NSW AAGPS Rugby 2014

[prost8]

GreAt for high and grammar but for boys playing at the other GPS schools in the thirds is a bloody pain as they don't get to play in the standard fixtures with their mates in the 1 2 4 etc plus it's a bloody pain to try and get the back ups for the 2 s !! Kick em out and emerge the comps I say !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

GreAt for high and grammar but for boys playing at the other GPS schools in the thirds is a bloody pain as they don't get to play in the standard fixtures with their mates in the 1 2 4 etc plus it's a bloody pain to try and get the back ups for the 2 s !! Kick em out and emerge the comps I say !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

which comps?

 

[prost8]

Cas and GPS and have a few divisions !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gregor]

i recorded most of the tries from the Shore v Scots game >>

Great effort Sidesteppa. Scots look very good. They just seem to be able to get over the advantage line so easily, even from a standing start.

 

[Quick Hands]

Cas and GPS and have a few divisions !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're assuming that anyone actually wants to play in such a competition and that it would produce any less issues than the current arrangements.

For example; Shore teams have always had to play fixtures against multiple schools except when they play Joeys as not even Riverview and Kings had enough teams to match. CAS schools have less teams and ISA schools even less.

How does this solve anything?

What would be the requirement to be in your top division?

10 open teams and a minimum of 8 teams in every age group? That's what Shore and Joeys have, so if you can't find 8 schools to run that many teams, then your top division won't exist.

EDIT: You're also assuming that anyone can be "kicked out" (which they can't) - schools can leave the association that they are in if they are unhappy. None of them have shown any inclination to do so.

 

[prost8]

Agree they don't want to move so all your points are valid but do we really think we have
great gps comp now ?
We are heading for another split in the GPS ranks given the sydney Uni syndrome at Scotts ? Unless there are clear rules on home grown ie they grow up with the school from year 7 v imported players these comps become a joke !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[random2]

Agree they don't want to move so all your points are valid but do we really think we have
great gps comp now ?
We are heading for another split in the GPS ranks given the sydney Uni syndrome at Scotts ? Unless there are clear rules on home grown ie they grow up with the school from year 7 v imported players these comps become a joke !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scots agreed to change their stance on scholarships following the Basketball boycott this year, obviously this year and next they will still have a few scholarship boys as they had already started before last year however things will change in the future. One thing I can comment on is that they have been successful in developing a rugby culture at the school. They had 8 opens teams this year and even though they only had 2 wins against Joeys they were more competitive then usual in the lower grades. Also, the brand of rugby the 1st are playing has flown onto the other teams at the school which is a huge positive.

 

[Jim Belshaw]

Great effort Sidesteppa. Scots look very good. They just seem to be able to get over the advantage line so easily, even from a standing start.

My heart sank watching this video. I saw Scots play in the sevens and was impressed by their speed and size. This was a massacre and came on top of the Scots' win over Joeys (53-7) and Kings (36-19). The Shore boys really tried, I saw boys fling themselves bravely at running players almost twice their size.

I accept that Shore has a weaker firsts this year and that Scots firsts is clearly far better than the school's seconds. I won't comment on the reasons for that. It has been well covered elsewhere. It may be that things will even themselves out next year.

I have read the comments suggesting that there be a new suoer NSW school rugby comp combining the best of the schools. That's pie in the sky. Why would a Cranbrook, for example, join such a comp? What's in it for them?

Rugby has been in relative decline at school level for a number of years. The thirds comp is, I think, instructive in this context. Who would have thought that the thirds would be such a galloping success to the point that there are, I suspect, now more people following it than the top two grades. It's certainly brought me back to the point that I now follow the top comp even though TAS is not involved.

The thirds comp attracts because the standard of rugby is still exciting while the competition is wide open among the nine schools involved. By contrast, the main comp is both unbalanced and involves just six schools.

I have no answers. In New Zealand, you have a very large number of schools playing rugby to the point that no school can easily dominate. The talent is spread. That depth builds talent and audience support. What's the point of gloating about GPS domination in selection for this or that when the this or that are actually declining in relevance?

At the risk of throwing petrol onto an already large fire, that minnow TAS who some would like to see excluded from the comp because it makes it unbalanced, does more for the sport of rugby than most Sydney schools.

An extreme claim? Maybe, but if you look at the broader role of the TAS coaching staff, at the way the school makes its facilities available to others including the national TAS 11-12 year Rugby school and club carnival (48 participants over 1000 boys in 2013), at the support it provides the ARU in Northern NSW, at its support for indigenous rugby, I think that I have a case.

