Academies , to be or not to be ?

[GUBRATS]

Much is currently being discussed as to the contributions various clubs at different levels make to the ' Game ' ?

A large part of this is player production , so lets look at a few numbers , happy to be proven wrong by a reasoned argument

For this argument I'm going to use SL standard players , ie regulars who play the majority of their career in SL

Essentially 10 British SL squads each consisting of 30 players , each player having a 10 year career  , so each year each club needs 3 new players from the British player production

10 current SL academies each year intaking 10 players each [ an academy might well consist of players from 17/18/19 for a total of 30 ] from the community game

These 100 players are the cream of the crop at their age grouping and most likely will sign up with SL clubs rather than non SL clubs [ yes some southern players might stay down south ]

So for a non SL club to set up and run an academy they will most likely be looking to take players 101 to 111 in any given age group , making their potential for success much less likely

So rather than trying to make silk purses from sows ears I suggest the non SL clubs concentrate more on participation levels between 6-16 in their area's , this being set out as cash funding for schools matches and festivals , player and coaching at school and amateur levels , using their place in their communities to broaden the take up and supporting of RL

Some will suggest that clubs already should be doing this , and many already do , but I suggest ' quantifyable ' levels of investement and monitored levels of success , targets set and hopefully achieved

Realistically very few genuine SL quality players are going to come from non SL clubs academies in the norther heartlands , and most non SL clubs in those heart rely on the 70% of players that arent retained from SL academies , nothing wrong with this

[bobbruce]

Can’t see much wrong with that as you say clubs should be doing it anyway. If part of the funding was tied into reaching set targets for each area it would certainly focus minds. Did development officers work before the funding was cut?. Could it be as simple as for their funding league 1 clubs have to employ one development officer the championship teams two. With SL clubs funding 4 with two of those setting up in an expansion area. 

[The Future is League]

For me no academy = no Super League place, so some clubs better start getting into a lot more schools than they do now.

[roughyedspud]

We need more academies...and I'm absolutely fine with joint academies,in fact I encourage it...

Sheffield & Doncaster - south Yorkshire academy

Salford & Leigh - east lancs academy

Oldham,rochdale & swinton - greater Manchester academy..

 

Etc....

[GUBRATS]

11 hours ago, The Future is League said:

For me no academy = no Super League place, so some clubs better start getting into a lot more schools than they do now.

That isnt what I was suggesting , it was non SL clubs I was highlighting

[GeordieSaint]

8 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

We need more academies...and I'm absolutely fine with joint academies,in fact I encourage it...

Sheffield & Doncaster - south Yorkshire academy

Salford & Leigh - east lancs academy

Oldham,rochdale & swinton - greater Manchester academy..

Etc....

That’s great but you need a player base to man the Academies without destroying youth-level community rugby. 

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

We need more academies...and I'm absolutely fine with joint academies,in fact I encourage it...

Sheffield & Doncaster - south Yorkshire academy

Salford & Leigh - east lancs academy

Oldham,rochdale & swinton - greater Manchester academy..

 

Etc....

Why do we need more academies ?

Personally we need more kids playing RL and more people watching RL , that to me is more of an issue for the non SL clubs

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

That’s great but you need a player base to man the Academies without destroying youth-level community rugby.

Which is essentially my initial point , the focus of the non SL clubs being participation from 6 to 16 , although the dark side starts them at 3 now with ' Rugby Tots '

[17 stone giant]

I asked this before but I can't remember on what thread, so I don't know if anyone answered...

When two or more teams share an academy - such as the two Hull clubs - how do they decide which club gets which player?

 

[paulwalker71]

6 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

That’s great but you need a player base to man the Academies without destroying youth-level community rugby. 

It all comes down to participation levels, which are falling away in a worrying fashion

Pretty much the only argument I see against Academies is that it 'destroys the community game'. So the issue is obviously that not enough young people are playing the game

Solve that issue, and there'll be plenty of kids for the community game, with the best ones progressing to Academies.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, 17 stone giant said:

I asked this before but I can't remember on what thread, so I don't know if anyone answered...

When two or more teams share an academy - such as the two Hull clubs - how do they decide which club gets which player?

 

Bit of a dilema

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, paulwalker71 said:

It all comes down to participation levels, which are falling away in a worrying fashion

Pretty much the only argument I see against Academies is that it 'destroys the community game'. So the issue is obviously that not enough young people are playing the game

Solve that issue, and there'll be plenty of kids for the community game, with the best ones progressing to Academies.

My argument

[deluded pom?]

23 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I asked this before but I can't remember on what thread, so I don't know if anyone answered...

When two or more teams share an academy - such as the two Hull clubs - how do they decide which club gets which player?

 

I think the players are already aligned to one team or the other before they join the academy. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

I think the players are already aligned to one team or the other before they join the academy.

Probably from the scholarships

[deluded pom?]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Probably from the scholarships

Yes.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Academies are a solution to the problems the game faces as can be solved when only a few clubs really want to take responsibility for player development.

Under that structure we need as many as possible because that is the only way we do anything to develop players.

Especially under a P+R structure it is necessary for all clubs to have an academy because whilst leaving it to the SL clubs sounds fine in principle, we don't know who the SL clubs will be and as clubs are promoted and relegated the lag between clubs being promoted and them putting in place an embedded pathway means that we end up with an ever decreasing amount of clubs doing the development and as such players being developed.

