Limiting the number of teams competing at the World Championships

[Duncan Cochrane]

The ICF Canoe Polo Committee is considering a proposal to limit the number of countries who can compete at the World Championships to the top 16 teams in the world. This has been proposed due to problems programming too many teams at the World Championships since the introduction of the U21 Category and the fact that the World Championships can be held over no more than 7 days under the ICF rules.

As the ICF Athletes representative for Canoe Polo I would like to hear as many viewpoints on this subject as possible before I attend an ICF Canoe Polo meeting in January in Hong Kong where this issue is to be discussed.I would like the following questions addressed:

Should the Canoe Polo World Championships be limited to a certain number of teams? If so how should the teams be chosen? If not, Why not?

Should the U21 World Championships be held at the same time and place as the Senior World Championships? If not, why not? If so, should they be during the Senior Championships or the week before or after the Senior Championships?

One suggestion has been made to hold the U21 World Championships in conjunction with the European Championships where the winning European Team is crowned the European Champion and the winning team overall is crowned the World Champion- this could be the same team winning both. Is this a viable solution?

Please post replies or any other suggestions either to this message board or to my email address or both.
Duncan Cochrane
ICF Athletes Representative- Canoe Polo

[Brad]

As far as limiting teams, I can see the concern around having too many teams at Worlds. Also, some of the less skilled countries may seem to be a bit of a time waster for the skilled countries to be playing against.

However, for the development of the sport I believe it is important to include as many countries as would be willing to travel to the event. As a Canadian is a polo developing country,if Canada was excluded from the World Championships I am sure the caliber here would diminish versus flourishing. The World Championships is an excellent chance for us to learn and watch and bring back things to work on.

Also, don't we need to have a minimum number of countries competeing if we ever hope to be in some of the larger international competitions, Olympics etc.... (Not that I think the Olympics needs more sports!) Limiting the teams at Worlds would surely hurt this type of development goal.

Hosting the U21 championships at the same time as worlds may seem ideal, but in Canada a few of our top players are U21. So which team do they play for?

I support the suggestion of hosting the U21 competetion directly before the worlds. Then countries could all travel as a team and train and support each other in their respective competitions. And perhaps the skilled U21's would be able to compete in both competetions.

Thats my $0.02

Brad

[Nigel]

In response to the limiting teams issue what must be considered when making any descision is what impact will this have for the sport in future years. Since canoe polo is a developing sport and over the next few years more and more countries will start to play at a higher level. For these developing countries the thought of some day having a national team who could go and compete in the worlds may be a major driving force in their development of the sport. Limiting the number of teams in the worlds may mean that although the standard of a developing team may not be as good as the established teams, not letting new developing teams compete in the worlds may have the effect of that within that developing country players may not want to bother with a national team because they do not see a goal for the team. This may keep the sport at a club level and players will not get the experience of playing at major international level, and therefore loose out on the development opportunities this can bring.

This is only my thoughts

Nigel

[Scott Simpson]

Duncan, here are my thoughts, which I've forwarded to other members of the US team for comment, so we can provide an official viewpoint for you later.

General principles for any world championship:

World Championships serve a number of purposes other than just determining the ultimate winner...

It provides a forum for all countries who play the sport to come together, to discuss possibilities and issues regarding the sport. ..

Polo context... there would be no face to face forum for discussion of rule changes, referee certification and other issues that are often discussed at world championships.

It provides an event that promotes the sport and demonstrates that it is a significant sport by showing a wide participation by many countries.

It encourages worldwide participation by providing a focal event for athletes to train for in individual countries.


Polo context... Polo is a developing sport. Getting consistent participation from a large number of countries will be critical to it being accepted into the World Games, Olympics and other major sporting events. Denying countries the opportunity to compete in the Worlds will inevitably lead to a decline in the sport for countries who don't make the grade.


Other Polo Issues:

To limit participation, you would need to have specific qualifying events. It can't be based upon previous world championship performance as this would not give an opportunity for those not now participating to qualify. As there is no international ranking series that all countries participate in, then you would be looking at holding a second qualifying competition before the worlds, which would have the same problems as the worlds itself.

The alternative would be to have region/continental competitions and have best teams from continents competing in the World Championships. Given that some continents are much stronger than others, this would eliminate teams with a chance of winning from participating, so isn't a good option either.

