NSW AAGPS 2017

[Rachet_84]

What a joke, 5 games.... Mmm well they just playing into league hands now. I would assume good players will be targeted to play rugby league and or the good players will seek to play league in the SG ball comp. Players want to play comp footy, it is the challenge, trial games are just meaningless.

 

[sidelineview]

I cant find the post which announced there was an official change to the GPS competition format. You guys are posting as if it's a done deal. What are the details of this change?

 

[White line fever]

The home and away comp has only been in progress for the last 10 years or so.
So for the previous decades the comp was 1 round!

Question: Do you guys think it is better to play more or fewer schools in a season, assuming there is some grading to ensure no wipe outs?

I assume there will be the same number of games played as there currently is, and therefore teams will still have enough prior games to peak for the GPS comp, which I also assume will be played after the "trial" games.
I also think that the word Trial is loose because every team will want to win every game, and the coaches may chop and change in the first few games, then they will have their correct team.

 

[Azzuri]

@ SLV ....I've not seen any confirmation other than the rampant speculation on these pages.

My view is that such an idea is a steaming pile of dung underserving of a place to land....

 

[White line fever]

Sideline,

I am certainly NOT saying it is a done deal but I can see merit in playing more schools, whilst still having your own comp.

My understanding was that the only reason that the GPS comp changed some 10 years ago was because of a seasonal time change of the GPS athletics. which threw the traditional rugby season for a lot of schools into turmoil.

This meant that fewer schools were now playing each other.

 

[Lindommer]

The home and away comp has only been in progress for the last 10 years or so.

Only three/four years for GPS, CAS have done a double round for a decade.

One round of five matches? It's a crap proposal. The headmasters should commit to the double round for at least 15 years.

 

[White line fever]

Thanks Lindommer for the GPS correction.

Even more reason if it has only been the last 3/4 years in the history of the GPS!

 

[sidelineview]

@ SLV ..I've not seen any confirmation other than the rampant speculation on these pages.

My view is that such an idea is steaming pile of dung underserving of a place to land..

I tend to agree ... and its still only speculation.

Given a school comp whether it be CAS, GPS or some other has proven to be fairly evenly balanced over a period of time, the 2 round comp provides the different ''tribes'' the chance to square up for any defeats. Return bouts attract great interest. This has great appeal for all concerned in the schools. Schoolboy rugby with its many schoolboy supporters chanting and singing on the sidelines is the most enjoyable form of the game for many people. The atmosphere is unique and provides the players with many great memories before they go out into the real world.

A one round comp, supplemented by ''trial matches'' ?

Unfortunately the CAS comp has been unbalanced in recent years. I'm not sure what the remedy for that is.

The argument that playing a wider variety of schools somehow improves the development of individual rugby players doesn't add up.

IMHO the only reason a comp format should change is to regrade the weaker schools so they dont get smashed every week. Unfortunately some former traditional rugby schools have slipped behind due to different reasons as has been explained in detail here.

 

[White line fever]

Sideline,

Here's another point of view.

1. You still get the cheering etc with 1 round, as has historically been the case. You don't get the chance to square up on a return, agree!
In the past no one worried about the square up.
You square up next year!

2. The word "trial" is unfortunate, as every 1st 15 team wants to win every game in a season, no matter who they play, so they do take them all seriously, that's why the made the 1st 15, imo.

3. Playing more schools with different styles does/can improve your rugby, as opposed to playing the same few teams over and over.

4. I certainly think that it depends on who you play, and you are right about an unbalance CAS in recent years.
So if some of these other schools include the stronger CAS schools, St. Auggies, Oakhill, St Pius then I think it would be better for all involved.

And when they go into the real world they will have played and met many more boys than currently.

Anyway let's just see what transpires, until then, this is all speculation.

 

[HeresToRugby]

As recorded by somebody else early in this thread it is a done deal - just ask your sports masters.

Unfortunately a very poorly thought out decision & a very regressive step to not find a suitable alternative or at least to seek some feedback from sectors right across the board before throwing it to a vote!

Whilst it might mean that it will be easier to find games for kids right down the grades (if that was the argument I'm not sure), ridiculously kids who are at the upper end (top 3 or 4 sides) will now be penalised by playing largely meaningless trial games (yes they are regardless of trying to win or not - players want to play and supporters generally want to watch comp games). They will play other sides and with no disrespect to some of the other schools mostly romp it (they did this year anyway) in & then just get 5 games in the comp which, if you blink will be over before it started! It also has implications for higher selections as injuries during the 'lightning' comp could see several players miss out. Also, surely playing top level schools more than once gave the selectors a better idea of the wheat from the chaff.

There was no indication this was going to be debated so no consultation with the wider community - players, coaches, parents & Old Boys. I am disappointed with the schools who decided this (including mine) & I don't believe the perceived benefits are as clear cut as they think.

I think there should be as much noise as possible about this and ASAP to try and change what has been decided. Most people looking on I believe would agree that a one round competition is unacceptable.

Otherwise, they should have waited 12 months before changing the status quo (not 6 months out!) and if it means creating a super comp across the associations then at least have a good think about it before making rash decisions. I would have no problem with a well thought out merger if it saved the sport at schoolboy level.

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

My two bobs worth on new 2017 format ...

I was never a fan of 2 round comp, however the last few years it has grown on me.

Upon reflection I think the 2 round comp works well when it is a close comp ... ie the best team isn't too much better than the worst. So in 2016 the GPS comp was awesome being 2 rounds.

However in years when the comp is either a 2 horse race, or there are some particularly weak teams, it leads to the unfortunate situation, of a team getting thrashed not once but twice.

