School sporting scholarships/recruitment

[kiwi playing in Oz]

Gentlemen/ladies it appears rather obvious that going to a rugby playing school is a definite advantage for progressing through the rep ranks. If your son gets offered that chance grab it with both hands and go for gold I say. Nothing in life is 'fair' that's just the way it is!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Gentlemen/ladies it appears rather obvious that going to a rugby playing school is a definite advantage for progressing through the rep ranks. If your son gets offered that chance grab it with both hands and go for gold I say. Nothing in life is 'fair' that's just the way it is!

Typical - you just dont want us to expand our playing base by taking the control of the destiny of the sport out of the hands of the private schools and putting it into the hands of professional administrators administering for the good of the whole game (as opposed to the toffy old boys) who would give the public schools much greater involvement because of their much larger numbers......a situation which might cause Australia to threaten NZ.

 

[Karl]

A Brave New World

Light - your story about the Samoan boy was properly touching and I agree that even self-serving actions can nontheless create collateral benefits for deserving people. I'm a TSS old boy. There was very little in the way of importing talent on scholarships back then (late 80's), but that didn't mean there wasn't a relentless hunt on and pressure to identify and develop the best kids in the school or that all prestige and position for students flowed from the level at which they acheived on a pitch, a field or in a pool or boat. They got so much rope academically it wasn't funny, and it later hung or tripped them after school when the vast majority found their sports ability took them no-where in later life. I remember how our soccer team was treated - third rate citizens at best. Rugby, or Rowing was the epicenter. Swimming maybe, but barely. Athletics if it was a glamour event like the sprints, but otherwise not on the radar.

So, with Junior Rugby, on this topic, I have a crazy idea. Just for a second put aside "that can't or won't happen because [insert]" thoughts and arguments and imagine a situation as if it already existed and ask yourself if it wouldn't be better than what we have now in terms of the way a School is meant to work, the fanatical ascendency and graft of GPS Rugby and where it's inevitiably heading and the overall good of the game in Australia.

What if GPS Schools "divested" their Rugby programs altogether and we saw a massive restructuring of School and Club Rugby such that:
- All Rugby was played through Clubs
- Schools divested their Rugby Programs as described below to an "attached club"
- existing Clubs were dissolved and totally restructured in terms of membership, funding, facilities, admin, staffing, etc
- Each Rugby Playing School (GPS, TAS, CAS etc) was essentially "attached" to a newly formed club and its students played exclusively for that Club but the club was also open to any player from an "unattached" or non-rugby playing school - eg state schools without a rugby program (or league schools) on a Catchment Area basis. Forget what these clubs would be called, it's immaterial.
- a basic "core" level of funding came from membership, the ARU and the attached school for that club
- Individual Club funding was controlled in much the same way as a salary cap - ie one club couldn't generate disproportionate advantage through a wealthy member base
- individual club funding initiayives that exceeded the Cap would be applied to a centrally administered fund that was used for "whole of Game" initiatives where all clubs had equal access like better admin and refereeing, equipment, support structures, elite talent development programs, etc

Imagine how that would move Rugby forward in this country in an egalitarian and efficient way that encouraged access to the game at all levels from all sources.

Just shut your eyes and imagine it already existed and had always been that way. Imagine the increased community engagement Rugby would have and the contribution these clubs could make in their areas with the support of their attached school and the ARU. What a great Community involvement for these otherwise cloistered and elite schools that all claim to have community and other programs designed to ensure they contribute to and engage with the broader aspects of society in their areas. The boys still get to play Rugby with their mates from a young age, we still basically have a School Team to root for, but so much more. Rugby is very suited to this structure compared to other sports for a range of reasons.

After school the kids can play for whatever Senior Club they like and they would essentially be unchanged, except for the separation of the Juniors. Junior Clubs could be allocated as feeders to certain senior clubs based on various criteria (prior association, proximity etc).

