The St. Louis Bombers' Super League withdrawal, acknowledged yesterday by league officials, is a reminder that most American club teams have their hands full.
The Bombers, 1-6 in 2008 and 6-15 since joining the competition 3 years ago, have access to a fine suburban field and count several Eagles among their ranks, but face a normal array of hurdles in this virulent recession: filling out the roster, raising funds, and so on. Most any self-supported team knows the drill, even if they don't play a national schedule.
American club competition may be more orderly than it was a decade ago, but it's not clearly moving forward. Over the past three seasons, the Super League has lost the Kansas City Blues, the Olympic Club, Life College, and the Gentlemen of Aspen, repeat champions of the 12-year-old circuit. Washington and Philadelphia-Whitemarsh, relegated by administrative decision, may not have been too far from leaving voluntarily.
Further, many believe that local competition in places like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco, and Los Angeles was fiercer in 1980s and early 1990s. This qualitative evaluation belies the fact that player registrations have been climbing, which may only reflect more efficient dues collection by a cash-strapped national body.
Combine this parlous state with the underwhelming North American 4 and the withering of the once-proud Inter-Territorial Tournament, and relying on 'senior' competitions to move the test team forward looks like a poor bet. Nor will 'quick wins' like designating nearly 60 or so teams for a nationalized division 1 league create short-term momentum for the Eagles, USA Rugby's stated priority.
American club rugby is fun to play, and the Super League -- especially its recent cliffhanger finals -- has intrinsic importance to our heritage. But for the same kinds of reasons that the Bombers quit the Super League, the senior game is not soon likely to produce a steady supply of better international candidates.
Recent RSL finals:
2008 - NYAC 31 Belmont Shore 28 (overtime)
2007 - Belmont Shore 27 Chicago Lions 21
2006 - OMBAC 36 Belmont Shore 33
Related: Division 1, Super League revamp arrives amid decreased interest
Overall club rugby organization has increased, but only because the top 10% has pulled them up. In many places the controlling element is mostly interested in pretending.
You can blame the organizations for not gaining but there has been a percentage decline in the elite. Rugby still attracts many social athletes.
If you were to test today's top young players in a combine type of setting and compare them to years past, it would be fairly similar as 20 years ago. Only an increase in the fitness levels would be worth noting. The kicking skills have certainly declined. In those days even the props and locks could kick. Heck today we can't even find a flyhalf that can kick from midfield?
It feels more organized but the players are the basically the same.
We need some improvement in the percentage of elites/sub-elite. Varsity status gets us there. The Olympics keeps us there. Television makes both much easier. Thank Al and the boys next time you see them. They saved USA Rugby.
Posted by: ERU | 20 February 2009 at 16:38
New leadership for Boulder would go along way toward inspiring US rugby clubs to improve their lot.
Its clearly the responsibility of the club, but USAR could do so much more. They are really just tax collectors.
Posted by: irs | 20 February 2009 at 17:50
Reminds me of when than Eagles coach Tom Billups drew scorn for saying that Super League rugby wasn't that hot. That playing in the RSL wasn't the only way to become an Eagle. Shame on you Billups !
It wasn't until the parade of foreign Eagles coaches came traveling through and said the same thing that many club rugby followers started nodding in agreement. Funny that.
Posted by: View from the touchlines | 20 February 2009 at 20:52
Super League is trying to pull something hard off, good for them, I hope they keep it up.
They could use a shot of that IRB grant money being wasted chasing Eagles victories.
US rugby needs a strong domestic senior club competition. The SL could be improved and these member clubs have given a lot of blood in the process of trying to improve this thing. We should all be thankful to these SL clubs. They have taken on more responsibility than most all others in rugby.
When USAR had no money it was one thing not to help the SL. But now that two million bucks a year is arriving in IRB grants, what would be wrong with a few hundred grand being spent on assisting the SL.
These clubs along with our top colleges are the backbone of US rugby. The Eagles we be good at the exact moment that these clubs are strong and getting stronger.
Change the freakin direction.
Posted by: What's needed | 20 February 2009 at 21:24
Super League is a joke. Belmont Shore is still playing Henry B, and he is 50+ pounds heavier than he was when he was in the 2007 WC! There is very little new talent of note in the league and the most dynamic players are imports. The league is stagnant and weak.
Posted by: Stupor League | 21 February 2009 at 04:15
The Super league has done some good things and it has all been self financed. teams have come and gone and it has essentially been voluntary promotion and relegation.
People look at Henry and think he can't be a good player. The guy started at DT for 3 years for BYU. The exact same kind of crossover athlete we need. He is a big man, but he is also a very impact type of player. Henry scores tries and makes tackles and has been on the losing end of very few games and it is unlikely that the unnamed poster "stupor league" ever defeated Henry Bloomfield.
Belmont also has Guinees Premiership players, NPC players, and very good american club players.
Lets look at the RSL, McDonald, Crick, Burdette, Weidemer, Vander Geisen, Doyle, Lemay, (now Stanfill), Clever, Quinn, Petri, Malifa, Wyles, Hercus, Tuipoloto, etc. They all played RSL. Other future eagle players are coming through as well.
The RSL is by no means perfect, but it is self funded. I personally don't think any HP money should be given to the RSL. By the time players are in the RSL, they are essentially known quantitities. There are very few surprises.
Helping the RSL with piggyback gear sponsorships, or getting a game or 3 on TV is th limit of the assistance that I would look for from USA Rugby.
The money should go to the grass roots of HS and college. If these programs are strong and successful, the RSL will have a feeder system and the quality will take care of itself.
If you want to criticize a player, especially one as successful as Henry Bloomfield, thn sign your name, state your club. Tell how many times you tackled Henry, and getting knocked into the try zone as he scores 5 points doesn't count.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 21 February 2009 at 05:00
The reason it would be better to provide the SL some of the IRB grant money is simple. It's currently being wasted. Investing in the improvement of the SL would not be a waste.
Having a proper senior club comp is critical to the future of US rugby. Currently the SL isn't good enough, we need to improve it.
Better venues, media, medical, refs, coaching and SPONSORSHIP is needed. This will assist in building better clubs, capable of supporting their players.
I'm not suggesting the SL is more important than HS or university rugby, but its an important aspect to the American varsity model.
Do you people have any idea how much good work we could be doing for the future of US rugby with the millions we are wasting on the odd Eagles victory. The business model is insane. Instead of building something lasting, we are throwing money down a non-investment hole.
Instead of purchasing a home as an investment, we are renters of the flash apartment.
Our history will show the last four years as a leaderless romp of an ego trip. Where USAR spent over $8m falling from 13th in the world to 19th. Short-time Board members and a CEO living well on IRB welfare. A congress too dumb and gutless to even ask a public question of the leadership.
Throw these bums out. Get a handful of bright, success rugby men (and women) in a room and make the go forward plan over a weekend.
There is no multi-million dollar Eagles program in this plan. Its time for a grown-up plan, which will service American rugby's greatness, not the ego of Kevin "we the All-Blacks" Roberts.
Posted by: wake up | 21 February 2009 at 06:52
The single item that makes or breaks the finances of RSL teams is travel. While teams can predict their competition during the regular season and book tickets and housing early to get good rates, those that make the playoffs cannot. These teams are booking flights less than one week in advance for the following week's game. If nothing else, USA Rugby should sponsor the travel cost for the playoff teams. Realize that one away game in the playoffs can cost a team $15K or more. Seven playoff games at this cost is around $100K to be absorbed by the individual teams. While USA Rugby would probably be able to negotiate better rates as a league, the individual teams have much less power.
Posted by: H | 21 February 2009 at 11:24
Get RSL matches on TV? Give me a break! Ok in fairness last years RSL final was great but how many RSL matches are like that? People would rather see marketable big name colleges; Cal, Penn State, San Diego State and BYU.
Maybe as a modest goal before you ask for IRB grant money...get every every RSL team to have a medical staff a videographer, a coach dressed appropriately and all of their players in 1-15 numbered jerseys and everyone has the same colored shorts and socks then maybe we are moving towards a television product.
The RSL is and remains ordinary club rugby with the word "super" in front of it!
