The first three rounds of the NRC have proved the necessity of a third tier. But is the current competition the best model?
An article last month on The Roar argued that the RUPA Model – a university competition, could be the answer to rugby’s third tier.
I was very surprised with some of the comments. The main objection was that it would confirm rugby’s “elitist” tendencies and alienate existing fans.
One comment that I did agree with was from Sheek, who wrote that “The Roar is one of the last refuges of the diehard rugby fan”. It seems our passion for rugby can skew objective debate. I feel that the most sensible approach is to base argument on the NRC’s official objectives, which according to the Expressions of Interest Document is to:
• Bridge the development pathway gap between State Premier Rugby and Super Rugby
• Create high quality broadcast content for increased exposure of Rugby, revenue generation and additional quality engagement with Australian Rugby fans
• Introduce new formats and laws to re-kindle excitement in the game
• Enhance opportunities and development for aspirational clubs and partnerships
My argument is that the University model will exceed these criteria in the long term. Fox Sports may not initially bankroll the competition (although I believe they will later on), but sustainability is ensured as universities cover the costs.
Conversely, I argue that the current model will not be financially sustainable and has little room for growth. I will not discuss (a) because any third-tier will bridge the gap. Similarly I will not speak about (c) as this has nothing to do with the competition model. I will talk about (b) and (d), while adding my own section – sustainability – as (e).
Criteria B: Create high quality broadcast content
It is no surprise that there is a heavy emphasis on the importance of broadcasting content, given that Fox Sports has invested $1 million dollars into this competition. Ensuring quality content means greater flow-on effects for Australian rugby. My argument is that a university competition offers higher quality content.
A university competition is unique
A well-backed university model has never been done before in Australia. An ideal system should be based on a promotion and relegation system, which provides the incentive for smaller universities to support rugby to gain nationwide coverage.
| Division I | Division II | Division III |
| Sydney University | University of Western Sydney | University of Tasmania |
| University of NSW | University of Newcastle | Charles Darwin University (NT) |
| Macquarie University (NSW) | University of Wollongong | University of South Australia |
| University of Queensland | Griffith University (QLD) | University of Adelaide |
| Bond University (QLD) | James Cook University (QLD) | Monash University (VIC) |
| Queensland University of Technology | Curtin University (WA) | University of Melbourne |
| University of Western Australia | Edith Cowan University (WA) | RMIT University (VIC) |
| University of Canberra | Australian National University (ACT) | University of New England (NSW) |
This is in comparison to the current city-region based model, which adds to an over-saturated and oversupplied Australian sporting market. I do not wish to list off the number of NRL, AFL, A-League, Big Bash, ANZ Championship teams across the capital cities. It is already known that the Australian sporting landscape is the most competitive in the world.
Creating another city-region based national competition simply adds to an already diluted and saturated landscape. It is difficult to see whether rugby union, as the fourth most popular sport, can attract new legions of fans by creating a generic competition model. I can see the NRC attracting only rusted-on rugby supporters.
Students and alumni are an untapped and high value demographic
I believe that it is far more intelligent to target a smaller, but untapped and high value “student-alumni demographic” as opposed to an over-saturated general sporting public. Spectators and TV viewers will be non-existent in the short-term, but the long term potential outweighs the short term pain.
I have listed the numbers of students and alumni for Australia’s major universities. These numbers came from each University’s Wikipedia page, website, or annual reports (too many to provide reference).
