On the high performance era: The vision

America's present epoch might be traced to Jack Clark's 1993 debut as national team coach, when many of the training and commercial concepts we now described as 'high performance' first came to prominence, or the 1996 launch of the Super League, which made evident the belief that leading senior clubs would not progress by playing local matches.

But USA Rugby's current high performance regime more immediately owes to then-chairman Neal Brendel's long-held belief that slimming the union's regionally based board of directors to a 'professional' group would enable USARFU to rise above the organizational and financial shortcomings he saw as dogging the organization since its 1976 founding. 

The fall 2005 arrival of the International Rugby Board's high performance monies, which came with the condition that Boulder employ Dublin's hand-picked consultants, set in motion the drafting of a new strategic plan, led by then-vice chair Bob Latham. The outcome prescribed just such a board as well as a template for HP training and commercial management based on the academy system prevalent in world rugby's strongholds, mainly the Commonwealth countries in Britain and the Antipodes.

The 44-page document is most concerned with training and competition for elite athletes, setting forth the goal of becoming a top 8 nation -- possibly by fall 2009, when the plan calls for updating. Other areas of focus include player (member) growth and participation, event management, corporate finance. 

Under the unwieldy category of 'leadership, management, and marketing' as well as in preliminary sections, Brendel and Latham's vision of improved 'governance' takes pride of place, as the plan envisions not only the current 9-member board but also a regionally representative congress (in effect, the old board) to supervise the new board, a more robust national office, and key committees such as rugby (or technical), judicial, and finance and audit.

Although the document sometimes contemplates becoming a World Cup quarterfinalist and sometimes identifies the goal as being a top 10 country, its key HP metrics are clear:

• Position of US men’s team in world rankings
• Development of the North American [4] Series 
• Win rate in our international match program

To achieve these goals, one of the top priorities is to 'create our national center in San Francisco and three satellite centers ... with key players participating in a new daily training environment.'  More specifically:

The initial approach will be to provide support for up to 10 residential players in the academy program through a combination of the IRB investment fund, USA Rugby commercial investment programs, and links with the business community in the San Francisco Bay area.  It is critical that the lessons of other countries are applied and ensure that the needs of USA Rugby and the Eagles are brought to the fore through a centralized contracting system for players and coaches. 

The strategic plan lays out that 'In order to support 60 male players, who will form the nucleus of the Eagles and North American 4 teams, on a minimum fee of $30,000, finance of at least $1.8m[illion] per annum is required', but makes no mention of the cost of resources other than player salaries. It does note that the IRB will spend $7.5 million on the NA4 and Churchill Cup through 2011, in addition to the HP monies distributed directly to Boulder.

The plan allows that 'a parallel approach of placing recruited athletes in international programs needs to be kept in mind' and that 'America must make use of its natural resources'. 

The abundance of facilities and top athletes gives the US a huge potential advantage.  The combined approach of developing rugby players through focused / traditional pathways plus the potential to attract elite athletes from other sports into professional rugby could accelerate US rugby into the top levels of world rugby.

While such prescription are typical of the other categories, as regards the HP strategy it is worth spending a moment to encapsulate the plan for events and TV because they are obviously tied to HP competition.

USA Rugby will establish partnerships with four to six facilities in the country.... The locations should be near ... the four national centers in which we plan to focus much of the energy of our overall development strategies.

The union is to 'maximize broadcasting opportunities to extend the reach and coverage of major events', defined as the USA 7s, Churchill Cup, international matches, and the NA4, which itself is to be expanded to a 'league format' possibly including South American teams. Additionally, the union is to make a bid for the 2015 World Cup.

Tomorrow: a look at how we've done
Yesterday: On the high performance era: Introduction

Comments

[wow]

There is little mention of high school or college rugby? USAR's current non-approach to these traditional pathways is now better understood. It's their plan to build something entirely separate from the American sports model. I wished I had known.

Not much is mentioned about how other sports have cracked the US sports market and never looked back. Which makes this seems like an export plan. Why is it that we think, or thought, rugby is so different from other sports. Why didn't we, and why don't we, just shove the game through our American sport pipes. We have the best sports pipes on the planet.

It is pure stupidity to think that media and TV partnerships could be more easily built around regional HP centers where new rep teams were supposed to be housed, than by way of our traditional sports brands.

