In response to yesterday's brief about the National Guard agreement, a modest debate ensued regarding the suitability of relations with America's armed forces.
For me, the conversation is short and instinctive. I welcome any opportunity to attest the USA's uniformed services represent superb ideals of leadership and public service. I hope and expect USA Rugby is mighty proud to associate with the National Guard and its colleagues, particularly in wartime.
As I suggested, there are some operational questions about how the agreement works, such as what branding comes with (or is precluded by) the kit, who is the equipment vendor, what is the application criteria, etc. USA Rugby promised to send details 'when the launch process is complete.'
If the agreement is a deal for cash that will be partially channeled toward unencumbered equipment for college teams, then it appears business development lead David Voth and colleagues have struck one of the better pacts we've seen in the past four years. But without question, the devil is in the what and how, not the who.
Related: National Guard follow-up
What is this wait for the launch BS, before we get more information. I think USA Rugby have figured out there are some hard questions being asked and they are taking a punt.
They have already announced FREE kit for 300 college teams, surely they have some details about how this will work.
If you media release a sponsorship you know term, price and what you sold.
Posted by: FredR | 06 November 2007 at 16:26
I agree something doesn't smell right about this.
Posted by: Tim | 06 November 2007 at 16:29
This is a marriage between two desperate parties.
This article sums up the motives, desperation and tactics of the National Guard - http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/340557/guard_turns_to_pizza_itunes_for_recruiting/index.html?source=r_science
Ads to join a USA armed service on pizza boxes in college towns? Devalues your brand, and shows your desperation, a bit don't you think?
And this one documents the reduction in standards - http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-recruit11oct11,0,614332.story?coll=chi_home_top
USA Rugby is desperate for money, or equipment, for college clubs and I wouldn't be surprised if I they sold the farm on this deal.
I think this sponsorship is sad, but that is because I had higher expectations when the Chairman of the Board (Kevin Roberts) is also the CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi, one of the world's leading ad agencies.
Below are the 2006 top college brands from Anderson Analytics and published by Advertising Age:
1 - Nike
2 - American Eagle
3 - Sony
4 - Gap
5 - Old Navy
6 - Apple
7 - Polo
8 - Dell
9 - Target
10 - Abercrombie
11 - Pepsi
12 - Hollister
13 - Coca-Cola
Couldn't USA Rugby have done better for college rugby than a desperate armed services branch that is aggressively recruiting during a very unpopular war?
If USA Rugby sells/gives the National Guard the membership details of all the CIPP's college kids in exchange for some free kits, it is truly shameful on many levels.
Posted by: TJ | 06 November 2007 at 17:08
Remember a month ago when TJ took the opportunity to rip on USA Rugby for not preparing, for the 16 team WC in 2011. Like that decision was a done deal.
TJ provided links then, just as he has done again this time on the National gaurd sponsorship deal. Another issue that none of us really know about yet.
Apparently some time in this last month TJ must have dropped out of Syd Millars 5.
Posted by: Premature again TJ. | 06 November 2007 at 19:20
TJ, I don't think that because US rugby has partnered with the National Guard they are excluded from pursuing deals with other organizations too.
I'm no big fan of the war but the fact is the NG is a legitimate entity and US Rugby would be foolish not to pursue this opportunity.
The one thing that has me scratching my head is that in the minutes from one of the national meeting (psted on Alex Goff's site I think) there was an inference to an almost ready to sign deal that would transform US rugby's financial situation. Nothing has come of that, which is disconcerting. One would think that had there been a major sponsorship deal to announce then doing so during the World Cup would have made a lot of sense.
I do think the Board has now been in place long enough that some demonstrated successes have to be seen within the next 3 - 6 months or one has to ask what is up.
Posted by: doug lyons | 06 November 2007 at 20:53
TJ we get it, YOU DON'T LIKE THE MILITARY. You think they are all baby killers, drop-outs and rapists.
USA Rugby can still be sponsored by a million other corporations, there is no exclusivity agreement here.
I know you'd be happier if the DNC or Air America sponsored all of our college teams, but they can't. Since nobody else is stepping up to the plate, the NG contribution is welcome.
This seems like a good deal, a lot of good gear included.
Can you imagine our Eagles sponsored by Target? Running around with a bull’s-eye on their kit, that’s funny!!
Posted by: oregonbobby | 07 November 2007 at 01:30
I have nothing against the military. My Dad was an immigrant that served in WW2 and benefited from the GI Bill. It was the catalyst for me to be able to be raised middle class, go to college and own my own company.
This isn't about GOP or DNC, it is about the value of USA Rugby is to it's members. Obviously the majority of you guys want whatever sponsorship deal comes this way. Short dollars for simple minds.
