ITT: End of the line?

opinion The more one reads how important is the National All-Star Championship, the more likely it seems the competition is on its last legs.

This week, Boulder described the weekend tournament as “an absolutely essential step in the development of USA Rugby.” Really.

The union’s much-touted, six-month-old strategic plan glosses over inter-territorial play, and no one has ever described the NASC as a business asset. Meanwhile, as the International Rugby Board-sponsored North American 4 tournament has joined (most) domestic championships and international fixtures in late spring and summer, the December event looks to have been orphaned.

Many if not most territorial figures would prefer to dispense with one of their largest expenditures and instead spend money “at home,” on youth programs and the like. The very argument prevailed ten years ago, when the union first abandoned the Inter-Territorial Tournament.

Perhaps the union’s Competitions audit will find merit in the NASC, but the Board has already downgraded that exercise to a non-binding, “consultative” role. Among the directors, only Vic Hilarov is likely to harbor any nostalgia for the event.

True enough, there is urgency around interim coach Peter Thorburn’s review of test hopefuls this World Cup season. But that is no different than his predecessors, and Mr. Thorburn is not likely to be on hand after 2007, when the competition would need a real champion in order to survive.

Comments

[BATS Rugger]

It’s a failed concept of a competition. Back in the day, the tourney was played in the late spring, early summer, after the club season was over, which is the right window for a rep tourney. There were the original four territories, which comprised a tourney of the top 100 players in the US.

Now, it is out of season for some, mid point for others by way of timing. Eight teams of 25 players means 200 players, we don’t have 200 true rep players in the US.

I don’t really know what this elite or high performance sh*t means, but don’t bother telling me that a couple of practices as a warm up is high performance.

Playing rep ball before the season begins is also lame. And the out of season teams have typically been the best sides, which lets you know how good the rugby is.

[skipper]

Kurt-

How much does the affair cost US Rugby? Or is it the local unions that fund it?

Whatever the amount, I would rather see that money spent on youth rugby, than on Peter Thorburn’s 27th selection camp.

[Super League]

The ITT’s are a joke. Any Super League team could beat all those teams!

[Rugby Parent]

If Coach Thorburn wants to see bad out of season rugby, then the IRB should pay for it.

Once again, youth dues go to support an adult rugby weekend!

[Elmer Gardt]

Although your column implies that the NASC is a USARFU event, it seems, in reality, that the event is a territorial and USARFU event, with the territories (and players) paying more of the costs of the event. USARFU pays for referees and the actual event whereas the territories pay for the players to attend along with any other additional costs. I would estimate that, in toto, it costs the territories $64K plus to send their teams, it probably costs the players anywhere from $150 to $400, and it perhaphs costs USARFU $15K or so. Additionally, since the territories are now doing the job of the national office with respect to eligibility (a job the national office has decided that it can't be bothered to do), the event really is not costing much for the national office.

[Elmer Gardt]

Although your column implies that the NASC is a USARFU event, it seems, in reality, that the event is a territorial and USARFU event, with the territories (and players) paying more of the costs of the event. USARFU pays for referees and the actual event whereas the territories pay for the players to attend along with any other additional costs. I would estimate that, in toto, it costs the territories $64K plus to send their teams, it probably costs the players anywhere from $150 to $400, and it perhaphs costs USARFU $15K or so. Additionally, since the territories are now doing the job of the national office with respect to eligibility (a job the national office has decided that it can't be bothered to do), the event really is not costing much for the national office.

[Elmer Gardt]

With respect to the event being a 'failed event', the event does remain one of the tangible selection vehicles available for players who may not be able to attend NA4s or some of the other events during the year.

[Elmer Gardt]

It is a false assumption to think that the monies that would not be spent by the territories on this event would go to the youth. Some of the territories would rather have the LAUs handle the youth programs. Moreover, if the monies were not spent on this event, the monies would probably be redistributed to the other select side/ITT teams (sevens, U23s, women, collegiates).

[Cpt Obvious]

How can you select international players from a 1 weekend tournament that is played out of season?? What a waste of $$ for the players involved. As a foreigner who use to play RSL in the states, the talent is there to field a decent side. All it takes is for USA Rugby to secure a sponsor and get the top 100-150 on a stipend. Much like the Olympic sports in the USA.

[John Wayne]

The irb have thrown a million into the pot - where did that money go if not to the players? The Canadian counter-parts got all the money and some of their players are driving around in big fancy cars - bling bling

[canuck]

the players who are driving the fancy new cars, paid for them with the money they bet on Canada tearing the US a new one last August.