Overseas age-grade players are attracted by opportunities to study while competing, more evidence the school environment is an asset for American rugby.
In an interview with Rugby Magazine, Italian Under-20 center Sebastian Rodwell implicitly dismissed European academies, which are essentially baseball-style minor league teams, as limiting.
'The structures in Italy don’t combine sports with studying. That’s what America is really good at', Rodwell said.
From a career perspective, the obvious problem with academies is athletes have little to fall back on, should they become injured or once their playing career is over.
The World Cup is facing another media boycott, due to cumbersome restrictions on match footage.
The International Rugby Board wants accredited publishers to deploy geographical blocking software that stops overseas users from viewing video clips, and also to remove clips from their web sites after 48 hours. Such rules aren't likely to help the tournament reach new American viewers.
Four years ago, Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France-Press, and Getty staged a boycott over attempts to limit the number of pictures photographers could take.
Separately, the IRB has circulated a memo identifying two 'trends' in rucking which it means to squelch before the World Cup. In sum:
- 'Players are clearing out ahead of the ball and then intentionally holding the cleared out player preventing him from defending'.
- 'Player[s are] being grabbed around the neck/head region and [their] neck[s]/head[s] being twisted as part of the clearout'....
Although it has acknowledged the scrum engagement sequence is not working, the governing body has said it will not change the cumbersome 4-step process until after the world championship.
Canada has set up a giving program that accepts 'frequent flier' miles, to be pooled for use by its Under 20 program.
ah man, Kurt. Dont waste the opportunity to delve into the university vs academy systems. Considering the IRB and Melville expressed that they were doubling down on he academies despite calls for college as the vehicle. The guy said something along the lines of "well the academy path is the one we think is best and what we are going to do"
YIKES
Posted by: college | 23 June 2011 at 12:59
MLB controls video content pretty jealously too, which seems a bit shortsighted in this day an age.
On the other hand, it led to some pretty awesome reenactments:
http://deadspin.com/5799526/these-adorable-kids-are-going-to-take-down-mlbs-iron+fisted-video-regime-but-we-still-need-your-help
Posted by: Rose v. Fosse, Ryan v. Ventura | 23 June 2011 at 13:13
NYAC does miles share too and it is a great idea. it works well.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 23 June 2011 at 13:33
For Rugby, colleges and academies are not mutually exclusive. College athletes can go to Academies after college and participate in academy camps and rep sides during college. Academies are an option for players who do not go to college. Every region should have an acadmey to develop elite players of all ages from multiple clubs and to be a clearinghouse of rugby knowledge. Regional academies can be funded by TU dues, player fees, and sponsors.
Posted by: Sevens | 23 June 2011 at 13:39
saracens academy and team from what i hear makes players do education and personal development but that is not from anyone direct at saracens just what i heard. spearhead and kevin battle's academy have education components as well.
college is ideal for rugby though, but some of these options fill gaps so players don't fall through the cracks.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 23 June 2011 at 13:43
Disagree Sevens. If USAR had the funds they wouldnt be mutually exclusive as development strategies, but given the lack of funds, USAR has chosen academies over the support of colleges as its strategy. Which is as Bruce McLane would say, FREAKING INSANE. But that's USAR for you.
Posted by: college | 23 June 2011 at 14:23
Academies do not need to be run by or funded by USAR. Nothing is keeping clubs from working together to establish regional academies. College players can go to academy development camps and play for academy teams during the summer and other time off from college. Clubs can work together to fund the academy and manage it based on the needs of their region.
Posted by: Sevens | 23 June 2011 at 15:33
The Santa Barbara Rugby Academy combines both education and sport, making sure that athletes who don't qualify to our elite institutions have a pathway to develop both rugby and education at the same time. You cannot attend the Santa Barbara Academy unless you are a full-time student at the local Junior College which is open to all academic levels. You can find more information here: http://www.sbrugbyacademy.com/
Posted by: Kevin Battle | 23 June 2011 at 16:20
I was going to say that clubs dont have that kind of money because there is no incentive besides better developed players which they can do 100x cheaper by just doing what they do now which is hold regular practice.
Your academy idea is so incredibly impractical when put beside the idea of supporting already existent operations, as in colleges, as the strategy for developing talent it is unreal.
Posted by: college | 23 June 2011 at 16:29
The IRB are idiots for trying to control broadcasts.... If they had a lick of sense they would have all the games on ESPN live overnight and available to watch on ESPN3 to increase exposure of the game. It is asinine the way they go after you tube and etc.... It is promoting the game. I enjoyed the broadcasts of the Under 20 championships on the IRB site but, found better quality from other sites. I doubt their efforts to snuff out all the feeds that have 100 people watching will be successful but good luck in their quest to minimize the exposure of the game.
Posted by: MidwestUprising | 23 June 2011 at 17:59
Before you call the IRB idiots you should consider they took a competition that was for the most part considered an international friendly in 1987 and turned it into the third largest sporting event in the world in less than 25 years. The revenue generated at the RWC funds the development of rugby worldwide and the sport is growing internationally at an astonishing rate. Throw in inclusion of 7s into the Olympics and I would say they are doing a pretty good job in Dublin.
Posted by: IRB Fan | 23 June 2011 at 23:16
I'm pretty skeptical of the "3rd largest" claims, but in fact the growth has been remarkable.
Posted by: Winter Olympics, Champions League, etc? | 23 June 2011 at 23:46
Regular practice is great to develop guys, but there is a different vibe when you are training to play and improve than when you train for competition as there is a different dynamic.
I read an interesting thing about world badminton champs in Indonesia, the top players routinely play with and against promising young players so the players so that the youngsters get to play with their heroes and the older players coach and mentor the youngsters. Champions benefit from it and enjoy it and the youngsters really can improve.
Often in rugby we use top players to coach, nyac are experimenting with having all players in summer rugby from 14 YO to senior men's eagles playing rough clear out touch together in the same games. HS freshman play alongside HSAA, U 20, college AA, senior eagles, 7's eagles and all levels between. It is really fun to watch Seamus Kelly and Troy Hall trying to beat kids with 6 games and 15 practices under their belts, or seeing Seamus Kelly kicking cross kicks to HS freshmen to score. It is great for the older guys as they love it and like the example above, the kids get to play with their heroes and you see them really having a go.
Clubs need to develop to recruit.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 24 June 2011 at 05:03
King Tard is angry at rugby union!
http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/best-athletes-not-coming
Posted by: Lowe Down (syndrome) | 24 June 2011 at 05:18
Yeah - that is a news flash from Brian. Anything else we don't already know?
Has Brian ever heard of something called the NFL. Sort of has a tendency to take away all those good athletes.
I'd love to see his beloved Tomahawks play a full Australian RL test side and see how that goes!
Posted by: I played drek rugby - and loved it | 24 June 2011 at 05:55
"Although it has acknowledged the scrum engagement sequence is not working, the governing body has said it will not change the cumbersome 4-step process until after the world championship."
Anyone have views on why it is not working? Anyone have a better alternative?
Posted by: John | 24 June 2011 at 06:23
The Academy concept is starting to take off in the US in the form of summer rugby camps. There are a dozen or so camps already.
Posted by: Sevens | 24 June 2011 at 06:57
Summer camps run by colleges are not "academies" Who are you Sevens? Have you ever even been to America? You seem to know very little about how American sports work. These summer camps are for high school players. At the longest they are 2 weeks and they are the same (though to a much less degree) as any other sports camp run by university athletic departments.
Posted by: huh? | 24 June 2011 at 07:30
but, those summer and winter camps or club program bridge a gap when students aren't in school.
it also seems like some people have an almost implied assumption that all college rugby programs are run similarly, just the talent is different. i would venture to say the top programs are far more professional than 95% of lesser programs and that some of these camps and summer programs are of great benefit to many players.
there are several ways to skin a cat and if we wait for usa rugby to lead us it is foolish, we must take the bull by the horns and just do what we can with the resources we have and guide players toward appropriate programs.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 24 June 2011 at 08:00
On the scrum count point, one issue is that it is difficult to hold proper engagement positions through that long of an engagement sequence. A proper setup is akin to a sprinters setup in that you are preparing to "fall forward". You can only properly maintain that position for a very short time before you become unstable. My personal opinion (yes I am a scrum coach and long time tighthead) would be to shorten the call. Even try the monosyllabic word "hit" instead of "engage".
Posted by: Look Around | 24 June 2011 at 08:00
The purpose of an academy is to take players from many clubs and give them access to training resources and competition they may not have at their own club. Camps do the same thing. Look at what Santa Barbara and NYAC are doing. They are exposing players to better rugby. SFGG, Cal, Life, Elite Rugby Camps, Los Angeles Rugby Academy, Las Vegas Rugby Academy, Propel Rugby Academy,Penn State, Army, Notre Dame, International Rugby Academy, Tampa Bay Krewe Youth Rugby Academy, Spearhead Rugby Academy. Focus is U-19 but these models can not be applied across all ages goups including senior elite players. These same camp organizers are well positioned to take the players from their camps and form teams who can play other rep sides. Academies do not need to operate year round and they do not need to offer degrees. Academy teams do not need to play under a single college name. Let the local community college offer the academics if needed.
Posted by: Sevens | 24 June 2011 at 08:05
Bruce, of course that is true, but the debate was about whether USAR should back the building academies from scratch or supporting colleges for its strategy to broadly develop young talent.
The latter already has the world class facilities built we just need to figure out a way to tap in. The former requires a whole lot of funding. Sevens says clubs should do it. Well if it could be done economically they would have done it already.
Posted by: college | 24 June 2011 at 09:10
Clubs and players already pay for rugby camps and tours and some pay their coaches. An Academy needs camps, representative teams (tours), and coaches. If clubs make regional development a priority they can make an academy work economically by sharing resources and costs. An Academy would be a clearinghouse of rugby knowledge with players, coaches, and administrators sharing best practices.
Posted by: Sevens | 24 June 2011 at 10:20
college you are correct, but we need to do something. college rugby 7's and 15's will explode in quality with CPD
we need 10+ HS programs as well run or better run than xavier and jesuit in each state or major city and then we will get some class athletes.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 24 June 2011 at 11:14
From what it looks like the CPD is falling apart. There are up to 10 teams wanting out right now. This includes teams like Cal Poly and SDSU that are contemplation dropping out because of a coaching change. If the teams in the middle of the table want out, what does that say about the CPD?
Posted by: CPDud | 24 June 2011 at 11:50
CPDdude - It says that those teams want to play in league that's far, far away from Cal where they actually have a chance to win. What they don't realize is that if the CPD folds Cal will just drop back down to D1 and dominate those same teams there. So in my opinion they should either sack up or come out and admit they don't want to take their program to the next level or that they are afraid of tougher competition. I'm fine with either, but the reasons most are listing is BS in my opinion.
Posted by: Clay | 24 June 2011 at 12:41
I do think that Tenn and LSU dropping out to form the SEC conference is a pretty good reason to leave as its more marketable in their area (same with Dartmouth), but I think the CPD should look at inviting the SEC to have a split conference with their top 6 teams competing in the CPD and the lower competing in D1.
Posted by: Clay | 24 June 2011 at 12:46
The CPD is a joke unless it is reduced to 8 to 10 teams that are actually premier. Half the teams are built on house of cards either stacked with 5th year seniors or propped up by a blow hard coach that lobbied hard to get into the CPD and now are jumping off like it is a sinking ship. What happen to all the commitment to having a 2 year relegation exclusion written into the contract? It just goes to show how comical things are when coaches are allowed to administrate rugby. Jack Clark worked everyone up and now they all realize their team is not good enough and they want out. Joke.
Posted by: CPDud | 24 June 2011 at 12:54
The Cal v BYU CPD final was the best college rugby match ever played in the US. 11,000 fans, TV, two well coached teams.
Posted by: CPD fan | 24 June 2011 at 13:41
CPD does need member teams to commit to standards. Programs like Cal, Life, and BYU are much stronger than other CPD teams in terms of administration, coaching, and finances.
Posted by: Sevens | 24 June 2011 at 13:43
@CPD Fan
The creation of the CPD didn't make that event happen. Those two teams in Utah with the HS championships as a curtain raiser would draw that crowd regardless of the competition.
The tail is wagging the dog. For the majority of the CPD teams, and for almost all of the D1 teams, the CPD is not a complimentary competition. For developing D1 teams it is a pain in the butt explaining to university admins, the alumni who make donations and to recruits and players what teams are in your competition and why. Some D1 competitions have changed every year for the last three years and now will change again with CPD 2nd sides in the D1 competition, which really confuses campus admin and alumni. Stable well administrated competitions is the only way for teams to develop their program.
Posted by: D1 Coach | 24 June 2011 at 14:06
I can sympathize with the perceived instability of D1. The CPD coaches specifically didn't want to negatively impact D1 when they organized the CPD.
By now, after six consecutive finals, any match between BYU and Cal would be a big draw. I don't think you get 11k folks into Rio Tinto without the CPD buildup, each team having a dominating regular season, and with the possibility of BYU winning a national championship.
I never thought and, I'm sure the coaches never thought either, that after the first season a number of teams wouldn't want either in or out. I was originally startled to learn that there would be a 2 yr. no promotion/relegation clause in the agreement. I thought then that that would be foolish. Indeed, how could you force teams to stay in a competition that they decided they couldn't manage, for whatever reason.
You may notice that the Western Conference really doesn't have any escapees, except for the Arizona teams who really didn't wan't to be in the "mountain" conference anyway. With the exodus of some of the Pacific teams, they'd be glad to be "reorganized" back into the Pacific, or even to D1, where they could contend for a championship. Even though they have to go through BYU, they're glad to be in the CPD West. It seems to be meeting their needs.
Interestingly, one of the original organizational ideas was to have 4 conferences with 6 teams each for a total of 24 teams. It didn't work out that way because a) Jack wanted 32 teams and b)more than 6 teams each wanted to be in the Pacific and the East.
I also believe that the CPD needs Cal (and to a somewhat lesser extent, BYU) a lot more than Cal needs the CPD. Cal can always get enough games to build a season (both home and away), regardless of their league/conference membership. And, how do you hold a credible national championship if Cal decides not to participate? If they take their marbles and go home, who loses? Certainly not them. They can play in any competition in this country with any sort of domestic opponent and have a chance to win it.
The CPD is really dependent on what Mr. Clark wants to do with it. If he wants to continue with it or to change it, or even to discontinue it, you can bet your scrum machine that he'll get what he wants. Without Cal supporting it, no top-tier competition will succeed. And dems da facts.
Posted by: No one of importance | 24 June 2011 at 17:37
You either have a 8 to 10 team premier league or you have all the teams in their NCAA conferences. Most the Pac12 teams are in the CPD, so just have a Pac12 and drop the CPD. BYU and St Mary's are in the WCC, so have a WCC with the other WCC teams. What is the difference if Cal smashes UC Davis or USC? What is the difference if BYU and St Mary's smash Wyoming and Claremont or if they smash USD and Pepperdine?
Posted by: CPDud | 24 June 2011 at 18:06
I recently sent two players from St. Louis on an exchange with the South African club , Hillcrest Villagers RFC, situated near Durban. St. Louis Royals are a Div. three club, who made it to the national finals last year, and again to the playoffs this year. Both players are receiving excellent coaching(by an ex Sharks player as well as an ex Springbok) and playing for Hillcrest second team at a much higher level than available at home.
I have no doubt that these two players will return, after two months, as much better able to help their club- and the club will benefit from two Hillcrest players,due to come over in September.
There is tremendous potential at lower level rugby in America- but little effort is made to foster it. If any club would like to enquire about exchanging players with a South African club, contact me at globalsportsnet@aol.com
Posted by: roland maitland | 24 June 2011 at 18:10
The NCAA conference model may work fine for most regions, but the PAC-12 is enourmous.
The current PAC 12 has it's largest separation at 1,526 miles which is from Seattle to Tucson. Seattle to Boulder is 1,332 and Los Angeles to Boulder is also over the 1,000 mile mark. These are air miles not road miles.
Washington St. closest games would be 300 miles to Seattle and 350-400 miles to the Oregon schools. Utah would be a quick 1000 mile round trip!
We still have to remember that these are students, with classes and limited budgets.
Posted by: oregonbobby | 24 June 2011 at 20:51
@CPDud: It's more complicated than it sounds to align rugby teams by NCAA conferences, where travel expenses aren't often the determining factor in who plays whom. For BYU and Utah to be in separate conferences seems just silly, since they're 40 miles apart and roughly similar in talent (though perhaps not in coaching). St. Marys and Cal are also less than 40 miles apart (more like 10) and one has to scratch one's head to figure out why St. Mary's would want to out to Provo rather than take a very short bus ride to Cal.
However, if it could be done, you might want to configure a Pac-12/WCC super conference where the top teams played home and home (BYU, Utah, St. Mary's, and one other team) while the rest played in a second division with each other. Still, there's a long competitive rugby history between BYU & Utah and the Colorado/Wyoming, New Mexico schools and, occasionally, Air Force and Colorado have beaten the Cougars and Utes.
I understand that there are many possible shapes for future top-tier competitions to take. While I don't get a vote, I'm quite curious to see how it evolves.
Posted by: No one of importance | 24 June 2011 at 21:07
Really the biggest draw to me as an alum/fan of a college team is the opportunity to play against traditional rivals. Good or bad at rugby, that is the draw.
People around campus get excited. Not just if Cal beats the University of Spoiled Children or UCLA, but Oregon State or Washington might get pumped up about beating Arizona or AZ State. Same thing in the SEC or ACC. The ACC is really spread out though from Boston College to Miami... so some allowances have been made. Does Florida State want to be in the ACRL? Do they want to have to travel to Maryland?
I get your point. It's a balancing act. Do the traditional rivalries get the attention of the administration? And does that attention get you more financial support? Or other support? As rugby grows, you're going to eventually look at the NCAA getting involved. At least that is what you should want. Baseball is heralded as the 3rd sport in college. While it is played all over, it doesn't necessarily get more coverage than women's hoops, lacrosse or hockey. Probably a little bit more. But Football and Basketball are huge. The CWS is big, but not as big as the former two.
But still, the NCAA gives support to all its championships and gets the attention of athletic directors. That's what we want in college. Well that is really the money and attention will help to foster the competitive environments for rugby that will lead to better domestic competitions and a stronger pool for the Eagles.
You have to ask yourself what your goals are. Do we want to grow the college game? Or are we trying to get better players for the Eagles? Growing the college game the right way and for the right reasons will lead to better players.
Posted by: Benito | 24 June 2011 at 21:24
If the goal was to get more quality players in the Eagles' pool, Cal and BYU would be playing in the RSL instead of blowing college teams out by 100 points and scaring them out of the CPD.
The travel argument holds no water. UCLA is 10 miles from USC and they don't play each other, but UCLA will travel to Central Washington for the CPD. Either the schools have the will and funds to play in a conference, or they don't. If it is the latter, they should play in a regional competition and not some hybrid brainfart by JC spewed to life on a podcast and rushed into place by lemmings that were so excited they legally locked teams out for 2 years and then 20% of the teams are jumping ship after one. Like I said earlier, total joke letting coaches and their egos administer rugby.
Posted by: CPDud | 24 June 2011 at 21:39
CPDud or should we say Frank-
Why don't you just call JC and personally tell him how at some point he sh*t in your cornflakes. This deal where you bash him night and day on internet sites is lame.
Posted by: Mr President | 25 June 2011 at 10:35
"Like I said earlier, total joke letting coaches and their egos administer rugby."
Good catch Mr President. This must be Frank Merrill taking these shots at the CPD and Clark. Yea, like the teams had great administration from the PCRFU or the SCRFU, LOL. One of the great aspects of the CPD has been a break away from these poor performing LAU's and TU's. Now they're pissed and trashing the CPD anon on the message boards. Priceless.
Posted by: Burn it down and start over | 25 June 2011 at 10:51
Travel expenses are killing RSL, CPD, and Women's Premier. Money spent on travel is money that could be spent on coaches and player development. If all the clubs in a region get stronger, there is less need to travel to find a competitive match. If properly staffed and funded the TU's could lead the development of coaches and players across all age groups. LAU's and their budget should be folded into the TU's and each TU should have at least one paid full time person to bring some professionalism to rugby adminstration. The TU's should be strong and they should direct USA Rugby.
Posted by: Sevens | 25 June 2011 at 11:41
I can't speak for PCRFU, but the CPD teams in So Cal had little to complain about. They largely called their own shots, did it on their own time, and expected not only union administration but all the other colleges in the union to adjust accordingly. I'm not saying that I don't think the CPD is a great idea (some matters of execution, as well as some So Cal clubs dropping out, notwithstanding). If the CPD works better for them then they should go for it and not look back, but they should have no substantial complaints about administration.
Even the TU dues (which everyone seems to think are such an onerous burden) were more than returned to those clubs in the form of support for the representative side.
But then the idea that someone is "letting" coaches (and their egos) administer rugby is ludicrous as well. These college clubs are not owned by USA Rugby, their TU, or anyone else. They are not franchises. They are autonomous actors and there is no one with the authority to "let" them (or not) do anything. If they'd formed a true breakaway league outside of USA Rugby or the TU system, they were absolutely free to do so. USA Rugby managed to throw them a bone (Todd Bell), which kept the CIPP monies coming, but ultimately continues to lack authority on any teams, SBROs, or TUs that wish to break away.
Posted by: Boulder Breakup | 25 June 2011 at 12:33
The power to run rugby should come from the grass roots level not top down as is currently the case. USA Rugby staff in CO should be minimal and there should be paid staff residing in each region accountable to the clubs in the region. USA Rugby priorities should be directed by the TU's.
Posted by: Sevens | 25 June 2011 at 13:11
Ark St over SMC
Utah over Army
Cal over Life
BYU over Navy
Cal over Utah
BYU over Ark St
Cal over BYU...with a 11,000 in attendance.
What again didn't work in this first year of the CPD?
Posted by: cpd fan | 25 June 2011 at 13:34
Yeah the coaches had so much control in So Cal that Gary Lane from Arizona State threatened to sue the union for having ASU relegated from D1 to D2. Good times.
I am not sure if the CPD works, but I do know it was ginned up on a podcast and launched prematurely. JC did the hype job. Those facts are clear.
Posted by: Jacoby & Meyers | 25 June 2011 at 13:39
@cpd fan
I don't think anyone says the CPD didn't work for the top 8 to 10 teams in the CPD, but it didn't work for a lot of the CPD teams and caused a lot of chaos in D1 competitions. The CPD should be a 8 to 10 team league. Even with that few of teams you still have Cal & BYU in a tier of their own and then everyone else.
Posted by: CPDud | 25 June 2011 at 13:41
@Jacoby & Myers...the remaining D1 coaches in that case all got precisely what they wanted - a good D1 without USD or Gary Lane.
Posted by: Larry H. Parker, It's About Time | 25 June 2011 at 14:08
Even if the CPD falls apart. What is the harm in trying? The old D1 was really bad. The teams paid dues to LAU's and TU's who did nothing for the money. The playoffs were about 12-14 teams spending money with zero hope of making the finals. No sponsorships of any kind. Not much press. Teams paid all the cost. In the end Cal played BYU.
Trying to improve upon this, seems like the right approach. If it didn't work who cares. Try something else next year. Hell keep trying until the teams find what they what. No gun to anyones head, pull out and go to a new conference. Stay in and reduce the teams. You don't like the ideas on offer come up with new ones.
Don't want to play Cal and BYU don't play them. Don't want to play sevens don't. Only want to play sevens, have at it. Spring fall who cares. Play when you want. Play whomever you want.
Posted by: who cares, try anything | 25 June 2011 at 14:27
Gary and ASU seem to be thriving in the CPD. Guess the joke is on all these So Cal teams that want to drop out of the CPD.
Posted by: SunDevil | 25 June 2011 at 14:28
Not sure having a US premier is anyones brainchild other than the RSL who were the first to pull it off. Credit where credit is due.
There were plenty of punters calling for a college premier competition before JC supported the idea on those ARN podcast. Once Cal and several of the better college had committed it was just a matter of time.
From the outside, it looks like it came off. All the games got played, no cancellations. Got some TV at the end and a big crowd at the final.
If lots of teams aren't committed for next year, what will change other than Davenport's 30 seconds are over?
Posted by: RSL | 25 June 2011 at 14:40
Don't you mean UCSB's 15 minutes?
Posted by: SunDevil | 25 June 2011 at 14:51
Good for ASU for thriving in the CPD. But threatening a lawsuit to avoid relegation, but being happy to accept relegation as long as it applies to another team is pretty much the definition of being a bitch.
Posted by: Turn Your Back. | 25 June 2011 at 15:01
This blog makes me laugh. Please keep your petty complaints up, I don't know what I would do without you.
Posted by: Smoke and Mirrors | 25 June 2011 at 17:32
As much as it amuses me to read this rubbish, there are so many positives in American collegiate rugby that we should be cheering about rather than jeering. With the emergence of the CPD, the growth of CRC 7s, the olympics, etc, great things are happening in the USA. If we collaborated with positive energy, maybe we'd help foster growth rather than work against it with crap whinging.
Posted by: Positive | 25 June 2011 at 19:23
@Positive
I think you are right! Let's take all the CIPP money from the 300+ colleges in the country and pay all the costs for the 12 best teams in the country to have a national league. When sponsors come we will return some of the CIPP dollars back to the other colleges in the form of free balls. It's all about the top 1 percent you know!
Posted by: COLLEGE | 25 June 2011 at 21:21
No CIPP funds went to the CPD. Or for that matter college rugby as a whole. The college dues fund Melville and his bloated staff.
Posted by: sick and tired | 26 June 2011 at 11:37
Seriously COLLEGE, how did you conclude that from Positive's comment? CPD didnt get jack from USAR. Should be noted that is entirely their fault for turning it over to USAR when they could have just run it themselves. Terrible move.
Posted by: college | 26 June 2011 at 12:34
They didn't run the CPD on their own and handed it off to USA because JC told them that was the way forward. Probably because he knew that they would be left holding the bag when his main selling point to other coaches (sponsors and broadcasters like lacrosse enjoys) never happen. He did get a shiny new object to flaunt to the Cal admin just when he needed it because they wanted to take away the varsity status of his program. Well done!
Posted by: Cal Supporter | 26 June 2011 at 12:58
Cal Supporter aka "CPDud", you dont know anything. CPD had no bearing on Cal's varsity status. They could care less what competition Cal rugby competes in. What made the difference was the millions they raised to save themselves and women's lax/gymnastics.
Your crusade against CPD/JC is so lame and pathetic. More likely they handed it to USAR because Cal didnt have the time to look for sponsorships when they were busy fighting for their program's existence, and every other club was fine with doing it so they wouldnt have to do any work.
Funny that Pohlidal and the other USCRA coaches went along with it right after leading a rebellion from USAR. They should have rejected it and tried to do the work themselves and proved that being separate from USAR is the way to go.
Posted by: college | 26 June 2011 at 13:55
So basically JC dropped the ball on the whole CPD sponsorship plan. Well done JC.
Posted by: COLLEGE | 26 June 2011 at 14:42
That may be correct, but I dont know how anyone can blame him when Cal's program got axed and they were fighting for its continued existence. Perhaps one or 2 of the other 30 coaches could have stepped up and offered to carry the load? Nope. Instead they handed it off to USAR. It should be pointed out that the USCRA led by Pohlidal, Smyth, Coates, McNamara made some similar boasts about sponsorship and tv opportunities only to do nothing when a league of their own was created.
Lack of sponsorship should first be blamed on USAR but the CPD coaches should not be off the hook for nothing happening. They didnt have to give it to Nigel. At the very least none of them should be complaining about it. And I dont think they are. I think the naysayers are people outside of the CPD who just want to see it fail.
Posted by: college | 27 June 2011 at 14:18
To be fair JC hijacked the USCRA movement. The USCRA put a scare into the USA Rugby executives for the obvious reason that college CIPP revenue is in the high 6 figures and possibly even 7. They couldn't lose this revenue and their hand was forced to start the process to hire Todd Bell to stem the tide.
The USCRA was the catalyst for JC to start the CPD push because he saw the writing on the wall. If the USCRA worked they would have shifted the focus/funds from the top 1% of the teams to the majority. I think once he got the CPD born and saw that Melville would dump it on Todd Bell he stepped away. Todd Bell was never hired to be the CPD Commissioner. He was hired to provide value for the CIPP fees college kids across the country pay to USA Rugby. That was supposed to come in the way of coaching support/clinics, provide assistance with working with athletic department and club sports administration, fundraising support/ideas/assistance, standardized facilities guidelines, etc, etc, etc. Todd Bell will most likely end up disfranchised and ultimately the CPD fall guy when it proves unfeasible.
Posted by: COLLEGE | 27 June 2011 at 14:57
By fighting to save his program, you mean when JC was raising $10,000,000 from his rugby donors this season to save women's LAX and women's gym while increasing Cal's rugby endowment by about 5 mil. Saving the women's sports allowed rugby to return.
It also turns out that Cal rugby has just over $300,000 per year in corporate sponsorships, generated by JC and his former players.
He may have messed up handing this league to USA Rugby, but I think JC has a pretty good track record raising money.
Posted by: go bears! | 27 June 2011 at 15:08
So, did anybody hear how much money USAR made on the CPD final. Based on the attendance, the revenue must have been close to $200K. Anybody want to bet that they spent most to all of that on CPD expenses so they don't have much if anything to return to the teams.
They can't have had any revenue for the semis in Glendale, and the host teams presumably took the risk/kept the profits for the quarterfinals, so the only revenue generation for the whole competition was in the final.
Since the commonly reported number for broadcast income was a negative $70K, renting Rio Tinto was maybe $40K including personnel, lights, etc.
Question 1: What would USAR have done if BYU hadn't made it to the final and maybe 2,000 people had come to watch Cal duke it out with Arkansas State?
Question 2: Anybody know how much was paid out to the CPD teams after the season?
Posted by: No one of importance | 27 June 2011 at 15:20
COLLEGE, your facts are wrong. JC wasnt afraid USCRA was going to shift all the funds from the top 1% to the rest of college rugby. The reason that is wrong is because the "top 1%" get just as much as the rest of college rugby which is nothing. So that argument makes no sense. If there was any power struggle it was over when the season would be. USCRA coaches were supposedly on board with Pohlidal's fall idea and I could see JC leading a California and other area contingent in favor of the Spring, which they won. Fair and square from what I saw.
USCRA could have been great but they buckled because they were not organized and didnt have any good ideas. They still promised to get out best practice info and other services to college rugby and couldnt even deliver on that. The level of incompetence that infects every level of rugby is discouraging. Have we all just had too many knocks to the head?
@No one of importance, 1. Nothing. They wouldnt have done anything either way. 2. Nothing was paid out. There was no money.
Posted by: college | 27 June 2011 at 15:35
JC has a huge advantage when it comes to raising funds at Cal, but only when rugby is a varsity sport. If you make a big donation to rugby, it is like if you made a big donation to the Cal Bears football or basketball team. You get all the perks of the athletic department. Tickets, mentions on local media, invites to the NCAA basketball tourney or bowl games (if Cal is in them), etc. Take that away and a lot of the value of donations goes away. It is a reality. Most college rugby programs can get a 10K or 20K donation and the donor gets the appreciation of the rugby coach/team and possible the alumni relations department, but if that same donation was given to the Athletic Department they would get court side or 50 yard line seats, and invites to lunches with the teams, etc. Just a fact.
Posted by: Varsity Benefits | 27 June 2011 at 16:02
The well funded programs will always beat the less funded ones. True in CPD and true in RSL. Sponsorship shared equally would be great but the poor clubs need to make it happen.
Posted by: Sevens | 27 June 2011 at 23:50
No one of importance -
This is an answer the CPD is still trying to figure out from what I have heard. With USAR running the event, word is they haven't communicated any profits to anyone in the CPD at all. Which means nothing has been paid out to anyone yet. To me that also means it never will. My bet is that USAR sucked up every dollar for their over inflated budget with the Eagles. But again from what I understand that money would have been used to help cover the travel costs of the playoff teams. Once that was covered then the rest would have been divided up amongst the res of the teams
Posted by: bloodsuckers | 28 June 2011 at 06:11
Money was provided to the playoff teams although that was a policy that was never properly vetted within the league. Most teams don't have a clue. Word on the street is at one playoff team turned it down.
Posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest | 28 June 2011 at 07:39
Seems like everything was done on the fly. Just like switching the East/West playoff format which was initially a cornerstone reason for starting the league. East teams were supposed to play East teams and same for the west to help keep costs down. But then the thought of BYU and Cal meeting before the final became too scary and they blinked.
Posted by: college | 28 June 2011 at 08:50
@Varsity Benefits:
I see your point of getting athletic department perks, but that shouldn't stop alumni from setting up a fund for their rugby club at any other college. I went to a D2 school where rugby is a club sport with spotty support from the administration. One forward thinking rugby alum had a plan set up for a rugby alumni fund. He had projections set out on glossy paper, demonstrating how many rugby alumni were out there, how many would be created every year and projected donations, which could be counted toward the genaral fund. That's a huge perk for universities. All the sudden the U is courting us, allowing us to use their facilities for annual meetings and such and the rugby club gets some respect. Think of the perk for the club, not just the donor.
Posted by: Tom Z. | 28 June 2011 at 09:32
@Tom Z
Your point is that donations are a perk for the university and the club.
Thank you captain obvious.
Posted by: Varsity Benefits | 28 June 2011 at 10:00
@college: No playoff system is ever designed to have the top teams (or players) play each other before the final. And, I'll bet you money on this, most of the CPD coaches would agree with the notion that the CPD is better off by having the two best teams reach the final to play in front of 12,000 fans than have Cal play, say, Arkansas State in front of 2,500 fans.
What IS lacking, though, is the assurance that teams that reach the playoffs are at least partially reimbursed for their basic travel expenses through the profits from the final (or other playoff matches) or some future broadcast deal. Then, ASU or Life or Utah or St. Mary's wouldn't be at a financial disadvantage for having made the playoffs.
It was then and still would be ludicrous to purposely design a system where the best teams won't be in the finals, regardless of the financial issues. It's much more reasonable to work out a system that deals with the financial issues than have Cal play BYU in the quarterfinals just because of money.
Posted by: No One I Know | 28 June 2011 at 10:33
@No One I Know
So the CPD is all about getting BYU to play Cal in a "final" and broadcast it because that is going to help college rugby? How big are the Kool Aid stains on your bib son? Drink away lemming.
Posted by: Lemmings | 28 June 2011 at 10:43
@ Varsity:
My point is that you should quit whining about Cal.
