It’s back in the media again, Australian rugby’s third tier. Most Australian rugby supporters agree that we need it, but no one can agree on a model. We need to ask ourselves, why do we want to develop a third tier?
The general consensus is that the step up between club rugby (4th tier) and Super Rugby (2nd tier) is too large and a third tier is required to develop players, coaches and referees.
Let’s take a look at some of the models that have been proposed:
The created franchise model
This was the model undertaken with the launch of the ill-fated Australian Rugby Championship (ARC) in 2007. Eight teams from NSW, Qld, ACT, WA and Victoria were created from scratch.
It was designed to give rugby a fresh start, however the power clubs in Sydney understandably were threatened by its creation and never embraced it. It was disbanded after it ran $2million over budget in its first year and was forecast to lose $8million over the first two years.
Despite this, if Super Rugby didn’t exist, I believe this model would have been successful. However, it wasn’t so let’s not revise this model again.
The Club Rugby Model
This is the model supported by influential Club Rugby stalwarts such as ex-Wallaby Simon Poidevin. They want a National Club Competition between the top teams from the Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra club competitions to play each other.
Advocates of this model believe it is the most cost effective. We already have the teams, the fans and the tribalism. We already have the infrastructure. We just need to implement a national competition with promotion and relegation.
In theory I love it. However the purpose of the third tier is to develop talent. That means concentrating the talent into a small number of teams so the best are playing the best regularly (that’s why the ARC was good in theory).
However, we have players in 12 Sydney Clubs, 10 Brisbane Clubs and 7 ACT Clubs. The talent isn’t concentrated, it’s scattered. At least at the start, the best won’t be playing the best.
However, further down the track, they will. The top players will gravitate to the more successful clubs and the these clubs will become more and more successful.
The less successful clubs will eventually drop off the radar and probably move down to Suburban rugby.
Would this be good for rugby? I don’t believe it would be. Club rugby is critical for the grassroots. Sydney needs the twelve team competition with all the lower grades and colts representing areas across the city, north to south, east to west.
I’m sure it’s the same in Brisbane and the ACT. Club rugby is the lifeblood of the game.
We need to find a way to better foster the game at this level, however I believe this model will have the opposite effect. Although I like the idea of a competition with these 100 year old clubs I don’t believe it will help the game in the long run.
Enter teams in the ITM Cup
I love the ITM Cup and would love Australian teams to play in it, but the player development issue is Australia’s problem, not New Zealand’s.
The Kiwis have only just found a way to make it financially viable, they don’t need to add flights to Australia and increase costs. Let’s send players there to play in the Kiwi teams if need be but let’s leave their competition alone.
The University Model
This model was proposed by the Rugby Union Players Association (RUPA). There has been enough debate on this model on the Roar already so I won’t spend too much time on it.
I like it because it’s unique in Australia. It utilises the existing infrastructure of the Universities and leverages their brands. However it’s an U/23 competition and although this will develop the younger crop of players there are plenty of late bloomers in the game, especially the tight five.
I think this concept of the University model is a great idea and should be investigated, but not as a third tier option.
The Academy Model
Until recently, all the Super Rugby franchises had academy sides. These were semi-professional players who trained with the main team. They provided an opposing side to train against, they knew the plays, they knew the culture of the organisation.
When a member from the senior squad was injured they could easily step up and fit into the senior team.
When the ARU set up the National Academies (Brisbane and Sydney) they stopped funding the Super Rugby academies. This has been a disaster for the Australian Rugby sides during the extended Super Rugby season and has impacted on the Wallabies as well.
Some of the Super Rugby sides have reinstated a pseudo academy to help them develop their own players.
I believe the ARU must reintroduce funding and allow the Super Rugby sides to bring back their academies. They should then use these academies in a competition for the third tier.
We have five Super Rugby academies, we could include the two national academies and for something a little different I want the Waratahs to set up an ARU funded satellite academy in western Sydney to develop the game out there.
That provides an eight team competition. If the ARU academies and the Western Sydney Waratahs Academy aren’t suitable, bring in the Pacific Island teams and give them competition before the Pacific Nations Cup.