So I don't see a way of fairly determining the top teams to compete in the worlds that would actually reduce the amount of organization work required.

Also, the 7 day limit is open to change, as much as having prequalification. They would both involve ICF rule changes.

[Mareese]

I agree with what has been said to date:

Limiting the no. of teams limits development. The good will get better and the struggling will get worse.

Divising a system for limiting the no. of teams is near impossible. The standard of polo in the different Continents is very wide that it is not very fair to be judging teams on the results of COntinental Competitions.

The ICF should maybe be looking at the structure of the pools for the Worlds. This might be a way of reducing the overall number of games. I would also say that there should be a minimum number of games that a team can expect to play if they have paid a lot of money to get to World Championships. This was discussed at length after the Worlds in Brazil when some teams didn't show up.

The Under-21 competition, however important, should be secondary to the senior's event. Accommodation of the U-21 should not be at the expense of senior teams.

[clyde]

I think as Duncan has originally mentioned, the U21 could be staged at an alternative event.

It seems most people who have commented so far would like the World Championships to be just that - something that the World can participate in.

The U21 class for me is of less importance. Personally I don't know why it can't be U19 anyway, but that's a different issue.

Unfortunately the question of: what team would an U21 player play in if they were good enough to play in the senior team too, would probably be decided by the management of the squad rather than the player.

The other problem with now having a Men, Women, U21 Men and U21 Women's teams is that most National Squads are stretched to the limit finiantially speaking. Sending nearly 50 people around the world is no small task.

Personally I would prefere to get rid of the U21 class from the point of an official World Championship class and facilitate as many senior teams as possible.

[casenave hector]

I believe that it is a good reason wanting to limit the participation of teams, but even seeing the game level that you/they have countries with a lot of tradition in this sport. In my country (Argentina) we are few those that we practice it then this modality are something new for us. After our participation in Brazil 2000 return with the barrier but conquered but with an enormous respect for the dedication and the discipline with the one that you practice this beautiful sport, and with the watchword of improving in equipment and technique. Is the question this????? as countries they would make like ours where frankly we know that our objective in Essen 2002 are to return with less than 94 goals in against to end up participating and to get experience?????. We know that in Brazil we were not to the height of the team but slack, but it was our starting point and our motor to try to overcome us and maybe some day to arrive at the level that today has our neighboring Brazil that I have participated of a World cup for about 10 years and that starting from he/she left growing in experience.

One of the problems that have had is the lack of didactic material on the sport, and our training is based on a VHS bought in Australia. Sincerely I think that to limit the share to 16 countries is to wax the sport and I don't believe that that it is the end keeping in mind that you this fighting for a place in the Olympic games

Thank you and greetings

Casenave Hector
Argentina

[SongPeng]

i agree with others. limiting the team will limiting the devlopment of this sport. for many national teams, world champ is a starting point, and even the changing point!

Scott's suggestions is very good.
have a context or workshop for all the countries participate will speed up the development of this sport!

SongPeng
From Malaysia.

[Vincent]

hello all polo-friends,

as a polo player and a referee in Macau, a city at the starting of canoepolo, i can tell playing and refereeing one game in international game worth thousands game in Macau.

Before the 1st Asian Cup in HK weeks ago, I've only referee local games in Macau which are always same level for years. But After the 1st Asian Cup, i can say that i feel like suddenly swifted for kindergardan level to college-undergraduate. Also our team has learnt lots of techniques and tactics that were new to us. It'd be a great jump of level to have chance to play with teams around the world.

And as everyone who plays canoe-polo wants this sport to be a part of Olympic Games, so what's hurt to let more teams to play the world championships?

Vincent Liu
Macau

[Greg SMALE - GB Mens Coach]

Duncan,

Hope this reaches you before your meeting and Happy New Year. My 'personal' thoughts are as follows:

At the present time I do not think the number of teams entering World Championships should be limited in either Senior Class. I too believe that we require a minimum number of countries to be competing to be considered for Olympic recognition - if this ever happens ha ha! Accordingly everybody at Senior level should at the current time be able to enter.

It has been great over the years to see the progression of countries such as South Africa and Brazil and the arrival on occasion of those such as Argentina and Namibia.

Under 21's is a different matter. It is very early days but the standard across the board is not very high and I do not wish to offend anybody by this comment. Teams such as France and Germany within Europe are years ahead of others. I cannot comment on others around the World.