| State/Territory | University | Students | Staff | Alumni |
| New South Wales | Macquarie University | 38,747 | 2,350 | 150,000 |
| Southern Cross University | 14,858 | 939 | 50,000 | |
| University of New England | 20,409 | 1,308 | 100,000 | |
| University of NSW | 50,516 | 5,300 | 240,000 | |
| University of Newcastle | 35,998 | 2,444 | 125,000 | |
| University of Sydney | 49,020 | 3,081 | 280,000 | |
| University of Technology, Syd | 29,842 | 2,682 | 170,000 | |
| University of Western Sydney | 40,257 | 2,969 | 130,000 | |
| University of Wollongong | 28,964 | 1942 | 120,000 | |
| Northern Territory | Charles Darwin University | 22,083 | 1,421 | 30,000 |
| Queensland | Bond University | 4,100 | 20,000 | |
| Central Queensland University | 20,000 | 1832 | 70,000 | |
| Griffith University | 43,000 | 4,000 | 115,000 | |
| James Cook University | 18,294 | 2,149 | 47,747 | |
| Queensland University of Technology | 39,919 | 2,200 | 100,000 | |
| University of Queensland | 46,826 | 6,892 | 210,000 | |
| University of Southern Queensland | 27,337 | 1,668 | 80,000 | |
| University of the Sunshine Coast | 8,904 | 722 | 12,000 | |
| South Australia | Flinders University | 23,261 | 887 | 1,101 |
| University of Adelaide | 25,000 | 3,159 | ||
| University of South Australia | 35,046 | 3,100 | 180,000 | |
| Tasmania | University of Tasmania | 26,783 | 1,226 | 60,000 |
| Victoria | Deakin University | 43,995 | 3,548 | 180,000 |
| La Trobe University | 34,492 | 3,220 | 161,000 | |
| Monash University | 55,000 | 8,172 | 290,000 | |
| RMIT University | 56,724 | 3,692 | 300,000 | |
| Swinburne University | 27,882 | 2,371 | 140,000 | |
| Federation University | 35,633 | 558 | ||
| University of Melbourne | 41,525 | 3,586 | 300,000 | |
| Victoria University | 50,000 | 2,323 | 108,000 | |
| Western Australia | Curtin University | 47,960 | 3,689 | 170,000 |
| Edith Cowan University | 22,274 | 1,758 | 140,000 | |
| Murdoch University | 18,500 | 1,400 | 65,000 | |
| University of Western Australia | 23,052 | 1,717 | 80,000 | |
| Australian Capital Territory | Australian National University | 18,514 | 3,819 | 70,000 |
| University of Canberra | 13,000 | 1,000 | 70,000 | |
| Total | 1,137,715 | 93,124 | 4,364,848 |
The student-alumni demographic is not small. Current students are approximately one quarter of the total Australian alumni, indicating the massive numbers of students now passing through Australian universities. Rugby union could be the first sport to take advantage of this untapped demographic of spectator.
University teams could resonate more than artificial franchises
Universities are embedded in the Australian cultural landscape and play a crucial role to more than one million students per year. There is opportunity to leverage off this to create teams which resonate with an increasing number of people.
This is in contrast to the current model, in which there are nine new teams, some of which are named the “Sydney Stars”, “Melbourne Rising” and “Perth Spirit”. Can new fans get behind nine new artificial teams with rugby union in its current market position? Again, my worry is that the NRC will only attract rusted-on rugby supporters, which will affect the value of the competition to Fox Sports.
A university competition is content that does not conflict with Super Rugby
But universities do not represent the wider public you might say? What about those who have not been to University? This is the job of Super Rugby. Super Rugby, just like the NRL, AFL, A-League, NFL, MLB, NBA, or any major competition have teams which represent their respective cities and regions. Why should a third-tier development competition represent the same cities and regions in the same model as Super Rugby?
A perfect example is New Zealand’s ITM Cup and South Africa’s Currie Cup. With Super Rugby refusing to die, these once flagship competitions have been reduced to hugely expensive feeder competitions. They are also inefficient.
A perfect example is that a fan would in theory support both Canterbury Rugby and the Crusaders, despite them both representing the same area. Again, rusted-on supporters would support both, but an outsider may question why they must support two teams, when they both represent the same region.
A university competition on the other hand, does not interfere with the Super Rugby model. A person can support the University of Melbourne and the Melbourne Rebels, as opposed to the Melbourne Rebels and Melbourne Rising.
Criteria D: Enhance opportunities and development for clubs and partnerships
A university competition enhances opportunities for domestic expansion
Rugby Union is struggling with its existing market, let alone the ability to expand further. It is slowly being squeezed by the AFL, NRL and the A-League, while having little to no chance at moving in on new regions.
A university competition on the other hand transfers the incentive of expansion to universities, who are given a national spotlight to promote themselves. This could allow rugby to be sustainably expanded into new cities and regions such as Adelaide, Hobart, Western Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Townsville.
But why would smaller universities want to get involved with rugby? If the competition was based on a three division promotion and relegation system (see first Table), it would provide the incentive for smaller universities to support rugby to gain nationwide coverage.
A unique partnership – University World Championships?