Posted by: Tom Z. | 28 June 2011 at 10:49
@no one i know. The playoff system was first designed to limit costs. by having the east and midsouth play each other on one side and west/pacific play each other on the other side regardless of which conferences had the strongest teams. That is a fact. Midway through they changed it. Also a fact.
Playoff systems are designed for the needs of the competition. Controlling costs was one of the top priorities of this particular league (at least initially) and not making sure the best teams end up in the final. Obviously that changed half way through.
By the way, plenty of league playoff systems dont have safeguards against the risk that the 2 best teams might not meet in the championship. See NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and any other league where the playoff brackets are divided along conference or geographic lines and not seeded according to record.
Posted by: college | 28 June 2011 at 10:50
My only point was that USAR changed it without notice midway through to demonstrate the way the league was run
Posted by: college | 28 June 2011 at 10:51
The CPD solutions is simple.
1) Acknowledge that they got the inaugural year wrong by having 31 teams (they wanted 32)
2) Acknowledge that there are only 8 teams that are "premier" and focus on a comp that only has 8 teams
3) Set up 8 team national competition with the rest going to D1
4) If the 8 teams don't have the will or money to do it, drop the whole concept for a later date when the sponsors and broadcasters are secured
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 11:08
Done & Done,
Firstly, thank you for a suggestion, something this blog lacks in favor of smack talk.
If there was a 8 team premier college competition and half the teams were schools like Life, Ark St, Davenport, St Mary's, etc...do you think there will ever be sponsors and broadcasters? Will there ever be a "later date" when this is attractive to sponsors and TV.
Posted by: thanks again | 28 June 2011 at 11:50
@thanks again
I don't know, but according to JC in his podcasts he believes the product is ready for prime time. So, let's find out, but not with a bunch of dogs in the comp because they are brand names in NCAA sports (Notre Dame) or they had 15 minutes of fame and persuasive coaches (Claremont). The RSL has been chugging along for over a decade with no real sponsors and absolutely no broadcast deals. If the CPD is a good competition with 8 teams and no sponsors or broadcasters, great. If the teams in the CPD can't afford the CPD, then kill it. Just don't slap premier on an ill conceived 31 team comp and expect $$$ from sponsor and broadcasters.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 12:18
It is a catch 22 isn't it?
The commercial markets will have little interest in most of college rugby's better teams, irrespective of the standard of rugby played.
Whereas, NBC and major sponsors have an interest in the best branded colleges making up the bulk of the competition field, irrespective of the standard of rugby played.
Thankfully, there are a few top brands which are also the best teams, but as D&D rightly points out, it is not a deep pool of teams.
I haven't heard anyone say college rugby is ready for "prime time". I have heard its marketable and believe this to be true. Ive heard we can take on LAX and believe this to be true. The CRC is proving this to a degree.
Could a college rugby XV competition have a series of sponsors at $50-100k each, of course. Every sport has low cost sponsors. Could this competition have a broadcast partner, of course. Every sport has access to broadcast partners.
The question it seems, is what does this competition look like? Who are the participants and where are the competitions played? It has to look good, fans in seats and be attractive to more than CIPP members.
Ideas?
Posted by: thanks again | 28 June 2011 at 12:47
The LAX myth.
College rugby isn't even close to LAX in terms of broadcasts. The CRC is on for one weekend on a major network and it's sister channels. LAX does this too, but they also have broadcasts of NCAA and club games on dedicated cable sports channels throughout their season. They also have HS LAX on these channels when state championships are happening. The reality is that domestic rugby is on TV a few times a year and LAX is on 100s of times per year. This doesn't even consider the 2 pro LAX leagues that are on cable TV.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 13:10
Most of the people running our sport still consider a good sponsorship deal to be 2 for 1 pitchers and 10 kegs a year. Toss in 10 cent chicken wings and they will put your name on their jersey for the 8 people (girlfriends) that show up for their game to see.
Posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest | 28 June 2011 at 13:20
@Nathan
What does the dog get? You can't give a dog chicken wing bones.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 13:39
D&D,
You started out so promising offering a few simple ideas. However, once asked for further thoughts all you've got is this? LAX is big and rugby isn't? Of course LAX is further developed with their HS sport and NCAA status, but they aren't unreachable and they are our competition for HS and college rugby.
OK forget LAX.
What does this college XV competition look like, in order to be attractive to non-CIPP members and commercial interest. You have put forth an 8 team competition. Lets start with who are the teams?
Posted by: thanks again | 28 June 2011 at 13:44
@ Thanks
I don't have all the information required to propose a plan, but my believe about sport is that if you have the best compete with the best often magic happens under that pressure. So, assuming that a CPD is wanted by the coaches.
CPD Line-up
Cal
St Mary's
BYU
Utah
Navy
Army
Life
Ark State
Play 7 games with top 4 into a playoff for national championship and the bottom 4 playing to avoid relegation (assuming that a D1 team wants to move up).
If they don't have the money or will, scrap it. If they do, sell the S#!T out of it. If it doesn't work and the top teams are still unhappy with the level of competition in college rugby, the top teams can play in the RSL or men's D1.
Let D1 sort itself out as it has with conferences and regional winners leading up to a final 4. Or whatever they or USA Rugby wants.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 14:15
I dont understand the thought that every team needs to be great in order to compete in the CPD... No other college sport does this. If they did, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota wouldnt bee in the Big 10, Washington state wouldnt be in the Pac 10, Virginia and Duke wouldnt be in the ACC...etc.
Having Ohio State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, UCLA...etc in the CPD is good for the game. You might not like 100 point blow outs that Cal puts on people, but Cal beat teams in the playoffs by 40 points anyway. the beat Utah 62-14... and many think Utah is one of the top 5 teams in this league... So if you really want only the best competition you might as well limit this to a 2 team CPD. (BYU & Cal)
My goodness people, this was the first year of playing at this level. Teams will get better, games will get closer, upsets will happen, money will come, but you need to give it time. And you at least need to give it more than one year before you blow it up and start over.
