Florida field report: Does the model hold?

Florida high schools present several problems that recommend a U19 approach, a local coach corresponds in response to last week's post on loosened 'single school' eligibility.

'Finding knowledgeable coaches with the dedication to run the team and attend all practices, games, and league meetings is a bottleneck for the growth of high school rugby (also finding facilities and referees). It's even more difficult to find someone who can run a practice in the afternoon immediately following school,' according to Dave McFadden, coach of Tampa's Pelicans, the 2008 U19 state champs.

'The few clubs in Florida that were associated with a particular school have mostly changed over to U19 clubs to avoid the additional administrative strains.  However, we all hope that rugby will become a varsity sport here in the future once there are enough rugby knowledgeable administrators and teachers to properly manage it,' he adds.

Florida grew to 19 teams from 9 in 2007. Effective adult supervision is crucial. There's no reason to believe this field report isn't as useful as it is concise.

And yet McFadden's sequence unintentionally makes an often overlooked point about the varsity model. Instead of school officials who have rugby skills, it calls for rugby coaches and managers who can speak to administrators on their own terms (while also presenting rugby as an appealing, 'cool' athletic endeavor to students). It requires leaders who can identify and manage the team's needs for fields and facilities, strength and conditioning, medical care, budget and expenditure, and so on -- and then uphold their end of the bargain, just the same as any other (often unpaid) school sports coach.

The result would be a rugby program the school athletic director and principal can be proud of, much like the tennis or water polo teams. Though not so important as basketball or baseball, these are mainstream sports because school officials feel confident there are quality standards and controls that have don't require intimate knowledge of an 'esoteric English game' [sic].

Note that varsity status is optional to the varsity model, and can be seen as a culmination of program building rather than a precursor.

McFadden adds that Florida union data shows about 70 percent of high school players are leaving the sport. 'Allowing graduated players to stay with their club will help to retain some of these players.  We also need to start U21 clubs in association with high school teams to keep them in the game until they are ready to move on to an adult club,' he suggests.

That may be an effective local approach, and perhaps such Florida sides may rise to challenge Highland and its ilk in the composite bracket of the national championships . But it is not a good argument to redefining the single-school category, for rugby's single handedly trying to change America's understanding of high school play as teenagers who go to class together.

Interesting report. Thanks Dave.

Comments

[Blagojevich rugby]

This whole thing is weird.

If creating more players is the cause then why are we making it easier to create less teams?

Why shouldn't a 19 year old man be playing club or College rugby?

I understand that Highland and other successful/influential teams would be effected by single school status, but it stunts growth.

The focused energy should be on making rugby a legit varsity sport and pushing it!

Soccer struggled/failed with the same commonwealth mindset.

- Side bar: I played on the first lacrosse team at my high school (85). Our coach didn't know the rules and couldn't catch a ball - it didn't matter. In the second year we had 28 players. I would not have ever picked up a stick if rugby were not at my high school. It was something to do when not playing football.
In the third year all of the teams in our athletic conference had a club/varsity lacrosse team.

Rugby was started 14 years ago at my high school, there are 4 (of 12) teams in that same conference. All 4 clubs play on school grounds (use of trainers, medical, weight room, locker room, etc.)

Why are we perpetuating the sandlot park mentality?
Soccer and lacrosse were smart enough, why are rugby players so dumb?

Don't you want your kids playing a mainstream sport, safely?

I would help coach the local High School, I'm not traveling more than 10 miles to help some assemblahge of misfits though.

[yesiamahooker]

My senior year of High School we attempted to start a lacrosse team. We were offered the option of being a club sport. The school would allow us to use the facilities but we would not get funding. This might be an option in Virginia but might not be one in other states. It might also only be an option in Fairfax County, VA.

The model my Club in NC created is that we started an U19 side but have a stated goal for all public schools in the county to have their own sides on down the road. Then the club U19 would only serve as an all star/traveling side.

[Pete]

I would rethink that comment about soccer failing with the commonwealth mindset. You ask the average kid who plays both club and varsity soccer and they will tell you that the club soccer is what gets them noticed by colleges and varsity is just a fun thing to do with friends from school who may otherwise play on different club teams. While varsity teams might get all the news, club teams is were the competition is the best. Kids play or practice with their club teams year round. So from a competitive aspect club trumps varsity but from a standpoint of news, varsity stomps club.

[varsity]

without soccer becoming a varsity sport, it would never have gained a foothold. same with lax.

[Chuck Norris]

Chuck Norris says - The nine worst words a youth rugby coach can hear are:

"I'm from USA Rugby and I'm here to help."

