• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

A Proposal For A New Third Tier Competition In Australia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Allen

Trevor Allan (34)
The ARU imposing "solutions" doesn't work if the solution goes against the self interests of the affected parties.

The ARC was against the self interests of the clubs and was therefore not supported.

The centralisation of the National Academy was against the self interests of the Super Rugby franchises and has therefore not been supported.

There is a risk many grass roots supporters will see this idea as the ARU disregarding the club they are a member/supporter of.

That is the way the politics of Australian rugby works.

Hopefully the ARU realises that they have to take an inclusive approach or there will be diminished support for whatever 3rd tier solution they come up with (and we need it to be a success for the good of Australian rugby).
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
I think this idea has merit. Aligning to Universities opens up options for funding and it also shifts the power away from clubs who are focused on their self interest.



All stakeholders are motivated by self-interest - are you seriously suggesting otherwise?


How much power do the clubs have now? Speaking as a financial member of my club, I know that they have a fair bit of responsibility for the maintenance of the game's grass-roots in the community.



Who will do the heavy lifting that the clubs do, if they are stripped of what little power they now have?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
That's all well and good, and this Varsity idea is a good one, but if it is: (i) strictly U23; (ii) tertiary students only; and (iii) unpaid; then it's not a genuine 3rd-tier comp.

Tell that to the NCAA mate.

While I think any age limit competition isn't the best option, due to the fact that a number of players, especilly in Rugby, do not develop fully until their mid twenties, doing the wrong thing at 100% will achieve more than doing the right thing at 50% and is better than inaction.

I can certainly understand the logic also. Money is tight, tap into these institutions which all have existing sporting facilities capable for elite sport. In addition it taps into support from current and former students ala the US College model. However it will take time to develop this. I believe that rather than dictating which Unis, those with the facilities, money and desire should get the nod. If they can see the value in offering free education, accomodation whilst paying for the logistics and staff to be part of this in exchange for the exposure than this is a great result for everybody. Players get their education completely free as well as professional development, Unis get the exposure which will hopefully over time develop into a lucrative venture like US College sport and Australian Rugby gets a profesional level competition for almost nothing. The only drawback I can see, is that unlike the US, quality young players will go straight from high school, to the professional ranks, thus taking the best quality players out, which rarely happens in US College sport, and then, only the very best do. If somebody can stump up the cash to fund this for a couple of years to get this going, perhaps it can get to the level that will attract at least the bottom 90% of HS players to the Uni comp, which would make it self sustaining. Obviously the O'Conners, Beales and Pococks will always go straight to pro, but perhaps those players who have taken 2-3 years to develop such as Quade Cooper, Berrick Barnes, etc. will in future progress via a comp like this.

I believe teaming this with the previously mentioned 6 week Club Championship or something of the sort will give the best balance of minimizing costs while allowing fringe players to play and train in elite environments, and play regular rugby against players of similar quality.
 

SouthernX

John Thornett (49)
I will use Public Enemy no.1 in one of my gripes.

If Sunnybank hooks up with Griffith University and enters this pipedream competition.

Then I'd honestly prefer that the games be staged at Griffith University and not down at Oldmac Oval.

My logic for this is if it's going to be a University themed 3rd tier competition then give it a University style flavour (with student fans supporting their team on campus & not some rusted on club rugby types down at the local club rugby ground). I have a feeling that Sunnybank might try and inject their will into the competition & make a stronger/formal alliance with Griffith University so they can continue their arms race with University of Queensland of buying talent. (we can argue about the merits of if this actually happens in QLD PREMIER RUGBY thread) but I just would like that all games are played on University campuses and not at a club rugby ground whom has formed an alliegance because of the Darwinism fear.
 

BigSteve

Herbert Moran (7)
Are we heading towards the American NFL model.
Will the varsity competition grow into a feeder system for a National Conference style Professional Club Competition (3rd Tier)
Does this also mean that a player draft is on the horizon.

A national draft would be great for rugby in Australia. It would allow the super rugby franchises to get a fair share of the available talent and that talent would ensure that all franchises would be able to grow in strength. this varsity competition is a great idea and should be implemented as soon as possible
 

Caputo

Ted Thorn (20)
I find the premise interesting but some random thoughts and some ideas that may need exploring:

1. Are the 5 Australian Super 15 franchises on board, the undermining of the National Academies by Link and Jake. They wanted hardened players to step up this would have difficuties in the tight five.

