Former 7s Eagle Matt Huckaby will be the next coach of Arkansas State, succeeding his father Curt, whose tenure enmeshed rugby in the Jonesboro school's fabric.
'Because of Curt’s dedication and hard work, Arkansas State University has enjoyed extensive positive exposure nationally and internationally for our rugby team’s achievements,' chancellor Robert Potts said in a prepared statement. 'We will always be appreciative to him for his efforts, and we are confident that Matt will continue to carry the program forward.'
Although ASU classifies rugby a club sport, in deference to the NCAA, to enjoy such a ringing endorsement is to be varsity in spirit if not in fact. The program's future, warranting a school-administered search culminating in yesterday's announcement, evidently has the attention of campus leaders.
More specifically, Arkansas State sees rugby as advancing its brand internationally, something that interests many American universities, which covet a broad base of students as well as students who pay full tuition. With a bit less than one-third of the squad coming from overseas, the sport effectively pays for itself, according to the school's release.
The elder Huckaby steps down with a record of 183-44-1 over 14 seasons, including runnerup finishes in the 2001, 2004, and 2006 division 2 national championships. Afterward, the Red Wolves stepped up to division 1, winning consecutive South territorial titles and falling last year to eventual champion Brigham Young in the round of eight.
Matt, who played for his dad, was an unheralded, 6'0", 200-lb flanker who competed 'much harder than most,' according to one contemporary coach. He nabbed All-American honors after the 2001 and 2002 seasons and would go on to claim a handful of Eagles 7s caps and invitations to several 15s assemblies, yet never quite managed full international honors.
Along with Dartmouth's Alex Magleby, BYU's Kimball Kjar, and San Diego State's Matt Sherman, the younger Huckaby is one of promising generation that has moved quickly from being All-Americans in the early years of the decade to coaching leading teams by its end.
Fifteen players have been named to the USA 7s squad competing in the January 21-23 Fiji 7s, an important precursor to February's Wellington and Las Vegas stops on the Sevens World Series.
Three will released before Al Caravelli's troops head to New Zealand, where another failure to score series points could raise questions about America's automatic qualification for the 2010-11 circuit. The roster includes Bennie Brazell, a 7th-round pick in the 2006 NFL draft; Kevin Swiryn, who missed the Dubai and George tournaments due to injury; and Paul Emerick, made available by his Italian club.
'Because of Curt’s dedication and hard work, Arkansas State University has enjoyed extensive positive exposure nationally and internationally for our rugby team’s achievements,' chancellor Robert Potts said in a prepared statement. 'We will always be appreciative to him for his efforts, and we are confident that Matt will continue to carry the program forward.'
Although ASU classifies rugby a club sport, in deference to the NCAA, to enjoy such a ringing endorsement is to be varsity in spirit if not in fact. The program's future, warranting a school-administered search culminating in yesterday's announcement, evidently has the attention of campus leaders.
More specifically, Arkansas State sees rugby as advancing its brand internationally, something that interests many American universities, which covet a broad base of students as well as students who pay full tuition. With a bit less than one-third of the squad coming from overseas, the sport effectively pays for itself, according to the school's release.
The elder Huckaby steps down with a record of 183-44-1 over 14 seasons, including runnerup finishes in the 2001, 2004, and 2006 division 2 national championships. Afterward, the Red Wolves stepped up to division 1, winning consecutive South territorial titles and falling last year to eventual champion Brigham Young in the round of eight.
Matt, who played for his dad, was an unheralded, 6'0", 200-lb flanker who competed 'much harder than most,' according to one contemporary coach. He nabbed All-American honors after the 2001 and 2002 seasons and would go on to claim a handful of Eagles 7s caps and invitations to several 15s assemblies, yet never quite managed full international honors.
Along with Dartmouth's Alex Magleby, BYU's Kimball Kjar, and San Diego State's Matt Sherman, the younger Huckaby is one of promising generation that has moved quickly from being All-Americans in the early years of the decade to coaching leading teams by its end.
Fifteen players have been named to the USA 7s squad competing in the January 21-23 Fiji 7s, an important precursor to February's Wellington and Las Vegas stops on the Sevens World Series.
Three will released before Al Caravelli's troops head to New Zealand, where another failure to score series points could raise questions about America's automatic qualification for the 2010-11 circuit. The roster includes Bennie Brazell, a 7th-round pick in the 2006 NFL draft; Kevin Swiryn, who missed the Dubai and George tournaments due to injury; and Paul Emerick, made available by his Italian club.
United States to Fiji 7s
Marco Barnard (Kutztown Univ.), Mark Bokhoven (Denver Barbarians), Bennie Brazell (Unattached), Nick Edwards (New York AC), Dimitri Efthimiou (Mystic River), Paul Emerick (Overmach Parma), Matt Hawkins (Belmont Shore), Ata Malifa (Belmont Shore), Malenese Malifa (Belmont Shore), Leonard Peters (Gentlemen of Aspen), Mile Pulu (San Francisco Golden Gate), Trevor Richards (Univ. of Nebraska), Shalom Suniula (Pearl City), Kevin Swiryn (captain, Old Puget Sound Beach), Zack Test (Loughborough Univ.)
You can add Blake Burdette of Utah and Justin Hundley of Army to that group of young, former AA, coaches.
It is exciting to see that.
Posted by: college rugby | 19 January 2010 at 13:15
When will Hundley take over at Army?
Posted by: question | 19 January 2010 at 14:06
Matt Huckaby, Kimball Kjar, Blake Burdette, and Matt Sherman are the next generation following Lyle, Hodges, Lehner, Billups.
Posted by: Homegrown | 19 January 2010 at 16:37
excuse me. i apologize. Justin Hundley has been here for a long time and can be considered homegrown.
Posted by: next gen | 19 January 2010 at 19:43
from reports Bennie is 27 yrs old so by 2016 he'll be at least 33 and more likely 34 by the time the games are played. Why do we think a cross over athlete, no matter how fast he was in 2004 is good for our 7's team?
If he was a highly touted 18 year old or even a d1 20 year old cross ove rmaybe but there is a lot more to 7's than speed and old age is not one of them.
Posted by: curious on-looker | 20 January 2010 at 07:12
Navy, Kutztown, Tennessee, Arkansas State, LSU, Texas A&M, Utah, Arizona, San Diego State and Cal are all in a planned college Spring premier league.
It sounds like the plan is for 4 regions of 8 teams, 32 total teams.
If I was selecting the next teams on a per region basis, looking at current level of play, potential and brand I would select the following:
west to east- CWU, UC Davis, SMC, Stanford, Cal Poly, UCLA, BYU, AFA, CU, CSU, Wyoming, Minnesota, ND, Bowling Green, OSU, Penn State, Army, Dartmouth, Harvard, Life, Florida. Add your favorite team, swap a couple, who cares. Teams not in the first year will play their way in.
Expenses to participate look to be about what the teams are currently paying. Much better chance of sponsorship.
A 7 to 10 match premier season, played March-May. Teams would also continue to play locally or regionally on a per team plan.
USAR will give the plan the green light...because they have no other choice.
Some of the teams already committed to the competition are supporters of the the USCRA. Feeling is, the new premier competition has nothing to do with the USCRA's plans.
This is 10 teams, of what will become 32 teams, just trying to do what USAR isn't doing. It is not another organization. It is not a dues based new organization like the USCRA. These teams aren't trying to manage womens rugby or D1-D2-D3 rugby.
These teams are committed to one thing, a Spring premier competition. They want promotion/relegation on a per region basis. They want one match weekends. They want sponsorship and some TV.
Some of these teams are supporters of the USCRA, others are supporters of USAR...still others, distrust both. These teams have nothing to do with the battle for dues and authority between USAR and USCRA.
I got this from a coach in a blue jacket at UCLA this past weekend. He said there is nothing to hide. No politics, no agendas, no membership drive, just teams wanting to create a premier competition. He said, leave the responsibility for rec rugby to those organizations collecting the dues. Build something that pushes the whole of college rugby forward, while not taking from the lower teams. Build something that D1 teams can aspire to participate in.
This group of teams is happy to pay dues to whichever group is in charge.
Posted by: heard this | 20 January 2010 at 08:53
Seems like this is in response to the uscra though.
Has this been an open discussion? I dont really see any teams in there that actually are on board with USCRA. navy, ktown, cal are all expressly not in.
I am glad to see that the uscra meeting in vegas is open to EVERY coach and from what i can tell is completely free.
The 75 dollar charge that chowderhead brian lowe was talking about is for a coaching clinic that uscra set up as a FREE service for its members and at a charge for anyone else.
ARN podcast couldnt take the time to actually read any of the releases and understand that. They are bringing in a high profile coach, I cant remember who, to run a coaching session. That, I think, is the only cost associated and it is only charged to non-members which makes sense.
Posted by: college rugby | 20 January 2010 at 09:10
Whoever the "coach in a blue jacket" was, it wasn't Nigel Melville, the CEO and President of Rugby for USA Rugby, and that is a significant problem.
Melville has been widely reported to make upwards of $275,000.00 and doesn't have a single successful deal to justify this large, out of our price range compensation sum. Landed a sponsor ? Nope. Worked for a good kit deal for national teams, Nah. Hired a good coach that is also a good fit for our national teams ? are you kidding ! Nigel has Rookie Rugby via Mark Griffith. High fives all around gang !
Seems like we should get rid of Melville et al and give some of that salary to people of action who are creating this Spring Competition. The balance of Melville outrageous salary could go toward assisting teams who make the playoffs.
Posted by: New Math | 20 January 2010 at 09:48
The college premier spring league teams aren't offering a response to the USCRA or USAR.
Some team coaches are willing to be members of the USCRA, others think its an unworkable concept. For example, why and how would this group of coaches be any better at providing fee based services to the hundreds of D2-D3 teams. Be careful want you promise comes to mind. Is it just that USAR is doing nothing for these teams and the USCRA is saying, we can do nothing for less dues?
USCRA is a membership based administrative body, or so says their spokesperson. The USCRA is based on ALL college teams, men, women, D1-D3, All American program, etc. The mission of the USCRA is huge. Best of luck to them. It should be a good fight between the USCRA and USAR for that dues money. Over a million dollars on the line.
Wow what a mistake it would have been for the USCRA to restrict attendance to their first meeting in LV to only individuals who had previously joined. They even bolded the "members only" statement in their press release. It is a good change for them to open up the meeting, maybe if they keep the mission bland enough a few more coaches will sign up their teams.
BTW, what does signing up for the USCRA mean? You think USAR has failed college rugby? Sign us all up! Or does it mean you are willing to start paying dues to a new organization? In this case a few more questions are in order.
One other thing, do these coaches have the authority to legally commit their university teams to some LLC with a BoD and employees? Doesn't the university decide which organizations they belong to? At least USAR can justify collecting dues as the national governing body of the sport as recognized by the USOC and IRB. I'm smelling some legal problem for coaches who aren't even employees of their university much less empowered with a legally binding authority. You can bet the carpet-bagging USAR will be playing this card at the 11th hour.
This group of teams wanting a Spring premier competition is not for, or against, USCRA or USAR. They only want top create a premier college competition.
It is understood that all the politics of, who has signed up for what, isn't even part of their conversation. This is why some of the USCRA coaches want to play in the competition.
Posted by: heard this | 20 January 2010 at 10:53
Agree on most everything. I just think this politics of uscra is overstated. They made a mistake by limiting the info given and conversation to only those who committed. But the change in tone signified by the open-to-all meeting is a good step. I dont think they even know who or what they are yet. the Vegas meeting is going to be interesting.
I do disagree with your assessment that they wouldnt be able to provide any services. Teams now pay 35/player to usarugby for exactly nothing. Instead it bankrolls the national teams and administration.
For their own amount/player I wonder what package of services would in your or anyone else's mind be an improvement? I dont know what they are offering so I can't really say. But with all that money actually going to college rugby instead of the top-down approach, I have to believe it will be some pretty good stuff. Add to that a hefty sum in sponsorships paying for other stuff and maybe a deal to get games on espn could anyone argue that it isnt a good deal?
I guess we shall all just have to wait till Vegas happens.
Posted by: college rugby | 20 January 2010 at 11:04
To heard this...you seem to have a lot of information regarding a large change in college rugby that you heard from some coach in a blue coat...kind of random that you have all this information.
I've actually heard the same thing and Sir Jack Clark is right at the center of it. Go back and listen to his podcast on lowe's site. He's the one pulling the string. And if Clark is involved with it you can guarantee that he's looking for a payout. Funny how he left USA Rugby once the BSB deal and the old logo went by the way side. He has commissions and royalties coming from both. He's a good rugby coach, but very shrewd businessman. I'd be careful for anyone aligning their program with him...there's only one person that matters in his world: him.
His plan might seem nice, but just remember I warned you. Forked tongue=Jack Clark.
Posted by: GregW | 20 January 2010 at 13:56
GregW,
I think you're right that "heard this" got it from JC. Not much code in a "coach in a blue jacket at UCLA" where Cal was playing, now is there.
On your other points, you dead wrong. First, the BSKYB sponsorship/broadcast agreement was over in 2005, JC stepped away after the 2003 RWC. He left a couple million buck for Doug Arnot to piss away.
Wrong also on logo royalties. JC was never paid any such royalties. In fact every dime of his compensation was reported in the 1099's we never see any more from USAR.
Yes he's no one's fool and certainly not Nigel Melville's fool. I also listen to the podcast. Remember when JC blew the cover off Melville selling and keeping for USAR's coffers a couple hundred thousand dollars by way of title sponsorship for the college national championships and the ESPN Game of the Week, while the participating teams paid all the cost.
I think the colleges need somebody to help them get a fair deal from USAR. College kids pay over a million in dues and the All American team pays their own way to tour! What kind of a deal is that? You're correct, it wouldn't happen to JC.
As for the new premier league I haven't heard much. But if their was one guy in America who could make it happen it would be JC.
Posted by: wrt | 20 January 2010 at 14:27
Why no PSU, BYU, Army, and a host of other teams that are better than a lot of the teams on that list?
JC is most certainly behind this with some of those other schools from listening to the podcast. Not a bad thing at all. GregW sounds bitter, but what do i know? This kind of move certainly should have been done much earlier. Why has JC waited till now? Doesnt matter though. If it means college rugby goes to the next level I dont care who pulls strings.
It looks like the uscra is on one side and this crew is on the other doesnt it?
Either way, college rugby, in its entirety, is going to move forward with whoever makes it rain. It's ironic that the showdown will be in Vegas. Now taking bets on the winner...
Posted by: Vegas Baby, Vegas | 20 January 2010 at 14:50
I can tell you why no Army, BYU, Penn St.: they are all involved heavily in the USCRA movement. I'm surprised to see Texas A&M mentioned in the post above, my guess is that might be incorrect info considering Coates is on the board of the USCRA. What I heard was that the premiere league creators specifically excluded from the original discussions those teams affiliated with the USCRA, especially those who aren't on board with a spring season (Army). USCRA made a power play to try to take over college rugby. They failed miserably and now are backtracking to a "coaches organization." Anyone who has seen the original email to coaches from John MacNamara knows that the original intention was to take over college rugby. Unfortunately, they had the wrong people for the job as frontmen. Good for Jack Clark for starting the premiere league. Now the rest of us need to focus on creating local conferences (see ARN article today by the Virginia Tech coach). Interesting times for college rugby.
Posted by: College Rugby | 20 January 2010 at 17:34
A power play?
Why does everyone have to make everything sound so sinister? Making the uscra seem like some master plan to rip off college rugby is a joke and just dumb. EVERY coach had the ability to enter the discussion and they still do. The coaches/people working on it have college rugby's best interests in mind in everything they do.
So these coaches disagree with Jack Clark? So they must be wrong or have bad intentions?
And I'm pretty sure the uscra is still full steam ahead with their plans. Like what was said. Vegas will be big as far as this discussion goes.
Posted by: Original College Rugby | 20 January 2010 at 18:41
So Orignal,
What do you have to disagree with JC about? He has only said he thinks a premier competition is needed and Cal wants to be a participate.
He thinks a Spring premier competition is a good idea and you don't? Maybe you are like the USCRA founder from Army that thinks college rugby should be a Fall only sport. Whatever man.
JC has apparently in your words "entered the discussion". He said on the ARN podcast that a signal match weekend, regionally selected teams, national premier league is a good idea.
What say you?
Posted by: heard this | 20 January 2010 at 21:09
Hold on, so what if Texas A&M and their coach believes the USCRA is a better model than USAR, and still believes that a premier league has merit?
What are we saying, that teams can't think for themselves?
Of course a premier college league makes sense.
Posted by: lone star | 20 January 2010 at 21:16
USA Rugby and the College Rugby Association should jump on the concept of a college super league asap. This is just what USA Rugby needs to be seen as managing the college game and just what the CRA needs as a rallying issue to display some vision. As is, USA Rugby wants the hiring of a Boulder college director to make their case and the CRA wants to have a come-all meeting to decide what they needs to decided. USA Rugby doesn't really believe in college rugby, at any level, and the CRA will have a D2 political fight to even consider an elite competition. First organization to blink wins in this case.
Posted by: oh my | 20 January 2010 at 21:36
I didnt say I disagreed with "the man in blue". I'm saying that just because the uscra has a different vision than jack clark doesnt make them have improper motives. People calling the uscra a power play are implying that in my opinion. I don't know exactly what plans the uscra has. But JC seems to disagree with them seeing as he hasnt joined them. And so they disagree in turn.
Does the uscra say there shouldnt be a premier league? i doubt they would disagree on that. And lets be honest, the arn crew led by Clark havent given the uscra much respect. Clark "accidentally" mispelling the acronym and other silly things like that. Yea a detailed man like Clark doesnt already have the letters u.s.c.r.a. burned into his mind.
By enter the discussion I meant talk with the uscra. I was referring to the discussion they started by creating this movement. Like I said before, Vegas will tell a lot. I hope they webcast it. I would love to see a discussion between Clark and the rest. They are the best college people we have. Whatever we have to do to get them all on the same page.
Whatever man! haha. christ. heaven forbit someone even hint at offering an opinion against what JC says. I just referred to the differences JC & crew have with uscra, which I dont even know about (just that they exist) and suddenly it's "Whatever man, go against JC. just try it!"
Posted by: Original College Rugby | 20 January 2010 at 21:54
Re-reading your comment that was a bit much. You weren't being as unreasonable as I first thought. sorry.
Spring or fall? I dont care. Just as long as it is successful. Whoever brings the money/sponsors/tv wins I would say. But i dont coach in the college game.
Posted by: Original College Rugby | 20 January 2010 at 22:12
Business man. The entire college rugby arena will be spinning tires in mud until a money man takes control.
There is no successfull sport in america from high school to pro that lets it's coaches run the organization.
It's like letting the sales department run a company.
Coaches are a part of the equation. We've had that part for a while. What we need to to MAKE MONEY. You'll lose some core values of the game here but that is the price you pay.
Venues, events instead of just games and aesthetics (jerseys, procedures - looking like a varsity program). This will encourage attendance which will generate revenue and sponsorship.
I don't know why everyone has to be against everyone else in this. Seems simple to me. USCRA/USAR has a limited impact on any individual team. To grow revenue and exposure you need a product to sell. There are only a few teams that are capable of selling that product through quality of the organization and venue. Those teams are banding together to help the process.
If US-AR/CRA want to collect dues and administrate the college game great - choose the best option. But lets not pretend that either is going to make teams better or put butts in seats. Committees and membership organizations are in the business of appeasment. this muddles goals and direction and stunts growth.
I think the USCRA conversation was originally started because of the non-support for the AA team. Imagine the nerve of USAR... Think if the NCAA didn't support the football, basketball, hockey, baseball AA teams. There would be an uproar... oh wait. there is no such thing... There is a U-20 soccer team but they realize maybe there are some decent players that should be in the national set up even though they aren't in college! You NAME all americans. You PLAY u-21.
Posted by: anon | 21 January 2010 at 05:46
apples and oranges comparing ncaa aa teams and ours. but thats ok.
So you agree that whoever brings the money will call the shots. that's all i was saying. And I dont think uscra coaches are going to "run" the org. I'm pretty sure I read that they are going to set up an administration similar to the ncaa to run it. So it would have a similar structure as other entities that have been successful.
I JUST want college rugby to get its due and be on tv and be a legit option for high school athletes. I dont give a crap who runs it or whose ideas get used. Just as long as it is successful.
Posted by: Original College Rugby | 21 January 2010 at 10:53
I think the coaches who haven't signed up for the USCRA are waiting to find out what the USCRA is.
Lets remember what the USCRA has released by way of information.
In the beginning, released under the names of John McNamara, Rich Pohlidal and Jon Griffin was a document which outlined the USCRA's: immediate goals, org chart and time line.
Under immediate goals were items like hiring a professional staff, creating college committee's with various chairs, as well as a coaches association.
