Proposed eligibility changes released

Restrictions on players changing divisional sides, which applies to clubs that compete for multiple championships, dominate proposed eligibility changes for the 2007-08 season.

As released yesterday by USA Rugby. one proposal would replace all of section 3.4, ‘Senior club fielding multiple sides,’ with a system that essentially permits players to immediately move up a division, but requires them to sit out two weeks if a player has moved down and then is to go back up. However, only a limited number of players would be subject to the restriction.

Also suggested were rules establishing that a college player has six years from first enrolling to play five seasons, and that a high school player has five years from first enrolling before eligibility expires. (Tennessee's Marty Bradley has analyzed the university level in more detail here.)

Eligibility and compliance have ever been difficult for administrators to agree and enforce, in part because of the difficulties in coordinating between national, territorial, and local officials. More recently problems have stemmed from the interchange of Super League roster players to Division 1 and lower sides competing for national championships.

Many clubs competing only in one division are opposed to ‘stacking,’ the use of players who begin the season in a higher division but drop down after the first team falls out of title contention. Although the circumstances are not quite the same, the issue was brought to the fore this spring when Iowa State women, which began the year as a Division 1 team, claimed the Division 2 championship through a Midwest policy that allows first-tier also-rans to compete for lower-division honors.

USA Rugby solicited the proposals directly of its members and utilized a new online submission form. The process was modeled on NCAA procedures, membership director Kristin Richeimer said in an email.

“I am hopeful that this process may allow us the chance to be a bit more flexible from year to year, in the sense that we might be able to try something new and tweak it in the following years if something doesn't appear to be achieving a desired effect,” she said.

The proposals have been released as red-lined additions to the union’s eligibility rules, and are open for comment through next Friday, July 27. (Click here to download) Simultaneously, Richeimer and the union’s eligibility committee are to assess recent waiver requests.

The revised regulations for the 2007-08 season are due for release on Monday, August 6.

Comments

[JR]

Kurt-

A fellow blogger has done a excellent job of outlining the proposal at, www.keepthegoforward.com

We shouldn't over react, these are proposal offered from cranks within our membership. No way URARFU could be taking these proposal seriously, most look to be a step backward.

But this is why as pointed out yesterday by someone, we need to get ready for going our own way in high school and college.

Proposals for part-time students, 6 years of play, we already have this competition, its called adult club rugby.

[Michael Sagehorn]

I phoned the National Office this moening and left a message with the Membership Department asking who/what groups are suggesting the HS rule changes. I left my own comments on the Web solicitation site(a good idea by the way)

All of the proposed ideas run counter to a USA Rugy Youth Development strategy that have fueled the growth of the youth membership sector of the union over the past five years. Creating school based programs(that's where the kids are) is key to the game's development.

The eligibility changes as proposed will:
* add another year to a high school player's season, perhaps eliminating playing opportunities for younger players who are rightfully performing academically

*loosen up the provisions for home school or "no" school players

*create the ability for players to play who have not contributed to a teams's progress in local competition play in a National event.

Who wants this? Why?

[LC]

Let's make college rugby simple and get in line with the rest of the world, so we can develop players into full international players. Establish a U23 system where clubs can have U23 teams, colleges can have teams compete and colleges can recruit anyone that is U23. Where do you think all these youth rugby individuals are going to go and play rugby? College? Most will not attend college and most will not be able to step into men's club rugby at at 18 or 19. Hitching rugby to the NCAA or varsity status is nuts. I would rather see a U23 club play a competitive match against Cal than watch more blow-outs. Isn't the system broken when the semi final scores for D1 Collegiate Nationals are 63-31 and 53-12 and the final is 37-7?

[FredR]

An age limit in college rugby is a good idea, I can't believe someone didn't propose it ?

College rugby doesn't need to be NCAA to take advantage of the resources on offer at our US universities. Look what's going on at Navy, Dartmouth, Penn State, Tenn, St Mary's in Ca. These proposals will only drive college rugby further away from the college life with older part-time students.

[Tom K]

I agree. Scrap the Collegiate National Championship and just make it a U23 championship. If a college like Cal wants to only have Cal students play, great. If college like St. Mary's which is a much smaller school, wants to tap into the inlander community in San Jose, great. If NYAC wants to start at U23 side, great too.

[FredR]

Now that's a pretty un-American idea, scrap the collegiate competition. I can see why the NFL and NBA hasn't retained your services as a business consultant. Ohio State v Michigan, Harvard v Yale and all these type of affairs are on borrowed time, nothing to build from here.

Now its not a bad idea to have an U23 comp and there may be some college teams that would get behind it. I imagine many teams would welcome better competition. Lets have both, pick your competition or play in both.

That funny about St Mary's, The Christian Brother Tongans.