Mr. Premature,
You shouldn't reference your p---- in a public blog, especially in such a unflattering way. Sport, war and sponsorships are each very different things, and my predictions about the USA Eagles can be judged against the pundents that speculated about the Irish, Australian, Welsh and New Zealand sides prior to the start of the World Cup.
Regards,
Knott Nostradamus
Posted by: tj | 07 November 2007 at 02:29
Staring to agree with the others that we shouldn't get to worked up over this deal. It looks to be smoke and mirrors.
USA Rugby is ordinary in how little sponsorship they bring in and how poorly they announce and explain the partnership. All this ill will is created by how bad they are at communications.
Posted by: cw | 07 November 2007 at 07:59
TJ gives his opinion as if it were fact even before the full details are known on issues. The 16 or 20 team 2011 format and this National gaurd issue are not decided or known about but TJ's already critical.
TJ has a problem with premature evaluation.
Posted by: TJ is a premature evaluater | 07 November 2007 at 09:44
This is going to be a "Tackle Bags for Body Bags" deal. USA Rugby gets kits for colleges and the NG gets the USA Rugby college membership database and recruiters at college training sessions.
If not, it would have been spelled out in the press release.
Posted by: tj | 07 November 2007 at 12:07
You're a piece of sh*t TJ. Please crawl bak into your hole.
Posted by: Mook | 07 November 2007 at 14:45
Our local high school team has a kit sponsored by the US Army, has been for 3 years now. The local college Army ROTC is sponsoring tour kit for said team this spring. No student information has been shared.
The kids love to wear the Army logo kit, even though nobody from the team has join any military branch, and so do the parents.
The National Guard has Selective Service records for recruit info.
Posted by: Old Beaver | 07 November 2007 at 17:51
"Tackle Bags for Body Bags"???
Tell the truth, you're actually Michael Moore...right?
Maybe your next mockumentary can be an expose on Bush-Cheney and the National Guard using american ruggers to fuel their global domination machine. And they're only getting paid in beer and Hustlers!
Posted by: oregonbobby | 07 November 2007 at 17:55
I've been fairly supportive of some of TJ's posts in the past, but this is a load of crap.
300 kits is nothing to shake a stick at and I don't see anyone else lining up to buy kits for college clubs.
USA Rugby is making sposorship deals and all we get is bitching from people that were complaining about them not making deals a year ago.
No wonder rugby in the US doesn't take off like it rightfully should. The vocal sector of the rugby community seems to enjoy their misery.
Go to any of the rugby sites that follow the game in the USA and the posts are insanely negative.
Posted by: Theo | 08 November 2007 at 04:19
Love the idea of sponsorship of rugby by the NG. But like other posters I'll wait to see the 300 free kits deal that USA Rugby announced.
The organization has been poor at this end of their business responsibilities and something tells me the delays in offering details is a cause for concern. As Kurt mentions the devil is in the details.
Posted by: Rugby Dad | 08 November 2007 at 08:19
I can have an opinion about the NG sponsorship, and you can call me names, but the reality is that this is another sponsorship announcement by USA Rugby with few details. What happen to the Guinness sponsorship that included long term grassroots initiatives? Is it a coincidence that it was announced when Munster where in Chicago playing the Eagles? Was it really about the rights to brand that game and sell beer at the event? Was USA Rugby ashamed to just say that Guinness paid a fee for a presence at the game? That was almost 3 months ago and there has been no further news.
My biggest problem with the NG sponsorship is that it appears to be a direct marketing sponsorship and not strictly a branding sponsorship. Why didn't USA Rugby only sell the NG the branding rights to the HS and Collegiate national tournaments including the branding of the All-American kits? Why sell them a direct relationship with 300 colleges? If that is what they are selling, why not approach a bank and do the direct marketing sponsorship? I am sure that BofA would like to buy 300 branded kits and be able to market credit cards directly to college age kids via rugby clubs. The NG sponsorship press release should read something like this, "The NG has committed 500K dollars over the next 3 years to sponsor USA Rugby's HS and Collegiate National Championships and will be the official kit sponsor of the All-American team."
Also, how does this sponsorship help the varsity vision that is so popular? How many Athletic Directors are going to be more inclined to consider a varsity rugby program when USA Rugby has a sponsors logo on the team's kits and ground equipment? Does this type of direct marketing sponsorship push college rugby away from the varsity vision? Does this kind of sponsorship put USA Rugby at odds with the NCAA and their governance of collegiate sports?
I am afraid that there are too many questions yet to be answered, and it is my opinion that a direct marketing type of sponsorship to college kids is dangerous for the governing body of a sport. The fact that it is the NG makes me personally feel less comfortable. If you are going to sell a direct marketing relationship to the college base of your organization to a sponsor, I would prefer that it be something more innocuous like music downloads, credit cards or some online service.
