Super Rugby needs an under-21 competition

I agree with Sheek. Good points, Biltong, but ultimately it always comes back to the lack of a third tier comp in Australia. Everybody knows and agrees it is needed. And we've all heard a million times that it wasn't financially sustainable, etc, etc. The bit I don't get is how come Aus can have sustainable national comps in relatively minor sports such as Netball, Basketball, etc ?? How do they pay for it ?? How, for that matter, do cricket and soccer sustain a similar comp, given that their attendances are not great, meaning revenue comes from sponsorship, TV,and major international fixtures ?? Surely this financial model is not that different to Rugby. The simple fact is that the ARU MUST find a way for this to happen. They have seriously dropped the ball on this one, basically shrugging their shoulders and doing nothing. Re-jig the Shute Shield if you have to. JUST DO SOMETHING !!!!! Phew - I feel better now. Sorry about the rant, not really on the topic, but it's just so damn frustrating.

What about the fringe players who are too old to play Under 21s? They will get left out in the cold again. That's why I prefer a second XV comp.

Yes i do if done properly it can work, and be financially successful or break even or if it loses a small amount the investment will be well worth it.

In other words you agree some srious think tank sessions and this can be done. ;)

SA hasnt diminished it's tradition to help Australia. It embraced Super Rugby because of the money it brought to SA.

I am sorry. The Aussies have to look after their own rugby development. i know the conference system is popular in Australia, but if you ask mst South Africans, they would love to go back to the Super 12. South Africa has already diminsihed their own historic and traditional competition to help Australia's lack of their own rugby competition. Why should we help them further. It is time they have to look after their own rugby development and not wait for a Sanzar bailout.

Biltong some great ideas I have a few and they may be used in our national rugby league and national soccer youth comps next season: -Play matches mid week to insure more exposure and not market saturation by having to compete with the senior1st grade teams on weekend, so mid week you have the week to yourselves to grow your brand and get good tv ratings. -The ITM cup in NZ do this now have a high content of matches mid week maybe currie cup should do the same , great tv ratings. -The non player payment is a tough thorny issue and is always of big conention in college football in USA. -These talented rugby players 18-21, still have to eat and need money and pay bills, yes there getting great training for 2 years but who will pay for there big food bill, and rent money, and mobile phone and university tuition fees. How it works in amrerica i just don't know but the young adults seem to get by,maybe they don't train as much who knows. -Would be a greta idea if one can do it. You can put the kids in economy class on the plane, and have them stay in backpackers and cheap motels. at 18-21 you actually love this lifestyle so communal kitchens and bathrooms, wont bother you. -Or have an exchange student billeting policy or even do sponsor deals with airlines and hotels. It can work. -I would have separate franchises for the spree rugby youth teams to create new brands and sell merchandise though.

We won't foot the bill Kid. The idea is that a cross continental comp will be a saucy appetiser for the broadcasters, hence it will provide more revenue to start up an under 21 comp.

So your saying foot the bill to help AUS out? I'm sorry but isnt that something they themselves have to figure out, i just dont see why we would want to because we've already had to cut down on the currie cup season who knows what the impact will be if we do decide to help what else do we lose? The vodacom cup? The age group levels of the currie cup? Honestly we'd be better of trying to help out other african rugby playing nations

Sure it may be too expensive, but it is worth while pursueing. Think of the benefits of doing this, have a can do attitude. Imagine they start off with 3 teams each. That is 90 players from each country under 21 that gets exposed to top class rugby, you have a draft system end of the season for those that "ages" out. You fisr of all provide a feeder system for your Senior Franchises and stop the rot by offering more opportunities inside Rugby Union. You don't have to pay these young kids big money, you just need to find a way to make it break even. In fact you could find a way to reduce travel. Host the tournament in one country, find sponsor ships for accommodation. Instead of having them shack up in hotels arrange accommodation on the same basis as you would for exchange student for the duration of the tournament. It brings the public closer to the players, it will be an awaesome experience for these players to learn the cultures of the other countries and you centralise it in one city. There are always ways of solving challenges. Maybe I am thinking too laterally here.

-Great ambitions Bilttong but for a youth comp wow it sure will not be cheap , love to know who would foot the bill. Wow super rugby style travel with 3 countries. In reality it would be fantastic to have but reality is just so expensive.

Kid, the idea is to help Australia. In other words if you use the current setup in SA or their U21 and add NZ and OZ in there and making it a cross continental competition it would be more financially viable for OZ to entertain an U21 format, if they had to do this on their own would it not be less financially viable for them?

