The most significant feature of USARFU's newly revealed high school plan is not whether and when it will cease holding national championships, but how it defines high school.
Allowing up to five graduates and/or non-students to compete on a 'single school' team defies everyone else's understanding of the term. No other mainstream sport even bothers with the concept: you play for the school you go to, or you play for a regional all-star team, and never the twain meets.
The concept of transitioning toward state-based high school championships and a national Under 19 title is sound enough. The model pertains in American baseball, basketball, soccer, and a host of other sports. So playing for Highland Park and then moving up to the Dallas Harlequins U19 side would make sense.
But in aiming to leverage the school system, the union hasn't understood that varsity rugby has to look like any other varsity program to parents, the athletic director, and the principal. That means your son or daughter plays with the kids he or she goes to class with.
The essence of the 'varsity model' is not whether rugby is sanctioned, but whether it has a field and facilities, a budget, coaching and medical support, and credibility on campus. With these things, high school teams could compete for top-tier athletes and count on school and parental support. Then the quality of our game would soar. If not, then raw playing numbers will never matter so much.
This explains why parochial schools from Xavier in New York to Jesuit in Sacramento have consistently proven among the strongest in the country.
High school eligibility for rugby needs to be the same as for any other sport. As to the national championship, Americans like them.
These decisions and discussions are a good diversion from the fact that the 2009 USArFu budget has already been spent. Time for another friendly fire sale?
Posted by: Crazy Eddy | 22 January 2009 at 10:11
Kurt has this right, there may be differing views on the need for a national HS championship, but we all agree the foreign legion has this eligibility stuff wrong.
WTF, could they be thinking? The youth committee should be ashamed and the employees fired.
Heard that Scott Johnson is starting to spill the beans on what he was promised from Roberts and Melville. This should get strangely interesting over the next week.
Posted by: marfu fan | 22 January 2009 at 10:27
http://nmdirect.blogspot.com/ believe in nige
Posted by: something is up | 22 January 2009 at 13:04
The NM Blog:
The lack of sponsorship, Eagles victories and a business plan has been going on longer than the recession. But nice try Nigel.
BTW, who doesn't beleive when the Johnson smoke clears that Nigel won't be the Eagles coach.
Might be good thing, he's no CEO and we can only improve from the Thorburn Johnson era.
Posted by: anon | 22 January 2009 at 14:06
In these times of advertising and marketing funding drying up, I'm sure KRoberts is thankful that USArFu is keeping Saatchi busy with quarterly test runs on how to re-brand rugby.
Maybe if we fired the Board, we'd wouldn't have to make so many cuts.
Posted by: Let them eat cake. | 22 January 2009 at 17:48
you will see. Nigel is going to come through. you'll see.
Posted by: something is up | 22 January 2009 at 18:13
Right, we have been waiting for a few years now. I guess he was setting us all up for the huge dummy pass and 80 meter blind run?
I think he is a nice bloke, but at this point I think we'd have been better off with KRoberts shirtless man-servant as CEO.
Posted by: Bomchicka-wow-wow | 22 January 2009 at 19:49
This is not about Melville being a nice guy, because he might just be.
It's about what we expect from a $275,000 per year CEO.
Do we expect a well thought-out business and strategic plan? Yes.
Do we expect to know our place and role in the execution of the plan? Yes.
Do we expect a streamlined, efficient office? Yes.
Do we expect a strategic use of the millions of dollars of IRB grant funds? Yes.
Do we expect the national teams program would be led by individuals who care deeply about US rugby? Yes.
Do we expect the Eagles to continue at a performance level ahead, or on par, with Canada and Japan? Yes.
Do we expect a level of commercial sponsorship success? Yes.
Do we expect thoughtful, informed decision concerning all aspects of domestic rugby, most importantly, youth, high school and college? Yes.
