The North American 4's successor includes four Canadian teams to America's one, while USARFU's 2010 schedule again omits the senior National All-Star Championship.
Canada's entrants in the rejiggered Americas Rugby Championship will play a September round-robin, but the International Rugby Board and USARFU failed to lay out a match schedule for USA 'A', the sole US entrant, or any regional 'high performance' teams that might feed into coach Paul Keeler's outfit.
USARFU executives did not respond to queries.
Billed as a development vehicle and underwritten by Dublin, the 2009 ARC precludes US college students even as our greatest rival appears to enjoy the lions share of funding: America is reduced to one team of inherently older players. Simultaneously, Boulder has quietly written off the country's oldest elite championship, meaning fewer players have a practical chance at reaching the 'A' level, particularly those outside the Super League.
Argentina's Jaguars make up the sixth team, and are to play USA 'A' in an October 10 semifinal, according to previous reports, the same day as two of the four Canadian teams square off. The Canuck contenders are provincial sides Ontario and British Columbia and composite teams Atlantic and Prairies.
Over its three years, the NA4 failed to attract any media, commercial, or fan interest. Played at various times through the spring and summer, the competition was to spawn 'public-private' partnerships with investors, but suffered from fielding synthetic teams with no history and lack of permanent administration able to lay forward-looking plans.
In America, the Falcons and Hawks were often used as de facto national team trials, with the two units sometimes staying in the same hotel and players switching sides from game to game.
The ARC's fall schedule builds into the so-called November international window, and this year would facilitate Eagle preparations for World Cup qualifying matches with Uruguay (as well as a one-off with Fiji, which saw a European match fall through). More generally, November tests are commercially vital to the European powers but have mattered less to America as international rugby typically is a loss-making enterprise.
In its assessment of 2008, USARFU credited itself with launching four HP regions (Pacific, West, Midwest, East) but union officials had not had been able to say much about a competitive program building into the 'A' side. The regions would be very like America's founding four territories, but in another piece of irony, USARFU last year said it was moving away from regionally based high performance officers and academies.
This is the cycle...a self-congratulatory press releases, silence, a new self-congratulatory press release. With nothing accomplished in between.
The balls this administration displays is impressive. They aren't even embarrassed. Melville was just telling us he was killing the NASC and creating four HP regions/teams as the replacement.
Now without missing a beat, not one word on the NASC, or the new four HP teams, we are down to one team.
This is what happens without oversight. Where is Congress and the TU administrations? Why aren't they demanding some answers?
Posted by: I was an ITT'er | 16 July 2009 at 14:05
Once again Canada has their house in order and is able to use these IRB funds to develop 4 times the players USA will having one team. You wonder why they own the series with USA with a near 72.82% winning percentage going back to May 1977. USA Rugby is truly the village idiot of world rugby.
Posted by: Moose Knuckle | 16 July 2009 at 14:29
So the plan is fewer opportunities for older players, with Keeler as the coach! Solid, very solid plan.
Wasn't Keeler the guy caught out posting critical crap about EOS and Matt Sherman among others? Now he's coaching the team between the Eagles coach and age-grade director. If memory serves after Johnson quit Keeler even posted an anon comment recommending that he (Keeler) should be the next Eagle coach. Anon self promoting is sad.
If this whole mess wasn't so sad it would be a laugh a minute riot.
Posted by: A minus team | 16 July 2009 at 14:46
Dumping money into the USA A (domestic Eagles) makes more sense than that stupid NA4 bullshit. They got this one right.
They have admitted failure (privately, in the mirror) and will start to get some things right from here forward as the American practicality and work ethic rubs off on these foreign posers.
As for the NASC, it was a dog that should have been put to sleep years ago. That thing was littered with social rugby players who didn't deserve a free t-shirt.
What should happen next is elimination of D2 and D3 Championships. Then eliminate the stupid playoff systems that eat up over half of the Spring season. Thirdly, dump some HP money into the promotion of the Super League (future city based league) and televise more games.
High School moving to SBRO is a great thing.
College rugby should follow suit and get away from the current idiotic model. First thing is actually play meaningful games in the Spring, play a conference Championship.
Chase the National Championship in June, not March. Rugby is a Spring "niche" sport, this is America, time to start thinking American.
Posted by: backfoot frontfoot | 16 July 2009 at 15:50
Can someone explain to me the pathway for players to get selected for the Eagles or USA A, if they don't go to college?
I say bring back the NASC (ITT's).
What say you?
Posted by: Back to the future | 16 July 2009 at 17:36
"Can someone explain to me the pathway for players to get selected for the Eagles or USA A, if they don't go to college?"
Play for a top club team?
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 17 July 2009 at 02:06
Flynn,
That's not an answer. Oh, you mean he should play for SFGG? Yes, why didn't I think of that!
Posted by: Back to the future | 17 July 2009 at 07:19
Back to the future,
NASC is a complete waste of time, who wants a 1 week championship? What does that prove? they dont even have to time to assemble yet alone play. Super League isnt perfect and doesnt serve every market, but its much better than NASC.
Im glad USA has 1 team. They can then focus their resources on the 1, instead of 4 half assed teams full of players some american coach thinks is good. Frankly USA doesnt have the talent for 4 teams to be considered potential internationals. How about those NA4 players from a few years ago? A mix of foreigners and very few made it up to the national team.
We cant be as succeful as Canada overnight. they have had years of rugby in schools, development, etc. Why would we fund 4 teams of clearly underdeveloped players? If you thought the USA/Canada game was bad, what do you think our 4th team would look like? I agree with Kurt.
Posted by: ada | 17 July 2009 at 07:30
ada,
I'm not questioning that 1 team may be the way to go. The question was, and if I didn't pose it correctly, let me do it now. What criteria or selection vehicle is being used to select the USA 'A' side? Is it Paul Keelers personal observations? Is there a nomination process?
I think we absolutely do have the talant for 4 teams. What we don't have is a clear way to identify that talant. And we don't back our talent to be able to do it, so we do nothing. That stinks.
Posted by: Back to the future | 17 July 2009 at 08:52
What a much of crap.
Hell ya we have 100 players and four teams that should be developed like the Canadians are doing.
Will they all become Eagles, hell no. Will some, you bet.
Is it also aspirational to have a regional rep team to shoot for, you bet.
We have been let down once again by this administration.
Posted by: screwed | 17 July 2009 at 10:31
Inter-union rugby provides fond memories. You are able to meet and fraternize with the players that you play against. This is high level social rugby. There is nothing wrong with it, but lets get realistic about the level of play and what the players get out of it. The NASC became a social rugby event.
I don't think Canada has it right either, but they never abandoned their 4 territories like we did. They have marginally improved, we haven't.
The NA4 is not the answer to higher level rugby.
It seems as though American Rugby is the only sport that doesn't get the big picture?
Without a better domestic top league, any dollar spent trying to create a better player is wasted. We could spend half as much and see twice the gains if we just made what we have better. It is easy to fix, with 20/20 vision.
Nobody cared about the Hawks vs. the Falcons. The casual fan could care less about Ontario vs. USA developmental. The ARC is a waste of time.
A Super League match with 20% better players and decent television production is watchable for the casual fan, as watchable as USA vs. Canada.
A 20% improvement is doable, with the money wasted on "HP".
This is something that a few guys could sort out over a lunch break, yet they have spent years trying to put lipstick on that pig.
They are getting closer, and chances are they will go back to something similar to what we had 20 years ago (Canada), but they will have wasted another 5 years doing it.
At the end of the day, they are no closer to having a watchable senior level domestic comp.
If we spent on producing a better SL rather than NA4, we would have beat Canada last weekend and the viewership would have been double.
Posted by: 20/20 vision | 17 July 2009 at 11:56
The truth is we could spend money on almost anything and get a better return than we are getting from the Melville, Roberts plan.
Spend on Youth. Spend on the American sports model of high schools and colleges. Spend on a top senior league.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is what we are doing, wasting million chasing meaningless test victories in the hope of short-cut international to success.
Posted by: pick a plan any plan | 17 July 2009 at 15:00
I am all for High School and College rugby getting a bump, but they can clearly take care of themselves. All they need to do is act independently of USA Rugby and good things will happen.
As for the Eagles and USA Rugby, they really have narrowed the focus with one team in the ARC.
If they did this to save money, take a look at big fast athletic guys, and give something for our 5k per week coach to do, I'm all for it.
If they did it to try and perfect the current gameplan, go ahead and write it off.
Posted by: subsidize and expand the SL | 17 July 2009 at 21:21
"Flynn,
That's not an answer. Oh, you mean he should play for SFGG? Yes, why didn't I think of that!"
How is it not an answer? Go to a top club and play your way into the team. It's not that hard if you're actually good at rugby.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 18 July 2009 at 04:51
The American pathway is the varsity system. But I'm afraid this administration isn't smart enough to use it.
Oh well, its only time and money.
Posted by: yank | 18 July 2009 at 10:37
Here's what I understand. USAR only wanted one team. They feel it's more important for the Eagles to win now than to develop younger talent through a four team, longer term plan.
There is some talk about bottom up and pathway, but the focus and budget is on the Eagles. The 'A' team will be used how Thorburn used the first two NA4's, as a try-out teams. EOS is a short timer, he has been told he has the coach position through the WC, then he's out. Guess where he's solely focused?
This singular focus on the Eagles has been going on since this administration took over four year ago. This is a short term assignment for these guys that is coming to an end. This is the reason everything planned or attempted is short term, quick fix in nature.
By only asking the IRB for one team they can focus on the best players available, seeing which players can help the US qualify for the WC and maybe later be members of the Eagles WC team.
On some level this is understandable enough. What continues to cause alarm is this one or two years out thinking has been all USAR has done since 2004.
What is needed is a longer term plan for significant success. All this short term planning with the goal to qualify and win a match at the WC is useless for our future. Even if the objective is realized, it means nothing in the bigger picture. We have qualified for WC's in the past. We've won a match in the past, it didn't and doesn't help grow the game. It doesn't create lasting success of any kind. This short term thinking and substandard objective is business dumb.
How come Congress hasn't pointed this out. There are some real rugby people on the Congress, why haven't they demanded a better plan out of the foreign short timers?
Posted by: short term thinking | 18 July 2009 at 11:41
If someone wants to start a NEW USARFU and somehow get recognition from IRB, I'm all for it. Throw out the baby with the bathwater in my opinion. 230 some odd years ago we as a nation made a stand regarding taxation without representation. I'm not trying to sound trite, juvenile or ignorant nor will we ever all agree on anything, however, I think the one thing we do agree on is that money is being legally misappropriated...mis-spent...whatever. I think the chuckleheads at the top might want to take a page from USA Soccer and Lacrosse...not a fan of either, but credit belongs to those who through vision and work created something that really is the only way a sport will grow and develop here in the USA...from the bottom up, grass roots and with dad & mom in a minivan supporting junior and juniorette all the way.
On a lighter note...read at ARN regarding the 7's squad. Leonard Peters...anyone ever heard of this guy...not me...had to do some research. From American Samoa, played U of Hawaii football, Chicago Bears practice squad...this should be interesting, hopefully it works out.
Posted by: Fred O'Denver | 18 July 2009 at 21:54
"How come Congress hasn't pointed this out. There are some real rugby people on the Congress, why haven't they demanded a better plan out of the foreign short timers?"
What do you think the recent letter to the Board was all about?
Posted by: Congress | 19 July 2009 at 05:43
per ARN report - that certainly is an interesting development recruiting this Peters guy to the 7s squad at the World Games.
And a big congratulations is in order for Thretton Palamo. He's what? 21 yrs old? impressive.
good luck to the whole crew going to Taipei!
Posted by: Old Boy | 19 July 2009 at 06:40
I am not a fan of the current regime in Denver, but they are just following orders. The IRB wants the Eagles to be a success as soon as possible. They do not want to wait 10-15 years for a bottom up plan to be implemented and deliver results. The reason? Simple. The IRB gets 95% or more of their revenue from the quadrennial world cup revenues. That includes guarantees from the host country nation, tickets sales including corporate boxes and hospitality and must importantly broadcast rights. Right now the UK and France deliver the biggest piece of that broadcast rights pie, and together they would represent 30 or 40 percent of what the USA could deliver. The guys in Denver are only pushing the IRB's drug plan to get USA hooked on rugby so the broadcast dollars flow to the IRB's low tax Irish bank accounts in Dublin.
Posted by: IRB + USA = Huge Revenue Potential | 19 July 2009 at 07:14
Agreed they are pushing a foreign plan from the IRB that hasn't and won't work.
A better USAR administration would advocate for a development plan more tailored to the US. However this wouldn't suit this administrations short term commitment or their experience in US sport, so we continue to waste time, money and opportunity.
If what you are saying is the IRB is all fu*cked up in their development grants, of course they are. This is the talk of world rugby, just how poor the ROI of the grants is working out. $50m in tier two grants and nothing has changed. A couple of countries showing slight improvement, like Japan. A few countries holding firm, like Canada. More countries losing ground while receiving millions, like the US.
The IRB targeted grant program and been a total failure. Wasting millions on poorly planned competitions like the NA4 is the norm.
You are correct the plan was to get tier two countries to compete in the RWC quarter finals ASAP. We will be two RWC's in soon and hasn't and won't happen.
This will result in the grants either being eliminated or altered to more fit the situation in each tier two country.
USAR has missed an opportunity to be a leader in this directions because our foreign leadership doesn't understand the traditional US sport pathways and can't even offer the IRB a converse opinion.