The competition should begin with the start of Super Rugby in February and run for 10-12 weeks.
This allows the players to return to club rugby and play the majority of the season. This is very important for both the players’ development and the sustainability of grassroots rugby.
I would even support the further development of the National Club Competition at the end of the season. All club seasons have to finish on the same weekend and then the top sides from Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra meet over the next couple of weekends before the national grand final.
I believe the academy model is the only real suitable option for the third tier. The infrastructure is already available, the brands are well known, it directly benefits Super Rugby and it has the least impact on club rugby.
It also ensures Victoria and Western Australia are included and our U20 players get high quality match practice in the various academies before they head off to the Junior Rugby World Cup.
I believe this is the only model that will get the backing of the majority of the stakeholders across the game and finally bring us the much needed development competition we need.
Bring it on! Over to you, Mr Pulver.
p.Tah
Guest
"walk through UNSW and find me a Rugby Player" You could probably start here http://unswrugby.org.au/
Malo
Guest
p.tah you have to be joking with the university and academy options. They just promote exclusion, elitism and bias selections. Academies have some so called experts with a coaching degree or weight training specialist to pick so called talent and try to nurture it thru secluded training. It does not work at all, it has been done to death. Does NZ have academies, no they have a vibrant club competition. Gamesimprove players skills, not secluded beep tests and weight sessions. Clubs are the only answer, they are set up and just need some financial backing to bring the enthusiasm and tribalism back. I would like more pacific islanders to come over and may get sponsored by clubs but the rest of that idea is truly fanciful. Why you try and complicate things is amazing, KISS principal is what is required. I think Poido should be given the reins and so called roar hacks just keep writng diatribe. The players are quite good and more would play if the club structure was promoted and people got behind it like in the 90s . By promoting clubs you promote the areas rugby influence which has a flow on effect. Academies are a waste of money and are just pie in the sky stuff.
Johnno
Guest
It could be the future Bakkies. The money is too good too ignore, for both countries. And a few of the smaller kiwi teams are starting to struggle. Like Southland. Auckland, Counties, and Cantebury dished out some big hidings this year, to a few of the smaller teams
Bakkies
Guest
Imagine the tv rights that both countries could accumulate if Australian teams were added. That's why I think that entering the NPC is a goer for both unions financially. The time zones work and you can have more day games. It will open up the NPC to the Australian sponsorship market. The Australian owned BNZ sponsors the Kiwi Super Rugby teams and I am pretty sure that Rebel Sport is an Australian company so they have done well out of Australian sponsorship in the past. Netball managed to secure significant sponsorship and tv coverage when they went trans tasman didn't it?
Johnno
Guest
It's becoz of all the kiwis in OZ. The NZRU also are very aware of this and tyr to schedule the matches to accommodate, Australia timezones.
Bakkies
Guest
I was surprised at the comprehensive coverage Foxsports has given then NPC. I remember it being one game a week on delay many years ago. So obviously they want Rugby product beyond test Rugby at that time of year. I remember when the talk of super rugby duration expanding just due to the fact that there was little Rugby on while the NRL and AFL seasons were winding down.
Bakkies
Guest
The problem with the ARC was that it was on during a RWC year where fans had booked travel to France so their rugby budget was limited. The competition didn't have the budget to mass market (compare this to what the Storm spend on marketing and advertising in Melbourne) to create awareness. Another issue is that some games clash with local 1st Grade fixtures so you lose a significant Rugby crowd.
simmo green
Guest
I'm quite frankly amazed that people can dismiss joining the ITM competition on the shallow basis that the 'Kiwis won't let us' or 'It'll cost too much', yet are quite happy to engage in convoluted, intricate and ridiculously detailed discussions about a local third tier product What percentage of the Kiwi inbound market do Qantas and Virgin have? What Rugby/Rugby League products to Foxtel have beyond September? The concept can be packaged, sold and underwritten. Money talks, Kiwis will listen
simmo green
Guest
Walk through UNSW and find me a Rugby Player
Pete_Lock
Roar Rookie
I like the idea of a competition between the top clubs in QLD, NSW and ACT, and I don't think VIC should be discounted either. The only problem here would be clubs such as Uni in NSW, UQ or Jeeps in Brisbane, or Melbourne in VIC would use their extra cash and standing to pull colts and leading players from the smaller clubs, creating too big a talent and money gap in these leagues.
