As school and university teams evolve, coaching positions are diverging from administrative roles, possibly to the game's overall detriment.
A California high school looking for a women's coach is touting the opening as a 'dream rugby coaching job' because scheduling, logistics, and related chores are the responsibility of the school's director of rugby and its athletic department. Around the country, college leagues too are finding that many prefer technical specialization.
'Most of the coaches who are actually paid to coach can't / don't / won't serve in administrative roles', one league official said in an email. 'It is left to guys who have full-time jobs outside of rugby to both coach and administer competitions'.
As the game attempts to populate America's continental expanse, volunteerism is likely to persist, no matter whether it is organized by territorial or geographic union, state, or conference. Coaching stirs the blood because it's close to the action, while administration is not only thankless and obscure but also a responsibility shared with rivals, meaning no one wants to devote too much time and effort.
But separating how the game is organized and packaged from playing and coaching risks unmooring the sport from its primary competitive nature. Coaches, a team's single most influential voice, ought to be part and parcel of game development, to help shape routine administrative practice.
As one example of schism, staging the 2008 collegiate round of 16 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, made sense in terms of event registration and staff logistics, but created superfluous travel while taking playoff matches out of the campus environment. The following year, broad unhappiness with the collegiate territorial (all-star) competition led to calls for a coach's association.
USARFU has recently made direct grants to school leagues for professional administration, with mixed results. Some policymakers are now discussing whether the geographic unions that are to replace the territories might employ full-timers.
Since the GUs are meant to govern senior rugby, however, it is unclear how such staff would work with the independent high school and college organizations that have already taken root. The conversation is preliminary, according to people familiar with the matter.
For their part, should school leagues develop commercially, they would soon enough have to decide when and how to reinvest in expanding capacity.
James Paterson used an illicit narcotic during the World Cup and therefore has been sidelined for four months, the International Rugby Board announced Friday.
During routine drug testing, Paterson acknowledged taking oxycodone for a shoulder injury, on the recommendation of the national team's medical staff.
'This was a very unfortunate case in the sense that it could have been avoided by referencing the [World Anti-Doping Agency] Prohibited List which is provided to all unions and was proactively made available to all participating teams and players prior to and during RWC 2011,' IRB anti-doping manager Tim Ricketts said in a prepared statement.
In addition to being the only failed drug test at the quandrennial championship, the case has attracted attention because the 24-year-old is native to Christchurch, New Zealand, and has played Super Rugby for the Crusaders.
The snafu is a major black eye for USARFU, which separately had recently been audited by the federal Department of Labor regarding improper player payments. Unlike most of American rugby, the national team is professionally managed.
The suspension began last October and extends through February.
Interesting topic. One will wonder if Coach Clark at Cal will get involved in the creation of AND administration of a Pac-12 esque competition now that Cal has withdrawn from the CPD. He certainly helped create the CPD, but then backed away and washed his hands of any responsibility for running it. Would he do the same for a Pac-12 D1-AA conference? These conferences need coaches to also serve as administrators because they are the ones with "skin in the game." And the coaches who are paid to coach should be the ones in the best positions to devote their times to administrative efforts. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't be surprised when the competitions that their teams are in are not successful and well-run.
Posted by: Pac-12 or 8 or 6 or 5 | 23 January 2012 at 11:59
Right or wrong I think JC washed his hands of USA Rugby. I think this is the same thing which is going on all over the country. Competitions at every level with no involvement with USAR. State-based in HS's, new conference based in colleges, NBC college 7's, etc.
I don't know about Pac-12, Big-10 or SEC but there are lots of colleges getting ready to go independent of USAR.
Posted by: college fan | 23 January 2012 at 12:15
I think the answer to "right or wrong" is "right."
Posted by: Question/Answer | 23 January 2012 at 12:27
Lots of rumors coming out of NOLA's congress meeting...
Apparently Bill Sexton, Frank Merrill, Alan Sharpley and Danita Knox were given some sort of "lifetime achievement" or "pillars of USA Rugby" award.