Thoughts?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Sounds great
Never happen


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Karl]

Sounds great
Never happen


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Just for a second put aside "that can't or won't happen because [insert]" thoughts"

I suppose it took a second to type Sounds Great"

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Karl perhaps your post belongs in one of these threads. It will probably get lost in the noise here on the Sporting Scholarship Thread.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/threads/6870-The-Role-of-Private-Schools-in-Australian-Rugby

or

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/threads/6776-NSW-Junior-Rugby-The-Garling-Report

I'll cross post it to the Schools Thread. Good luck with getting debate on the issue. This is an item that periodically crops up and almost deserves a Old Gold archive entry of the best previous posts. Hint Mods?

 

[Karl]

Thanks Hugh.

 

[kiwi playing in Oz]

Are you an Egg or what?!

Typical - you just dont want us to expand our playing base by taking the control of the destiny of the sport out of the hands of the private schools and putting it into the hands of professional administrators administering for the good of the whole game (as opposed to the toffy old boys) who would give the public schools much greater involvement because of their much larger numbers......a situation which might cause Australia to threaten NZ.

It's not typical it's reality. Look mate my son doesn't go to a rugby playing school and only plays club rugby. It was our choice not to look at a potential scholarship opportunity because he was excelling academically at the school that he goes to. It is more important to us that he do well academically first then sport be the second important thing in his young life! I believe that had he gone to a rugby mad playing school, then he would probably have more opportunities and selections in higher rep teams. He hasn't so we encourage him to play harder, smarter, learn the requirements of his position and strive to do better! It is what it is, unfortunately. Oh and by the way the Wallabies will probably win the next RWC!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It's not typical it's reality. Look mate my son doesn't go to a rugby playing school and only plays club rugby. It was our choice not to look at a potential scholarship opportunity because he was excelling academically at the school that he goes to. It is more important to us that he do well academically first then sport be the second important thing in his young life! I believe that had he gone to a rugby mad playing school, then he would probably have more opportunities and selections in higher rep teams. He hasn't so we encourage him to play harder, smarter, learn the requirements of his position and strive to do better! It is what it is, unfortunately. Oh and by the way the Wallabies will probably win the next RWC!

I'm with you all the way re academia etc.

 

[yourmatesam]

you just dont want us to expand our playing base by taking the control of the destiny of the sport out of the hands of the private schools and putting it into the hands of professional administrators administering for the good of the whole game (as opposed to the toffy old boys) who would give the public schools much greater involvement because of their much larger numbers

Is this a suggestion that the ARU should tell the GPS, CAS, ISA schools where they should be playing their rugby?

a situation which might cause Australia to threaten NZ.

In terms of playing numbers? Rugby is the number one winter sport in NZ, Australia has more competition for numbers with winter sports (AFL, League, Union, Soccer) and will always struggle to match the sheer volume of support that rugby union has in the Shaky Isles.

 

[qwerty51]

Newington have a Sesquicentennial year in 2013 don't they? I suspect we'll see more of this

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Farcical
Why would old boys, current boys or anyone care if a bunch of ring ins win the title?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So if he has to repeat year 10 he didn't go there based on academics?

 

[Dingdong]

Is this a suggestion that the ARU should tell the GPS, CAS, ISA schools where they should be playing their rugby?



In terms of playing numbers? Rugby is the number one winter sport in NZ, Australia has more competition for numbers with winter sports (AFL, League, Union, Soccer) and will always struggle to match the sheer volume of support that rugby union has in the Shaky Isles.

Aint that the truth. In comparison to other sports, in terms of weight of numbers, Australia way over achieves. I have no doubt that if Rugby was our National sport, we would be almost unbeatable. I can't remember how many times I've been blown away by the skill of "soccer player" playing Rugby in juniors. As a lover of Rugny, can all other codes please agree to now play Rugby for the greater good.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Aint that the truth. In comparison to other sports, in terms of weight of numbers, Australia way over achieves. I have no doubt that if Rugby was our National sport, we would be almost unbeatable. I can't remember how many times I've been blown away by the skill of "soccer player" playing Rugby in juniors. As a lover of Rugny, can all other codes please agree to now play Rugby for the greater good.