What if a university competition led to something else entirely? What about a University World Championship? This concept leverages off the explosion of College Rugby in the United States (as the fastest growing team-sport in the country). What if there was a University Championshps, featuring the winners of the major domestic university competitions?
| Pool A | Pool B | Pool C | Pool D |
| University of Cape Town | University of Sydney | University of Auckland | University of Queensland |
| University of California (Berkeley) | University of Oxford | Trinity College Dublin | University of Texas |
| Ecole Polytechnique ParisTech | University of Tokyo | University of Toronto | University of Cambridge |
| National University of Singapore | University of Hong Kong | Moscow State University | University of Otago |
I believe there is potential for such a competition. The benefit to rugby in Australia is that smaller universities are given a massive incentive to participate. Smaller universities, such as the University of Canberra, or Bond University, are suddenly given the opportunity to rub shoulders with elite universities and make business connections. They would invest in rugby domestically, to be given that opportunity.
Criteria “E” (my own criteria): It must be a sustainable competition structure
Perhaps the most overlooked factor was the need for the competition to be financially sustainable, considering that it would not exist without Fox Sports investing one million dollars. What happens if they decide not to participate next year? A sustainable, cost-effective product is needed, should the worst happen.
Universities have large untapped infrastructure
The big benefit of a university model is that rugby can leverage university resources at low cost. This includes expenditures such as pitch hire and maintenance, utilities, clubhouse, gym and fitness facilities, stadium and grandstand, security and access to transportation.
The current NRC setup does already have university assistance with Sydney Stars (Sydney University), QLD Country (Bond University), Canberra Vikings (University of Canberra), Perth Spirit (University of Western Australia) and North Harbour Rays (Macquarie University), however the remaining four teams have to rely upon capital being drawn from existing rugby resources, as opposed to drawing it from new resources.
This was illustrated when Eastwood decided to pull out of the Greater Sydney Rams consortium, arguing that there was no benefit to the clubs.
Over half of the teams in the NRC are associated and supported by a university, which illustrates that universities see this as a viable competition, beneficial to their interests. If Australian rugby wants a sustainable competition, than why not utilise a stakeholder which can provide financial support and infrastructure?
Universities are breeding grounds for future corporate support
Bill Gates’ famous quote, “Be nice to nerds, as chances are, you’ll be working for them” has never been more relevant than today. Today’s companies are increasingly based on human capital and are creating the future that we are already living in. Many are now founded when students are studying at university.
Atlassian, which is now worth over $3.3 billion dollars, was created when Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar were studying at the University of NSW.
So what do modern day companies have to do with rugby? If Australian rugby is proactive, it could have the opportunity to leverage off the companies of the future. A university competition is the first step to building Australian rugby’s connection with future industry, which could sustain the code for decades.
Conclusion
This is a concept, which I believe has long-term benefits, with the full costs and responsibilities borne by universities. The ARU theoretically would not have to do anything.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the ARU has the ability to take this long-term view (how Super Rugby has not been turned into a Champions League, but is instead being expanded to Singapore is a perfect example). However, I believe that if the ARU continues down its current path, rugby will continue to remain in a perilous state.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Dave
Guest
This article, while well meaning, is so bloody stupid it makes my head hurt. Author clearly either hasn't gone to university or went a very long time ago and does not understand current university culture in Australia.
