Rugby's third tier in the pipeline, based on nine universities

Rugby's third tier in the pipeline, based on nine universities

• by: Wayne Smith
• From:The Australian
• January 26, 201312:00AM

AUSTRALIAN rugby's long-awaited third-tier competition may be in the pipeline, with the Rugby Union Players Association actively promoting a national under-23 competition based around nine major universities.

The proposed inter-varsity competition would not only serve to restore the "third tier" to bridge the gap between club football and Super Rugby - a bridge torn down in 2008 with the abandonment of the Australian Rugby Championship - but would be a major step in bringing universities into the sporting mainstream in this county, akin to the role they play in US sport.
RUPA chief executive Greg Harris, the architect of the proposed competition, has briefed the ARU board on the idea at the invitation of chairman Michael Hawker, and has been doing the rounds of the major stakeholders, particularly the Super Rugby franchises and the Premier Rugby clubs, in recent weeks garnering support for it.

Incoming ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said yesterday he would meet with Harris next week to discuss the plan in detail. The ARU itself is currently conducting a review of Premier (club) Rugby that might well make its own recommendations about what form the third tier might take and it may well be a different model is chosen.
"The third tier is on the agenda for review this year," said Pulver, wisely not committing to any particular model before he formally begins with the ARU at the start of next month.
Harris is concerned only that the ARU finally mobilises to put in place a stepping stone competition that not only will bolster Australian rugby in the same way the Currie Cup does South African rugby, but also give the code a fighting chance to hold players currently being siphoned off by the AFL and NRL and possibly even entice some of the spillover talent from those codes to give rugby a try.
"It's not RUPA's responsibility to put this sort of thing into place but we'd hope the ARU would seriously look at it," Harris told The Weekend Australian yesterday. "We're not saying you have to do it this way but here's an idea worth pursuing."
It's an idea Australian University Sports Limited chief executive Don Knapp yesterday described as "groundbreaking" and one that, if implemented next year as Harris hopes, could serve as a model for other sports currently investigating how to link Australian universities into their national high-performance pathways.
"I think it is the right model and I think it could work," said Knapp. "We'll continue to canvass universities to gauge support. We have around one million students in our universities, 200,000 of whom are actively in some sport and an idea like this has great potential for dual career education."
Although there are some exceptions, like the University of Melbourne with rowing and Sydney Uni in rugby, Australia's universities generally haven't embraced serious sport even to the degree of Britain, let alone the US where inter-college competition in football, basketball, swimming, track and field and a host of Olympic sports forms an integral part of the sporting landscape.
The RUPA proposal has the potential to change all that, according to Knapp, although no formal approaches will be made to tertiary institutions until the ARU has given the plan the go-ahead.
It advocates an 18-week national inter-varsity rugby competition based on nine universities - three each in Sydney and Brisbane supplemented by a university in Melbourne, Canberra and Perth with each side having 25 contracted players. The bulk of their squads would be made up of players currently in the two national academies and the five Super Rugby franchises' academies, supplemented by players from the local club competitions.
The Waratahs, Western Force, Brumbies, Reds and Rebels each would enter into licencing agreements with the universities to use their attached varsity sides as feeder academies that would offer players educational opportunities as likely as not on scholarships.
The major benefit for the universities, apart from dramatically raising branding and other commercial opportunities, is that their underutilised training grounds and facilities would be put to better use, while the universities and their students would have ready access to a semi-professional sporting organisation across a range of disciplines.
Without doubt, the prime example of a Super Rugby franchise working hand-in-hand with a tertiary institution is the Brumbies' partnership with their major naming rights sponsor, the University of Canberra.
An already tight bond will become even closer next year when the Brumbies plan to relocate their entire operation to a $15-20 million sports hub on campus. Units of the university's biomechanical and physiology departments actually will be integrated into the gymnasium the Brumbies will use.
Nonetheless, Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan, who has had preliminary discussions with Harris, was not prepared yesterday to give unequivocal support to the RUPA proposal.
"For obvious reasons, it's of great interest to us and we're looking forward to getting more detail," said Fagan. "We're interested in any form of third-tier competition that will develop the pathways into Super Rugby and the Wallabies but it's a case of what falls within the funding capacity of the ARU. If the best model turns out to be the universities-based one, then we're all for it."
The sticking point will be the fear of the other Premier Rugby clubs that the current Sydney and Brisbane premiers, Sydney University and the University of Queensland, will grow even more powerful because the best footballers with aspirations of playing professional rugby will gravitate towards them.
Whether those fears ultimately scuttle the plan remains to be seen. Certainly when the ill-fated ARC was set up in 2007, the then ARU chief executive Gary Flowers worked on a "one size fits none" policy by ensuring all clubs were equally disadvantaged by creating entirely new entities based on none of the existing clubs.
The ARC Flowers created fulfilled every rugby function, showcasing the skills of such relative unknowns at the time as Will Genia, Kurtley Beale and David Pocock. But, following his departure, the competition's budget blew out badly, primarily because of overspends on travel and accommodation, and it became expedient to kill it off.
Many critics believe the current malaise around Australian rugby - and in particular the performance of the Wallabies - can be traced back to that decision to abandon the ARC and the lag in player development resulting from it.
Harris has addressed the reservations of the clubs by proposing that clubs align themselves with the nearest competing university - a Sunnybank-Griffith University partnership, for instance, would provide a natural fit - and by also recommending that a formal six-week Australian Club Championship immediately follow the National Universities competition.
The clubs initially would compete within their own cities before two clubs from Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra would head to the knockout stage to be joined from the top club from Melbourne and Perth.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...-1226562214147

