Saturday's San Francisco Golden Gate-Denver Barbarians semifinal points up that the last three Super League finals have been compelling, while the past three international seasons were disastrous.
In Silicon Valley, the venue for Saturday's Ireland match, techies use the expression 'eat your own dogfood' to encourage startups to believe in their own products. By scheduling an international friendly on top of a domestic championship for the second time in ten months, USARFU persists in a 'high performance' strategy which flies in the face of that admonition.
To wit, why not prioritize the commercial development of our college and club finals? One very good reason to do so is the union has a moral obligation to begin offsetting the costs of the teams and players who enable USARFU to go to market in the first place.
It's also obvious to observe that in Europe, scheduling tests at the same time as national championships would be seen as an affront, so why here?
In the absence of powerful club owners, sponsors, and TV partners in our domestic market, USARFU contends that the Ireland match in Santa Clara, California, promotes player development. More likely, the union has little choice but to follow the International Rugby Board's dictates, since Dublin is underwriting much of Boulder's operations.
One would be more sympathetic to the objective of player development if the union had come through with promises of compensating players. As it stands, there are six more matches in the next seven weeks. That is quite a lot of 'development' for self-funded athletes, and probably will do more to deplete the player pool than yield large numbers of full-timers who are wanted abroad.
Indeed, during Scott Johnson's tenure, the union followed the opposite policy by recruiting from abroad -- and some of those players remain in Eddie O'Sullivan's squad.
The Super League has its shortcomings, notably that too many teams are too far below the leaders, and American colleges offer more upside in terms of 'natural resources' (e.g., facilities, athletes, branding). Notwithstanding, RSL is self-financed and yields the plurality of players in the national side.
If USARFU insists on favoring test rugby -- there is no evidence to suggest it can do more than one thing well -- perhaps RSL and a corresponding 'college super league' should be cut loose.
Private management has succeeded in rehabilitating the USA 7s. In much the same fashion, USARFU would receive a licensing fee and performance warrants, in exchange for the promise of doing no harm. At the least, Boulder would no longer be in the business of risking the dues-payers' money on internationals even as the players themselves are competing somewhere else.
I think that this situation was a case of extremely poor planning on the part of those involved in the decision.
If the RSL knew about the game, it is certain that they could have re-jigged the schedule to allow the May 30 weekend to remain open for the Eagles and I am sure they would gladly have done so. (even though the RSL was assured that if the season finished before May 31 of any given year that players wouldn't be called for international play, I would imagine that the same was told to clubs, but the RSL was told that in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS)
I can't be certain that D1 would have been able to adjust the schedule, but my gut feeling is that they would have.
The date of the match was certainly booked 6 or so months in advance, even if the venue was up in the air.
It is poor form to possibly cheapen the club championships in this way. If there had been proper communication, this would have been a non issue.
The fact that the powers that be in Boulder went ahead and caused havoc to the clubs is just another case of incompetence, since all of the dates set through Boulder.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 27 May 2009 at 11:38
What is the promotion/relegation policy for D1 to RSL?Is it in effect now?Is it mandatory?Is it based on "natural" attrition?Who makes the decision?What factors are used to decide who moves up(besides winning D1)or down.Do RSL member teams have a vote?Will their votes be heard?Bruce?
Posted by: JJ | 27 May 2009 at 11:39
The policy in the past was to look at each team who made an application to join the league.
We do not relegate teams out of the league as they are partners in the league and teams go through ups and downs. I do not support forced relegation as it happens naturally through attrition. Teams will drop out if they can't compete. Forced relegation could have a team that was a playoff team for 3 straight years get dropped if they have an off year, and I don't think that is correct.
There can be arguments both ways on the matter and I understand them. No system is perfect, nor is the RSL system, but it works pretty well.
A couple of factors that play a major role.
1. Are they a team that has performed well over a period of time.
2. Do they have the resources to travel and compete, even if they are 1-4 and need to make a long trip.
3. Do they have good facilities.
4. Are they in an accessible place for visiting teams.
The member teams do vote on it, as they should and in general they have gotten it pretty correct. Although in one case a team was delayed an invite by a year, but that was eventually rectified.
