2017 AAGPS/CAS Combined "Comp"

[Inside Shoulder]

Beware the law of unindtended consequnces IS. I foresee an arms race being joined by certain CAS schools if this "competition" formalised in any way.

That's the risk.
But their differing codes of conduct would require negotiations: of course, there's always the chance that the ARU have been handling them - so we might see a Japanese school in one or other conference.
Hmmm, I wonder if Shore's grip on the ARU would slip if it went into the comp for random enrolees......

 

[Azzuri]

I hear Pink Champaign is in short supply. Apparently a couple of big buyers on the upper North Shore

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

15 bottles to the dozen....

 

[Azzuri]

That's the risk.
But their differing codes of conduct would require negotiations: ..

This is most probably a post which belongs in the Hotel California thread ....

"Negotiation" would imply that the both sides would need to discuss and agree a code of conduct that they can both live with.

I cant imagine that those who are not bound by the same code as the GPS will want to give up or agree to be bound by a more restrictive code to satisfy some utopian ideal of a level playing field. (... and no one is naive enough to suggest recruitment of talented sportsmen has been rubbed out in the AAGPS)

It doesn't require a crystal ball to predict the wholesale recruiting will be back on the agenda of the usual suspects for 2018 especially if this Frankenstein "comp" gets off the table at the next lightening strike.

 

[Quick Hands]

This is most probably a post which belongs in the Hotel California thread ..

"Negotiation" would imply that the both sides would need to discuss and agree a code of conduct that they can both live with.

I cant imagine that those who are not bound by the same code as the GPS will want to give up or agree to be bound by a more restrictive code to satisfy some utopian ideal of a level playing field. (. and no one is naive enough to suggest recruitment of talented sportsmen has been rubbed out in the AAGPS)

It doesn't require a crystal ball to predict the wholesale recruiting will be back on the agenda of the usual suspects for 2018 especially if this Frankenstein "comp" gets off the table at the next lightening strike.

One school has already worked out that co-education may affect rugby strength - see HT thread.

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

That's the risk.
But their differing codes of conduct would require negotiations: of course, there's always the chance that the ARU have been handling them - so we might see a Japanese school in one or other conference.
Hmmm, I wonder if Shore's grip on the ARU would slip if it went into the comp for random enrolees..

It's a difficult one for sure. The hardest issue though is the 'grading of teams' based on a 1st XV given the nature of non-scholarship schools. The excellent current Waverley 1st XV for example is largely the product of a Year 12 group that was strong in Year 5/7 with the other good Year 11 kids. Next year they'll be competitive but not as good, the next couple of years after that will dip then the current Year 7/8 are very strong so they'll be good again. How do you try to organise competitions based on annual grading when the years (sans scholarships) vary so much. Good luck with that.

 

[footyfan1]

I've been following these results with great interest and am glad that the two associations and the respective schools are willing to broaden their approach to the season. As an ISA follower primarily I've always thought that the more integration between associations the better off rugby will be off overall from a development perspective and also from a weekly fairness and competitiveness approach. Avoiding mismatches and proper floggings I believe is crucial.

There is no doubt this year the CAS schools in the form of Waverley, Knox and to a lesser extent Barker are competitive in these 'trials'. Whilst there has been some carry on about the results and what not, no one can deny that across the board that there is some quality rugby been player under this new concept.

My concern lies however with the consistency of fixtures into the future. Minus Shore, you can guarantee that Kings, Joeys, View, Scots and New will each year put up quality 1st XV sides capable of matching, not necessarily always winning, with the best from CAS or even ISA. This year Waverley and Knox have top notch sides. But what's to say in 2 years Waverley a school who's rugby is very cyclical puts a team that isn't capable of competing against say Joeys but would be better served playing St Pats. This is a reality.

If you look back in recent years at the top non-GPS teams, Trinity 2011, Oakhill 2012, Barker 2012-2013, various St Augustine's lineups over the past 7 years. There is no consistency and this is problematic because year on year judging schools ability and organising this would be an absolute nightmare. One of the best examples is Cranbrook who won in 2014 and this year are all but guaranteed the spoon in the CAS.

This year given the strength of Knox and Waverley makes the concept fantastic. The issue is maintaining the quality of the competitors into the future and also given the cyclical nature of schools rugby programs organising the most appropriate and competitive trials will be an enormous task each year.