The organizational chart listed a professional staff of 15 individuals.
The dues structure said $75 per player, $100 per coach and $150 per team.
An All American program separate from USAR.
The organizational time line made the USCRA's objective clear: Nov-Feb 2010 enroll coaches, May 2010 assume governance of college rugby, June 2010 hire GM, accounting, marketing, communications and product development professionals, Aug 2010 finalize corporate structure 501c3 status, Sept 2010 assume complete responsibility for collegiate rugby in the US.
Nothing gray in any of this.
Meanwhile founder Pohlidal was phoning his coaching recruits saying college rugby was going to be a Fall only sport.
After some key defections from the USCRA ranks, the spokesman (McNamara) changed his tune and said they are still deciding their plans and it will all be decided at a later date.
Soon after USCRA members submitted an interview where they state the USCRA is just a coaching association, a place to share coaching information :-) Others say its an attempt to get some influence over USAR who they are clearly disappointed with.
Lately its come to light that Pohildal might be out of the USCRA, or at least gagged.
So here's the question, what does signing up with the USCRA mean? Are they taking over college rugby? Hiring upwards of 15 employees? Is somebody looking for a GM job? Is this about the AA team? Is this just a coaching association, or a bunch of people pissed at USAR for ripping off college rugby?
Maybe all this will get worked out, at the LV meeting, which has now been opened to non-members. However, one thing is for sure, we should better understand the coaches who haven't signed up until the USCRA knows what they are asking people to sign up for.
It's a good guess there is a reason why the Magleby's, Richards', Payne's, Jones', Flanagan's, Bradly's, Huckaby's, Burdette's, Ford's, O'Brien's C, Clark's, Stewart's, Sherman's, etc are waiting to understand what the USCRA is before joining. Novel approach, huh?
There isn't this divide in college rugby that some would like to have us think. Most D1 college coaches have the same opinion of USAR and want the same types of successes for our sport. The right steps to get there might have some disagreement.
Something tells me that if the USCRA is about hiring a bunch of employees and reallocating dues from USAR to a new org and trying to manage social rugby teams of both genders, then not only will less coaches sign up, the entire enterprise will fail.
Until then, best of luck to the USCRA deciding what the organization wants to be. All of college rugby agrees that USAR, Melville and the Board are ripping off college rugby. The question is, does college rugby get rid of them, or start a new organization?
I think the coaches who haven't signed up for the USCRA are waiting to find out what the USCRA is.
Lets remember what the USCRA has released by way of information.
In the beginning, released under the names of John McNamara, Rich Pohlidal and Jon Griffin was a document which outlined the USCRA's: immediate goals, org chart and time line.
Under immediate goals were items like hiring a professional staff, creating college committee's with various chairs, as well as a coaches association.
The organizational chart listed a professional staff of 15 individuals.
The dues structure said $75 per player, $100 per coach and $150 per team.
An All American program separate from USAR.
The organizational time line made the USCRA's objective clear: Nov-Feb 2010 enroll coaches, May 2010 assume governance of college rugby, June 2010 hire GM, accounting, marketing, communications and product development professionals, Aug 2010 finalize corporate structure 501c3 status, Sept 2010 assume complete responsibility for collegiate rugby in the US.
Nothing gray in any of this.
Meanwhile founder Pohlidal was phoning his coaching recruits saying college rugby was going to be a Fall only sport.
After some key defections from the USCRA ranks, the spokesman (McNamara) changed his tune and said they are still deciding their plans and it will all be decided at a later date.
Soon after USCRA members submitted an interview where they state the USCRA is just a coaching association, a place to share coaching information :-) Others say its an attempt to get some influence over USAR who they are clearly disappointed with.
Lately its come to light that Pohildal might be out of the USCRA, or at least gagged.
So here's the question, what does signing up with the USCRA mean? Are they taking over college rugby? Hiring upwards of 15 employees? Is somebody looking for a GM job? Is this about the AA team? Is this just a coaching association, or a bunch of people pissed at USAR for ripping off college rugby?
Maybe all this will get worked out, at the LV meeting, which has now been opened to non-members. However, one thing is for sure, we should better understand the coaches who haven't signed up until the USCRA knows what they are asking people to sign up for.
It's a good guess there is a reason why the Magleby's, Richards', Payne's, Jones', Flanagan's, Bradly's, Huckaby's, Burdette's, Ford's, O'Brien's C, Clark's, Stewart's, Sherman's, etc are waiting to understand what the USCRA is before joining. Novel approach, huh?
There isn't this divide in college rugby that some would like to have us think. Most D1 college coaches have the same opinion of USAR and want the same types of successes for our sport. The right steps to get there might have some disagreement.
Something tells me that if the USCRA is about hiring a bunch of employees and reallocating dues from USAR to a new org and trying to manage social rugby teams of both genders, then not only will less coaches sign up, the entire enterprise will fail.
Until then, best of luck to the USCRA deciding what the organization wants to be. All of college rugby agrees that USAR, Melville and the Board are ripping off college rugby. The question is, does college rugby get rid of them, or start a new organization?
Posted by: anon | 21 January 2010 at 13:01
Dude watch the cut and paste!
Interesting comment Pohlidal and the USCRA are on the outs. Rich's presence wasn't helping them, nor was him going rogue on this Fall season thing. From Army's standpoint I'm not sure how the USCRA helps them. Army can write their own ticket. They will always be a major part of anything that happens in US rugby, along with having one of the top facilities. They have it all, ESPN Games of the Week, premier league, event hosting, Army v Navy, they are the best positioned team in college rugby.
