Alex Magleby's quiet reappointment as Collegiate All-American coach is likely to be seen as another letdown for domestic coaching hopefuls.
Magleby, a Dartmouth All-American and 7s and 15s international turned head man at his alma mater, possesses well-established credentials but will not be helped by USARFU's yet-unannounced move. The AA program has become a flashpoint for unhappiness with Boulder's so-called pathways: Hundreds if not thousands of coaches work at the university level but have no defined route to top jobs.
Last summer all of the collegiate territorial coaches circulated a letter calling for coaching candidates to have advanced USARFU certification and rise up through an established process. The letter also lobbied for revising All-American selections and match scheduling as well as a coaches association.
Chief executive Nigel Melville responded by agreeing to hire a collegiate director while provisionally endorsing a 60-player training camp and a home All-American match. He reserved appointment of the 2010 AA coach to himself, however, according to notes from a September conference call.
Competitive applications were very much on the mind of the territorial coaches, who subsequently established a breakaway organization called US College Rugby Association. USCRA is scheduled to meet next weekend in Las Vegas in conjunction with the USA 7s.
Magleby, a Dartmouth All-American and 7s and 15s international turned head man at his alma mater, possesses well-established credentials but will not be helped by USARFU's yet-unannounced move. The AA program has become a flashpoint for unhappiness with Boulder's so-called pathways: Hundreds if not thousands of coaches work at the university level but have no defined route to top jobs.
Last summer all of the collegiate territorial coaches circulated a letter calling for coaching candidates to have advanced USARFU certification and rise up through an established process. The letter also lobbied for revising All-American selections and match scheduling as well as a coaches association.
Chief executive Nigel Melville responded by agreeing to hire a collegiate director while provisionally endorsing a 60-player training camp and a home All-American match. He reserved appointment of the 2010 AA coach to himself, however, according to notes from a September conference call.
Competitive applications were very much on the mind of the territorial coaches, who subsequently established a breakaway organization called US College Rugby Association. USCRA is scheduled to meet next weekend in Las Vegas in conjunction with the USA 7s.
The decision comes on the heels of Ric Suggit's controversial selection as coach of the women's 7s Eagles.
Meanwhile, the All-Americans' summer schedule has not been determined, and it seems apparent that standout students do not figure in plans for the USA 'A' team to compete in the 2010 Americas Rugby Championship. Last week, Eagles coach Eddie O'Sullivan indicated his preference for domestic Eagles, which suggests the fall tournament ought not be viewed as a pathway competition but a tuneup for established internationals.
Related:
Territorial coaches call for sweeping college reform
Collegiate reaction could loose broad changes
On sponsoring the All-Americans
Canadian Suggit wins women's 7s post
Does anyone have any knowledge at all about the likelihood of National Guard college games of the week this spring?
The first one last year was feb. 21st and so you would think there would be an announcement by now? Any insiders out there?
Posted by: college | 02 February 2010 at 13:43
Not sure about the whole National Guard game of the week sponsorship/broadcast thing, but the first of these last year was Cal-UBC. That fixture appears to be scheduled for February 27th or thereabouts:
http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-rugby/recaps/013010aaa.html
Last year it was played on Feb. 21st, for what it's worth.
One would think that there would be some publicity surrounding these games already, but I haven't heard a damn thing - and I keep my eyes/ears open for this type of stuff.
Posted by: Zé Cacetudo | The Daily Hype | 02 February 2010 at 15:06
USAR ripped off the National Guard over a two year period to the tune of $5m.
If this sponsorship even happens it will be very different in approach and less in amount.
Hogs get fat and pigs get slaughtered.
Posted by: fact | 02 February 2010 at 15:58
If you are looking to trim the fat the first place to look would be women's rugby. With very few exceptions women's sports don't turn a profit. What makes any one think Rugby could be one of those exceptions?
Posted by: blah blah blah | 02 February 2010 at 16:18
So I just unpublished an interesting riposte because the poster used an invalid email. That's too bad. Valid emails are little enough to ask for.
k
Posted by: Kurt | 02 February 2010 at 16:38
Isn't USAR required to post these types of appointments?
Why isn't the Congress representing their members?
Posted by: do nothing Congress | 02 February 2010 at 18:08
Anyone know who the other NFL players are that US coach Al Caravelli talked about in his podcast?
http://www.irb.com/mm/Audio/Tournament/0/pre_alcaravelliUSAcoach_9682.mp3
Posted by: lv_rugger | 02 February 2010 at 18:48
I'm the poster that used an expired email address...didn't realize it had been that long since I logged in. Nothing devious intended.
What I was saying was that I agreed with a post in a previous line where there should be separation from All-Americans and representative rugby. NAME All-Americans, PLAY age-grade rugby that's recognized everywhere.
