A Proposal For A New Third Tier Competition In Australia

[kiap]

Great plan! I also like the idea of the double headers for boosting crowd numbers and broadcasting potential.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

IS, I'm just guessing on the $50k number but I think some clubs could and would spend more than that to bolster their playing ranks to win the comp (particularly in Sydney). Is that a good or bad thing? My view is that a market based solution is going to improve our standard of rugby.

There will be very strong clubs who will always be in division one and that will mean the standard of that compettion will be very good, which ulimately creates a genuine third tier competition in this country.

There will be other clubs who say we're not going to devote the resources to try and compete, we'll stay in division two, earn some more dollars playing more homes games, maybe win some prize money in the division two competition and won't go broke trying to get into division one. Some smaller clubs will bring in an investor or joint venture with another club and aim to get into and compete in division one. That would create more competition and competition has a tendency to lift standards.

No club would be forced into deciding which way to go and their place in existing compettions isn't jeapordised either.

No losers in this, just decisions as to which way a club wants to go.

I agree with Richo about not waiting for perfect solutions although it might be argued that such an approach made it easy to kill off the ARC.
My concern is that the clubs who decide to compete div 1 will attract the best and that the Shute shield will become a cake walk for those teams. This concern arguably lay behind the creation of joint teams in the ARC. If this were to happen it would weaken Shute shield, and premier rugby for that matter (I assume), and so we'd lose a part of a competitive tier.
I guess I'm thinking that you work out which teams are stand alone and then the others combine in some way. The issue then is a lack of infrastructure for the amalgamated teams.
This is probably fine detail but obviously we don't want to bugger the club comp in the short term.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[p.Tah]

We can't organize a 3rd tier but SARU can organize another competition at the 4th tier level.

http://mobi.iafrica.com/rugby/saru-unveil-new-club-competition/

 

[nomis]

Thanks for putting all this together Scott. I guess I'm still wondering if some of the existing clubs not wanting to support an ARC model, is really a major, major hurdle. After all, the ARC got up and running the first time round! Why can't it happen again? I mean, I know there are other reasons blocking it - but so many people still think they're overcomeable.

Yours is the best of the models that works with the existing clubs that I've seen. But the one big advantage of the ARC is the concentration of the best players into only 8 (or potentially 10) teams. Is the end point of your model that we have all the best players spread over 20-25 clubs?

That would certainly give a higher profile to club rugby in AUS at the grassroots level, which is very exciting, but would it really produce the depth we need?

 

[kiap]

Scott, I'd like to suggest a few tweaks to the finals format (I'm impressed with the overall proposal, though, and all the good work done).

The existing finals proposal has 8 teams from Division II (4 from each city) participating in the finals but only 4 teams from Division I (2 from each city). Unless there are further Division I final playoffs involving Canberra and Melbourne as well (2 teams from each city) to get a national champion, I think this balance is the wrong way around.

The weight of fans, viewers (hopefully), investors, and sponsors would want to see more of the Division I teams competing (with arguably more marquee and representative players on the books).

Also, there are Playoff Finals with not much riding on the outcome. Instead of having 3rd-4th matches that are, for the most part, dead rubbers, it would be better to have teams actually playing for the opportunity of securing Division I positions for the following year. There is more interest in matches when something tangible is on the line each time (including promotion or relegation for next year).

Here's an alternative format that maybe improves these aspects:

Finals Week 1
Match- Time. Venue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Teams
.. 1. . . 1:00 .. BNE .. Final: - - - - - #1 Div II BNE - vs - #2 Div II BNE
.. 2. . . 1:00 .. SYD .. Final: - - - - - #1 Div II SYD - vs - #2 Div II SYD
- - - - Regional Div II Champions play in Div I the next season.

.. 3. . . 2:45 .. BNE .. Playoff: . - . #3 Div I BNE - vs - #4 Div I BNE
.. 4. . . 2:45 .. SYD .. Playoff: . - . #3 Div I SYD - vs - #4 Div I SYD
- - - - The winners remain in Div I the next season.