My apologies for this diatribe, but I think that it needs to be said.

 

[Jim Belshaw]

My heart sank watching this video. I saw Scots play in the sevens and was impressed by their speed and size. This was a massacre and came on top of the Scots' win over Joeys (53-7) and Kings (36-19). The Shore boys really tried, I saw boys fling themselves bravely at running players almost twice their size.

I accept that Shore has a weaker firsts this year and that Scots firsts is clearly far better than the school's seconds. I won't comment on the reasons for that. It has been well covered elsewhere. It may be that things will even themselves out next year.

I have read the comments suggesting that there be a new suoer NSW school rugby comp combining the best of the schools. That's pie in the sky. Why would a Cranbrook, for example, join such a comp? What's in it for them?

Rugby has been in relative decline at school level for a number of years. The thirds comp is, I think, instructive in this context. Who would have thought that the thirds would be such a galloping success to the point that there are, I suspect, now more people following it than the top two grades. It's certainly brought me back to the point that I now follow the top comp even though TAS is not involved.

The thirds comp attracts because the standard of rugby is still exciting while the competition is wide open among the nine schools involved. By contrast, the main comp is both unbalanced and involves just six schools.

I have no answers. In New Zealand, you have a very large number of schools playing rugby to the point that no school can easily dominate. The talent is spread. That depth builds talent and audience support. What's the point of gloating about GPS domination in selection for this or that when the this or that are actually declining in relevance?

At the risk of throwing petrol onto an already large fire, that minnow TAS who some would like to see excluded from the comp because it makes it unbalanced, does more for the sport of rugby than most Sydney schools.

An extreme claim? Maybe, but if you look at the broader role of the TAS coaching staff, at the way the school makes its facilities available to others including the national TAS 11-12 year Rugby school and club carnival (48 participants over 1000 boys in 2013), at the support it provides the ARU in Northern NSW, at its support for indigenous rugby, I think that I have a case.

My apologies for this diatribe, but I think that it needs to be said.

Having watched the video again and thought about it more, maybe the idea of a super schools comp does have some legs, assuming schools are willing to participate.

Say the top rugby GPS group joined a top comp. They could still play GPS rugby, but only with their thirds. In this event, they could scholarship offer to their hearts content. They would have to nominate those in the firsts and seconds who were in the top comp. Those nominated could not play in the GPS comp, although people could still play up without penalty.

We would then have a GPS comp involving all nine schools. The GPS schools participating in the top comp could still play other GPS schools at levels from thirds down.

I didn't expect to come to this position, but given variations in standards it seems to make a certain sense. Would the GPS comp itself suffer? I suspect no, again based on the strength of the thirds comp.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

My heart sank watching this video. I saw Scots play in the sevens and was impressed by their speed and size. This was a massacre and came on top of the Scots' win over Joeys (53-7) and Kings (36-19).

The Kings score was 69-12.
So I think that's 200+ points in 3 games.
Don't rule out a CAS GPS comp - the question is are CAS as a group more conservative than the GPS? Individually they are apparently interested in the concept.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Having watched the video again and thought about it more, maybe the idea of a super schools comp does have some legs, assuming schools are willing to participate.

Say the top rugby GPS group joined a top comp. They could still play GPS rugby, but only with their thirds. In this event, they could scholarship offer to their hearts content. They would have to nominate those in the firsts and seconds who were in the top comp. Those nominated could not play in the GPS comp, although people could still play up without penalty.

We would then have a GPS comp involving all nine schools. The GPS schools participating in the top comp could still play other GPS schools at levels from thirds down.

I didn't expect to come to this position, but given variations in standards it seems to make a certain sense. Would the GPS comp itself suffer? I suspect no, again based on the strength of the thirds comp.

Who else is in this super comp?
The Scots v Cranbrook score does not augur well.

 

[Jim Belshaw]

My problem, IS, is that I can't see haw a CAS/GPS comp would work. Also, if there were to be a "super schools" comp, it should probable include Canberra.

 

[aka_the_think]

I have long been a believer in a combined competition, but my proposal is potentially fraught with errors - I'm happy to try to iron them out though.

I would have a sort of multi-faceted structure to it.