We are not getting this type of return on our $275,000. Melville interviewed to be the Eagles coach (btw, a job he might be suited for). He was talked into taking the position of CEO and President of Rugby, whatever that last title means apart from CEO.
Under his leadership we have our worst ever international record at all levels.
We have less sponsorship and a bigger payroll. We have higher dues and less membership services.
The Boulder HQ's and Board of Directors have lost all contact with the average loyal member. Their every decision reeks of a poor understanding of American sport and rugby's place in it.
US rugby needs a strong, capable CEO. If he or she is a nice person great, but we need professional leadership.
We need a strategic plan. We need to reduce employee wage expense, bringing these salaries in-line with the scope of our organization. We need to get Congress working and to empower the local and regional unions.
We need a new BofD's. This all starts with a new CEO. I propose Melville for Eagles coach at $100,000. per year. Hire the new CEO at $200,000. per year and expect much of this person.
Posted by: start over | 23 January 2009 at 09:03
I think $200k is still too much for a USA Rugby CEO. I think a new CEO should have a more performance-based compensation plan with a lower base salary. Make these guys accountable!
Posted by: Rang-a | 23 January 2009 at 10:20
Like Kurt, I have a problem with the way USARFU defines ‘high school’. Unlike Kurt, I don’t think the problem is the way they define ‘single-school’; the problem is that they bother to do so at all. High School rugby should simply be defined as U18.
The ‘single-school’ designation is a false distinction that denigrates the value of multi-school youth rugby clubs, stigmatizing the vast majority of youth players and their programs while unfairly favoring the tiny minority of qualified single-school programs – almost all of which are private catholic schools.
Quite simply, most kids who are interested in playing rugby do not have a single-school option. Right now, today, the majority of HS rugby players are playing for multi-school clubs. Do we really want to tell those players, parents, coaches, club administrators, volunteers and fans that what they are doing and supporting is inferior or illegitimate? Do we want to take that playing option away from any interested kid? No. Instead we should be fully supporting - and offering equal opportunities to - all the programs that are introducing the rugby to kids.
Does support of multi-school clubs run contrary to the beloved ‘varsity model’? Does the support of these clubs promote the hated ‘commonwealth model’? Of course not. The fact is: multi-school clubs ultimately nourish the varsity model by introducing the game to more kids at younger ages; these kids go on to enrich the game at the collegiate level. For proof look at other youth sports. In soccer, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball, track, and even baseball, the top collegiate recruits are drawn from the top clubs. The clubs in each of these sports enrich their collegiate game. The varsity model objective is realized at the collegiate level - not at youth or HS grade levels.
Kurt states, ‘The essence of the 'varsity model' is not whether rugby is sanctioned, but whether it has a field and facilities, a budget, coaching and medical support, and credibility on campus. With these things, high school teams could compete for top-tier athletes and count on school and parental support. Then the quality of our game would soar.’
I agree. But I don't find anything exclusive to the single-schools model reflected in his statement.
Our club and the entire of NorCal youth / HS rugby community stand as a good example of the value of multi-school clubs and how support of these clubs is the fastest way to make the youth game ‘soar’.
The Lamorinda Rugby Club draws from multiple HS’s, Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, primarily from within the towns of Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. We have over 200 kids from ages 6 through 18. SFGG has a similar structure (and their own pitch and clubhouse) and they attract a similar number of kids. Are our clubs ‘All Star’ teams? Absolutely not. We recruit from our local communities, unlike the private schools that have unrestricted geographic reach and, like De La Salle and others, are known to draw the top of the top tiered athletes from throughout their region.
In addition to playing rugby for Lamo, most of our HS kids play other sports for their schools. Yet they all wear their Lamo colors and they all recruit their friends and other athletes to play rugby. Our club works hard to gain access to ample fields and facilities (but, due to our numbers, no single-school resource would be sufficient). We have a budget, dozens of certified coaches (most with CPR/First Aid certs, and many with Ref certs), hundreds of parent volunteers, medical support at all functions, and credibility on our campuses. Perhaps more importantly, we have credibility and support from within our community.
In NorCal there are a lot of multi-school clubs and a few single-school programs. All the single-school programs are private schools. None of these private schools sponsor a youth program. But the clubs, Lamorinda, SFGG, Peninsula, Diablo, Marin, and Danville (to name a few) all do support youth rugby programs. What does that say about the value of clubs v. private school programs?
Is the ‘club model’ working? Are we enriching the collegiate game and the game in general? Yes. Almost every one of Lamo’s graduates from last year is playing college rugby this year. Just ask Tim O’Brian at St. Mary’s College if he’s happy with the kids he’s gotten from SFGG, Lamo and the other NorCal clubs. Our clubs are producing quality kids who are quality players, making an impact in college rugby.
The single school model might be a worthy goal for the future of HS Rugby in the US. However, if USAR forces the adoption of the single school model prematurely, youth rugby will be stunted as a result.
My two cents.
Mike Leksan
Posted by: Leksan | 23 January 2009 at 10:30
Is everyone on here either A) really rich or B) completely ignorant of what is going on in this country and the world?? Have you not heard the news say we are in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression?
Rugby is a fledgling sport trying to grow at the moment. And in the past few years it has not made the strides that USAR promised it would make. Is the reason for that A) Nigel is a pussy. As most of you seem to imply. Or B) the economy sucks right now and it is really really hard to get things done.
Read Nigel's blog and get on board. we are going to win ugly. I like that rallying cry.
Posted by: News flash | 23 January 2009 at 11:27
Nice try apologist.
There are things which are recession proof, affordable entertainment happens to be one of them. If there were any time a sport like rugby could flourish, it would be now. The problem is that the genius behind USArFu doesn't realize what he has. It's time to pull the drapes back and see what really "lies" beyond the yellow brick pathway which was laid by this brain-trust.
Sure, the economy sucks, flirting with 10% unemployment in some regions, but rugby is not affected - mate..
Posted by: The Wizard w/ his pants down | 23 January 2009 at 13:02
Mike, fantastic post. I've always been ambivalent about the HS championship because like yourself I always wondered why great teams like SFGG (which I was involved with) and Lamo weren't playing the Jesuits of the world.
Allowing graduated kids to play is stupid - I think SFGG's team is "officially" U19 but no one who wasn't in high school played for it - but it's better for our rugby that Jesuit and SFGG have more head to head battles like the fantastic game played at Rocca Field last year.
BTW, re: Roberts/Saatchi. Are they rebranding rugby..are they doing anything? I'm not even seeing rebranding. Not seeing anything.
Lastly, rugby should do great in a recession. Hey buddy, you wanna pay $50 to see a crappy team like the Giants, or do you want to see one of America's best club teams at SFGG for free? The beer's not even overpriced!
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 23 January 2009 at 13:33
wizard,
yea you're right. I'm sure Nigel is ignoring the long line of sponsors who are begging to sign on to support a sport 90% of america has no clue about and if they do it is a bad impression.
Yea rugby is so recession proof. It is such a sure-fire guarunteed investment. Get a clue dude. Everyone has backed away from supporting anything let alone a risky unknown quantity like rugby.
Did you happen to notice the Arena Football League closed shop for the year?? Yuuup. Sports are recession proof!!!!
sigh. got to win ugly. get on board. or be quiet. please.
Posted by: News flash | 23 January 2009 at 14:11
"I'm sure Nigel is ignoring the long line of sponsors who are begging to sign on to support a sport 90% of america has no clue about and if they do it is a bad impression. "
It's not like you don't see the imagery of rugby advertised constantly.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 23 January 2009 at 15:18
whatcha mean flynn? Im not saying its hopeless. Just saying its hard to expect all that they promised (when the econ was good) in the present reality. Kind of sick of everyone trashing Nigel. I personally believe he is going to lead us to where we want to go.