.. 5. . . 4:30 .. BNE .. Semi: . . - . . . #1 Div I BNE - vs - #2 Div I SYD
.. 6. . . 4:30 .. SYD .. Semi: . . - . . . #1 Div I SYD - vs - #2 Div I BNE
- - - - The Winners advance to the Conference Div I Final.

Finals Week 2
Match- Time. Venue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Teams
.. 7. . . 1:00 .. BNE .. Playoff: . . Loser Match 3 - vs - Loser Match 1
.. 8. . . 1:00 .. SYD .. Playoff: . . Loser Match 4 - vs - Loser Match 2
- - - - The winners play in Div I the next season.

.. 9. . . 2:45 .. TBD* ..Playoff: .. Loser Match 5 - vs - Loser Match 6
- - - - Conference Div I third place prize
.. 10. . 2:45 .. TBD‡ ..Final: . .. Winner Match 3- vs - Winner Match 4
- - - - The winners are Conference Div II Champions.

.. 11. . 4:30 .. TBD† ..Final: . .. Winner Match 5- vs - Winner Match 6
- - - - The winners are Conference Div I Champions.

.. † Inaugural Div I final venue drawn randomly, then alternates yearly.
. ... Any year there would be no 'home' team, the venue shifts.
.. ‡ Div I third place match is the curtain raiser to the Div I final unless
. ... there would be no 'home' team, in which case the venue shifts.
.. * Div II final hosted in the city not hosting the Div I third place match.

This proposal provides an automatic promotion for the Division II champions in each region to play in Division I the following year at the expense of the Division I wooden spooners. But the Division II runners-up in each region have to play off against the losers of the 3rd-4th match from Division I in their region.

There are still two promotion/relegation slots but the second Division II team will have to earn their promotion by beating the incumbent. This provides a better level of fairness and certainty for Division I clubs and their sponsors and investors sinking money into developing their teams.

Instead of a dead rubber playoff between losing Division I semi finalists, perhaps use the flights for a Conference Division II Grand Final between the champion Division II teams in each region. Extra incentive and reward for the Division II clubs. (Then again, if the travel money can be found, perhaps do both and have the losing Div I semi finalists match up as a curtain raiser to the Div I Final - Get Wozza to allocate 10% of the mooted $1m as prizemoney for 3rd place - heheh).

The existing proposal has just 14 matches involving Division I teams (4 round robin matches per team, plus 4 finals) compared with 29 involving Division II teams (6 round robin matches per team, plus 8 finals).

This alternative format would have a total of 18 matches involving Division I teams (4 round robin matches per team, plus 8 finals) and 24 involving Division II teams (6 round robin matches per team, plus 5 finals), which provides a better balance.

It also leaves the Conference Division I Grand Final as the only match being played at 4:30 in the second week of the finals, so that all rugby viewers in both regions can focus on this game.

 

[Man on the hill]

I don't recall the year (it was a while ago), but Brendan Cannon was making a comeback from injury before being named back into the Wallabies in time for a Bledisloe fixture.

The 2 conditioning games were Syd Uni Vs Parramatta and Uni Vs Penrith (back in the day when Penrith & Parramatta would not have expected the points from a bye!).

Needless to say he was undercooked Vs the Darkness!

Ever since that day and I have known that the structure of our "elite" rugby was wrong and that there was room for improvement.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Thanks for putting all this together Scott. I guess I'm still wondering if some of the existing clubs not wanting to support an ARC model, is really a major, major hurdle. After all, the ARC got up and running the first time round! Why can't it happen again? I mean, I know there are other reasons blocking it - but so many people still think they're overcomeable.

Yours is the best of the models that works with the existing clubs that I've seen. But the one big advantage of the ARC is the concentration of the best players into only 8 (or potentially 10) teams. Is the end point of your model that we have all the best players spread over 20-25 clubs?

That would certainly give a higher profile to club rugby in AUS at the grassroots level, which is very exciting, but would it really produce the depth we need?

And that's what I identify as the one weakness of the otherwise well thought out and presented proposal. How could the competition with so many teams be able to develop the quality of competition needed to build the required depth of talent we need? At the very least it should be cut in half but that would further disadvantage some clubs. So, its a hard question to answer.