Who cares what the USCRA wants with the All-American program? If they want to fund a touring side that calls themselves "All-Americans" so be it, let them find the funding for it on their own. Nobody outside of the US cares about what we consider "All-Americans". They play age grade rugby elsewhere, and it's not like our past is any more storied than others to say we need to do it differently. Call it the "American sporting ethos" if you're looking for a weak argument, but no other "All-
American" squads go on international tours...
As for the controversial hiring of Suggit, the job really was Sue Parker's, but she chose to make a stand. She didn't want to have to report up to Alex Williams and have those powers that be make selections for her. I'll give Alex credit in that it seems she is trying to get away from the polluted selection process that has wreaked havoc with the Women's National Teams that nobody ever seems to want to talk about...but she is still part of that guard, and there must have been some lingering mistrust.
So, bottom line, Sue chose to stand up for something she believed in and wanted to see an end to, and an alternate business decision was made. Nothing more.
...one point I forgot to include from my earlier post is that while some are trying to call Suggit's hiring controversial, but in reality, with the limited pedigree, had Parker been hired, some of the naysayers would have been whining the same thing about hers being controversial as well.
Posted by: yawn...part II | 02 February 2010 at 19:13
Yawn, I would strongly argue that an All-American side is about helping American rugby and its players develop in a way that works instead of just following what other rugby nations do. Their models havent worked for us in the past. An all-american team and the matches at home that have been proposed give our best college players a developmental opportunity which is also marketable. No one in this country understands u-20 or cares about a tour to south africa. Conforming to international norms has done nothing to help american rugby at any level. The question is what is more marketable? u-20whatever or all american? all american hands down. So we go with that.
Someone somewhere has to have some inside knowledge about the state of the national guard college games...
Posted by: college | 02 February 2010 at 19:41
The National Guard deal has not been finalized yet.
Posted by: Insider | 03 February 2010 at 06:54
I don't think more then two people applied for the position. Parker turned down the post and Suggit was the alternative, where is the controversy?
Posted by: conspiracy theory in your head | 03 February 2010 at 08:02
The Guard is thought to be dividing up their rugby sponsorship, giving some sponsorship to USAr and keeping most of it to fund projects themselves. This is because they didn't receive what they purchased from USAr in 2008-2009.
This back and forth is already costing US rugby clubs. The club kit sponsorship which the NG got very little out of has missed the manufacturing window for this year.
The 'games of the week' also look to be in trouble.
Had USAr looked after the NG the way they should have, US rugby wouldn't be in this position. As is, any sponsorship received will be a gift after the way USAr treated the NG.
The NG sponsorship was a complete surprise which fell into the lap of USAr, because a Guardsman's daughter played rugby. Melville and Co has messed this up bad.
Posted by: wrt | 03 February 2010 at 08:08
Do they name All-Americans to other club sports? Are there kickball All-Americans? I really don't know.
Regardless, if you're going to put your eggs in the All-American basket, then the focus should be on 7s All-Americans. Wasting time and money on 15s All-Americans...
Posted by: yawn... | 03 February 2010 at 08:11
wtd yawn? kick-ball aas? no. but they name all-americans for every other varsity sport. are we trying to be like other club sports or like other varsity sports? If it is other varsity sports then we should name aas just like them.
the 15s all americans is a great way to develop this country's nextgen of talent. And if we do HOME matches instead of international tours it wont be that expensive. And if usar actually went after sponsorships then international tours would be easy too.
Wasting money on all-americans. Money spent on aa's is the furthest thing from wasting it. What a ridiculous statement.
Posted by: college | 03 February 2010 at 08:17
"but they name all-americans for every other varsity sport."
If we're not varsity, which we aren't, naming All-Americans makes us look like wannabes.
And you're turning my words around. 7s would be our real shot at varsity status, and what the public is going to get some exposure to with the Olympics. Putting that groundwork together and having a system in place for identifying and building upon our current collegiate crop for 2016 is where the focus should be.
Posted by: yawn... | 03 February 2010 at 08:28
fine sure. name 7s all-americans too. the point is naming 15s all-americans does not make us wannabies. talk to any college coach in the country. I just think you are way off base, are way undervalueing the all-american program, and also that there are soo many other usar programs that can be railed against for wasting money besides one of the few programs that actually develops american talent.
What did the National Guard want that it didnt get? I feel like they generally got a lot of exposure with the right demographic. But i guess they wanted a lot more? What was it?
Posted by: college | 03 February 2010 at 09:03
Don't take Yawn's bait. He's just another funny talker who doesn't understand the American sporting landscape.