Posted by: News flash | 23 January 2009 at 17:33
Melville has been failing since he got here. Poor performace in most all areas of leadership.
This recession is the best thing that ever happened to him. He can hide his three seasons of shit work product behind the ecomony.
Posted by: go recession go | 23 January 2009 at 18:04
I live in a city (pop. 100,000) with 2 large public high schools and 5 smaller private/charter schools.
Moving to a "single-school" model would destroy my local high school rugby team. A "single school" model may work in other places, but what's wrong with having options? The proposed model doesn't prevent schools from having their own teams.
Parochial schools like Xavier are successful because it costs 5 figures to attend and it's dedicated alumni have deep pockets. That's great and that works for them.
But we're a large, diverse country and we need "area-based" teams or you won't have any rugby at all in some places.
Posted by: DJ | 23 January 2009 at 20:04
Nigel's salary is not relevant to this post, but since it's being commented on...
$250K to be the CEO of a nation's sport? I think that's a rip off...of the CEO. That's peanuts for the responsibility.
Posted by: DJ | 23 January 2009 at 20:13
"national sport" please!
He's on $275k not $250k, and he is crap as a CEO. For $275,000 we could get a proper CEO with real experience. News flash USAR is not a Fortune 500 company, we are a very small NGB of a very small American sport. Having a $250k coach and $275k CEO is out of scale.
The nearest old Nigel has come to being a CEO has been a tennis shoe salesman.
Hire him as coach and lets end this joke. Throw a dart at the phone book and you'll find a more qualified CEO.
Posted by: check & balance | 23 January 2009 at 21:36
You excuse maker types are funny - always comparing apples and oranges to apple sauce and lemons. I guess you guys just don't get it.
There are things which are disposable in a downturn. Indoor football played on a hockey rink with a net is one of those things.
Those who struggle in a good economy will undoubtedly struggle in a poor one. Thanks for the head up Nige.
Posted by: Wiz depants | 23 January 2009 at 22:22
Newsflasher, I guess you don't understand the value of rugby. Nobody (but those who are being paid big lumps of cash) cares whether we have a professional rugby league in America or Euro satellite. We just want more people playing rugby, our National team fielding better American players, and kids and young adults playing safely.
Once you and your friends at USArFu understand things can move forward.
USArfufa will have its best year this year, just imagine what they could have done if they knew what they were doing coming in.
Posted by: Aldepantsu | 23 January 2009 at 22:36
"whatcha mean flynn? Im not saying its hopeless. Just saying its hard to expect all that they promised (when the econ was good) in the present reality. "
You see the imagery of the game in advertisements all the time. Sports drinks, credit card commercials - hell, Ralph Lauren has a highly successful fashion line that basically coopts the imagery of the game. I'm not suggesting that with a little effort we would have our jerseys made by Ralph and have Powerade or Capital One as our key sponsors, but we supposedly have one of the best advertising executives in the entire world on our side and we've gotten basically nothing. We had more sponsorship when Jack Clark and Anne Barry were doing the negotiating and neither of them are CEO of Saatchi.
I think we've done a poor job of targeting advertisers who have links with rugby overseas, and done a poor job searching out smaller companies who possibly want to break into sports sponsorship but don't quite have the money for the big four. Those are two sectors we really need to aggressively hunt for sponsorship from.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 24 January 2009 at 03:58
Here's a cool link from ARN to a local news segment on Stu Krohn's Charter School rugby program in Los Angeles.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/sports/more/Charter_School_Enters_the_Scrum_Los_Angeles.html
Posted by: Leksan | 24 January 2009 at 10:55
i never see the imagery of rugby in anything u said besides rugby jersey style polos. And theyve been around for decades. And no one who wears them have any idea what they are wearing. I just dont think it is as big a slam dunk as u think
Posted by: News flash | 24 January 2009 at 13:41
Wouldn't it be great is Lamo put effort into splitting their program into 3 city based squads. Then those new teams could be built up and split into school based teams. Who knows in 10 years time, 1 team could become 6-7-8+ teams.
