Super "B" Rugby; Australia's likely 3rd Tier

[WorkingClassRugger]

What we need is a professional u20s comp, this is by far the most essential thing to keep talent in our game. Why? Well if you're talented 18 year old playing rugby, what option do you have next year, only the best pick up professional contracts out of school. The NRL can offer you a professional contract in the NYC straight away, that's much more enticing than playing colts for nothing for the next 2 years. Same problem in NZ as mentioned. We lose way too many to league because there's no pro contracts out of school for rugby players.

Qwerty,

I largely agree with the need for an U20s Competition. There has been a model offered (well, an U23s) in the Universities concept offered by RUPA. Perhaps RUPA should look to get that up and running alongside the Universities. Being separate from the ARU may actually be a good thing.

It appears the Super B concept is the one we're going with. I think it could work if they don't just call them Tahs A, Reds A and such. Call them Sydney, Brisbane etc. Also I would like to see a 6th team in Western Sydney get involved to provide 10 good level games for every team. Either that or invite the Islands to be involved. The beauty of this is that the IRB will likely foot the bill for them as part of their commitment to the games development in the region.

Bowside,

Are you talking about the bloke behind the Fanatics concept or another one you've become aware of? If so, care to elaborate?

 

[liquor box]

What we need is a professional u20s comp, this is by far the most essential thing to keep talent in our game. Why? Well if you're talented 18 year old playing rugby, what option do you have next year, only the best pick up professional contracts out of school. The NRL can offer you a professional contract in the NYC straight away, that's much more enticing than playing colts for nothing for the next 2 years. Same problem in NZ as mentioned. We lose way too many to league because there's no pro contracts out of school for rugby players.

why not have U19's and sign talented 17 year olds before League gets them?

 

[qwerty51]

An u20 comp is not about development, it's about keeping the talent in rugby. The kids want money out of school.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Inner eastern suburbs private school kids (aka Melbourne Unicorns and to some extent Harlequins and University) vs non inner eastern suburbs private school kids, particularly those of New Zealand and Islander backgrounds.

I see. Same as everywhere.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

why not have U19's and sign talented 17 year olds before League gets them?

I think the Universities concept (tied in with TAFE) would serve that purpose. Kids in the Toyota Cup don't get a great deal of cash as a part of their contract. Thanks to my connection to my old school (St Greg's) I'm fairly aware on what's being offered. It's more the opportunity to train and play in a highly professional environment and access to educational prospects.The Universities comp could achieve the same thing.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

An u20 comp is not about development, it's about keeping the talent in rugby. The kids want money out of school.

Money is a factor but there's not a great deal of it involved. And it's something that can be overcome. Offering scholarships with meals and board plus a job (that makes up a good deal of NYC contracts, you have to be studying or working) would provide similar opportunities to that of the NYC.

 

[Bowside]

To combat the league U20's, the super rugby B could be U21 or U23. The exception I would make is that if a player is in the main super rugby squad, but not picked often, or coming back from injury (guys like Aiden Toua and Mike Harris for the reds this season) I think they should be able to play as well.

Takes a bit longer to develop in rugby than it does in league. Props, Hookers and locks often are not ready for super rugby until they are 23, whereas backs and flankers can be upto the standard at 19 or 20.

 

[Bowside]

Qwerty,

I largely agree with the need for an U20s Competition. There has been a model offered (well, an U23s) in the Universities concept offered by RUPA. Perhaps RUPA should look to get that up and running alongside the Universities. Being separate from the ARU may actually be a good thing.

It appears the Super B concept is the one we're going with. I think it could work if they don't just call them Tahs A, Reds A and such. Call them Sydney, Brisbane etc. Also I would like to see a 6th team in Western Sydney get involved to provide 10 good level games for every team. Either that or invite the Islands to be involved. The beauty of this is that the IRB will likely foot the bill for them as part of their commitment to the games development in the region.

Bowside,

Are you talking about the bloke behind the Fanatics concept or another one you've become aware of? If so, care to elaborate?

Yep talking about the fanatics concept. I still have doubts it will get off the ground.

