The UAFC

mea97mb wrote:

Russ wrote:4 wins. 1 loss
Max points 22

5 wins
Max points 23

Feels contrived and artificial

Maths a bit off here?

Do you not mean 5 wins, Min points 23

He does indeed.

I'll go against the grain and broadly welcome this. I accept it really is no more fair than any other system when you have a built in inequality by virtue of the number of home games but I do prefer it to deciding on points difference.

Ireland of course may not have won either of their recent 6Ns had bonus points been introduced but it always stuck in my throat a tad that we were the best by virtue of a few points. As a traditionalist I regarded them as shared championships, my preferred option but of course in this day & age like the Seppos we cannot accept there not being outright winners.

It's an interesting idea. Will it add anything to the tournament - not convinced. The unbalanced nature of it - non equal home/away games make bringing in BPs an issue. Would prefer some moves to bring in the likes of Georgia into the tournament if you want to fresh it up.

I'm failing to see the logic in needing to freshen it up

TV numbers are strong
Games are always sold out
Sponsors are returning more and more revenue year on year
The media profile is higher than ever

No change to the final positions from last year if you include BPs...

So you could have a team with 3 wins as champions with a team with 4 wins in second. Even if unlikely it feels kind of wrong.

The only issue I ever had with the 6n is in recent years relating to questions about the benefit of having Italy in the damn thing at all.......aside from the benefit for fans getting a nice away trip I mean. I won't lose sleep over the change but not sure it was necessary.

Russ wrote:I'm failing to see the logic in needing to freshen it up

TV numbers are strong
Games are always sold out
Sponsors are returning more and more revenue year on year
The media profile is higher than ever

Russ ould hand, this is becoming rather frequent, put out garbage as if fact, do you work in PR, IKON perhaps.

Ireland unusually did not sell out the 6Ns games last season, Scotland haven't for ages on a regular basis.

Great idea. Should have relegation and a playoff too.

4 wins, 1 draw and bp 23pts

damianmcr wrote:4 wins, 1 draw and bp 23pts

feck

damianmcr wrote:4 wins, 1 draw and bp 23pts

Not an issue as then no team can achieve the Grand Slam.

The 6N is one thing in rugby that doesn't need tampering with.

A champion's league format would be ideal. On Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.

Dave wrote:Great idea. Should have relegation and a playoff too.

Agree about the relegation issue. Georgia have won the 2nd tier 6N in the last 6 straight years and last lost a game in the tournament in 2012 to Spain. They are deserving a shot at the main 6N tournament maybe via a playoff v the wooden spoon winner that year.

Neill_M wrote:

No change to the final positions from last year if you include BPs...

Actually, looking back as far as 2010, it makes very little difference (http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/arichm ... x-nations/)

England would have won instead of Wales in 2013, both equally unpalatable these days, and we would have finished 1 higher, in what was Declan Kidneys last few games.

Like a few others I welcome it. If the rugby style stays the same, then it won't make any (or very little) difference (based on past results). If it does make teams more attack focused then we could have a number of games like the final day of 2015 which was pretty enjoyable from memory.

You can't really apply something like this retrospectively. BPs weren't part of the equations on the last day of those championships.

I imagine some of those final days would have played out differently if they had. Have to say the trys scored/points difference scenarios were also unsatisfactory at times as is the consecutive match format (although that's never going to change).

Always best if somebody wins all their games.