What I do like about the proposal is the Divisional structure involved. I think it should be looked at in the Shute Shield. Particularly as a means to incorporate more of clubs/regions into the structure. Division One could consist of the top 8 teams from say this years Shute Shield with the bottom 4 in Division Two alongside the nearby country regions in the Illawarra, Central Coast, Hunter plus an aspirational club the subbies (Balmain and I know Campbelltown once did). Promo/relegation set up with the winner of Div 2 playing the last place Div 1 team.

 

[kiap]

And that's what I identify as the one weakness of the otherwise well thought out and presented proposal. How could the competition with so many teams be able to develop the quality of competition needed to build the required depth of talent we need?

Looking closer at it, there may be more method behind the proposal in this regard than first meets the eye.

I was critical of having only 2 Div I teams versus 4 Div II teams per city involved in the conference finals, and I stand by that whilst Sydney teams only play Brisbane teams (or Canberra teams only play Melbourne teams).....

But after three to five years this 2 only idea will make more sense - once cross-conference matches are added in. The Div I teams will then have 4 round robin matches in their own city to get into shape, with only the 2 strongest teams going on to contest the national Division I championship. Effectively this will then be an 8 team elite competition (or 10 teams when Perth comes on board), which is what we need.

It's likely that after a few years the composition of these 8-10 teams will become relatively stable with only the occasional strong contender pushing one of the mainstay teams out. More money and more of the better players in each state will consolidate behind the best few sides. In this respect, perhaps even my doubts about having two automatic promotion/relegation between Div II to Div I in each city will eventually be less important because only the top two teams will compete nationally anyway.

 

[nomis]

While I think an ARC would be hard now without the wallabies available or the space in the season I wonder if using select club teams could be more exclusive of the rugby community than regional clubs

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There are a couple of threads about a 3rd tier competition with much discussion about costs.

I think it has been mooted by someone on one of the past threads (or even this one) that School and University hostels could be used to reduce the price of accommodation.

Someone even suggested pitching some tents on Randwick racecourse and using the jog to Moore Park as part of the warmup/cool down (OK It was me and I was semi serious).

I digress.

The ITM Commentators have just said (I'm watching the replay) the Otago ITM Cup team has just spent 3 days in the Napier Boys High School Hostel, and three days in the Palmerston North Boys High School Boarding Hostel as part of their tour to play Hawkes Bay and Manawatu respectively. (They must have similar school holidays to us).

If it is good enough for ITM cup players, and tents aren't good enough for you, then the 3rd tier comp players should also look for School Boarding Houses and Uni Colleges to stay in to reduce prices.

 

[p.Tah]

After JONs recent comments about Premier Rugby becoming the third tier and now Hawker saying a third tier is an imperative, the noises coming out of the ARU are positive. Sounds like something will emerge in the near future. My personal preference is that it's not Premier rugby because we need to concentrate talent. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Hawker said Australia needed a third-tier competition to bridge the gap between club and Super Rugby, similar to the ITM Cup in New Zealand and South Africa's Currie Cup.

Asked whether the ARU would consider reviving the Australian Rugby Championship, Hawker said: "We need another tier. The format just has to work economically. It's a strategic challenge. I think everyone understands there's a need for it, but they also understand that it has got to work economically."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...nds-on-the-wheel/story-e6frg7o6-1226499636782

 

[Bruce Ross]

I don't get to read any of Loopy Old Rupy's fish wrappers even though, as I've acknowledged before, Terror journo Iain Payten clearly reads my outpourings and I have some sense of guilt in not reciprocating. So it's only when people post a link to a News Ltd article that I get to see what I'm missing.

This morning's Ausrag - I used to like it when it was first established as very left of centre and was almost compulsory reading for the wharfies at Port Kembla. True story. But after Rupy sacked its first dozen or so chief editors look what has become of it. I seem to have wandered off the track a bit.

As I seem to recall starting saying, this morning's Ausrag contains the article by Brett Harris which p.Tah has kindly provided a link to. In it is this absolute pearler:

"The former chief executive of insurance giant IAG and current director of Macquarie Bank, Hawker is the relatively new chairman of the ARU. He is not doing it for money or a power trip, but out of a sense of noblesse oblige.

