The Ideal NSW Schools Comp

[George Smith]

Much has been written about the issues and opportunities with the current schools' competitions. To facilitate a healthy debate I now provide some information and threads for all the contribute. I look forward to seeing what evolves (even though I suspect it may be independent school centric).

GPS - Greater Public Schools
Scots (TSC), Joeys (SJC), Kings (TKS), Riverview (SIC), Armidale (TAS), Grammar (SGS), High (SHS), Newington (NC), Shore (SCEGGS)

ISA - Independent Schools Assoc
Kinross Wolaroi (Orange) All Saints (Bathurst), Scots (Bathurst), Redfield College, St Augustines, Blue Mountains Grammar, Central Coast Grammar School, Chevalier College (Bowral), Oakhill College, Oxley College (Bowral), SCECGS Redlands, St Gregorys, St Andrews, St Patrick's, St Paul's, St Pius X College, St Stanislaus (Bathurst).

AICES - Association of Independent Co-Educational Schools
Moriah College, Pittwater House, Bankstown Grammar, St Luke's Grammar, Northolm Grammar, William Clarke College, Reddam House, Masada College, Illawarra Grammar School

CAS – Combines Associated Schools
Barker, Cranbrook, Knox, St Aloysius, Trinity, Waverley

CCC – Combined Catholic Colleges
Diocese: Armidale, Bathurst, Broken Bay, Canberra/Goulburn, Lismore, Maitland/Newcastle, Parramatta, Southern Sydney, Wagga, Wilcannia/Forbes, Wollongong.
Organisations: Christian Brothers Sports Association, Metropolitan Catholic Colleges, Metropolitan Catholic Schools, Sydney Combined Colleges

CHS – Combined High Schools
All NSW Public schools.
14 Regions/Zones: North-West Region, North Coast Region, Central Coast Zone, Hunter Region, South Coast, Western Region, Sydney West Region, Warringah Zone, North Shore Zone, Northern Suburbs Zone, Kuringai Zone, Metropolitan North West Zone, Sydney South West Region.

 

[George Smith]

George Smith said: ↑
Alternatively, have a conference system as employed in several sports. That is; GPS/CAS/ISA/CCC etc requiring Athletics to revert back to late Term 3 to be common to other conferences. After each conference has their own season we THEN have a playoff between all conferences in Term 3. This will generate huge interest. And this way the OBs get their insular comp and the rugby supporter get their quality rugby.

Inside Shoulder said: ↑
Doesn't address my concern: there are a few schools who are probably not up to standing alone in 1st XV.

Personally, I would really like to see something along the lines of this occurring in the near future. Each conference (GPS, CAS, ISA, CCC) conducting their own competition with an consistent, adequate point system that allows outright winners, rather that 3-4 way ties. As well as allowing teams the ability to play each other twice. This than allows say, 2 teams from each conference the opportunity to play an finals/playoff series.

In regard to IS's concern, each competition could potentially 'lower' teams that they do not deem as capable of competing within their competition (Example: SGS, SBH, TAS), into a separate conference, in addition to the original four. This could potentially allow for the improvement of some lower schools rugby to eventually be able to compete at the finals/playoff end of the series. Obviously, it could go the opposite way, and further degrade the standard of rugby. Yet, I do believe that it would increase the standard as it allows proper competition to occur, rather than the 100-0 games of certain teams at the moment.

For example, say there are roughly 20 weeks within the Winter Schoolboy competition at the moment. I am not as educated about the number of other schools in various competitions, but I am going to use the GPS competition as an example. Take into consideration that I have not included TAS, SGS and SBH as in my opinion they would be in the 'lower' competition, that I proposed above. This leaves 6 teams, playing each other twice, therefore 12 rounds. Anyway, the season would be as follows:

Term 2
Week 1 - 2: Internal Rugby Trials for Schools.
Week 3 - 5: Trial Games with GPS, CAS, ISA and CCC schools.
Week 6 - 10: Round 1 - 5 GPS Competition

Term 3
Week 1 - 7: Round 6 - 12 GPS Competition
Week 8 - 10: Conference Finals (Quarter's, Semi's, Grand Final)

Take Note: I do not mean to offend anyone, regarding the rankings of teams.

