The official delirium that greeted 7-a-side's admission to the Olympics matches the hysteria accompanying rugby's transition to professionalism. Why?
In the nearly 15 years since union shed its antiquated precept barring compensation, tens of thousands of players and coaches have newly made a decent living while virtually every major competition has grown. Not least to gain has been the World Cup, which has bankrolled the International Rugby Board's vaunted development grant program as well as the decade-long 7s lobbying blitz.
Yet professionalism -- more properly, market dynamics operating transparently -- remains the game's bogey. In America, for example, it is said to preclude our elites from catching up to developed nations. That is a tired thesis: Since 1995, amateurs from Argentina, Canada, and the Polynesian islands have routinely proven good enough to compete in European pro leagues, and despite the Argentine union's notorious penury, the Spanish-speaking Pumas have become a world power.
Meanwhile, IRB grants and direct sponsorship have made it possible for USARFU to hire more staff, at higher salaries, than would have been possible in the days when dues alone fueled the organization. To wit, Boulder's 2007 payroll expenses equated to 73% of that year's CIPP dues. (2008 tax filings are not yet available.)
Conversely, Olympic 7s has been lauded for promising to bring the game to many new countries. But in fact only a dozen of the usual suspects will reach Rio de Janeiro in 2016. It remains unclear whether the also-ran unions will obtain significant funding and management assistance from their respective Olympic committees, which are notoriously byzantine (if not plain corrupt).
The expectation of quasi-government funding is familiar to Commonwealth countries, with their history of formally constituted sports departments (ministries), and stands in contrast to the really new source of money that will come into the game. More than 60 percent of International Olympic Committee revenue comes from US sources; more than 60 national Olympic committees have revenue-sharing agreements with the IOC; therefore world rugby has for the first time achieved its cherished goal of tapping the American commercial market. Which is of course what USARFU's board has been charged to do.
In the nearly 15 years since union shed its antiquated precept barring compensation, tens of thousands of players and coaches have newly made a decent living while virtually every major competition has grown. Not least to gain has been the World Cup, which has bankrolled the International Rugby Board's vaunted development grant program as well as the decade-long 7s lobbying blitz.
Yet professionalism -- more properly, market dynamics operating transparently -- remains the game's bogey. In America, for example, it is said to preclude our elites from catching up to developed nations. That is a tired thesis: Since 1995, amateurs from Argentina, Canada, and the Polynesian islands have routinely proven good enough to compete in European pro leagues, and despite the Argentine union's notorious penury, the Spanish-speaking Pumas have become a world power.
Meanwhile, IRB grants and direct sponsorship have made it possible for USARFU to hire more staff, at higher salaries, than would have been possible in the days when dues alone fueled the organization. To wit, Boulder's 2007 payroll expenses equated to 73% of that year's CIPP dues. (2008 tax filings are not yet available.)
Conversely, Olympic 7s has been lauded for promising to bring the game to many new countries. But in fact only a dozen of the usual suspects will reach Rio de Janeiro in 2016. It remains unclear whether the also-ran unions will obtain significant funding and management assistance from their respective Olympic committees, which are notoriously byzantine (if not plain corrupt).
The expectation of quasi-government funding is familiar to Commonwealth countries, with their history of formally constituted sports departments (ministries), and stands in contrast to the really new source of money that will come into the game. More than 60 percent of International Olympic Committee revenue comes from US sources; more than 60 national Olympic committees have revenue-sharing agreements with the IOC; therefore world rugby has for the first time achieved its cherished goal of tapping the American commercial market. Which is of course what USARFU's board has been charged to do.
Give it up. This Board and its CEO are never going to raise any money. USAR is 100% on the dole, from the IRB and from the CIPP tax.
Posted by: 3 yrs and counting | 20 October 2009 at 10:11
Argentine comparisons don't hold water. Before the IRB had any money to share, before a Rugby World Cup existed and before USA Rugby was even an entity the Unión Argentina de Rugby (UAR) existed. It started in 1899 as the River Plate Rugby Football Union and when it became part of the Argentine Olympic Committee in 1951 it changed its name to the UAR.
Also, club rugby has been strong in Argentina for a century with facilities and funding. Some are full athletic clubs that already fund and train Olympic athletes in sports like field hockey, basketball and water sports. Their domestic club game has been nearly professional for a decade with full television coverage, sponsorship, paying crowds and complete news coverage.
The Pumas have been competitive on the world stage since the 70s and the big rugby nations have toured there since the 1920s, but regular visits began in the late 60s. This lead to the great teams of the 70s and early 80s lead by rugby great Hugo Porta.
USA Rugby is going to have to write its own history. I think it is the HS and college game that can take the game forward, but the current group of leaders seem to think it is a few Eagles wins away from glory.
Posted by: Senior Scrum | 20 October 2009 at 11:50
I must also comment that the UAR comparison is not quite fair, though I thoroughly agree we cannot keep relying on the 'we aren't professional' crutch if we are to ever advance. We don't need excuses, we need to just put our heads down and get on with things as best we can.
But back to the UAR comparison. Part of the issue with comparing the acceptance of US players in Europe versus Argentine players in Europe has to do with passports, citizenship, and restrictions on foreign players. Given Argentina's historical ties to continental Europe (Italy and Spain in particular) many people often have dual citizenship or familial ties to those countries which means they do not count against a clubs restriction on foreign players. This is particular important in the Guiness Premiership. So assuming you had two players of roughly equal talent, one from the US who is slightly more talented and one from Argentina who is marginally less talented, for many European clubs it is a no brainer because the paperwork and regulations are much easier to deal with if they go with the Argentine. They can save the foreign player slots for some other international player with no domestic prospects (e.g. Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, etc.)
