which has ~600 members in UK, Europe & elsewhere floating the idea of PI players boycotting RWC in protest if Fiji, Samoa & Tonga are excluded from the new comp.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...rs-to-vote-on-rugby-world-cup-boycott--report

Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face but I can understand the anger & frustration these guys must be feeling.

 

[Dctarget]

Pacific Rugby Players Welfare which has ~600 members in UK, Europe & elsewhere floating the idea of PI players boycotting RWC in protest if Fiji, Samoa & Tonga are excluded from the new comp.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...rs-to-vote-on-rugby-world-cup-boycott--report

Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face but I can understand the anger & frustration these guys must be feeling.

Much more effective would be if they boycotted a few rounds of the NH rugby competitions. If each english and french club were missing 5 of the best players they might listen a bit more.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I’m not a huge fan of everyone playing everyone each year. As mentioned previously it kills a bit of the mystery of playing some teams and essentially turns it into a World Cup every year

My Proposal:

Make 6 Nations promotion/relegation

Make rugby championship into a 6 team comp with promotion/relegation

Teams who are ranked 7th at end of year from respective hemisphere will travel for an away fixture against 6th places team to fight it out for a spot in the following year

The two 6 Nations comps do their usual thing, then play against their equal ranked rival from the other competition, while it isn’t a perfect method and won’t truly be accurate rankings at the end (that’s what actual world rankings are for anyway) it limits player workload (unions can then decide how many other tests they want to do throughout the year) and it stops everyone playing everyone all the time and destroying the World Cup

With the extra money this brings in for each Union, the top 4 ranked teams have to then provide a “B” team for the following year to play X amount of games against tier 2 and 3 opposition to help build the game and give them quality opposition

In terms of a 4 year cycle:

World Cup year
World League
Lions Tour
World League

You're suggesting a circuit breaker in the form of a pro/rel game. Which is the most logical compromise in my opinion as well. At least for the first 10 years the chances of a 2nd division team winning that fixture is remote at best so there's little to really be concerned with. And if a 1st div is in danger they could always just expand it to 16 to create a buffer. Which is exactly how it should be from the beginning.

 

[Jets]

Gosper came out on twitter saying that promotion a relegation is still part of the plan and the top teams will be added to the Rugby Championships to take it to 6 teams.

 

[kiap]

Gosper came out on twitter saying that promotion a relegation is still part of the plan and the top teams will be added to the Rugby Championships to take it to 6 teams.

Gosper has taken an absolute caning on twitter in the last few days.

Remember a few years ago when players were regularly getting themselves into social media trouble?

Same applies to this CEO. Been made to look a fool.

WTF was he thinking in trying to argue various plans and surveys over the twattersphere?

 

[Derpus]

Pacific Rugby Players Welfare which has ~600 members in UK, Europe & elsewhere floating the idea of PI players boycotting RWC in protest if Fiji, Samoa & Tonga are excluded from the new comp.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...rs-to-vote-on-rugby-world-cup-boycott--report

Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face but I can understand the anger & frustration these guys must be feeling.

I wonder how many ABs and Wallabies are in that group, if any.

 

[Slim 293]

I wonder how many ABs and Wallabies are in that group, if any.

Probably none..........

​

We support professional and semi-professional players of Pacific Island heritage in the UK and Europe ​

​

 

[Derpus]

Probably none....

​

​

ah yep.

 

[mst]

Gosper has taken an absolute caning on twitter in the last few days.

Remember a few years ago when players were regularly getting themselves into social media trouble?

Same applies to this CEO. Been made to look a fool.

WTF was he thinking in trying to argue various plans and surveys over the twattersphere?

It it the technical questions that Gosper and WR (World Rugby) are struggling with and has prompted the twitter justifications. Gosper claimed there was extensive fan engagement and it was wholly positive. The problem is, thus far universally, no one knows anyone who was consulted. So far the Rugby twittersphere can't find anyone in the UK, France, NZ or Australia who has been consulted in any form.

Based on some of the twitter conversation from the US, the die hard US rugby supporters are also not impressed and believe the only reason the US is / will be involved is because of their market not on merit and think it will actually hurt US rugby.

 

[mst]

Probably none....

There are a fair few known Kiwi rugby players are tweeting their opposition in several forms. Some with PI heritage, other like Kieran Reid are in solidarity expressing views that PI nations need to be included.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It it the technical questions that Gosper and WR (World Rugby) are struggling with and has prompted the twitter justifications. Gosper claimed there was extensive fan engagement and it was wholly positive. The problem is, thus far universally, no one knows anyone who was consulted. So far the Rugby twittersphere can't find anyone in the UK, France, NZ or Australia who has been consulted in any form.

Based on some of the twitter conversation from the US, the die hard US rugby supporters are also not impressed and believe the only reason the US is / will be involved is because of their market not on merit and think it will actually hurt US rugby.

That's the opposite of the conversations I've had with guys in the US. They know the why they're being included but see the opportunities to grow on and off the pitch as huge positives. These are guys linked to MLR so there is a degree of bias as it would help drive growth in the league alongside it but it's not universal in the States.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So World Rugby say they are clearly behind promotion/relegation, supporting tier 2 nations etc etc and proposal is for 2 divisions - tier 1 competition of 12 and tier 2 of next 12 with promotion / relegation for both divisions and idea that it would also support 24 teams eventually for World Cup.

I personally like this concept and like it a lot.....not the rumour mill proposal for a closed shop which World Rugby key members (Gosper and Pichot etc) have stated they would never support. But we all can't see 6 Nation members agreeing to the relegation/promotion which is sadly why I think the competition will have a tough time seeing the light of day.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So do you wonder if the secret broadcaster might have been behind presenting the proposal which had support of Northern Hemisphere Unions (and not home SANZAAR members as personally I could not see any of them supporting it to be frank which Castle and Tew been open and steadfast about this as well).