One of the most frustrating things to see over the years has been countries who host the World's not entering on the next occasion!

Perhaps a way of developing would be to introduce some form of variation on the idea that in order to enter an Under 21 team that country must have entered at Senior level at the previous two World's.

Countries who have NOT SAY ENTERED THE LAST TWO would be allowed to enter at Under 21 level in order to develop. This would encourage Federations to continue to develop overall and not have a one off entry.

When the Under 21 game has developed further things could change.

As part of one of the largest squad seperating Seniors from Under 21 is at this time not economically viable.

The Continental Championships should NOT be combined. If they were it would detract from the importance of the World Championships.

Poland was possibly the best Europeans to date and the development of this competition took hopefully quite a large step forward last year.

Countries should be able to concentrate on Continental Championships in different years to the World's.

At the moment I support keeping Senior and Under 21's at the same event - the motivation of Under 21's seeing the level they are attempting to reach has got to be good. BUT, I strongly feel the finals should be seperate with the Under 21's being the day before the Seniors.

This would improve the 'finals event' for spectators and competitors alike.

To have semi finals being played at 8am in the morning on final days is crazy. Players train and compete so hard to then play perhaps their most important game ever at this time is not right. Hopefully spreading the finals over two days would improve this situation and perhaps allow countries not finishing so high to still be playing - albeit at an early hour.

I trust this will stimulate your discussions and stress the above is a personal opinion and not that of GB Squads.

Perhaps see you in Germany ?!

Greg

[Samba]

So, is there any decisions made concerning the WorldChamp limitations?

-Samba
:cool:

[michielv]

Reading Greg Smale's plea for not enforcing countries to have entered the last two world's to be able to enter at U21 level I wonder whether a country having a reasonably decent U21 team could enter without entering a senior team?

Because I can imagine that in some countries U21 players might be good enough to enter a U21 World's competition but they lack a decent senior team. Especially if the sport is still very new.

Chances are that a U21 team might develop into a good senior team when playing at the WC sooner than when they have to keep getting at that level playing at home.

Michiel

[becks.c]

Is not the current system of seeding teams prior to the World champs for placement in their first pool, already a way of ensuring the "better" teams get through?

I agree that there is a wide range of team abilites represented at worlds, but for a sport like ours, this is a good thing!

As mentioned by others, newer teams who have the opportunity to witness higher level games (and perhaps even play some of those top teams) gain hugely from the experience. I found is very inspiring just to see what was out there when I went to Brazil!

Perhaps the competition could be lengthened to allow a better seperation of the lower ranked teams from the higher ranked teams? (Although pool time may be a problem).

U21, I'm sure there are many countries out there who have awsome U21 teams, but I agree catering for these players should not be at the expense of senior teams from Developing countries.

[michele]

Thanks for starting this thread Duncan

I am an obsessional polo player, use all my time either training or playing and now I even spend my internet sessions 'playing' polo. The only reason that I am able to live a life of polo is due to the oportunity of participating in a world championship in 1998.

I am a South African. Canoe polo is very small at home. The promise of playing in a worlds was enough motivation to develope polo in South Africa. A limitation on numbers in the world champs or need for pre -qualifiers would disqualify South African polo. In fact I would guess that it may just kill the sport!

I have moved to europe and now play regular polo. My view as a european player would be very different had I not had this local South African expereince.

Please do what ever you can to prevent this killing of the a growing canoeing discipline.:confused:

[Andrew]

Please do what ever you can to prevent this killing of the growing canoeing discipline

I really think limiting the international entries at such an early and important stage in the sports development could have a disastrous effect. You're far more likely to see the countries that have had a strong growth of canoepolo coming into the top 16 teams. essentially, it'ld be cutting off the 'newer' countries ability to improve and develop in the sport.

Should the U21 World Championships be held at the same time and place as the Senior World Championships?....

.....One suggestion has been made to hold the U21 World Championships in conjunction with the European Championships ....


Development of the U21 category is important and its unfair to the U21 squads who will be putting just as much effort into their training and preparation as everyone else. But the Senior category's should be put in priority if its the progression of the sport at stake.

Naturally i'ld like to see everyone competing at the same venue, the same time and i hope a compromise is found.

thats just my €0.02, feel free to ignore:p

[Samba]

Hello to all!

