Academies , to be or not to be ?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

All clubs have to contribute more than their own simple existence. Otherwise clubs have no value to the wider game. SL clubs produce far more players for the lower leagues than vice versa. All clubs should be aiming to produce as many player to as high a standard as they can. If they arent then they wont be missed.

 

Which is my initial point , non SL clubs should focus on participation 6-16 , which in turn will result in producing more high quality players , this needs to be expected , monitored and checked

Currently all we are hearing is " academy,academy,academy " like no development is done before this point

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour 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.

Curious. Are you suggesting a Draft System? I may be misreading you.

Would it not be an idea to take a look out of a few pages of the book of the NRL.

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No, I mean academies. The players would become affiliated to pro clubs at 17. Clubs wouldnt have academies. Simply a reserves and a first team.

What im suggesting is that in Leeds, you have so 4 amateur clubs. Lets say Oulton, Hunslet Parkside, East Leeds and Hunslet warriors. The game as whole pays for improvements in facilities, professional coaching, nutrition, S&C training etc for these sides first teams from ages U14 and up. The best players are funneled to these sides on scholarship terms meaning that what 100 young players in Leeds get the benefit of that training and development and of playing at the higher level against the other clubs getting the same help.

So at ages 14, 15, 16, 100 players in Leeds are getting better coaching, nutrition, development, playing in a higher standard game. Then at 17 all the clubs could sign them on pro terms. But instead of each side taking out the 20+ they need to put out an academy side, they take out the 5 or so that would fit in to their squad considering they only have a first team and a reserves.

The late developers would stay at their community club getting better training, coaching, nutrition, development and playing in a higher standard game.

These amateur clubs wouldnt be affiliated to Leeds, they wouldnt be affiliated to any club it would be paid for by every club.

So no academies , just amateur ' Super ' clubs , but in Leeds , but not affiliated to Leeds , so this proffessional coaching coming from where ? , surely nthe best coaches are at the best clubs , so how can they not be ' affiliated ' in some way ?

So who do these 4 ' Super ' amateurs play against ?

We already have ' Super ' amateur clubs , Wigans is St Pats , Saints is Blackbrook , so how is it any different ?

 

[GUBRATS]

31 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I don't disagree but that is the case for SL clubs as much as none-sl clubs and the problem with just SL clubs (or in reality just some SL clubs) doing all the heavy lifting in this area is that they will play the numbers game of taking as many as they can out to make sure they are the ones getting the benefit, which is understandable.

We either need all clubs to be contributing equally so we can fairly place limits on what they are taking out, or we need to divorce all clubs from this area of the game completely .

Yes, isnt that part of the problem , a few clubs playing as you say ' the numbers game ' having double the numbers of scholarship lads as they are supposed to under RFL rules ?

How can you place limits on who gets what ? , who will make the decision who goes where ?

Unworkable

[Rupert Prince]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If a draft system could be put in place legally then I wouldnt be against it. Though im not sure it could work with P+R.

However even if a draft system werent to be instituted, you could just allow a 'signing day' where clubs bid for the youngsters they want. Limits on squad size would have the added benefit of spreading the best youth around more equally anyway.

'Equally' would be the operative word.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If a draft system could be put in place legally then I wouldnt be against it. Though im not sure it could work with P+R.

However even if a draft system werent to be instituted, you could just allow a 'signing day' where clubs bid for the youngsters they want. Limits on squad size would have the added benefit of spreading the best youth around more equally anyway.

P and R wouldnt really have any effect on a pure draft system , but it is totally unworkable anyway , let alone trying to get the top clubs to agree to it , why would they ?

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The pro game pays for it.

These professional coaches are coming from where they have always come from. Paid for centrally by the game. If leeds don't have an academy they arent employing academy coaches. Rob Burrow can go coach at the amateur clubs. Paid for centrally by the game.

And these 4 super clubs play against the other Super Clubs, like St Pats, Blackbrook etc. We are building more Super Clubs and putting money and effort in to them rather than taking players out.

 

So you want to scrap the academy system ? , just have super scholarships at amateur clubs , you dont think this would cause issue within the amateur game ?

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It would help the amateur game. Fewer players would be taken out, clubs who have better facilities, better coaching, nutrition, and better players. The standard would be higher.

 

It would help the chosen clubs , not too sure it would help the rest

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But they are the only one paying the money that needs to be paid. They do all the heavy lifting they deserve the benefit. If they don't get the benefit they stop doing the heavy lifting an it ends up that no-one do it.

You can limit the numbers of players. You dont have to decide who goes where.

Yes I understand you can limit numbers , but who decides who goes where ?

[GUBRATS]

19 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But they are the only one paying the money that needs to be paid. They do all the heavy lifting they deserve the benefit. If they don't get the benefit they stop doing the heavy lifting an it ends up that no-one do it.

You can limit the numbers of players. You dont have to decide who goes where.

So the top clubs double up on numbers , so deserve the rewards ? , and the losers in this game of numbers ? , the other clubs trying legally to run scholarships and academies

If the top clubs stick to the rules then the talent IS spread , then they dont need to lift anything heavy , isnt that what you just asked for ?

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

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. 

 

Do they fancy running junior RL ?

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

You don't have to decide who goes where.

Somebody does , so who ?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The other clubs arent victims. They are clubs who invest much less in scouting, in training, in developing players. So they get less results.

Leeds don't invest what they do in developing youngsters nobody picks up the slack. Those players simply don't get developed to the same level.

 

I think you missed off an ' If '

Or these clubs dont get the best talent to start with , and they dont get the 2nd best either , because Leeds and Wigan have taken them as well [ you just admitted they play the numbers game ] so these ' other ' clubs have to make do with the 3rd best , and non SL clubs would be trying to make do with 11/12/13 th best

why would they bother doing that Leeds and Wigan certainly wouldnt , you've just admitted that , so my original suggestion stands

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Nobody does. So nobody.

