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

[en_force_er]

Bowside & Inside Shoulder,

Why don't we just invited Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga A to be in our "Super B" comp?

Unlike NZ, they're always happy to come to us so we don't have to pay to travel there. Plus, they already come here so it's a realistic ask.

There you go, 3 more games each and a meaningful development opportunity for them.

Let's not bother going to NZ please, sure it's only as much financially as going to Perth but Perth is under our umbrella and we owe them this, NZ is not.

 

[en_force_er]

Who knows, maybe they will let the top club from Melbourne, Canberra and Perth compete to give it a bit more national flavour?

I hope not. We have a massive fucking haves V have-nots issue over here the likes that Sydney and Bris have never seen.

I wouldn't mind a rep side competing but whenever anybody poses a national club competition with "the top ranked Melbourne club" competing, I cringe.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Bowside & Inside Shoulder,

Why don't we just invited Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga A to be in our "Super B" comp?

Unlike NZ, they're always happy to come to us so we don't have to pay to travel there. Plus, they already come here so it's a realistic ask.

There you go, 3 more games each and a meaningful development opportunity for them.

Let's not bother going to NZ please, sure it's only as much financially as going to Perth but Perth is under our umbrella and we owe them this, NZ is not.

Thats was my knee jerk reaction - i.e. keep the NZ'ers out since they wont let us into their NPC: but a rare wave of diplomacy or something came over me.
Whats the have v have nots issue in melbourne? Have or have not a local pinot with my meal?

 

[Bowside]

I hope not. We have a massive fucking haves V have-nots issue over here the likes that Sydney and Bris have never seen.

I wouldn't mind a rep side competing but whenever anybody poses a national club competition with "the top ranked Melbourne club" competing, I cringe.

Thing is mate, when it comes to external funded club comps, the blokes putting up the money don't owe anything to anyone. Its not about development, like I said before, thats what the super rugby 'b' comp and the JWC are for.

It's about putting on a show, and as such the clubs with money, fanbases and potential will be the ones involved.

Not Ideal but any pro rugby in Australia is good rugby. Imagine seeing someone like semi-retired Brian O'Driscoll turning out for Randwick on a friday night agains Balmain, live across the nation on ONE HD.

 

[Bowside]

The Kiwis need this Super Rugby B just as much as we do. They are losing young talent to the NRL U20's comp, and it's just going to get worse.

 

[tigerland12]

So the 20/20 version of rugby....no thanks.

 

[Rugby Central]

This is a joke right?

So they're going to develop players for Super Rugby that can't last much more than half time in the big time? DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
Surely fans would see much more value for money seeing 2 quality, full length matches. FINANCIAL FAILURE
No penalty kicks - where does tha leave professional fouls. The game will decend into a bunch of penalty tries. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
No one will pay to see that. FINANCIAL FAILURE
Or there will be so many send-offs that it becomes 7's. 7's and 15's are completely different games DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
So those fringe players now running around Shute Shield or Brisbane Premier Comp will become even further removed from grassroots rugby by neve being around. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE.

This idea has not a single redeeming feature. There are a huge number of ideas on this website alone and every one of them is better than what the ARU is proposing.

Why are they continually spitting in the face of the fans and clubs that already exist. Stop pissing shitloads of money up against the wall on useless thought bubbles that only weaken Austalian rugby. Work with what you have. It's cheaper, satisfies the fans and develops the depth of Australian Rugby.

En_forc_er, no need to worry about a Sydney centric competition, if this brain fart gets legs, Rugby in this country is as good as dead.

Without encroaching on the various threads and numerous ideas. you can change absolutely nothing except get rid of the academies and Australian rugby would improve 10 fold. Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[Rugby Central]

And while we're at it, can we mobilise the armies of lawyers in the Rugby fraternity to see if we can sue the ARU for failing in its duty of care. This is a disgrace.

 

[Braveheart81]

Rugby Central - did you even read the article?

No one will be paying to see these matches to begin with. They are all going to be curtain raisers. The idea behind making the games shorter is to hopefully encourage Fox Sports to show some of them and get more of the crowd in before kickoff of the Super Rugby fixture to watch it.

The quotes from Pulver specifically state that yellow cards will be strongly enforced to limit the infringements.

The whole idea is that this will not cost a lot of money to run and will provide 8 matches a season that will hopefully help with development.

 

[Cpt Crow Eater]

While not perfect, and I believe it should be a temporary model (the eventual goal being a full fledged national third tier) it ticks a few boxes.

Firstly with the increased Super 'Ugby season, we need bigger squad sizes for rotation. This helps.

Secondly we have the second XV playing against the next best competition in the country to raise standards.

Thirdly it gives our next best and fringe access to more professional facilities, strength and conditioning programs and coaching.

It's a more cost effective solution until the ARU gets itself into a stronger financial situation

Lastly, it allows 3 new coaches per team to gain experience and develops pathways for coaching..

I'm not a fan of the 25 minute halves though......

I have a few questions.....

If these are purely curtain raisers, what do the 'B' teams do when their Super team is overseas or playing against foreign teams? Go back to their local clubs?

Pulver mentions it creates TV content. How much would they expect to gain in dollars for the increased content?

Look it's a step forward and one that does some good things.
I still hope the end of season club comp eventuates as well, haven't heard any news on that in a while...

 

[en_force_er]

Rugby Central, I agree it's not the best option but maybe it's the best realistic option. Any iteration of an ARC-like comp or club based comp without 70% or more of external investment won't work.

Better our next bests get 50 minutes of good rugby rather than 5 minutes of Super rugby at the end of the game, I don't see this as a massive issue.

 

[Bowside]

This is a joke right?

