On executive accountability

reporter's notebook Elsewhere, Fraser Neill stepped down as New South Wales chief executive. What cares American rugby?

To begin, Neill essentially funded the Sevens World Series, and was keen on America's participating right from inception. The USA 7s is now our best asset (even if in private hands). Also from his IRB post, he was an effective manager of the Pacific Rim tournament's expansion, and later the 2003 World Cup.

So Neill was a friend to the USA. Was he a good manager?

In Australia's rugby heartland, the Sydney Morning-Herald credited Neill with ‘with guiding the union through its transition back to independent control following its administration under the Australian Rugby Union after it went bankrupt.’ Planning for the new Australian natioanal championship was executed on his watch, a bruising process, and revenues fell off disastrously this year on the back of a historically poor Waratahs season.

And so Fraser is out. Contrast this with USA Rugby’s passive acceptance of past chief executive Doug Arnot's paucity of technical initiatives, three massive operating losses and subsequent fire sale of the USA 7s and 7s jersey for $150,000, three consecutive annual losses, and a unprecedented dues hike borne primarily by youth and college students. Only when senior staff leaders made the record plainly obvious was Arnot fired.

Soon it will be Nigel Melville's turn to be evaluated on vision and performance. Like Neill, Melville is a rugby man, and the genial circumspection which he has demonstrated to date will have earned him credit.

Comments

[John McNamara]

It's obvious that you have nothing of any import in your reporter's notebook.
Not surprising given the number of times in the past year that you have made first person references or quote actual people in your articles. Is you phone not rigning? Wonder why?

I look back to the two peices that you posted on the AA's June 14 and 15.
Two articles in as many days based entirely on fabrication and fantasy.
Gee, if the truth was not your motivating factor... I wonder what it was?
No investigation into the health or direction of the program.
No attempts to contact anyone involved in the selection process or the planning for the tour.
No contact with USAR for information for your story.
You have my email so why don't you drop me a line?

Instead, reaction peices designed to ignite more reaction. Knee jerk reaction.
Not very effective even at that.

And now several weeks and a sweep in Canada later a seeming incapacity to address the inaccuracies that you put forth in the original rags.
Why don't you give the young men on this years AA team the credit that is due?
Even a short story, without complicated, hard to spell words would de the trick.

I'm beginning to understand why anyone currently associated with a National Rugby Union wants nothing to do with your Gainline project except to correct your mistakes.

Here is some advice from someone that once thought that you could add great things to the US Rugby discussion.

Consider that your readers are more interested in the facts than your ideas of rugby "the way it could be"
Consider that your readers recognize that a jornalist's credibility is only as good as their sources. Phrases like "sources close to the discussion" or "familiar with the issue" indicate that you have no access to the truth; no sources that trust your ability to tell the story or, perhaps, no sources willing to speak on the record.

Time to grow up Kurt.
Start writing rugby that is well documented, fact based and supported by real, first person sources that have the guts to go on the record.

Let's see if that sparks some debate.

If you want the facts about the AA program, the recent Canada tour, the just released AA strength and conditioning resources now available to ALL COLLEGE RUGBY PLAYERS via usarugby.org under the "Fit to Play" menu button, AA training video resources also available to ALL COLLGEGE RUGBY PLAYERS via usarugby.org, just give me a call.

JMc

[Rugby]

JMc have you been drinking and blogging again? SPeLL Cheque??

[random]

He must be drunk and this guy manages the All Americans?

[John McNamara]

Time of day has more to do with it.

[flankermobile]

Kurt,

As an Aussie living in American for the last 20 years, following both rugby unions, I enjoyed your piece on Frazer Neill. I met Neill at Boxer Std, SF, in 1998 when he was working for the IRB in some role.

He was undone in NSW by nasty rugby politics, after returning the union to stable footing. When the team doesn't win in OZ, everybody gets the can. I am surprised that Ewen didn't get the can with him ?

I also read your AA articles where you linked to what others were saying at ARN and Goff. These stories spoke to what coaches at the event in Rochester were saying about their experience. Not sure what type of bug this dingo has up him, but I can't imagine a team manager firing off letters to the editor along with the average punter.

Talk about time to grow up !

[M. Bradley]

Don't really have a comment on Kurt's journalistic integrity, but I do have a comment on the All Americans...