Posted by: Brad | 21 October 2009 at 05:37
Its not just that the Board isn't going to raise money, they are spending it. This Board spends tens of thousands on themselves. We heard this bullshit about them being very successful biz type, wealthy men, who would show us the way.
Hell, we have to pay for their travel, meetings and dinners, where by the way, a congress member isn't allowed to even observe. This closed meetings (from the congress, thank you) approach appears to be when the Board readies their congress presentation/lies.
Chairman Roberts, I'm sick of this. I'm falling out of love with rugby on a daily basis under your lack of professionalism and leadership.
Posted by: Old Board | 21 October 2009 at 09:04
Just a Poll:
Who do you think the best player in American Rugby is?
Who is a lock for the 2011 WC squad?
Kurt you can Answer this too..
Thanks
Posted by: Suwoopgang | 21 October 2009 at 09:24
Nigel Melille is the best player in American Rugby. He is playing the entire country's rugby community like a pimp strong hands his bitches. Keep your pimp hand strong Nigel.
Buck Broke is the best lock in USA Rugby because you can bet your last buck that we are going to be broke. It's a lock.
Posted by: Vegas 7s | 21 October 2009 at 09:32
You reap what you sow. And there's no seeds to be sown.
No one gives a shit about the Eagles anymore. This administration has done broke our give-a-shit-button.
Eagle Player of the Year? Ask the administration, we didn't get to vote for any of them, why would we care to vote for this?
Posted by: who cares | 21 October 2009 at 09:47
Best domestic-based US player = Kevin Swiryn; best foreign-based US player = Mike MacDonald.
Posted by: W | 21 October 2009 at 10:08
If CIPP is the only reliable revenue stream then shouldn’t we limit total compensation to some logical limit? I would think any business model of this nature that goes over 42% is driving it's self into the ground. Can congress make such a proposal and pass it? 73% of total reliable revenue going to comp, no wonder we are broke.
Posted by: cipp - comp= broke | 21 October 2009 at 18:47
People have been saying on this site for a couple of years the the amount of compensation paid to the CEO and Eagles HC is out-of-scale with the size of the organization.
Add to this the total lack of success these two positions have enjoyed and the above point is made clear.
Below these two positions we have far too many paid employees. This work force needs to be reduced, while USAR recruits capable members our the community to perform these same tasks as volunteers.
USAR made far more progress and enjoyed more competitive and business success in this model, than it has over the last three years under this bloated administration.
Posted by: start over | 22 October 2009 at 08:33
Why doesn't everyone here who complains all the time, and I'm one of them, ever post it on Nige's blog? They will post any response and he will probably respond to it, even though it may be weak. Go for it.
Posted by: complaint dept | 22 October 2009 at 10:04
Screw Nige and his personal blog. Its a marketing ploy aimed at his own popularity. Its not a real place for USAR feedback.
People aren't looking for replies from Melville, we are just looking forward to seeing his backside.
Nige has made over a million dollar screwing up US rugby.
He has provided very little increase in revenue, been a poor personnel manager, been a poor leader. The sooner the door hits him in the ass the better.
Posted by: here's a complaint | 22 October 2009 at 10:18
If we are stuck with iRB overlords, then they should send Les Cusworth here as Meville's replacement.
Cusworth has done a magnificent job for Argentine rugby.
.
Posted by: Skinner | 22 October 2009 at 11:11
The part of the reason Cusworth has done so well with the Pumas is that he didn't walk in with a pre-determinded, IRB prescribed agenda or had to rely on the IRB funds to make the team better.
Both of which are realities for USAR and the Eagles.
Cusworth has been in Argentina for years, learned the culture, understands how young rugby players are developed and brought along.
His approach has been completely opposite of what Melville has done, which is to jam a foreign approach, with no regard to high school and college sports, onto the USAFRU.
Posted by: Anyone else will do | 22 October 2009 at 12:02
ust a Poll:
Who do you think the best player in American Rugby is?
Who is a lock for the 2011 WC squad?
Kurt you can Answer this too..
Thanks
Posted by: Suwoopgang | 22 October 2009 at 12:44
Here's a poll worth taking. Which is more worthless?
A) The USAR Board
B) The USAR CEO
C) The USAR Congress
D) All of the above
Posted by: CNN Poll | 22 October 2009 at 14:10
A CNN Poll would probably be made up numbers or someome's cul-du-sac x 27. D is too easy.
So, based on my sac = A, with B getting a reach around from C.
Posted by: Poll this | 22 October 2009 at 20:13
D, for different reasons.
The Board in combination has failed. Roberts is a egotistical punk. The rest of the Board just wants an Eagles necktie. They have collectively failed.
The CEO is a fraud. Just over his head as a chief executive. Not a leader, not a marketing professional, not a financial pro, nothing worth two title (CEO and President of Rugby) and the over million dollars we have paid him.
Congress is a sad little body of losers. The new blood is too mentally weak to take on the Board's protectors.
As bad as things could have once been considered, those days are like a ray of sunshine compared to this joke of an administration.