So when I think what is the solution ... 1 round, 2 rounds or something else ... I now think I am in the last category.

I personally think when you have a variance between skill levels, whether it be sport or education, I believe it should be a meritocracy.

This is different to a lot of educational views ... where say the approach is to have the top class graded, and then everything else is a mix-up.

Personally I don't like that approach ... as I think you need to be aspirational in everything .... if you are in the G team you should be trying to get into the F team ... if you are in the 2nd top Maths class , you should be trying to get into the top Maths class

so I guess I like the divisionization option ... promotion, relegation

so the A division should in my opinion, include the top GPS, CAS and ISA schools ... and whether there is some way that can see schools have 2 rounds in that format

however I appreciate the problem is scheduling ...particularly if different age groups, have teams potentially in different divisions ... ie it becomes like junior rugby ... or do you stick to the traditional approach of having schools facing off largely against one another

so I concede there is no easy fix

however I'd be keen to see a 2 round, Division A comp that featured

1. Joeys
2. Scots
3. Riverview
4. Newington/Kings
5. Knox
6. Waverley
7. Auggies
8. Oakhill

However outside of the A teams, I still see mismatches/cricket scores.

so there is no easy fix on this

 

[Armchair Selector]

Before we all get too excited about what 2017 may behold, maybe we should just wait and see what ALL school associations agree to. In the absence of any release would it be conceivable that the proposal is still being resolved and not cast in stone?

There have been quite a few theories circulated involving GPS,CAS and ISA schools.

Personally I think the 2016 GPS season was an outstanding success and an exemplar of a home and away comp. This is predicated on you measuring success and competition by 1sts, 2nds and 3rds competition. For the Joeys 10ths who may have played the Knox 6ths this year they would have all been on first names basis by the end of the season. Not much variety playing the same team week in week out.

My only hope is that ALL players from ALL associations get to play competitive Rugby at an appropriate standard across a varied range of opposition.

If this is achieved by the new format great if not then dont rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking boat.

 

[White line fever]

Many many logical points made by those above.

I do think those who keep banging on about the "must have" home and away GPS comp, need to "consider" that there CAN be a solid comp that includes non-GPS schools. The home and away comp has been in practice for 3-4 years out of 100 years!

I have also noticed that people keep commenting on how average Shore has been for some time, and I certainly mean no harm to shore/historically they have been a powerhouse, so that means there are really only 5 GPS schools who are contenders. Is that a solid comp?

Believe it or not some other schools can play rugby!

I know this is a stretch,to say the least, BUT unless we as a rugby group think of creative ways to grow our sport, then bring on the round ball and afl.
Maybe a new/larger comp is the way forward, whilst still having your own competition,which IS the way it has been historically.

People told Kerry Packer he was an idiot!

 

[Element]

I believe in the importance of having a fair competition. Five games means 2 home and 3 away games for some schools, which simply isn't fair when other schools will have 3 home and 2 away. The current competition is fine the way it is.

The only changes I'd make are having the winner of the GPS vs the winner of the CAS, and the perhaps the winner of that game playing the winner of the GPS comp in Brisbane. That would be an amazing game.

 

[Not in straight]

I suspect the forces at play are something that most on the forum will not agree with.


Clearly there are some among the heads of School that wants to reduce and downgrade the competition (and going to 1 round will achieve that). I think part of the reason is to discourage schools from recruiting. A reduction in competitive games reduces the focus on the competition and more focus on the whole of education of the boy.


Will schools go out of their way and pay professional coaches (six figure sums) and find ingenious ways to recruit players for just 5 games?

I think this is the nub of what it is all about,

 

[Quick Hands]

Sideline,

I am certainly NOT saying it is a done deal but I can see merit in playing more schools, whilst still having your own comp.

My understanding was that the only reason that the GPS comp changed some 10 years ago was because of a seasonal time change of the GPS athletics. which threw the traditional rugby season for a lot of schools into turmoil.

This meant that fewer schools were now playing each other.

Believe it, It's a done deal.

 

[Quick Hands]

The only changes I'd make are having the winner of the GPS vs the winner of the CAS, and the perhaps the winner of that game playing the winner of the GPS comp in Brisbane. That would be an amazing game.

You realise that there was a format put in place for 2016 in which the champions from GPS, CAS, ISA and CHS (the state sports high schools) and that the CAS decided as a whole not to participate and the GPS premiers also decided not to participate.

While such ideas appeal to rugby supporters, there seems little appetite within schools for any such competition.

 

[sidelineview]

You realise that there was a format put in place for 2016 in which the champions from GPS, CAS, ISA and CHS (the state sports high schools) and that the CAS decided as a whole not to participate and the GPS premiers also decided not to participate.

While such ideas appeal to rugby supporters, there seems little appetite within schools for any such competition.

There's also a time factor involved with this idea. As soon as the rugby season is over the schools quickly move on to their summer sports programs such as athletics.

 

[Quick Hands]

There's also a time factor involved with this idea. As soon as the rugby season is over the schools quickly move on to their summer sports programs such as athletics.

Indeed, there are many activities that need to be crammed into a school year - not only other sports but also exams etc.

 

[formerflanker]

In comparing one round in 2017 to the one round of the past, the recent absence of High and Grammar from the 1sts competition must be remembered. One round in say 2006 was a round of 7 games, compared to 5 games now. Hence the trial games of the past were limited in number.
Since no decisions have been announced, I assume sports masters are busy lining up opponents whose top teams match up and also have a similar depth of teams through the age groups.