It feels like people scribble these on the backs of napkins in bars sometimes.

Yes, I can see UWA being the only rugby club in the local comp ...

And in the same scenario, I very much doubt that Adelaide uni will get a spot in that competition
Posted via Mobile Device

At least it's a start,it's an extremely fucked idea but a it's a start

It's not really that bad an idea. The problem here is people associated to clubs other than UWA, assuming UWA would be the WA Uni chosen, will get the shits on. But the idea is to develop young players and develop the overall game. We should embrace and support whatever idea is finally reached. It's about rugby.

Maybe it would help if you Go The Goat?

:)

Greg Harris, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It isn't too bad an idea but again if the ARU is going to be serious about this they need to lock into a minimum 10-15 year commitment and not expect miracles in the first couple of seasons! If this new competition is to be a success it will need to loose money for probably the first 3-5 years, this is something the ARU will have to accept and be realistic about.
As for the Melbourne and Perth teams, it will be very difficult for these clubs to compete on the same level as say SU, UQ and UC. They already have huge depth in their talent pools and attract great players from an early age.
Additionally the local competition teams are going to have to band together and utilise the university teams as development. They need to understand that these teams are outside their local competition and can only provide better players from their local competitions. In this respect the ARU will need to have tight regulation to ensure that the university teams, particularly SU, UQ and CU, do not use this competition to better their domination of local competition. They should be required to pick the best players from all local teams to make their rosters and ensure that these players cannot be poached by the universities once their time in the competition has come to and end. This will ensure the best outcome for the local clubs and the provincial clubs. This is a similar idea to what I was involved in when I was 19-20 and part of the NTIS Rugby team. We as a team were part of the Premier Grade in Darwin, but because there was an odd number of teams with our inclusion we could play for our other team when we were on our bye week. This was because we were actual signed players for these Darwin teams, who had an agreement with the NTIS to develop players. Unfortunately it didn't last but the idea did work I feel.
This all being said their also needs to be some emphasis on developing the game outside the major rugby states/territories (NSW,QLD and ACT). Luckily for Perth and Melbourne they have Super Rugby franchises now and growing their talent bases. This of course is not the case for the NT, SA or Tasmania (possibly the nothern parts of QLD and WA as well). It could only be beneficial if a scholarship system is put in place for these other states and territories to produce the hidden talent available.
As for joining with with universities, this can only be a good thing for the franchises and the educational institutions. The franchises will be able to offer opportunities to the universities and the universities will be able to provide their technical expertise in may varied fields.
This all being said there would have to be a massive advertising campaign to get this out to the wider community, not just the rugby community. Can't be a bad idea to get more people involved! The ARU will also need to lock down details of player contracting to ensure the universities already in local competitions don't use this new format to bolster their dominance in the local competitions. Finally they need to create a development stream for the non-franchised states and territories to find possible talent that could be lurking else where in this wide country. We need a second tier competition but it needs to be supported 100% by the ARU no exceptions.

