Young Players and the draft system

In the BBC today...

Jon CALLARD wants there to be a draft system involving the U20's players to get them playing more first team premiership rugby, similar to what is seen in US sport.

for those who arent familiar with the draft system basically all the young players are put into a big pot and distributed to the top clubs. the team who came bottom of the league would get first pick of the players and the team who won the title would get the last pick. in theory that way the best players go to the worst clubs and so forth and so on. This has the effect of long term keeping the playing field fairly level and maintaining a conveyor belt of players coming through.

Whilst is practice its a good idea but I personally cannot see how that would work in its pure form for rugby here in England. The risk of the best players going to the worst teams may see our best young talent get relegated out of the the premiership anyway and it would run the academy system obsolete. College sport is the academies in USA so I would imagine a complete redesign into university sport/ regional academies would be the only way forward. I doubt Sarries would like to see their stunning up and coming 19 year old world beater pop up to sale after spending years developing them.

Other problems would include the salaries of the players, Sarries for instance would be able to pay mega bucks because they ignore the salary cap whilst other clubs would not be able to give the good money required.

In my opinion it is easier to make it young as a back rather then a forward. Purely in terms of physically developing. therefore young forwards will be at a disadvantage.

obviously a draft system would need a tweak here and there to make it work in the world of rugby. what do you all think?

No thanks.

1) The draft is an idea to keep it level...so no team can really dominate. Why do we need those restirctions in rugby. Let the best teams with the best academies be at the top. If you want to be at the top then sort your academy out...get good management and structure as say Exeter have done.

2) If my club has spent time and money developing a load of youngsters only to see them taken of us and shipped to a potential rival...im hardly gonna be motivated to continue proudcing the youngsters.

3) What happens when you have a quality youngster whos been produced by Leicester (and the kids school) who then goes to say London Welsh or Sale? Where is he gonna fulfill his potential...im not sure its at London Welsh...or Sale..etc

I think its a great idea. It would obviously require ringfencing the Premiership, which wouldn't be a bad idea in itself. You could then separate the academy structure from the clubs, with it being run directly by the RFU.

Levelling out the league would be a great benefit as well. The "Best teams with the best academies" aren't the ones at the top, at least not consistently, its the teams with money. It has become too easy for clubs with teams with rich foreign backers to buy the league. A more competitive league, with ringfencing, a proper salary cap that every club can spend to, and a draft would be more exciting, and allow the RFU to grow the game, and bring in more casual fans and people not from rugby backgrounds.

Its that exact process, along with an uncompromising commitment to making the sport as TV friendly as possible, which took the NFL from a relatively minor sport in the 1950's to the most popular sport in the US today.

The "Best teams with the best academies" aren't the ones at the top, at least not consistently, its the teams with money.

I would say Leicester, Saints, Sarries and Quins (the top at the moment) are producing more top level players than the rest of the premiership teams.

Using the draft system penalises them. So in future why bother spending money etc doing so...this increases the likely hood that teams with money will just buy the top players.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

The "Best teams with the best academies" aren't the ones at the top, at least not consistently, its the teams with money.

I would say Leicester, Saints, Sarries and Quins (the top at the moment) are producing more top level players than the rest of the premiership teams.

Using the draft system penalises them. So in future why bother spending money etc doing so...this increases the likely hood that teams with money will just buy the top players.

Exactly. There is this perception that Saracens in particular are just money men/South Africans but nope - our academy is very good.

Saracens U18s have beaten both those of Quins U18s and Wasps U18s recently. The former was particularly convincing.


I like the idea in theory but in practice I don't think it would work. Players like Rory Clegg,Alex Gray and Jamie George could do with a move but surely it's up to them?

The problem with premiership is that the direction is always dictated by the strongest clubs, without consideration for the weaker ones. ( at least, thats what I think as an LI fan!).

I don't see that the current system can continue long term. There is a growing gap between the have's and the have-nots which will end up causing trouble if it isn't addressed. A focus on improving the popularity of the game across England would have benefits for every club in the league, and would be an improvement on the short sighted system we have at the moment.

The issue with club academies is that, for a club with little money, they divert resources away from getting results on the pitch and expanding the fanbase to bring in more supporters. Also, as LI are finding this season, its very difficult to hold on to your top academy prospects anyway, as they all leave for big contracts elsewhere. I don't agree that the clubs you mention are producing more talent necessarily, its just that they've got the resources they need to keep hold of them. If you separate the academy system from the clubs, so that no young player is such-and-such club's prospect, you could allow players to develop better, allow teams to concentrate on growth and expansion, and eventually allow those young players to go to a professional team that they fit into, rather than just the one who run the academy for the region that they come from.

Mawhis Tigers have only been the consistent top club. The rest have gone up and down.

Quins and Saints got relegated and bounced back with interest!

Wasps have shown in one season you go from zeroes to heroes. Just narrowly avoiding relegation to being a decent contender for a playoff spot is decent.