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

I've been following these results with great interest and am glad that the two associations and the respective schools are willing to broaden their approach to the season. As an ISA follower primarily I've always thought that the more integration between associations the better off rugby will be off overall from a development perspective and also from a weekly fairness and competitiveness approach. Avoiding mismatches and proper floggings I believe is crucial.

There is no doubt this year the CAS schools in the form of Waverley, Knox and to a lesser extent Barker are competitive in these 'trials'. Whilst there has been some carry on about the results and what not, no one can deny that across the board that there is some quality rugby been player under this new concept.

My concern lies however with the consistency of fixtures into the future. Minus Shore, you can guarantee that Kings, Joeys, View, Scots and New will each year put up quality 1st XV sides capable of matching, not necessarily always winning, with the best from CAS or even ISA. This year Waverley and Knox have top notch sides. But what's to say in 2 years Waverley a school who's rugby is very cyclical puts a team that isn't capable of competing against say Joeys but would be better served playing St Pats. This is a reality.

If you look back in recent years at the top non-GPS teams, Trinity 2011, Oakhill 2012, Barker 2012-2013, various St Augustine's lineups over the past 7 years. There is no consistency and this is problematic because year on year judging schools ability and organising this would be an absolute nightmare. One of the best examples is Cranbrook who won in 2014 and this year are all but guaranteed the spoon in the CAS.

This year given the strength of Knox and Waverley makes the concept fantastic. The issue is maintaining the quality of the competitors into the future and also given the cyclical nature of schools rugby programs organising the most appropriate and competitive trials will be an enormous task each year.

We also need to look at depth as well. In the CAS realistically only Knox and Waverley put up enough teams in each age group to have common fixtures with GPS. Not sure what the situation with ISA is. The 1sts is in some ways an artificial measure, particularly given some schools' propensity to 'import players' to create a good 1sts team. There is no easy solution I grant you, but from a Waverley perspective more mixing between associations has been warmly welcomed.

 

[moa999]

It's for this reason (and the fact that GPS was one round only until 2013) that I think you a 2-3 wk trial period, then a 5-6 wk GPS/ CAS / IAS comp (one round for GPS/CAS which keeps the history) used as grading for an Interschools comp.

I'd imagine 6 schools per division and depending on the year 3-4 GPS, 1-2 CAS and 1-2 ISA in the top grade.

That said talk of Cranbrook rescheduling the CAS comp this year makes that more difficult. I had always that Aloys, purely due to size, was most at risk within CAS, albeit had always thought Grammar would drop out of GPS before High (in fact High went first)

 

[footyfan1]

Yea depth in the ISA is a fair step down from CAS. Couldn't agree more about how a 1st XV can often be a disproportionate representation. Reality is the traditional GPS and CAS competetition is the most practical. Is there a possible ideal competition in reality? unfortunately I don't feel there is. In the meantime trials are the best bet. I'm relauctant to use the term 'trial' as these games mean plenty to the boys out there giving there all for the team mates and school. Playing 1st XV rugby is arguably the best footy you'll play and any game played in the jersey means something. Using the excuse of 'trials' is a cop out.

 

[William88]

An idea.

Season would run as:

Two trials games

Schools plays in their traditional competition (CAS, GPS, ISA).

Schools then tiered based on results of those comps into a super comp with the top Comp televised on 7two.

This is similar to the NZ schoolboy competition and means teams that are on a good level compete for something important.

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

An idea.

Season outline:

Two trials games

Schools plays in their traditional competition (CAS, GPS, ISA).

Schools then tiered based on results of those comps into a super comp with the top Comp televised on 7two.

Problem keeps on coming back to depth. If St Augustines has a good 1sts & gets tiered in the top division, how many 13s, 14s teams can they put up against other schools, how competitive are their 16Ds (if they have one). It's a logistical nightmare. The trick for school rugby is not to create an elitist 1sts-only competition, because ultimately it's about school vs school, not 1sts vs 1sts if you get my drift.

 

[sidelineview]

An idea.

Season would run as:

Two trials games

Schools plays in their traditional competition (CAS, GPS, ISA).

Schools then tiered based on results of those comps into a super comp with the top Comp televised on 7two.

This is similar to the NZ schoolboy competition and means teams that are on a good level compete for something important.

This could be a good idea to explore and would pitch the best against the best towards the end of the season.
Trying to grade teams based on results from the previous season would be too problematic.