Posted by: votes are in | 23 October 2009 at 09:52
I am not sure what to think about Kevin Roberts...while i admire the fact that he loves rugby, i do think his heart is with the All Blacks and not The Eagles. i googled him and basically everything that comes up concerning kevin roberts and rugby has to do with his love for New Zealand rugby. Maybe someone who bleeds USA rugby will have more credibility?
Posted by: rugbyfan | 23 October 2009 at 12:59
Votes; Agree. After watching closely the events of the past few years, it is readily apparent that we were previously much better off. Not perfect mind you, but things were better.
The Eagles didn't cost my rugby playing kids a dime, the governance was average, but at least not grossly overpaid, and there seemed to be some rationale behind the decisions made.
These days we are told to unconditionally support the board, CEO, President of Rugby (what!) and pay our dues.
The guy that I find gets off easy in all this recent crap is Robert Latham. He is the one consistent element during this massive downturn. From CEO hirings and the completely out of line compensation to Head Eagle coaches (how many is it now ?) this Latham guy has been in a leadership role throughout it all.
Why doesn't anyone call him to the carpet ?
Posted by: Not the way is has to be | 23 October 2009 at 13:04
Not The Way:
As evidenced by all the staff departures, Eagle win record, and lack of sponsorship, & so on, it is clear Latham and the rest are the culprits of where we are today.
Other than withholding dues, how else can we call them to the carpet?
Nobody with the right amount of influence can convince their IRB cronies to get rid of them. If there is any discussion about USAR lack of progress in Dublin, I don't know how we'd ever know. There is no voting process to civilly ouster them, is there?
We need a high profile figure either from within or someone new to create the new direction. There's got to be some deep-pocketed silicon valley or wall street type who loves rugby just as much as us and is willing to go to battle to get them out. Or perhaps a group of these kinds of folks.
My cash outlay to AYSO, municipal youth hoops, ASA softball, and YMCA flag football this year will exceed $800 in reg fees and equipment. I have no issues paying one cent to these orgs for the athletic enrichment of my two young children. I'd love to have my kids playing youth rugby. But I will be damned if I ever pay anything to this USAR administration.
This is $800 that could have gone back to USAR. There couldn't possibly be another former rugger with kids in my situation......not!
Hello IRB? Missed opportunity. knock knock - holla if ya hear me...
***crickets, crickets***
Posted by: SD Hitman | 23 October 2009 at 16:30
Hearing you Hitman!
You are spot on. This is why USAR can't raise any serious donations, because we all hate these foreign assh*les.
The new Board guy trying to raise donations is this prick Bill Middleton. Great selection BTW, Middleton has never played, coached, reffed or administrated US rugby. Therefore they give him the task of raising donations and gifts, what a laugh.
The only way USAR can get a dime out of us is by taxing us to play. We give to our universities, hospitals, public TV and to other organizations we admire, but done of us would give these crooks a cent.
Change the administration and I'm in.
Posted by: I'd rather pay taxes than doante | 23 October 2009 at 17:26
If you aint blastin you aint lastin
Posted by: Suwoopgang | 23 October 2009 at 22:20
Kevin Roberts: It is frustrating to hire the CEO of Coca-Cola, to run our venture -- let's call it Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray.
Only to see himpublicly say time and time again how great Coca-Cola is.
Instead of saying how great a celery-flavored beverage can be.
Buck Broke: Didn't he play for Aspen back in the 80s-90s?
Posted by: ISP8 | 25 October 2009 at 08:22
This will be an interesting two years. Doug Arnot ran USA Rugby into the ground, cannot win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago and now he has a leading role with the London Olympics. Go figure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/8325745.stm
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1588307401 | 26 October 2009 at 06:41
The Arnot news speaks volumes about the Olympics. Doug Arnot was a very unimpressive guy, but he has stayed employed.
This leads to Kevin Roberts. Runs a big ad company. You'd think he was a great manager and a pro with lots of ideas, great leader...not! After seeing him work for three years in USAR, its clear he's just another dude. Nothing impressive about him.
Posted by: nice rep | 26 October 2009 at 12:12
Arnot's biggest contribution to USA Rugby was the current logo and the loss of huge amounts of money by poorly managing the Int'l 7s in LA at the time. He was another one of these guys that think a logo change and a big event makes everything happen. He probably thrives in the Olympics world because the event has some much built in success that a herd of F&@K ups like Arnot can not ruin it.
Posted by: Arnot is a failure | 26 October 2009 at 15:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqKjVo-9qso
Posted by: Invictus | 27 October 2009 at 20:52
So the college breakaway is going to happen. USAR is just to dumb to stop it now. Three years of abuse at the hands of Melville and this BOD is more than most colleges could stand.
This will be the legacy of this administration. Worst Eagles record, poor financial and sponsorship results, pull away of the high schools into state-based-organizations, breakaway of college rugby.
All this in spite of record grants from the IRB, a $275k per year CEO, $250k a year Eagles coach and the largest headquarters payroll in union history.
Congress, please take a bow for your outstanding oversight of this lazy ineffective Board and their hand picked CEO and Eagles coaches.
Posted by: outstanding legacy | 30 October 2009 at 09:14
The dues cost of the new college organization is way, way too high!
What would teams get for many thousands in dues. The college game is already paying way too much for nothing in return, now what, pay more for nothing?
Posted by: reduce the dues | 31 October 2009 at 11:24
If college pays dues to USA Rugby and gets little in return then the dues are too high.
