USARFU has declared 2009's Collegiate All-Americans but not the summer schedule because it will require third-party funding.
With the fiscal year's end approaching, the union can't cover for the collegians' annual tour, which over past decade has seen the All-Americans visit Ireland, South Africa, and New Zealand as well as Canada. Last-minute fundraising is expected to make up the shortfall, according to people familiar with the matter.
The task raises questions about the direction of Boulder's 'pathways' to the national team. The present situation could indicate poor financial planning, or perhaps that the All-Americans are being supplanted.
The International Rugby Board encourages Under-20 competition, culminating in its 'junior world cup', and the number of players advancing to the senior teams is of interest to Dublin. But U20 activity cuts across America's natural scholastic and collegiate age divisions, and also conflicts with the academic year.
Collegians make up the single largest group of USA Rugby's dues payers, and the multimillion-dollar National Guard sponsorship is targeted at the same audience.
Yet it appears that most of the International Rugby Board's 'high performance' grant has gone toward the senior 15s and 7s teams, and particularly the current 5-game test program. (Most of the cost of July's World Cup qualifiers will be footed by the IRB.) None of the four HP regions are really functioning, as evidenced by the dearth of information about the teams to compete Americas Rugby Championship, and the union has sidelined plans for regional academies and development officers.
For much of the past decade, the plurality of Eagles came through the All-American side. The fully funded 2008 tour to New Zealand was coached by chief executive Nigel Melville, and of the dozen All-Americans who graduated in 2008, ten have already gone on to the Super League, the USA 7s team, or the 15s team, according to 2009 coach Alex Magleby, who declined further comment.
Maybe the kids can sell raffle tickets... Do you think the guys over at the National Guard would be interesting in purchasing some?
Posted by: Marty Bradley | 18 June 2009 at 12:33
Bake Sale!
Wait they are in college it’s a get baked sale.
Wait again. If they can afford to pay CIPP they can afford to pay their own way.
Triple wait. Get them all to join the National Guard. Then we invade wherever the All American tour is and have them play while serving in Uniform. This makes the Nat. Guard happy because they are getting a return on the sponsorship and since they are now paid to be in the lucky country we invaded this fixes our need have a professional group of players.
Posted by: Howard Kent | 18 June 2009 at 13:06
Touring with 74 All-Americans can get pretty expensive.
Considering 20 of them have no hands, who is going to carry the other 20 wet blankets?
Seriously folks.
I'll be here all week.
Posted by: Baggage claim handler | 18 June 2009 at 14:37
If they are low on funds, why go to South Africa? It is cheap when you are there, but right now flights from Denver (assuming that they would assemble their prior) to Jo'burg are 1500 plus. They should consider going to Argentina. Just like SA the dollar goes a long way there, and flights from Denver are just under 1000.
Oh, apparently the Eagles are staying in a very nice hotel in Denver and get a nice daily stipend.
Posted by: Go Pumas! | 18 June 2009 at 14:43
Marty,
The All-Americans and AA tour should be independent of USA Rugby.
So should Collegiate Rugby.
Posted by: The Shepherd | 18 June 2009 at 14:47
Why not tour South America?
Make a few phone calls and buy two yellow school buses. Paint USA Rugby ALL-American tour on the side.
Marty can drive one bus and Howard Kent can drive the other.
Nigel can fly to each venue and coach the squad, but convince him to drive back with you :)
Play Mexico, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru. 6 games in 10 days is no problem with 74 players.
On the way back, ask Nige to grab a few brewskies at the corner 7-11 in San Salvador. Hit the gas.
Posted by: AA plan | 18 June 2009 at 15:17
AA plan, In reality, a South American Tour might not be a bad idea. Get AeroMexico to give the team a discount and they could be on their kits for their tour down there. They can be competitive with most of the teams down there and maybe come back with some decent wins, tans and some seriously good southof the border stories.
Posted by: David C | 18 June 2009 at 15:33
The disgrace of this administration continues. The gift that just keeps giving. College rugby pays $1m in CIPP dues and these clowns can't cover a tour.
The NG pays for some kit through sponsorship but college rugby gets nothing from USAR. College rugby doesn't need the cheap third party insurance.
If college rugby kept their dues and sponsorship money in-house so to speak they would be larger than USAR. College rugby doesn't need USAR.