2. Three franchises with one Uni seamless transition while QLD and NSW having three supporting Uni. WA and SA AFL teams are arguing that they want there supporting fringe players in a centralised Reserve Team concept. Does that mean lion share of talent go to SU and UQ and 4 poor universities in player ranks?

3. Other models sought "Incoming ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said yesterday he would meet with Harris next week to discuss the plan in detail. The ARU itself is currently conducting a review of Premier (club) Rugby that might well make its own recommendations about what form the third tier might take and it may well be a different model is chosen."

4. State Academy of Sports were tied into the main franchises ACTAS, QAS, WAIS where are their roles going forward.

5. Similar proposal to NYC. So why did this not get off the ground.

6. Will the universities fully fund this. Remember that politics are in play Federal Government made student fees voluntary for political reasons more to stop university political clubs but had impact on sports clubs. Is this driven by Chancellor or sporting clubs.

7. "25 contracted players. The bulk of their squads would be made up of players currently in the two national academies and the five Super Rugby franchises' academies, supplemented by players from the local club competitions." How many extra scholarships in the 225 players

8. How do we choose the universities and how can others break in.

In QLD we have UQ, Griffith, Bond and left field Australian Catholic University aligned with Brothers or regional James Cook Townsville, CQ Rockhampton where they want a NRL team or Sunshine Coast University/ Breakers.
In NSW we have Sydney Uni, UNSW, Macquarie and Wollongong, Uni of West Sydney.
Victoria it may be more than Melbourne University with Monash apart of the VRU or maybe La trobe with high performance in other sports.

9. Logistic costs this will not be significantly cheaper than ARC. Flights etc

10. National Academies now have grown into a significant role for AU20 and Sevens and Olympic funding. What happens now.

11. Banning aligned clubs "and by also recommending that a formal six-week Australian Club Championship immediately follow the National Universities competition. The clubs initially would compete within their own cities before two clubs from Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra would head to the knockout stage to be joined from the top club from Melbourne and Perth."
Do we stop the competetive edge that possibly Sydney University, UNSW/Randwick or Easts, Macquarie Uni/Eastwood, UQ Heavy Reds, Gold Coast Breakers/Bond Uni, Griffith Sunnybank, UWA, Melbourne Uni.

12. Over age players by position or late developers.

13. The Australian University Games and representative team will this be affected or enhanced by full time students. Aus v NZ at University Rugby Union.
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
I think any age limit competition isn't the best option, due to the fact that a number of players, especilly in Rugby, do not develop fully until their mid twenties
Agreed.

And the Varsity idea has merit.

However, without over 23s it is not going to be the real 3rd tier we need.

By all means, let them put the university comp in place - but the Club Championship should not be neglected. It should be more than just a bone thrown to mollify clubs.

If the Australian Club Championship is bumped up from 6 weeks to 8/10/12 weeks after a few years, then we might start to see a genuine 3rd-tier.
 

baldwid

Stan Wickham (3)
The ARU imposing "solutions" doesn't work if the solution goes against the self interests of the affected parties.

The ARC was against the self interests of the clubs and was therefore not supported.

The centralisation of the National Academy was against the self interests of the Super Rugby franchises and has therefore not been supported.

There is a risk many grass roots supporters will see this idea as the ARU disregarding the club they are a member/supporter of.

That is the way the politics of Australian rugby works.

Hopefully the ARU realises that they have to take an inclusive approach or there will be diminished support for whatever 3rd tier solution they come up with (and we need it to be a success for the good of Australian rugby).


I really cant stress how much I agree with what Scott is saying here, the issue is that those with vested interests will always pose a significant threat to the viability of these sorts of concepts.

With that in mind I want to suggest that maybe we stop the fighting and embrace the clubs, if we cannot develop a competition without their support then why not embrace? This does not mean giving them the keys to the kingdom however I believe that their are viable options.

Why look to the ITM cup as a model when it will NEVER work in Australia, geography being the major difference!! Why cant we adopt a model whereby we have a 3rd tier that consists of all the clubs as they currently are? Before I explain its important to note that my approach to a 3rd tier is not to have a competition that is a fully 'professional' standalone comp, I see the 3rd tier as a feeder to SuperRugby that is 'semi-pro' and is very much a development comp. Its not meant to make money, merely operate so as to break even. Anything else is gravy!!