It would be a vastly different game in this country if that ever happened.
If you want it to happen you have to find a way to get the kids playing good competitive games every weekend. When you break up the playing pool according to which system the kid is schooled in you immediately limit the chances for good competitive games because the various systems were not set up to cope with schools loading their teams with rugby scholarship kids. Such scholarships are against the rules.
Pretty soon the newington and kings barrackers are complaining about the standard of grammar rugby. But this is the very thin end of the wedge: Shore dont give sporting scholarships and parents there are noting how one year the Kings U15s dont win a game and the next they're undefeated.
As the scholarship schools are putting a bigger and bigger distance between themselves and the others. In consequence the boys at those schools are playing more one sided games.
In the real world there are plenty of eager rugby players who dont go to the scholarship schools. They get denuded of their talent. So their comp suffers in order to provide players to schools who may only play 1 or 2 hard games in their season because not all the schools in their system are of the view that rugby scholarships are way to go.
This is a slippery slope to oblivion simply because some schools (and I gather Trinity may be up to this as well) have decided that winning rugby premierships is good for business...It may be. but its not good for rugby because it reduces the opportunities to play against teams of roughly equal ability which is what will hone skills and acclimatise players to competitive games.

 

[Dingdong]

It would be a vastly different game in this country if that ever happened.
If you want it to happen you have to find a way to get the kids playing good competitive games every weekend. When you break up the playing pool according to which system the kid is schooled in you immediately limit the chances for good competitive games because the various systems were not set up to cope with schools loading their teams with rugby scholarship kids. Such scholarships are against the rules.
Pretty soon the newington and kings barrackers are complaining about the standard of grammar rugby. But this is the very thin end of the wedge: Shore dont give sporting scholarships and parents there are noting how one year the Kings U15s dont win a game and the next they're undefeated.

As the scholarship schools are putting a bigger and bigger distance between themselves and the others. In consequence the boys at those schools are playing more one sided games.
In the real world there are plenty of eager rugby players who dont go to the scholarship schools. They get denuded of their talent. So their comp suffers in order to provide players to schools who may only play 1 or 2 hard games in their season because not all the schools in their system are of the view that rugby scholarships are way to go.
This is a slippery slope to oblivion simply because some schools (and I gather Trinity may be up to this as well) have decided that winning rugby premierships is good for business...It may be. but its not good for rugby because it reduces the opportunities to play against teams of roughly equal ability which is what will hone skills and acclimatise players to competitive games.

What a load of crap! You use Kings as an examples of so called "loading their teams with rugby scholarship kids" to explain their undefeated under 16's team this year. Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE that knows anything about that team will tell you, the standout performers in that team this year were Lucas Bateman, Jamie Greentree, Jack McCalman, Rober Black and Harry Jones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those boys have been at kings since year 7. I'm not sure who the so called "Scolarship holders" in this team are and to be frank with you, who cares ? To any asute Rugby enthusiast, that age group in Kings always had the potential to become a champion team and are now starting to realise that potential because of good coaching and a less recognised factor known as puberty.

You bang on about Newington's so called "scholarship holders" buying titles. I ask you, what have they achieved ? If these "scholarship holders"make such a difference then why wern't Newington or for that matter joeys winning more games this year ? In any case you seem overly concerned with a minority group(scholarship holders) who IMO have a minimum affect on the competition.

 

[yourmatesam]

Pretty soon the newington and kings barrackers are complaining about the standard of grammar rugby. But this is the very thin end of the wedge: .

Grammar have been poor for decades.

In the real world there are plenty of eager rugby players who dont go to the scholarship schools. They get denuded of their talent. So their comp suffers in order to provide players to schools who may only play 1 or 2 hard games in their season because not all the schools in their system are of the view that rugby scholarships are way to go.