This question popped up again because I asked has there been any decisions made about it!
I think there was some sort of meeting someday somewhere where, I understood, the intention was to make a decision to the one way or to the other...
So, I ask again...

-Samba

[RB-Ex-MrPolo]

When we drew up world championship draws in the first place, I can remember doing draws for at least 32 teams in each division - Men and Womoen. So I have to ask now, what is the motivation behind considering limiting. What sort of limiting is being considered. To suit whom ? :confused:

I agree with all the sentiment that has already been expressed. Too early inthe development to start telling countries they can't aspire to top international competition experience. Can't do that until we have decent "Continental" championships for everyone, and other opportunities too. and a real need to limit.

For instance, what fun would it be for New Zealand, or even Australia, playing in an Oceania competition ?

Soccer must be the world's top sport. It has 32 teams in the World Cup, and considering more. Even though they have several days between matches. Seems to be an example to follow (But note: It doesn't have Women's comp at the same time).

All the top teams try to get practice in the weeks before the Worlds. Perhaps in future the week prior to the Worlds could be the Qualifying Round, and then only the last 16 through to the Finals Week.

Got to seriously question having the U21 teams competing at the same time. Especially when a country like Australia doesn't enter! Often our senior team has been almost an under 21 team. Without more funding, if we send an under 21 team, we can lose some of them to the top level game after that as they don't have enough money to travel to a second worlds, at least for several years.

Another thought. The European comps often have many more teams. but they get pre-allocated to divisions. Could that be an idea we should pursue. Play the lower divisions in the week preceding. Only the top teams from the lower divisions join the seeded teams in the second week - the finals.

I raise the question. Should the Women's comp be at a seprate time ? I certainly hope not.

Come back to the original point. What is the real motiviation for this question ? Until that is known openly, then it's hardly worth bothering to answer the question. I'm afraid I'm very cynical of the motivations of ICF stuffed shirts. They probably get tired of staying at the Hilton for more than 7 days! Really can't stand watching canoe polo for more than 7 days - even if it is only for 1 hour each day.

Start asking the tough questions Duncan :mad:

[Samba]

Just to make sure that everybody knows what I think about all of this!
In worlds you have to win every game if you want to be the best!
It isn't enough if you win only the good teams!
Good example:1999 European Champs
Australia U21 - Finland U21 1-1 !!!

What comes to separate games for men and women,
no way!
There isn't anyway to get money for two or more WC!
I mean, atleast for countries outside the top six or somethig like that!

-Samba
:cool:









I think that the people have spoken.

[Samba]

The famous last words...

[The Fly]

Originally posted by Samba
What comes to separate games for men and women,
no way!
There isn't anyway to get money for two or more WC!
I mean, atleast for countries outside the top six or somethig like that!



I think that the people have spoken.


Yep, Samba said the main thing "money." Just for example, where U21 teams could get the money for their OWN wc?!?! ( or people who organizes their journey attire )
I think WC`s are more than only tournaments. Those are a real happenings where polo players meet each other from all aroud the world....
:rolleyes:

[Jeff Cottrell]

I have two points for consideration:
Looking at past results there it would seem that polo is stronger in Europe than in the any of the other ICF regions (Africa, America, Asia, Europe, Oceanea). ICF would therfore have to find a way of allocating a number world cup positions to each region (this principle is a source of constant conflict in soccer where this a limited number of teams. Resulting in inuendo of corruption and power struggles between Europe and South America) Do we want this in our sport? I think the answer is No!! Results and World standings have to be determined by results on the field rather than in a meeting.


Second Point for consideration:
Should we look outside our sport to see what other sports do? Polo is often guided by Canoeing practices where as t should lok to other team sports.(ie lets not try and re-invent the wheel) If we look at other team sports what do they do This is what I beleive appens although I stand to be corrected

Soccer :They have limited teams this I think is because if they were to let very country play over a period of two weeks they would not have a blade of grass left on a field to be able to play the finals. Plus no country could accommodate the supporters. This probably demonstrates there is an upper limit to the number of countries that can compete but polo is know where near that.