I like your idea about western sydney and the islands. Maybe you could kill two birds with one stone and have a combined Islanders team (with eligibility requirements) playing out of Western Sydney?

Would have to be funded by the IRB of course.

 

[Melbourne Terrace]

FFS this is a farce. It really isn't that hard, we have five teams already set up in super rugby and three top tier nations on our doorstep desperate for inclusion. I don't want to watch Rugby be turned into a farce just so bogans who can't appreciate the game in it's proper form are more inclined to watch.

QLD
NSW
VIC
WA
ACT
TGA
SAM
FIJI

That's eight teams with pre existing support. Play each other home and away and be done with it.

 

[Braveheart81]

FFS this is a farce. It really isn't that hard, we have five teams already set up in super rugby and three top tier nations on our doorstep desperate for inclusion. I don't want to watch Rugby be turned into a farce just so bogans who can't appreciate the game in it's proper form are more inclined to watch.

QLD
NSW
VIC
WA
ACT
TGA
SAM
FIJI

That's eight teams with pre existing support. Play each other home and away and be done with it.

Do you not think that options like these would be preferred if they were affordable?

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

This is the most foolish plan i have ever read. Who is this meant to benefit, and who the hell is this bloke representing?

I trust he is not demented enough to think that any members of the Rugby-Going Public are going to give a bugger about such a concept... and through it all, he fails to mention why he needs to water-down the time, nor change the rules...

This is how far out of tune the ARU has become - and sadly the new broom has changed nothing.

 

[Braveheart81]

You've sure mastered the art of hyperbole.

The shortened time frame is because they can't guarantee having the grounds for long enough before each Super Rugby match. It is a compromise between having something that starts late enough that some people will be interested in turning up early for it and having enough time to complete a reasonable game.

Clearly this is meant to be benefiting the people involved in the games as they will get to play at a level which should be higher than first grade rugby.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Do you not think that options like these would be preferred if they were affordable?

Braveheart, you are right....
The ARU can no longer stump-up the cash for any decent option. (This however, does not make a stupid 50-minute option justifiable).

For me, it is simple... Play the Shute Shield, play the Premier Rugby Home and Away as they are now..
- Have a 3rd Conference made up of the S15 Academy sides, and Clubs from ACT, Victoria - and eventually, Perth... (This being the one Conference left open to future expansion)....

- At the end of the regular rounds the top 3 teams from each conference move to a knock-out finals series leading to a National Grand Final.
- The next Four Highest Teams in each Conference then play a separate final series for the Shute Shield, etc... in each conference.

Traditional Clubs, existing support, top-class finals Rugby with a National Champion. And it would cost bugger all...
The finals series itself would likely attract some real interest.

If you have to be harsh, then make a one-off decision to cut the and Shute Shield Competiton to 10 teams, but I believe this would not be necessary.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm still not sure how a 50 minute option is stupid because it is shorter than a regular game. Perhaps part of that premise is that it will be faster and therefore closer in speed to a Super Rugby game.

The problem with continuing to make the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby the 3rd tier is that there are too many teams to make it a true third tier. The overall standard isn't high enough.

Just adding an interstate finals series will not provide a greater pathway for development. The idea behind any 3rd tier option is to try and distill the talent into fewer teams and getting them to play some games against each other.

If you make an extra competition for the top few Shute Shield and Premier Rugby sides and make it a viable pathway it will further discourage players from joining anyone but the top few clubs in Sydney and Brisbane.

The idea behind this is that it will cost very little money, it will only take players out of club rugby for a few games each season and it will provide more opportunity for aspiring Super Rugby players to play in teams with more strong players against strong teams.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

You've sure mastered the art of hyperbole.

The shortened time frame is because they can't guarantee having the grounds for long enough before each Super Rugby match. It is a compromise between having something that starts late enough that some people will be interested in turning up early for it and having enough time to complete a reasonable game.

Clearly this is meant to be benefiting the people involved in the games as they will get to play at a level which should be higher than first grade rugby.

