On star power

What does it mean that the International Rugby Board is touting Leonard Peters as an 'NFL star cross[ing] over to 7s'?

The 2007 seven-round draft pick out of Hawaii is certainly the kind of elite athlete to be welcomed in American rugby. But hailing a 27-year-old with no career NFL tackles as a star shows the Commonwealth is more hopeful than understanding of what's required for rugby to tap into our sporting mainstream.

Accessing the varsity system is more involved than gaining inclusion in gym class, which is useful but not sufficient to win the athletic department's blessing. Any would-be letter sport needs to develop a range of resources and competencies, from facilities to medical care, that US blue chippers expect from the time they are in junior high.

These things are lacking from most American rugby programs, save for a few college campuses. So, there should be no expectation that the likes of Peters will soon begin to roll off a conveyor belt (and at a younger age).

Much the same observation can be made about the abortive attempt to bring an October Bledisloe Cup match to Denver: foreign powers aren't realistic about our commercial sports  market. Rugby rarely draws so many as 10,000, about 1/8 the size of the Invesco stadium, so why should two faraway teams be confident of selling out during the middle of the NFL season? (Domestically, the question is what was USARFU's rationale for risking union dollars and the American game's reputation over $200,000?)

This past weekend, Peters was among 32 invited to a national team 7s preseason camp, and has been named to next month's Americas Rugby Championship squad. A decade ago, when the union's crossover recruiting began in earnest, senior club coaches would have been riled. So at least the matter has moved from whether it should be done, to how.

USA 7s squad camp
Marco Barnard (Kutztown Univ.), Cory Blair (Belmont Shore), Matthew Byrd (Charlotte), Ben Catania (Daytona Coconuts), Dimitri Efthimiou (Univ. of Massachusetts), Benjamin Haapapura (Denver Barbarians), Matt Hawkins (Belmont Shore), PJ Komongnan (NOVA), Ata Malifa (Belmont Shore), Valenese Malifa (Belmont Shore), Keikiokalani Misipeka (Pearl City), Aotealoa Holani Nahou Unaloto (Mission), Brian Naqica (Gentlemen of Aspen), Jone Naqica (San Francisco Golden Gate), Michael Nelson (Central Washington Univ.), Leonard Peters (Gentlemen of Aspen), Johnathan Pratter (Belmont Shore), Mile Pulu (San Francisco Golden Gate), Elliot Rechtin (Old Blue), Mark Roberts (Chicago Lions), Dallas Robinson (unattached), Trevor Richards (Univ. of Nebraska), Alex Ross (San Diego State), Iopu Sanonu (Belmont Shore), Peter Sio (Belmont Shore), Shalom Suniula (Pearl City), Kevin Swiryn (Old Puget Sound Beach), Grant Thorne (Belmont Shore), Eric Walton (Gentlemen of Aspen), Kevin Wiggins (Wilmington), Fred Wintermantle (NOVA), Clint Whittler (Arkansas State)

Comments

[college rugby!]

WOW. ARN college rugby talk is legit with Jack Clark and company.
finally he is entering the fray for real.

[just say no to USAR]

Kurt,

GL has no comments on this story because fewer and fewer from our rugby community care about national team rugby or USAR anything.

USAR has all but destroyed our belief in the Eagles program and anything this administration touches.

Look at your recent stories on the Eagles, ARC and the Sevens, no one cares. Same on ERN, no one cares to comment. ARN doesn't get letters on the Eagles for the same reason.

This administration has been talking AT us for so long, we've left the room and now they are talking to the wall.

BTW, thanks for keeping these crooks accountable, but save the national team stories.

[Sounds like a Love Fest]

OK what's with the story about Eric P. manhandling that twerp Bob Latham. Any truth?

Latham is a gutless little snot and Eric is a man's man. So knowing this, here what I could see happening.

Latham believing he's a protected big-shot says something offensive to Eric. Eric grabs the little punk around the shirt collar and sends him airborne.

