World Rugby make amendment to eligibility criteria

Will it magically make me think that Pep, Gatland, and Jones have gotten better with age? What I’ve seen of it so far certainly hasn’t had that effect.

To be clear, are you admitting you’re wrong about Pep?

I’d say Petia is a completely different athlete, and it matters not at all how they perform playing rugby. What positions did they try out for? I don’t think he’s played rugby for well over a year now, can’t remember him in SR last year, but his form fell off a cliff compared to how he played as a youngster, so you haven’t missed out. Obviously still got by on pure ability. It’s very easy to look at the NFL with stary eyes but I’m not really sure how much ‘special’ is needed at all for most positions/players. JP though was very special when he started out, much like how Joseph was last November.

I find data and science the opposite of tedious myself. You’re correlating the wrong thing Graham, it wouldn’t make SA the most exciting team, it would make The Rugby Championship the most exciting comp.

On this topic (for URC viewers) I tried watching some URC this year but it was distinctly unexciting. But then I had a look at the ladder a few weeks ago and saw that there was like half a dozen points separating like 14 teams, which is crazy competitive.

I guess like you said these sorts of things are still going to be fairly subjective, and may change drastically by having some skin in the games. I’d rate JRLO more exciting and perhaps I’d call the Top 14 more entertaining (could be a large part in have Merths on the comms), which might relate to a lot of other factors. In terms of subjectively looking at SRP you’ve got some pertinent factors that I think accurately show a big difference so far.

What do you mean by “these days”?

You couldn’t be more wrong Graham, did you read the article?

They used youth rep selection for locking national elifibilty at one point etc. Then later only counted residency after the age of 18 (make clubs/nations like in this case wait even longer).

That’s what I’m talking about, not changing allegiance in rugby (were it can only be captured by the senior side), where it is still the senior side. Oh yeah, good point about CJ, so in most cases we probably want kids to be able to switch allegiance, were say someone like Lemoto could rep Tonga (if he wasn’t so good) but still play for Australia’s seniors, while in someone like Kite’s (the last aussie kid to go to France) case he’ll be French qualified via 5 years residency at the age of 21, so France to lock him up before Aussie even get a chance to select him. But if we use footballs regulations, who I’m suggesting WR need to get their a into g replicating, he would only start his 5 years once he turns 18 or whatever, meaning 23 yo is as soon as anyone can switch, and when if they’re good enough teams like NZ and Aus can select them (France don’t give a f, they select anybody just to lock them).

I wonder what came first in america? I’m assuming it’s commercial aspect just built overtime and was a side effect essentially.

But the idea is not without merit as a goal. The first step towards being able to implement a draft being be creating it’s source of draftees. Where would you have the players come from? NFL uses college, and players of an age around 22 are generally able to step straight into the NFL. Baseball uses School and kids (obviously nowhere near pro level being 3/4 years younger) are sent to minor league clubs for a few years, the equivalent of the Super Rugby academies. I don’t think the latter is possible legally, and probably the most unethical and pointless, so do we create a University scene that builds on and up from the School scene? There is a lot of merit in that and it would tie in much better with our future partners in Japan and America.

Can we used the club scene and dispose of the Super Rugby academies? The benefit of this is that players have no association to their Super side, ie theyre not being drafted elshwere after spending time as a Blues or Chiefs player etc, it removes the negative of investing in a player just to benefit another club. The disadvantage of course is that now the players have nowhere near the quality of coaching and each countries U20s results will suffer (supposedly).

Or are we just doing something really dirty and making a rule that the only players under the age of 22 (that can sign a pro contract..) that a Super side can contract are those that come from the draft? Any player wanting to upgrade from an academy to full contract has to opt into the draft?

You’ve got the perfect structure to run your 1A and 1B on a quota of club representation by Province. Have some balance/reward system in place to promote and reward competitiveness/excellence. Say each bracket has 12 teams, each province 3 spots, given the Irish Shield winner once of the bottom ranked provinces spots, so the twelve teams that make up 1A are 4 from Leinster, 3 each from Connacht and Munster, and 2 from Ulster etc. Run the same rule over 1B from the 1A reults/winner/bottom team etc. I’d imagine IRFU would want to keep participation to at least two teams from any one province but if not, and there was reason for more flexibility and competitveness, you can simply have other ways to change the numbers, like caps won by each province for the year prior or something.

Then give those clubs sides much bigger incentive to up their game, say instead of using the Pro sides for the British and Irish Cup you had going, it’s these best club sides that get to represent Ireland. There is plenty of interest in semi pro club cup competitions in europe that Ireland can invest in or drive their own creation of.