 

[whatever]

Seems like a great idea (better then the present set up), but these are some points I would raise:

- due to cost restrictions, I believe, it would need to be Sydney (possibly some close to Sydney regions) based.

- the greater majority of CCC schools in the Metro area (MCS & MCC) are league schools (and probably the majority in the regionals and country)

- the MCS, for example, runs a term 3 (5-6 game) union comp, after the the finish of the league comp, for U14s and U16s (and this year they only could entice 4 schools to participate in the U16s comp.

- at best the CCC teams would be Tier 2, say, with High, Grammar etc.

- you would probably find the same with CHS schools, although they do have selective sport highs that possibly could or would compete.

Regards,

 

[exISA]

Can I just say that Chevalier College is NOT Goulbourn (its Bowral) , and Oxley is NOT Mossvale (its Bowral too).

Just sayin..

k
thx
bai

 

[exISA]

I see it mentioned by some people in other threads to have some sort of promotion relegation system across assocations or to some elite comptetition involving all the best schools. This would be very hard to be facilitated in a fair manner:

- lets say , for arguments sake in ISA (and just an example) . If St Augustines who have had a few dominant years, in one year they finish in the relegation zones in ISA, then have to drop down to Div 2 because of it, but their U16s the same year have been dominant , should deserve the right to compete in the top division, but becasue of the group above them they now have to drop down.

- unless you do it on a year basis - so say using the above example, the U16s have a bad year, and the following year in the open division have to drop down , its a murky example again because the open division that year still might have performed but are then reliant on their U16 group doing well. Its a bit more clear cut from the age group level.

I just dont think a promotion relgation thing can work effectively given its such a short term playing time, career point at school level for these kids, its counter-productive to have such a system, I personally prefer the rule of "must have X amount of teams to compete in the top grade". This is coming from someone who is an old boy from a school that used to dominate the ISA open division then now has dropped to the 2nd division.

 

[Wannabe Selector]

George Smith said: ↑
Alternatively, have a conference system as employed in several sports. That is; GPS/CAS/ISA/CCC etc requiring Athletics to revert back to late Term 3 to be common to other conferences. After each conference has their own season we THEN have a playoff between all conferences in Term 3. This will generate huge interest. And this way the OBs get their insular comp and the rugby supporter get their quality rugby.

Inside Shoulder said: ↑
Doesn't address my concern: there are a few schools who are probably not up to standing alone in 1st XV.

Personally, I would really like to see something along the lines of this occurring in the near future. Each conference (GPS, CAS, ISA, CCC) conducting their own competition with an consistent, adequate point system that allows outright winners, rather that 3-4 way ties. As well as allowing teams the ability to play each other twice. This than allows say, 2 teams from each conference the opportunity to play an finals/playoff series.

In regard to IS's concern, each competition could potentially 'lower' teams that they do not deem as capable of competing within their competition (Example: SGS, SBH, TAS), into a separate conference, in addition to the original four. This could potentially allow for the improvement of some lower schools rugby to eventually be able to compete at the finals/playoff end of the series. Obviously, it could go the opposite way, and further degrade the standard of rugby. Yet, I do believe that it would increase the standard as it allows proper competition to occur, rather than the 100-0 games of certain teams at the moment.

For example, say there are roughly 20 weeks within the Winter Schoolboy competition at the moment. I am not as educated about the number of other schools in various competitions, but I am going to use the GPS competition as an example. Take into consideration that I have not included TAS, SGS and SBH as in my opinion they would be in the 'lower' competition, that I proposed above. This leaves 6 teams, playing each other twice, therefore 12 rounds. Anyway, the season would be as follows:

Term 2
Week 1 - 2: Internal Rugby Trials for Schools.
Week 3 - 5: Trial Games with GPS, CAS, ISA and CCC schools.
Week 6 - 10: Round 1 - 5 GPS Competition

Term 3
Week 1 - 7: Round 6 - 12 GPS Competition
Week 8 - 10: Conference Finals (Quarter's, Semi's, Grand Final)

Take Note: I do not mean to offend anyone, regarding the rankings of teams.