Rugby Union: no limit to the number of teams

Rugby League no limit to the number of teams

Hockey Not sure

Water Polo Not sure

Cricket No Not sure

Base Ball Not sure

Basket Ball: Not sure

Finally the cost of sending a team to a qualifying round in many of the regions would only double the cost of reaching the world championships. Would it not be better to just extend the length of the competition and if it is though fatigue would effect the quanlity of the finals just have rest days between the preliminary founds and the finals series

[chrish]

i believe that there are advantages to having the u21 comp held in conjunction to the worlds
to have them after the worlds the u21 players can then attend worlds to spectate and lern aswell as providing good competition for the senior teams in lead up matches
then any players who are part of both teams can compete in both
it is not satasfactory to have u21 players who are in the senior team playing in the u21 team directly b4 worlds
the main problem with this is that the main event (worlds )would be followed by the u21

it would be disapointing for the countries who r below the top 16 to miss out playing worlds and it would inhibit the growth of our small sport

maybe a worlds div 2 could b held in conjunction with the u21 comp so these teams could still go to worlds to spectate and learn and get a few friendlies

[Patrick]

If a limit is placed on teams participating in the Worlds it may have the undesired effect of delaying its possible inclusion as an Olympic sport. I believe one of the requirements for a sport to be considered as an Olympic sport is that it is played in a minimum 70 countries. Not allowing those burgeoning countries to participate in the Worlds would only slow the growth of the sport. The sport is still very new here in the U.S. and there are several clubs trying to increase its exposure but if we, as a country, were not allowed to compete in the Worlds I think it might have a detrimental effect to the growth and viability of the sport here.

Just something to consider.

[ErikV]

Patrick 70 countries, do you believe that slalom has 70 countries.
Curling/Speed skating etc. 70 countries is a lot.

Correct me if i'am wrong

I agree that the worlds has to be one event. It's better to contract sponsors, more interesting for TV, etc.

In Down river races they have also a split up in seniors and juniors. But European are together and thats's better.

greetings from Erik,
an Down river racer that now plays canoe polo

[Patrick]

Erik,

From the IOC Charter:

Section 52 - Sports Programme, Admission of Sports, Disciplines and Events

"1.1 To be included in the programme of the Olympic Games, an Olympic sport must conform to the following criteria:

1.1.1 only sports widely practised by men in at least seventy-five countries and on four continents, and by women in at least forty countries and on three continents, may be included in the programme of the Games of the Olympiad"

So, it's even tougher than I first supposed.

[ErikV]

**** that's many!

Hmm, i think we can wait for another 10 years.

But it doesn't matter i play third division in the Netherlands. Not a chance to be an olympic athleet. (third is the lowest division)

Maybe as trainer in the Olympic of Latvia in 2030

bye

[ErikV]

Patrick,

According to an down river racer you have the old olympic rules.
That rule isn't anymore.

Sorry for my bad grammar

[Patrick]

Erik,

Your English grammar is far better than my Spanish or French grammar.

Re: The IOC Rules

I pulled that quotation from the current Olympic Charter from the IOC website. If there are new rules it would be great to see them.

Here are links to the IOC and the Olympic Charter page and PDF.

http://www.olympic.org/uk/index_uk.asp

http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/charter_uk.asp

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf

[RB-Ex-MrPolo]

widely practised by men in at least seventy-five countries
Looks really tough. But then, how come slalom qualifies. In reality, how come Sprint qualifies, since you'd be hard pressed to name 75 coutries where it is "widely practised". Looking at past Olympic Sprint canoeing finals as some sort of measure, there is a large numer of European countries -then really only USA, Australia, sometimes New Zealand. Not much evidence of it being widely practiced.

But that is reading the whole thing wrong.

Canoeing qualifies as a SPORT,not as each individual event. There are more than 75 coutries where the sport of "Canoeing" is practiced, in all it's different forms. Most notably, includimg Canoe Sailing and outrigger canoe racing. "What" you say.
Yes. all those tiny island nations of the world do lots of canoe sailing and outrigger canoe racing. Probably the national sports of a lot of them.

That keeps Canoeing in the Olympics .The IOC want to see every nation involved in the Olympic movement. I think they are proud that more countries are affiliated to the Olympic movement than to the United Nations!

[RB-Ex-MrPolo]

Canoeing is already an Olympic sport.
Canoe Polo would just be a new event. And that is far easier to get in.
For example, Cycling got the "Kieran" event in recently. A team velodrome event. None tell me that is "widely" practised in 75 coutries. Even in Austrlai, a top cycling nation, I've never heard o it. I think canoe polo would be played far more widely.