Firstly, I'd have divisons - the top division wouldn't be based on merit (per se), but ability to field teams, with the requirement being ~6 teams per age group + 8 in the Opens, which I think a fair amount of schools could do - most GPS and CAS schools, if they tried, and maybe an ISA school or two.
I think that each team should be playing for some form of "premiership" - realistically this would involve an official points table, which could be easily managed online as the SJRU do. I know that ISA do this to an extent, and I think it would add value and meaning to those in lower teams. Further, you could award a shield to the school that does the best in each age group/across a junior-senior division/what ever other configuration you want, to point at organic change.
Significantly, I would ensure that every game is played against the correlating team of the opposition - for too long I've seen Riverview's 6th (for example) go up against Newington's 4ths (for example), only to lose and have the school's overall win-loss ratio for the day look worse.

Secondly, to maintain the obvious value of existing competitions - like the GPS, CAS, ISA, CHS etc - I'd have a conference system within each division that represents existing organisations - where possible. This basically ensures that the rivalries and traditions that have developed over (up to) hundreds of years) continue, as each team is assured a game with opposition within that conference. These conferences can still award a GPS premier based on results, and if it's the case that a few schools from within a conference aren't in a division (e.g. Grammar, High, TAS, and others being unable to field the required teams for Div. I) then they could negotiate to play the schools outside their division if they want, though it will only count towards an independent conference point system, not the overall standings.

This is largely modelled on the system used for College Football by the NCAA. I am not sure whether I'd support a finals series at this stage - even if I did I think it would be limited to the 1st XV, otherwise the entire idea of a School v School mentality across the age groups is undermined.

On a side note, the person who said that Riverview fails to match Shore in terms of numbers is in error. According to this http://www.shore.nsw.edu.au/file.php?fileID=7331, Shore has less teams in the 13s, less in the 14s, less in 15s, and the same in the 16s and Opens. Also worth noting that Riverview fields at least 2 AFL sides in U13, U15, and U17 divisions + in Opens has 10+ Soccer teams (the introduction of Socials soccer has been very successful).

Also, I am not sure that the quoted figure of 22/26 wins for Joeys over View is correct. I have a feeling that those stats include the wins that Joeys got over Armidale in the Cs, Es etc. in younger age groups. I swear I saw more "lost" suffixes when Joeys displayed the results at the end of the day.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The source for your ideas shows the problem: NCAA generates enormous TV revenue for the colleges. Justifying all the unjustifiable excess, chicanery, flaunting of recruiting rules, flaunting of eligibility rules etc etc.
The tail wags the dog.
School rugby is played solely for its educational and enjoyment value and is a cost not a revenue.
The aim must be to get every boy a competitive game not to crown a national champion.
There is an overall drift away from rugby in all the schools, from what I am told.

 

[Quick Hands]

I have long been a believer in a combined competition, but my proposal is potentially fraught with errors - I'm happy to try to iron them out though.

I would have a sort of multi-faceted structure to it.

Firstly, I'd have divisons - the top division wouldn't be based on merit (per se), but ability to field teams, with the requirement being ~6 teams per age group + 8 in the Opens, which I think a fair amount of schools could do - most GPS and CAS schools, if they tried, and maybe an ISA school or two.
I think that each team should be playing for some form of "premiership" - realistically this would involve an official points table, which could be easily managed online as the SJRU do. I know that ISA do this to an extent, and I think it would add value and meaning to those in lower teams. Further, you could award a shield to the school that does the best in each age group/across a junior-senior division/what ever other configuration you want, to point at organic change.
Significantly, I would ensure that every game is played against the correlating team of the opposition - for too long I've seen Riverview's 6th (for example) go up against Newington's 4ths (for example), only to lose and have the school's overall win-loss ratio for the day look worse.

Secondly, to maintain the obvious value of existing competitions - like the GPS, CAS, ISA, CHS etc - I'd have a conference system within each division that represents existing organisations - where possible. This basically ensures that the rivalries and traditions that have developed over (up to) hundreds of years) continue, as each team is assured a game with opposition within that conference. These conferences can still award a GPS premier based on results, and if it's the case that a few schools from within a conference aren't in a division (e.g. Grammar, High, TAS, and others being unable to field the required teams for Div. I) then they could negotiate to play the schools outside their division if they want, though it will only count towards an independent conference point system, not the overall standings.

This is largely modelled on the system used for College Football by the NCAA. I am not sure whether I'd support a finals series at this stage - even if I did I think it would be limited to the 1st XV, otherwise the entire idea of a School v School mentality across the age groups is undermined.

