LEAVE IT AS IT IS!!!! NO MORE TINKERING PLEASE!!!!!

I think it should have a similar format to this year but with 16 teams something like:

Group A:
England
Australia
Fiji
Ireland

Group B:
New Zealand
Samoa
France
PNG

Group C:
Italy
Scotland
Tonga
Lebanon

Group D:
Wales
USA
Cook Islands
South Africa

Only the top 8 after rankings are published in 2015 should automatically qualify and they should automatically be divided into two pools, Finalists from this world cup should be kept apart in the groups and then have a draw between the remaining 6 teams to fill the remaining places.
2 from each group should qualify.

I Agree with Newton-Le-willows-Warrior in terms of the groups but I also agree with mapleyther in having Canada because in the few games I have seen Canada v USA they look like they have got a bit of potential and it looks like they get some good support there as well.

20 teams for sure.
Teams that are very close to ready include Lebanon, Canada, Jamacia, Russia, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Vanuatu, and we have seen Italy come from nowhere since the 2008 world cup, so we have to assume other countries could just appear on the radar in 4 years.
In short, we could easily fill a 20 team roster with quality sides, and I think we have a responsibility to give as many sides as possible the chance to play.
It's nothing short of a tragedy that Lebanon has missed out for the last two world cups. They would be far more developed now if they had played, and there is a very good chance we would now have more middle eastern countries involved and big dollars flowing from the middle east for TV rights, so basically we shot ourselves in the foot there.

I agree Italy and Ireland are a bit daft. It seems all you need to qualify for them is a fondness for pasta or Guiness. The USA however have 9 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) genuine Yanks in their squad, 7 of which play in their domestic comp. Now for a nation where rugby league isn't even a drop in the sporting ocean that is a good starting point imo.

5 live claimed there were 10.

The current system is brilliant. It maximises the number of competitive games we can have and also gives every side a fair chance to go as far in the comp as they can.
It is such a good format that other codes and games are looking to pinch it.
I can't see us ever going back to chucking the weakest side in against the strongest side and having 50+ point margin blowout games common in the first few rounds.
The current format allows us to start with Aus V England in front of a huge crowd instead of Aus v Cook Islands in front of 3 men and a dog.

Keep it at 14.

Only slight change I'd make is to have 2 go up from each group and have it seeded with a draw.

e.g.

Group A - Seed 1-2, seed 5-8, seed 9-12.
Group B - Seed 1-2, seed 5-8, seed 9-12.
Group C - Seed 3-4, seed 5-8, seed 9-12, seed 13-14.
Group D - Seed 3-4, seed 5-8, seed 9-12, seed 13-14.

Cross group game between seeds 1 and 2 in group A and B to guarantee that big opening game, whilst at the same time appearing to the outsider that the groups are evenly spread (which they are). You'd still get them big games.

The current finals series has, so far, worked well, we must however be bold, yet careful with the qualifying tournament.

In my view we should guarantee the semi finalists a place in the next comp.

All other nations, who have an organized domestic season, a schools program, and college/ university leagues over a number of consecutive years, should be allowed to enter qualifying.

Further any team who fail to fulfill an international fixture, as Germany did this year, shall be barred fom the next qualifying competition.

National teams must train and prepare in their own country and ba affiliated to their national sports authorities...

For example Italy and Lebanon would not be allowed to have their headquarters, press conferences, commercial arm, training camps etc based in Australia. Scotland and Ireland would similarly be expected to base their activity in their own country.

Growth should not be forced but facilitated and encouraged.

I think the OP has not researched his subject, for the excellent work in Jamaica and Canada seems to be ignored, and what of the exciting developments in Ghana...? or the way in which the island of Malta has taken to the game?

Who knows where we will be in the next 20 to 30 years

Who knows where we

I think this has been raised previously but my understanding is that all the Italian team are Italian/EU passport holders.

The system used in 2008 and the system used this year have worked brilliantly in the way they have allowed as many games as possible to be genuine contests.

A sport like Soccer doesn't need super groups because they can find 24 sides that all have at least a small chance to beat each other on a given day, but we will never be there in my lifetime, so our super group concept has delivered us an elegant solution that means 90% of games are genuine contests on the field.

If by some miracle a team like Italy were able to name the best squad in the World Cup, they could still win the cup from the bottom ranked group simply by winning all their pool games and progressing to the knockout stage.

This system can be adapted to fit in up to 24 sides I imagine, and we'd still have competitive games in the group stage by putting the top sides into super groups and having the weaker sides fighting over 2 quarter final spots.

If this world cup makes enough money for us to have dollars to spend on development, we should play as many qualifying tournaments as we can afford, because the experience of the last two World Cups is that qualifying tournaments drive just as much development as the Cup itself, especially in the new countries taking up the game.

true and for me if it was 16, 20 or 24 bring it on I for one love it

As we approach the quarter finals, it is worth reflecting again on how many teams would be optimum in 2017.