Super "B" Rugby; Australia's likely 3rd Tier

[Cpt Crow Eater]

I'm a massive union fan but a dumb. Fan I love my brumbies given Canberra boy who lo.ved watching larkham ( can you blame me) but what I don't wanna watch is a b side call them Canberra heros and the brumbies add to them an identity we can see cos brumbies b are shit Canberra heroes are wonderful

Also...

 

[hoggy]

Okay here's my theory because looking at the proposal first up you think, are you serious thats just a ridiculous idea.

However the ARU we now know are seriously broke and Pulver has to do something, So this is basically the cheapest option that creates a larger playing pool, and come 2016 the new pay TV deal will be done at that time the domestic competitions of all 3 sanzar countries should be re-aligendn along the same calenders.
After the complettion of the domestic competition then a knockoout style super competition can be run involving the teams from all 3 countries.
So considering this is the only option post 2016 that will actually give rugby union a chance to survive and prosper, i therefore think that Pulver is proposing this option to appease the short term issue's while creating a playing pool that will allow them to increase the aus teams by 3 from 2016.
Then again i could be wrong and Pulver actually thinks this could work.

 

[Rugby Central]

Using the current club system won't work either. The ship has sailed in that regards. If they wanted to make something of it they should have 30 years ago.[/quote]

WCR, the ship didn't sail, it was sunk by the ARU. When Rugby went professional Tim Gavin with a shelf life of 1 year was offered a couple of hundred thousand. Quality player, no argument. Ben Kennedy was offered about $35K. Who would have contributed more in the following 5 years. We'll never know but boy did Ben Kennedy put bums on seats for rugby league.

The ARU has never considered the development of the game since it turned professional. They look after their favourites and bugger the rest. The Club structure is the most cost effective way to develop Australian Rugby Players. It has players, fans, administrations and a governing body trying to kill it. Which part of the equation should change to help it thrive.

For those who think the stadium costs are prohibitive, the agreement for NSW rugby to use ANZ Stadium costs nothing. The stadium gives it to them for free as long as they promise a certain number of games per year. That's the only reason the Waratahs play there. I'm not sure about the SFS (or whatever it's called this week) but as NSW Rugby is headquartered there I'm sure the costs are managable. That aside Concord, Leichhardt Oval (any of the league grounds for that matter) are all grounds that could more than accomdate quality club competitions. These grounds have the facilities for TV broadcast and good crowds and the potential for reasonable gate receipts.

As for getting the field before 5pm...bollocks. They can get the field whenever they want if it doesn't conflict with another user. Are you telling me it would be impossible to schedule around the NRL or AFL. Again...bollocks

I don't know much about the Brisbane competition but the failure of Sydney Club Rugby has been because of politics and petty egos. Pure and simple. A ship will never sail if you blow it up at the dock.

If it's about the money, use what you have and treat it well. If it's about putting your name on a shiny new toy, spend the money and stop pretending you care about anyone else or the Game's development

 

[en_force_er]

Okay here's my theory because looking at the proposal first up you think, are you serious thats just a ridiculous idea.

However the ARU we now know are seriously broke and Pulver has to do something, So this is basically the cheapest option that creates a larger playing pool, and come 2016 the new pay TV deal will be done at that time the domestic competitions of all 3 sanzar countries should be re-aligendn along the same calenders.
After the complettion of the domestic competition then a knockoout style super competition can be run involving the teams from all 3 countries.
So considering this is the only option post 2016 that will actually give rugby union a chance to survive and prosper, i therefore think that Pulver is proposing this option to appease the short term issue's while creating a playing pool that will allow them to increase the aus teams by 3 from 2016.
Then again i could be wrong and Pulver actually thinks this could work.

I really think he's just increasing the player pool to increase the player pool.

He's adding this as a 3rd tier because we don't have good infrastructure elsewhere. Club's can't just become the 3rd tier sadly, maybe they could of 20 years ago if we did what league/AFL did but they didn't and it's probably too late.

Could Para fly their players to Brisbane 5 times a year? Could the ARU subsidise it? No and No.

It's far from an ideal 3rd tier model, and behind closed doors Pulver may even admit that, but it will:

• Gives blokes outside of Sydney/Qld a shot at professional rugby.
• Get more guys involved in professional rugby, particularly we'll see more guys cracking in at 22-23 than we do now.
• Will not destroy club rugby in Syd/Bris like the ARC did.

It will not:

• Attract fans.
• Attract money.

BUT it's not meant to.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I really think he's just increasing the player pool to increase the player pool.

He's adding this as a 3rd tier because we don't have good infrastructure elsewhere. Club's can't just become the 3rd tier sadly, maybe they could of 20 years ago if we did what league/AFL did but they didn't and it's probably too late.