I am not trying to pick an argument - and I have no doubt that your explanation of the 50-minute duration is correct - but it does nothing to hide the fact that the whole idea starts from a position of 'compromise'. It is a faulty idea to begin with - and what does it insinuate - that people who come to a Super Rugby 'B' Fixture will turn-up for a 50-minute game, but not an 80? That is a bit of a stretch. I simply expect a higher quality of initiative from the national body running the game.

It simply is NOT what the Public is asking for. The asset is in Premier Rugby and Shute Shield - that is the basis on which ANY 3rd tier should be built. All efforts should be towards making trhese competitions a more intense level of rugby - and having a 3rd conference to grow teams outside the Sydney and Brisbane areas.

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely compromise is required because there isn't the money to not compromise.

Something similar to the ARC is surely still the best option for a third tier. It has teams based in multiple cities that aren't specifically aligned to clubs and has a much higher standard of player on average that Shute Shield or Premier Rugby. Sadly we can't afford to do that again.

Shute Shield and Premier Rugby might be an asset but in many ways they are a hindrance to a third tier. We don't have the player depth to produce the necessary quality across that many teams in Sydney or Brisbane. A similar number of teams to the ITM Cup or Currie Cup needs to be the goal of a fully fledged third tier.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

OK... So make the 2 hard decisions now...

1. Accept that it wont be a national competition now - and that such an ambition may take 10 -15 years... It can be done, but not done instantly.

2. Invite only some Clubs from the NSW, QLD and ACT Competitions to play in a Combined Single Comp - and the rest miss out... they just need to make that hard decision.

Its tough medicine, but at least they will be real clubs with real followers - not the made-up 'clubs' of the ARC... When the English formed the Premier League, a number of clubs just.... missed out. they had no idea at the time exactly what they were missing out on.

The clubs that are left behind won't be too much worse off than they are now - they won't be any better off, either.

The Compromise should be about what teams can go forward - not about whether it ought to be a 50 minute game with "B" super 15 squads... I am surprised that you seem to really believe this holds any sustainable interest to the average rugby follower.

 

[Braveheart81]

The intention is not to create something of great interest to the average rugby follower. The goal is purely to provide a better pathway to creating Super Rugby players and in turn Wallabies.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

well again - not to be argumentative, but the goal is very definitely also to build a 3rd Tier Competition which would significantly increase the ARU cut of the SANZAR TV deal - and to create an income stream which supports Elite Rugby in Australia - the ARU has NO choice but to find a new revenue stream.

The Boys at FOX did not come down in the last shower - and they know that competitions are only sustainable, if they have a following - 'made-up teams' like the ARC struggle under that criteria. the other major goal is to increase participation, and through that, Player Depth and Player Quality...

The ARU will eventually do what it likes - but this proposal to me is unsustainable, as it will find no purchase with the Public.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

This is a joke right?

So they're going to develop players for Super Rugby that can't last much more than half time in the big time? DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
Surely fans would see much more value for money seeing 2 quality, full length matches. FINANCIAL FAILURE
No penalty kicks - where does tha leave professional fouls. The game will decend into a bunch of penalty tries. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
No one will pay to see that. FINANCIAL FAILURE
Or there will be so many send-offs that it becomes 7's. 7's and 15's are completely different games DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
So those fringe players now running around Shute Shield or Brisbane Premier Comp will become even further removed from grassroots rugby by neve being around. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE.

This idea has not a single redeeming feature. There are a huge number of ideas on this website alone and every one of them is better than what the ARU is proposing.

Why are they continually spitting in the face of the fans and clubs that already exist. Stop pissing shitloads of money up against the wall on useless thought bubbles that only weaken Austalian rugby. Work with what you have. It's cheaper, satisfies the fans and develops the depth of Australian Rugby.

En_forc_er, no need to worry about a Sydney centric competition, if this brain fart gets legs, Rugby in this country is as good as dead.

Without encroaching on the various threads and numerous ideas. you can change absolutely nothing except get rid of the academies and Australian rugby would improve 10 fold. Yes, it really is that simple.

I totally agree with the above Hyperbole.