Gloucester are a contender for a playoff spot again.

Bath are showing that throwing money at players such as Donald doesn't make them perform. If they spend their money more wisely they could do better.

As harsh as it sounds I think LI only have themselves to blame. Same with Sale. If LI were performing there would be less incentive to move.

Exeter have shown that Quins,Leicester and Saracens are all beatable.

Plus the top 4 sides generally get more international call ups which makes it easier for the sides lower down the table.

I think the system is absolutely fine.

My only concern is that the RFU need to have a word with some of these young Kids advisors...and maybe look at increasing loan deals.

From us...recently we have lost Alex Gray to LI..Rory Clegg to QUins, Rob Miller to Sale..etc etc. Now they all left to go sit and get spelks...when had they been advised correctly they should have stayed for another couple of years, got regular gametime and developed nicely. No draft system would have changed that.

George Ford has also been advised wrongly in my opinion.

Now others such as Jaime George at Sarries would have benefitted from a loan to say us. We desperately need a quality hooker...and he desperately needs gametime. A year in the champs with us (and Deano) would have been a dream deal for him and us.

I just dont buy into the idea that a draft system will be of any benefit...

Just want to point out on the Academy structures...

Sarries academy is ok, but for 3 years running the Dragons U18's have beaten them comfortably. They tend to develop conditioned momnsters but very little rugby excellence is seen IMHO!
Similar to a few other English academies Ive seen play each other and their welsh counterparts.

But the point is if a draft system were to be set up the schools and colleges would have to take control of junior development!!!
Which would be great because then we can get rid of all the dads who think they're managing a prem team when they are helping the U13's!!!

...the difference being that NFL has an audience base where even college games can fill 100,000 seater stadia week-in, week-out. Rugby could only aspire to that over decades, when the current challenge is just to get consistently profitable teams.

I can see both sides of the argument. The PRL already has several measures in place that are similar to the NFL (which is actually very "socialist" by US standards with multiple measures to keep the teams on a level playing field) - the salary cap and revenue sharing/smoothing arrangements are all designed to keep the league as a whole competitive while containing the owners' expenditure. A draft system would be a logical extension of that, and would help to ensure both that good young players got game time and that the teams stayed competitive.

However, it would mean major upheaval to the current structure. You would probably have to ringfence the PRL, and so lose promotion and relegation (or ringfence the AP and Championship, but that may not be feasible today). Clubs wouldn't want to invest in academies if they might not get the benefit, so they'd have to be taken over by someone independent (either a "neutral" PRL body or the RFU itself - either of which could get very political). And then you'd have the issue of how to ensure game time while the players are in the academies. Would they loan players out to clubs or would clubs have provisional ownership of players for a period?

The biggest issue in my mind is that for clubs that have invested in their academies and have a proper player development pipeline it would totally disrupt what they're trying to do. As far as I can see, Quins have a plan for their squad that extends over several years and have tailored their academy squad to focus on the right positions at the right time, to the extent that (for example) they were quite happy to let Joe Launchbury go in order to hang on to players like Rob Buchanan, Luke Wallace and Charlie Matthews who filled gaps in the long-term squad structure. They also can't be accused of not giving young players game time - players like Joe Marler and George Lowe (who's played 91 times for Quins at the age of 23) have been given their chance and displaced far more experienced players (Ceri Jones and Gonzalo Tiesi respectively).

They've also spent years cultivating a group of players with a similar outlook on rugby and who know each other so well that they can play together in a style that's very hard to copy. A draft system would completely undermine that, so on balance I am against it.

IMO this would only lead to a ring fencing of the Aviva, even the extra bench places for under 21 players, isn't a good idea, the Pem is the top of the pyrmid and is'nt there to give game time to young players unnessarally.

It may be a good idea but in practise wouldn't really work, why spend time developing young players only to see them drafted to your rivals?

I could see maybe a draft system introduced in Wales, if the WRU ran a central acamady, taking the cream of the regional acamadies at under 18 level and developing them centrally, this Central acamady run with the regions own acadamies, could possibly work. But anything like this destroys the bound with a Club/team/region/province.

Poor

NFL games don't get 100'000 week in week out, college games are attended by freinds and familys who are very loyal, and generally college teams fill a stand or so, I'd estimate at abou 5k per game.

Clubs don't own these boys, they are just local kids until the very few make the academy set up.

IMO you could perform the draft at 18, and the kids would have only played for their school/college (enticing more kids into college who wouldn't go) the clubs would have invested nothing but the best part, rugby inclusion in every school/college in England, probably doubling current numbers, designated and quality coaching from the off, and higher quality players.