Crazy Horse
Guest
I would you suggest yo I look at whether the University in question actually has a Rugby Union team. In WA. UWA is the reigning Premier Grade Premiers for the second time in four years. however it is the only Uni playing Premier Grade. Curtin plays in Championship Grade and is developing nicely. ECU, Murdoch and Notre Dam do not play. That will probably come as rugby grows in WA but at the moment.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
As several other people said, seems like you have done some research, but there are too many flawed assumptions in the concept. The first problem is simply the concept. The idea of a third tier is to provide a semi pro comp, allowing top players from the club competitions to "show their stuff" and to be exposed to a higher level of games and training. This improves the stocks of Aussie rugby, and also allows coaches to see players who have so far slipped through the net. By excluding people academically and by age (I dont see many 25 year old university graduates wanting to return to full time study on the off chance could play well in a Uni comp and then get a super contract) a Uni based competition simply would not fulfil the role of a third tier. It therefore has no point. Secondly, I simply dont think that the majority of Universities would be interested in bankrolling this. The proposed Divison 1 of a University model would have teams from 3 states and 1 territory (including WA). What university would be interested in bankrolling a team in a sport that is 4th of 5th in terms of spectator interest in Australia? Most universities do have rugby clubs, but they are self funding or recieve a little support from the Uni, such as grounds. I dont see universities having any interest in suddenly paying for flights for a team of rugby players to play games around the continent. The third question is the players. With a club model like the NRC clubs are free to pursue whatever payers they want. Under a university model will players have to be enrolled in the University they play for? What does academic ability have to do with sport? In the US they get around this by having unviersities offer some very basic degress for their athletes. but even in the US, Princeton, Harvard and Yale, academically exclusive universities, havnt been nationally competative for 60 years in American Football because entry requirements have meant they cant attract enough top quality athletes. I played for Sydney Uni in various Premiership teams, Sydney Uni had a lot of players who wera studying or ex students, but there were also many players who were not ex students. You would actually decimate many of the University clubs by ripping out any players not currently studying. Sydney Uni had a rule that players had to be enrolled in the University until the 1980s, but they got rid of the rule as it made them uncompetative against clubs with older players. I did a 4 year degree and finished university at 21 years of age, the age by which most students have finished studying. If the University model is our third tier, are we saying that if players who are not academically gifted or who have finished university have no future in the sport? The role of the third tier is to develop players, and give an opportunity to those who are talented but havnt made it yet to super rugby, whether they are 20 or 30. A University model would exclude 3/4 of the adult players in Aussie rugby. Lots of bla bla bla, but in the Australian context, a US style "college" model simply wouldnt fulfil the role of the a third tier for Australian rugby.
Bakkies
Guest
That's because Rugby took so long to become professional. There were no elite standard Rugby facilities and the clubs can't afford to build their own training centres. The Brumbies had been training at a local park oval for several years. Completely inadequate and there weren't even proper showers for 40 plus players. These days you need more than just a pitch, dressing rooms and a shed to lock up the pads and scrum machine.
Bakkies
Guest
Think so.
Max Power
Guest
Very good article Grogan. One issue I don't think anyone else has brought up is that big college sports in the US, particularly gridiron, basketball and baseball, feed into the premier professional leagues in the world. They are therefore able to draw students from around the world into their colleges in the hope of graduating to the NBA, NFL or MLB and the obscene riches on offer there. In basketball and baseball, for most countries, it is more difficult to make NBA or MLB than to play for their country and their isn't a meaningful international gridiron competition. In contrast, US college soccer is nowhere near the same status as the other sports and that is largely due to the fact that European leagues are the pinnacle of professional soccer. The wages on offer in Super 15 aren't enough to attract foreign talent into an Australian university system in the hope of becoming professional, especially now with the huge offers on offer in Europe.
Marlins Tragic
Guest
Are UWS sponsoring the Rams?
Griffo
Guest
I'm not sure this perception is all encompassing Sheek. I'm sure it still prevails withing Sydney and Brisbane however not having lived in either of these places I have only heard people referring to that perception on websites like this. I have, however, lived Melbourne, Bendigo and for the past 10 years Townsville. In the first of these 2 places Rugby, at its lower levels, is a fringe sport. People from Victoria do take an interest in the Wallabies and I'm sure now the Rebels as well. People aren't necessarily put off by Rugby culture because in Victoria the rival code is rugby league and many probably prefer to follow rugby before league. In Townsville, although league is dominant, there is a strong rugby following and also a notable interest paid by those who may prefer rugby league. In my ten years here I've not heard a single person criticise Rugby for being a "private school boy" sport. If one did however, want to create the perception of rugby exclusivity then the author's proposal would be a good way to go about it. It's probably important in Sydney and Brisbane to keep these traditional connections with unis but I think that having a University comp as the 3rd tier is limiting.
Midfielder
Guest
WCR & Bakkies You are both correct in saying other codes also use the universities to some extent... No other code comes close to RU in its use ... and that all teams use university facilities .. take it to much more usage and I will bet the NCR will become a media story for the wrong reasons... The article reads like it wants to create almost a US style competition and that is where most of my post was from...
Working Class Rugger
Guest
First of all, it's the National Rugby Championship(NRC). Second of all, the NRC doesn't want or expect the Uni system to do any of the heavy lifting. Yes, there are commercial sponsorship agreements in place but they exist well beyond just Rugby. The Wanderers like the Rams are associated with UWS. Why is that sponsorship different?
bozo
Guest
As a graduate of two universities, I am sure of few things in life, other than that from my experience with university and local club rugby I do not support a university model. Sure, lets set up alignments and sponsorship. Rugby requires a community beyond kids with pimples and those who return with memories of their excellence. Agree that an aged team should be connected with all NRC teams but suspect an expanded age, say U21, will better pick up capable prospects.
