It's a good idea on the surface, but the problem is that many Under 20's aspire to be full time SL players whereas many NL1 players don't.

I think it would cause problems.

As for your attendance figures - I don't have the stats to hand but I can't remember the last time I was at a NL1 game and only 300 turned up? Usually for a team like Batley its about 800 - 1200. For teams like Fev/Fax and Widnes it's a lot more.

Time to shut semi pro RL up and walk away!!!

Why would they stop going to watch what in my opinion would be a superior product? And looking at the attendances from last week's league express you could argue they don't really go anyway in Championship 1. The average last weekend was about 400.

Surely Swinton v South Wales can't be more appealing that Swinton v Wigan Under 20s? Likewise for South Wales, playing Leeds Under 20s would inspire me more than playing Swinton!

Look at his leagues.
He is not on about Wigan U20's playing against Fev, Widnes, Batley etc. He mentions them playing the likes of Rochdale, Oldham Keighley etc.

Its predictable that the league one teams' fans would hate this, but when they actually started playing against teams with guenuine stars in them, returning from injury or young future stars, they would see how it could improve both comps and all the players. The U20's lads would gain alot from this, which could only help their progression and therefore eventually the england rl team

This is possibly the worst idea I have read on these boards since I joined just over a year ago and thats no mean feat when you consider Damo-Leeds posts stuff on here too.

I'm sorry but I think that this is a bad idea too. The reason why the under 20s competition is bad is because of the lack of quality coaching at that level. If it was good then this thread wouldn’t have even been created.

This thread is just another example of how to benefit certain super league clubs even further. The problem really lays in the fact that in the scheme of all this expansionist stuff, local teams that used to flourish years ago have become either defunct or neglected. Now I’m not criticising that all the expansion that has come our way during the super league era has been for the worse. We wouldn’t even have a super league if it wasn’t for the likes of Crusaders and Harlequins aka non heartland clubs. But this has been at the expense of the heartlands and this thread is the result.

Back in the day rugby league ruled Leeds. We had two other teams that we’re well attended back then and could compete like Hunslet and Leeds Parish. We need to make the heartlands stronger before we make the wider game stronger. With good investment in clubs that have fallen wayside, we should and could see them return to their former glory. Wouldn’t it be awesome to have two St Helens teams in super league? I hear that the derby between their top two teams back in the day were fantastic.

Hopefully what the OP has mentioned on this thread won’t happen. It’ll just make super league clubs stronger and national league clubs weaker.

Do you go to all your teams academy games ? , all of them , home and away ?

Exactly. In 2008ish we could have had Sam Tomkins and Kyle Eastmond playing at the likes of Swinton, Oldham and Rochdale on Sunday afternoons. Got to be better than what they watch currently?

And the question would have been , ' Who ? ' , if fans want to watch kids play RL they have plenty of options , but not playing against ' their ' club

SL fans cannot even be arced watching their teams play Championship clubs in the CC unless they get in for free , so what makes you think they'd watch their own reserves play Championship clubs ?

It certainly will be better than what they watch currently. But let’s say the NRL sent 5 under 21s teams over here to replace the worse five teams currently in super league. Who is really benefitting?

Promotion and relegation thats a radical idea think super league should try it

Championship 1 attendances today were 493, 744, 434, 302 and 754!

I can't recall any Super League side being involved in a cup attendance that low. But I reckon at Orrell on a Sunday Wigan fans would turn up at about 1,500 to watch our Under 20s take on a Swinton, Rochdale or Oldham - which is a vast, vast improvement on those figures above. Especially because we play on Fridays nearly most weeks.

As a York fan and an RL fan, I like the idea.

Clearly the aussie clubs would be, those players would be, and so would the Aussie test team because those Under 21 players would be playing a higher standard of opposition every week than they would be in their own Under 21 competition. Thats my whole point entirely.

It would raise the standard of opposition for the likes of Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham as well. I mean, I watched our Under 20s hammer Barrow in the pre season and almost draw with Leigh's first team last pre season.

What attendance figures do the pie u 20 s get ? And how much is it to get in ?

So you'd rather pay a tenner to watch your team play the Cas u 20 s , than play a current Championship side like Rochdale or Swinton ?

If they provide a better game to watch, then absolutely.

The admission is £4 (or free on your season ticket) and the attendances probably match most Championship 1 figures. Hard to tell really because they don't announce the crowds. The Under 20s Grand Final got 2,501 at DW Stadium in 2009.

I think your idea is good in theory, but I’m not sure if it will be in practice. As I’ve said on a previous post, I think that we need to make the heartlands stronger by investing in defunct and failing clubs instead of propping up the championship with academy teams from the super league.

Finally Saddened makes a good point about chucking the likes of Salford, Crusaders and Wakefield in there with them. The fact that we have mediocre teams in the top league says more about the health of rugby league if anything and this won’t make it any better IMO. It’ll just see the clubs with the best academy teams getting stronger, whilst the rest get weaker.

This idea is along the right lines IMO, but wouldnt work.

A couple of obvious problems would be firstly the movement between the two leagues would become a mess. Under this proposal we could theoretically have the team who finished 7th being promoted and the teams who finish 5th, 6th relegated really wouldnt make any sense for that to happen.

Also, you cant be throwing a pack of U20's up against a pack of experienced pro's. They would get battered and it would likely damage their development.

Also, I cant see it being easy to sell your club if your firsts are getting beaten by an u20's side.

I think the answer is more obvious and closer to continental football option.

Firstly we introduce more clubs to championship/1 level. We need to be looking at having 30-40 clubs in these lower tiers.

Secondly we give SL clubs 'feeder clubs'. Each of our SL clubs has 2/3 lower level clubs who are their feeder clubs, there are no restrictions on movements between these clubs, they can share facilities, coaches, and any players freely.

If a club so chooses it can decide not to be a 'feeder club' if it feels its independence or prospect for a future franchise would be damaged.

Its should be pretty simple, get rid of U20's/reserves and use the lower league sides to blood the very best youngsters by having them playing with and against experienced pros without the pressure and physicality of SL.

Players get experience, clubs get players, everybody wins.

Do you go ? , home and away ? , and if it was a tenner instead of 4 quid , or free would you go ?

The main issue with this idea is that we'd have open age teams playing against what essentially are junior teams, which is never a good thing from any perspective. For this to work it would need NRL-style reserve teams, which sort of defeats the object.

Good. That'll make for a stronger Super League and a better test side that might actually be able to compete with Australia and New Zealand. We haven't done that for the past 4 years or so at all and that's because the youth system has been rotten.

It won't necessarily make lower sides weaker either because all those kids in the "best academy sides" as you put it are not all going to earn first team places at those best clubs. A lot of them are going to end up signing for the lower clubs, meaning they improve and thus meaning a bigger pool of talent to choose from.

Hang on a minute ! , when I argued against University teams playing in the Challenge cup for the very same reason , you argued against me , make your bloody mind up ?