It can be done. West Linn Rugby in Oregon is less than 8 years old, and they have already spawned off 3 successful high school programs.
Tim Medearis, Greg Swansen and West Linn HS are the model of high school growth we should looking at; not leviathan superteams from NorCal and Utah.
Posted by: oregon bobby | 24 January 2009 at 14:46
Oregon Bobby,
This is a difficult call. Lamo has been able to do so much positive work in our area, its almost hard to fault their efforts. What is most impressive is the Saturday mornings with a hundred 9-11 years olds playing rugby. The Lamo club and its parents make all this happen.
However, I do agree all of this ending in one HS team, does seem a waste. More troubling is the kids from outside the Lamo area that are now playing with them. This might be getting in the way of the growth of additional teams.
Because Lamo is a community club they also struggle with school support. They have trouble finding a place to play and practice. If they had better school connections this wouldn't be an issue.
All in all, LAMO has been great for rugby in the Bay Area. The team is run by the best of good rugby men. The team has fantastic support from parents, and is growing rugby, make no doubt about this last statement. Think what you want about single school verses multi-school, but Lamo is growing rugby.
Now not far away in the Livermore Valley, we have a team that is holding back a school that wants to break-off from a multi-school team and start their own single school team. Powerful union officials are part of the management of the multi-school team and they are placing every roadblock you can imagine in front of the team (Foothill HS) trying to create their own single school. Shame on these selfish jerks.
Tough call on this single school verses community age-grade team. We should just find a way to grow both. Last years plan of two championships at two different levels should work for a few more years. We shouldn't kill off growth in any area at present.
What is needed in a new national organization for youth and HS rugby. Tell the Boulder jerks to shove off.
Posted by: NCRFU Fan | 25 January 2009 at 09:04
Oregon Bobby,
We don't, and shouldn't, need to 'put our efforts into splitting (our) program' into multiple programs. The phenomenal appeal of youth rugby is helping to do that for us. Local clubs Danville, Diablo, Hayward, Marin, etc. are all benefiting from our efforts already. These programs today are stronger because of the program Lamo has established. Ask them.
Our mission has been, and should continue to be, to build the best youth rugby program of which we are capable. Our success feeds other local clubs' success.
The real stifler would be an absolute mandate favoring single-schools.
Mike Leksan
Posted by: Leksan | 25 January 2009 at 22:16
OB makes a better point. I fail to see how consolidating power makes the rugby world a better place. Facilitating or encouraging the development of new teams in your local area does not mean the end of your multi-school teams’ it certainly wouldn’t end the great work Lamo does for the youth game
West Linn isn't winning state or national titles, but they are spawning greater rugby opportunities for high schoolers in Oregon. I think their coaches would agree that is very rewarding.
Posted by: old beaver | 25 January 2009 at 23:34
Old Beaver makes the most important point of all: encouraging and facilitating the development of new teams is the key to successful growth of the game at the youth through HS levels.
Posted by: Leksan | 26 January 2009 at 10:04
Is it Paul Bretts and Giles Wilson who are fighting against Foothill HS becoming a single school team?
Foothill has a really strong school identity, a very good football program, their football coach is great...and he played rugby in college.
Isn't this where we should be promoting and helping a single school model?
Once we get done talking about the different models for the growth of the sport, can we talk about the dudes which hold back high school rugby for their own selfish reasons?
Posted by: Single school rugby | 27 January 2009 at 09:58
I am usually not a fan of calling people out on comment boards.
However, since it is commonplace here at gainline.us, please tell us what multi school team is holding back the Foothill HS rugby program.
Perhaps the shame of having the glaring eye of the rugby public will grease the wheel of progress.