Eric had the good conviction to tell the BOD and Latham they've underachieved. I guess the vice chairmen wanted to fight about it. Or better yet, make it look like he wanted to fight. That is until his size 6 shoes were flying through the air.

I guess we are starting to fight like lovers in rugby. KR should be happy.

[the Dread Pirate Roberts]

Pittlekau did no such thing...

He was quiet the entire meeting, except for a couple of times where he asked to go back to something that had been covered 15 minutes prior.

Lyle tried to stage an uprising, but the truth that the Board doesn't have to answer to Congress came from the chair.

Congress needs to get a better understanding of what they can actually accomplish...which is not much. There is certainly no reason to vote "no confidence" in the entire board.

The ratification of members of the Board happens just the same as it does in the business world. Your nominations committee acts on the behalf of congress, and puts forth the names to approve. It's not a vote. Congress looked ridiculous in putting Peter Seccia through a line of defensive questions.

I've been accused of being a tool in the dirt on this site, but that's not the case. I only support where I think it is deserved, and have a pretty good understanding of where we're lacking.

This Board is not the problem. They're more successful than any other head that we've had in place. The fact that they are looking past "the now" puts them light years ahead of where past bodies were. I don't think too many of them are exceptionally likeable, but don't really care about that. They're setting up relationships and working for deals that will eventually pan out in our favor.

I think there are some office staff in place that shouldn't be serving in the roles that they currently have...and some of the Board members are a little questionable in their street smarts (you can't really help the IAs on the Board...well, Francois seems to have it together). In the end, though, they do have a plan. They aren't bound by any specific timing on delivering that plan for congress to review. "Periodic" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

I think, for the most part, the members of congress haven't held up their end of the deal, and haven't engaged the Board to present their ideas. I don't label some of the congress members' lobbing bomb-like questions as true engagement. At least not productive engagement.

Things are not as doom and gloom as some on this site seem to proclaim it to be.

[college rugby]

it is for college and high school rugby buddy. The fact is USA Rugby operates off the backs of school rugby and gives nothing in return. I dont care how the national teams are run or anything else involving USAR. I dont care if the national team is unranked. Start giving money to school rugby or stop collecting the dues.

[Bruce McLane]

I hear from some people that there was no swing at all from Eric to Latham.

I guess I got misinformation, I apologize for confusion, I had been told it happened by 2 people there and I heard that it was untrue.

I really do apologize for stirring the pot.

[ARN Readed]

What was the drama involving the USA Selects Bruce? I listened to the podcast but dont remembering hearing anything?

[Bruce McLane]

We did not address it because we didn't really know anything other than a squad list.

That was info that everyone had already. I want to talk about selections, budgets, what do they hope to get out of the assembly, who are the players, how will they plan to use the crossover athletes. maybe try to get the coaches or someone to come on and talk about it.

we just had a very cursory knowledge of what was up and it would have been a crap segment. figured that we have a week or 2 before the camp starts to find out more, and we could discuss it when we knew a bit more about the team and how the whole operation was going to work and how it worked from the time they named the coaches.

we will discuss it when we get more details on it. right now we still don't know a whole lot more than what is in the press release and the goff article.

[Old Boy]

per the aborted attempt to get a Bledisloe match in the US,
If I recall correctly, Australia and New Zealand's national sides in rugby league played a few exhibition games back in the 1950s. They were a commercial failure and spurned no interest in rugby league.
I'm glad the Bledisloe game in Denver fell through. It would likely have met the same fate as the 1950s AUS/NZ series and such failure would've been a stain on American rugby.
Plus, in the middle of the NFL & college football season? lol.

[DJ]

Can't seem to get the past 5 or 6 episodes of the Rugbytalk podcast on iTunes. Anyone know why not?

[Report Card D-]

Dear DPR,

Doom and Gloom? Not from by point of view, but we are starting to see the end of USAR as we know it.