On a side note, the person who said that Riverview fails to match Shore in terms of numbers is in error. According to this http://www.shore.nsw.edu.au/file.php?fileID=7331, Shore has less teams in the 13s, less in the 14s, less in 15s, and the same in the 16s and Opens. Also worth noting that Riverview fields at least 2 AFL sides in U13, U15, and U17 divisions + in Opens has 10+ Soccer teams (the introduction of Socials soccer has been very successful).

Also, I am not sure that the quoted figure of 22/26 wins for Joeys over View is correct. I have a feeling that those stats include the wins that Joeys got over Armidale in the Cs, Es etc. in younger age groups. I swear I saw more "lost" suffixes when Joeys displayed the results at the end of the day.

No ISA team would meet the criteria. 4 GPS schools meet the criteria (Scots isn't one of them). Not sure how many CAS schools would - I'd imagine 2 maximum (Barker & Knox). This leaves a 6 team first division (with Scots in the 2nd division). Hardly a solution.

EDIT: Kings only have 5 teams in 13s and 14s, so they wouldn't make it either.

 

[aka_the_think]

No ISA team would meet the criteria. 4 GPS schools meet the criteria (Scots isn't one of them). Not sure how many CAS schools would - I'd imagine 2 maximum (Barker & Knox). This leaves a 6 team first division (with Scots in the 2nd division). Hardly a solution.

EDIT: Kings only have 5 teams in 13s and 14s, so they wouldn't make it either.

Just a suggestion at this stage - the numbers can be played with (e.g. bump it down to 4 per age group + 6 opens) depending on optimal outcome.

The source for your ideas shows the problem: NCAA generates enormous TV revenue for the colleges. Justifying all the unjustifiable excess, chicanery, flaunting of recruiting rules, flaunting of eligibility rules etc etc.
The tail wags the dog.
School rugby is played solely for its educational and enjoyment value and is a cost not a revenue.
The aim must be to get every boy a competitive game not to crown a national champion.
There is an overall drift away from rugby in all the schools, from what I am told.

That's the sort of response I'd expect from a Sydney Grammar associate.

First and foremost, I don't understand why the fact that the NCAA generates large profits means that their model isn't applicable in this circumstance. The model itself can function independent of large funding. I honestly don't understand why you think more money will be needed as a consequence of this model in and of itself. Maybe it'll be the case that because of the increased standard and attention certain schools will opt to devote more resources towards Rugby. But that's hardly a requirement - this will largely function exactly the same as things do now, with x school commuting to y school for the purpose of sport, it's just that x and y schools haven't done so historically.

This whole "is a cost not a revenue" aside is so irrelevant - at no stage did I suggest that it should be used as some sort of revenue raiser. All I am advocating for is a change to competition format, not a professional high school rugby competition.

I don't understand why such a huge double standard is applied in the case of debating though - almost all schools compete in more than one competition (e.g. many schools compete in ISDA in terms 1 and 2 which includes schools from ISA, GPS, CAS, as well as girls schools). I don't see there being much difference from a purely "competitive" perspective - most teams train twice a week for 2+ hours at a time, and travel the same sorts of distances, for a longer period.

The fact that Rugby is a sport doesn't make it unique from other activities where we apply exceptions to the rule that "x activity is to be played solely for educational and enjoyment value".

People have to realise that for many people Rugby is more than an educational pursuit. For some people - particularly those at these sorts of schools these days - it's a legitimate career path, equal to any of the pursuits that schools willingly fund and apply competitive dispositions to.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Just a suggestion at this stage - the numbers can be played with (e.g. bump it down to 4 per age group + 6 opens) depending on optimal outcome.




That's the sort of response I'd expect from a Sydney Grammar associate.

First and foremost, I don't understand why the fact that the NCAA generates large profits means that their model isn't applicable in this circumstance.

Given the cheapness of your first shot you don't deserve a civil reply, but since you concede not understanding much of what you comment on I'll let that pass.
There is simply no correlation between college football and school rugby: college football was enormously popular before TV
How do the large colleges in the US populate their football teams? Does that not cost money - at least in the form of fees foregone.
I'm all for a change in the whole of the under age rugby landscape but depending on where your allegiances lie you may need to be a little circumspect in what you wish for.
You may want to brush up on the training you assume is being done: I doubt any team is confined to twice a week for 2 hours. In fact if you check one school's website you can see that even thirds have scheduled on-field training 3 days per week.