So it doesnt work to have only x clubs doing the development if there is a carousel of clubs rotating participation in SL because to use the theory expounded in the OP, whilst say Leigh or Fev for instance may be taking players 101-110 when in The championship, if they replace say Widnes or Wakefield in SL and they don't have an embedded pathway already in place, then players maybe 91-100 arent picked up for the period of time between Leigh or Fev being promoted and them getting their academy system and embedded pathway up to speed. As that can easily take 5 years or so that maybe 50+ players missed. For a game that doesnt produce all that many players thats not an acceptable situation. You need to have all clubs with an academy in place in case they replace one of the teams who are producing players.

It wont work leaving youth development to certain clubs because you have a rotation of clubs at the top level.

An alternative solution would require a 'whole game solution' where players are taken from youth to professional RL outside the professional structure. Where it is irrelevant where a club is in the pyramid, a player will receive the necessary development. There are many forms that this could take but it is unlikely to happen because it would prioritise the players development over the club and see a clubs position determine its contribution and benefit from youth development and clubs wont have that.

Right now for many clubs the system 'works' for certain SL clubs they spend the money the take the cream of the crop. For other clubs they save the money and live from the cast offs. The players who fall the cracks nobody gets creating no real downside to each individual club.

 

But in reality , we dont have rotation of clubs at the top level , and that is liable to end fairly soon

[Lowdesert]

43 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Why do we need more academies ?

Personally we need more kids playing RL and more people watching RL , that to me is more of an issue for the non SL clubs

I agree to an extent, but we need all clubs engaging with schools.  SL clubs are more probably better placed as they have more resources.  Not all, I realise.

Schools need assistance and low level competitions.  They don’t need to be weekly, monthly would be fine.  

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I agree to an extent, but we need all clubs engaging with schools.  SL clubs are more probably better placed as they have more resources.  Not all, I realise.

Schools need assistance and low level competitions.  They don’t need to be weekly, monthly would be fine.

Yes we do , and they do , my point being the much quoted ' contributing to the game ' being soley SL player production

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But the structure we have in place for now requires that we do. And until it changes thats the system we have to deal with.

It can be done a different way even with that structure but it would require decoupling the development of a player from the professional system.

So you would need, for instance, instead of having an academy at Leeds, Wakefield, Castleford, Wigan, St Helens etc, you set up academies at Oulton, Hunslet Parkside, St Pats, Leigh Miners, Blackbrook, Lock Lane, Pilkington recs etc. So that more players stay in the community game, but also more players go through the academy system.

But that wont happen because Leeds, Wigan, Saints et al want first pick of the best youngsters, and the rest of the game doesnt want to spend what they spend on youth development which is what it would cost.

So you are saying you want the rest of the game to spend the same as leeds,Wigan and Saints to produce the best players for Leeds , Wigan and Saints ?

[Cardypaul]

54 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which is essentially my initial point , the focus of the non SL clubs being participation from 6 to 16 , although the dark side starts them at 3 now with ' Rugby Tots '

Surely increasing participation in 6-16 year olds is a job for all clubs.

Why should non SL clubs put lots of time, effort and money to develop kids so that SL clubs can cream off the best it makes no business sense to clubs.

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, Cardypaul said:

Surely increasing participation in 6-16 year olds is a job for all clubs.

Why should non SL clubs put lots of time, effort and money to develop kids so that SL clubs can cream off the best it makes no business sense to clubs.

It would probably be less money , but more of their time and effort proportionally , but its money they dont have so thats why a different approach is needed , and ultimatley the majority of SL clubs player production ends up at non SL clubs , as I said they have a 30% success rate at best

[GUBRATS]

13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No I want the rest of the game to spend what Leeds, Wigan, and Saints spend to produce the best players for the entire game.

Im suggesting that decoupling the development of pro-players from the professional clubs would mean that Leeds, Wigan and Saints wouldnt have first pick of the best youngsters that they have now but that more players would go through the academy system and more would stay in the community game meaning at a later age they could then be attached to professional clubs giving pro clubs more, better players, spreading them between more teams, but not seeing the 'wastage' we see right now of so many players coming out of the community game but not making it to the pro game.

So as you posted earlier , academies set up at amateur clubs ?

[Cardypaul]

13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Isnt that the reason these clubs exist though? wasnt that the value we were told they have, the reason funding them is money well spent?

No these clubs have existed long before SL and quite successfully winning challenge cups and championships before SL started and left them on the wrong side of the line. Most of these clubs do a lot of community development but they should never be regarded as a tool to be used by SL.

[TboneFromTO]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes, no academies for any pro clubs. Take the funding that clubs should be spending on academies (so as a whole more than is being spent now) and spread it around a selection of top amateur clubs. Pro clubs take the best at 17, the rest stay in the community game where the standard is improved meaning more players playing at a higher level.

This is how most NA sports work.  It's almost always another body that organizes the community game (in Canada one of the biggest youth programs is run by a coffee shop - timbits hockey and soccer)

I like this idea, as it ensures the funding reaches its specified destination.  

 

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes, no academies for any pro clubs. Take the funding that clubs should be spending on academies (so as a whole more than is being spent now) and spread it around a selection of top amateur clubs. Pro clubs take the best at 17, the rest stay in the community game where the standard is improved meaning more players playing at a higher level.

17 is when they join an academy , not leave it

so you mean Super Scholarships , like we have now at some amateur clubs affiliated with SL clubs , so whats the difference ?