The United States saw its run at the 2019 Rugby World Cup come to an end on Sunday morning with a loss to Tonga. The USA Eagles went 0-4 at the tournament, but, unlike the U.S. national team in another sport last summer, at least they were there. And, frankly, it would've been shocking if they had managed to pick up a win, seeing as their first two games were against powerhouses England and France.
Argentina, another strong rugby nation, was also in the USA's group. But, because they also had to face England and France, the best they could realistically hope for was third place in the group, which earned them a guaranteed place in the 2023 World Cup. That's literally all third place gets you. Because there are only 20 teams, so they go right to the quarterfinals after group play ends.
When the Rugby World Cup started in 1987, it was a 16-team tournament. It remained that way for the first three tournaments until it was expanded to 20 teams in 1999. It's been 20 teams ever since, 12 of which automatically qualify based on their performance at the previous edition.
Although, frankly, 20 teams creates a very awkward setup. There are four groups of five teams, which means every team plays four games (many of which are not competitive) and group play takes forever. It also means that, since you have an odd number of teams in each group, you have nations with huge breaks between games, as well as matchups between teams with ridiculously uneven amounts of rest.
There's a very simple solution to those two problems, and it's one that seems long overdue. They should expand the tournament to 24 teams and go to six groups of four. There are currently 105 teams in the World Rugby rankings. Adding four more of them to the World Cup won't dilute the quality of play. Frankly, I think it would enhance it.
Right now, you have two of the powerhouse teams in every group, but you also have two weaker teams (the eight non-automatic qualifiers). So, that means you've essentially got four guaranteed blowouts in each group, with that team in the middle hoping to maybe pull an upset against one of those top two. But, if you expand to 24 teams, you don't have groups of five, so you'll be able to separate the top teams (as well as the weaker teams), making the groups more competitive across the board.
It also takes away that issue of long breaks, something that's unavoidable with an odd number. With only four teams, though, you can have both games in the group on the same day or, at worst, in consecutive days. That puts both teams on equal rest entering games. It also means that they'd be able to have a game everyday during group play. (There were a number of off days during group play this year.)
Adding four teams would also mean the addition of a round of 16, which gives the third-place teams something to play for beyond guaranteed entry into the next edition of the tournament. Those bonus points, which a team gets for scoring four tries or losing by seven points or less, will suddenly matter a lot more. And, replacing a group game with an elimination game would give those teams more of a chance to actually make some noise.
Think about it: Argentina, Scotland, Italy and Fiji are the four teams that finished third in their groups this year. They'd all be scary to face in an elimination game. But none will get the chance. Because all of their tournaments are done.
Those mid-level countries are the ones that would really benefit from a tournament expansion. In two respects. First, they'd end up getting better seeds, and thus not have to face two of the powerhouses in group play. Second, the round of 16 still gives them an opportunity to advance even if they do end up in a tough group. It also gives some hope to those nations from 13-16, the ones who currently know that, at best, they're only going to win one game.
For the top teams, meanwhile, not much would be different. They'd only get to beat up on one team instead of two and they'd be swapping a group play game for a round of 16 knockout game. But the total number of games required to win the tournament (7) would stay the same.
Financially it would be a win-win, too. Those four additional teams would increase the number of scheduled games from 48 to 52, which doesn't require an extra stadium or put too much of an extra burden on the host cities. What it would do, however, is bring give the TV partners four more games to broadcast, resulting in increased rights fees. Not to mention the additional revenue that would be generated by the fans of those four countries now attending the tournament.
Competitively, I think it's a no-brainer, too. Adding the teams ranked 21st-24th wouldn't dilute the quality of play. In fact, it would make for a more competitive tournament from top-to-bottom, since the teams will be distributed more evenly. You wouldn't have the groups with two good and two bad teams! And, by having only three group games instead of four, that puts more value on each one.
Having more teams in the World Cup will only help the sport grow, too. Rugby is religion in countries like New Zealand and Australia and England. It always will be. That's how the legend of the All Blacks and the Wallabies grew. But for rugby to reach the same level of worldwide popularity as soccer or basketball, it needs to reach beyond that core base. And, the other countries will eventually need to feel like they actually have a chance against those top nations. The only way they'll know what it takes to reach that level is to be exposed to it.
Look at how much rugby 7's has taken off over the past few years since it was added to the Olympic program in Rio. Yes, rugby 7's and rugby 15's are completely different games. But so many more people from so many different countries have been exposed to rugby because of the Olympics. Expanding the World Cup would have a similar effect. It would give more people a reason to care about the World Cup.
Expanding the Rugby World Cup to 24 teams makes too much sense on too many levels to not happen. They're saying it might for the 2023 tournament, which will be held on the 200th anniversary of rugby's invention. There's no more appropriate time to do it. Because I can't think of a better way to celebrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment