Know thyself, the better to use your strengths.
USARFU appears to need a look in Plato's mirror. The broadly unpopular decision to hire on a Canadian to coach our 7s World Cup semifinalists may mark the point when the union lost touch with the wellspring of American rugby.
Whether attributable to a colonial mentality or the union's financial dependency on the IRB, ongoing attempts to transplant Commonwealth norms ('to professionalize') have played a primary role. Also significant is Boulder's focus on eligibility, in as much as compliance fuels dues gains, Boulder's most reliable source of revenue growth.
Thus, even before the ill-fated 2006 strategic plan took shape, USARFU was on its way to becoming an organization that exists for its own purposes. The new constitution may be legally sound but reflects none of American rugby's historic character. These days, USARFU's members are taxed but not effectively represented, since the congress has no veto of the board's budget. Boulder's centralized planning is unaccountable to any electorate.
The purpose of identifying and enmeshing bedrock principles within charter and policy is not to prescribe an organization's activity, but to ground it, to lend experience and even wisdom to ongoing activity and new ventures.
USARFU's top-priority pursuit of test rugby amply demonstrates the absence of principles leading to operational dysfunction. As the game blossoms among high schools and colleges, Boulder collects dues and sponsors but students pay to compete in national championships and on representative teams. Notwithstanding, the union makes a loss, largely on the administration of senior national teams, which still cannot fully support the athlete's costs.
Chair Kevin Roberts, chief executive Nigel Melville, the board, and allies on down would contend that test rugby is the best hope for commercializing the game. Though virtually everyone wishes American rugby enjoyed a higher profile, it is far from clear that most participants want to bankroll the attempt to break into the world's largest sports market, particularly in the midst of a virulent recession. Given a voice, most probably would say build the union, then the Eagles. (Alternately: wrong plan wrong time.)
USARFU's leadership also would assert it is investing in the game through development programs. Setting aside that the balance of funds actually goes elsewhere, dues-paying members evidently do not feel they are getting their money's worth. (The last verified check on program expenditure dates to the union's 2007 tax return.) Breakaway movements in the aforementioned high school and college segments are not buying the argument that the benefits have yet to be seen.
Ironically, the matter of investment is where USARFU's management has diverted from the model it has tried to import from IRB strongholds. In ''Tier 1' nations, the union is expected to serve the clubs, which are considered to be shareholders and therefore receive dividends from revenue sharing to match tickets and other perks. Commonwealth teams are rarely, if ever, taxed to finance union initiatives. Members' dues generally 'stay at home'.
There is a word for an organization that follows self-defined logic and serves its own purposes: bureaucracy.
USARFU appears to need a look in Plato's mirror. The broadly unpopular decision to hire on a Canadian to coach our 7s World Cup semifinalists may mark the point when the union lost touch with the wellspring of American rugby.
Whether attributable to a colonial mentality or the union's financial dependency on the IRB, ongoing attempts to transplant Commonwealth norms ('to professionalize') have played a primary role. Also significant is Boulder's focus on eligibility, in as much as compliance fuels dues gains, Boulder's most reliable source of revenue growth.
Thus, even before the ill-fated 2006 strategic plan took shape, USARFU was on its way to becoming an organization that exists for its own purposes. The new constitution may be legally sound but reflects none of American rugby's historic character. These days, USARFU's members are taxed but not effectively represented, since the congress has no veto of the board's budget. Boulder's centralized planning is unaccountable to any electorate.
The purpose of identifying and enmeshing bedrock principles within charter and policy is not to prescribe an organization's activity, but to ground it, to lend experience and even wisdom to ongoing activity and new ventures.
USARFU's top-priority pursuit of test rugby amply demonstrates the absence of principles leading to operational dysfunction. As the game blossoms among high schools and colleges, Boulder collects dues and sponsors but students pay to compete in national championships and on representative teams. Notwithstanding, the union makes a loss, largely on the administration of senior national teams, which still cannot fully support the athlete's costs.
Chair Kevin Roberts, chief executive Nigel Melville, the board, and allies on down would contend that test rugby is the best hope for commercializing the game. Though virtually everyone wishes American rugby enjoyed a higher profile, it is far from clear that most participants want to bankroll the attempt to break into the world's largest sports market, particularly in the midst of a virulent recession. Given a voice, most probably would say build the union, then the Eagles. (Alternately: wrong plan wrong time.)
USARFU's leadership also would assert it is investing in the game through development programs. Setting aside that the balance of funds actually goes elsewhere, dues-paying members evidently do not feel they are getting their money's worth. (The last verified check on program expenditure dates to the union's 2007 tax return.) Breakaway movements in the aforementioned high school and college segments are not buying the argument that the benefits have yet to be seen.
Ironically, the matter of investment is where USARFU's management has diverted from the model it has tried to import from IRB strongholds. In ''Tier 1' nations, the union is expected to serve the clubs, which are considered to be shareholders and therefore receive dividends from revenue sharing to match tickets and other perks. Commonwealth teams are rarely, if ever, taxed to finance union initiatives. Members' dues generally 'stay at home'.