Clearly tomorrow it will be pointed out most of this stuff never happened. Its no surprise really, even if this plan had worked, what really would have changed other than a slightly better national team and some artificially supported regional rep teams? Hopefully everyone has picked up on the fact that very little changes in American rugby with Eagles victories or loses. Our success has always depended on making rugby an American sport at the youth, high school and university level.

Lastly, I give Neal Brendel credit for believing a smaller Board would be the answer. How would he have known what a disengaged foreign lot would be chosen. It seems that a bigger role was also assumed for Congress. What the hell happened to this concept. Were they bullied or just apathetic? Either way, time for some new engaged blood on the Congress.

[performance counts]

All those on both sides of the devide please look at the wording here, ask if things have been accomplished, and what is missing that is relevant to you or in your opinion relevant to us becoming a more successful union, HP and grassroots.

Put your prejudices aside, don't rely on just Kurt's opinion or review, ask the questions yourself...I think we will all come to the same conclusions that we are not performing!

I was at the SoCal AGM in late Spring and when the 3 Congress members were asked to give their report from the last meeting the August before (all three were in attendence) they did not have one!

The poster above has it right, we need to review our leadership at the national office, board, and Congress...take some notes the next few days and play your part.

[east guy]

Those of us who are 40-45 are thankful for what the Clark era gave us in memories and pathways. As a coach today, the kids have been shorted and their comps devalued. This has led to a decrease in % of elite athletes playing the sport as well. This regime is clueless on how to bring elites into the game.

[CJB]

Let's simplify for just a second: IRB guarantees money under the agreement that the USA will build a rugby structure that is a copy of the commonwealth model. However, the rugby public says no we want to do it through schools. But here's the thing, how do you do it through the schools when that would mean fighting football, basketball and other longer, more elaborately established sports. So there is a bit of a roadblock not only in high performance pathways, but in high performance thinking. I believe those that trumpet the NCAA path to prominence as well as the guys who holler for academys and regional HP teams are like Republicans/Democrats, Sunni/Shia, Black/White. They are polarized to the point of not being able to even come together for the greater good. IT IS A SAD SCENARIO. For those paying attention out there, please "Can't we all get along?"

[Varsity]

CJB, getting along is about common ground...commonwealth is commonwealth, club based and age grade...varisty is happening in high schools and colleges, does it mean NCAA not necessariy, those are the competition model we must strive to build and allign too single school and multi school alike (multi-school is a club until it moves into association with a school)

What no one can argue is to institutionalize the sport, create long term succession and support we cannot rely on clubs as coaches, parents others age out with their children. Secondarily we may be able to support a parrallel pathway of club as soccer and lacrosse does if our clubs (some have in Iowa, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, etc) have land and a place that becomes a home.

At all times however as a child gets bigger and older parents will be looking at the pathway and seeking the school team.

Don't get me started on the HP capacity of our universities, without the NCAA - do not the top sportsmen in the world train there for every sport imaginable. Are our players not captured for 4 years, etc. Our Hp managers are to build enough programs per region that our level rises as the competition does.

So, please do not get hung up on varsity meaning NCAA, getting along is about using what we have...

[wakey wakey]

CJB, it is common sense man.
Who do you think the commonwealth modeled their programs around? We have taught them more about rugby than they will ever admit. Rugby is and always will be a tiny blip on the radar (in America) unless it adopts a varsity model, coupled with the Olympics.

We created the professional model, the commonwealth is still trying to figure it out.

I'll go one step further as to say that rugby, in general, would be a far more popular sport globally if they adopted a varsity model.

The resources of one of the top American Football programs is comparable to an entire mid-tier T1 country.

An average D1 Football program blows USARFU away in every single respect (from S&C to medical), it's time for some buy in wouldn't you say?

Wake up man.

You don't want to compete against them by using some hair brained Antipodean method, you want to become their friend.

The right American panel, some IRB dollars, and an Olympic berth could have us competing on an even playing field with England in no time flat. But, we first have to adopt the varsity model, work out the kinks and personnel.

This thing could be moving forward, but leadership wants to make it a 40 year plan and compet directly against the most organized and professional sport in the world? - good work if you can get it, I guess.