The Goode, the Bad & the Ugly

Yes that’s what WR needs to look at. Football had the same problem with european powerhouses getting all the latin talent then you’re gaurenteed to get the odd late bloomer (21/22 etc, all the best footballers can play for the country much younger to get locked) star changing his allegiance.

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).

The only benefit of the draft idea is league competitiveness. There would be absolutely no commercial value in a draft with rugby’s current interest levels.

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?