Sydney Subbies 2019

[cheekymonkey]

CC race heating up.

In Div 2 to replace Balmain you have
Forest 1458
HH 1438
St Pats 1397
Lindfield 1371
of which only HH or St Pats would have an ambitions of 1st Div glory.

In the 2nd half fighting for survival you would think UNSw and HIlls are safe at 1091 and 1068.

So the fight is on with Epping or BOBS and I'd suggest BOBs may just put there hand up anyway given they cannot field a 4th grade.

In Div 3
ROBS 1614
Breakers 1532
Blacktown 1452
Iggies 1418
Top 4 all have a decent shoot at winning CC's but I know for a fact that none of them wish to go up.
In the fight for survival HAC 772, HV 600 and Brothers 518 battle it out to stay in the big league. Certainly some interesting match ups to come over the next few weeks that will decide several clubs long term futures.

Beecroft wouldn’t mind going up.

 

[HeavyB]

Beecroft wouldn’t mind going up.

The only obstacle in their way there is being good at playing rugby

 

[Rugby Central]

So why not have a graded comp where up to 3 Grades + Colts play at different venues for the clubs of which they are composed? Harlequins, Canterbury, Irish, Briars, and Mac Uni can go ahead as stable units, then go up against a club where e.g. Merrylands are First Grade and Raptors 2s & 3s? Other clubs can fill gaps with the same rules they use in Rural comps: if you field 2 Grades, they must be consecutive.

Sadly, the existing Club structures are no longer viable for competitions in the lower divisions. It might be time to look at divisional team competitions. Before people panic, hear me out.....then heap shit on it There is also a need to be completely honest about why we are playing Subbies and not Shute Shield.

Divisions 1 & 2 (and possibly 3) remain Club competitions. They remain mostly unchanged anyway over the years and the existing competition structure entrenches it.

Outside of that each team enters into a division they feel is most appropriate for their team's level. Year one might be ugly but after that divisions are based on results. Meaning only a team would change division and not force an entire club to change what they do and all the extra obligations that come along with it. It means far fewer cricket scores and 85kg 18 year olds being forced to prop against former Wallabies...it has happened.

It would require picking a game day squad. Some players might say "why would the reserves turn up for half a game". Being honest, how many players at this level turn up late, or hungover being unable to give a full game effort. Also you can rotate the reserve grade players around so nobody is forced to be a part time player all year if they don't want to. I know of many players who would prefer it.

Those Clubs with a ridiculous number of grades will be playing in proper competitions; not winning by virtue of being one of the few clubs that can field a team each week.

It could also facilitate geographical competitions, which means you can reduce the travelling that turns so many social players off.

What about bar & bbq money: have each home team host a 3 match gala day so they each host a couple of times a year to bring in revenue. Also it gives teams an opportunity to see the opposition and coaches can actually develop planning and strategic skills. Who doesn't want better coaches.

Some benefits include: when not hosting, no need to wrangle blokes up to pack/unpack/clean/man bbq etc. If you are struggling for grounds/funds to pay for them, share with another Club in the area. It's not like we're guarding state secrets with our lineout calls. And training days are not immovable.

What about the Club/community atmosphere: There is a risk by splitting the teams for multi team clubs. But team units can become stronger and the effort to bring everyone together makes it an event rather than the result of hanging around for the day. Again, look at the existing atmosphere. I've been to after-match functions where hardly any of the home team turn up, let alone the visiting side......and that was in Div 1

What if a Club has ambitions to go up: This is the fun part. They can throw down the gauntlet to the last placed club in the 2nd (or 3rd division). The challenge is part of the preseason, thus not forcing undue commitment too far out.

1. The Challenger has to prove they can field the teams - if they can field all teams in a preseason trial then they will go a long way to showing they can have the teams.
2. The Challenger gets the home ground - to prove they can host a full day properly.
3. Disciplinary record will count for both sides.

How big a game day would it be when one Club has something to prove and the other Club is fighting for survival. Of course the last placed to could just cede the position because they know they can't maintain in the higher competition.

Do I have all the answers, "don't know". All I'm suggesting is there might be other ways to think about this. I personally feel it could reignite interest in the Suburban game because players are not forced to jump through stupid hoops just to survive. Teams get to focus on playing footy and only those Clubs desperate for higher things are forced to do it.

......now let me stand over here while the poo is flung in this direction

 

[Pfitzy]

The only obstacle in their way there is being good at playing rugby

Nah fuck 'em - they were allowed to drop three divisions back in 2015, win the fucking lot, then be on their merry way.

What a joke.

 

[Pfitzy]

What about bar & bbq money: have each home team host a 3 match gala day so they each host a couple of times a year to bring in revenue.

I think clubs would find that their revenue would be enhanced, in fact.

If you've got 3+ teams playing at your canteen, three times per year, then you can generate a heap of money with the right setup. Adding extra food and gas for the BBQ is less effort than setting it up for only 2 hours if you're a single-grade club.

Our canteen does alright, but really we're covering the cost of physio and tape.

 

[Show-n-go]

Literally all you have to do is make the comps based off geography

Keep Div 1,2 and possibly 3 Sydney wide

Cap all other clubs at max 2 grades (encourage that they do field 2) plus optional colts

Go east/south, north and west competitions

 

[Pfitzy]

Given 4 of the 8 clubs in Div 3 are in the northwest (Blacktown, HAC, Valley, ROBs) it would be fairly convenient to throw a few clubs like Raptors, Renegades, Hills and Merrylands into a competition structure. Might help with recruitment as well.

 

[Show-n-go]

Given 4 of the 8 clubs in Div 3 are in the northwest (Blacktown, HAC, Valley, ROBs) it would be fairly convenient to throw a few clubs like Raptors, Renegades, Hills and Merrylands into a competition structure. Might help with recruitment as well.