Don't try to prove anything to him. He is caught in the USAR administration's commonwealth mindset. Nearly five years and counting for the foreign boys. About time to put up or shut up. The old days of volunteers running the union are looking pretty damn good.
Posted by: whatever | 03 February 2010 at 09:36
The reason we're not playing much in international age-grade competitions is because they don't fit into our school schedule.
Almost all the kids from U-20 down (except for a few non-college U-20 players) are in school when these IRB competitions take place. When you have to take ~3 weeks off from school to go to Kenya, you tend to get the best available players, not the best players.
No disrespect intended to the kids who do put the time and effort (and $$) into preparing and competing, but it comes down to resources -- do we want to be spending our precious few dollars developing just the players who are able to get out of school, or should we focus on the players who have the best chance of advancing through to higher levels?
Instead, it seems like we're focusing on High School and College All-Americans, where we can choose our opponents, the dates on which we play, and the level of competition.
It sounds like the right call, but it does take us out of a structured competition with a goal/trophy to shoot for, and the ability to measure yourself against the best.
I guess it really depends on what your objective is -- winning competitions or developing players for a higher level.
In the absence of a published strategy, we really have to just guess or rely on hearsay as to the reasons.
Posted by: DaTruth | 03 February 2010 at 09:36
Hello All,
I would like to set the record straight on the National Guard Issue.
The National Guard has been experiencing massive funding delays for all their programs due to the fact the Senate/President did not sign off on the FY10 Defense Budget Bill until Christmas Eve. (This normally occurs Oct 1)
We are still in negotiations with the Guard, and hope to provide the same service to USAR Member Clubs in the 2010 season, however delayed they may be.
If anyone would like to discuss the National Guard Partnership with me, or any erroneous dealings therein, please feel free to call at any time.
Many Thanks,
Eric Taber
USA Rugby National Guard Account Manager
303-539-0300 x128
etaber@usarugby.org
Posted by: Eric Taber | 03 February 2010 at 09:40
thanks Eric.
Posted by: college | 03 February 2010 at 10:35
Eric is "erroneous". Or said another way, lying.
First he wasn't even employed when USAR was wasting $5m of NG funds on the Eagles, HP programs and salaries.
These expenditures do nothing for the NG's target market of HS and college aged students.
It is deceiving for a USAR employee to publicly post that comments about the NG being unhappy with USAR are erroneous. This is a continuation of this administrations cover up about all things. The example are everywhere: the NG sponsorship, the Tatham sevens agreements, who gets elected and how, who get appointed to coaching jobs, year-end financial information, event hosting, everywhere.
Everything in this public membership organization is private, for the employees to know and for the membership to find out. Eric Tabor is a young employee without a clue. He is either dumb to his surroundings or being used by management. Either way its unacceptable. Sure give Eric a call, you're sure to get the inside scoop ;-)
The facts are, the NG is pissed at USAR for wasting their sponsorship funds and when this agreement for 2010 finally gets done USAR has to do a better job.
If it doesn't get done and for enough money, Eric might not have a job, so yet another reason for his posting.
Posted by: fact | 03 February 2010 at 11:00
DaT,
Surprisingly some of what you said is correct but not surprisingly is the rest is just guess work.
As far as competing internationally at age grade levels, yes its during the school year and many, mostly college students, cannot/ will not take the time off, but THE REST OF THE WORLD GOES TO SCHOOL TOO (see you nade me raise my voice).
The reason we dont necessarily get the best players to travel is because we dont get support from schools/ colleges the rest of the world (OK read x-commonwealth or commonwealth influenced) does and we get very little funding from you know who.
I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of the best players do travel even during the school year and most HS schools allow this to happen.
Giving players of this age a look at what they need to develop into is invaluable and whether you want to call it HS AA or U-17 U-18 is irrelevant. Fund the kids and send the kids, the experience is necesary for us to develop as a rugby nation.
Posted by: curious on-looker | 03 February 2010 at 11:47
Shameless plug, Luke Gross does a terrific job on the www.ruggamatrixusa.com he discusses his professional career and does an in depth analysis into the LO.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 03 February 2010 at 12:22
While I can't speak for the overall happiness of the NG related to USAR sponsorship, I can confirm the budget / funding delays. We have our own agreement renewal pending with the National Guard for the same reasons.
Note to Eric: don't feed the trolls.
A playing Collegiate All-American program may very well benefit high performance rugby but it has very little benefit to the development of collegiate rugby.
Posted by: Andrew Jackson | 03 February 2010 at 13:09
speaking of trolls, look who's hanging out under the bridge...Andrew Jackson
Posted by: JW | 03 February 2010 at 13:31
The "American Way" is to NAME All Americans. Not assemble a team and pay for their tour.