Oh Gods, where do I start?

Yes, college sports in America are successful and most (say 90-95%) of the college athletes aren't guys who could get into college any other way. But they are only at college in a loose sense - many colleges turn a blind eye to academical achievement in order to achieve success on the sports field. In effect they are no longer college teams, just teams of kids who are the same age as most students. However, they stay affiliated to the college because of:
a) tradition (they grew out of college sports teams).
b) support (a large, captive supporter base of current and former college students).
c) affiliation (the codes controlling the college sports won't allow non-college affiliated teams in).

This 3rd tier comp has no tradition to follow and can set up teams wherever they like and/or would get the best support. But they need to build a supporter base, and why would parachuting a team into a university give you that support base? Would Curtin or Murdoch students follow a team called UWA? Would Neddies, Soaks, Rocky fans necessarily follow them, either? As some (most?) universities have rugby clubs in local competition, why even risk confusion and conflict by promoting only universities for the 3rd tier?

How will the universities feel about this? I presume the ARU have already consulted them if the ARU are at the point of consulting with the RUPA. If the ARU sold the universities on the idea of American college football, where are the universities' 30,000 seat stadiums required to make the team financially viable? What about limits on playing years? College sports allow only 4-5 years eligibility. Is that going to be carried over into our 3rd tier comp, too?

Actually, I see no problem with linking the 3rd tier competition to universities, in order to reduce costs through the renting of already existing sports facilities, access to, eg, medicine and psychology departments, and again, large potential support bases, but don't call the teams after the universities, because that opens up a can of worms in potential political in-fighting for essentially no gain.

Sheikh, your last paragraph is the one that gets to the nub of the issue. This is a poorly disguised attempt by the ARU to get somebody else to pay for their third tier.

Universities aren't as rich as they seem in the current day and age and I can't believe they will be sold any tripe about American College sports.....there just isn't the revenue for it in Australia.

Further to that, what happens to players who are older than 23, but still reasonable prospects for inclusion in super rugby? That style of player is ideal for stocking a third tier and excluding them will only weaken the talent pool and make the competition less effective.

The short story is, unless the ARU listen to uni pirate and start to commit some ACTUAL funds to player development, they will continue to run third in the southern hemisphere pack.

Fund academies in a mode which the teams can utilize, generate a range of competitive opportunities for the best players of every stripe (age, ethnicity, location etc) to play rugby REGULARLY at the highest level possible and actively seek opportunities to improve the skills and attitudes of developing players.......without keeping an eye on the balance sheet. Make it a budgeted item in the next financial plan.

Invest in our future, or let the Saffers and Kiwis decide it for us!

Rather than blowing money on 'the first few inevitably money losing seasons' of whatever 3rd-tier model someone hastily cobbles together, why not invest some upfront for market research, stakeholder engagement or whatever is needed to come up with a sustainable and effective competition? It often seems that people just want to latch on to whatever anyone comes up.

...or, actually learn a lesson from the last time 'round where the only teams that broke even were those associated with a single Super team. So, have one team each in Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth, separate from the Super team but effectively operating as their seconds team incorporating players outside the game day squad, U20s, academy and best prospects from the clubs. Then add West Sydney and the Gold Coast as the two prospects for eventual Super expansion, 'cos if they can't do an ARC team they definitely couldn't manage a Super team. Then one from Adelaide, but on a sink-or-swim basis without any of the loans that sunk the first try.

Why couldn't the powers that be come up with a model based on AndyS's idea .Nice and simple and a true reflection of the competing states best available players.Wasn't too difficult was it.The Sydney power brokers would never run with the uni thing anyway

Isn't the most simple solution still the best starting option? Play a ''Reserve Grade'' fixture before each conference match. The concept could even be extended to play further fixtures during the international fixtures if that will work. I'm pretty sure there'd be sufficient hard core supporters to pay at the gate and help cover expenses. The fixtures might even be viable if played at suburban grounds.

Use the funding saved, compared to the wastage of the original ARC, to fund academies in each Franchise.

If that's not a better starting point than some cobbled together pipedream, can someone point out why?