The solution to the shambles that is Australian rugby (Part 2)

sorry about the double post, but that is why I support everyone else against the Wallabies & most of the so-called ARU representatives

Perhaps both Western Australia & South Australia should both secede, either together or as seperate nations from the rest of Australia (the ARU has forgotten about us as South Australians even more so than Western Australia as South Australia has never had even a NRC side to get behind, I'd be curious about how such a combination would fare as a pseudo-national team) PS: Keep the Western Force (if they go, there goes our example of what could have been a model for South Australia to follow, as a predominately AFL state developing a rugby culture & the Force could also have a potential ally in South Australians, as most self-respecting South Australian people would never support a Victorian team & the Reds & Waratahs are the worst symptoms of the elitist "A"RU, the Brumbies may potentially see support from South Australians as a relative underdog fighting against the ARU system which should be in a hospice of all places) PPS: Go Piru (fight the good fight in the name of Rugby Union west of the eastern seaboard!)

This may sound traitorous, but I would be asking the ARU especially; Why should I support the Wallabies/Wallaroos & any underage national teams? (As a South Australian, it feels like that I would support anyone who plays against them because: a) where's OUR REPRESENTATION as South Australians in the NRC? Why should be continually excluded from what should be our "national" competition? & b) what has the ARU done for South Australia since the 2003 Rugby World Cup? ONE PACIFIC ISLANDS TEST IN 2004 & NOTHING SINCE THEN (no representation in the NRC or the previous ARC c.2007 or any Wallabies/Wallaroos or any underage national team game since then). Hell, the Western Force at least played against a South Australian XV around 2011 & ONE NRC match as a nominal home game for the Perth Spirit at Thebarton Oval in 2014 (not much, but somehow more than the ERU has done for South Australia, how come this lack of representation or even NRC matches since then PS: why have the Fiji Warriors in what is supposed to be our national competition when there is NO SOUTH AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION (or Tasmania/NT)

I'm amazed people honestly think Rugby Union needs gimmicks for a fix. On the one hand, you say it's a game of immense substance. Next minute, it needs horse racing colours gimmicks to draw crowds?!? That’s fine, but if the game has genuine substance, why the need for gimmicks? Regarding the rugby death knell, maybe I see things differently, but I think when Rugby turned professional in 1995, here in Australia, the seeds of downturn were sown right there, and now with the benefit of hindsight, we lost the war entirely right then, and we’re now seeing those somewhat permanent results.   Once professionalism began, nations all charged toward monster-sized bodies for gain line rugby.. most countries pilfered what they could from all over the place, often from the Polynesian Islands, and in Australia, esteemed private schools threw full scholarships at hundreds of gargantuan kids no matter where they were from - just as long as they were huge, to come and demolish other schools in their Rugby comps. What child would ever say no to that gold nugget? Of course some then go on to feed into the Wallabies - awesome. But the trouble is that 90% of the weedy little school kids (still the huge majority here) see the enormous pros playing now, and make ZERO connection to them anymore, because there’s no chance they could ever be that player - how can they see themselves in that role when they know it’s a physical impossibility? Kids used to be inspired by watching little guys like Tim Horan, Michael Lynagh and George Gregan and think “that could be me!”, but I don’t think the majority see that anymore in today’s modern giants. So meanwhile, over in the round ball code, Australian Football's Golden Generation qualifies for the 2006 World Cup and sends the entire nation into an insane frenzy, which continues to this day - the fork in the road that sent a generation of small kids incapable of playing giant Rugby scurrying off to play the gentle roundball game. Every kid these days wants to be Ronaldo or Messi, because they see their body image in them - no reason they can’t be just like them - relatable. Plus, they’re genuine global phenomenons - superstars famous and worth billions - adored by everyone around the world, overtly talented and never seriously threatened by injury. So Mums and Dads jump all over football too, as their kids have no injury worries from monster sized kids crushing the spine out of their regular-sized kids in Rugby. The professional era was always going to happen, but let’s be honest. While 130kg professional Rugby giants smash into each other, there won’t be any little 40kg school kids lining up for junior Rugby anytime soon, when they can instantly relate to a 65kg, 5 foot 6 inches tall Lionel Messi, or a 70kg 6 foot tall athletic Christiano Ronaldo? Football is an everyman sport - Rugby's not anymore. My guess is that now that Aus Rugby presents its core professional product (i.e. The gigantic Wallabies) to the viewing public, the only Aussie kids who will be inspired to sign up to that greatness are the already-enormous giant kids who have a chance of relating to it.. and that’s still a HUGE minority here - so therefore, a mirror of Rugby’s present, and future - just a minority with no grass roots growth. I figure your kids reap what you sow. I don’t think gimmicks are powerful enough to change that professional era reality too much here in Australia. Hopefully I'm wrong though. Go the Wallabies.