You forgot about CHS in your list of Schoolboy Rugby plans George, have you forgotten where you came from. (Cramer High). This is the problem with this talked up dominence of GPS rugby. Corruption, politics and everything else all starts in Schoolboy Rugby and filters right through and then we wonder how Wobblies get beaten by the All Blacks. Look at the olympics and the swimming debarcle do we all just talk ourselves up for selection and then state if you didnt perform you have niggling injuries. In NZ you get picked on performance, not because your parents are well off and the kid goes to a GPS school. They would be threatened if the public schools were involved in there comp. And its only a comp of 5 or 6. You praise them so high in schoolboy rugby and then come to test rugby they still act like they are playing 1st 15 for school. And we all probably know about the NSW Rugby Board on how corrupt they are. How the hell did alot of NSW players get into the Wobblies, anyway thats a different forum. Sorry for stating the obvious but it really annoys me that there is so much talent out there and because a kids family doesnt have the money or go to a substantial school he gets overlooked. As you know I have had my kids all play NSW juniors and I have gone through all this politics with parents and being diplomatic, all of the above and its all hard work. But if I was involved in Schoolboy Rugby I would be changing the current system to involve all schools.

I have taken a paragraph of a quote from another forum:

Tyrone August 26, 2012 at 11:44 pm - Reply
Its a great comp but until we have a clear development path for our youngsters that doesn’t involve them moving overseas, we’ll continue to choose from private schools which just doesn’t make sense.
New Zealand rugby doesn’t have the whole private school culture that we have, EVERYBODY plays, especially the public schools. Their best teams are all public schools in Christchurch Boys High, Hamilton Boys High, Kelston, etc etc. We need to cast the net a bit further than the private school scene.
What is being done by the ARU to have rugby promoted in schools?

Read that and that explains everything. I grew up in Auckland, played 1st 15 for Kelston for 3 school years, the days of Graham Henry being my principal is a very proud time of my youth. We played all over the country, we played all teams private schools, catholics etc and we became the school to beat in the late 80s and right through the 90s till even now in the Moascar cup. But we had to earn it. And that is what we miss here with schoolboy GPS rugby. They talk it up instead of actions. So George dont forget to include the public school system. What is it your too good for us now because your hanging around Eddie Jones in Japan. Cmon man i can see what your doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[exISA]

Is that the real George Smith? If so I was at the Waratah Shield final in 1998 when you took that 100m intercept try against St Edmunds. I remember someone telling me "this kid has a future you watch"...

 

[George Smith]

Thanks Wannabe Selector, CHS is included in the base info, along with all the other NSW school groupings (I would never forget Cromer).

SO, you are saying that the only way to get a proper and thorough competition structure is to do the ACT (& NZ) thing. Have a graded comp for each age group that includes both club and school teams.

It has been mooted previously that the strong private schools could do their own conference thing for their top 3 grades (1sts, 2nds, 3rds, As, Bs, Cs) and then all other teams join a graded open comp.

We also often forget that the Waratah Shield is a good comp that allows schools to participate against all schools. Did not some of the GPS schools compete in the Waratah Shield in the 70s and 80s?

 

[Wannabe Selector]

Thanks Wannabe Selector, CHS is included in the base info, along with all the other NSW school groupings (I would never forget Cromer).

SO, you are saying that the only way to get a proper and thorough competition structure is to do the ACT (& NZ) thing. Have a graded comp for each age group that includes both club and school teams.

It has been mooted previously that the strong private schools could do their own conference thing for their top 3 grades (1sts, 2nds, 3rds, As, Bs, Cs) and then all other teams join a graded open comp.

We also often forget that the Waratah Shield is a good comp that allows schools to participate against all schools. Did not some of the GPS schools compete in the Waratah Shield in the 70s and 80s?

I agree on the graded comp for school only, village rugby will do there thing unfortunately it will fall eventually and that is how it is in NZ alot of Clubs have fallen due to School Rugby. But what is the difference all the kids get to play and more of a chance of the kids getting involved, it still promotes Rugby and bigger crowds, better funding and backing for schools.

Forget about mooting the strong private schools, open graded is good, if a school has a team for the grade they can have a team involved, including 1st, 2nd, 3rd 15s.

Waratah shield was good in the 80s when Bob Dywer brought it in and thats why Wobblies were good those years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

St Gregory's College is also in ISA these days. Personally, I think the vessel should be the ISA for private schools and CHS for everyone else. For ISA use the current division set ups as I think that quite equitable in terms of competition while conference set ups for CHS would likely work better than the other models. I think with a little investment (and this is where the AOC funding should go among others) to the areas in the greater western suburbs (West, North-West and South West) of the city as you'd be surprised what the right amount of support and encouragement would deliver in thoses areas.