The fact remains that only 53% of the selected All Americans attended the NCAC while 94% of the honorable mentions where in attendance. That is quite a disparity and is indicative of the fact that the AA team was pretty much selected well before the teams convened in upstate New York.

I have no doubt that the boys selected to the All American team were the best available collegiate players. Their performance speaks to that. However, the kids that made that long trip in June would have surely appreciated the opportunity to measure themselves against the entire collegiate field. After all, that’s the way the NCAC has been marketed over the years. Play well enough for your territory and you may have a shot at All American. That’s hard to do with only half the slots are open.

Some have suggested an all american team and also an all tournament team... Seems to me, based on the numbers, that's basically what we had this year.

Kids (and coaches) need to know the details of the selection criteria. Most coaches I talked to had no problem with the players selected; rather, it was the manor in which the selection process was communicated to the consituency that seemed to be at issue. The current system only provides most of the kids false hope.

Supporting Data: www.keepthegoforward.com

[Tim]

Nice blog Marty, I will put this in my favorite's.

I can't believe that USA Rugby is even considering any of those eligibility changes for college rugby, talk about going fast in the wrong direction ! We need rules that make the sport more similar to varsity sports not the reverse. One more and maybe the best reason yet for a new governing organization for college rugby.

I would have never seen these proposals, keep up the good work.

[John McNamara]

Marty,
I agree. We have to create a policy that requires players wanting to be considered for the AA roll to compete at the All Stars. There will always be a handful of exceptions that may have to be made and these must be considered on a case by case basis and with rigor.
Additionally we need to take a guiding hand in the planning of the TU All Star selection camps. Conflicts with academic commitments, as was the case with most Cal’s players this year, precluded a number of the best players in the country from having the opportunity to trial for the Grizzlies. Further compounding the situation was a lapse in effective communication on the part of the Cal coaching staff to their players. None of the invited players received the complete information letter intended for them and sent to the Cal Rugby office. As a result they did not have the opportunity to communicate directly or in a timely way with the Grizzly staff or the AA staff regarding their availability for All Star or AA competition.
We can eliminate problems like this in future by identifying elite players early and communicate directly with these players and their coaches regarding aspirations for elite level play.

The ideal scenario is just as you describe and in line with discussions that took place in Rochester and Toronto.
Create the Collegiate All Star Championship as the sole selection vehicle for the AA’s with very little room for exceptions. At the very least the AA touring side should be drawn only from players that compete in the NCASC.
Beyond that, make sure the event is held in a venue that is accessible, regulation and affordable.
Build sponsorship around the event and make multi-year agreements on venue location to trigger local community support.
Create training and coaching resources that will improve the level of play at the All Star’s and make them available to all college players and coaches early.

As far as the selection process and the pre-population of the AA list, nothing could be father from the facts.
Only at the end of the second day of play were players not present at the NCASC introduced into the selection process.
In this setting their in season performance was compared as carefully as possible on a case by case, position by position basis.
Generally the performance of a player at the NCASC was given more weight than performance on merit of a non attending player.
The circumstances surrounding and explaining a player’s absence from the NCASC was also considered and weighted in the selection process.

False hope of selection and suspicions about the selection process are things that we need to purge from the AA process for good.

JMc

[canuck]

Once again nice "sweep" of our U21 B teams. Onwards and upwards for the AAs and the bEagles. Might be good for team morale to teach all of the Islanders the national anthem.

[Eagles Fan]

Oh no, here's Canuck again with his instigating.

I seem to remember you crying about this in another thread. Make all the excuses you like about the Canadians being swept by the All-Americans. Fact is, they were still swept. And even more important, while our AA represented well, in a perfect world where everyone is available the AA squad could have been even better.

[Go USA]

Right on! The AA team we sent to Canada, was very good and deserved the victories.

Eagle Fan, you make a interesting point, our

"AA squad could have even been better".

More to the point, we have many more players capable of playing at that same level. The US could field two maybe three AA teams of the same standard as we sent to Canada.

Army, had no players at the NASC, Cal and Navy, national championship semi-finalist had only one each.

Many good players that did participate at the NASC, didn't make the team. The talent level of university rugby is improving and this creates a depth of talent.

This is why some coaches are calling for another AA team. Think about it, in college football we have the UPI, AP and Coaches AA team. Why just one for rugby ? We have as many if not more college rugby players than D1 football players and football has several AA teams named.