That's life, try coaching a junior rugby team in regional NSW mate. You can guarantee that there are players playing rugby until around the under 16's age group. They go to boarding school for the final 2-3 years of school and leave their local comp.

This is a slippery slope to oblivion simply because some schools (and I gather Trinity may be up to this as well) have decided that winning rugby premierships is good for business...It may be. but its not good for rugby because it reduces the opportunities to play against teams of roughly equal ability which is what will hone skills and acclimatise players to competitive games.

Isn't that just an example of our centralised society? Sydney/Brisbane/Canberra are where our better rugby competitions and schools are located, the reality of our country is that if you want to play in the best competitions you have to relocate or be involved in a competition in one of these locations.

Sporting scholarships are going to exist. The majority of kids at these schools play rugby because they enjoy it (and winning is a part of that) and they want to continue on playing rugby after school, not because of sporting scholarships.

My point is, that we can't change where our rugby 'centres' are, but we can coach our junior players to the best of their ability and set them on the track of playing this great game for the rest of their lives.

School is such a small part of their rugby life (when you look back on it) and can get taken a bit too seriously at times. I'm not trying to say that the time that they have at school isn't serious, but after school it will be uni and after uni it will be the real world. Teach them good skills and character from the start and the rest of it will work itself out one day.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Because they have not bought into sporting scholarships. Because they treat it as a sport and because they don't run the place so the old boys get a stiffy when they win the premiership. Because they adhere to the rules against sporting scholarships.

These kids are not getting competitive games week in week out: they will not develop as they would if they had weekly competitive games.
The schools are skewing the process to the detriment of the game.
What is needed is a homogenous playing pool which is graded according to ability instead of religion and/or school system. (CCC for f----- sake: it's 2011; Spanish inquisition anyone?)
The logical way to do this is for a village/club/zone system that takes boys from any school in any system, grades them and has them play against kids of roughly equal ability.
It may be that individual country kids benefit from the present set up but I doubt that country rugby, overall does.
Unless all the schools opt in to rugby scholarships, which are contrary to rules of competition, this will get worse.

 

[CTPE]

What a load of crap! You use Kings as an examples of so called "loading their teams with rugby scholarship kids" to explain their undefeated under 16's team this year. Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE that knows anything about that team will tell you, the standout performers in that team this year were Lucas Bateman, Jamie Greentree, Jack McCalman, Rober Black and Harry Jones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those boys have been at kings since year 7. I'm not sure who the so called "Scolarship holders" in this team are and to be frank with you, who cares ? To any asute Rugby enthusiast, that age group in Kings always had the potential to become a champion team and are now starting to realise that potential because of good coaching and a less recognised factor known as puberty.

You bang on about Newington's so called "scholarship holders" buying titles. I ask you, what have they achieved ? If these "scholarship holders"make such a difference then why wern't Newington or for that matter joeys winning more games this year ? In any case you seem overly concerned with a minority group(scholarship holders) who IMO have a minimum affect on the competition.

I called a Kings dad who has a boy in the U16s age group after reading DD's above post this morning and he tells me that Bateman (LHP) actually started at Kings in Year 3 in the Prep School as did Greentree (2R) and Eddy Jin (THP). McCalman (7), Black (6), Tom Bucknell (winger), Oliver Martin (winger), John Robertson (centre) and Nick Reid (hooker) all started in Year 7. Jones(fullback) and Ben Stacy (8) started there in Year 8.

That's 11 players who were there at Year 8 or much earlier.

 

[CTPE]

But this is the very thin end of the wedge: Shore dont give sporting scholarships and parents there are noting how one year the Kings U15s dont win a game and the next they're undefeated.

Inside Shoulder whilst I don't question what you've been told by the Shore parents I think that they are adding a fair bit of colour to the argument as the same Kings dad I referred to in my previous post also told me when I asked him about last years Kings U15As performances that they in fact beat every other side in either the trials or round games except Joeys whom they lost to in both games one of which was a one point loss in the round game.