That was basically a due diligence thing... and said offer was rejected immediately. That $4.75M number that was being floated around is a long way off the mark... especially after Clyne's "we knew from the start it wasn't going to work" comments. Cox has the upper hand on the ARU and I expect he's a good chance to sue them regardless of the outcome for the lost income through the ARU's woeful orchestration of this whole thing on top of the fact that they deliberately withheld pertinent information regarding the licence when they sold it.

'So I can’t even see how weakening GPS teams improves anything for anybody.' They are already doing that themselves. Something has to be done as in Sydney there are only 5 of the 9 GPS schools competing in the 1st XV competition. Scots put on 101 points against Newington and it made the press with several high profile Rugby people stating that the competition has got a problem. I don't think the GPS rep team even play the CHS equivalent these days.

'I was unaware that Scholarships are on offer to any rugby player whatsoever' The Sydney schools were supposed to have stop doing that. Recruiting from other GPS schools was another thing.

I think that is a fair view that this year's August to October comps will be opportunities for players to push for higher honours in next year's Super squads. Oz only has the 8 teams at this level today and don't think we are anywhere near expanding on this - they are quite disparate in quality at the moment with three of them being extended Super squads (WA, VIC and ACT) while NSW have three sides and Qld two. I think the connection to the Super teams needs to be broken a little and that is what Sheek is driving to - ensure we have the best quality NRC sides we can support connecting to local club competitions - get the support and the feed processes tribal at this level. And then split the talent above that across four Super teams based in the larger population centres.

i think if u look at timing on a calendar it may seem as super rugger is first and then mitre 10 is next but , the way i see it it is mitre 10 that comes first overlapping two years for a 12 mnth period. it is only after mitre 10 is over or at the fag end that super rugger squads for the next season are announced ( i think) . basically the way i see it in NZ, the players who do well at mitre 10 get contracted to super rugger . it is those who do not that either goto other countries or to Europe. also in Nz super teams, the more prominent players are contracted for long duration , while some are contracted for short . also there are quite a few who do not get contracted even tho experienced. best eg is Shaun Treeby of Wellingon , who was not contracted by NZ but was taken in recently ( due to injuries) by Stormers. another case is Whetu douglas , who had a short term contract with Crusaaders and a long term one with a euro culb. for me in an ideal world NZ and OZ will create a trans-tournament with around 24 teams combining mitre 10 and OZ equivalent . then they will create 3 tiers of 8 each with relegation promotion of 2. each team will play others in the tier on home-away basis ( 14 matches per season) . in about 3-4 years the best teams will get sorted into the first tie, if all goes well. but this will never happen. :)

Hi mate - just checked Mitre 10 runs post Super Rugby just as the NRC does. Super Rugby - 23/2 to 5/8 Mitre 10 - 17/8 to 27/10 If it is good enough for NZ I think in this case it should be good enough for us. Ideally I think you would have the NRC/Mitre 10 run prior to Super but the fact these comps condense club players with the professionals that are not in the national set up means the timing is correctly set. I think the key as Sheek is pointing at is to get the NRC connecting at a tribal level and let Super Rugby be a bit of a big bash event with four manufactured teams in the biggest population centres. I think there is then room for a three way Origin style series for players that originated from NSW, QLD and Rest of Oz based on where they played their first rugby.