Thanks Ronnie...miss ya man.

Chuck spoke with Larry Gelwix on his success with Highland.

Even he says the single school model is the best.

You get the athletes interested, their buddies get interested, and most importantly their Moms get interested.

Once you have the athletes and the parents onboard, the school athletic director is next.

Follow Gelwix's model, and the lacrosse model...and tune out Boulder.

[Run]

USA Rugby is building walls faster than Reagan could tear them down.

[bald1]

For my schools rugby team we have to CIPP team and players to USA Rugby, complete the "permission to play" form by our LAU, have 1 USA Rugby certifed ref, 1 USA Rugby certified Coach, send schedules to the refs, report scores to refs, attend referee meetings and attend 2 LAU high school meetings

For my schools football team we have to... attend 2 league meetings, send schedule to our referee assignor, insurance is already paid for(as is for rugby)
and that is about it. Yes Football is part of a larger sports program but even our larger sports program runs with less daily red tape than the single sport of rugby.

[Al in London]

I keep on hearing the term ‘Commonwealth model’ being bandied about. I think it is being slightly misrepresented. School rugby is the driving force of the junior game in Britain, as it is in New Zealand, Australia and SA.

I coach a junior club side in London. Most of our players play for their school team on Tuesday and Saturday and the club side on Sunday. There are also many schools in London that don’t offer rugby. Club rugby can cater to those kids without a school program.

The US should build on the existing varsity model. If USA Rugby/the clubs are looking for a role then perhaps it should be supplementary one- training coaches, additional weekend rugby, use of fields etc.

The clubs will still benefit. Many of these kids will filter back to the club after college. It is probably akin to what Washington RFC is doing to some extent with its Hyde school relationship, or Xavier/NYAC in New York.

With limited resources the rugby community really needs to piggyback off of the established (and very successful) school varsity structure. Creating an inferior parallel system is insane. I agree with Chuck, take what lacrosse has done and ape it. It is very simple.

This is a good and long overdue discussion.

[M. Bradley]

It seems so simple, doesn't it?

[Al in London]

It is much more simple than some of the alternatives being offered. Build on the very good varsity system that already exists. Why re-invent the wheel?

[Blagojevich Rugby]

Pete, the average kid (soccer player) plays club soccer because he likes playing soccer. He is probably limited to the sport because of his physicality as well. If he isn't limited by his physicality, (and chooses to play rather than choosing him) he has an opportunity to play soccer in College. Soccer has few scholarships, but it has x-hundreds of times more than rugby.

Rugby will be a blip, like soccer was, until it finds its way into high schools.

In Rugby right now, the sport chooses the player, rather than the player choosing the sport.
This can be reversed with a varsity plan, which will lead to college scholarships.

I met Mr. Bradley once, sir you are no Marty Bradley.

[M. Bradley]

Very funny...

It’s not particularly useful to dig too deep into the comparison of youth soccer and rugby when debating the commonwealth club v. school club/varsity approaches. A youth soccer player can play 40 or 50 games a year, every year. That number of available games enables the player full age grade club and school/varsity participation.

Just because a team doesn’t have a faculty representative and practices at 6:00 PM off campus, doesn’t mean they can’t be a single school team. In Tennessee, just a few years ago a vast majority of the teams would be considered community clubs or multi-school teams. Today, of the 50+ teams, only a handful would still characterize themselves that way and those that do have goals that move them towards a single school environment in the future. Of course, our state league has that as a stated goal and has built policies and an infrastructure that supports that model.

[Pete]

Blagojevich-

Don't know where you live but in the Mid Atlantic and the DC area in particular, club soccer is where the college coaches go to recruit players, not varsity. I am not talking about house league teams, I am talking about travel teams that practice and play together year round.
But enough with the silly ass soccer discussion, we are not here for that junk. In reality no school system or public high school is going to adding rugby as a varsity sport in the next few years--not when other varsity sports are being axed b/c of $ issues. So going with the club model and establishing a structure where kids can play is the logical step. Then if/when the $ situation is straight and there are established clubs with players, you can approach school districts and say we've got this sport with x-amount of kids playing it, why not add it. Over-simplified I realize.

[spin stops here]

Alright Marty,

Enough of that smart-alec talk about: stated goals, built-in policies and an infrastructure which supports the model.

This is Kevin Roberts' and Nigel Melville's rugby union and we won't have any of that smarty-pants talk.

If USAR starts buying into that kind of planning process we wouldn't be able to change the goal posts to suit our political agenda, now would we. For example, how in the hell do you blame three seasons of no planning on the economy if you have a bunch of stuff written down, like one of those business plan things.