That is the most ridiculous post you have ever made , and theres been some good uns in the past

Done for tonight sleep tight

[Lowdesert]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

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

Player production, really shouldn't be part of the amateur scene.  Fun and enjoyment, especially at the outset for youngsters, is paramount.  Kids and Parents wont get involved in the game to become a significant or potential  'contributor', they'll get involved to just play the game and then take it from there.

Another consideration that is forgotten is kids/youths leaving the game for other distractions - other games, PlayStation, girls, peer pressure, schoolwork etc.  This area needs some real focus.  OK, Clubs offer scholarships at Colleges, but, imo, we need to go a step further in offering quality education as well.  Degrees.  Many Academies are tied into educational establishments that don't offer those levels.  That isn't to say lower educational qualifications are bad, but some Academies arrangements just don't offer alternatives.  This is an era of choice and quality choice.  Many very well educated youths, looking for a high flying career after/during RL will turn away from the lower level education and go where they can get the degree.  Most times, that establishment doesn't offer RL.

Academies.  Not sure on your 30% figures.  Hull FC are averaging about 3 per year into SL (or should I say, getting a SL game here and there).  If they have circa 25-30 kids at, say, U19 level, that's only 8-10% which in itself is a good achievement.    But if Academies on the whole, aren't turning out players with sufficient skills then this should be picked by RLF audit. Players of sufficient standard are the end 'product' and if your system isn't providing that then your system doesn't work.  What we're seeing is Academies all getting top marks, when reality and players good enough on the pitch might not show that level of success is happening.

[kev p]

On 9/17/2018 at 8:31 AM, 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.

Couldn’t agree more, a condition of entry to super league must be an academy. Sharing academies in championship & league 1. Is ok, even if shared by 3 clubs. All championship clubs should have a shared academy at least

[GUBRATS]

On 18 September 2018 at 1:37 PM, kev p said:

Couldn’t agree more, a condition of entry to super league must be an academy. Sharing academies in championship & league 1. Is ok, even if shared by 3 clubs. All championship clubs should have a shared academy at least

Why?

[GUBRATS]

On 18 September 2018 at 12:37 PM, Lowdesert said:

Player production, really shouldn't be part of the amateur scene.  Fun and enjoyment, especially at the outset for youngsters, is paramount.  Kids and Parents wont get involved in the game to become a significant or potential  'contributor', they'll get involved to just play the game and then take it from there.

Another consideration that is forgotten is kids/youths leaving the game for other distractions - other games, PlayStation, girls, peer pressure, schoolwork etc.  This area needs some real focus.  OK, Clubs offer scholarships at Colleges, but, imo, we need to go a step further in offering quality education as well.  Degrees.  Many Academies are tied into educational establishments that don't offer those levels.  That isn't to say lower educational qualifications are bad, but some Academies arrangements just don't offer alternatives.  This is an era of choice and quality choice.  Many very well educated youths, looking for a high flying career after/during RL will turn away from the lower level education and go where they can get the degree.  Most times, that establishment doesn't offer RL.

Academies.  Not sure on your 30% figures.  Hull FC are averaging about 3 per year into SL (or should I say, getting a SL game here and there).  If they have circa 25-30 kids at, say, U19 level, that's only 8-10% which in itself is a good achievement.    But if Academies on the whole, aren't turning out players with sufficient skills then this should be picked by RLF audit. Players of sufficient standard are the end 'product' and if your system isn't providing that then your system doesn't work.  What we're seeing is Academies all getting top marks, when reality and players good enough on the pitch might not show that level of success is happening.

Ultimatly the amateur ' scene ' is what produces proffessional players , the more kids playing RL the more and better our pro players will be

If Hull have 25-30 players in their u 19s [ academy ] then that does work out at an induction of around 10 per year as I suggested . and if 3 is the number coming out the other end that is around 30 %

Fully agree with the academic situation , but that would generally come after their academy period , at Leigh we had Tom Armstrong while he was at college , he then did 3 years at Sheffield Uni while playing for the Eagles , then once he had his degree he returned to us

[Lowdesert]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Ultimatly the amateur ' scene ' is what produces proffessional players , the more kids playing RL the more and better our pro players will be

If Hull have 25-30 players in their u 19s [ academy ] then that does work out at an induction of around 10 per year as I suggested . and if 3 is the number coming out the other end that is around 30 %

Fully agree with the academic situation , but that would generally come after their academy period , at Leigh we had Tom Armstrong while he was at college , he then did 3 years at Sheffield Uni while playing for the Eagles , then once he had his degree he returned to us

If there no fun involved we wont get kids playing.  Sure, there'll always be those who are pushed by parents, trying to make their kid something that they weren't, but I've not witnessed one instance of those succeeding in the professional game.

Some Colleges don't offer the right quals for the next step though.  Young players do right in making a career choice with their education decisions.

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

If there no fun involved we wont get kids playing.  Sure, there'll always be those who are pushed by parents, trying to make their kid something that they weren't, but I've not witnessed one instance of those succeeding in the professional game.

Some Colleges don't offer the right quals for the next step though.  Young players do right in making a career choice with their education decisions.

Where have I suggested it shouldnt be fun to play RL ?

[Lowdesert]

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Where have I suggested it shouldnt be fun to play RL ?

Apologies, I judged your comment re the ,’amateur scene’ as being ‘what produces professional players’ too literally.  I’d does, but in no way should it be given that role at outset.

[Guest]

Elstone states SL will all carry reserves (mandatory) at some point. Rimmer states not if it effects the community game.

Not sure where the Academy structure falls in with both comments.

 

[GUBRATS]

Just bumping this up to run with the ' youth ' thread