Word has it that BOD pretender Mullet is trying to create a separate USAR division for college rugby. This would allow the crooks to continue the exploitation of college rugby. No thanks!
Posted by: fund raise this | 18 June 2009 at 16:10
The AA program is not within the focus of our leadership. They want pro rugby and all that come with it. They are sacking away a nice early retirement if they stay on plan.
They are willing to take that risk. It isn't like they are going to voted out or fired or anything.
Plan:
Distance yourself from your critics. Eliminate or hire all potential threats. Provide disinformation, lie when convenient. Collect paychecks. Collect "consultancy fees" from line of credit.
Posted by: Plan | 18 June 2009 at 16:11
Yep, 34,000 college CIPP'ers times $30. Yea, college rugby is getting ripped off.
Melville and EOS are on better than a half million between them per year and the United States All American Team are having a bake sale for a 10 day tour. Nice work if you can get it.
Posted by: what a laugh | 18 June 2009 at 16:18
So if high school and college CIPP member are responsible for over 70% of the total dues, shouldn't this money be spent on them?
Both fairness and smarts say this would be a good plan.
But under Kevin Roberts, his Board and CEO only a fraction of this money is invested in high school and college rugby. They instead pay outrageous wages to a few and spend the balance filling the holes in their Eagles budget.
They have it completely upside down. They should be spending every dime they can put their hands on with high school and college rugby.
The Eagles should be on their own, supporting themselves. Whats the worse that can happen, 4-26 and 19th in the world?
Posted by: defend this | 18 June 2009 at 16:41
youth and college rugby should be independent....we have been saying this for years...
can someone post how much CIPP dues universities pay?
Posted by: cheeseheadrugger | 18 June 2009 at 17:16
My son's college team, I'm the non-official fund raiser and accountant, has 54 CIPP players and pay 150 in USA Rugby club dues. So, we pay USA Rugby $1770
Posted by: Tom C | 18 June 2009 at 17:37
According to NM's first quarter report, as of 3/30 there were a bit over 28k collegiate players which appeared to be roughly 40% of the registrants with USAR. Toss in the $150 per club fee and you have gross income of a little over $1M for the collegiate sector. Throw in another $.5M in dues from the high school kids just for giggles.
Now, also consider that USAR has grossed somewhere between $4M and $4.5M over the past 24 months from the National Guard sponsorship (this is, of course, unconfirmed because this info hasn't been released). Based on the press release sent in April there have been 700 kits issued. They value those kits at $5000 which common sense says they probably have about $2500 invested in each one. That translates into about $2.5M net profit on the sponsorship over the past two years.
So, you take the $1.5M per year in dues and you add the net profit from the NG and you come up with about $5M over the past two years (I took out a half mil or so for overhead - salaries, those little popup things on the sidelines that say NG and fence screen with the USA logo on it).
I have no clue on overall collegiate and high school expenses since I'm not privy to the budget or financial statements. Lets say the liability insurance is $250k per year (for the entire union according to the 2007 990 report) - that accounts for another 1/2 million. Drop another 1/2 mil into the college game of the week and other media programming and now we've cut it down to $4M net over two years.
Well, that is my best guess. If anyone else has better and/or confirmed numbers, lets see them.
Posted by: Marty Bradley | 18 June 2009 at 21:23
Marty is on track. College rugby is being ripped off.
If college rugby kept its dues money for investment back into college rugby and if it was able to keep all its current sponsorship funds for reinvestment back into college rugby we could grow something special.
Not only could college rugby garner more sponsorship than USAR it could use the funds to create a product worry of supporting the college game.
USAR is a foreign based entity which doesn't understand US sport. They also only care about the press box of international rugby. They have tried to destroy high school rugby with rules based on foreign rugby and its clear they are harvesting college rugby for all its worth.
We need a new organization for college rugby.
Posted by: about time | 18 June 2009 at 22:44
Marty where your numbers are wrong is when you allocate the ESPN game of the week to USAR. This was 100% paid for by the NG.
The NG are a college sponsors, do you have any idea how much more college rugby could give them, if the money wasn't filtered through the greedy whores at USAR.
The only thing that USAR owns is in college rugby is a bad post season tournament. The rest of college rugby is owned by college rugby.
Its time to get the whore monkey off our back.
Posted by: anon | 18 June 2009 at 23:26
What about USA Sevens LLC taking over High School and college rugby? They seem to have their house in order on their end.
Posted by: David C | 19 June 2009 at 05:27
David, why would we want to have a commercial entity take over college and youth rugby? Commercial entities, by their very nature, need to make money. Isn't that what we're trying to get ourselves out from under -- a master that takes any profit (assuming there is one) instead of pumping it back into the game?
Posted by: DaTruth | 19 June 2009 at 06:19
Truth, When hasnt USA 7's LLC not given back to promote the game? Right now they are having the 7's summer series and even giving out some prize money. Not alot of money, but at least they're promoting the game the right way and trying to give back. Now if this would work if they took over H.S. and or college programs, I dont know. But their leadership and structure is something I'd be willing to bank on. Look at the choices you have now. Stay under the current regime of ineptitude with USA Rugby or have HS/College rugby go out independent from anyone and try to start from ground zero. College and H.S. need sponsors or some kind of revenue making venture to sustain their existence over the long run. I didnt say my idea was the right one, just one to think about.
Posted by: David C | 19 June 2009 at 08:19
Why not focus on Sevens at the HS level?
You will gain the attention of real athletes - wrestling, bball, football, track.
Much easier to coach, cheaper to fund, exciting to watch, perfect entry level to rugby overall.
Can have more than one side, and easier to organize tournament games with other local HS teams.
The USA can truly shine at Sevens.
Posted by: Skinner | 19 June 2009 at 08:58
Back to the numbers. The Board claimed recently to have 34000 college CIPP members for 2009.
Now who do you believe this puppet Mullett's report to congress or Nigel's personal blog number of 28k, I don't know.
Since puppet Mullett's info came later and I don't imagine Melville is sweating many detail, I go with the puppet this time.
This means that Marty's numbers are off and that college rugby is being ripped off by the puppet master and his board even more so.
College rugby needs a new organization to administrate it. Those Sevens LLC guys which have done such a great job, could be the commercial arm of the non-profit. In any case, if college rugby is going to make a go of this, it's going to need a few American voices in the newco. The puppet master and Nige just don't get it.
Here's an interesting point. If the colleges just didn't pay CIPP dues this Fall, USAR would go bankrupt. They need these funds to pay their bloated payroll and fund their HP business, because they have already spent all the HP dollars and NG sponsorship about halfway through the year.
The rip off of college rugby is like a ponzi scheme. There will never be any college dues funds to invest in college rugby because USAR always spends them on something else.
The college rugby contribution to USAR is over $2m a year in dues and sponsorships and the return is nothing from USAR. The sponsor, the NG, does some stuff to help, like pay for some kit and produces some matches for TV, but USAR does nothing but rip off college rugby.
This has to stop now!
Posted by: newco for college rugby | 19 June 2009 at 10:19
Small point...the true sponsorship number for US college rugby is in the $5m per year range, right now today in our current shape. This number will only grow with some smart planning and leadership.
We shouldn't confuse college rugby's potential with what these clowns in Boulder have been producing.
Posted by: newco for college rugby | 19 June 2009 at 10:24
Scorecard is looking poor for those HP funds.
Little funding for the age-grade side, these teams are mostly player funded.
Little AA funding as is being discussed.
No HP regions as promised.
Cut backs in CDP, fewer opportunities for coach development.
These IRB HP funds where meant to build-out our pathways and provide technical resources. It seems the money has been spent elsewhere.
How come congress isn't allowed to ask the board wtf is going on. Why hasn't this stuff been created as planned, and funded as planned?
If it's true we are now playing catch up with the budget this means 2010 is shot as well. The board is going to push the CIPP cycle forward one month because they are out of money. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Gutting the college dues and HP funds before they come in.
Heard their were major cutbacks to all programs and the Eagles got a major budget increase, what will this plan accomplish long term?
Also heard that USAR Chairman Kevin Roberts told the congress they had to accept a lessor role and support the board without question. Unconditional was the word he used.
Hell it's not like the board is kicking ass, you would think they would want some ideas and extra workers.
Also heard that this guy Mullett is talking down to the congress on what their role is. He gets pissed if they ask a question.
Would never have guessed this could get some fu*ked up.
Posted by: scorecard | 19 June 2009 at 11:24
This is borderline criminal. If there was ever a time that we should boycott CIPP and USAR dues its now!! What's the worst that could happen? Losing your USAR sanctioning - ooooooo.
Organize matches with local clubs on your own, pay the referees directly and post results on a simple website. Save your club money for kit, aftermatch functions, and sending your best player to NZ for 6mos. We need to go caveman survivalist, off-the-grid style for a while.
Other than a catalog for USA kit and heaps of frustration and heartache, what have they done for us lately????
We need one club to start this effort and the rest will follow.
Posted by: SD Hitman | 19 June 2009 at 11:47
What you need is for Jack Clark to speak out with some other prominent college rugby coaches and form a Collegiate Rugby Coaches Association, and if a college club/coach wants to be a member of the CRCA it costs 500 bucks per year. This will give them funds to function in a mission to oversee USA Rugby, establish a premier division, run the All-Americans, seek sponsors for collegiate rugby, etc.
Posted by: Leadership | 19 June 2009 at 12:55
I don't think Jack Clark really wants to change anything. He's happy right where he is, having the best shot at winning a "national championship" every year. He said in an interview with Rugby Mag a few months ago that he was waiting on USA Rugby to create a college super league.
Posted by: Status quo | 19 June 2009 at 13:16
Than Jack Clark is a coward. Nobody has the resources that Jack has, and the only way to compete is by creating some mutant hybrid varsity model with 26 year old guys from the Pacific Islands.
Posted by: Chicken Dance | 19 June 2009 at 13:24
David, I'm not knocking the Sevens LLC as an outfit -- in fact, quite the opposite -- they're the only people who seem to have been able to manage a professionally-run operation! Not sure if they're making money or not, but that's irrelevant for this discussion.
My point is that, as a commercial operation, they have to take their cut -- they're not going to do it for free.
I'm not involved with any grassroots efforts, but from what I've seen on this forum, they're looking for more of a decentralized, locally-run organization(s) run by people who know and understand the local environment.
I may be off base, but that seems to be the sentiment.
Posted by: DaTruth | 19 June 2009 at 13:28
On the JC front here's what I think.
He has said over and over he wants a college premier league. He has all but signed Cal up for crying out loud.
I think in that interview you're quoting, he takes a shot at USAR's handling of college rugby. Something like lead, follow or get out of the way, type of thing.
If there is one guy in US rugby who could organize college rugby it would be Jack. He could also fund the thing I bet.
Posted by: hold on | 19 June 2009 at 13:53
Jack Clark and 9 other coaches that will make up a desired premier league form a non-profit Collegiate Rugby Coaches Association.
They solicit new members to play in a newly created D1 and D2 competition for a national championship. Each pay 500 bucks to join the new association to compete. (estimate 100 join - 12 from each of the 7 unions, plus military academies, plus the founding 10)
Take the 50K in funds and put together sponsorship packages and start selling. First order of business is to get the National Guard on board.
Form the D1 and D2 championships regionally leading up to a national championship with all the matches on college campuses and promote the hell out of it at the campuses.
Establish the Premier League matches and look to sell broadcast rights on ESPNU to start.
Build on strengths and get better year after year.
Once it is up and running with a couple years success, license the thing to a commercial group like the 7s guys.
Posted by: Leadership | 19 June 2009 at 14:11
A dues boycott will have to be led by the TU and LAU. The problem is most of these tools love their leadership positions. These fools and congress will never mutiny.
Posted by: more typical posers | 20 June 2009 at 17:01
Can someone explain to me how college rugby is worth $5M in sponsorship? Dont look at Cal and think that is what college rugby. 99% played on fields with no stands and no fans - even final 4 teams most of the time.
I think forming a seperate collegiate coaches association is a good step, and while I think that removing college from USAR is OK, it is more important to remove it from the LAU/TU structure first. This will allow colleges to play in collegiate friendly league and get the clubs out of running college rugby.
Posted by: James | 21 June 2009 at 07:18
It's simple, 100's of college programs with brand names.
Although most college rugby is sandlot the game is seen as a tough interesting commercial angle. The players are known as popular college students. There is no NCAA to worry about.
$5m is a drop in the bucket to associate with these brands and sport.
Look at it this way, the NG alone has spent over $5m the last two years while USAR ripped them off for next to nothing in return.
College students will be consumers the rest of their lives, they are everybody's target market. Every sponsor category you can think of wants a inexpensive path to this target market.
Now enough information for you, that fact you had to ask should have led me to ignore you.
Posted by: answer | 21 June 2009 at 10:56