There is a word for an organization that follows self-defined logic and serves its own purposes: bureaucracy.
- The nucleus of American rugby is the team, and its purpose is to provide competition for its members.
- The leading resource for growth and improvement is the school system, which requires rugby to adopt a mainstream approach to sports.
- The sport is too small for a large number of full-timers, so union administrative and commercial initiatives should be measured according to benefits for teams.
Kurt,
I am not usually smart enough to understand what you write in these posts, but even I get this one.
How is it that this happens ? Is it true that the Congress could, if motivated enough, call for the Board and Chairman to resign ?
Seems overdue.
Posted by: I get it | 29 January 2010 at 12:02
Now more than ever I am encouraging the midwest teams to break away from usarugby. the usarugby leaders are living the lifestyle of their peers in tier one nations while the grass root peasants are ignored. All it should take is one of them to utter the words " let them eat cake" and viva revolution.
Unfortunately our dues are paying for camps for eddie sullivan this year and not much more.
Rugby can never improve in America until it has a sustainable structure. Much like the education system small pockets will excel due to the commitment of a few , but the system is still broken
Posted by: mike loader | 29 January 2010 at 12:24
Man hold up! Ima come down with that lean in my cup!
USA RUgby ROCKS!!
Posted by: crakerman | 30 January 2010 at 00:47
Its all true, but you can forget doing anything but bitching about it.
Congress can't do much and they are collectively without the brains or guts to do anything.
There are no votes for the membership.
You are fu*cking captives of these crooks.
It doesn't matter if the Eagles win or lose, the money that should be invested building US rugby is being wasted on them. The salary bill alone for this little rugby union is over one million dollars, over a half-million on two employees.
Just keep waiting for that paper document, that strategic plan. That should buy this administration another couple of years. How come nobody asked why they didn't create a plan four years ago?
Well a couple years from now they'll all be gone. Telling us what a good job they did for us on the way out. How we are so much better off now.
Then this fellow will show up and say...Hello, I'm from the IRB and I'm here to help.
Next time, don't curse your own and run like hell away from the man with just enough money to make you his slave.
Posted by: firenigelmelville.com | 30 January 2010 at 08:10
Interesting that with only one match under their belt BYU could pump Delaware 5 tries to 1.
Of course all you read about from the east coasters is Delaware only having a handful of practices since...their full Fall season!!!
This score speaks to the strength of the western teams verses the eastern teams and just how strong BYU is yet again. Men against boys.
Posted by: interesting score | 30 January 2010 at 10:41
haha. yea tough guy. west better than east! who gives a sit.
And the fall season was 3 months ago. They've had one practice outside and flew cross country to play. byu is better but the game was closer than that score for sure.
Posted by: eastwest idiocy | 30 January 2010 at 11:18
Marfu colleges played from September through mid-Nov.
BYU had one match. It snows in Utah.
22-0 at one point. 5 tries to 1.
Posted by: fact | 30 January 2010 at 12:31
the argument is not who is better. the argument is that this west coast/east coast thing is nonsense and whoever chest thumps over it is a loser.
Im not arguing east coast over west coast. I said byu is the better team. What I am saying is that given both teams' prep time running up to this match, I would choose BYU's no question. And in analyzing what the match will really mean come time when games count for something, I am suggesting that the teams might be closer than the score indicates. Unless I am mistaking in my thinking that BYU has been in training for like 4 weeks now in solid conditions. Yes it snows in Utah but im pretty sure BYU trains in an indoor turf facility.
Am I wrong? and maybe im wrong and someone can offer a different perspective on what they think the match means without saying west is best or something dumb like that.
Posted by: eastwest idiocy | 30 January 2010 at 14:09
Yes it snow in Utah, in fact in snows more in Utah than most east coast locals. Indoor facilities are everywhere. Yes, BYU uses an indoor facility.
Delaware is RugbyMag number one when the western teams aren't playing.
Delaware has 3 months of "prep time" in the Fall. Rugby doesn't start at BYU until January and they won the game 5 tries to 1.
Posted by: facts | 30 January 2010 at 20:04
Delaware made a good showing in Utah, where in snows in Nov-Feb/March.
I think some of the comments were from folks that get sick of the east coast built-in excuse of we haven't had any practices.
Delaware looks to be a good team that will continue to improve over the Spring season. They might even be one of the MARFU reps to the round of 16.
I think I would look at it in this way. If you can't beat a Utah team in January with only a couple of matches under their belt, after having a full Fall season, you have missed your best chance for victory.
Only time will tell, but I find these Utah victories evidence of the strength of Utah college rugby.
No disrespect to any other region, but Utah college and HS rugby is top notch.
Posted by: Utah Rugby | 30 January 2010 at 20:37
East coast west coast? Are you guys serious?? I thought that was a war between rappers. You took a great article and the beginning of a good discussion and derailed it.