Life went out and back and is now in the final, Boston was a playoff team as an expansion, NYAC won 2 titles as an expansion, BIW, Chi Griffins, and Charlotte made playoffs as expansion sides.
Santa Monica has performed well early in the year in a brutal conference as an expansion and likely would have made the playoffs at least once in a weaker bracket.
OPSB has struggled but they have competed and won games.
Things definitely go in cycles and the league has addressed that pretty well.
The RSL is hard because of the fact that you often have to play games against teams that need wins when you have nothing to play for. That is the major difference between club and RSL, in club when you are out you are out, in the RSL, when you are out of contention you must still play and possibly pay 15k for the honor of flying somewhere to get your butt kicked and then get handed a bill at the end of the season to pay into a cost share for the teams that made the playoffs.
Lastly, the RSL requires that all foreign players be certified to be in the USA legally, which is not a criteria in other comps.
The RSL competitions committee is pretty good about scheduling as well.
Ideally we have the best sides in the comp, it is also a matter of whether the schedule fits as well, an even number of teams makes schedules easier and more equitable.
The main reason that there are 8 playoff teams instead of 4 is that most of the teams at least have a chance to be playing for something late in the season.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 27 May 2009 at 12:00
I know that the RSL final is on ESPNClassic and 360 but I am curious if the club semis/finals (any level) or being broadcast in any form (including twitting). Also, has anyone else noticed that the portal to USA Rugby's webcasting server is longer on the USAR site?
More on topic with the post- I think scheduling any "marquee" events (Eagles Tests, Domestic championships) on the same day is always a mistake. The potential crowd of rugby fans (rugby players, parents, supporters, ex-pats) is relatively small and dividing our interests on the same weekend is silly. Having all the games at the same venue is preferable to this. Also, the Super 14 Final is this weekend and the first test of the B & I Lions tour (overshadowed by the Super 14 Final) All loyalties aside, who wouldn't rather watch the Super 14 Final than any of the other rugby on tap. Also, the "real" Ireland is effectively on tour in Lions jerseys so that further waters down the USA test (which I am aware is on Sunday rather than Saturday).
Posted by: Kyle Wittenbraker | 27 May 2009 at 12:11
Bruce-thanks for that.So,whatever team wins this year is not automatically promoted to RSL?
Posted by: JJ | 27 May 2009 at 12:14
Not that I know of at this time, although that team would have to be given serious consideration, especially if someone drops out or if there is another team that would meet the criteria that did not win.
I hope that the best sides are let in. It is just not a definite that someone will move up or drop out.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 27 May 2009 at 12:32
Something has to be done to improve the Super League, it's not good enough.
RSL is an important aspect of growing our rugby union. The standard of play isn't high enough across the board. The events and media interest isn't good enough for our top level of competition. It isn't 'Super' in any way.
US high school and college needs work but the improvement track is better than club rugby.
The ref's are getting better. The coaching is improving. We need a more solid competition at the top of US rugby.
USAR is of no help in this effort. The RSL clubs need to break away from the union and set the bar higher. We need to create a domestic rugby product with the RSL. Only the clubs can do this. USAR is a drag on all efforts.
Posted by: RSL new-co | 27 May 2009 at 13:08
I say drop the RSL and establish regional competition. If you look at the results of the top 4 teams this year, they are flying all over the country to beat teams easily when they could be getting comparable competition locally. How much money was wasted the last regular season week of RSL when Belmont flew to Chicago to win 53-3, Life flew to Boston to win 54-14 and NYAC traveled to Boston to win 31-5? The point differential average for the top 4 teams was 150 for 7 matches. That is a winning margin of 21 points per match. Equal competition could be garnered in a region competition. Take So Cal:
Belmont
Santa Monica
OMBAC
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Play home and away matches and you will have similar point differentials for the top team as they had in the RSL without spending the money. You could do the same in Nor Cal, New England, the South and in the Midwest. Roll them up at the end for a national RSL champion.
The bottom line is that there is not enough cream to justify a national competition.
Posted by: Rugby Mediocre League | 27 May 2009 at 14:23
Rugby Mediocre League - I think the SL does a good job. This poor standard stuff is BS.
Newsflash: we're not that good at rugby yet. What are they supposed to do - wave a magic wand and have everyone be better rugby players and athletes? OR do they work year in and out to improve their knowledge and fitness to slowly build the grade of rugby.
The SL isn't about crowning the absolute best team in any one year. It's about sustained committment from programs, coaches and players. This is the ONLY way ANY team or sport has EVER improved.
People that sit around and complain about the standard should start a team, start a league, develop a plan or more likely just shut up and shoot a boot.
They've improved the product since the inception. Kept the goal in mind and created a preferred pathway for college/youth players.
BTW All while paying out of their own pockets. Professional setup with amatuer resources.
Great job guys. Keep it up. The super league founders, players and coaches deserve to be compensated for their sacrifices thus far.
Posted by: Anon | 27 May 2009 at 16:41
Thanks Bruce, you are a good rugby man.
Anyway, the SL could be almost super, if half 1/3 of the HP dollars were spent to upgrade and promote it. Also, mandatory service of min 2 games to play in all Domestic Eagle matches in non WC years; loosen the foreigner rule; mandatory Academy and facilities for all members; In house production company which produces one game per week plus playoffs aired on VS channel or equivalent.
College Rugby will take care of itself once it has released itself from the shackles of USArFU, same as HS rugby moving to SBRO. The Eagles should be able to find their own sponsorship with a proper Board and CEO.
Good luck Nigel, thanks for your service.
The next trick is to get the entire BOD on the same plane on a wintry flight over the Andes with a half tank of gas
Posted by: The Shepherd | 27 May 2009 at 18:59
I've just been voicemail spammed by Mike Petri on behalf of USA Rugby. He wanted to remind me that there's a test match this Sunday.
If these people were smart, they wouldn't be selling my name and number to a telemarketing organization on an opt-out basis. Especially right after I bought 6 tickets.
Posted by: Zé Cacetudo | The Daily Hype | 27 May 2009 at 19:47
Anon has anger issues and can not read.
My point is that many RSL teams do not need to fly around the country to get equal competition playing the best D1 teams locally. It is not like the RSL offers a marked improvement for media, facilities or hospitality than the best D1 clubs.
The reality is that the top 10 D1 clubs would all rank in the middle of the RSL table and beat most the bottom teams. That fact alone means that the RSL is not worth having.
Posted by: Rugby Mediocre League | 27 May 2009 at 19:47
The RSL has nothing to explain. They did their best. They did what USAR didn't or couldn't do. They created with their own efforts RSL.
This doesn't change two facts. RSL isn't close to good enough as our top domestic comp. There is little fan, sponsorship or media interest.
And two, USAR can't be counted on for any answers. None. They are without any plan for US rugby's growth other than trying to get the Eagles to 18th in the world, several ranking spots below where we were when they showed up on the IRB dole train.
This puts the burden on the RSL clubs to come up with a plan to move forward. To improve the standard of play. To make their matches events.
This is the same situation that HS and college rugby finds themselves in. We are paying dues to a bunch of dim wits who are not only not taking US rugby forward, they are driving us back to the stone ages.
Fire this do nothing, big shot-not Board. Fire Nigel Melville. Tell the IRB to grow US rugby as an American sport which will compete in world competition 4-8 years on or hit the door. The millions in grants have set us back 15 years, per the leadership and how the IRB has asked the money to be spent.
Posted by: old board | 27 May 2009 at 21:14
Rugby Mediocre League,
I am not sure if what you are saying is true or not, the RSL was formed because the founding member clubs did not believe it to be true. They really just wanted to have some good games with good teams. The teams that have joined have also found it to be untrue that they get the same comp with local games.
No system or league is perfect, and the RSL is not perfect either, but it does provide a decent standard of rugby (ask any of the former professional players who have played or do play in the league).