Posted by: Clay | 28 June 2011 at 14:46
Clay is 100% right. Most people commenting on this blog consistently get one thing wrong: the intent of the league. The main intention of the league was to provide better competition across the board for the participants. Did that mean there would still be blowouts? Yes. But it is still the best league, competitively speaking, ever created for college rugby.
Sponsorship and tv deals were completely secondary and I doubt if any college team really thought it would happen in the first season. As far as the primary goal, mission accomplished.
Posted by: get it straight | 28 June 2011 at 15:11
"playing at this level"
The level didn't change. Did it? Did the start of the CPD mean there were a whole bunch of new talented players added to the teams? No. CPD was a glamorized D1. Period. It didn't work because teams are dropping out. Let's face it some teams in the middle of pack missed the bottom teams to beat down. Cal can't have all the fun.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 15:15
@get it straight
The "better competition" objective worked, but a number of teams appear not to like it. Dartmouth, Tennessee, LSU don't like it when they are a mid to bottom team in their competition. Cal Poly and SDSU may be the next two casualties because...surprise...they didn't like being .500 teams and their coaches bailed and the want to get back to being dominate in a smaller competition.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 15:19
Good thoughts, one and all. We hijacked a thread away from the ranters and got to some ideas out.
Posted by: thanks again | 28 June 2011 at 15:21
+1 to Clay. Give it time. Not everyone needs to be a dominate force. The SEC isn't looking to kick out Vanderbilt anytime soon. The Big 10 will happily keep Northwestern. The NFL has the Raiders.
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 28 June 2011 at 15:33
One of the things about these blog posts that is frustrating is that so many resort to the trite and illogical comparison. I tune out as soon as I see any domestic rugby discussion get the "in the NFL" or "they do xyz in the Super 15" or "the NCAA basketball tournament does", and they are all nuts. Lacrosse comparison and contrasts make sense often, but if you compare domestic rugby to any sport with financial backing and fans you've lost the plot.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 16:00
Let's just say it is a simple and lazy discussion vehicle for those incapable of critical thinking.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 16:02
Just saw the SEC schedule release up on RugbyMag. We all know the rugby is somewhat lacking, but those are the right schools to be playing each other.
Would not surprise if they found a sponsor. If nothing else those are the right competitors to get the administrations attention. Natural rivals can be used to gain attention, create interest.
Maybe this is one of the ways to grow rugby.
How about an experiment! Two case study competitions, one where the best teams played irrespective of affiliation or brand (Life v Ark St stuff) and one with well branded traditional rivals (SEC, IVY). Assuming similar execution of the opportunity, which competition would have increased resources through commercial and media influences 5-10 years later?
Increased resources draw athletes, pay for coaches, improve the overall quality of the sport or enterprise.
These traditional sport conferences have to be seen as one viable path forward. Not the only path, but a very viable path nevertheless.
Posted by: thanks again | 28 June 2011 at 16:43
My opinion is that NCAA conference alignment will see do better in the areas of raising money, getting the attention/support of the university administration and drawing new players onto teams. However, the quality or the rugby will improve as a factor of global realities like more HS rugby and the added sample of campus athletes now attracted to rugby.
An elite CPD model will see rugby at those institutions increase exponentially as a result of the professionalism required and the draw of the top 1% of HS rugby players to those institutions. This will happen even if they get marginal sponsorship and broadcast dollars.
Posted by: Done & Done | 28 June 2011 at 18:43
Arkansas St. is begging to get into the SEC rugby conference. It's ironic because their argument as to why they should be included is that they will increase the level of competition and the quality of rugby, and that's what it's all about, right? They are incensed that one of the reasons the SEC doesn't want them is to keep their brand intact. But if Arkansas St. was really concerned with the quality of rugby and level of competition, they would be focusing all of their energies on the CPD. But they're not and instead are trying desperately to affiliate with the SEC. Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE BRAND.
Posted by: Elton Brand | 29 June 2011 at 07:14
Sounds like the CPD is just about dead after 1 season. What a joke.
Posted by: Done & Done | 29 June 2011 at 07:17
Really can't blame Arkansas St. This is in their best interest to attempt to join the SEC. It won't happen for all the right reasons, but this shows that they are a thinking Wolfpack. Can you imagine the buzz when they beat Auburn in a sport? It gets the attention of the school's administration and student body. So in this sense it is a big help to their growth. From strictly a public/media relations perspective it would be far more important than defeating an accomplished Life team. Thus the Ark St attempt at SEC inclusion.
Unfortunately the reverse is also true. When Life beats Tennessee, The Tennessee administration sees rugby as a club/intramural type sport. How else are they to reconcile this within their reality? I know we would like to think it pisses them off to lose to an NAIA school which only has a couple of sports, resulting in them better resourcing their rugby team, but that's not the reaction.
However on the Life campus desperately in need of academic and athletic credibility, this victory over the Vols is validation and cause for celebration. This is a major reason for the Life administration investing so heavily in rugby with coaching salaries and athletic scholarships. It is a Life business decision...and a smart one. Who is the Life basketball team going to beat? No one of any stature. By playing sports with and against major universities, Life becomes a better academic destination. Which means more tuition paying students, which means becoming a more profitable private chiropractic college.
No one can blame schools using everything at their disposal to better their position. Not the D2 southern state college or the NAIA college. Nor can the teams with sporting equity in major conferences be blamed for deciding the best way to grow their rugby is brand insular.
Too much blog space is spend on making someone the bad guy here, when everyone is doing what they can to develop their rugby. They should applauded. Won't Life and Ark St just continue doing want they are doing? Of course they will. Maybe as independent schools without conference ties. USAR will need to make room for independents in their national championship plans.
Meanwhile The SEC and ACC will hopefully be just the ticket to take these teams to the next level of their growth.
Posted by: horses for courses | 29 June 2011 at 11:39
Well said
Posted by: anon | 29 June 2011 at 12:53