Sydney and Brisbane comps wont want their comps making way for brand new 'teams' like occurred in the ARC so in order to ensure their co-operation guarantee them that it wont happen, the existing clubs will be the 'product'. The tradition and existing supporter bases are maintained so it wont start from scratch and will draw from decades of history.

It will require sacrifice from both sides, from the ARU in the sense that they dont have a brand new product to market but also from the respective club competitions with regards their current competitions.

I propose that each current comp, the Hospital, Shute Shield, John Dent etc move away from their current models whereby they have a regular season and a finals series too a systems similar to the EPL - first past the post. Each comp still has a winner in their respective states that rewards the most consistent, so Syd Uni and UQ etc can still win the SS and Hospital Cup. This would require another commitment from each comp which would be to co-ordinate their start dates so that they all finish at the completion of the SuperRugby season.

Once this is complete the top 4 teams from Brisbane and Sydney, top 2 from Canberra, Melbourne and Perth and one each from the Adelaide and Darwin comps move into a 16 team Australian Rugby Club Championships. This would involve a 16 team tournament where their would be 4 pools with 4 teams that would each play each other and then the top 2 teams in each pool would move through to the Quarter Finals and so on. The funding is another issue altogether but would not be insurmountable if their was a broadcast partner and competition advertisers etc. Ideally the ARU would be required to tip in minimal amounts of money.

I really think that this would appease all parties, with each stakeholder having to compromise but not to a level where it puts them too far out of joint. In terms of funding I foresee that each club would nominate 15 players who would receive approximately $300 per week for the season which would supplement players looking for a professional contract to the tune of perhaps 2 full days of training per week. Although it wont feed a family they still have 3 days a week in which they can work to make some extra money. The players will more than likely be happy given they have the opportunity to showcase their talents and will benefit from 2 full days of training on top of their two nights a week. I did some rough figures and it comes to about 5.5 million per year, which when spread amongst the clubs, club sponsors, ARU, broadcast sponsor, competition sponsors, respective state unions and private ownership. I also think that this might facilitate the abolition of the national academy programs etc as they can ply their skills in this 'professional(ish)' environment which would also free up funding from the ARU.

Thats my proposal, it might seem costly BUT when you sit down and do the figures it becomes quite reasonable, considering airline and hotel partners would not be needed for the majority of the ARCC, only the commencement of the finals series.

Thoughts??
 

Caputo

Ted Thorn (20)
The funding is another issue altogether but would not be insurmountable if their was a broadcast partner and competition advertisers etc. Ideally the ARU would be required to tip in minimal amounts of money.

I do not think broadcasters are going to be falling over for it. The ABC is almost pay to play with 2nd tier sport. Local footy in Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne need payments.
 

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
If this was to go ahead I think they should look at playing games mid week on Tuesday-Thursday. That way they can provide sports content when there isn't too much competition.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
If this was to go ahead I think they should look at playing games mid week on Tuesday-Thursday. That way they can provide sports content when there isn't too much competition.

I like your train of thought, if this comp(or any 3rd tier) were to get FTA coverage, they should effectively just slut themselves out to cater to the networks... For starters it would lift the chances of actually receiving a broadcaster, and secondly it would maximize the exposure in time slots the other codes are unwilling to fill.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I propose that each current comp, the Hospital, Shute Shield, John Dent etc move away from their current models whereby they have a regular season and a finals series too a systems similar to the EPL - first past the post. Each comp still has a winner in their respective states that rewards the most consistent, so Syd Uni and UQ etc can still win the SS and Hospital Cup. This would require another commitment from each comp which would be to co-ordinate their start dates so that they all finish at the completion of the SuperRugby season.

Once this is complete the top 4 teams from Brisbane and Sydney, top 2 from Canberra, Melbourne and Perth and one each from the Adelaide and Darwin comps move into a 16 team Australian Rugby Club Championships. This would involve a 16 team tournament where their would be 4 pools with 4 teams that would each play each other and then the top 2 teams in each pool would move through to the Quarter Finals and so on. The funding is another issue altogether but would not be insurmountable if their was a broadcast partner and competition advertisers etc. Ideally the ARU would be required to tip in minimal amounts of money.