As for MCS, that would be a really big organisation to capture. Lots of talented sportsmen attend those schools particular League players (and a number of Rugby friendly students) of NZ and Islander decent. These guys are looking for opportunity more so than strictly set on one code and by providing the right support and opportunity you could organise a 14s, 16s, and Opens competition in the short term and individual age grades later (but just don't expect to see multiple grades in each age group).

 

[whatever]

George Smith said: ↑

For example, say there are roughly 20 weeks within the Winter Schoolboy competition at the moment. I am not as educated about the number of other schools in various competitions, but I am going to use the GPS competition as an example. Take into consideration that I have not included TAS, SGS and SBH as in my opinion they would be in the 'lower' competition, that I proposed above. This leaves 6 teams, playing each other twice, therefore 12 rounds. Anyway, the season would be as follows:

Term 2
Week 1 - 2: Internal Rugby Trials for Schools.
Week 3 - 5: Trial Games with GPS, CAS, ISA and CCC schools.
Week 6 - 10: Round 1 - 5 GPS Competition

Term 3
Week 1 - 7: Round 6 - 12 GPS Competition
Week 8 - 10: Conference Finals (Quarter's, Semi's, Grand Final)

Take Note: I do not mean to offend anyone, regarding the rankings of teams.

George,

6 GPS teams actually leaves a 10 round comp; therefore, you could expand the conference finals to a 5 week program - Week 1 (top 32 schools), Week 2 (16 teams), Week 3 (8 teams), Week 4 (4 teams - semis), Week 5 (2 teams - final).

I still believe you would struggle to get CCC involvement (the league tradition is too strong)

 

[Primetime]

If any are interested, a look at the U.S.'s college football system might be interesting. To give it a very short summary:

1) Schools are divided into conferences, generally matched by geographic relations (not overly necessary in this case) and school ethos and principle. Those schools which run large, profit oriented public universities play against each other since they usually nab the best talent. Small schools with a priority to education play each other.

2) Movement between conferences is allowed, but it must be under a number of conditions: there is typically a 3 to 4 year waiting period, long-term sustainability and contribution must be shown, and the conference's ruling body must sign off on it. If serious losses are apparent for the conference losing a member, compensation is typically not offered. It is the conference's responsibility to turn itself into an attractive powerhouse if it so wishes, or it may maintain itself as a transition platform.

3)At the end of each season, the champions from each conference are given priority in post-season bowl (finals) games. In college football, there are 5 'BCS' games which are reserved for the best from the 5 major conferences, and the remaining 2 or 3 spots g to those schools that show themselves the next most worthy of entering into these games. In the case of our system, this would likely be converted to a finals system, where the GPS and CAS level schools have 2 or 3 spots in these finals, with the lower conferences only offering 1 or even none if there is a clear lack of talent.

4) Rankings through 1 to 25 are made by a series of votes by coaches (applicable here), media (non-applicable) and a computer system (leave that to Grammar/High). These also play a major role in determining BCS (finals) berths.

5) Conference membership is not binding across all sports (so the only sport that has to change is rugby). Traditional competitions in all other sports (I'm particularly thinking GPS Head of the River here) remain undisturbed.

6) Schools found to be cheating or breaking the rules can face punishment from both their conference and the NCAA (the collegiate sports' governing body). In our example, most of the NCAA's punishments are relevant; scholarship removals, post-season bowl bans (no playoff accessibility regardless of season performance), stripping of previous championships/records/results/awards and a media bans (not so likely). The NCAA also has veto powers when it views necessary, though it's extremely rare.

7) Schools and conferences independently manage and organise media deals. In our case, this could mean the top conference would likely be able to organise TV rights with ABC, etc. and get televised games, higher attendance, etc. The money is pumped into the school's pockets as well as the sport's ruling body who invest it as they see fit. If/when teams play pre-season or warmup fixtures against weaker schools, both schools receive a set percentage figure of the TV income. The best can become nurseries, the weaker teams can improve, everyone's happy.

8) And at the end of it all, we have not only an overall Sydney champion (which can be any school in any year, though the favour is certainly with the larger schools) but we still have conference champions, so every school is fighting for every prize every year.

I hope you all have a read of this and express your feelings; I strongly believe this to be the future of our high-school rugby. And any amendments, modifications, qualms (with the system, not me) would be great input.

P.S. 'All-Conference' teams (i.e. GPS representatives, CAS representatives, etc.) could be easily compiled, and thus honours warded, though fitting in actual games against each other would likely be very difficult (and I imagine unpopular).

 

[George Smith]

Hey Mr Primetime, I believe you have nearly "hit it on its head". well done.

 

[whatever]

Hey Mr Primetime, I believe you have nearly "hit it on its head". well done.

Then you or Primetime will need to give a real-life example of how it would work, in line with the subject title, because it just read like rhethoric to me.

 

[Primetime]

Then you or Primetime will need to give a real-life example of how it would work, in line with the subject title, because it just read like rhethoric to me.

Sorry I thought I had put enough into it. I'll try and make the appropriate comparisons here, but sorry if I lose you at any point.

Governing Body
Above all, to effectively run this system, a rugby adept governing body to regulate and preside over all the leagues would be necessary. A board or group of leaders and decision makers would need to be created, likely from the current rugby conveners in each competition, as well as a representative of the NSWRU, the Referees' Association and, if corporate elements become involved, a member for them.

Conferences

Each conference is constructed by a minimum number of schools (likely 5) who share an athletic or educational philosophy and see each other as fair, equal or similarly grounded in regards to rugby. So, if we were to base this off current form, you may have a structure sample size such as this (ignore if I've included/excluded unfairly):

Conference A (Newington, Scots, Riverview, Joeys, St. Augustines, Barker, Waverley, Trinity)

Conference B (Grammar, High, St. Aloysius, Cranbrook, Shore)

etc. etc.

Each conference has self-governing powers to a degree. It's board is made up of a rugby director from each school (just like the current system), but they also elect one member or representative of their whole conference to preside within the competition's governing body.

Each conference can make offers for other schools to join, regulate the intra-conference activities. Each conference, if it finds itself in such a position, can negotiate any and all third party offers (i.e. media) with consent and mild regulation from the governing body. Profits from any such activity are to be proportioned appropriately to the governing body, the conference board, and finally to each school evenly.

Unfair or anti-competitive behaviour by any conference is punishable by the governing body, with any punishment or sanction being situationally applicable and never simply taken from a set of generic responses.

Competition

Each conference, depending on its competition length, will run as long as it so wishes leading up to the period where there are 4 weeks left in the Term 3 winter season. Prior to this, a maximum of 2 games may be played between conference foes, and a limit set at the number of combined conference and non-conference games to be played through the season. Out of conference games do not impact on the conference table, which would be run on the same format through every conference. These non-conference games only impact on the necessary polling activities (see below). Conference games are recorded and scored accordingly within each conference's table, which must run on a system so as to have the greatest chance of avoiding tied positions (points, bonus points, for and against, head-to-head). Conference championships are awarded, with the option of a conference championship available on an annually contracted basis if a conference so desires.

Coaches' Votes

Due to an excess number of play-off spots comparative to conferences (see below example), there are 3 extra slots available for non-conference champions. Thus, throughout the season, a Top 15 will be voted upon by the coaches of each school. This votes give rankings which are not released through the season, and only become available in the final 3 weeks of the season. When the conference champions have been decided, the final poll will be conducted. The 3 highest ranked schools that were not conference champions are included in the play-off series, though as lowest-ranked seeds, and thus must play the best opponents early. This knockout system plays 8 to 4 to 2, producing a Sydney-wide champion.

In the potential situation of our Sydney scenario, it may be that Conference 'E' is too weak to field a team that will annually compete in the knockout. Thus, it may be that Conference 'E' does not automatically qualify as a playoff seed despite having a conference champion. They will thus have their Coaches' Poll ranking considered.

Finals and Playoffs

Once the conference schedules have been completed, a finals system is established. For this example, assume we have 5 different conferences, 'A'being the strongest to 'E' the weakest. There are 8 available slots for the finals, with the highest ranked team taking seed 1, and the lowest ranked non-conference champion taking seed 8. The process is knockout, finals style rugby, which would undoubtedly be highly marketable and attractive to viewers, media and spectators alike. By utilising such a system, it is highly unlikely that an undeserving champion will arise, nor will a powerhouse squad go without any opportunity to win an outright title.

