I'm an outsider (no GPS connection), but I have to say, my impression is that this is a competition in trouble.
For some time, I have advocated a complete overhaul of private school Rugby so that schools are matched according to their Rugby aspirations and not historical associations. At the same time, I know this will never happen (because centuries of tradition demand that Grammar play against the Shore Thirds, while Scots put 80 points on the Shore Firsts). Still. It seems to me that you have two schools who have approached their Rugby by deliberately inducing good players to attend (I don't accuse anyone of offering scholarships - I don't know how it's done and I'm happy for you debate it in that other thread). So you have two powerhouse teams who thump everyone else. Well, OK. But everyone I have spoken to about it says that Newington plays its games in front of next-to-nobody - so who is this for? On the other hand, Shore is a school with a long, proud and distinguished Rugby history - it has lost all eight games this year. King's, one of the great nurseries of Australian Rugby, is one from eight. And Joey's, the great nursery of Australian Rugby, leaked 54 points on the weekend.
All of this seems to produce a result that nobody (except, maybe, Scots) likes. Even after two schools have been relegated to the Thirds, this is still a grotesquely mismatched competition. And Newington has assembled a team consisting almost entirely of representative players, whom nobody at the school seems to want to watch.
It's easy, and perhaps comforting, to say that tradition requires that all these schools continue to play together and that the cycle will turn in time. Those are cosy excuses for doing nothing. But wouldn't it be nice for the headmasters (or sportsmasters) to get together, talk openly about how and why they approach the game in the way they do, and try to find some constructive change?