The players are paying the freight in any regard, what's the skin off the current team if more kids wanted to play.

Maybe we should have an U21 AA team, so we don't need to hear Canuck whine anymore. Maybe an open division AA team where grad students can participate. Or, just another team with the same eligibility rules. Or better yet, a AA team with tighter rules, what's up with those trade schools ? In no other sport would you be named AA if you didn't play in college.

A new AA team could also consider how best to select the team. I bet a group of coaches in various parts of the country could communicate weekly and do a better job than what we are doing now. BTW, this would be better for the Fall teams, because their players could be evaluated in their main season. Certainly, we have the coaches with the type of rugby experience needed for this task.

Even if the new AA team didn't play and was only named, as we do with our traditional sports, this concept would still have value. It means so much to these players to be selected. Case in point, many players this past year were selected but chose not to participate in the tour. They decline for all types of reasons; work, summer school, cost.

If the military academy players couldn't participate, like this year, they could still be named if their play was worthy of selection over the course of the year.

Food for thought.

[rugby man]

how about trying to get the interest of the US rugby media to help, they already rank teams, why not our best players.

this would be a great RugbyMag idea, it would create a lot of interest.

I like the idea of better recognition for the players.

[John McNamara]

The idea of multiple AA teams came up in conversation in Toronto.
We agree that the number of high level players is on the increase.
Coaching seems to be better and college teams are getting better athletes.
The growth of High School rugby in particular is beginning to feed elite college rugby teams and in turn feed the AA program.
The question is do more AA's dilute the honor of being named?
One idea that has surfaced once or twice in discussion is the idea of regional AA teams being named. These teams would train in a camp-like setting under a National Training protocol. Coaches would receive National Coaching Protocol instruction as well.
These regional teams would play each other and players would be selected for two AA National Teams.
These two teams would train together and compete in a Possibles vs Probables" type model.
Two matches during training camp.
From this process the AA Touring side would be selected and tour Internationally each summer.

More exposure for more players to high level training.
More coaches exposed to the world of high performance rugby coaching tools.

If done correctly the program would establish the structure for the All American Academy.
A yearly summer National development center that would serve Youth through U20 elite rugby players and coaches.

[AA rugby supporter]

In answer to the question raised, no, more AA teams doesn't dilute the honor.

What could dilute the honor is a less than clear selection process where some begin to believe the honor is political or unfair. This is the risk of having one AA team or several teams.

Certainly the new AA team would need to be thoughtful in its process and communications. According to press reports this appears to be the challenge of the current AA team.

The idea for regional teams is old news, I've read where USA Rugby is already heading for a regional academy system and these regional AA academies seem a duplication.

It's also better to have some free market conditions at work. Different groups of people working for the same purpose (recognizing and developing players), with different approaches is a better path to improved ideas.

One of the things wrong with the current set-up is even though intentions are good, there is complaining and frustration because its not nearly perfect and all the control for change is in the hands of a few vested individuals.

For those believing that money is an issue, its not. If nothing, the current approach proves that players will finance their own development, that and the fact we are making this funding rugby business much harder than it need be.

A new AA team, complimentary to our current team, gives more people opportunities for meaningful contribution, which creates less frustration, or at least an opportunity to work for change instead of bitching.

A monopoly of ideas and opportunity leads to complacency. A new AA team would be the best thing to happen to our current set-up. The individuals in charge, could get out of the gate-keeper business and expand their program as management suggest.

This in turn would set the bar higher for anyone interested in contributing to this aspect of our game. Competition is good.

As members of USARFU we can only hope that the current AA establishment sees competition as a good thing and not something to stifle out of self interest.

Either way, if the current management group takes an approach of protectionism, then like most things in USA Rugby, like-minded people will go forward without them. We only need to look at almost everything positive in American rugby over the last two decades to make the point. Individuals that were considered outsiders pulled together to construct new unions, competitions, teams and ways of doing business. This is the way of young governing bodies like USA Rugby's. Just listen to the high school communities call for their own organization. If realized this HS new-org will create in a matter of a couple of years the largest most well-funded rugby administration in America.

University rugby players will without doubt enjoy the benefits of multiple AA honors in the years ahead. I look forward to the day when a collegiate rugby player can proclaim the fact that he/she was a unanimous selection AA, the NGB's selection, the coaches selection and the media's selection.

Lets open the funnel, its too small.