Same goes for new sailing classes, new events in swimmig and diving etc, but proable cyclimg is the best comparison, becuase it has similar multiple-disciplines, including the venue based velodrome stuff, like canoe polo.

What giverns getting an event in, once the sport is in, are different criteria. Like
- What does it cost for a veue ?? Well, for canoe polo - nothing ! Cos they are always going to have a pool!! Unlike slalom and marathon. PSrint will be OK as long a rowing is in (But that must be under real threat of the 75 countries widely practiced criteria)

- What looks great on TV ? Well, I don't think you have to be a one eyed polo fanatic to recognise that polois far more of a spectator sport, and especially a TV sport, than Sprint or Marathon, and even Slalom (once the gereral public has watched 10 paddlers go down a slalom, it all looks pretty much the same.
But the general public often gets hooked on watching our "bizarre and dangerous" sport. Imagine how interesting it could be whe you have TV coerage with perhaps 6 experieced
sports cameramen, and expert and show business commentary.

- Wide particpation across contients, and including Women. We already have that.

The truth is, Canoe Polo IS the FUTURE of Canoeing in the Olympics. Slalom is out for Beijing, perhaps for ever. The ICF have to shore up their position in the Olympics somehow. We can be their saviours.

So don't let anyone tell you are dreaming if you think Polo will be in the Olypics. Ithas to be, to rescue Canoeing as whole.

We just have to get the ICF to wake up tot theinevitable. Some in there already know it. But too many are so slow to change.
And I'm not really informed enough to know where our ICF POlo Committee fits between believing in the ineviatbale and making it happen, or being so slow to change. What is the evidence in recent years ?

[RB-Ex-MrPolo]

One factor might be a problem.

When they added Triathalon, they added probably only 100 hundred Athletes and support to the Athletes Village. We've just had prpbably the biggest ever Canoeing World Chapionships, in terms of Athletes and direct support. Around 60 teams, say 600 athletes. We would have to limit that.

Say, the top 8 in Men, Top 8 in Women. Around 160 people. Actually probably no more than for the ousted slalom.

ICF should replace Slalom by polo in all future Olympic proposals ??


Any other negatives ?
Well, do we have proven administration ? Do we have any controversies or dissent in our sport ? Well, apart from the fact that most "committee men" are conservative.

Yes. The current ranking, seeding and draw system is a huge blight on the World Championships. It brings the sport into disrepute, even among it's own keen participants. It has to be changed, and it has to be changed now.

Agitate for it. Go sign the Petition (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=515)

[Patrick]

RB,

You make some great observations about the possible inclusion of Canoe Polo into the Olympics that wouldn't require it's ubiquity.

I think it's currently played in somewhere around 30-35 countries and still growing. Iran at the Worlds this year was a surprise to me and they certainly were strong.

I also agree that it's much more a spectator sport that other Olympic canoeing events. This is all good for the future of the sport and the Olympics.

The challenge of encouraging more countries to pick up the sport and develop clubs and league play will still become more challeging I think if these countries are not currently playing at the caliber of many of the teams in Europe and Oceania.

Clearly the sport is only developing in North and South America, Africa and seems to be further along in Asia but the powerhouse teams are mostly centered in Western Europe.

What is the goal here? To have a smaller, more efficiently run Worlds with only the current top teams invited to battle it out? Or to foster an environment in which the sport will grow across the globe, hopefully as a new world sport. I don't think these are mutually exclusive but it's a difficult proposition to do both at the same time.

I appreciate your insight.

[Mareese]

What is the goal here? To have a smaller, more efficiently run Worlds with only the current top teams invited to battle it out? Or to foster an environment in which the sport will grow across the globe, hopefully as a new world sport. I don't think these are mutually exclusive but it's a difficult proposition to do both at the same time.


I believe that the World Championships for Canoe Polo should be all inclusive to all countries that can field a team.

I also however believe that if canoe polo became an Olympic event, only the top teams should participate. The Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the World that would give exposure to our sport like nothing else. The best exposure will show games of a consistently high standard and therefore we could use the World Championships as a qualification for Olympics.

I do agree with RB, that for this to happen, the seeding system needs to be overhauled so that some of the obvious upsets of the 2002 Champs aren't repeated. Go sign the petition!