ALex
Guest
they are in the second division Brett
RaymondReddington
Roar Rookie
Nice angle , but strip away foreign students / gender / those students just focussed on getting the degree & those juggling part time work with study , students with family commitments (not to mention those who hate sport but might love art ) against a backdrop of other extra curricular activities or sporting codes would lead me to the conclusion that the numbers just don't stack up without actually even considering the double counting you would get via any flow from the private school arena flowing into a university based system ... not every one wants a degree . Quite simply put we just don't have the population/carrying capacity to adopt this model . The evolution can take place with the NRC as the top down as the bridge to super rugby and beyond and the bottom up to rigorously include state schools and junior rugby clubs with the existing grade clubs ( in the middle) now a clear conduit for the talent pool to grow and have a better chance of widening the games appeal and thereby its supporter base . The success of the NRC will take some time to catch the wider public's interest ... I remember the catch cry ...what do you wanna be ... Now that catch cry may seem clearer to a child in the under 10's . A strong engagement at grassroots ( say inviting schools , state preferably to play in a pre NRC curtain raiser ) may increase engagement and pay dividends down the track ...or the ARU could sanction some of the top flight referees to ref say 1 or 2 state school matches pa . I went to a state school back in the day and can still remember Dr Vanderfield coming to ref out 1st VX match in the Waratah Shield which saw a lift in crowd and engagement at the school for a couple of years . Anyway thanks for writing the article , it woke me up ...
jeznez
Roar Guru
The Beagles? Who doesn't like a country team and seeing K-Doug and the boys do well is great but while they can be a second team its still the Rams for me!
TahDan
Roar Guru
I think this is beside the point to be frank - it's not that University education is exclusive, but it's not a clever market for two reasons: it unnecessarily narrows your supporter base and Australians don't have anything like the emotional attachment to their Alma-maters (or current uni) that Americans do, so you're not guaranteed a strong support base.
Bakkies
Guest
I think you are missing the point with that broadside. The universities themselves made the decision to get involved just like they are in other countries. Rugby still relies on government funding regardless particularly for drug testing, olympics and stadium development. Most state Governments are broke but money will still be spent on sport development and luring events because it's a part of Australian culture fabric.
Zero Gain
Guest
"Rightly or wrongly, Australian rugby is dogged by an enduring perception of private school, university educated, leather elbow patch, elitist narrow mindedness. Anything that helps perpetuate/reinforce that perception ought to be avoided." There are over 1 million students enrolled at Australian Universities today. Your characterisation of universities as 'elitist' is outmoded and narrow minded. Perhaps a better education would have helped you understand these things?
kunming tiger
Guest
Valid points, in fact a NRC under 20 comp should be a priority if they can't happen then a Gold Cup under 20 comp instead . AS you pointed out it would feed directly into Premier Club Rugby then into the NRC.
TahDan
Roar Guru
Well argued mate, but I just don't buy it... When it comes down to it - elitism accusation aside - Australia simply doesn't possess the uni "pride" culture that countries like the US and Japan do... you might argue that USyd, Melbourne Uni and possibly ANU have it to a degree, but not to the level that would make something like this viable; there are no uni sports events in Aus that draw even 15k to even the biggest games, let alone 80k like in the US. I have a bacehlors from UNSW and a Masters from ANU, but I don't feel particularly attached to either institution and I don't see myself as an alumni rushing out to watch the uni footy team. I'd much rather support Randwick because it represents more than just an institution.
Train Without A Station
Guest
It is thoroughly researched but based on many assumptions. The biggest being that Universities will assume the cost of this based on what return? There's a few errors too. I'd imagine that QUT who are no longer associated with Norths would not be a Div 1 team. Likewise Melbourne Uni who have their own premier grade team in Melbourne would be higher than the bottom tier for starters. UNSW and Macquarie would likely be lower and I doubt James Cook would be mid tier in the scheme of things. The writer lost me when he said the Fox Sports funding wouldn't be there. That's the only thing getting the competition of the ground right now. The article's proposal is actually great in principle but doesn't consider reality enough.