 

[sidelineview]

Problem keeps on coming back to depth. If St Augustines has a good 1sts & gets tiered in the top division, how many 13s, 14s teams can they put up against other schools, how competitive are their 16Ds (if they have one). It's a logistical nightmare. The trick for school rugby is not to create an elitist 1sts-only competition, because ultimately it's about school vs school, not 1sts vs 1sts if you get my drift.

The traditional competitions would have already been held.
This format could possibly involve the winners of each comp for 1sts, 2nds and A teams.
Worth a thought.

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

The traditional competitions would have already been held.
This format could possibly involve the winners of each comp for 1sts, 2nds and A teams.
Worth a thought.

Yes, but the rugby season is short given the real reason for being at school is study not sport. And in an increasingly competitive sports environment, all kids who want to play should be allowed to play each week, not just the 1sts/As. That's the problem in scheduling. It's not club rugby, it's school rugby.

 

[sidelineview]

It's for this reason (and the fact that GPS was one round only until 2013) that I think you a 2-3 wk trial period, then a 5-6 wk GPS/ CAS / IAS comp (one round for GPS/CAS which keeps the history) used as grading for an Interschools comp.

I'd imagine 6 schools per division and depending on the year 3-4 GPS, 1-2 CAS and 1-2 ISA in the top grade.

That said talk of Cranbrook rescheduling the CAS comp this year makes that more difficult. I had always that Aloys, purely due to size, was most at risk within CAS, albeit had always thought Grammar would drop out of GPS before High (in fact High went first)

Thats the problem with the CAS comp.
Will it be maintained as per previous years?
Possibly not.

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

Thats the problem with the CAS comp.
Will it be maintained as per previous years?
Possibly not.

If I'm not mistaken CAS/GPS play a combined water polo competition & separate awards are made at the season's end for the respective CAS/GPS winners, thereby maintaining association integrity but broadening the competition. That appears to be a good model.

 

[sidelineview]

Yes, but the rugby season is short given the real reason for being at school is study not sport. And in an increasingly competitive sports environment, all kids who want to play should be allowed to play each week, not just the 1sts/As. That's the problem in scheduling. It's not club rugby, it's school rugby.

OK but in previous recent years there has been a couple of trial matches then a 2 round 10 week comp.
Make it a one round comp then pitch the best Champion teams from the different Associations against each other.
It wouldnt mean the other school teams wouldnt necessarily play games until the official end of the season, it would just mean they dont compete in the 'best vs best' playoffs.

The thing is, this new proposed GPS/CAS/ISA combined comp (if it is to be seriously considered after this season), is not necessarily the only way school rugby can evolve in a positive way.

Food for thought anyway.

 

[Harv]

Suggest there is limited upside in a 'combined' comp that simply reinforces the strength of traditionally strong schools while others wither on the vine. For the sake of rugby continuing to exist as a major sport in Australia, there has to be an effort to broaden the base and incentivise junior clubs and schools, both traditional rugby powerhouses and others in the city and the bush. There is no easy option, but why not keep ISA, CAS, GPS comps (one round, second half of the season), while manufacturing a tiered and seeded 'knockout' comp for the weeks that would normally accommodate 'trials'? The idea would be to pit traditionally strong schools against each other but provide opportunities for others to get a game or two against the big guns if they perform beyond expectations. Seeding for each season would be based on the strength of a school's/club/districts under 16 (and 2nd XV) comp from the previous year.
GPS heavyweights worried about letting the hoi polloi through their gates, wouldn't have to line up against Juvenile Detention High unless the public school mob beat four or five quality teams in the lead-up.
Fact is, the big guns would end up playing each other as they do in the current trials, but the door would be open for a less fancied team having an exceptional year to get a crack. To take the idea one step further, I think you could also develop sevens and girl's comps along these same lines at the same time (if a school or district can't compete in 15s'it might be able to field a competitive 7s outfit).

 

[footyfan1]

Harv, what you have suggested is in essence the now defunct Waratah Shield/Cup system. It is an ideal solution but no schools from CAS and GPS compete, for a variety of reasons, mainly so they can focus on their association competition.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Harv, what you have suggested is in essence the now defunct Waratah Shield/Cup system. It is an ideal solution but no schools from CAS and GPS compete, for a variety of reasons, mainly so they can focus on their association competition.

Back when they did play it was suggested they quit because they were getting done