Once the HSs and colleges peel away, USAR will be left with running a minority aspect of the game.

I have a hard time understanding your positive feelings for this Board. Strip away the black turtleneck and the track record of performance is unacceptable in any measurement.

1) Sponsorship raised has been far less than expected. In fact 90% of all sponsorship raised by this Board is housed in the National Guard agreement that the Board and office had nothing to do with. This area was the number one area these movers and shakers were going to deliver on and they have failed.

2) Their other business dealing were likewise bad. The Tatham agreement is a time bomb. What a mistake for the Congress to not push for the Board or CEO to explain the agreement.

3) Personnel has been a weak area as well. Frequent turnover of not just staff but Eagles head coaches.

4) Budget work has been poor. Consecutive money losing years, even though this administration has been blessed with many millions in free IRB grants.

5) All forms of leadership has been poor from this Board.

If this Board is compared to previous Boards, they are no better and most likely much worse.

Three years is enough for me, they have failed.

[Suwoop]

SuWooop! BOB Latham is the Man!

[the Dread Pirate Roberts]

Dear RCD-,

Colleges have no reason, nor right to peel away. HS were given AG status because they're paying lesser dues, and have not had a voice/vote in the past...that is distinctly different than the collegiate voice. We all know that dues don't go 100% towards liability insurance. Large, very large, portions go towards national championships, NASCs, representative sides (All-Americans and U20s), and coaching.

The congress, specifically Pat Kane, did push for explanation of the Tatham contract. Congress is supposed to be getting a copy of it, and are supposed to not pass along the details, due to any confidentiality agreement. They did say, explicity, that the contract dealt only with professional 7s in the US. I don't know that having a private sector sponsor of our soon-to-be professionalized 7s team is a bad thing. Canada and Scotland have recently gone the same way. USAR would get the headlines, while Tatham would foot the bill.

1) If anyone can really hold any entity responsible for sponsorship projections falling short during the past two years, and look at themselves in the mirror without laughing, I'd be surprised. As was said on Saturday, nobody, and I mean, nobody, is giving money away right now. There is money out there, and some of the board have access to the people interested in committing some...and the one that was recently added, has more of those connections. Our product isn't the biggest attention grabber right now, which is why the budget is national team focused. Large commitments come from exposure guaranteeing products. Once we have that, the funds that come in can be diverted towards other things, such as youth and college.

2) Agreed that the timing of the deal may not seem great, but what dollar amount do you really think we'd get as a benefit from a professionalized 7s league? It's a huge risk, with what I see as a very limited potential for gain. If someone is looking to buy into that, and we're getting anything out of it, I think that was an extremely savvy move on our part.

3) Personnel...Billups took an unfortunate stand against Arnot and lost. He didn't make much money and had a pretty good record. That is the one personnel change that I'll agree was terrible. Thorburn, for as much of a crabby old fart as he was, seemed to get a lot out of the players. Scott Johnson seemed to be making a values statement by leaving because he didn't want to see his guys working cash jobs, living on couches and not having USAR paid health insurance. On the surface, I say fine, that was a great thing to put your foot down about. On the other hand, I don't think Johnson really had the chutzpah to deal with the amatuer rugby scene. Ok with him leaving. Eddie O'Sullivan...well, we might be playing 80s style rugby again, but we're at least winning ball at rucks. Hadn't done that for a while. I'm still not sold on him, but I'm not saying he's a bad hire either. If he can groom his staff into one of them being the next, lesser-paid head coach, hallelujah. As for the national office staff changes, I can't think of any that were "released" that were terrible moves. The ones that have left on their own, Dave Voth, Court Jeske...huge losses. In the sports management world, though, that's to be expected. Every job is nothing but a resume builder to get them to the next bigger job. No way Voth or Jeske were staying around long term. Some claim that the staffer heading up the NCAA initiative was a big loss. I disagree. I don't see that we really got a well thought out plan from that position, and it's possible that we'll get more work out of a volunteer from congress who may be heading up the next collegiate committee. We can only pay minimal salaries for those staff positions, and, ergo, can only attract personnel just out of college, without a lot of real world business background.

4) I don't think it's any secret that USA Rugby isn't a self-sustaining entity...at least not the way the rest of the professionalized world is progessing, and if we expect to at least keep up to a minor extent. If we didn't have the iRB bailout money, we'd be in trouble. They want us to succeed, I think, and will keep pumping money into us for the next few years. I don't think it has necessarily been mismanagement of the funds, outside of every single coach overspending their budget.

5) Wholeheartedly disagree. NM may be doing too much, and isn't focusing his time correctly because he's trying to handle everything. The Board, however, aren't just sitting still. They are moving forward and trying to advance specific initiatives. Buy some stock in a company, become a shareholder, then tell me how much influence you have over how that board operates. Zero. They have their plan, congress can give input, and they'll consider whether or not to act upon it. We're a business now, folks.

Our governance is not the same as it once was. It's time everyone figured that out and decided how to work positively within that framework, instead of becoming a flame thrower while they're sitting on the rail watching. Get involved with the domestic game and work through your TUs to suggest ways to improve the pathways and the competitions structures. Come up with ways to increase referee numbers and consistency. Get the kids who played youth and college rugby to continue into the senior level.

Leave the money dealings up to the board. That's what they're used to dealing with...and something 99.875% of will never deal with.

The conspriracy theory crap, and whining about how we're being wronged, is just tired drivel.

Sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning... (that's a movie quote, not a threat)

DPR

[Facts]

DPR = Excuse Machine

Here is the real story. The Board is getting a lot of funds from the IRB with the firm instruction to make the Eagles competitive on the world stage and do it now! Every IRB board member would cut a finger off to swap the Pumas performance at the 2007 WC for an Eagles performance. They know that the only way to grow their revenue exponentially is for rugby viewership to take off in the USA and cash in on some broadcast rights. Longer term a WC in the USA similar to FIFA in 1994 would be a huge cash windfall.

Along the way the board decided to max out the CIPP revenue for this singular cause. The do not care about college or high school rugby. That is why these two groups should break away. Let USA Rugby be the administration arm of the national teams. If they succeed, then the college and high school associations can go beg for money - if they need it - if not the colleges and high schools haven't lost a thing because USA Rugby really does not provide squat to these groups.

[Report Card D-]

DPR,

Thank you for the reply. Some thoughts for you to consider.

1) "colleges have no RIGHT to pull away". Please my man, USAR does own these teams, their universities do. Further KR and NM might be your daddy, but they can't tell the college rugby community what they have a right to do.

2) "large portions of the college dues go towards the national championships and AA team" You must be drinking! All self funded I'm afraid. Which leads us to the point in question. If the insurance isn't needed and there is no other benefit, why again are colleges paying dues to USAR?

3) The Tatham explanation is inconsistent with USARs own press release which explained the NM 2008 expansion of the Tatham agreement to include all Sevens (except USA Sevens) played in the USA. This includes non-professional events which are clearly listed in the agreement. Disappointed Congress let the Board off the hook on this one, but catching them in an out right public lie in the meeting will be a blessing in disguise.

4) Sponsorship has been a failure. I'm glad we agree. BTW, the economy was not at fault for USAR illegally ending the Kooga agreement, moving to a worse Canterbury agreement and getting sued in the process. Poor management was the reason, not the economy. All indications point to the National Guard being unhappy. Looks like USAR will have less money to steal from college rugby this year.

5) You cannot explain away this many personnel cock ups.

6) Glad we agree on the national team financial mismanagement.

7) Using your stock/shareholder analogy...sell sell sell!

Finally, I am sleeping better these days thank you. The curtain has been lifted on this administration after three years and they have nothing to show for themselves, or us.