What about USA Sevens being unhappy with the USCRA concerning their press release referring to USA Sevens as a "partner"? The USCRA needs to slow down with these press releases!
Posted by: slow down | 21 January 2010 at 15:52
If we're going to cut and past USCRA stuff, then let's do it right. Here's the original email John MacNamara sent out about his "coaches association."
October 28, 2009
Dear fellow College Rugby Coaches,
After many years working with USA Rugby College Rugby programs and speaking with other coaches at all levels of the game I have come to the conclusion that College Rugby urgently needs a new leadership model if it is to realize its potential on college campuses and in the public eye.
The two documents attached here represent contrasting visions of College Rugby and its future. I invite you to read them and consider which one would best serve the growth and vitality of our sport and garner your support.
The first is the Collegiate Rugby Strategic Plan Draft authored by USA Rugby, a byproduct of the College Rugby Committee composed of Board member Peter Seccia, Congress members Pat Kane (South) and Ellen Owens (Pacific) , USA Rugby Age Grade Director Matt Sherman and USA Rugby CEO Nigel Melville.
The second is the United States Collegiate Rugby Association Draft document authored by a group of committed college rugby coaches in response to the USA Rugby document.
Both of these documents present plans and ideas for College Rugby in broad terms. Both are in early stages of development. In some ways both address similar issues with similar action items. I feel the differences in the documents lie in the concept of governance around College Rugby and accountability to membership.
I have no confidence in USA Rugby’s ability to adequately support the needs of College Rugby regardless of the strategy they choose. The USA Rugby draft is simply a laundry list of action items, new and old, that have either been mishandled in the past or cannot be addressed effectively under the current economic climate and with the current resources and leadership present at the National Office. I believe that USA Rugby itself has become an obstruction in the natural development of College Rugby in the United States. I think College Rugby should run College Rugby.
I invite you to consider the documents attached and decide for yourself which path you would like to support. If you feel that USA Rugby is best suited to lead the college game forward I encourage you to voice your support to the USA Rugby Board and Congress.
Alternatively, if you agree that College Rugby would be best served by independent leadership and management I ask that you show your support by adding you name as signature to the United States Collegiate Rugby Association Draft. In doing so you join us in the work of creating the future College Rugby as founding members in the USCRA..
Please respect to your fellow coaches by not distributing the documents beyond this group. We have spoken to the various rugby media sources and they will hold covering this until Sunday November 1st at which time we will release the document with signatures to the public. Your swift consideration and speedy reply would be appreciated. It’s a bold step but College Rugby is worth it!
Sincerely,
John McNamara
Posted by: Cut and Paste | 22 January 2010 at 05:29
Here's a good one from McNamara. Now is this still the plan John or has it changed. If this has changed, how has it changed? This doesn't sound like what the coaches interviewed were saying. This sounds to be a lot more than a coaching association.
Organizational Time Line:
∙ November 1, 2009:
o Enroll founding membership for Feb 14 inaugural meeting in Las Vegas
∙ November 1 2009- February 14, 2009
o Solicit and Vet interim and potential Board Members
o Enroll Collegiate Coaches
o Enroll Collegiate Teams
∙ February 14 2010, Las Vegas
o Confirm interim Board Members
o Initiate Strategic Plan Development for USCRA
o Establish/ Finalize Time line for assumption of governance
• August 1, 2010 start date TBD
∙ May 1-2 2010, at National Collegiate Championships, Stanford CA
o “USCRA: Assuming governance of College Rugby”:
• An open meeting for Coaches, Players, Parents, Administrators, Sponsors.
• Transition discussion
• Present Organizational Plan
• Present Strategic Plan
• Present Bylaws
• Present Budget
• Present Governance Plan
• Present Referee Agreement
∙ June 30, 2010
o NCRA Office established
• NCRA General Manager hired and in place
• Immediate Y1 hires
o Accounting
o Marketing
o Communications
o Product Development
• Establish Committees
o Compliance
o Competitions
o Men’s Division
o Women’s Division
• Full time development of NCRA Strategic Plan
• Market the viability of NCRA in place of USAR
∙ August 1, 2010
o NCRA 501c3 status/partnership finalized
o Dues payment structure in place
o Competition oversight in place
o Compliance oversight in place
∙ August 15, 2010
o 1st USCRA Annual General Meeting
• Elect Board Members
• Designate committee members and work areas.
• Ratify Bylaws , Constitution and Agreements
∙ Sept 1, 2010
o USCRA assumes complete responsibility for Collegiate Rugby in the US.
Posted by: another cut and paste | 22 January 2010 at 08:58
Yet another. This one makes clear that a coaches association was just one small part of the USCRA's plans.
Immediate Goals
Y1 Organize the Association
• USCRA Board
o Chair
o Vice Chair
o Secretary
o 3 open seats
o Men’s Representative
o Women’s Representative
• USCRA Professional Staff
o See chart below
• College Rugby Committee
o 7 territories
• 1 men’s rugby rep from each
• 1 women’s rugby rep from each
• Collegiate Coaches Association
o President
o Committee Chairs
• Competitions
• Eligibility/ compliance
• Safety
• Varsity
• Regional Committees in each of these areas
• Associate Members
o Players
o Parents
o Administrators
Posted by: another cut and paste | 22 January 2010 at 09:05
It does appear the USCRA has a clear agenda to take over US college rugby. They want the teams to pay their dues to the USCRA, not to USAR.
