0
Can't disagree with your analysis of the facts Burgs but my view is that we have to start somewhere (accepting my preference would be Puma's in Tri-N) and to suggest Puma's are added to the 6N would not get huge support from countries who feel they already play too many fixtures hence my thoughts on a second-tier.
Your stats, and recent results would suggest that Puma's "deserve" Italys place in the 6N's but I would prefer them to have a season with lesser teams and prove commitment/establish a base/get solvent again allowing promotion to the first tier to replace the bottom team if they are proven (probably Italy but potentially England!). At the moment the Puma's could not afford to run the sort of campaign that would bring them success in the 6N's, its very different to the exhibition games they have just completed where they receive a share of ticket receipts.
Each year the same rules applied would give more importance to the 6N's fixtures that currently have no affect on the winners (Scotland v Italy, etc) and as suggested by En-Forcer would encourage the other European nations to raise their game with the incentive of a place at the top table, this after all is what has seen Italy improve so dramatically, when they were accepted into the 6N's they were easily beaten but are now competitive...wouldn't it be good to see others come through?
I think your Pacific Rim idea has merit though as with all nations that decide to combine, each team that does this would have to forfeit their right to a World Cup place ...always a difficult decision for those teams that hope to qualify each four years in their own right.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Coach