If $75 per player translates into games on TV, insurance, self governance, and every cent of the money only being spent on the College game, then that must be better value for money.
Year 1 is always going to be expensive with start up costs to incorporate, get 501c3 status, and build everything from new.
Posted by: value & vision | 31 October 2009 at 12:56
where the heck are you guys getting this info? there is a new college organization?? links? info? give it up
Posted by: Info please | 31 October 2009 at 17:01
Becoming a 501(c)(3) corporation costs about $100. $500 if you have a lawyer do it for you.
Posted by: Are you kidding? | 01 November 2009 at 04:18
Info Please,
There is a cover letter and attached brief from a guy I've never heard of, by the name John McNamara, floating around informing college teams of a new college administration. It might be time for college rugby to pull away from the crooks who currently run the game. However the new plan is short on detail and long on explaining that college rugby needs to run college rugby, blah blah blah.
There are some real nut jobs coaches in college rugby, maybe the crooks currently in power are saving college rugby from itself.
Posted by: we will see | 01 November 2009 at 09:41
McNamara had been the college AA Manager for a few years, so he has first hand experience of USAR's mishandling of some aspects of the college game.
The email making the rounds said the Rugby media would be releasing the story today ... hopefully this gets gets the ball rolling on a college breakaway.
Posted by: college coach | 01 November 2009 at 12:32
this is HUGE!!!!! john mcnamara!! saving college rugby from itself?@ please dude. it cant get any worse. alea iacta est!
Posted by: viva american rugby | 01 November 2009 at 23:10
The defectors are already one day late on their own announcement planned for Nov 1st. They set the schedule and already missed their first promise.
USAr tried to beat them to the punch but that release is hollow, DOA on arrival.
This should be a contest between losers. USAr has no ideas and the defectors can't even agree to hit the send button.
First round is a tie with neither team scoring a point.
Posted by: 0-0-1 | 02 November 2009 at 08:08
2 knock-ons to start a contests and I expect the rest of the match to be a joke. As typical with USA Rugby the third half will be a huge s#$t show, but instead of drinking and immature it will be finger pointing and threats of lawsuits.
Posted by: Rugby in the USA | 02 November 2009 at 10:54
I dislike and distrust the clowns running USA Rugby so bad, the new college organization wouldn't need to be much for our team to jump.
Just promise me we wouldn't be paying out of our college dues $275,000 for the CEO and another quarter mil for the AA coach and I'm halfway there.
Tell me we can actually vote on important matters and we can hire someone that knows who Vince Lombardi is and I'll be rounding the bend.
Explain how this might convince the Board and their CEO that we are better off without them and we are all yours.
Posted by: how good does it have to be? | 02 November 2009 at 13:02
This is pathetic, from both sides. It's like a fight between two second graders.
Posted by: typical | 03 November 2009 at 03:04
no. it's not. the uscra is a great first step. we'll figure it out as we go. nothing could possibly get worse.
Posted by: viva american rugby | 03 November 2009 at 04:52
What about that missions statement is any different than USAR?
I don't care at ALL about the mission and purpose. Give me plans, tangible steps and performance metrics.
The document released by this new group is nothing different than what USAR has right now. they are both weak.
What could be more ineffective than USAR? Giving every memebr a vote in the operation of the organization. In case anyone hasn't been around go to 4 or 5 different college rugby matches in your area - not just the big ones. then come back and say you want those people to have any voice in how rugby is run.
Posted by: Anon | 03 November 2009 at 05:28
Wonder if the coaches at SMC and BYU signed up for a coaches association or signed their team up to become founding teams of this new college rugby organization?
It is funny how the new organization released their information. If they only signed up to be part of a coaches association this is very different from how their names were used. Are these coaches pissed?
Posted by: question | 03 November 2009 at 09:12
interesting question. i has assumed these coaches had signed on for the new organization. the standford coach just sent out a letter to northern california teams asking people to sign up for a coaching association meant to discuss the game. what a bait and switch this all looks like.
maybe somebody from byu can explain. is byu part of the new organization or did david symth just sign up to be part of a coaches association?
Posted by: verrry intereesssting | 03 November 2009 at 09:46
This is what happened: John McNamara tried to start a new college rugby organization. He thought he was going to get a huge buy-in from college coaches and he'd have the support to start this new organization and remove college rugby from the purview of USA Rugby (while meanwhile setting himself up with a nice salary). It didn't happen that way and he could only get a handful of coaches to sign on. So now McNamara, Griffin, and USCRA are backtracking and trying to "work with" USA Rugby. If it was only a college coaches association they were forming, why wouldn't the word "coach" be somewhere in their name?
Posted by: Interesting | 03 November 2009 at 10:00
"Coaches of NorCal,
As you may be aware over 25 coaches signed up to be part of the United
States Collegiate Rugby Association (press releases below + names) on the
first day. Following on from an email sent from myself last Friday we are
asking that you take a look at the press release below..."
Yep, this looks to be deceiving. Personally signing up to be part of a coaches association is a long way from having their college teams join a new organization.
Posted by: anon | 03 November 2009 at 10:07
the socal allstar coach on arn podcast indicated that this was a separate governing body. So not just a college coaches association. He didn't put his name to it because he isn't read yet. Same for Jack Clark, who said he wasn't involved in any way. (not even contacted im wondering?)
Hopefully they make someone a spokesperson and that person speaks up soon.
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 03 November 2009 at 11:19
One of the key issues in all this is the circumstances and opportunities of division two and three colleges and that of the top teams is very different.
What SUNY Brockport thinks should be college rugby's future and what the top div-1 teams think, might be very different.
The difference between the top college womens teams and the teams just looking to have some fun is even greater.
Isn't this the problem which USAR is facing? Trying to be all things to all people.
Posted by: college fan | 03 November 2009 at 11:28
Those teams dont have to join. I imagine this will be an organization dedicated to varsity level athletic pursuit. So those teams that don't want in are going to be left with USAR and playing local men's clubs and the like. all very early to be talking about anything like that but that has to be the way it is. Teams just looking to have some fun can have fun. If they aren't concerned with anything else then they wouldnt want to be in such an association anyways.
I don't think a d2 side has concerns much different than the majority of programs, d1 included. Everyone has different problems, that is for sure. But this is a much better way to tackle those problems than what USAR has been doing.
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 03 November 2009 at 12:53
vote for espn to sponsor a club rugby team here: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=114&sCat=368
otherwise they are going to sponsor a competitive eater. christ.. i have no idea what team it is.
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 03 November 2009 at 17:08
A look at the options in the ESPN poll tells you every reason why a need for a collegiate rugby association is required for the image of rugby in the USA.
Bowling Team
Rugby Club
Competitive Eater
That is some sorry company rugby is with, but also a good metric on what the public thinks about rugby as a sport. It isn't one! Aside from poker, bowling and competitive eating are probably two of the most mocked "sports" by the media. We can't even get judged with softball or lacrosse?
By the way, we are losing to competitive eating 45% to 39%. Support rugby and stuff a hot dog in your ass and call yourself a member of USA Rugby. Time for a change.
Posted by: HOT DAMN | 03 November 2009 at 19:33
Well as a former All American who has toured with John McNamara as team manager, I can attest that he would not be out of place managing any of the three teams ESPN offer.
That John is heading up a breakaway organization is a worry. It would be like Kramer off "Seinfeld" being appointing himself Secretary of State for the current administration.
Posted by: I won't follow John to the restroom after a 9 hour drive. | 03 November 2009 at 20:26
Hey Bathroom Boy -
It is not an association for guys that got their ass kicked in New Zealand. It is an association for people that are coaching or administrating college rugby. So go back to the beer bong and STFU.
Posted by: Kiwi Bait | 03 November 2009 at 20:57
Black black roooses in my garden !!!
Posted by: Southside Crip | 04 November 2009 at 07:25
John,
My you have become sensitive since deciding to be the head of the new college rugby association. You might need to toughen up your skin son.
Posted by: John McNamara isn't John Wayne | 04 November 2009 at 09:30
A few points.
Lets not let either side start with the name calling and making this personal.
USAR is a mess, but a known mess.
The USCAR is unknown.
Why can't we get to known what USARs reaction will be, while learning more about the USCRA without a bunch of childish bullshit.
A couple members of the USCRA are talking shit about anyone refusing to join their unknown organization. Now we have anon bloggers talking shit about the USCRA leadership.
Enough already! Lay out what you have accomplished in college rugby and what you want to accomplished. Let the people have the facts.
BTW, AA, NA4 titles don't mean a thing. They are just titles for very short term gigs. There is no accomplishment in this. These are political appointments. Tell us what you have built.
Same with USAR. The All Black blazer in the closet has no merit in a US college rugby discussion. If you don't know anything about college athletics you are going to be found out. This should worry the administration.
Both side should understand that paper plans, committees and role calls are also worthless.
Stop the bullshit and tell us what you've got.
Posted by: grown up time | 04 November 2009 at 10:03
John McNamara is upset at not being involved in USAR's planfor the college game - this has got to tell you something. We don't need a new association run by someone who is pissed at USAR - hell, we'd all be doing it.
Nigel Melville and the other idiots need to be fired. Get someone in to do the job on half the wage, slash EOS's salary in half and you can afford to get a top man in to run the college game.
We already have a governing body - we don't need another one.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | 04 November 2009 at 14:00
Jack, take a look at the long list of coaches who are on board for this. It's not just McNamara. What possible downside could there be from having an organization running college rugby that is dedicated to college rugby. It is by definition much more efficient isn't it? If anything USARFU are definitely starting to get the message so only good things can come from this, whatevery they may be.
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 04 November 2009 at 15:21
BYU is pulling out of USA Rugby. They are the key member of the USCRA.
Posted by: big news | 04 November 2009 at 15:28
And how do you know this? And what does pulling out mean? give it up
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 04 November 2009 at 15:45
Viva,
Coaches paying $100 to join for one thing! $100 for a magazine and a chance to join a bunch of back slapping good old boys? The coaches are on board because they are frustrated right now - and rightly so.
Like I say, get the right person in place within the current governing body and it will work.
Nothing good ever came from an organization run by a guy who got kicked out of the organization he now wants to replace.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | 04 November 2009 at 17:13
I guarantee John Mcnamara isnt running this show. No way. So relax. Getting the right person in there isn't going to do anything unless they give that person the cipp money colleges pay to make things happen. So if that is what you mean then I am all for it.
Does anyone have anymore details than were posted in that release?
Posted by: viva la american rugby | 04 November 2009 at 18:26
What we know is this is comprised of coaches without much success, or coaches who are riding the coattails of others, or coaches we have never heard of, or coaches who signed up for a coaches association only to be told later they signed up for a new organization.