Posted by: tj | 08 November 2007 at 09:23
Any ounce of credibility TJ had, was flushed after the "Tackle bags for body bags" comment.
He has become the blog equivelent of "white noise".
Go face into the wind next time you have the urge for another premature evaluation.
Posted by: TJ has a premature evaluation problem | 08 November 2007 at 10:30
What credibility do you have? Do you ever post anything you have even giving any thought? Do you even have an opinion that you can express beyond a U-S-A! U-S-A! chant?
Let me guess. You are holed away in some backward part of the country watching Fox News 24/7. You have never left the country and have no friends with an opinion different than your own. Any concept that is not black and white scares you, so your macho instinct is to wrap yourself in any ideology that lets you frame it as black and white. You also have the Taco Bell menu memorized and you have a 64oz refillable soda cup from the mini-mart permanently attached to your right hand.
Posted by: TJ | 08 November 2007 at 10:53
Another shot in the dark from TJ.
Get some Kleenex and wipe yourself up.
This time, in your post you make it clear that you're just guessing.
Save us from your predictions, guesses and "premature evaluations" until the facts on issues are made public.
You're on your own with the "Tackle bags for Body bags" comment.
You couldn't even get "Tim" to agree with you on that one.
Posted by: another Premature Evaluation from TJ | 08 November 2007 at 12:26
They are questions, not predictions, you simpleton.
Are you even capable of critical thinking? To question? To form an opinion or identify patterns? Or do you just take your orders from Rush or Bill-O?
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Team America F%&K YEAH!
Posted by: TJ | 08 November 2007 at 12:39
I don't know many college "kids", college students are adults; they are COLLEGE MEN. Men capable of making their own decisions and mistakes.
Yes, this is target marketing. Tampax isn't going to sponsor the Men's Eagles, and Miller Brewing isn't sponsoring the U-19 teams.
"Tackle bags for Body bags" is the most ignorant comment I have ever seen on Gainline.us. Cannuck is no longer the least popular contributor.
Why can't people be a little patient and let things develop a little So many people want to burn down the house ecause they don't like the drapes.
Posted by: Old Beaver | 08 November 2007 at 12:42
I'm not going to take sides on the validity of the war. Using this as a way to get into that essentially takes us off-topic.
Many entities out there that take care of kids (ex. high Schools) have been struggling with issues of them being perceived as trading their integrity for sponsorship dollars.
Is it OK to put a corn-syrup-laden Coke machine in the school in exchange for soccer jerseys? Is it OK to give away information to military recruiters?
Would these same people who think a military sponsor is ok, but would throw a fit if a public health company were involved? Would Viagra be ok? Would Trojan?
[pause for Chuck's response...]
Then again, Team Roc was OK...
Posted by: Cheyanquí | 08 November 2007 at 13:10
It will be a real blow to USA Rugby if the Iraq war forces the need for a mandatory draft. The value of the sponsorship deal with the NG will be gone. No need to sponsor HS and college rugby when recruitment is mandatory.
Posted by: TJ | 08 November 2007 at 13:34
Here's some critical thinking based on identifying patterns, writing patterns, shared phrases in common, posting times, miss-spellings etc. for you TJ.
TJ & Tim are the SAME PERSON.
It has been a standing joke on this site for a while now (A group of us has been laughing at you at least since the conference on the game in Chicago) and watching you stroke yourself left handed as TJ and then finish yourself off right handed as Tim.
I'm personally going to cheer extra loud when I see the All Americans run out in their new National Guard jerseys.
More later but now I’ve got to go down to the nearest AM/PM and fill up my big gulp.
Posted by: TJ & Tim are the SAME PERSON | 08 November 2007 at 15:37
Tim...TJ...You are a rocket scientist!
Posted by: TJ | 08 November 2007 at 15:40
Chuck Norris says - I wash down my Viagra with pure clean water, since polluting my rock hard body with high fructose corn syrup is prohibited in my Total Gym contract.
Chuck wants a NG rugby shirt.
Christie wants an entire platoon...
See you on the Keo site, Cheyanqui!
Posted by: Chuck Norris | 08 November 2007 at 17:41
For the purpose of analysis lets look at it in order shall we TJ, I mean TJ is Tim,
1) the All Americans didn't get anymore USA Rugby money, because the IRB didn't for whatever reason recognize the program. This left everyone else from the Eagles, to NA4, to age grade, & to even start-up Academies all eating IRB funding pie, and you didn't have "a seat at the table".
2) Using both your Aliases you started posting on gainline about how everything in Boulder was messed up, from minimally raised CIPP dues, to why the Eagles should win with all the extra money they have now. Your agenda was clear posting how college rugby would produce the players for the 2001 World Cup, as your leverage for more money. You are well known for biting the hand that feeds you.