Sustained Improvements/Re-Alignment

Because of each conference's relative autonomy, there is an ability for teams to move conference if they receive an offer, and similarly be told or warned of their impeding removal. Any movement must be clearly sustainable, competitive and fair for both the conference and the team.

For example, Grammar is in Conference 'B', but wishes to move to the recognised 'powerhouse' conference of 'A'. Under the criteria:

• They show a desire to improve (hiring of new coaches; establishing of training programs), so they get a tick there
• They lack a clear long-term plan for their sustainable improvement
• They lack the necessary results to move to conference 'A'
• Their movement to conference 'A' jeopardises and complicates the lucrative media deal of conference 'A'.

So Grammar's move is likely vetoed after review by Conference 'A', or if they fail to do so, the governing body has the ability to veto the move, and potentially impose sanctions for short-sighted or potentially reckless planning.
This system allows any fish that may grow too big for their proverbial pond to move as they best see fit. This also gives an opt-out and recuperate option for programs that fall on hard times.
This was all I could think of for the moment. If you have any questions regarding any other aspects (I've likely missed something) just ask/post/say as much nicely and I'll offer a solution, or if not, we find a flaw. I truly believe this is the best option for the future, but I fear it likely will never come to be.

 

[Bubba Hightower]

Sorry I thought I had put enough into it. I'll try and make the appropriate comparisons here, but sorry if I lose you at any point.

Governing Body
Above all, to effectively run this system, a rugby adept governing body to regulate and preside over all the leagues would be necessary. A board or group of leaders and decision makers would need to be created, likely from the current rugby conveners in each competition, as well as a representative of the NSWRU, the Referees' Association and, if corporate elements become involved, a member for them.

Conferences

Each conference is constructed by a minimum number of schools (likely 5) who share an athletic or educational philosophy and see each other as fair, equal or similarly grounded in regards to rugby. So, if we were to base this off current form, you may have a structure sample size such as this (ignore if I've included/excluded unfairly):

Conference A (Newington, Scots, Riverview, Joeys, St. Augustines, Barker, Waverley, Trinity)

Conference B (Grammar, High, St. Aloysius, Cranbrook, Shore)

etc. etc.

Each conference has self-governing powers to a degree. It's board is made up of a rugby director from each school (just like the current system), but they also elect one member or representative of their whole conference to preside within the competition's governing body.

Each conference can make offers for other schools to join, regulate the intra-conference activities. Each conference, if it finds itself in such a position, can negotiate any and all third party offers (i.e. media) with consent and mild regulation from the governing body. Profits from any such activity are to be proportioned appropriately to the governing body, the conference board, and finally to each school evenly.

Unfair or anti-competitive behaviour by any conference is punishable by the governing body, with any punishment or sanction being situationally applicable and never simply taken from a set of generic responses.

Competition

Each conference, depending on its competition length, will run as long as it so wishes leading up to the period where there are 4 weeks left in the Term 3 winter season. Prior to this, a maximum of 2 games may be played between conference foes, and a limit set at the number of combined conference and non-conference games to be played through the season. Out of conference games do not impact on the conference table, which would be run on the same format through every conference. These non-conference games only impact on the necessary polling activities (see below). Conference games are recorded and scored accordingly within each conference's table, which must run on a system so as to have the greatest chance of avoiding tied positions (points, bonus points, for and against, head-to-head). Conference championships are awarded, with the option of a conference championship available on an annually contracted basis if a conference so desires.

Coaches' Votes

Due to an excess number of play-off spots comparative to conferences (see below example), there are 3 extra slots available for non-conference champions. Thus, throughout the season, a Top 15 will be voted upon by the coaches of each school. This votes give rankings which are not released through the season, and only become available in the final 3 weeks of the season. When the conference champions have been decided, the final poll will be conducted. The 3 highest ranked schools that were not conference champions are included in the play-off series, though as lowest-ranked seeds, and thus must play the best opponents early. This knockout system plays 8 to 4 to 2, producing a Sydney-wide champion.

