And that is where we is not a system that works, it is the system as it currently works and has rugby going backwards fast. And what you are proposing will only perpetuate that. So the question becomes whether we want to continue with only two states producing almost all the players into the future, or move to something new?

Absolutely agree that there would need to be an initial adjustment to accommodate the existing dysfunction, and there would naturally be multiple teams from the big two states (as there are now, and rightly so). But what you are proposing would enshrine and perpetuate it, when the model is already starting to fail. And while I hear what you say about academies, I have heard it all many times before. Yet to see it work with any consistency, and lost count of the number of iterations and implementations there have been of that sort of structure. The reality is that it is just a cost for a franchise team, not core business and constantly one step from the chopping block. The approach has failed the sport to date, tends to produce hothouse flowers, and I'd be fairly confident it will continue to do so going forward.

I'm not sure your point regarding the other sports, but can speak with confidence regarding cricket and it looks far more like my model than yours. District clubs feed players into a semi-pro/professional representative team, predominantly comprising local players. The teams may vary in quality and it might be a while between drinks for some, but they are local teams and not franchises. People and particularly the clubs support them from a sense of place, not because they have done a particularly good job of recruiting the best players from around the country. If they did that, why would they be due any loyalty from the Premier clubs?