A Proposal For A New Third Tier Competition In Australia

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the academy based model is a poor one because it runs into the same problem as the ARC, for 3 of the teams you have to get a shit load of tradies, students, businessmen, etc. and move them to a different city for a 1 or 2 months spell (i.e. Melb/Perth). That's expensive and difficult to rationalise.

I think a similar but better system would be for ACT, Vic, and WA to run Super rugby Academy sides with fringe Super Rugby players (EPS + blokes who usually miss out on the 22), some of the better locals, and a hand full of willing Qld/NSW club players. At the same time NSW and Qld would field 2-3 rep teams each. I'd say for NSW the teams would be Sydney City, Western Sydney, and NSW Country Gold (a squad that already plays once a year consisting mostly of country players playing in the Shute Shield, and some who are willing to take time away from their lives in country NSW for the duration of the tournament).

Does this system lack tribalism? Yes, I suppose. But it's realistic and provides a fair pathway. Tasman in NZ's ITM Cup is a new province who has not traditionally existed but the fans accepted them, I think fans would accept the system above.

Remember, this league is about development of players/coaches. Everything else is 2nd priority.

I think that the above would be a better alternative. Hell, as I mentioned in the Club Championship thread I would support Andrew. B. Cox's idea. Would be a better option than what I see Pulver proposing.

 

[en_force_er]

I think that the above would be a better alternative. Hell, as I mentioned in the Club Championship thread I would support Andrew. B. Cox's idea. Would be a better option than what I see Pulver proposing.

I think club championship would be good in theory but I think what most club lovers don't see is it will topple of the balance of the competition they love. There's an ebb and flow to the form of club teams semi-pro club comps, if a national club championship is started watch and see the ebbs and flows halt and the same 4 clubs dominate infinitely.

On another note, I think it's important that a 3rd tier be played during the ITM/Curry Cup window. Why? Because this lets our current club competition to continue to exist (with a slightly more compacted fixutre) and also more importantly allows 7s players to participate.

In Aus we decided we'd but 12-15 of our brightest future Super Rugby players in our 7s side at any given time, so having them unable to participate in a development tournament would be a travesty.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think club championship would be good in theory but I think what most club lovers don't see is it will topple of the balance of the competition they love. There's an ebb and flow to the form of club teams semi-pro club comps, if a national club championship is started watch and see the ebbs and flows halt and the same 4 clubs dominate infinitely.

On another note, I think it's important that a 3rd tier be played during the ITM/Curry Cup window. Why? Because this lets our current club competition to continue to exist (with a slightly more compacted fixutre) and also more importantly allows 7s players to participate.

In Aus we decided we'd but 12-15 of our brightest future Super Rugby players in our 7s side at any given time, so having them unable to participate in a development tournament would be a travesty.

Yeah, would make more sense to run it in the same window as the ITM Cup certainly more so than just curtain raisers. If Pulver wants to trial new laws he still could but setting it up as a representative competition in its own right would give it more meaning and a better chance of generating interest in time.

 

[Dave Beat]

I think club championship would be good in theory but I think what most club lovers don't see is it will topple of the balance of the competition they love. There's an ebb and flow to the form of club teams semi-pro club comps, if a national club championship is started watch and see the ebbs and flows halt and the same 4 clubs dominate infinitely.

On another note, I think it's important that a 3rd tier be played during the ITM/Curry Cup window. Why? Because this lets our current club competition to continue to exist (with a slightly more compacted fixutre) and also more importantly allows 7s players to participate.

In Aus we decided we'd but 12-15 of our brightest future Super Rugby players in our 7s side at any given time, so having them unable to participate in a development tournament would be a travesty.

Agree wih the timing, it would be stupid to compete with Super rugby, and Shute Shield

 

[en_force_er]

Yeah, would make more sense to run it in the same window as the ITM Cup certainly more so than just curtain raisers. If Pulver wants to trial new laws he still could but setting it up as a representative competition in its own right would give it more meaning and a better chance of generating interest in time.

Agreed. The Super Rugby teams already run 2nd XVs on their own so leave them be.

Merely formalising an existing structure and adding a couple of extra games is not a 3rd tier and is a little pointless.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agreed. The Super Rugby teams already run 2nd XVs on their own so leave them be.

Merely formalising an existing structure and adding a couple of extra games is not a 3rd tier and is a little pointless.

That's what I was thinking watching the interview. Cannot see how it would generate any real interest even among Rugby die hard's let alone the casual observer.

 

[en_force_er]

That's what I was thinking watching the interview. Cannot see how it would generate any real interest even among Rugby die hard's let alone the casual observer.

Watching it now he never says 3rd tier. We said 3rd tier.