AndyS
Guest
Not sure I'd agree on the ARC crowds - I didn't think they got honeymoon crowds; almost no-one seemed to know it was on. But it doesn't really matter what format is taken, there needs to be a better effort to engage the Super rugby crowd with it. I see the need for two competitions, probably using the same teams. The first would run during Super rugby, with the focus on development. This would act very much as Super seconds and I'd hope they would arrange the fixtures so that, as much as possible, they were playing at home when the main team was away and vice versa. What you'd be after is to try and attract some of the same crowd with more family friendly times, better access to the players, a cheaper membership the kids can have in their own right, etc. The second competition would be more like the ARC as was, with all the best non-Test players returning to join the best talent identified in the preceding talent and competing to stay in Wallabies contention. You'd think they could market that to the same crowd pretty well given there is only one other game a week on, but then that was largely true before.
Cattledog
Guest
Goes without saying! That's stating the obvious. The point is, however, the costs remain relatively low as wages in any business is a major financial commitment.
p.Tah
Guest
soapit, are you suggesting we get rid of Super Rugby and replace it with an ARC?
soapit
Guest
why go to arc? cheaper than super rugby, potentially more convenient depending where its played, different style of rugby but still pro quality. chance to see your team do well rather than get beaten a lot by the kiwi's and saffers
sheek
Roar Guru
The questions I would ask re the uni model are these: 1. How does this comp help produce more quality players for the Wallabies? 2. What impact does it have on premier rugby? 3. How does this help grow the game in non-traditional areas of Australia?
p.Tah
Guest
I didn't go into this angle in the article because there was a lot of content already. In my view the Club, Franchise and Uni models require fan support and there is an expectation the games will be on TV. In all honesty who do we think will attend these games? There is only so many games of rugby we can attend. There is already a lot of rugby 'content' out there if you want to look, Club rugby, Subbies, Australian schools, National schools, etc. how many of us attend these? Why do we think we'll attend third tier games? There will be a honeymoon as there was with crowds at the ARC but I worry about the ongoing support when we have Super Rugby. Will this comp attract new supporters? No, why would a consumer who hasn't been swept up by Super Rugby decide to the follow the game at the level below this? Richard Hines' article in today's SMH raises the concerns of the 4 football codes competing in the crowded Sydney market. His observations are true for the codes across the country. Do we realistically think we can introduce another competition into this market? Who will support it? We have 54 football teams in the country, can we introduce 8 or so more 'brands'? Will a TV network show this competition? The Free to Air Newtworks are struggling and Foxtel's subscriber base is at its lowest since 2008. A third tier is about player development, not crowds or TV viewers. The ARC model is the model that needs crowds and TV the most, followed by the Club and Uni model. The Academy model IMO doesn't need this. It's just a feeder comp for the Super rugby teams. If Foxtel wants to show it, fine and great but we shouldn't hang our hat on it. I've said this previously, but all eyes and wallets need to be focused on Super Rugby, we cannot afford some of that interest to be diverted to the next tier.
soapit`
Guest
how were you planning on getting to hobart then johnno?
soapit`
Guest
even without paying them it will still cost money to run
Roxmyworld
Guest
when i read this article i feel that the acadamy teams are the closest to what we wish to acheve. Alot of the infrastrucure, admin and staff alredy exisist for super 15 and that it seems like a waste to not make use of them. That is 5 teams at the blink of a hat. If we want an 8 team comp, the last 3 teams are national acadamys outside the catchment areas that alredy exisist, say Adelade, Hobart and Nth Queensland, or we get a 10 team comp with 2 teams per side.
Roxmyworld
Guest
I am under the impression that even though they played in University sides all but a few drop out of uni to play in the NBA or NFL. I think the ratio is like 1 in 10 of the athletes in NBA and NFL have proper academic degrees. all the rest are considered college dropouts