3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Bowside]

Each option has been discussed at length on this forum, yet no real consensus is ever reached.

I thought I would include a somewhat detailed poll. Vote away and Discuss.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I've put 5 team Super B. I've voted because SA Currie Cup Prem Div I've been told has 6 teams, and if that can work, with our lesser depth 5 teams would be close to adequate, whilst making the most of existing franchises, staffs, rosters and infrastructure.

The biggest issue I find is that those teams with lesser Wallabies would be more dominant.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I've put 5 team Super B. I've voted because SA Currie Cup Prem Div I've been told has 6 teams, and if that can work, with our lesser depth 5 teams would be close to adequate, whilst making the most of existing franchises, staffs, rosters and infrastructure.

The biggest issue I find is that those teams with lesser Wallabies would be more dominant.

I'd go for a 6 team Super B as another option. One from each Super Rugby franchise and a sixth based in Sydney to provide the opportunity to others from outside the academies to have a shot as you never know who'll stand up in a competitive environment.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'd go for a 6 team Super B as another option. One from each Super Rugby franchise and a sixth based in Sydney to provide the opportunity to others from outside the academies to have a shot as you never know who'll stand up in a competitive environment.

My personal opinion is the less the better to an extent. Less cost, less impact of city club comps, best concentrate of talent.

 

[Zander]

I think the only suitable option is a competition that only is based in Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Unfortunately, this is the only way to save $ by cutting travel and accommodation costs. That could still mean 5 Super B teams, just based on the Eastern Seaboard.

 

[p.Tah]

I'm rooting for 5 Super B plus the PIs, however of its too costly and the IRB won't assist the PIs I'm happy with the 5 Super B. whilst I'm dreaming I want a short National Club competition at the end of the SS season as well.

 

[ChargerWA]

I went for the 8 team ARC rehash purely because I enjoyed the ARC so much and 8 teams means more oppourtunities for players. But if it is too expensive (we already know it is, but maybe the ARU can pull its head out its financial arse and make it happen) then my second choice would have been 5 x Super B Teams. The young guys here in WA need exposure to a higher grade of rugby.

 

[TOCC]

See I think the issue is that the best model and the financially feasible model are at odds...

In an ideal world the new model would feature 30 fully professional players per team drawn from the premier grade/Shute shield equivalent teams...

The teams themselves would be some form of representative team drawing players from across all clubs(with their blessing) and returning them 3 months later much improved players.

The competition would draw crowds of 5-10'000 each game and draw respectable ratings on a FTA broadcaster...

The finically feasible model and thus the more realistic model is unfortunately going to be much different to this.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My personal opinion is the less the better to an extent. Less cost, less impact of city club comps, best concentrate of talent.

I'd be fine with a Super B if it was given its own window like that of the ITM and Currie Cups and the teams we re-branded as the cities in which they are situated. I actually quite like the current CC format as it in comparison with the ITM provides a higher level of competition in terms of standard. Well, that's my opinion having watched pretty much every game of both competitions this season.

I was just thinking adding a 6th squad would allow for any overflow that may have been missed (and it does happen) to have access to such a structure.

 

[Zander]

The Ryobi Cup is something rugby should be looking at. Condensed format, every game in Sydney with only 2 grounds (suburban ones at that so little hire fee), games on every 2 days.

 

[kiap]

Isn't Pulver's plan to have both Super B and a National Club comp?

 

[p.Tah]

Isn't Pulver's plan to have both Super B and a National Club comp?

That's the thing Kiap, who the fuck knows what's going on.

 

[kiap]

That's the thing Kiap, who the fuck knows what's going on.

Yeah, that's why I'm here trying to capture any little tidbits or scraps.....

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah, that's why I'm here trying to capture any little tidbits or scraps...

I thought the Super B concept was put aside when the IRB refused to come to the party and fund PI involvement. Who know's, the public will be the last to know in any case.

Personally I think the ARU needs to decide on one model and run with it. You either have a National Club Competition or a Super B (give it a better name). In terms of quality, Super B would be the better option with some tweaking to differentiate it from Super Rugby. First of all, run it in its own window to provide Super Rugby players with the necessary competition to develop further and give prospects a run against Super Rugby quality talent.

Secondly, re-brand the teams as not to just come across as an extension of the Super Rugby Aus conference.

 

[kiap]

I thought the Super B concept was put aside

Any links to this?

The PI thing always sounded like a thought bubble. Maybe the whole Super B thing was too, if its viability was dependent on money from the IRB.

However, if a 5 team comp is not viable, it'll be interesting to see how a 10 team comp is viable.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Any links to this?

The PI thing always sounded like a thought bubble. Maybe the whole Super B thing was too, if its viability was dependent on money from the IRB.

However, if a 5 team comp is not viable, it'll be interesting to see how a 10 team comp is viable.

It was mentioned in an article some time back. I don't think it was suggesting that a Super B wouldn't be viable just that the involvement of any PI teams would be.

As for a 10 team comp being viable, I think that's the purpose of garnering bids and Uni partnerships etc. So that the ARU doesn't actually have to inject huge amount of capital. I'd imagine to qualify each club would need to be able to afford the costs of participating.

 

[gel]

I've gone the shute shield and premier rugby option.

I think that things that organically grow from something that already exists tend to be more successful and at least have a ready made emotional investment from (some) fans.

 

[BeastieBoy]

It's none of the above. It's NSW + GC ie Newcastle Sydney (6 JVclubs) Wollongong Gosford and Canberra. Plus a separate Qld model. We need to avoid the quick expensive ARUfix. The sydney clubs would be true joint venture clubs. So where 2 combine they each nominate 50% of the players. That w I'll give buyin for each club and their juniors and subbies. They can see a pathway and keep each club engaged.this model means all games can be got to by car and accommodation costs can be avoided.clubs and their sponsors wil want to support this model. Their up porters will want to see how their players will go in better company.We need better playing rules to attract spectators and media. Let's face it numbers are dropping for tier 1 and 2 so why would they want to see 3rd in line.

 

[BeastieBoy]

What we want is a more professional comp to attract players and juniors, rusted on supporters, sponsors, and media. It needs to produce money and be appealing as a spectacle. We are the third tier in perceived quality and crowds are dropping in the other tiers and facing stiff competition. We need rules that appeal to spectators, reduce serums and stoppages.we have at times in our history had different rules to the IRB and we have had periods of innovation which captured people's imagination eg up the jumper tries. This competition needs it to survive and indeed thrive.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Reducing scrums would only further hinder tight five development though.