Squandered opportunity. This USA RUGBY administration would have been toppled with a better plan. College rugby will be left to deal will an empowered out of touch board of directors.
By the time this is over we will read on Nigel Melville blog how the people voted to endorse his leadership.
OK, now I'm pissed at the USCRA. These guys were sitting ducks, how was the screwed up.
Posted by: Failure | 04 November 2009 at 21:39
Another RSL team bites the dust. D1 will be a better comp in 2010, nice work Melville and USAR. Millions in grants and you dicks can't prop up the highest level of club rugby.
You killed the ITTs or NASA.
The HSs want out from under USAR and want state based admin.
Colleges are pissed and want out.
The Eagles are at an all time low.
There is little sponsorship and higher dues.
The union continues to lose money, even with the highest payroll in our history.
Who keeps their board seat or job in the real world in this situation.
This board, congress and ceo have had three years and they have failed.
Time for change.
Posted by: Time for Change | 04 November 2009 at 21:48
Why don't we get a couple of Special Olympians to run USA Rugby. Any decisions made by our new Chairman and CEO would likely be better than previous ones.
Someone with an IQ in the 70-80 range with a nice smile and good manners. It would make a great story and no doubt bring in heaps of support. Brangelina, Spicoli, Madonna, Paris Hilton could become Board members of USA Rugby.
You could even market it as the game you "don't have to be retarded to play.. but it helps."
Anyone else on board?
Posted by: Michael Richards | 05 November 2009 at 16:30
Were would you rank this eagles squad? Best ever worst ever?
Posted by: Eric Dawn | 05 November 2009 at 17:38
We need a different administration, not a series of new organizations. Change the CEO, change the Chairman, change the Board, change the Congress.
Lets be one USA Rugby.
Posted by: JR | 05 November 2009 at 19:08
Nah. its just not an efficient model. Is USA basketball, the NBA, WNBA, NCAA basketball, etc all one organization? Nope. It's dumb.
Posted by: college rugby | 05 November 2009 at 19:18
I'd agree with "college". Other than the the terms "rugby" and "America", the USA Rugby and College Rugby have different -- and sometimes competing -- agendas.
If we were ever able to grow college rugby into what we all (OK, most of us) dream of -- Varsity or even NCAA status -- a "professional" governing national body would be incompatible with college rugby.
They certainly could and should intersect and work together as partners. Particularly for student-athlete representation at the international level, following a model like how college athletes interact with other National bodies (i.e., Olympic basketball or track & field).
Separate, but working together.
Break it off. It's really the only way forward.
Posted by: DaTruth | 06 November 2009 at 08:00
The national organization running all of rugby is another commonwealth model. Most rugby nations rely on clubs to develop players until they get into a professional set-up. These clubs are no different than the men's clubs across the USA, but they are able to generate revenue and have facilities (club houses & pitches). That model will not work in the USA. The only sport that works that way (sort of) is our oldest most established sport baseball with their farm system. A, Double A and Triple A baseball clubs that are farm teams for major league teams and generate their own revenue from gate receipts, sponsorships, advertising and concession/parking. Even football and basketball figured out that the college campuses were the best way to train and recruit their future players. USA Rugby is foolish not to embrace a coaches association or college rugby association dedicated to growing and administrating the college game. The only reason they wouldn't support this is because they don't want to lose the CIPP revenue. It is all about the money, which the IRB has made perfectly clear needs to go to the Eagles. Why? The IRB is tired of having no broadcast revenue for the World Cup coming from the biggest broadcast market in the world. Whatever Sentanta pays for the rights to the USA is tiny, and the IRB knows that if the Eagles are getting into quarter-finals or semi-finals a network like ESPN will pull out their checkbook. I think they are dreaming, but other than IRB grants and CIPP USA Rugby has no revenue of note.
Posted by: Fool Hardy | 06 November 2009 at 11:58
Fool Hardy, you are no fool, your post is accurate and true - issue that most don't know is the IRB sees us as bickering fools that they must fund and hope against hope that one day it will work. They will always support who is in the chair so those in the chair say, "look the IRB support us, we must be doing it right." All the time the patronizing continues only the irony is they are patronizing their own in we are not run by an American. The magic wand is not an American in charge, it is as Fool Hardy says, adapting to the American model as fast as we can that is both our growth and HP and commercial plans wrapped up in a pretty bow. First board member who says this wins - oh wait Peter Seccia is saying it, will the rest hate him or love him for his work as they sit and watch.
Posted by: 70th post wins! | 06 November 2009 at 14:21
I worry that Peter will be so fed up with the rest of the Board and the state of USAR that he will vacate his seat as soon as his term is up.
Posted by: Yup | 08 November 2009 at 07:39
Kurt
I thought you said this blog gets hits from Dublin. Its inconceivable that all the transgressions that are brought up here aren't making any sort of waves back there. The couple o'million a yr they throw at the current board must be peanuts to them I guess. I found Hagerty's article w Congressman Pittelkau to be enlightening and equally aggravating.
http://www.rugbymag.com/features/opinions/the-board-and-congress---how-are-they-working.aspx
BTW, I just dropped another $200 bucks on son's T-Ball and daughter's next season of softball bringing my tally to just over $1000 for the past 18mos for my two kids sports. And yes, it is somewhat of a strain on our household budget, but wife and I see the importance of having kids engaged in team sport. Too bad its not in the ultimate team sport, Rugby Union. Not a chance I will ever pay a dime for them to play any form of rugby sanctioned by this current USAR admin.