 

[Sully]

But Aren't the academy players already living in the franchise cities?

 

[en_force_er]

But Aren't the academy players already living in the franchise cities?

Not necessarily, some are but the Rebels fly blokes up and down to participate in training and A games. The Brumbies did for years but Jake may have changed that policy.

I'm not sure on the Force but they offer training contracts to NSW/Qld players in the preseason that rarely come to anything, Tessman being an example of one that did.

 

[Dave Beat]

What concerns me about that interview, first part of the interview he was talking about all the coaches wanting to play positive rugby as if he was a coach, great lip service but he is not a coach. Has he ever coached?

Then talks about an abbreviated game with different rules, how are we going to improve our levels, fitness, and match awareness when we are playing different rules. Under pressure and fatigue you play what is habit, was you practice.

Then he dodged the Deans questions about one try per game, given it was a season plus of boring rugby, that involved losses to lowly ranked teams and there was know variation, sorry the coach needs to take ownership.

 

[en_force_er]

Yeah he's using some nicely focus grouped language isn't he. But you can't begrudge a guy for knowing how to work the media and he hasn't had much backroom time to sort shit out yet.

The jury is out.

 

[Dave Beat]

Yeah he's using some nicely focus grouped language isn't he. But you can't begrudge a guy for knowing how to work the media and he hasn't had much backroom time to sort shit out yet.
The jury is out.

I see Pulver purely providing lip service, and dodged all the tuff questions.
Look at the way Todd Greenberg handled the Baba matter. Stepped up and answered all questions front on. Admire him and the way he handled it, and I'm not a league fan at all.

 

[p.Tah]

I'm a supporter of a development league based of the academy teams, but rule tweaks and 25min halves with a 10 min half time is unusual. I don't understand whats behind this. Surely Pulver hasn't just thought of this on his own. Where has it come from?

It's only a name, but I'm not enthralled by Super B. I hope it's a working title.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm a supporter of a development league based of the academy teams, but rule tweaks and 25min halves with a 10 min half time is unusual. I don't understand whats behind this. Surely Pulver hasn't just thought of this on his own. Where has it come from?

It's only a name, but I'm not enthralled by Super B. I hope it's a working title.

The problem is as it stands and from what I can gather from the interview, just getting the Super Rugby teams to run curtain raiser's is just too narrow. What happens when teams are abroad? How many times will they play each other? etc. too many questions and not enough answers.

If you had really developed an idea and were passionate about it you would push a proposal harder than Pulver appears to be. For now I'll wait and hope to be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm a supporter of a development league based of the academy teams, but rule tweaks and 25min halves with a 10 min half time is unusual. I don't understand whats behind this. Surely Pulver hasn't just thought of this on his own. Where has it come from?

It's only a name, but I'm not enthralled by Super B. I hope it's a working title.

Last time something new was created (ARC) without the foundation support of rugby clubs it didn't survive. Super B something similar but competing wither Super and the Shute I have my doubts.
There is also that window post Super and Shute the NZ, and SA play their 3T but it appears we are leaving it untouched.
.??????

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Last time something new was created (ARC) without the foundation support of rugby clubs it didn't survive. Super B something similar but competing wither Super and the Shute I have my doubts.
There is also that window post Super and Shute the NZ, and SA play their 3T but it appears we are leaving it untouched.
.??????

It just comes across as a piecemeal attempt at some sort of solution. It feels cheap in its presentation thus far. I know I may be coming off as overly critical by I really do want a solution to this issue and I just don't this as it.

 

[Dave Beat]

It just comes across as a piecemeal attempt at some sort of solution. It feels cheap in its presentation thus far. I know I may be coming off as overly critical by I really do want a solution to this issue and I just don't this as it.

Why present it then?
There are so many ideas and thoughts on this forum, what he has proposed doesn't ring true with any of them - or any of the ones I've read.

 

[p.Tah]

^ I think we need to see more details. I think it's the least expensive option proposed because there isn't a great deal of money to fund the other options.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why present it then?
There are so many ideas and thoughts on this forum, what he has proposed doesn't ring true with any of them - or any of the ones I've read.

I think he wants to be seen as proactive and progressive to as many stakeholders as possible ealry in his tenure. Which I think are qualities many would agree are desirable. However, his attempts are rushed and apparently (I could be very wrong and we may soon see a great deal more detail, I'm welcome to being proven wrong) poorly conceived. Which is in itself a concern.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^ I think we need to see more details. I think it's the least expensive option proposed because there isn't a great deal of money to fund the other options.

The ARU could still use the academy format in a competition en_forc_er suggests just with NSW and Queensland using the relative strength of their competitions to supply extra teams. Wouldn't be a great deal more expensive than this concept.