People have to realise that for many people Rugby is more than an educational pursuit. For some people -

particularly those at these sorts of schools these days - it's a legitimate career path, equal to any of the pursuits that schools willingly fund and apply competitive dispositions to.​

​

Really?​

How many a year from each school, on average, make a career from rugby?​

I know you're drinking the kool aid I just haven't worked out whose.​

​

And beside all of that people are complaining at the fractured nature of the present arrangements.
NCAA football is not intended to be a participant sport. There's a single team with no requirement to schedule ages and grades.

 

[aka_the_think]

Perhaps you should disclose your allegiance - or do you not have the courage for that?

I think I've made my allegiances somewhat clear over the course of my tenure on this forum - I'll let you work it out from previous posts if you're yet to already. To cut through the web of accusation and riddle your comment spun, I don't go to one of those "scholarship heavy", "pump money into rugby" sorts of GPS schools - although then again that is dependent on your interpretation. From where I sit, and that's at a position close to the action, it's clear to me that such a characterisation is false.

How do the large colleges in the US populate their football teams? Does that not cost money - at least in the form of fees foregone.

It seems that instead of assessing the merits of my model you're assessing the merits of the American college football system. At no stage have I called for some sort of mass scholarship system. At no stage have I advocated for international broadcasting rights. At no stage have I suggested anything that would infer increased professionalism. All of this is what you WANT to hear, because you're relying on a straw man style argument to further a broken status quo.

I used the example of the NCAA as an aside, and I regret doing it now given the song and dance you've made over it. The only real similarities are the existence of multiple divisions and an internal conference system - there's no suggestion that we become the NCAA. Why you base your argument on it is beyond me.

I'm all for a change in the whole of the under age rugby landscape but depending on where your allegiances lie you may need to be a little circumspect in what you wish for.

Again, contingent on the fact that I go to a school that is overly professional, which I believe to be false.

You may want to brush up on the training you assume is being done: I doubt any team is confined to twice a week for 2 hours.

Again, nitpicking/strawmanning for the sake of convenience. The overall point was that schools are willing to allow arbitrary distinctions in the case of certain activities and pursuits. If it's the case that it's "played solely for its educational and enjoyment value", then surely we must now prevent schools from taking other activities too seriously, lest the kids might actually want to win a competition. It's either the case that rugby has no competitive or non-educational value, then surely the same applies to every other aspect of school life.

The fact is, that in various areas schools are extremely competitive, and they have a right to chose where they put their eggs, so long as they play by the rules. To deny this is idealistic IS, and unfortunately it's no longer 1950 - kids are specialising now, for better or worse, and there's little anyone can do about it.
Let's not limit this to rugby - Grammar (and many other schools) do this in their approach to academia, music, debating and other areas, and I have a huge amount of respect for them for doing so The point is, schools are competitive in various areas, so why limit the extent to which they can engage with Rugby based on what's convenient for a minority?

How many a year from each school, on average, make a career from rugby?

Enough that it's a legitimate career option in the same way that any other path is. And it's somewhat weird that you'd base your argument on the status quo - like, you're right, not that many people in absolute/relative terms do make a career from it - that's part of the problem, we have a system that isn't working.

At the end of the day, I think we agree to some extent. You said "The aim must be to get every boy a competitive game", and that's exactly what I think!

I believe that it would be far better for everyone involved that schools like Grammar and High get a decent game of rugby against schools that have a similar interest and skill level in Rugby, as opposed to pulling everyone else down and forcing them to limit their programs for the sake of an antiquated approach.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They are getting competitive games.
A number of people however complain that it's not as good because the whole school doesn't play against a single school and so they don't want the present arrangements to continue.
As long as you have school based sport there will be tension between the objects of education and the pursuit of sporting glory.
Finally, there aren't even enough paying gigs in rugby now to justify the production of rugby players as a school aim.

 

[Rugby Addict]

AKA - you seem to think that schools outside the GPS are interested in doing whatever they can to fix the massive differences in abilities between GPS First XV's caused by you know what - CAS for example have a pretty good comp going and one of the traditionally poorer schools is winning which everyone, with maybe one exception, is pretty happy with. There is no talk of anyone having to drop out due to constant thrashings which is a good thing.

The fact that Grammar and High are gone from First XV and Shore are hanging on is terrible for our game. A super comp is not what is needed - teams made up of who turned up in Year 7 might be a starting point to fix the GPS comp rather that ruining every other comp.