Tony Kennedy
"I would like to see all reserves get at least 20 minutes so to develop more players."
This is suppose to be a semi-professional rugby competition there should not be space for reserve tokenism like you suggest or club representation quotas - the next best 250 players in the country after the Wallabies should be playing even if that means that some of them have to move interstate. It should be like the BBL where some players play for the teams that are interstate from their domicile.
Get the best next 250 and distribute them amongst 8 teams - Syd(2), Bne (2), Canb(2), Melb(1) & Perth(1). Play each other once and then 1v4 & 2v3 into the semis.
The ARU have got it wrong by pushing it down to the clubs (well meaning amateurs) when it should have been run off the 5 Australian franchises as they have the professional structures (coaching & administration) in place to run these sides.
It is just going to be a shemozzle - it has been rushed and is ill conceived.
The two Bne sides will be made up entirely of Reds & ETS players with little room for the true club player, so why clubs who will have little or none of their registered players involved, chose to get involved is beyond me.
I'd say the smart club just stands back and watches ARC#2 go down the same path as ARC#1.
Don't get me wrong something needs to happen but it will be a miracle if ARC#2 is the answer.
Like some others, you are confusing the aims of the BBL with the aims of rugby 3T. They aren't the same or even similar.
The main aim of 3T are to fill the gap in standard between club (4T) and super (2T) and also to build a coherent competition in which the rugby public will become involved and to try to spread the game beyond its strongholds (as few as they are). The role of the BBL is to provide cheap entertainment to the masses and has nothing to do with preparing players for test cricket. It's in fact a modern version of bread and circuses.
Whatever 3T entities emerge from this process will need to provide something lasting which can rely on a degree of local support from rugby communities. This won't be achieved by parachuting players in from all around the country in the hope of achieving an even competiton. The BBL experiences the same examples of strong and weak teams despite doing this. For 3T rugby this would be a short term sugar hit for the developing areas and would do nothing to develop a strong rugby community and a strong rugby competition in places like Melbourne and Perth. People aren't going to watch games long term if they have no idea who is playing and have no identification with the team.
IMO your suggestions of cutting out the clubs (i.e. grass roots rugby supporters) would doom the NRC to the same expensive fate as the ARC. If the desire is merely to gather the 250 next best players along the lines you suggest, there are cheaper ways to do it than the NRC. Just have 5 academy sides plus a barabarians sides to make 6 and play each other at closed grounds on a Wednesday afternoon while we're all at work.
I agree with you that this has been rushed and this increases the chance of a shemozzle - 2015 would have been better.
You're right there shouldn't be quotas for clubs or anyone else for that matter. But letting the clubs organise themselves brings competition, innovation and ideas - it might be messy (like democracy) but it's infinitely better than having centrally controlled entities following the head office line (see Soviet Union for how well this worked).
The big challenge for the ARU, in the short time frame they've given themselves, is to have the thing on a solid foundation before a ball is kicked. If they mess it up it will disappear in a crumbling ruin like the house built on sand.