Bradley, we thought if we just left you in Tennessee and never invited you to anything and never sought your opinion you'd keep quite. Now we can see you can't be trusted.

One more smarty-ass post from you and you're finished.

[Former HS Coach]

I am confused about some of the comments about USAR and their approach to HS rugby on this blog. Last year USAR recognized single HS teams as a separate entity from club teams. They have recognized SBROs whose goal (like Marty in TN) is to have rugby be recognized by the States Interscholastic administration. Where is this "commonwealth model" that people talk about from Boulder. You can argue about the U19 age limit and I wish it were U18 (with something like a sept 1 start), but it does not appear to me that Boulder is pushing anything in the HS area other than the traditional US model.

Now should they do more to support the HS teams becoming varsity? Yes, nice marketing materials and guides on how to approach an HS AD would be useful. However USAR will never be able to get a HS team recognition - it will be done by people on the ground, and in my mind primarily parents.

[varsity]

Only a foreign mind would think that having 5 guys from someother HS playing on a different HS team in a good idea.

This would never happen in any of our traditional HS sports.

Middleton is the Board rep, Roberts the Chairmen, Melville the CEO, Griffin the YDO...so you ask, why do we call these kinds of decision Commonwealth?

[Former HS Coach]

I my local area, players are allowed to participate in sports with other schools, but ONLY if their school does not offer it. Is this not what USAR is saying? I am not sure I agree with it because it prevents teams from really becoming a single school team, and therefore will retard their recognition, but it is not outside the american traditional model.

I guess I feel like I am missing something, because to me all of this is leading towards the traditional model - obviously others do not. I do not think that USAR supports HS rugby that well, but I dont have an issue with decisions that move us to something closer to other sports.

[Al in London]

Varsity, what does “foreign mind” have to do with anything? Single-school teams are the norm overseas. This multi-school approach is a solution being cobbled together for a specific US problem. It is nothing that Melville and Roberts are borrowing from their former rugby/cultural experience.

[varsity]

Al,

Every person in a decision making position in USAR is foreign. They must take responsibility for their decisions.

The decision to allow players already graduated from HS and up to 5 players from other HS's to play on different HS teams is stupid.

If you prefer I will just call these union officials dumb. Although I feel these type of lame decision are reached because they don't understand US sport and the US sport-education system. Therefore, being of foreign mind and not understanding the task at hand is a major issue which leads to poor decisions and poor overall leadership.

Al, thanks for asking.

[Former HS Coach]

I think you can disagree with the decisions, but to claim it is because the decision-makers are foreign is dumb. To think that there are not US people with influence that have been given the voice is just not correct.

To me the argument around someones nationality of heritage reduces the chances of good discussion. Lets talk about the merits of the decision ONLY.

To give everyone an example of eligibility regs for HS sports - please check out:
http://www.wiaa.com/pub/handbook/html/18.0.0.htm

From this you will see that the players must be U20, and that players from other institutions can participate with their local public school. Therefore I would suggest there is nothing in the USAR new announcement that is against the US mainstream.

However I do find the rule that 5 players that do not attend the HS seems strange to me, but I think I can understand how it works for rugby. If we allowed students that do not have rugby to play for another school then we just have club teams, and no drive to create single school teams. The timeline allows players and parents that have an interest in rugby to recruit over the next couple of years.

For me, what USAR decides should be immaterial. I think that local people should make these decisions, whether it is the SBO or the local league. I think the National Championship for HS should probably go away once we have state championships - this will mean more to the HS admin. I think that track is the only sport that has a HS National Championship.

[Al in London]

I am not a fan of the proposal either, but it is probably guided more by the practicalities on the ground (lack of high school coaches, players or teams) than any foreign mindset.

USA rugby had Americans running the show for years and they did very little to advance high school rugby. These guys are at least getting around to the subject. Whether they are driving the debate or merely reacting to grassroots initiatives is probably less important.

[disagree]

The growth of HS rugby is owed to the individual who work in HS rugby, never to USAR.

The former administrations of Fleener, Roberts, Nixon, Barry and Brendel all understood this. They didn't have millions in IRB funds to spend, but they understood US high school sports and the mindset of the parents involved. Even without supporting HS rugby directly, they could make informed decisions when the time came.

The current HS/youth Board rep, Bill Middleton, does not. Neither does Melville, Roberts or Griffin. Therefore mistakes like this occur. Even if certain youth coaches are in favor of poison pill rules, its the union leaders job to win these arguements and avoid self-inflicted damage.

What is also true, is US rugby has in the past had many many foreigners which worked effectively in key union positions. These individuals meshed their outside understanding of rugby with a yankee mindset, which is something the current lot can't seem to do.