Posted by: the DPR | 23 January 2012 at 12:52
Well, that pretty much says it all right there, doesn't it? The only one even close to deserving of an award in that group is Danita. The only achievement of the other three has been holding us back.
Posted by: Spack Jarrow | 23 January 2012 at 13:06
Surprised they didn't give an award to Corona Jo Olzacki.
Posted by: Momma's Basement | 23 January 2012 at 13:18
"pillars"? More like a pile of...
Posted by: Sexton, Merrill amd Sharply | 23 January 2012 at 13:44
@college fan:
Whether USAR should govern competitions and whether clubs should have "no involvement" with USAR are clearly separate issues. As I've said before, there is a vast benefit to having a central office to coordinate things that would otherwise be very expensive for teams, like insurance. There are also logistical advantages to it. Disassociating from it would only create a need for a similar entity, at which point one has to ask what the point is? If one is upset with the way things are run, they're better off trying to change what the office does, or who is in it. Especially when the alternative is basically creating a similar entity with higher costs.
College rugby brought in roughly a million dollars last year. Insurance, paying staff to plan and execute tournament events, paying staff to manage eligibility and fair play regulations, organizing courses for trained coaches and referees, office administrative costs (rent, accounting, HR, warehousing), travel for those doing the above things, etc. all costs money. In fact, those things all cost substantially more than a million - college rugby benefits from the fact that many of those functions are performed by the office at multiple levels. Other than trimming things like the All-Americans program, I'm not really seeing where the money is being wasted.
I used to absolutely be a part of the 'to Hell with USAR!' crowd, until I sat down with some people once and began going over the economics of independent administration. It's mind-boggling when you start realizing all the things you have to add up. The numbers we read here at Gainline sound mind-boggling sometimes, but often they're not in context to the expectations of the membership. If we could ever open the national office books (a legitimate complaint), I very much doubt there'd be too many things we could cut and make revolutionary differences. They certainly wouldn't be enough to make up for the expected alternative costs. Just about everyone who has sat down to plan out an alternative has realized this.
Posted by: Anon | 23 January 2012 at 14:11
@Anon
I don't think we need a central college administration. First off we don't have one now, we are just being charged for one.
Lets use your examples.
1) Paying staff to execute tournaments and events...you are not serious right? There aren't any events except that bullshit event on the multi-lined astro-turf at A&M. What events are you referring to? The Utah boys put on the HS and college championships. The USAR staff was in town for a night out.
2) Managing eligibility...one low paid staffer can manage this, BTW clean up the rules and make it easier.
3) Training coaches...are you high? USAR's coach education program is shit. USAR isn't putting any expense into training coaches, so don't you dare call this a cost. And leave the ref's out of it, we pay them separately.
4) As for office administration (rent, HR, accounting-what fu*king accounting, warehousing)...please, USAR is running a administration to service an administration, not its members.
College rugby should be run by whatever local body or league that wants to run it. If the SEC and ACC have a way to organize their rugby that's good enough. They don't need the Boulder's rent bill and HR expense. USAR adds zero value to HS and college rugby.
USAR is a bloated mess of disorganization. Todd Bell can't direct an afternoon nap and he is the $100k director of college rugby living in Texas working out of his spare bedroom.
The only central expenses which might make sense is that of a college sponsorship director and USAR has been without this position for three years. They want to own the events alright, but they want the teams to pay all the costs.
No, we don't need another college administration. We don't even need the one we have now. Keep the money these Boulder fools are wasting on Melville's salary and a losing Eagles' team and use the funds to improve rugby on high school and college campuses.
Posted by: Anon you're wrong | 23 January 2012 at 15:23
@Anon you're wrong
I'm a returning and experienced rugby player. My middle school kids want to play. I went to a recent USA Rugby course and enjoyed the experience and walked out with more ideas and a changed perspective about coaching kids.