In the potential situation of our Sydney scenario, it may be that Conference 'E' is too weak to field a team that will annually compete in the knockout. Thus, it may be that Conference 'E' does not automatically qualify as a playoff seed despite having a conference champion. They will thus have their Coaches' Poll ranking considered.

Finals and Playoffs

Once the conference schedules have been completed, a finals system is established. For this example, assume we have 5 different conferences, 'A'being the strongest to 'E' the weakest. There are 8 available slots for the finals, with the highest ranked team taking seed 1, and the lowest ranked non-conference champion taking seed 8. The process is knockout, finals style rugby, which would undoubtedly be highly marketable and attractive to viewers, media and spectators alike. By utilising such a system, it is highly unlikely that an undeserving champion will arise, nor will a powerhouse squad go without any opportunity to win an outright title.

Sustained Improvements/Re-Alignment

Because of each conference's relative autonomy, there is an ability for teams to move conference if they receive an offer, and similarly be told or warned of their impeding removal. Any movement must be clearly sustainable, competitive and fair for both the conference and the team.

For example, Grammar is in Conference 'B', but wishes to move to the recognised 'powerhouse' conference of 'A'. Under the criteria:

• They show a desire to improve (hiring of new coaches; establishing of training programs), so they get a tick there
• They lack a clear long-term plan for their sustainable improvement
• They lack the necessary results to move to conference 'A'
• Their movement to conference 'A' jeopardises and complicates the lucrative media deal of conference 'A'.

So Grammar's move is likely vetoed after review by Conference 'A', or if they fail to do so, the governing body has the ability to veto the move, and potentially impose sanctions for short-sighted or potentially reckless planning.

This system allows any fish that may grow too big for their proverbial pond to move as they best see fit. This also gives an opt-out and recuperate option for programs that fall on hard times.
This was all I could think of for the moment. If you have any questions regarding any other aspects (I've likely missed something) just ask/post/say as much nicely and I'll offer a solution, or if not, we find a flaw. I truly believe this is the best option for the future, but I fear it likely will never come to be.

I suppose Grammar would best aspire to follow Vanderbilt's SEC changes, no? Similar culture, history, financial options. Single sport issues bringing clouds over the whole school's sports program. The GPS may do well to read up on it, they may be able to sympathise somewhat.

 

[whatever]

Sorry I thought I had put enough into it. I'll try and make the appropriate comparisons here, but sorry if I lose you at any point.

-------

This was all I could think of for the moment. If you have any questions regarding any other aspects (I've likely missed something) just ask/post/say as much nicely and I'll offer a solution, or if not, we find a flaw. I truly believe this is the best option for the future, but I fear it likely will never come to be.

Mate, don't get me wrong - I reckon you have made a bloody great effort - mark: HD.

The idea of a better schools comp is undoubtly to grow the game but, and there is always a but (sorry) how does this system expand the current shallow pool of schoolboy players? (which is the reason our national side is going belly up):

- I can't see CCC and CHS schools being involved (why or what would entice them to become part of it?) -although the State Sports Highs might want an involvement.

- would it damage or somehow improve the already struggling weekend district comps?

- why would the GPS walk away from their prestigous (in their minds anyway) inward looking competition (unless they were guaranteed a separate conference) - CAS & ISA would probably want the same - so it's back to square one; with a Sydney based knockout (Waratah Shield style) comp at the end of their seasons.

Anyway, these are a few questions.

Regards,

 

[Primetime]

Mate, don't get me wrong - I reckon you have made a bloody great effort - mark: HD.

The idea of a better schools comp is undoubtly to grow the game but, and there is always a but (sorry) how does this system expand the current shallow pool of schoolboy players? (which is the reason our national side is going belly up):

- I can't see CCC and CHS schools being involved (why or what would entice them to become part of it?) -although the State Sports Highs might want an involvement.

- would it damage or somehow improve the already struggling weekend district comps?

- why would the GPS walk away from their prestigous (in their minds anyway) inward looking competition (unless they were guaranteed a separate conference) - CAS & ISA would probably want the same - so it's back to square one; with a Sydney based knockout (Waratah Shield style) comp at the end of their seasons.

Anyway, these are a few questions.

Regards,

And those are all the issues that comes with changing the current system, especially the reluctance of a few of the GPS schools to change. With the rising wave of scholarships, I hate to say it, but club rugby in Sydey during the teenage years may be a dying form (I hope not, but if the Eastern suburbs show me anything, I am concerned).