I guess it is that fine line between elitist and exclusionist. Shute Shield, Schoolboys, etc are certainly elitist as you say, as are Super Rugby, the Wallabies and others...they're even openly designated as elite competitions. But the issues start if the "elite" is perceived as being based on anything but merit. You only have to look anywhere on the Roar to see that, and the genuine angst at perceptions that the Shute Shield acts as a privileged but closed shop, that Super Rugby is distorted by the funding model, that Wallabies selection might depend on what colour SR jersey is worn, etc, etc. And in this case, that the GPS acts as a closed shop favouring those with money over talent. There is likely some element of truth to it, and the heavy sponsorship of Schoolboys by the ARU does seem to institutionalise it. There would probably be a lot less issue if the schools did act to condense and sponsor talent, with every player being a scholarship based on ability. But that probably isn't the case, and there likely are a lot of players slipstreaming along getting opportunities that they perhaps wouldn't otherwise merit solely on individual talent. And to be honest I doubt restructuring would completely change that perception - it wouldn't change the basic economics of the situation, but would perhaps help by getting rid of the closed shop and opening it up to competition from outside. But the reality is that the preconception is probably so deeply ingrained it is not likely to change anytime soon, not least because it suits too many peoples agendas. Realistically, I think the only way the ARU could ever really address it would be to marginalise it, moving away from schools and confirming the age grades as the primary pathway. Perhaps that will come if the NRC can solidify its place in the system.

But what is not being elitist going to do? Everything is elitist. Shute Shield grade is elitist. It only is available to those who are good enough. NSW Schoolboys is elitist. It's only available to those who are good enough. The opportunity to play NCAA basketball in the USA is only open to people who are good enough to get a scholarship, or can afford to attend a school and try out. Is that a problem? When we are talking about a system that recruits the top players, how is it a problem that it's elitist? The only way to remove elitism is to reduce the quality. And that's not going to help anything.

What started the subthread was the sense that GPS is elitist. So I assume addressing that is what we are trying to achieve, and what the ARU/NSWRU could do. Mucking around with the schools comp is certainly something that could be done, and has been in the past. Never really thought about it much myself, but if they went down that path I'd probably go with grading rather than zoning. I imagine the GPS would largely become the top grade, but the important thing would be that it was a single competition. Might help - create the mechanism and the opportunity for others to be included on merit, rather than have a closed shop. It certainly would be a means of compelling change, if they felt strongly enough about it. Would hardly say it would completely compromise Aus Schoolboys - it might affect the NSW contribution, but only if the GPS schools did feel so strongly about maintaining a separate comp that they were prepared to flip the bird at Schoolboys. In which case it would perhaps be a fight worth provoking, because that does reek of elitism and really isn't helpful. Would be interested to know the real numbers though, when you are saying it is 80% of the best players and Steve positing 15% of registered age players. Can only hope the money is being best spent, as it is a lot in the context of community/club rugby. Most sports that is where the real pathway lies, schools are just where you recruit players.

Sure, if they were willing to completely compromise the Aus Schoolboys program they could try. If 80% of the best players go to GPS schools what will Aus Schoolboys be without them? I'm willing to bet that these players would still be looked upon more favourably with clubs and professional recruiters because they are better footballers in 80% of cases. Because they don't do something that you can't even guarantee doesn't make things worse, doesn't mean they don't care about it. What are we trying to achieve with this anyway? Would schoolboy rugby development be better if we took that 80% and spread them wider? I don't know about you but I consider condensing talent and playing better quality teams to be better for development. So I can't even see how weakening GPS teams improves anything for anybody.

Well, they certainly do control the NSWRU. If they wanted, I suppose they could mandate a new schools competition structure in NSW, all schools invited, but only participating teams eligible for Waratah Shield and only players in Waratah Shield eligible for Aus Schoolboys. If they could be bothered or were unhappy with the status quo. My guess is they don't care.

Not very handy if you live in Coffs Harbour.

Something like that sounds like it's down the right track and can actually enable it to get to new viewers.

You would need a greater audience than Super Rugby currently reaches to make it a feasible option though. To meet half the current deal and assuming the Rugby Championship maintains the other half you'd need to get close to 500,000 people paying about $10 a month to match the TV money. That's just revenue, not considering costs and actual profit. To make $5M from the NRC you would need over 100,000 people paying $40 a season. I don't think the numbers and interest is there.

Besides the News Ltd ex owners of Storm are paying the new Storm owners to keep the club going and hoping the State govts will buy in so maybe the ARU are hoping for the same deal but it will still be a 15 team Super Rugby competition

Well I'm sure increasing something casuals complain about (too many penalties) should help us avert crisis!