9 years is the longest timeframe I can remember for any sporting event being announced. They haven't even announced the host of the 2024 Olympics yet. It's pointless even discussing the tournament at this stage because of how far away it is. To put it into context, 9 years ago George Bush was president and nobody had heard of Barack Obama. In RL terms we probably have 5x as many countries playing the sport now as we did then.I could be wrong but is this the first time a World Cup event has been confirmed before two World Cups haven't even been played yet?
Its amazing how far International RL has come and it can only get better.
9 years is the longest timeframe I can remember for any sporting event being announced. They haven't even announced the host of the 2024 Olympics yet. It's pointless even discussing the tournament at this stage because of how far away it is. To put it into context, 9 years ago George Bush was president and nobody had heard of Barack Obama. In RL terms we probably have 5x as many countries playing the sport now as we did then.
Since there's 9 years and very few details at this point we should be able to have some fun speculating and making wishlists
If Russia did manage to make it you'd have to have them against the US. Not only for historical reasons but also because it should give the home side a win. I'd try to keep the big three away from them. In fact you'd be doing as much as possible to rig the draw so at least one of the American teams got to the quarters. Put them in together with the two weakest teams, especially if they're someone like Russia.
If it's 16 teams I don't see how you can have a super pool. It has to be four pools of four with two going through from each, like 2000. That's one of the big pluses of going to 16; it does away with the unequal and contrived 14 teams system we have now. Even if we still contrive it a bit.In the above example i'd Super pool it (3 finals spots) so that 1 of them definitely goes through.
I picked England and France as the most likely to draw a crowd .
The alternative, as you say, is to move away from the super pool concept and put them in a group that they are likely to qualify through. I would be very hesitant to outright rig the draw in their favour - it is a World Cup not a mickey mouse comp, despite what some think.
If you have a pool that is purposely seeded low, for a fair competition it should only worth 1 finals spot. I think this matters, you might not.
Best example I can do:
A (3)
Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Scotland
B (2)
England
France
Wales
Lebanon
C (2)
Samoa
Ireland
PNG
Tonga
D (1)
USA
Canada
Italy
Serbia
If it's 16 teams I don't see how you can have a super pool. It has to be four pools of four with two going through from each, like 2000. That's one of the big pluses of going to 16; it does away with the unequal and contrived 14 teams system we have now. Even if we still contrive it a bit.
By rig I mean put the two American teams in a pool with at least one weak team and it should see at least one of them get though. You could even put them in with two weak sides. Realistically, we are already doing the same next year and did the same in 2013. In 2013 the draw was clearly weighted to favour Wales to help them make the quarters at Wrexham, and failed. Next year the draw favours PNG in particular. It's nothing new.
If Russia did manage to make it you'd have to have them against the US. Not only for historical reasons but also because it should give the home side a win. I'd try to keep the big three away from them. In fact you'd be doing as much as possible to rig the draw so at least one of the American teams got to the quarters. Put them in together with the two weakest teams, especially if they're someone like Russia.
No. If it's to be taken seriously it needs big games, big crowds and big interest. Leaving it to luck and having the USA v Cook Islands or something is killing any hope of success in a new market like the US. Or having them play the Roos first up and lose by 60.If this competition is ever to be taken seriously teams should be seeded and the rest left to the luck of the draw rather than trying to engineer certain games and results.
I'd say the odds of one of them making it significantly increases and the odds of them both getting through would also be higher if you did it like I've suggested and put them in a weak pool. Unless a lot changes, the USA and Canada will be among the lowest ranked teams in the tournament. They're not likely to both get through in separate pools. They're far more likely to both miss out.Would you put Canada and USA in the same pool though? I get that it's a big rivalry, especially in Canada, but if you put them together that's one less game featuring a home team and the odds of them both making it to the finals are reduced significantly.
No. If it's to be taken seriously it needs big games, big crowds and big interest. Leaving it to luck and having the USA v Cook Islands or something is killing any hope of success in a new market like the US. Or having them play the Roos first up and lose by 60.
There's far bigger problems with the credibility of the event than placing teams in pools to maximise crowds.