South africa also already has the vodacom cup, the varsity cup and the age divisions of the currie cup and most of the teams of SR in SA already use the currie cup to bollster their SR squads so an u21 SR comp wouldnt really be helping SA it would just be a waste of cash really

Biltongbek, Full marks for effort. An U/21 comp, or even a 2nds comp, is certainly an option for the SR franchises. And it would work in the short-term. But I'm afraid it doesn't solve Australian rugby's long-term problems. You see, the SR, as good as it is, is only a one-third owned Australian operation. By "owned", I mean, we contribute 5 teams to the comp, same as NZ, same as SA. Now of course, NZ & SA both have the same problem as us in that they also only own one-third of SR. But this is where the comparison ends. SA has the Currie Cup, which is 100% South African. And NZ has the ITM Cup, which is 100% New Zealand. Australian rugby has nothing, nought, zip, zero. SA fans can get right into the Currie cup, following their own teams & own players. NZ fans can get right into the ITM Cup, following their own teams & own players. Australian rugby fans can look at the AFL (18/18 - 100% Australian), NRL (15/16 - 94% Australian) & A-League (11/12 - 92% Australian). Not to mention the Sheffield Shield (6/6 - 100% Australian). The gaping hole in Australian sports is the lack of national domestic rugby comp. Until Australian rugby develops its own national domestic comp - ARC - then it will continue to rely on the arrival of a "golden generation" every 10 to 15 years to lift it out of the doldrums. Such a 'bust-boom-bust' policy is idiotic, to say the least. This is really quite a silly way to develop your favourite code, but it seems to be the modus operandi of the ARU.

Surely the simple answer is what Blu Blood states: every Aussie derby has TWO games. The Super 15 match and a "B" curtain raiser". Use fringe and young players to get the full 22 man squad, hey make it 23 if need be. In Victoria someone (Rebels? VRU?) are telling young blokes to move interstate to get more experience. Meanwhile Rebels players are encouraged to play local club footy. If there was EIGHT "B" fixtures than that's got to be more beneficial than sending blokes away. Furthermore, why have Super 15 players play club footy- to increase standard- yet send local players interstate? Surely if young blokes stay than standard lifts?! Personally I'd love to see a Trans Tasman comp. Benefits Oz but Kiwis hace NPC so don't need/want it.

Btw, I won't just poke and walk away. I like the idea, especially step 1. Step 2 would take some serious working out. I'd say they are definitely 'stages' not just steps and that we could work on the first idea with a view to getting the second part under way a few years after. Step 2 could be a champions league style tournament as mentioned above if it needs to be. I don't mind these ideas mate, good thinking. Step 1 especially should be done. I don't know that there is political will for step 2 yet. Would have to prove that it's needed even more for people to change that drastically. In reality I think a number of ideas could be successful in helping rejuvinating rugby. I've suggested a few as well. There are pros and cons to all of them. Basically what we need is committment and vision to implement one of many options available to us!

There's no shortage of ideas to strengthen the playing group just below super rugby. Just money.

Uh oh. Biltongbek, you've suggested change. Be prepared to defend yourself! :P We all know rugby needs some change and fixing, just don't suggest that we change or fix anything!!!

because for one, the currie cup is controlled by SARU and Super Rugby by SANZAR. If the currie cup is just integrated into the super rugby, SARU lose sole control of their flagship competition and it's revenue. While they control it they decide what works best for South African Rugbys teams without interference from Australia or NZ. You could potentially lose promotion and relegation, the finals which are quite popular, the right to decide what day and time games are to be played. Secondly, if merged with SR the importance of these competitions could potentially be lost in the scheme of greater things.

At the start of super rugby this year the Australian teams played a pre match game of B team vs B team. This allowed the coach to see where their extended squad was at. As the playing squads are not large enough to accommodate two full 22 teams they also filled the gaps out of club rugby. If the academy was still in place then it would have been academy boys. This was only done for Australian teams in the first few weeks, if my memory serves me well. This was a great way to see the talent depth, or lack there of in some cases/positions that was supporting the super teams. Alas funding meant that they played only 4 games I think. Perhaps this can be extended to increase the depth and true opportunities. I'm not saying do this instead of the U21 idea. Just another layer to consider. Currently there is a huge gap between club rugby and super rugby. Men/boys taken from the academy come in disjointed and have had no experience with the group or the playing style. This would allow a smoother transition into super rugby. Plus it is a great way to fel like you ate getting value for money seeing two games for the same price.