Posted by: L-Town Wells | 27 January 2009 at 17:08
They call themselves the Pleasanton Cavaliers, coached by Paul Bretz and Giles Wilson.
Posted by: anon | 28 January 2009 at 08:53
Mike,
I'm sure you have a wonderful program over there, playing games at some burned out park and changing in a parking lot isn't exactly progressing the sport. One thing will grow and legitimize the sport. We all know what that is, and energy should be spent there. All other energy is basically static or even wasted, as time will prove.
Posted by: sandlot mentality | 28 January 2009 at 09:12
Sandlot,
If you're talking to me about our program, I suggest you enlighten yourself a bit first. Our multi-school club is the perfect antithesis of this ignorant 'sandlot' talk. We have: excellent playing and practice facilities; close to 40 coaches (mostly all certified and FirstAid certified, and many with ref certification); medical and training support at all HS games and most youth games; hundreds of parent volunteers; support from our schools and community; an international tour once a year; etc.
Wasted energy?
We have almost 40 kids in our 8U side alone, another 80+ below the HS age/grades. Six of last years graduates are playing for Cal this year, a couple more are at St. Mary’s, and another dozen are playing collegiate rugby elsewhere. I think we are advancing the game a bit.
What are you doing?
Posted by: Leksan | 28 January 2009 at 11:11
What's really wrong with Lamo rugby is that this guy Leksan, who nobody in rugby knows, is their mouth-piece.
Let one of the stud Lamo coaches do the Lamo rep-ing. Mike go back to whatever you were doing before you started taking credit for the birth of the sport in the Bay Area.
Posted by: wrt | 28 January 2009 at 18:37
Leksan,
I one post you say that your numbers, coaching and support system are deep as the ocean. I another post you make it sound like budding off new teams from your program would ruin everything.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like LAMO just wants to consolidate power & remain a multi-community super team, everyone else be damned!
Also:
If the above regarding Pleasanton is true. Then the uys in charge are gigantic twats.
Posted by: L-Town Wells | 29 January 2009 at 02:36
The other thing that Leksan is wrong about is the great facilities. LAMO is without even reasonable facilities. Bad turf when they can get it.
The school sports like LAX get the resources in the LAMO area.
The really young kids get to run around on St Mary's sometimes, but fields are a major problem.
Posted by: Anon | 29 January 2009 at 08:44
Let me clarify things a bit...It was decided to put the Foothill program on hold until Pleasanton Cavaliers Rugby Club develops the middle school divisions. That was agreed to by all parties that really had any vote in the matter! This was voted on by Foothill, Amador and Cavaliers.
There are some bitter, bitter people out there. Anon can drop anyones name it wants, and still hide behind their comfy little wall....nice work! Get the story straight!
Posted by: K. Burnthorn Pleasanton R.F.C. | 23 February 2009 at 11:52
Anon, Leksan, et al. I appreciate the enthusiasm however you need to get your facts straight. For seven years the Tri-Valley Vikings have operated and played in the Northern California as a multi-school team. John Dwyer, the current principal at Foothill, discussed the possibility of starting a high school team. A decision which I fully supported and continue to support. He was unable to get a team going due to time restraints on his part. However he agreed to help support the current team in the Livermore Valley. Together we focused our efforts. Since the beginning of the year the Pleasanton Cavaliers http://pleasantonrugbyclub.com/ have established a non-profit organization focused on developing youth rugby in the Livermore Valley, tied together an adult touch rugby group and high school group into a club that now has more than 70 participants, created a coaching staff that works with the Cavaliers and Danville Oaks RFC, created community ties with Pleasanton, the Buisness association of Pleasanton, the City Board, the Parks and rec department of Pleasanton, The Scottish games in Pleasanton and Livermore. This summer we will be hosting a middle-school rugby camp in order to create an under 10's 12's and 14's team program. Don't see how our efforts can be tagged as holding back progress, or selfish.
Posted by: Paul Bretz | 23 February 2009 at 13:53