I really think that this would appease all parties, with each stakeholder having to compromise but not to a level where it puts them too far out of joint. In terms of funding I foresee that each club would nominate 15 players who would receive approximately $300 per week for the season which would supplement players looking for a professional contract to the tune of perhaps 2 full days of training per week. Although it wont feed a family they still have 3 days a week in which they can work to make some extra money. The players will more than likely be happy given they have the opportunity to showcase their talents and will benefit from 2 full days of training on top of their two nights a week. I did some rough figures and it comes to about 5.5 million per year, which when spread amongst the clubs, club sponsors, ARU, broadcast sponsor, competition sponsors, respective state unions and private ownership. I also think that this might facilitate the abolition of the national academy programs etc as they can ply their skills in this 'professional(ish)' environment which would also free up funding from the ARU.

Thats my proposal, it might seem costly BUT when you sit down and do the figures it becomes quite reasonable, considering airline and hotel partners would not be needed for the majority of the ARCC, only the commencement of the finals series.

Thoughts??

Likewise agree with Scott and therefor yourself. The Clubs, their juniors are the true Grass Roots and you cant forget their supporters, sponsers, and volenteers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! which enable clubs to grow, and function.
Instead of Top 4 from NSW & QLD, why not 4 Geographical Rep teams from NSW & QLD - this would mean there would be a degree of involvement from all teams and possibly create a slightly broader audienece, involvement and club support. I.e. in Sydney (Manly, Warringah, Norths) i would travel to each of the grounds to watch a game. If it was just the top 4 there would / could be a large burning of supporter base, if your team didnt make it you may not go.

Futher to this, same applies to colts so the clubs, supporters & volenteers get 2 games to follow on game day, and youth (academies) are involved.

Cheers
 

Torn Hammy

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Meanwhile in the US University competition, Cal beat Stanford .. Just

176-0 wtf

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/176-0-rugby-win-for-Cal-4226360.php

Cal rugby is a 'varsity sport' which means the players get financial aid and preference with regard to acceptance. They get the best local and international talent. They flog everyone, although recently a couple of colleges have boosted their rosters and have beaten them.

Stanford rugby is a 'club sport' which groups it with yoga and table tennis. With no athletic scholarships you end up getting geeks with mouthguards. Stanford forfeited this contest in 2001 as a duty of care issue.

This for me highlights the danger of this proposed 3rd tier. The success or otherwise of a university team is dependent on the extent to which the university backs that team. The contrast between Cal and Stanford or USyd and UNSW is indicative of what a folly this could be. There is no interest in any inter-uni sports and realistically 99.9% of students couldn't tell you what is meant by the term 'tight head prop'.
 

flat_eric

Alfred Walker (16)
I like your train of thought, if this comp(or any 3rd tier) were to get FTA coverage, they should effectively just slut themselves out to cater to the networks. For starters it would lift the chances of actually receiving a broadcaster, and secondly it would maximize the exposure in time slots the other codes are unwilling to fill.

Not to mention weeknight games won't phase the uni students who should make up a great portion of the crowds. As a recent graduate I feel grudge matches between the big SEQ universities and any play-offs would garner respectable support, if marketed correctly. I'm actually excited about the prospect.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Not to mention weeknight games won't phase the uni students who should make up a great portion of the crowds. As a recent graduate I feel grudge matches between the big SEQ universities and any play-offs would garner respectable support, if marketed correctly. I'm actually excited about the prospect.

I went to Bond and we played a Thursday night game against Griffith in 2008. Would have been at least a few hundred down there, more than I've ever seen at a Breakers game. Marketed correctly as a serious contest, this type of thing could do much better.
 

SouthernX

John Thornett (49)
No free to air network is going to pick up midweek games for primetine when they can maximise their profits showing the block, the voice etc.

Mid week is tv channels busy times
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
No free to air network is going to pick up midweek games for primetine when they can maximise their profits showing the block, the voice etc.

Mid week is tv channels busy times
No but the AFL got an AFL channel.
We get ITM, French, Currie, on Foxtel, why not incorporate some historical tests, some documentaries, Japanese rugby (investment of Yen)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top