Posted by: short term thinking | 19 July 2009 at 11:36
After getting a few caps, Peters will be contracted in Europe because USA Rugby believes this is what is best for growth and development.
Without a legit top comp in America, athletes like him will continue to be a rarity.
Is he destined to become another forgotten American playing in a foreign country?
I say let the experiment begin.
Pump HP into the SL, expand it, give away the rights for 5 years and put this thing on tv every Saturday night for 10 weeks next Spring.
Posted by: Saturday night live | 19 July 2009 at 11:48
Nobody is going to broadcast RSL matches. Even if the rights are free. Nobody goes to RSL matches. The facilities at most RSL clubs is a joke.
Saturday = Bruce McLame
Posted by: Huh? | 19 July 2009 at 15:00
You have to start somewhere.
You can't grow the game if you can't watch the game.
If Nigel and Co. reach half of their goals in the next couple years, you will be watching USA A beat Ontario and New Foundland with one eye closed at your head turned sideways, live on USTREAM.
If Rugby League in America reaches half of their goals, we will be watching some of our best Union players on television each Saturday night.
Chasing Canada, and this WC stuff is nonsense. Grow the game for goodness sake.
Posted by: Pop Warner | 19 July 2009 at 21:27
Very cool that Leonard Peters is in the mix now. UH Football fans can attest to his prowess. Keep in mind that this diamond-in-the-rough was brought to Caravelli's attention by Aspen and not through some marketing outreach to former NFL players by USAR. Credit to Al for giving him a chance. Good for rugby regardless...
Kahuku HS in Laie is a rugby hotbed. Many of the Kahuku HS football players do flag rugby in the summer alongside other players from established rugby playing countries. Kiwi kids going to BYU-HI, 2nd and 3rd generation local players of Polynesian descent, and grizzly old club players all take part. Laie Rhinos used to be the team to beat in HRFU for a while as well. Definitely an untapped resource....
Posted by: SD Hitman | 19 July 2009 at 22:12
Pop,
I hadn't thought about League overtaking us. I've just been disappointed Nigel, Roberts and Co couldn't do more.
The thought that League with a much smaller investment from OZ than that which the IRB has made into USAR, could gain ground to the point of overtaking us is frightening. The fact it's even a conversation point after the IRB has dumped $10m into US rugby in four short years is reason enough to change course.
Posted by: league verses nobody | 20 July 2009 at 10:02
99.9% of Americans still do not know what, where, or when the next Rugby World Cup is. I'd guess well over 50% of rugby players don't know or care.
How's that for a targeted growth plan from our leadership?
This is a abominable failure of vision. Even if the Eagles beat New Zealand at Dunedin, nobody would notice.
America Rugby League has it right. They are throwing caution to the wind. There is a void in Spring contact sports on television. They are in a race with another football start-up to fill it.
It appears as though we missed the boat, chasing Canada.
I am a grassroots guy, but am realistic. Kids aren't going to flock to a game they have to hunt down on the internet to watch.
Our leadership is doing a brilliant job, aren't they.
Posted by: Missed the boat again. | 20 July 2009 at 12:47
With Nige partnering with the American RSL, I guess he is planning to squash down our top League once and for all?
Who let this wolf in the hen house?
Posted by: Upgrade the SL, before we are fleeced once again | 20 July 2009 at 13:32
There are two groups forming in US rugby.
One group where they know the score. They know this admin has wasted a great opportunity and continues to lead US rugby down a path of waste and destruction.
And a second group that deserves everything they are getting and will continue to get.
Thankfully with Congress members going on record, the names on each list are there for all of time.
Posted by: wrt | 20 July 2009 at 13:40
What is this fearmongering about rugby league?
I find it pretty disingenuous people here buy their self-promotion about professional leagues. This is a sport which has something like a dozen clubs in the whole country, some of whom struggle for numbers, and a track record of telling lies to the public. When they got a game vs Australia they put out a press release that the game would be at Yankee Stadium, even though Yankee Stadium at that time hadn't hosted a non-baseball sports event in 15 years. It ended up in Philly at Franklin Field with about 2,000 attendees. They brag about their partnerships with top NRL clubs even though it's rarely more than a few bags of balls sent to the US every year. I've got little doubt rugby league does not professionalize in the US anytime soon if at all.
We've got enough reasons to criticize the union without claiming they're being overtaken by league.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 20 July 2009 at 15:04
Pipe down Alice. There isn't any fear-mongering going on here.
The thought was if ever union was going to be vulnerable to League it would be under this administration. Nothing more.
If League were smart they should target the US right now. They need the US to continue the lie that they have a world game. The entry wouldn't cost much. The US union leadership couldn't be worse. Seems fertile on glance.