So they're going to develop players for Super Rugby that can't last much more than half time in the big time? DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
Surely fans would see much more value for money seeing 2 quality, full length matches. FINANCIAL FAILURE
No penalty kicks - where does tha leave professional fouls. The game will decend into a bunch of penalty tries. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
No one will pay to see that. FINANCIAL FAILURE
Or there will be so many send-offs that it becomes 7's. 7's and 15's are completely different games DEVELOPMENT FAILURE
So those fringe players now running around Shute Shield or Brisbane Premier Comp will become even further removed from grassroots rugby by neve being around. DEVELOPMENT FAILURE.

This idea has not a single redeeming feature. There are a huge number of ideas on this website alone and every one of them is better than what the ARU is proposing.

Why are they continually spitting in the face of the fans and clubs that already exist. Stop pissing shitloads of money up against the wall on useless thought bubbles that only weaken Austalian rugby. Work with what you have. It's cheaper, satisfies the fans and develops the depth of Australian Rugby.

En_forc_er, no need to worry about a Sydney centric competition, if this brain fart gets legs, Rugby in this country is as good as dead.

Without encroaching on the various threads and numerous ideas. you can change absolutely nothing except get rid of the academies and Australian rugby would improve 10 fold. Yes, it really is that simple.

They can't play 2 full length matches because they only get hold of the ground at 5pm and they have to be done by an hour before the kickoff of the super rugby game so that the teams can warm up. I don't think people will be paying separately to see this game, the cost will be included in the price of the ticket to the main event.

The standard will be higher than club rugby and the shortened halves will mean the games will be closer in speed to super rugby.

Will also allow fringe players to being tested at a higher level which is a good thing. Hopefully it will stop blokes like Dallan Murphy or Angus Roberts getting thrown in the deep end at super rugby level.

The clubs are operating in a grey area of semi-professionalism at the moment. This will take a lot of players out of the competition but it will probably also even up the playing field a bit for the smaller clubs who don't have heaps of academy players on the books.

 

[TSR]

There is not perfect solution to the need for a third tier comp, but I've heard far worse suggestions than this.

 

[en_force_er]

Lastly, it allows 3 new coaches per team to gain experience and develops pathways for coaching..

Doubtful we'll see THAT many new coaches, the Rebs' scrum coach for example coaches the A side. Still, good point.

If these are purely curtain raisers, what do the 'B' teams do when their Super team is overseas or playing against foreign teams? Go back to their local clubs?

I imagine so, it's 8 games a year with is an okay amount. Going back to club is no worse than they do now I guess.

Pulver mentions it creates TV content. How much would they expect to gain in dollars for the increased content?

Very little, but all the facilities are already set-up so I doubt it costs much more to have some cameramen work at extra hour. I guess it's a case of more hours of rugby on the TV for little cost.

I still hope the end of season club comp eventuates as well, haven't heard any news on that in a while.

I think that was always a very tall ask, possible perhaps but difficult. This is realistic and whilst FAR from perfect it feels tangible.

 

[Braveheart81]

The clubs are operating in a grey area of semi-professionalism at the moment. This will take a lot of players out of the competition but it will probably also even up the playing field a bit for the smaller clubs who don't have heaps of academy players on the books.

It will also only affect a very limited amount of the Shute Shield/Premier Rugby season. The players will still get to play the bulk of their club games.

 

[TSR]

This will take a lot of players out of the competition but it will probably also even up the playing field a bit for the smaller clubs who don't have heaps of academy players on the books.

Hopefully by keeping the games to 25 minute halves there will actually be the potential for guys to be involved in club games as well - depending of course on the scheduling.

 

[qwerty51]

What we need is a professional u20s comp, this is by far the most essential thing to keep talent in our game. Why? Well if you're talented 18 year old playing rugby, what option do you have next year, only the best pick up professional contracts out of school. The NRL can offer you a professional contract in the NYC straight away, that's much more enticing than playing colts for nothing for the next 2 years. Same problem in NZ as mentioned. We lose way too many to league because there's no pro contracts out of school for rugby players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I don't get it... Nobody is going to give a shit about it no matter what they do, so why not just play the games under normal time and normal rules as a curtain raiser as planned and just give the players a chance to develop by playing against other fringe Super Rugby players.

It seems like the ARU are over thinking this. Having the next best 110 players, below the 110 Super Rugby playing players, playing each other week in week out rather than spread out amongst 5 club comps is all it needs to do. It will never make money, nobody is ever going to care that much about the next level. ITM Cup teams have a bucketload of history and it seems to be going down the gurgler.

Qwerty, I think you are wrong about an Under 20 Comp too. The "massively successful" NRL u/20 does not develop a great deal of players to be ready straight out of it for the NRL. Why? Because they are playing against other kids, not men.

No age groups, no ammended rules, not abbreviated durations. Just the next level or "tier" or players, playing each other, not looking like heroes against teams when 14 of the 15 still have to go to work on Monday.

 

[James Buchanan]

What we need is a professional u20s comp, this is by far the most essential thing to keep talent in our game. Why? Well if you're talented 18 year old playing rugby, what option do you have next year, only the best pick up professional contracts out of school. The NRL can offer you a professional contract in the NYC straight away, that's much more enticing than playing colts for nothing for the next 2 years. Same problem in NZ as mentioned. We lose way too many to league because there's no pro contracts out of school for rugby players.

I wholeheartedly support this notion. Even if it's the previously mentioned 15k a year for the kids, it would offer them a genuine pathway and some financial reward to incentivise following it.

 

[James Buchanan]

Whats the have v have nots issue in melbourne? Have or have not a local pinot with my meal?

Inner eastern suburbs private school kids (aka Melbourne Unicorns and to some extent Harlequins and University) vs non inner eastern suburbs private school kids, particularly those of New Zealand and Islander backgrounds.