The top D1 clubs would win games and possibly do well (look at life and the griffins), the top 10 is a big stretch and it is unlikely they would be mid table. The question is, could they still travel and compete after starting the season with losses to Belmont, SFGG, and Denver and keep it up to win the next 4, my guess is no.
The RSL is privately run and funded, we just pay dues to USA Rugby and pay a ref fee of about 30k, otherwise we don't need USA Rugby, the RSL just exists to provide opportunities for players to play decent rugby in the USA and to give the member clubs something that they feel worthwhile to play for.
If people don't like it, that is fine. If people don't want to be a part of it, that is fine. If people think the level is crap, that is fine.
Anyone can start their own thing and go from there. The RSL has played their games for many years, hosted championships, supported Eagle players in rugby friendly jobs, etc. They have done this all on their own, with volunteers and never asked for any money from anyone.
There is a lot that goes into winning in the RSL and much of that is off the field stuff. Coaching is easy compared to trying to get the rest of the house in order.
Remember that winning a one off game that doesn't mean anything is different than winning consistently week in and week out and trying to pay for it all, even if you are out of the playoff hunt.
D1 is good rugby, D2 is often good rugby, college is goo rugby and HS is good rugby, some teams are better than others, but the RSL is also good rugby, there are pretty ordinary games in there, but it is pretty good for what we have here.
Going back to the old system may or may not be better for the game, the fact is, at the moment, most of the teams in the RSL, prefer to play that comp as they feel it is a better standard, but that is just our opinion, it may or may not be fact.
I still say it is a stretch that the top 10 teams in D1 would be mid table.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 27 May 2009 at 21:21
Shepherd,
I hear you on taking HP money and giving it to the RSL but, what I think would happen is that we would be dependent on the welfare and not raise money and increase standards as we should do.
What would be better is to spend that money on HS and college rugby and make those comps and make the HS and college All-Americans great programs.
If that were done, the RSL would be given the most valuable commodity that USA Rugby could provide, and that is quality players. We need to develop and keep players in the game.
The RSL can play games, travel, give rugby friendly jobs, etc. We don't need welfare to do that, the best thing we can get is to have the HS and college programs churn out dozens if not hundreds of fit, talented, rugby players each year to replenish the ranks and to compete for positions.
The most valuable thing a team has is its players, I would much rather the money go to the people providing those players than to us. I am in the minority here, but I really think we would waste it, whereas I think the other programs would do more with it and in doing that would help the RSL and other clubs immeasurably.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 27 May 2009 at 21:31
If the topic is "time to cut the Super league loose", where do we stop this concept?
High school rugby is all but being undermined by USAR. College is under developed and college players and teams pay a significant percentage of the unions and Eagles budget, for next to nothing in return.
Womens rugby is going backward for our world cup winning beginnings.
Where can a case be made for what this administration is bringing to the table?
The point of the administrations focus, the Eagles, are racing backwards.
Where can a case be made that any aspect of US rugby is better off because of this administration?
Posted by: old board | 27 May 2009 at 21:31
If the RSL is great for the top 6 teams in the competition, and they can find 6 other sucker teams to pay big bucks to be in it, then great for them. The realty is that it isn't very super at all when it comes to media, facilities and development opportunities for the game. The real nugget of value is in college rugby and more and more HS rugby. College rugby provides for the best facilities, media exposure and development of young players than the RSL will ever produced. If the top 6 RSL teams can keep the bottom 6 writing checks, more power to them.
Posted by: Sucker Rugby League | 28 May 2009 at 02:20
The Super league concept is not bad at all. I believe, however, that the teams should be stand alone sides drawing from the local clubs from the teams home base. Boston would have one team drawing from all the local clubs. Same with NY, Philly, Washington ...
This would mean changing around our calander so that clubs play in the fall and Super League plays in the spring. The clubs could still play in the spring but without their super league players.
That would mean a club championship in November or early December and a SL championship on Memorial Day weekend (to throw out a reasonable weekend).
SL games could be played on Sundays; allowing club players to attend matches - building a fan base.
I'd also EXPAND the league and have 5 teams each on the East Coast, Midwest, West and Pac Coast. Twenty regionally based teams.
Play would be confined to within the divisions during regular season (minimizing travel costs for teams). 8 match regular season - home and away.
Top four teams advance to semi finals and then the final for a short playoff season. Again - minimize travel expenses.
The Eagles would then be free to assemble beyond that date.
To summarize:
Fall - club play and championship
Spring - SL play / club friendlies
June / July - Eagles (plus any fall tours)
Posted by: Doug Lyons | 28 May 2009 at 06:25
has playing for money ever come into the conversation.
instead of RSL paying dues to usa rugby...why not put it into the "kitty" and winner takes all.
there are tournaments around the US that offer cash prizes...
back-in-the-day...boxing was known for the "prize fights"...
an example of the north-woods hicks of wisconsin (term of endearment) who know that cash talks...
Please find the attached flyer for this year's Leinie's 7's tournament (the oldest, longest running 7's tournament in the state) hosted by the Fox Cities Gargoyles. We have a new cash payout format this year and will be limited to 12 teams. This is first come, first serve. With $1,000 going to the winner, we expect some pretty competitive teams to throw their hat in the ring for a shot at the cash.
Posted by: cheeseheadrugger | 28 May 2009 at 07:05
Doug, have you thought of applying for the CEO job once Melville lands his new position back home? It appears it would be a seamless transition.
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 28 May 2009 at 09:05
Bruce-Do the RSL member teams realize the financial hit(cost share dollars)of condensing the playoff schedule to accomodate that May 31 date.1/4 final round- 7 day advance purchase for plane fares?Semi's and final each team was hit with less than 7 day advance purchase?Certainly all 16 teams are taking a nice hit.
Posted by: JJ | 28 May 2009 at 09:54
They absolutely knew what they were getting into, it was discussed at length when the proposal was given to us at our Chicago meeting in September 2007.
We knew it would cost a lot, and the teams each paid a lot more for travel in 2008 than in the past.
We also felt that we needed to work with USA Rugby and the Eagle program to do what was best for the game and in the end we got betrayed just a year later. Many people were not shocked at that though, it has come to be expected in a sick sort of way.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 28 May 2009 at 10:20
Thanks again Bruce,ironic that player availability is almost a non-issue for the RSL final.However ALL 16 team RSL teams get hosed financially.
Posted by: JJ | 28 May 2009 at 11:02
Here's a plan taken right out of the Melville playbook.
Remember when Scott Johnson quit and Melville made him come into the office everyday for three months, demanding that he adhere to his contract resignation conditions. All the while moral in the office continued to sink like a rock.
Well how about we pay Melville $275,000 to work in the UK through the end of his contract in 2011. He can work at whatever he likes, but the whole deal can't cost us anymore than the 275k per year he entitled to. He can teach scrumhalf passes to schoolboys for all we care.
We then hire a real CEO with some of the IRB money and let him/her plan our way out of this mess. Melville's salary is the least of our problems. His continued leadership will cost us 10 times his salary by 2011.
Posted by: plan B | 28 May 2009 at 11:27
I will gladly offer up my air miles on British Airways for Melville's swift return to his beloved homeland.
Just let me know what the date of his departure is !
Posted by: Scarlets calling | 28 May 2009 at 13:39
California Cup w/ a North & South Division;
North: SFGG, Hayward, OClub, San Mateo, BYU, Cal, St. Mary's
South: Belmont, OMBAC, Sta Monica, LA, SDSU, Cal Poly, Las Vegas
Play home & away within your division in the fall. Play other division one time ea in Spring; home/away alternating years. 19 matches total: 12 games in fall, 7 in winter/spring.
Semi's & Final one weekend between statistical top four points leaders at end of round play & not top two from ea division.
More games against quality opposition with reduced operating cost.
Posted by: SD Hitman | 28 May 2009 at 13:42
plan B I'm not sure if you're just having a laugh, but your point is well taken. US rugby can't endure two more years of Nigel Melville at any cost.
Just give Nigel a different job if need be and bring in a rain maker to get USAR on the right track.
Where is Congress?
Posted by: plan B fan | 28 May 2009 at 16:18
Fall Rugby for Dummies...Your suggestion for how to get the most out of SL rugby is ......??????
I don't pretend that my ideas are anything more than that but it's a lot more useful than an idiotic comment by someone not even willing to put a name behind the comment.
Posted by: Doug Lyons | 28 May 2009 at 19:06
Rugby is a Spring game, once we understand this the game will flourish.
Posted by: The Shep | 28 May 2009 at 20:50
Lyons,
American rugby is a Spring/Summer sport.
Your plan played all club rugby in the Fall, this is stupid. Most of our teams are club teams. Playing most of our rugby at the wrong time of year is a poor plan. If for reasons of weather some teams need/want to play a short Fall season so be it but, this would be a dumb-ass plan for the whole of US club rugby.
You may be correct that our Super League should be local rep teams but, this plan would need more thought. The first thing that comes to mind is this would require USAR or worse the LAU's to manage the teams, which is a non-starter. They can't manage a bathroom stop.
If not for the willpower of a few of the RSL teams the concept would have fallen apart years ago. Give this responsibility to USAR and its organizations and there would be no chance.
Look what USAR is NOT doing with college rugby as the best example.
We need to stop trying to fill up the 12 month calender with rugby. No success sport thinks this way. Shorten and better plan the season. The best players play in the best competitions. The recreational players play in the lower level competitions. The youngest players play in the traditional American sport pathways like Jr HS and HS, followed by college.
Quit thinking like a foreigner. Think like an American. Football is played in the Fall at all levels, from kids to pros. American rugby is a Spring sport which needs to be played at all levels from youth, Jr HS, HS, college, club, semi-pro and one day pro in the Springtime.
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 29 May 2009 at 08:29
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Clubs would not be prevented from playing in the spring. The club national championship activity would be in the fall - spring would be for "friendlies".
One of the big problems with US rugby has always been the split season where much of the country plays their regional championships in the fall while another part of the country plays its competition in the spring.
That means that qualifying teams wait several months before competing in the national competition.
Do you think the NFL would be successful if the AFC and NFC East teams played in the fall then sat around waiting until spring to play against the west coast teams that under the rugby model would not start there competiion until January?
A split season is stupid - always has been and always will be.
Please do enlighten me as to why a national club competion that starts in September and ends in say early December is not better than a national club competition that starts in September for some and January for others only to finish in May.
Posted by: Doug Lyons | 29 May 2009 at 08:48
The split season is only a problem for the teams that do it. Just stop doing it. That Sept-early Nov season (8 weeks for most teams) isn't good for anything but playing invisible matches in substandard facilities. Save yourself man, just stop.
Good for the new Ivy league championship for seeing the wisdom.
Hey man you are free to keep doing that Fall rugby thing...it's really working for you isn't it? All those championships over the years...well maybe not to many championships that point to the wisdom of Fall rugby.
Meanwhile the rest of the nation, to include HS's everywhere, will go forward building American rugby as a Spring sport.
All levels of rugby, playing their most meaningful matches in the Spring.
How's that for reading comprehension Lyons? I still think you may be the man to take over for Melville in the seamless transition of dumb to dumber.
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 29 May 2009 at 09:54
Before the next troll pens the "it snow until March", same old same old.
Yep we get CNN. The weather isn't conducive for outdoor sports in January and February in the Northeast and some of the Midwest, even Rockies. This is really too bad. Too bad for these areas, and too bad for US rugby that we can't all be playing then. However, to move the meaningful club matches to the wrong time period is a mistake and it won't ever happen.
March, April, May and June will need to be used. BTW, get in your car and drive a half a day south if you don't like the weather, it gets better. Beside, isn't this what those fieldhouses are for. If they won't let you train in them, maybe it says something about your rugby.
You will never hear baseball guys from your area ask to move baseball to the Fall because the weather in poor in the new year. No they are smarter than many rugby folk, they understand the value of the Spring-Summer and moreover, Fall is football time in America.