Could Para fly their players to Brisbane 5 times a year? Could the ARU subsidise it? No and No.

It's far from an ideal 3rd tier model, and behind closed doors Pulver may even admit that, but it will:

• Gives blokes outside of Sydney/Qld a shot at professional rugby.
• Get more guys involved in professional rugby, particularly we'll see more guys cracking in at 22-23 than we do now.
• Will not destroy club rugby in Syd/Bris like the ARC did.

It will not:

• Attract fans.
• Attract money.

BUT it's not meant to.

While I agree with you on the fans and money side of it, if that was its intention then why with the attempt to tinker with the rules to try and produce expansive play? I actually think Pulver has the intention of looking to monetize this concept.

I think as a means to get something up and running it needs to run as it will at least in the first season but for it to proceed into the future I think it will need its own window separate from both Super Rugby and Club Rugby. Probably during the Rugby Championship. I also think the likes of NSW and Qld will need to look eventually running two squads a piece and perhaps even the Brumbies might need to consider it.

For it to attract both money and fans I believe it will not only need what I suggested above but effective branding of teams. Don't go around referring to them as Tahs A, Reds College etc. They need to be named after their locales.

 

[en_force_er]

While I agree with you on the fans and money side of it, if that was its intention then why with the attempt to tinker with the rules to try and produce expansive play? I actually think Pulver has the intention of looking to monetize this concept.

With most of the games kicking off at 5:15 on a weeknight I doubt it.

I think it's more about playing running rugby. He's decided and stated plenty of times that his aim to to see us playing "attractive running rugby". He's said it an annoying number of times.

I cant say if he's right or wrong but I think in his view it will create better running rugby players.

 

[p.Tah]

Interesting article by Roy Masters on the detrimental impact the NRL U20s competition has had on player development. I support the Super B concept but I hope it's an open competition containing the next best players not an U20 competition.

There are too many footballers playing NRL each week not up to standard and too many receiving money their experience or talents don't justify.
A void is developing between those who reached the NRL via open-age feeder competitions and those promoted from the under-20 national youth competition.
Now in its sixth season, the NYC has produced many players not ready for the top grade and too many have been cast aside.

Meanwhile, there is an increasing number of players who did not come to the NRL via the NYC and are nearing retirement.

The state cup competitions are not of sufficient standard to supply players to replace them or stall the under-20 players called up.

It all adds up to a growing gap between, say Melbourne's Cameron Smith, Billy Slater and Cooper Cronk – all of whom came to the Storm via Brisbane Norths – and the club's young winger, Mahe Fonua, a graduate of the NYC.

It should defer any thought of expansion by the ARLC.

Two additional teams would tax an already shallow talent pool.

On Monday night, Manly did not use a bench player, back-rower David Gower.

While there may be a good reason, it does send a signal that one of the replacements was only there to cover an injury, rather than make a contribution for the team.

Too many immature players are already fast-tracked into the NRL.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...heir-abilities-cant-match-20130523-2k3kq.html

EDIT: I think we can learn from this. A Super B comp is important but we must also maintain the development path of Club Rugby. Super B players have to be also play Club Rugby during the season. I don't think the ARU is proposing to keep them out of Club Rugby. This just highlights why it shouldn't happen.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Interesting article by Roy Masters on the detrimental impact the NRL U20s competition has had on player development. I support the Super B concept but I hope it's an open competition containing the next best players not an U20 competition.



http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...heir-abilities-cant-match-20130523-2k3kq.html

EDIT: I think we can learn from this. A Super B comp is important but we must also maintain the development path of Club Rugby. Super B players have to be also play Club Rugby during the season. I don't think the ARU is proposing to keep them out of Club Rugby. This just highlights why it shouldn't happen.

That's why it should only ever remain a very restricted number of teams competing. That way you ensure that the quality remains as higher as possible without the prospect of dilution.

 

[qwerty51]

I hold the view that the u20s is not a development tool, it's used to lock the talent in the code.

 

[wobbly]

So this concept just slipped into another ARU black hole? Can't find any pressed or online article to inform anyone that it's dead!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So this concept just slipped into another ARU black hole? Can't find any pressed or online article to inform anyone that it's dead!

No. It didn't seem to gain any traction with broadcasters. Instead they are going down an expanded Pacific Cup formate with the 5 Aus Super Rugby A squads plus Samoa, Tonga, Argentina Jaguars, Japan and USA Selects.

The Super B concept was always supposed to be a development competition. The Pacific Cup is a development competition and one I'd prefer as it is already established, largely funded by the IRB and provides good, strong competition.

 

[TOCC]

Yep the pacific cup is a much better option