Posted by: easy mate | 20 July 2009 at 15:30
Hey, how about we get a Can-Am Super League competition going?? Canada has a Super League and so does the USA, why not develop a cross border competition of sorts. The RSL here in the USA spends a heck of a lot of money on travel expenses, so what's the difference between Belmont Shore traveling up to British Columbia as opposed to NYAC or Life?? Cut the North American continent down the middle and have a East/West split. I haven't done any real research on this but I will do so from this point and see what the feasability of it is. Just a thought.
Posted by: tacklecoach | 21 July 2009 at 05:53
Tacklecoach, sounds like a great idea for an American. Sounds like a bad idea for a Canadian. We get to sVe money and play better competition, they get to spend money to kick out butts without improving their game.
While we're at it, let's join the Super 14. They can come play us over here, and we'll go play them there. We can even share the gate revenues!
We need a product to sell, before we go to the market. We have a sevens product, but still have a long way to go to have a 15s product.
Posted by: Olympics or Bust | 21 July 2009 at 07:15
ARN podcast...Bruce McLame asks the USA Select coach, "If Michael Vick doesn't get into the NFL, would you take him?" Awkward pause...more pause...uhhh....
What a clown McLame has become.
Posted by: McLame Speaks | 21 July 2009 at 08:57
Warning! Don't listen to the ARN Podcast.
OMG. Paul Keeler was so slow, so unenthusiastic. Here's the uptake. He still doesn't know anything, there have been no plans created because its unclear what funding the Selects will have. "I don't have a lot of answers". He couldn't even offer the number of players to be involved, "the number of players is about funding".
Bruce asked "is the goal to win or develop players"? Keeler replies, "its about availability". WTF!
Then Bruce asked, "would you select Mike Vick"? Keeler sleep walking through the interview then trys to answer the question, before Bruce cuts him off by telling him hey I'm kidding.
Finally Keeler says EOS will select the team. Keeler couldn't even share what roles the Selects coaching staff would fill.
The Podcast panel also weighted in on the ARC. They seem to think this is about blooding players and that the US doesn't have the players to field two competitive teams, "quality over quantity" was the comment.
If this is true and the the purpose is to try-out players for the EOS Eagles then the IRB has again missed the developmental point of the next tier down. This is a smaller NA4. Big mistake. The goal is not be be "competitive", its to develop players! The US should have at least two teams. Canada once again proves to have better administrative leadership.
Posted by: ARN Podcast | 21 July 2009 at 09:00
any updates on the creation of a college rugby super league? this guy seems to think it is coming: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/12/one-giant-leap-for-north-american-rugby/
cmon kurt. remember your new focus??
Posted by: college | 21 July 2009 at 09:03
I saw that post on roar and called coaches of three teams mentioned and they knew nothing about it.
Melville isn't going to pull this off, he can't lead a piss break.
Posted by: USAR not | 21 July 2009 at 09:24
The Canadians have been preparing for the ARC in camps with 4 sides for a while now.
We still don’t know who is even available for 1 side.
We don’t know how much money we have, so we haven’t confirmed the dates that we assemble, and without the dates, we can’t work out player availability. Without knowing player availability, we can’t determine whether to focus on blooding players or using it as trials for WC qualifying later this year.
What we do know EOS will be doing selections with a view as far ahead as when Nigel, Kevin & EOS turn the lights out, the day after the WC in New Zealand finishes in 2011.
Posted by: Don't ask me, ask Eddie | 21 July 2009 at 11:13
Anyone know if there will be any video... anything... of the World Games?
Posted by: Da Truth | 21 July 2009 at 19:20
Flynn, Your response to this was, "How is it not an answer? Go to a top club and play your way into the team. It's not that hard if you're actually good at rugby."
This off the ERugby website.
EOS "I think it would be very good to have an all-star competition leading into this championship," said O’Sullivan. "I was around when there were the ITTs and that was a good product. The Super League serves this purpose to a point, but players need to be seen. We do need a vehicle to help us pick this team so we can move forward and do well in the fall."
Didn't I say exactly this 2 weeks ago Flynn?
Posted by: Back to the future | 27 July 2009 at 12:17
Something Represent,get turn motion railway achieve edge love regular path though safety program facility admit error accept one maintain store category tooth empty rock latter disease many decide study say rich dress comment process acid thin future more crisis political profit appointment top hard soon parent criterion expenditure retain apply long those respond match restaurant partly award our walk result close field direction responsible perform require report actually assess hold reference dead record series state information terrible form important bloody the court keep baby royal fear master due group
Posted by: hotel türkei | 21 January 2010 at 18:52