It looks like the USCRA believes they can do a better job.
What this really is, is an indictment of USAR CEO Nigel Melville and the USAR Congress and Board of Directors.
Its not enough for the USCRA to state, like in the above letter, that USAR is failing their college rugby responsibilities, therefore, a small group of college coaches and displaced others, are going to takeover.
For the USCRA the questions are many.
1) Is combining the interest of small lower division teams with the interest of the top teams a workable solution to both sets of interest?
2) Same question for gender. Doesn't women's college rugby have a very unique opportunity that needs the focus of the NGB and more importantly the top women's teams?
3) There is already one under-achieving headquarters office, staffed with a dozed or more employees. Additionally, there is already a unaccountable President of Rugby/CEO and Board of Directors. Why would the college membership pay to create a separate HQ's, set of employees and Board of Directors?
4) Why would college rugby think its a good idea for USAR and the USCRA to be competing in the sponsorship markets for partners? For media, for TV, for fans?
5) What are the USCRA founders and interim Board's professional credentials as related to this enterprise? How many actually work professionally in the university environment or the sports administration field?
6) Why do some coaches still suggest that the USCRA is ONLY a coaches association when all the documents prove it to be a dues based governing body?
7) How will decisions be made, one vote per team? D2 social teams decide whats best for all the teams?
8) Do coaches have the authority to commit their colleges to a new legal entity?
9) Are there USCRA budgets which prove the financial model is doable. Only collecting dues from the college ranks produces X, costs of operation is Y, money remaining to invest and improve college rugby is what? Refer to question #3, we already are servicing one under-achieving administration, how will the USCRA's financial model allow it to be any different.
10) Isn't this headed towards a strange compromise between the USCRA and USAR? Explain how a meeting between the USCRA's representatives and Nigel Melville is going to help college rugby? Understanding that jobs and managerial/coaching appointments could be negotiated for by the USCRA insiders, how again does this help college rugby?
Sorry for these questions, but the answers to these question could very well gain the USCRA significant new membership. Or maybe better focus the USCRA in their mission or role in assisting college rugby.
Maybe the best question of all to be answered by someone within the USCRA, is why aren't they/all of the colleges just throwing this CEO and Board out on their ear? Why isn't college rugby doing what the failed Congress is unable to do? Why isn't the USCRA starting a DON'T PAY YOUR COLLEGE CIPP to anyone (not USAR and not the USCRA) until change is made.
A one million dollar budget cut will get the commonwealths attention.
Posted by: anon | 22 January 2010 at 10:18
Nice press for the Las Vegas tour stop:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/22/rugby-tournament-embracing-las-vegas-new-home/
Posted by: lv_rugger | 22 January 2010 at 12:20
I think this whole "lower division crap programs are going to run the show based on numbers" is just ridiculous. No way they would ever let that happen. And the needs of the lower division teams conflicting with the elite is also an overblown problem.
What do lower division programs get from usar? absolutely nothing. I think uscra will probably be providing support in terms of best practice information and coaching education resources as well as a governing body that actually contacts and helps be a voice and partner with the club when dealing with the university. How many calls do you think anyone from usar has made to a college AD? I would say zero. I think teams can look forward to a much more involved administration. BUT other than that I dont think d2/d3 are going to get much more. They arent the product that is going to bring in the money in sponsorship and tv deals. And they will understand that. Their role will be to build towards becoming a respectable program that can find its place in a national d1 competition. (obviously very far down the road)
The rest of the resources will be put into making a very attractive product in d1 and top d2 i would think. As well as running the competitions and providing financial support to get the teams to the national playoff matches.
Does this not make sense? Do we really think the uscra people havent considered that they cant let it devolve into a national body for social college rugby? Im going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: O. College Rugby | 22 January 2010 at 13:33
It's good to know I'm not the only one with these questions.
The biggest concern I have is if the USCRA succeeds in pulling apart. The last thing this contry needs is college coaches running anything. They need to be focused on running their teams and devoping their players.
Administration is usually something coaches are forced to do in rugby. It doesn't mean they are good at it.
We need a single administration not afraid to take chances and make things happen. We need a way to hold these people accountable and get rid of them if they don't measure up.
SOmeone hit the nail on the head asking what the difference between the USCRA and USAR offices would be. So far I've heard buzz phrases like "College rugby needs someone in charge that is only concerned with college rugby" If that is the strongest stance they have I'm afraid for the future.
I hope that I'm wrong but it sounds like Political talk from people with political backgrounds with political agendas.
I suspect we'll have a better idea when the list of candidates to run this thing is announced. I mean the paid administrators.
Oh and it's a mistake to have D2 or even D1 coaches driving this ship. You need someone to make tough decisions that will likely sacrifice a part of the game - (see TV timeouts in football/basketball). Coaches ultimate responsibility is to their players.
What's good for the product is not always good for the game.
Best spent money - pay for vbroadcast of a couple matches a year in a good stadium like stanford, cal or byu. Then take the rest and produce a kickass commercial and play it as much as you can continuously for a couple years. Raise the profile and increase the membership.