[say its so Nige]

What about NM blogging for us not to worry he's not going to Scotland.

Nige, check this out, we weren't worried, we were hopeful.

Please by all means consider any and all opportunities on the horizon.

[college rugby]

who is this dead pirate roberts clown? college rugby has no right to pull away?

Wanna bet? College rugby is propping up the whole thing and will leave as soon as it gets its act together. that is going to happen very soon.

They put on national championships? (paid for mostly by the national guard and the host college WHO BY THE WAY is paying double since any financial contribition by USAR comes directly from college dues!)

Territory all-stars? Every player pays his way and Glendale puts it on. What does USAR do besides slap its bargain bin brand on it?

All Americans?? (is this guy a comedian??) Those boys have had to go hat in hand to find money or pay for itself and only got some expenses paid when USA Sevens stepped in.

What a laugh

[bruce mclane]

DJ,

Brian Lowe's web guy said that to get podcasts on i tunes, you need to change the URL that you are pointed too. he said it is on the site. brian is not quite sure what that means exactly, he will ask him to explain more. i asked him to put directions on the podcast page.

[Go College Rugby]

College rugby has every right to pull away from USAR and the sooner they do it, the better off they'll be for it. College rugby is on the verge of something big and they are being held back by USAR and their Commonwealth mindset.

Do it College Rugby! You have the strength to make it happen. Invest in yourselves and you'll reap the rewards.

The domestic game must come first before the Eagles will ever have success at the international level. The IRB doesn't get that and USAR just follows their lead because of the handouts. God forbid we deny the IRB for the benefit of rugby in the USA.

[Norris Elliott]

DPR - with respect to your statement "Colleges have no reason, nor right to peel away", this is not the case. There is nothing legally preventing colleges and universities from no longer being a part of USA Rugby. There is nothing legally that prevents them from forming leagues. The difficult part in doing this would be finding officials (referees) for their matches. The other difficulty would be convincing college administrators that the leagues were viable and were looking out for the player. Also, those players on those teams that did breakaway would need to understand that they would probably not be eligible for selections for a national team.

[Skinner]

When I started my college rugby club, as a student, I neither asked or expected support from USA Rugby.

I lobbied Student Government for funds for kit and equipment, cajoled a Professor to be our faculty sponsor, and spent my own money to get the word out on campus.

I took on the task of coach, manager, scheduler and President - before handing off to others.

The response was overwhelming, and I graduated 3 years later satisfied that the rugby program was entrenched.

That was in 1990 - and that rugby program is still going strong to this day - and still staffed by volunteers.

My story has no doubt been repeated over and over on campuses around the country.

My point is College Rugby has always been independent - and I fully support College Rugby charting it's own course.

It's the American way.

[Biz 101]

Worth noting Skinner, is I don't think most college coaches have their hand out to USAR. What they see is mismanagement of the resource.

A better college administration, could put on better events, with more sponsorships and media.

They could do this by keeping the over $1m dollars in dues, and over the last two years, millions in sponsorships from the NG, in the college game.

Currently these funds are used by Nigel Melville and Kevin Roberts to subsidize the national team, high salaries and club rugby.

Club rugby is subsidized by college rugby through USARs requirement of mandatory purchase of unneeded insurance.

Also, college rugby could bring in more sponsorships and resource with a staff dedicated to doing just that.

College rugby might be worth $5m to a good administration. Currently its bring in around $2.5m, with USAR investing done back into college rugby. Nothing into the national championships or AA program.

How is it college rugby could do any worse?

[Strap-on tools]

"...This Board is not the problem. They're more successful than any other head that we've had in place. The fact that they are looking past "the now" puts them light years ahead of where past bodies were...."

If you are correct - it's about time.

If you are wrong (which you are) - it's about time you came up for air.

Spinster, What exactly are you using as a measuring stick?

We use inches in America, these guys measure in centimeters from zero. A negative measurement counts the same as a positive.