[Tom K]

College rugby is complete failure. For how many years do we need to have a college rugby structure before it is abolished? What has been achieved in the last 80+ years college rugby contributed to the teams that played for the Eagles in the Olympics in the 1920s? Not much. Look at all the college clubs founded in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, that haven't achieved much. Let's face it, after 80 years of history college rugby is not even on the national radar as a sport. Rugby is never going to have a college journey like football or basketball. If it hasn't happen yet, it never will.

[John McNamara]

Tom K,
And the alternative that you offer is...

[bait taker]

Taking the bait.

Although your American rugby history is flawed, lets agree that as an under-funded college sport with little or no institutional leadership, college rugby has under delivered on its potential.

What part of American rugby has out-performed it ? Domestic rep ?,
Club ? International ? Local or national administration ? Referee's ?

Lets face it, we have a long way to go. The question becomes what are the building blocks that are in place.

In this evaluation, university rugby is an asset capable of a return on investment.

[Tom K]

U23 competition is the answer. Colleges can compete in it, men's clubs can have a team to compete in it, and youth that do not go to college have a place to play if they do not have the ability to go directly into men's club rugby.

as a side note, don't be surprised to see a jr college get into the nationals at the d1 or d2 level soon and be successful. there are a lot of kids playing hs rugby or youth club rugby that are not going to go to college, but could attend a jr college and play rugby, and some of these kids are going to be good.

[M. Bradley]

No reason why we can't have U23 today; in fact, we do. I know of several senior clubs either with U23 teams or contemplating starting up one. That's no threat to collegiate rugby and no reason why they can't coexist.

Heck, I've got a 11 year old daughter that plays middle school soccer and also competitive club soccer - there's no conflict at all. No since in reinventing the wheel so lets borrow what works from other sports and get going. What we can't do, in my opinion, is toss another European blanket over the competition and expect US kids to just come flocking to it. Build from something they know, and they will come.

I agree that small schools and jr colleges will start to make an impact. We have a jr college in our community that has had a program for a year or so with full school support and funding. They see the attraction of the sport and look to draw kids to their school.

There are some areas of the country that have some momentum. Everyone else needs to jump on board and replicate what's working. As always, the key is competent leadership and volunteer vision.

The answer, however, is not to toss out collegiate rugby. Its one of the things that is right about out sport. Let work on figuring out why so many kids are leaving college campuses only to never play again. Build the masses and the elite will come.

[chrisv]

Oh boy . . .

Well first of all, more Eagles (current and past) have competed in collegiate rugby than U19 programs.

Most won't go to college? On what grounds? Never mind we're getting to a point in this country where 1 in 2 adults will hold a bachelor's degree from a four year college/university, but why wouldn't they go to college? With a viable collegiate rugby program, college will become a real option to talented players, where right now rugby can't (and shouldn't) be a deciding factor in the college choice, it's a non-choice right now.

There is no precedent in this country, professional or amateur, for a successful national sport program to arise out of club competition, not collegiate. If anyone can think of one then enlighten us, but whether its a top flight pro sport like the NFL, or track and field in the Olympics, the dominant route to elite status is through university athletics. In the US, the groundwork has already been laid, it would be monumentally stupid and wasteful to scrap it, or to expend useful resources and energy in creating an U23 system that has already shown itself (in the U19s) to be an under-performer in providing top flight rugby talent. That's not to say those athletes aren't talented, they just don't end up with the Eagles in large numbers (and isn't that the point of an U19 program?).

Finally, the answer why college guys quit playing isn't hard to grasp: there comes a time when play time is over and money must be earned to support a family. When there's pro rugby in this country, then you'll see more talented college guys continuing on. Until then, I don't care if you create U23's, a collegiate super league, or what have you, the national team won't progress past a certain point.

[Gramme Boticelli]

JR, I posted the recommendation to the HS changes. I asked that HS players, in an actual HS be given the oppty to play for 5 yrs. Just like several other sports due on PG programs, like hockey, lacrosse, football, etc. especially if he hasn't played rugby before, but just attend the school. we can also make sure that they are 18yrs old, not older. I disagree completely that you eliminate the younger players coming in.

[Michael]

Thanks Gramme for acknowledging.

I can't speak for all states, but in my state it would be difficult to have a student compete in spring season rugby, in a fifth year of high school and not be 19 years old.

At 19, in my state, students must complete their course requirements at a community college or alternative program. They ARE not eligible for interscholastic sports. Sure rugby is not interscholastic or varsity in many places, but is this not our objective?

Students with academic issues that result in their not graduating with their peers need their focus off the rugby pitch. I'm a teacher, a parent, and also a coach who's had the tough job of telling a few academically challenged kids they can't play because they cut class or didn't do their work and failed their classes.

Rugby is a game-nothing more, nothing less. When a kid thinks it's more important than improving himself we need to be the responsible one. You can equally argue that you're helping them out by giving them something healthy and wholesome like rugby, but consequences sometimes work better when they sting.