You make a good point regarding kids who play with each other regularly, they develop this 'ship it on to jonny' mentality IMO and never develop all round games. In NZ kids chop and change teams and therefore develop playing skills at junior level opposed to tactical skills that the coach and the boys use to win games!! How many fat kids score 30 tries at 11 and o at 15, not to mention get recked week in week out. How many boys play 12, and get the ball every play before running 30 yards around the defence and 60 yards to score?!?!?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Poor

college games are attended by freinds and familys who are very loyal, and generally college teams fill a stand or so, I'd estimate at abou 5k per game.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Michigan, Penn State and Alabama college stadiums all hold in excess of 100k fans. The southeastern conference makes about $1 billion annually from college football.

for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_stadiums

Regionalisation by the back door. You have dual reg for youngsters to get game time if not involved with match day squad.

I have a few issues with any draft system.

Firstly the U20's don't all go on to become great players. To use 2 Bath examples Ryan Davies and James Scaysbrook were both very good at U20 level but haven't featured for the full XV. I'm not sure if they had gone to another club whether they would have suddenly become Carter and McCaw.

Secondly and more importantly, if say Exeter went down to Ivybridge, liked what they saw and offered a youngster an academy contract, why should say Sale be just handed that player? Clubs would then scout players, and not sign them until after they missed the U20's cut off to avoid losing them.

Loans should be more prevelant I agree though, players will learn more playing than just going to the gym but never getting the boots on.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Clubs don't own these boys, they are just local kids until the very few make the academy set up.

IMO you could perform the draft at 18, and the kids would have only played for their school/college (enticing more kids into college who wouldn't go) the clubs would have invested nothing but the best part, rugby inclusion in every school/college in England, probably doubling current numbers, designated and quality coaching from the off, and higher quality players.

You make a good point regarding kids who play with each other regularly, they develop this 'ship it on to jonny' mentality IMO and never develop all round games. In NZ kids chop and change teams and therefore develop playing skills at junior level opposed to tactical skills that the coach and the boys use to win games!! How many fat kids score 30 tries at 11 and o at 15, not to mention get recked week in week out. How many boys play 12, and get the ball every play before running 30 yards around the defence and 60 yards to score?!?!?

Blues, I can't speak for other clubs, but have you ever actually watched Harlequins play? They are signing these kids at 16-18 and giving them 4-6 years of learning to play a high-tempo game that relies on varying the point of attack and flooding the channels - i.e. the exact opposite of "ship it on to jonny". It doesn't always work, and the middle-of-winter, forward-driven Plan B is still evolving, but there have been times this year when Quins have been moving the ball so quickly that you (and the opposition) lose track of where it is.

I agree that prior to academy level kids should play lots of different positions (and sports) - and RFU coaches are now taught, for instance, that when introducing the scrum they should form it out of whoever is closest to the ball. But by 16 they are all beginning to specialise, which I think is necessary. As for fat kids, I've been told that several of the props who've come through the Quins Academy were very fat when they were first spotted - but they are now some of the most athletic front rows around.

Whatever they're doing to the Academy lads here, it's producing good players and it's good for rugby, and I don't want to lose that. We've currently got 10 players in the EPS and Saxons, and 8 of them are Academy graduates.

Another major advantage is that it is only really the Americans that play in the NFL were as any player that comes through an English club could quite easily in theory move to France or one of the home nations if he thought it was the best move for them. If the game does grow as most of us want then this will only become a bigger problem and is the reason that this is impossible to implement in football

A daft idea hasn't Exeter the highest number of players in this years U20 which can only be good news for them in a few years

Yes Exeters academy seems to be flying judging by the number of representatives in the age groups.

So many of the Premiership clubs are now reaping the rewards of putting money in to their own academy...and low behold England are also starting to benefit.

And the teams are no longer flooded with costly foreign journeymen!

Most of their young talent are dual registered either playing for the Pirates or Plymouth Albion but return for LV or A team games so get plenty of game time

mawhis wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Poor

college games are attended by freinds and familys who are very loyal, and generally college teams fill a stand or so, I'd estimate at abou 5k per game.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Michigan, Penn State and Alabama college stadiums all hold in excess of 100k fans. The southeastern conference makes about $1 billion annually from college football.

for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_stadiums

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html#incart_flyout_sports

Attendances fell for College Football in 2012 to "just" 45k per match (regular season excluding finals etc).


The other thing to note about NFL draft is that they are a completely closed market - so not only is there nor relegation, but no internationals either.

mawhis wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Poor

college games are attended by freinds and familys who are very loyal, and generally college teams fill a stand or so, I'd estimate at abou 5k per game.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Michigan, Penn State and Alabama college stadiums all hold in excess of 100k fans. The southeastern conference makes about $1 billion annually from college football.

for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_stadiums

Average attendance for the top level of NCAA competitions is 46,000

http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/files/2011+Football+Attendance.pdf

Even the next tiers down has 10000, 4000 and 2000 on average.

The NFL draft only works because of the vast breeding ground in college football. There is no equivalent in rugby and clubs / regions adopt their own academy systems that are part of their individual investments.

Levelling the premiership doesn't make sense and history tells us what happens when you try to create artificial internal markets that create the illusion of competition (look no further than the NHS for an example).

For draft read daft !