DO you think there might be some good players who aren't in college?
Do you think we have a better chance of retaining a player who does work that doesn't require a degree?
Why are we shutting out non college students from our limited "pathway"?
Oh and the reason other countries are able to assemble students is
- The possibility of a pro career
- Rugby has much more credibility
Posted by: anon | 03 February 2010 at 13:52
Curious, maybe you should check yourself and read the post before getting your underwear in a bunch and raising your voice.
As far as I can tell, other than trying to get in some snarky comment, you confirmed my point.
To wit, "The reason we dont necessarily get the best players to travel is because we dont get support from schools/ colleges..."
Thanks for coming.
Posted by: Da Truth | 03 February 2010 at 15:22
So MARFU college playoffs is being held at U of Delaware. Can anyone from there confirm that it is being held at a better field than the box they usually play at?
Posted by: marfu | 03 February 2010 at 19:36
The MARFU college playoffs will actually be held in Wilmington, about 20 miles north of U of Delaware. The rugby pitch is very nice, large, and well-maintained by the park service.
Posted by: Local | 04 February 2010 at 06:06
DaT, your first statement says " doesn't fit in our school schedule" well the international comps don't fit in anyones schedule. You say some can get out of school so they are the best availible, I say if some can all can if it doesn't cost them dollars. You say bring comp here so we can pick who we play, but playing the same team over and over for a week or 2 is not better than 3 or 4 different teams over the same period. Support=money.
Assemblies typically cost parents between $500 and $1000 depending where they are being held. Trips out of country to play high level comp cost $1000 to $2000.
Schools and collages manage to send people to the Olympics for 6 weeks or longer so not being able to get off school is not the issue. Its the money. Fund the future of Rugby in the US and let the future play the best comp they can.
Posted by: curious on-looker | 04 February 2010 at 06:33
Haha.... That guy "fact" sure seems to know a lot about what's going on with the NG.
My money says he is a disgruntled former employee of USAR who got canned for poor performance.
Posted by: Stan S. | 04 February 2010 at 08:14
so a park. nice marfu. that is a weak venue as usual. will there be stands? no. scoreboard? no. such crap.
Posted by: marfu | 04 February 2010 at 08:45
Stan:
I think you're right about his identity, and I think he's right about USAR's handling of the NG sponsorship. Poor state of affairs, this USAR.
Posted by: play lax | 04 February 2010 at 10:39
Regarding the National Guard Sponsorship: all I've read in criticism is that USAR has "fouled it up" and "not delivered." But in what way? I'm not being facetious, I'd actually like to know.
I work in sports marketing, and have two sons playing rugby (whom I coach) and have found the marketing activation very robust: from small bore (goal post pads) to larger scale (Game of the Week TV deals).
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I have seen the activation reaching all the way down into youth & HS rugby, where I spend my time.
Now, if that $5mm was intended to buy big airtime on ESPN, and the admins instead blew that off and used the funds for Eagle camp travel costs or rookie rugby (which is meritorious, but not in their demographic aims most likely), then yeah -- valid critiques.
But unless anyone here other than Eric had read the actual agreement, how can we know USAR hasn't fulfilled their committment?
Posted by: youthcoach | 04 February 2010 at 11:54
Hey Marfu,
Whatever school you go to or went to should have bid on the playoffs if they have such a nice field with stands and concessions, etc, etc. But I guess they didn't bid so now you can bitch.
Posted by: Pete M | 04 February 2010 at 13:16
thats right Petey my boy.
Posted by: marfu | 04 February 2010 at 19:25
Youth Coach,
Its been said here a few times. USAR used NG funds to fund stuff other than what the contract called for.
USAR ran out of NG funds early and couldn't finish the contract. USAR cut corners everywhere to include those cheap jerseys with poor NG branding applications.
The NG has spent $5m to influence our little rugby community, because no one sees rugby but us. The NG could have given each of us 50 bucks and said think nicely of the Guard.
USAR needs to do a better job for their number one sponsor.
Posted by: marketing 101 | 05 February 2010 at 09:03
"Marketing 101",
...and you know this how? Have you seen the line item budget? What exactly didn't get finished in the contract?
As far as I know, the only jerseys we saw with NG Branding were the Eagles Canterbury jersey. Is Canterbury a cheap jersey? If you're talking about the jerseys that clubs got for free... well, you get what you pay for.
Also, as a marketing person myself, I can't imagine the NG's only goal was for us to "think nicely" of them. I'm pretty sure they wanted rugby people to join the NG. Did you sign up? Doubtful.
I'm not saying USAR didn't screw it up, but people here are just making blanket statements without showing any documentation. I hate that.
Posted by: Stan S. | 05 February 2010 at 10:14