So, I will give a crack at these.

1) This is the tough question. My theories of the strengths this system would hold in this regard are the ability for great players in not-so-great schools to compete and show themselves off to the big schools; the best players and the biggest schools can develop skills against what would be well over half of the Aussie Schoolboys; and the opportunity is available for undersized but highly skilled players at small schools (namely those kids not genetically blessed) can hone their art against a physically matched opposition, thus avoiding the morale and confidence issues that often arise from larger opponents.

2) Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I believe the district comps are dying. Their best interest may be to try and sink their claws into the school programs and have pipelines coming out of schools to create a strong Shute Shield, etc. team. I'm afraid I have no answers here

3) That's the big issue here, I suppose it would have to be a schools-led thing. I get the impression its not the schools' current leaders or even students pressuring for the maintenance of these old competition structures; it's more likely the golden day alumni who wish to hang on too long. I think you'd be surprised by how many schools would jump at the opportunity to enter into competition against fair and even competition as proposed, particularly with the opportunity to call themselves NSW Schools Champions at the end of it. I'd doubt the smaller or more academic schools would be the issue in this category, it'd likely be the schools at the top of the GPS who aren't the ones experienceing the issues that the rest of the schools are.

But I think you've countered with the issues not just at the core of this system, but at the heart of any change. I think that once the schools take the plunge, they'll realise what they've been missing out on, but I guess the blood of loyalties and associations runs thicker than water.

To you, or anyone else who sees this post, I'm happy to keep trying to answer any questions; this dialogue may very well one day prove to be the fuel for change if the right people read this.

 

[Snort]

Anyone who read my recent blog post will know that I think Primetime is on the right track here (and that I think there's no chance of it happening in the foreseeable future).

The idea is to develop a system that is (a) responsive to current events, and not merely stuck in the 19th century and (b) allows schools to decide the level at which they want to play, and play there. Want to be elite? There's an elite conference. Want to be social? There's somewhere for that, too - and plenty of gradations in the middle. If this happened, you might end up with half a dozen conferences. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

I remember sitting down with Bruce Harris and Greg Harris in the early 1990s and talking about their idea of turning Sydney University into an elite sporting campus like some US colleges. At that time all the talk was about Sydney University being booted our of the cricket and rugby competitions in Sydney. I liked the idea but didn't think it would happen. I got the second bit very wrong. It's amazing what can be achieved if you have a bit of vision.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Anyone who read my recent blog post will know that I think Primetime is on the right track here (and that I think there's no chance of it happening in the foreseeable future).

The idea is to develop a system that is (a) responsive to current events, and not merely stuck in the 19th century and (b) allows schools to decide the level at which they want to play, and play there. Want to be elite? There's an elite conference. Want to be social? There's somewhere for that, too - and plenty of gradations in the middle. If this happened, you might end up with half a dozen conferences. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

I remember sitting down with Bruce Harris and Greg Harris in the early 1990s and talking about their idea of turning Sydney University into an elite sporting campus like some US colleges. At that time all the talk was about Sydney University being booted our of the cricket and rugby competitions in Sydney. I liked the idea but didn't think it would happen. I got the second bit very wrong. It's amazing what can be achieved if you have a bit of vision.

I think it could be achieved somewhat with the ISA setup. They tend to be the most progressive of the lot in terms of membership and participation. Plus, their competition structure particularly in Rugby runs on a division structure which would allow for teams to compete at varying levels that best fit their needs and ambitions. I've previously suggested that ISA should be looking to develop a mutli-divisional sporting structure in regards to Rugby. They already have two division but with some recruitment of schools that could be bolstered to 3, 4 or even 5 divisions over time.

To do so it would require certain expectations to relaxed in terms of teams provided for the newer divisions. Small things initially such as the number of teams and such. Many new schools would should only really be expected to provide 1 team per year group at first and build from there. Membership is another. At the moment is wholly private school based and while I think it should remain so, the option should be open for Public High Schools and Sports High's to be provided with an avenue into these competitions.

The one I would really like to see ISA step into is primary education sports. The demise of the weekly PSSA sporting schedule is something I often lament since my kid brother started this level of his education. It's a shame but with some vision and ambition someone like the ISA could work to fill the gap with Rugby.