Posted by: The RSL is ordinary. | 21 February 2009 at 22:35
If the RSL is ordinary then I fear for the rest of American rugby, because other than Cal no one can compete with them.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 22 February 2009 at 04:04
Define "compete" Flynn. BTW are you the same guy who went to the Cal rugby camp all those years?
I would say outside of the top 2 RSL teams the level of play cannot be distinguished from any other club rugby.
Posted by: I remember you! | 22 February 2009 at 07:13
If that were the case some of the elite D1 clubs (such as Boston Irish or Santa Monica) who have entered SL would have distinguished themselves more. O-Club are one of the best D1 clubs around and lose to SFGG in friendlies every year, and that's a game both clubs take seriously since it's a local rivalry.
My opinion is that RSL wasn't picked out of a hat, and that RSL clubs, particularly its long-time members, have proven consistently better than their D1 counterparts, and that the college game is not yet strong enough to challenge RSL. Cal is, but Cal is special.
And yes, the one and only. Why?
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 22 February 2009 at 09:12
You mean the O-Club that beat the NYAC in their own 9-11 tourney last fall?
I say most D1 clubs are competitve with the RSL. A search on Goff revealed that Hayward beat the SFGG RSL team this time last year.
Maybe the win loss records favor the RSL but it is far from the dominant picture you are trying to paint.
Posted by: I remember you! | 22 February 2009 at 11:33
Flynn,
Seriously, you think Super League matches should should be on tv?
Posted by: The RSL is ordinary. | 22 February 2009 at 11:43
Bruce and Flynn,
I wonder what the future will hold for the Super League given the travel costs during these uncertain economic times?
I have heard stories over the past few seasons of players making themselves unavailable for RSL matches as they would have to shellout $3-500 in travle costs.
Bruce how much does the NYAC bankroll the team's travel? Flynn who bankrolls SFGG and in either case how much of that burden falls on the RSL teams players?
Even in the case of Belmont with a big financial backer at what point does economic common sense prevail, and what then would happen to all the mercenaries that play for Belmont, let alone the RSL?
Should we expect more teams to go the way of the Bombers?
Posted by: CD | 22 February 2009 at 12:41
I would like to see our premier league expanded to
6 teams in 4 conferences that would receive travel, Academy and etc. subsidy of 80k. They must maintain a minimum standard to belong.
This becomes the Eagle pool. If Cal wants to Cap players while in school, the players need to play two SL games for inclusion to the pool. This also includes professional players playing overseas who need two SL games for inclusion (as a reserve is fine). The SL season has USA A matches coursing through and may even include matches in the playoffs.
In order to make the National team better, we need a better domestic top comp.
The SL becomes High Performance, includes testing, identification, Development.
The SL team is also responsible to maintain/subsidize a local Academy, maintain a trust/or shares as well. With the goal of reaching a streamlined pro league by 2020.
The director of Rugby is responsible for appointments and maintain the minimum standard of the Academies.
It is not ideal, but scales back while expanding the top domestic comp. We know that the NA4 is a waste, as is some of the other All-Star comps.
The National D1 plays for a National Championship (and a promo/relegation match), but becomes more structured. D2 and D3 become regional and local respectively.
If USA Rugby is going to stick with the Top Down approach, something similar to this (scaling back/expansion) might work. It is certainly a better way to produce development and an Eagle pool for 2 mil.
Posted by: 2020 vison | 22 February 2009 at 18:46
I like 2020 vision
Posted by: Gerry Hill | 23 February 2009 at 01:14
"if Cal wants to cap players they need to play in the SL"
I think its the Eagles coach who selects the players. I think Cal would be fine with their students just being student-athletes while in school. Its been the Eagles coaches since the beginning of our union which has selected Cal and other university students. In Cal's case 40 some odd players, making several hundred appearances.
Posted by: whatever | 23 February 2009 at 08:04
I think Cal's response is that Cal would lose its varsity status if it abandoned playing other colleges, and its varsity status is the most important thing to the program. Which I cannot argue with. Obviously Cal can play some clubs (i.e. SL champions) and I'd like to see Cal work with RSL to get a few more games of that type, maybe with BYU and another college program in an 8-team tournament before Super League, sort of a Supercup type situation for those familiar with European soccer. It'd be high quality rugby, it could be marketable, and it could be held in a week in one city, perhaps with USA Rugby throwing in some money to defray costs (such as time off work for the club guys). But that's just something off the top of my head - Cal doesn't really have any responsibility to club rugby.