A failed NA4 cross-boarders concept, fly-in Eagles, out of step high school rules are all signs of this inability to think American. Which is relevant because we are speaking about rugby in America.

[Former HS Coach]

Again an attack without any basis. I do not believe that USAR is doing what it needs to do, but I get tired hearing things like this. What is it about the rules that are unamerican? What is it that makes them wrong. Stop attacking the messenger, and start discussing the message.

IRB money goes to things the IRB wants to spend it on. No NA4, no NA4 money. No National team development (U20s) - no money. Anyone who thinks that Melville had any say in what this money could be spent on is showing ignorance. The IRB does this for every tier 2 and 3 nation and we are not any different.

These posts are by people that would prefer to see USAR fail, just so they could say I told you so. The Rush Limburgha of rugby!

[Rush]

unamerican? easy there man known as former coach.

The new proposed HS rules are stupid and they will hurt the growth of HS rugby. If you are the messenger you must be stupid as well.

What these foreign rugby big shots running USAR need to do is explain in convincing fashion to the IRB how their funds could propel US rugby forward, maybe even as far as the RWC quarters, if spent on the right stuff. This is what the IRB wants. This is the purpose of the grants. If Melville can't explain our case he should resign from his $275,000. position, making way for someone who can. You and him blaming the IRB for wasting millions is a cop out.

It's not true that all tier 2 countries are getting grant funds to spend on the same items. These grants are customized to fit the country and their situation.

I don't want USAR to fail. Melville and crew already have, we need US rugby to go forward.

[Leksan]

Good stuff HS Coach... 'The Rush Limbaugh of rugby!' That about sums up too many of the anonymous posters on this site who seem intent on Boulder (and it’s foreign born leaders) failing, no matter the cost.

Like Al from London and the good HS Coach, I can appreciate any and all efforts from USAR that support the growth of youth and HS rugby, but I think success has to be driven from the grassroots up through the LAU's and SBRO's.

For the near-term the right goal is getting as many kids playing rugby as possible. The success of all youth and HS programs – single and multi-school in concert – will lead to more kids playing and wider adoption of the game. Certainly both sides of the argument can agree on that.

Get the kids interested and playing the game today. Worry about the structure tomorrow.

Mike Leksan

[what a laugh]

Just keep sending your dues to Boulder you tools. Hundreds of thousands of youth and high school dollars, so these pretenders can waste it.

Keep telling yourself that everything will be OK. Don't fight for services or a plan. To hell with those dues and the fact that sport after sport is passing us by. Don't worry about the future of the union, let someone else do that for you.

Pay no attention to how much better it can be. Have no standards. Keep your head in the sand, send your money in to pay for a half million dollars per year of salary for just two of them.

Leksan, get off your high horse. You are too well known in the tool box to attempt to play the tough guy getting it all done in rugby.

[Leksan]

Laugh,

1) Toolbox is one word.
2) My standard is measured by how many kids I can help start and then advance playing the game of rugby. It’s fun and I like doing it. I know it works to benefit the game and I consistently post about my observations, experiences and opinions. ‘High-horse’? I hope not.
3) I use my real name because I am not interested in slandering people I don’t know and therefore I don’t need to hide behind a pseudonym.

Anonymous griping about the salaries of union officials and your perception of their failings does NOTHING to help move the game forward. Boulder may be a huge mess, but their critics would be much easier to take seriously if they used their real names.

I don't ‘get it all done’, but I am lucky to have an opportunity to promote the game by helping a good organization. I contribute. What do you do, you anonymous faker?

[Youth Rugby Fan]

Mike you are anonymous. No one in rugby knows you, other than by your posts on GL.

You are a lighthearted joke within LAMO. Stop being the spokesman.

Stop telling everybody to use their names, 90% of the poster don't care to use names, for their own personal reasons.

I don't care what you are saying with or without your name on the topic of union leadership, because you don't have any experiences that can help US rugby improve our union leadership.

[I am Leksan's bizarro]

Gentlemen, lets not forget the facts and the figures. This is how they are judged.

Collectively, they fail every single day because of their ideology. Logically, they miss the mark because they and their advisers have no clue, they are basically winging it. They managed to brainwash some American Drones.

These guys were told and told us, if we build it they will come. They thought they built it within the first 6 months. Oops, they reload, and again, and now turn to development and miss the mark.

Duh... it's already built. Stop trying to compete against the biggest athletic machine in the world. Be cordial, be humble, and get in line. Maybe you can jump on track.

Going about it in this fashion is wasteful.