"Hawker's altruism is one of the reasons he is so highly respected in the Australian rugby community."

"Not doing it for ... a power trip"!
"a sense of noblesse oblige [the idea that privilege entails responsibility]"!
"altruism"!!
God give me strength. Now I admire Michael Hawker both as one of our rugby greats and also as a real achiever in the world of business, but it's hardly as if he's trawling the streets of Sydney and getting the chauffeur to pull over so that he can persuade derros on bus stop benches to hop in the Roller and come home for a good meal, a bath and a cosy night's rest in one of the bedrooms in the guest wing of the family mansion.

Running the sport of the top end of town in Australia is not a power trip? And there mightn't there be some advantage in terms of maintaining profile for someone whose current involvements include a directorship of Macquarie Bank?
.

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

FFS Bruce the day you nget on here and say something positive about anything other than Sydney Uni I'll bend over backwards and put my head you know where. Maybe Hawker is not so much interested in a power trip or in keeping his profile to help with Macquarie Bank. Maybe just maybe he feels he can contribute to the improvement of rugby in Australia (god knows we need as many of those as posible with the skills and knowledge to do it). He has been successful away from Rugby, has knowledge of the game and, through his contacts he may just be the person we are looking for.

 

[Bruce Ross]

FFS Bruce the day you nget on here and say something positive about anything other than Sydney Uni I'll bend over backwards and put my head you know where. Maybe Hawker is not so much interested in a power trip or in keeping his profile to help with Macquarie Bank. Maybe just maybe he feels he can contribute to the improvement of rugby in Australia (god knows we need as many of those as posible with the skills and knowledge to do it). He has been successful away from Rugby, has knowledge of the game and, through his contacts he may just be the person we are looking for.

Come in spinner. Guess which club Michael Hawker played his entire career with?

For what it is worth I agree entirely with your last two sentences. My focus was on the absurdity of what Brett Harris wrote.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

My view is that a market based solution is going to improve our standard of rugby.

Gold, that.

Arguments to the contrary have validity, as they do in politics, but we are not talking about health care or school lunches: we are talking about attempting a brave new step in a sport.

If it fails there will be no starving people, nor dead bodies in the streets because of it, just a development plan that did not work.

There will be inequities and the shock of change as there were when certain English rugby clubs had the wherewithal to play professional rugby, and others didn't. An ARC does not have the same script but the point is that within 5 years most things had worked out in England and settled down after an earthquake in the sporting landscape.

There will have to be some non-market considerations for the Nullabor and West Sydney factors, but otherwise let's give the the invisible hand of the marketplace a shot.

It could even work.
.

 

[Man on the hill]

As i have said elsewhere - we could do worse than have Hawker as interim CEO!

 

[nomis]

Well, MH didn't deny a return to something like the old ARC in The Australian. Very interesting!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

FFS Bruce the day you nget on here and say something positive about anything other than Sydney Uni I'll bend over backwards and put my head you know where. Maybe Hawker is not so much interested in a power trip or in keeping his profile to help with Macquarie Bank. Maybe just maybe he feels he can contribute to the improvement of rugby in Australia (god knows we need as many of those as posible with the skills and knowledge to do it). He has been successful away from Rugby, has knowledge of the game and, through his contacts he may just be the person we are looking for.

Success is not measured by how much money you have.
Many golden parachutes.
nomis perhaps friction on this issue hastened JONs departure: that would be a rich irony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nomis]

nomis perhaps friction on this issue hastened JONs departure: that would be a rich irony.

Indeed!

I thought it was just strange how JON was suggesting it was in the pipeline, and MH didn't seem to back that up.

I hope that's not the case for the suggested under 20 comp! I'd be very disappointed.

 

[FiveStarStu]

Here's throwing something out there - what about a sevens series? State/franchise teams meet once every few weeks for a carnival. Maybe where-ever there's a Super bye.

Cuts down on player costs, travel costs, helps for Rio, probably more marketable.

Yeah, good idea Stu.