3) Lashing out at anything and everything, you were critical of Nigel Melville for not having the foresight to look past this 2007 world cup, and build a team for the 16 team qualifying process 3 years from now. A World Cup format that still has not been finalized yet. But you didn’t miss the opportunity at the time to sink the boot in.
4) Ironically, when USA Rugby did try get a sponsor that could help college rugby and the All Americans, you have to stand in the team photo along side the players wearing the National Guard jerseys. Clearly your "tackle bags for body bags" comment shows how you really feel. Put that team photo on your wall and frame it.
5) Then TJ, Tim (one in the same) referenced “watching both semi-finals at the World Cup, on route to Berlin and back for the World Cup final”.
All sounds very familiar doesn’t it. (You have to love copy & paste it’s so accurate) .
This was TJ’s only post while at the World Cup - get a life.
After you took time out from your European vacation to rebut Chris Hopps postings, we took time out to call your work and Russ confirmed you were in France. Thanks Russ.
5) Boulder does have a problem with communication.
The problem is, or should I say WAS, your constant leaking, inside knowledge out, through this blog site as TJ, I mean TJ is Tim.
6) By now even those of us in a backward part of the country, who have never left the country, and have the Taco Bell menu memorized, also have a memory for detail and analysis enough to work out who you are, and serve you an elitist, condescending 64oz refillable soda cup of a flavor we call “laughing at you for a while now” TJ is Tim.
Posted by: Giving a rocket to TJ is Tim | 08 November 2007 at 20:46
I'm insulted beyond belief. I have nothing for that little yellow dog TJ. Mean as a snake little liberal that he is.
I just believe we are getting jerked by USA Rugby on the whole sponsorship. 300 Free kits my ax. Nothing is for nothing. Another sales jobs on the membership.
I like the Army!
Posted by: Tim | 08 November 2007 at 22:10
Kurt, What gives?
Where did my post from 20:46pm go.
Nothing X-Rated.
No bad language and it vanished.
Posted by: Rocket Scientist | 09 November 2007 at 00:38
Wow,
This could be the biggest outing since Greg Louganis or Elton John. Tom Cruise amd Kevin Spacey can continue to hide in the closet but it appears TJ and Tim are out.
Chuck Norris rawks!
Posted by: armchairbomber | 09 November 2007 at 10:53
The best thing said on this thread is the poster who said college students are adults.
As a veteran I'll say this. I'm on a college campus every week an a little National Guard duty would be a good thing for a generation that seems a little unclear on the concept of any civic obligation.
Posted by: Mike | 09 November 2007 at 12:03
Tim says:
Death awaits with long ears and pointy teeth!
Posted by: Cheyanquí | 10 November 2007 at 13:07
Chuck,
Not a ZA (my compound handle should lead to what my heritage is), but I love ZA the country, the people, and its rugby.
When they hit 10-12, I may just send Walker and Texas Ranger to my old coach in Pretoria to learn to pack down, and then send them to some buddies in the Eastern and Western Cape to learn more of the wide open game (the stuff us Argies love).
Posted by: Cheyanquí | 10 November 2007 at 13:15
Chuck Norris says - Cheyanqui, send your kids to Argie.
And so Tim/TJ is the former assistant to Clark at Cal?
Now a collegiate coach?
Posted by: Chuck Norris | 12 November 2007 at 14:02
One thing I'm pretty sure of, TJ has no connection to Berkeley.
He is kind of a fancy pants smart guy, I'm betting an east coast school.
What say you Chuck, still promoting the Glendale Peelers RFC, or have you moved on?
Posted by: Tim | 12 November 2007 at 15:36
One thing I'm pretty sure of, TJ has no connection to Berkeley.
He is kind of a fancy pants smart guy, I'm betting an east coast school.
What say you Chuck, still promoting the Glendale Peelers RFC, or have you moved on?
Posted by: Tim | 12 November 2007 at 15:37
Chuck is a FOG Rugby man...from the tip of his willee to the bottom of his can.
Posted by: the fake Old Beaver | 12 November 2007 at 16:21
Chuck you are right on both counts.
It became obvious to those of us “in backward parts of the country” that Tim/TJ No'Bry-anne perhaps has a B.S. in Social Science/Education from Cal & perhaps spent 4 years as an assistant at Cal in the late 80's, before perhaps moving to coaching the Old Blues, Berkeley.
Perhaps he screwed the pooch with Clark. Perhaps NO'Bry-anne didn't get any recruits out of Cal for like 5 years, until the Old Blues folded. Seems like a classic case of "biting the hand that feeds you."
Posted by: From Rocket Science to Social Science | 13 November 2007 at 09:14