Just like to point out that France fell from 14th to 17th (lost max 3.00 rating points in the first round loss to Fiji, from 39.09 points to 36.09 ) AND

even tho' France lost to Ireland, Nauru, USA, and South Africa in their remaining games in the IC they DID NOT lose any more rating points, because the Rating Gap in all those games were greater than +/- 10.00.
Finished the IC still on 36.09 rating points.

I think France ended up in Div 1 due to their finish in IC14 rather than their World Ranking position. That was probably the unfair bit, BUT the ranking scheme actually protected them from losing even more rating points.

Croatia probably should have been included in Div 1 as they were ranked higher than France, but played in Div 2 because they were newcomers to International Cup competition.

Croatia's climb still seems excessive. They did lose to China and having watched all four teams I cannot believe they would have beaten SA, GB or Canada.

Croatia were ranked higher than both Fiji and France at start of the IC and should have been playing in Div 1. They were playing in Div 2 because they were playing in IC for first time and had no IC finishing position to refer to, whereas France finished 11th at IC14 and were #10 this time cos' Tonga not competing. Croatia 40.35 points, Fiji 40.18, France 39.09.

AS a consequence Croatia got a easy run which certainly helped them climb up in the ranks during the IC. Their only loss to China in Round 1. (jet lag may have had something to do with that) probably aided their rise as the IC proceeded. (rating points now down to 37.35.)

Round 2. 40+ win over Indonesia(who were above Croatia due to just entering the ranks in previous match) scored them max 3.00 rating points, back up to 40.35 points.

Round 3 game against Sri Lanka was fortunate for Croatia (only Sri Lanka's 3rd international footy match, rating 34.00 due to starting at 40.00 two games ago) Croatia gained 1.64 points to.41.99.
Meanwhile their next opponent was Japan who was also climbing up the ranks behind them with wins over India, Pakistan and Germany.

Semi-Final 2: The Knights earned the max 3.00 points with their 40+ win over Japan to take their rating points to 44.99 putting them above Denmark and Tonga (neither in IC17)and Canada who had just taken a hit from Nauru.

Div 2 Final: The Knights added another 2.09 Rating points with their 40+ win over Germany to end the IC on 47.09 Rating points at 7th Rank (above both South Africa and Great Britain, both of whom had dropped several rating points each over the course of the IC, Sth Africa had lost 3.02 points and Great Britain 2.15 points).

Yes, I agree that most likely Croatia ended up Ranked and Rated higher than they should have, and the rise appears excessive, gaining 6.74 rating points during the IC.

BUT I also think that a rise of 9.00 rating points is not necessarily excessive as China achieved that and rose from 18th to 13th in the ranks during the IC. China won 4 from 5 and each of their wins were against nations that were more highly Rated points-wise before each match so the rise is quite justified and indicates an improvement in standard since IC14.

So, in defence of the Ranking Scheme I believe Croatia's "excessive" climb would not have been so dramatic if the IC organiser's had used the Ranking scheme to place the nations in the 2 divisions instead of a three-year old "Premiership Table" eg. IC14 finishing positions. Smack My Hand.

And to see if Croatia really are ranked too high maybe we can convince AFL Europe or GB or Denmark or Canada to challenge the Knights to a full international match or two next northern footy season if/when they repeat the Footy Challenge that was held in London earlier this year. Sheeesss, Smack My Hand again. :-)