LAX won't have its members asking for a Fall season, or to play year around. They are smart enough to understand the value of Spring LAX. BTW, where are the best LAX teams, yep, right there in those winter states. Funny how their sporting product is so outstanding for their May national championships.
Doug for CEO!
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 29 May 2009 at 10:15
Athletes from football, soccer, and basketball are all available in the Spring - youth through club. Kahuku Football Team plays flag rugby all through Spring and Summer.
Posted by: SD Hitman | 29 May 2009 at 10:21
Hitman, why do you think we need athletes?
I suppose you think we need better facilities, more fans, more media and a better TV slot as well. What are you suggesting, we take the sport forward?
The new outdoor gridiron professional football league, is scheduled for next Spring. These second tier pro football leagues always select the Springtime, whatsup with that. Could it be TV, their sponsors and their investor groups have performed some research which suggest, no time period is perfect to take on the NFL and major college football, but the Spring is as good as it gets?
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 29 May 2009 at 11:09
Spring rugby guy,
How about you pick one username, or perhaps your actual name, and quit pounding out the same freakin' message on every single thread?
Posted by: Nick | 29 May 2009 at 20:15
Spring rugby is the way forward for USA Rugby. Plus, west is best.
Posted by: Spring Rugby Rules | 29 May 2009 at 20:54
“No disrespect to the D1 clubs and their acomplishments this season, but before we start looknig at thier accomplishments this seasons lets look at someof the results of their mathes aginst RSL rivals. B/C there has been a lot of chatter about dropping the RSL b/c it is no higher standard than D1.
Here is tHe D1 final 4:
Aspen
Atlanta Rn.
Peal City
Las Vegas
Here are the results against RSL comp this season:
Life vs, Atlanta (pre season for Life RSL) Life win 79-17
Denver Barbos vs, Aspen (Pre season RSL Match) Barbos win 67-15
Pearl City vs Chicago Griffins ( Pre season RSL match for CHI) Chicago wins 19-0 (Griffins were close to bottom of the table in their RSL conference)
I have left off L. Vegas vs. RSL comp B/C there was no clear deffinition of what team the So. Cal Teams put into the ganey cup.
So if you figure thise 3 games the RSL teams won by 165-32.
All this talk abouth how the RSL is nothing special is disputed in the numbers. There is clearly a diffrence.
There will be respnses to this posintg sayin " we beat NYAC, PAC, Belmont, ..etc.. last fall" but guess what, just because you beat those temas out of season in a one off does not mean they were playing their RSL sides.
Typical RSL reams do not start training unitll Jan-Feb. To beat them outside the winow of Jan-June means you played a weaker team, probably thier D1 or D2 side.
FYI I am a former RSL player whose team is now in D1. I have played both and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.
Posted by: former RSL player | 29 May 2009 at 23:33
RSL is irrelevant when they can not beat the best college teams.
Posted by: Rugby Sucker League | 30 May 2009 at 00:06
There are more people than just little old me, that thinks going head to head with our national pastime for resources is stupid.
Posted by: Fall Rugby for Dummy | 30 May 2009 at 09:04
Fall Rugby for Dummy-
The huge thing you are missing is that baseball and lacrosse are VARSITY sports at the collegiate level. That means the kids can miss school to go to games mid-week and they can stay on campus after school ends so the competitive season can extend to June. College rugby teams/players don't have that option. They can't miss classes for games without issue and they have to leave their dorm rooms along with the rest of the student pop when the semester is over. To try to condense a 5-7 game schedule plus playoffs into April and the first week of May is simply not an option for Northeast colleges.
Posted by: Missing Link | 31 May 2009 at 19:58
Missing Link is talking sense.
In addition, he mentions a 5-7 game schedule. What kind of a season is that? Why should the kids give up on the extra 10 games they could play in the fall?
People talk about not wanting to go head to head with Gridiron. Seems like people looking for an excuse. Rugby goes head to head with soccer all over the rest of the northern hemisphere and manages to exist.
Posted by: Nick | 02 June 2009 at 04:40