100% it would help with recruitment

they run the structure i said above in the shire for rugby league and it works a fucking treat

 

[DaSchmooze]

100% it would help with recruitment

they run the structure i said above in the shire for rugby league and it works a fucking treat

I'd argue that once that set up was up and running, no team would dare want to leave it. Hills may have designs on travelling further afield, but I cant say any of the others would.

 

[Show-n-go]

I'd argue that once that set up was up and running, no team would dare want to leave it. Hills may have designs on travelling further afield, but I cant say any of the others would.

don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, even if it goes all the way to engulfing div1 and div2, what's the negatives?

To answer my own question i guess only negative would be some clubs like mosman not being able to cater for all of their players and forcing people out to different clubs, which isnt ideal but would be a bit of short term pain for long term gain

could even look at doing something like soccer do in the shire, its the biggest competition in the southern hemisphere and is to the point where they've made a rule were they geo-lock clubs and you cant register without being in X amount of km's from the club.

Doubt we'd ever have to go to that extent but is an option, or having a quota of "out of area" players

 

[Rumour Ronald]

Registering blokes based on their address?

I wonder how many Whales actually live in Mozzzzzman?

 

[Nath]

Register them with who?

Blokes just won't play if you force them to do something they don't want to.

I hope it's a fulfilling hobby that seom of you have, trying to constantly think of new structures(that will have just as many problems as the current one) for subbies, that are never going to happen anyway.

 

[Pfitzy]

Register them with who?

Blokes just won't play if you force them to do something they don't want to.

I hope it's a fulfilling hobby that seom of you have, trying to constantly think of new structures(that will have just as many problems as the current one) for subbies, that are never going to happen anyway.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Whether Suburban Rugby disappears up its own arse in the current format or another, it is at least worth proposing.

Oh wait. I did that. Multiple times. The Board don't want to know.

 

[Rugby Central]

don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, even if it goes all the way to engulfing div1 and div2, what's the negatives?

To answer my own question i guess only negative would be some clubs like mosman not being able to cater for all of their players and forcing people out to different clubs, which isnt ideal but would be a bit of short term pain for long term gain

could even look at doing something like soccer do in the shire, its the biggest competition in the southern hemisphere and is to the point where they've made a rule were they geo-lock clubs and you cant register without being in X amount of km's from the club.

Doubt we'd ever have to go to that extent but is an option, or having a quota of "out of area" players

You're looking at a situation that will never apply to rugby. The "geo-lock" is there to purposely limit the size of the competition. It simply cannot get bigger without making things worse. Rugby has to take whoever will turn up.

Nath is right in that rugby cannot afford to tell people where to play. However, quite limited in dismissing those looking at ways to change Subbies. Diminishing numbers, forfeiting teams, uneven cricket scores and avoidable injuries suggest it is broke, and it needs fixing.

The people being paid to deal with this are struggling just to keep the game going for people like us. There will be good ideas and bad ideas, just don't stop coming up with them. It's going to take the effort from those who have the passion for the game to think of ways to reverse what's been going wrong.

 

[Seagull Butler]

Let's play devils advocate then, could re-allowing player payments/subsidies help re-attract kids from league/afl/soccer (i.e. all the non-amateur sports that are actually doing better than Rugby)?


If we are going to look at their structure, lets look at their entire structure.

 

[Show-n-go]

You're looking at a situation that will never apply to rugby. The "geo-lock" is there to purposely limit the size of the competition. It simply cannot get bigger without making things worse. Rugby has to take whoever will turn up.

Nath is right in that rugby cannot afford to tell people where to play. However, quite limited in dismissing those looking at ways to change Subbies. Diminishing numbers, forfeiting teams, uneven cricket scores and avoidable injuries suggest it is broke, and it needs fixing.

The people being paid to deal with this are struggling just to keep the game going for people like us. There will be good ideas and bad ideas, just don't stop coming up with them. It's going to take the effort from those who have the passion for the game to think of ways to reverse what's been going wrong.

to re-iterate

Doubt we'd ever have to go to that extent but is an option, or having a quota of "out of area" players

 

[HeavyB]

Let's play devils advocate then, could re-allowing player payments/subsidies help re-attract kids from league/afl/soccer (i.e. all the non-amateur sports that are actually doing better than Rugby)?


If we are going to look at their structure, lets look at their entire structure.

1000%. You should be allowed to earn a quid for punishing yourself every weekend if there is a market willing to pay you for it.

Especially pisses me off come finals time when they charge $15 at the gate to watch the subbies games..

Of course money would attract players. That is just life and the holier than thou attitude of subbies needs to go.

 

[HeavyB]

1000%. You should be allowed to earn a quid for punishing yourself every weekend if there is a market willing to pay you for it.

Especially pisses me off come finals time when they charge $15 at the gate to watch the subbies games..

Of course money would attract players. That is just life and the holier than thou attitude of subbies needs to go.

Especially seeing as a lot of these young players are at uni etc. Bit of cash is the difference between them playing or not... just a fact

 

[Nath]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Whether Suburban Rugby disappears up its own arse in the current format or another, it is at least worth proposing.

Oh wait. I did that. Multiple times. The Board don't want to know.

I'd argue, laying awake at night, staring at the ceiling, worrying about subbies rugby would fit into the definition.

 

[Nath]

Let's play devils advocate then, could re-allowing player payments/subsidies help re-attract kids from league/afl/soccer (i.e. all the non-amateur sports that are actually doing better than Rugby)?


If we are going to look at their structure, lets look at their entire structure.

What about a paid division?

So if you choose to enter your club, you can't complain that someone nicked your players.

And then the lower grades remain as they are. So that you don't have one club or 2 clubs per division, trampling the rest.