Dublin - your sleeping giant is in a coma and on life support.
Posted by: SD Hitman | 08 November 2009 at 10:44
A competetive national team does not equal mainstream recognition, ESPN coverage, or huge influxes (is that a word?) of money into a sport in this country. I just checked and the United States is ranked 3rd in the world in men's volleyball and I believe they won the gold medal in the last Olympics. However, I don't think ESPN is broadcasting the 2010 Men's Volleyball World Championship, and I don't see hordes of young boys suddenly taking to the volleyball court. Lacrosse, on the other hand, is continually surging in popularity and participation because it has vibrant youth, high school, and college competitions.
Posted by: IRB Strategy | 08 November 2009 at 14:20
IRB Strategy is a retard. The Rugby World Cup is the third largest sporting event on the planet behind the Football World Cup and the Summer Olympics. I see those events on TV in the USA. Where does the Volleyball World Cup (doesn't even exist) live on the world sporting event list?
Posted by: IRB = I Retarded Blogger | 08 November 2009 at 16:01
You did a very good job missing the point, which was that having a successful national team does not translate into popularity in this country. If it did, Americans would care about volleyball and it would be televised on ESPN. As you point out, it's not. ESPN did a fantastic job of showing the American rugby community exactly how much it cares about international rugby when it moved the RWCQ match between USA and Canada from ESPN to ESPN2 at halftime to cover the murder of a retired NFL player. As you point out, that was America attempting to qualify for the 3rd largets sporting event on the planet!! Throwing lots of money at the Eagles and an out of touch CEO isn't going to change that overnight. And, it's proven to be a failed strategy (note how the Eagles have fallen in the World Rankings).
While we're talking volleyball, it would be interesting to know how much Doug Beal, the CEO of USA Volleyball makes (I couldn't find it on their 990 report or Guidestar). That organization's revenue is about $12 million/yr, which is $4 million/yr more than USA Rugby. I bet Mr. Beal makes nowhere close to $275,000 in annual salary.
Posted by: IRB Strategy | 08 November 2009 at 16:44
I have seen beach volleyball on TV for years, and it is in the Olympics too. Both beach and traditional volleyball are heavily covered when the Olympics are televised.
I think this IRB strategy guy has Down Syndrome.
Posted by: WTF? | 08 November 2009 at 17:25
IRB Strategy,
All your points are well taken. Thanks for the clear point that the USAR salaries are out of scale with the size of our organization, as well as the abilities of our executives!
Hitman, you are right as usual. If the IRB won't stop the maddest they began, if Congress is without the ability, then we need to cut off the dues money supply.
What if everybody just underpaid their dues. The only hammer USAR has is with national championships, that doesn't mean much to most clubs. If we all just undercount, underpay our dues, we could give them 30% less to screw us with.
Posted by: pay no dues, or less | 09 November 2009 at 08:16
Relax yourself and it'll be so clear
Relax yourself and it'll be so clear
Relax yourself and it'll be so clear
Honey check it out you got me mesmerized with fine hair and you fat ass thighs street poetry goes....
Posted by: Verucasalt | 09 November 2009 at 12:43
The USCRA is on life support.
After their much hyped, new release we hear nothing, zip, zilch, zero, nada. Apparently no new teams have joined.
The teams will be jumping like rats off a ship.
Too bad really, USA Rugby deserved worse.
Posted by: dead on arrival | 09 November 2009 at 13:16
relax doa. reeeelaaaax. you dont know annything
Posted by: college rugby | 09 November 2009 at 13:30
My understanding is that the USCRA has had communications with Nigel Melville and they are going to be meeting in Vegas the weekend of the Int'l 7s. What were you expecting at this point an announcement that the USCRA signed a 10 million dollar sponsorship deal with Apple (or other college brand)?
Posted by: retarded on arrival | 09 November 2009 at 13:32
Well then it must be dead. If they are now down to a Feb meeting with Melville, its over over. Its early Nov, and they've run out of teams to announce and things to talk about.
This is when the coaches involved go limping back to Melville with a few meaningless demands and he slaps their wrist for making him think about college rugby for 12 seconds.
When I saw the names I knew it wouldn't ever take fight, but I have to admit I thought they could make a fight of it through the end of the year.
I never thought they would raise sponsorships, I just hoped they could communicate some ideas, get something other than the SUNY schools to sign up. Melville will now punish all of college rugby for even reading about this USCRA bull.
Hey good luck in the Feb meeting boys, maybe Melville will give you 20 minutes. I think I hear another rat going overboard.
Posted by: your 30 minutes is over | 09 November 2009 at 14:05
30 minutes. You make little sense. Nigel Melville has zero leverage to use in this situation. There is no pressure at all on the USCRA. They will take their damn time. USA Rugby has zero power or influence to exercise over college rugby. Doing something is as simple as just doing something. That is what they are doing. The announcement was just a way to reach as many programs as they can and now they are collecting members. The actual change though, is not going to happen this season so actually a USA7s meeting is perfect.
Posted by: college rugby | 09 November 2009 at 14:51
Looks to me like USCRA was very well thought out & planned.
1/2 of a 1/2 assed organization is about a quarter ass.