Posted by: anon | 22 January 2010 at 14:18
Coaches running an organization? I'm sure they will do such a better job. At least if they fail we have all of you to fix everything.
Posted by: smoke & mirrors | 22 January 2010 at 17:39
the coaches are putting it together. the org is going to hire a professional administration. Does coaches running everything make any sense to anyone? Lets use some common sense. These arent insane asylum escapees putting this together. Can we give them just a little credit?
Posted by: get real | 22 January 2010 at 18:17
NO
Posted by: FAILED | 22 January 2010 at 19:04
I'll go out on a limb and say they don't hire professionals, if it gets that far. They will hire themselves or their friends.
Posted by: smoke & mirrors | 22 January 2010 at 19:43
Get Real,
Agreed, its not "insane asylum escapees putting this together".
It is John McNamara, Rich Pohlidal and Jon Griffin. Together with a small group of coaches that is now serving as a Board of Directors.
Anyone feel better?
Posted by: agreed | 23 January 2010 at 09:39
In answer to the charge that coaches will be running the USCRA. A USCRA member posts they plan to hire professionals.
So the USCRA redirects the dues money from USAR to USCRA, then hires a group of professionals to administrate college rugby.
Why don't they just say that? Why the dance? If this is the plan they want college rugby to evaluate why not just come out and explain the decision to be made.
Finally heres the decision...Fix the joke of an administration currently in place, or build a separate parallel administration.
Let call for the vote!
Posted by: lets vote | 23 January 2010 at 10:05
Anyone know what Mr. Brazell's CIPP # is?
Posted by: Cipp paying member | 23 January 2010 at 20:07
After reading these posts, it is clear that you gadflies have no experience coaching or administering collegiate rugby. Retreat to masturbate like sub primates on PCP and get out of the way of the game. You are useless.
Posted by: Dirty Hamper | 24 January 2010 at 00:38
Dirty Hamper- It sounds as though you have given your plan a lot of thought. You first.
Posted by: smoke & mirrors | 24 January 2010 at 13:13
It seems to me that all of this attention to Collegiate Rugby is a good thing. I too have been confused by what the USCAR group wants but still good attention is being focused on Collegiate Rugby.
My div 2 say:
1. No TAU's- establish conference names
2. National Spring Finals mid to late May div 1 & 2 only
3. School Vote only counts towards the div your school participates in.
4. 3 divisions and 4 Conferences: Div 1 40 school's 9 league matches, top 4 play off for conference championship bottom 2 for relegation, Div 2 40 same as div 1 & div 3 all other and regional championship's- (tweak as necessary and grow based on standards rising)
5. Fee's: Div 1 $5,000 Div 2 $2,500 Div 3 standard fees each year per school
5. Standards for div 1: facility, medical, communications & kit
6. Conference administrators to set schedules, seek sponsorships, set & review standards, tv schedule ect. and to work with National Office on compliance, growth and all-star.
Again, just my div 2 thoughts.
Posted by: craig | 24 January 2010 at 14:41
College Rugby is a Spring sport.
Memorial day Championship for D1.
There is no need for a lower level collegiate rugby championship. Most of these kids were poached from a skate park or the frisbee team, and couldn't beat Cal's 3rds anyway.
If the dwellers demand to spend lots of money to gain a championship t-shirt, let them play. Let them play behind a rural elementary school somewhere in Mississippi, where cameras and video have not been invented yet.
Posted by: sideways running and mix-matched sox | 25 January 2010 at 09:02
School is out by Memorial day you dolts.
First couple weeks in May is finals for most schools.
Competition must finish by last week in April - these athletes are students first.
Posted by: anon | 25 January 2010 at 09:24
Anon is somewhat correct. First weekend in May works.
Current championship timing isn't ideal for all, but its working. Not ideal for a handful of universities with early May finals, but its working.
Late May would be better for the snow teams but once the academic year is over college rugby teams disband. Most students lose their housing and summer jobs and travel begins.
Mess with the current championship timing at your own peril.
Posted by: college rugby | 25 January 2010 at 12:38
anon, that is a typical calender response from someone who hasn't done their homework.
The current playoff structure is a complete joke, fashioned after the intramural frisbee football council's hugs and ribbons campaign.
3 home Spring matches and a two month playoff chase - yah, that makes sense in growing the game.
I am proud to be a dolt.
16 teams in this country, the top 16, can afford to play rugby after school is out.
The game has suffered because the dimwits in charge, the t-shirt chasing bottom dwellers, and the failure to recognize that rugby is a Spring sport, that actually plays schedualed home matches.
Posted by: rugby aint frisbee | 25 January 2010 at 13:42
um. If rugby were an NCAA sport (which would become, if the dimwits would get out of the way), it would be one of the few that actually finished their Spring season while still in school.
Time to put down the Frisbee Universe mag, fork fingers.
Guess when lacrosse decided to play their Championship game... Hint: It sounds like Femorial Bay.
Posted by: dolt | 25 January 2010 at 13:50
Wow, just looked at a lacrosse schedual. They actually play home matches in April and know who they are playing.
Rugby is currently a winter sport, the playoffs begin in March.
When will rugby become a Spring Sport... again..
Posted by: dolt 45, works everytime | 25 January 2010 at 13:55
I agree with you both. All four weekends of April should be used and the championship should be on the first weekend of May.
Posted by: college rugby | 25 January 2010 at 13:56