The greater issue here is the health of rugby in the entire country, and until folks like yourselves quit the petty arguing we won't get this fixed. Then it won't matter east coast or west coast, ford or chevy.
Go somewhere else to have your meaningless discussion.
Posted by: smoke & mirrors | 30 January 2010 at 21:43
yep. and udel defintely doesnt have access to an indoor turf facility like byu. once again i would take byu's preparation lead up to this match over udel's. i still think, all things equal, byu is the better team. I am trying to figure out what this will mean come nationals because marfu 2 is meeting up with pac 1 which is going to be utah or byu so an analysis of these game is definitely relevant.
Posted by: eastwest idiocy | 30 January 2010 at 23:57
Sugget (the "Canadian") had the better resume by miles but Parker (the "American") was offered the job and time to grow into it. She turned down the job, late in the process, and so the 7s team comes into the Vegas International Women's Tournament with no prep time...
Posted by: don't let facts get in the way of your whinging... | 31 January 2010 at 03:58
S&M,
As for the good discussion you think you were having until it got derailed, I've got this to say.
Go back and read the comment posted by firenigelmelville.com
This poster is entirely correct. The membership of USAR is held captive at present by a gutless Congress, willing IRB and a unaccountable, out-of-touch, arrogant Board and CEO.
Bitch all you want, nothing will change, USAR is a hostage.
One last thing...Sluggo is a tool.
Posted by: hostage | 31 January 2010 at 08:12
To top it all off: Setanta has been bankrupt for a while now and will be selling their US rights to Fox, who are launching a new channel called Fox Soccer Plus on March 1st, 2010.
Setanta also has sports channels in Canada (co-owned with Rogers Communications and delivering “significant profitability”) and Australia, which are unaffected by the Fox deal.
For the US, it probably means less rugby on TV. While the new Fox channel will be broadcast in HD, it may not be available everywhere or on every platform (cable/satellite/etc).
I've not seen anything mentioned about Setanta's streaming video service, but if you're one of those people paying $100/year for a license to watch content that remains theirs then you may want to listen for announcements.
Also: BBC America will carry this year's 6 Nations tests.
Posted by: Zé Cacetudo | The Daily Hype | 31 January 2010 at 17:55
I've heard very conflicting things about the Setanta/FSC+ thing.
I have heard claims it will be all soccer, I have also heard claims it will be more like Fox Sports World was - i.e. RUGBY!!! - than FSC.
Posted by: Flynn Hagerty | 01 February 2010 at 05:13
With the deal for 2 Italian teams joining the magners league falling through and Fox buying Setanta's US TV rights, Nigel or Mr Roberts could make some inroads on redeeming themselves if they could convince Rupert Murdoch to help line up some investors for 1 or 2 US based teams to join the magners, which could increase the value of his Fox channel's TV rights. It would be much easier than launching a Pro League ... And If the IRB really wanted to tap into the US TV Market It would be a better investment than the ARC if they provided some kind of subsidy for these teams .... ok I am done dreaming
Posted by: rags | 01 February 2010 at 07:49
Roberts and Melville can't land a beer deal for a rugby union! This suggestion is like building a condo on Mars for them.
Posted by: LOL | 01 February 2010 at 08:10
They can't land a beer deal but they can export the best coaches from Ireland and Canada. Another point of view from up North:
Just read the news on Ric, not a shock really is it? RC shafted him and he must feel payback is due, based on how he was released and never approached/appointed to be a tremendous resource to RC & other up and coming national coaches.
I personally learnt so much from Ric and was privileged to spend lots of time with him observing his Sevens sessions and thoughts, he certainly whet my appetite for the short game.
He will be sorely missed in Canada, but like so many before and after him, he is disposable to RC if they feel he doesn't have the right face, voice or attitude.
I know RC tries to get it right and develop the game appropriately, but one thing you can’t ignore are experience and track records, Ric didn't get the national roles because he was a bad coach, he also didn't get released because he suddenly became a bad coach too, he got released on who Ric is, a person who supports his athletes 100%, works tirelessly to get an edge or step up in the levels of development, but unfortunately for Ric, he is a person who stands up verbally for what he feels is right and RC don't like that, well someone in RC didn't like that by all accounts.
I wish Ric well in his new venture and without a doubt know that he will succeed in the US, if allowed to stamp his style on the athletes around him, I just hope he doesn't get held back in his methodology.
I feel with the resources and proactive support of USA rugby, Ric will create a team that will challenge any team in world sevens in the women's game.
Posted by: sideline | 01 February 2010 at 12:29
BBC America will televise one match each round live for their coverage of the Six Nations tournament. The match this weekend is Wales v England. Appears there will be only one airing of the game on Saturday. Get the TIVO ready.....unless your a fan of either Scotland or Italy - they are not featured in any matches this season.
Posted by: Ray Viers | 01 February 2010 at 12:30