Posted by: typical | 10 November 2009 at 04:00
Still no goals, measurables or performance standards from the coaches org.
Can I hear one thing that they have planned? One reason shy they are better that is not "well we aren't USA Rugby - Rabble rabble rabble..."
75.00 dollars a kid is steep to an organization with no direction, leader or purpose. At least USAR only has the stones to ask for 20...
Posted by: Anon | 10 November 2009 at 05:13
$35
Posted by: typical | 10 November 2009 at 05:52
United States Calf Roping Association.
USCRA
www.uscra.com
heee haww
Posted by: typical | 10 November 2009 at 05:59
Just listened to John McNamara on the Bruce and Ray ARN pod-cast.
First why does he and ARN introduce him as from All American rugby? He has nothing to do with AA rugby.
Next its plainly clear the CRA is going nowhere. Ray said in introducing McNamara, the CRA isn't a breakaway from USAR, and McNamara did nothing to correct him.
Melville called the USCRA plan a "wider brief". McNamara said the primary focus was to bring college coaches together. He said the plan was created by Jonathan Griffin and Rich Podihol. He has no idea how many coaches he drove away with that announcement.
McNamara said something about 100 coaches, but I think he said have responded. Responded what? Don't call me again.
Nigel won the day, passing the whole thing off as an information exchange. Bruce did his best to pin them both down in between Ray's silly comments. Ray says "USA Basketball is the NGB of all basketball in the U.S. Yea Ray, I bet the NBA and NCAA calls them for clearance before they do anything!
Biggest lie of the day goes to Melville, "CIPP funds pay for the college championships". Even for a known lair, this is a whopper.
Posted by: McNamara v Melville is a sleeper | 10 November 2009 at 10:09
Melville is a prat and he would be sniffed out in a second if he was back in the UK.
Posted by: Prat Attack | 10 November 2009 at 11:32
Nigel is in a full panic to not lose CIPP fees either by college teams not participating in USA Rugby competitions or flat out not paying the fees, or by the existence of a lobby group that will force him to channel more CIPP money to college rugby than he wants and away from big salaries and funding the national team programs. If the colleges do it, then the HS programs will follow the lead. He knows that it is a possible domino effect that kills the CIPP scam USA Rugby has been running for years.
Posted by: CIPP Blues | 10 November 2009 at 11:49
Melville was trying hard to make it look like he's still in charge and everything is OK. McNamara was trying hard not to say that his plan is to take over the running of USA college rugby. This means no dues for USAR. The teams would pay dues only to the USCRA.
USAR is broke now, this would put an end to them. LAU's and TU's as well.
The questions asked sucked and the answers were fuzzy.
Waste of time listening to this crap.
Posted by: time waster | 10 November 2009 at 12:59
If Nigel was a decent man, he would flat out say that the 50% of collegiate CIPP money is going back into college rugby in 2010 with a plan to have all of if allocated for college rugby by 2015 (10% per year). This would give them the opportunity to ween themselves off the CIPP welfare and either get the IRB to pony up more money or actually get sponsor and broadcast revenue for the national teams. That would end the entire debate and the 50% would seem like a lot of money for a group that has been getting nearly zero funding from USA Rugby.
Posted by: get on it nigel! | 10 November 2009 at 13:25
Get it on,
That is a terrific idea, I always thought that it would be correct to give them 65-80% of the money, but weaning the money off over time would be a great idea and it would even allow custodians of the college game to possibly save some of the money for future investment in either programs or a sort of endowment. Good forward thinking.
That is an idea that I would think could easily take shape and is easily implemented and easily accounted for.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 10 November 2009 at 14:07
I wish you could have read some of Jack Clark's comments from the college podcast to Nigel for some reactions. But I guess that would look like an ambush?
Posted by: college rugby | 10 November 2009 at 14:45
I like how Jack Clark took a shot at BYU saying that you provide a clean game with no dangerous tackles!
Posted by: Cry Baby Jack | 10 November 2009 at 15:14
It was a pretty subtle shot. A BYU guy asked why teams keep backing out of games with them, wasn't it Penn State last year? What did they have to do to get teams to play them at home. Clark gave a series of consideration, like cost etc, then said something like teams want a good clean game. I thought it was kind of funny. I bet there's more truth that not in the point as well. All the BYU supporter were so high on their brand of thugby, now maybe they are reconsidering.
If BYU were honest, they would have to admit, what they were up to last year might win games, but it won't win friends. Doesn't sound like many teams are willing to travel to Provo either.
Posted by: LOL | 10 November 2009 at 15:59
I don't blame anyone for not wanting to go to play BYU. When you are a cult people don't knock on your door for a visit, you do the knocking. The Mormons are a menace and nobody should support those religious radicals. I say play rugby on Sundays and ignore their stupid demands. They all play on Sunday when the NFL dollars are there, so they don't really have an argument in my opinion.
Posted by: Mormons are wack | 10 November 2009 at 16:26
Cal Rugby Sucks....if they really want to be good why dont they teach rugby to a D1 college football team and I guarantee you within 1 month of playing the D1 football team will run them into the ground...
Posted by: Donfromcalifronia | 10 November 2009 at 16:40
Donfromcalifronia
That was a smart comment but you need to learn how to type.....btw I think Cal Rugby sux as well...I think what you were trying to say is that D1 football teams in this country who have never played rugby before can beat Cal within months of learning the game...right?
Posted by: Craigseager | 10 November 2009 at 16:45