Also, yes I'd like to see Super League matches on TV. The final's already there and I don't see why more can't be on TV. I'd hope there is a vetting process to make sure everything is organized, that the right venue is found, such as Balboa Park or other small venues that would look good on TV, but it's some of the best rugby out there. The biggest advantage with college is that it's marketable - few people outside the rugby community know who SFGG or OMBAC are, but a lot of people know SDSU/Cal/BYU/Navy. But to be a strong rugby nation both have to be successful - we can't just develop this great university rugby infrastructure and have nothing for guys to go on to after they graduate. So it makes sense to try and develop both.
Re SFGG's funding: I don't really feel comfortable saying who funds SFGG. Not because it's shady, but because I don't speak for the club and I'm not representing the club - I just played for them in HS and senior rugby for 8 years, really enjoyed it, still know a lot of people there, painted a few things at Rocca Field (those shiny white goalposts? My handiwork), tried to do my bit to make the club better, etc, etc. What I feel comfortable saying is that to my knowledge the club tries to make sure no player in the Super League squad cannot travel due to lack of funds. I believe most travel for free. Whether this has changed, I don't know, but I think it hasn't.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 23 February 2009 at 11:06
whatever,
I was just indicating how poorly planned and all over the board our approach has been. They have devalued our top comp.
If the focus on the SL were to be the link to communities through the unders programs and All-Star comps, then the whole thing would be much easier to manage.
If you are going to take welfare, it should be building something. Currently it is building nothing. USA Rugby wouldn't go for it because they gain nothing but vast improvement in American Rugby.
The current Eagle focus and policy produces a trickle up and trickle down that actually hurts American rugby.
If the focus were on the top domestic comp tied to community - you produce a standard, manage grass roots, development of coaching, fields, referees, etc.
If Nigel had done this it would have worked, but he tried to undermine the League and now we have the SL Championship on the same day as Irish test.
If the Eagles are trying to compete with tier 1 countries, they aren't going to ever do it with non-scholarship athletes - never.
No offense to Cal, but if full scholarship programs existed for a dozen Unis, I would change my tune.
Posted by: Is College the of the road? | 23 February 2009 at 12:40
It's no secret that the SL isn't all that Super, but it could be. Currently there is nothing in the community which attempts to develop the game. In many cases, the time of many talented people are wasted.
Posted by: College, the of the road. | 23 February 2009 at 12:52
Within a couple of years there will be a an opportunity for rugby to grow if it tied to youth. Much bigger than it is now.
This leadership will never bother to understand why and will miss the window.
They have their own agenda.
Posted by: Nostradamus Rugby | 23 February 2009 at 13:05
To "I remember you" -
That Hayward defeat of SFGG last year was one of few times a DI team has beaten SFGG's Super League squad in the last several years (maybe the only time).
This despite the fact that SFGG has NOT been one of the best "one or two" Super League teams since 2004 (SFGG's only championship appearance), and the fact they play nearly every Norcal DI club each season (considered one of the strongest DI leagues in the country).
I've seen plenty of RSL, and seen and played plenty of DI rugby. And while the bottom-feeders of the RSL (the Puget Sounds, Santa Monica's, and now-bounced Washington etc) are no better than regular DI rugby, the top six-to-eight Super League teams are substantially better than any DI rugby in the country, with the possible exception of Life this year and last (and Life might be back in Super League this year anyways).
Posted by: Dan | 23 February 2009 at 16:10
Philadelphia Whitemarsh was not relegated by administrative decision.
We left for the same reason the Bombers left, the league was too expensive for us. It is fine for some clubs, but not for us.
Just that simple.
No hard feelings, the guys in the RSL work very hard for club rugby, but our backers, Old Boys, and players decided it was better to simply not play RSL due to expense.
Please make this correction.
I am not sure what administrative relegation even means.
Posted by: Rafael Zahralddin | 23 February 2009 at 18:13