The USA Rugby course leaders never touted themselves as "experts" but simply committed volunteers. All had coached longer that myself. They were friendly and answered questions and if they didn't know they followed up with an email from a source who did. They shared their perspectives about athlete-centered coaching.It wasn't shit.
Suggest you quit calling folks names and throwing rocks and offer up something productive. Every sport has a governing body with different roles and responsibilities that changes. Rugby will be a youth focused sport and organization shortly.
Posted by: Welcomed as a coach | 23 January 2012 at 17:09
Todd Bell resigned today -- see USA Rugby website.
Posted by: alan airth | 23 January 2012 at 18:05
No, Bell was actually fired.
Posted by: Big Shaker Rugby | 23 January 2012 at 21:24
I don't blame Todd Bell for leaving. Your email inbox is full with every complaint under the sun from volunteer coaches, and the handful of paid collegiate rugby administrators and coaches expect you to turn college rugby into lacrosse within 1 year.
The position is pure folly created solely to justify the continued tax of college rugby players to fund elite rugby in the USA. Let's see what joker takes the role next.
Posted by: Paper Tiger | 24 January 2012 at 02:48
Paper Tiger hits it.
Some time the rugby community in the US will understand it has to start with them and it has to start locally.
I know they are the national body. I get it. But he should only be talking regional directors.
We have to get better locally.
Posted by: who cares? | 24 January 2012 at 13:13
USAR cannot afford average employees. We need good to very good employees. Todd Bell wasn't good.
Now lets not stop there because USAR has several more employees which should be upgraded.
Can the CEO upgrade himself?
Posted by: change for the good | 24 January 2012 at 13:16
So Bell got fired and the USAR Medical Director keeps his job?
Posted by: sevens | 24 January 2012 at 16:59
How long till Goff abandons this 2nd attempt to get people to pay for his site's content? I'd love to read why NM dumped Bell, but I dont subscribe and apparently no one else does either.
Posted by: college | 24 January 2012 at 18:21
All it says is that Bell stood down from his post. No reasons were given. Just best wishes and goodbye.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 24 January 2012 at 18:42
The aritcle entitled: "Melville explains decision to remove Bell"? I think you just read the press release one.
Posted by: college | 24 January 2012 at 18:50
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/01/23/amid-season-of-uncertainty-new-bears-seek-old-results/
Posted by: Cal | 24 January 2012 at 19:44
well no wonder he failed - look at his job duties - this is 4-6 different positions in an organization
when asked about Bell's duties melville says:
"It’s all those three. The key ones being the NCAA initiative and the move towards conferences and the competition involved within those conferences, and the sponsorship would come along with that or be discussed with that, so he was part of the sponsorship process, but not directly getting sponsors. He’s not a sponsorship guy," said Melville.
"What we thought was that he could work in setting up the college coach sort of association, work with the conferences to set them up, to work with competitions, to work on the 7s competition, to work on developing the product to sponsor. The first of that was to get the conferences aligned, get them moving forward."
excerpt from Rugby,mag article
Melville Explains Decision to Remove Bell
Written by Pat Clifton Tuesday, 24 January 2012 00:00
Posted by: who cares? | 24 January 2012 at 19:48
None of that actually goes into an actual explanation for the removal. Might you include that part?
Posted by: college | 24 January 2012 at 19:56
"The biggest concern was the NCAA emerging initiative, and were we moving it forward fast enough, and could he do that as part of his job? And the feeling was that he couldn’t, so we’re making a change."
The concern with the conference restructuring, Melville said, had more to do with DII and DIII than DI-A and DI-AA. Per the original restructuring plan, DII teams are supposed to be aligned into conferences by the 2012/2013 competitive cycle. Currently, there are only three ratified DII conferences.
Excerpt from RugbyMag article
Seems that Todd Bell was held to a much higher standard than our $300k per year CEO.
Posted by: Reason | 24 January 2012 at 20:02
And for the record, nobody is going to be able to make headway with the NCAA initiative. That has been dead in the water since day 1. You can't convince schools to make this a varsity sport:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150538302768140&set=a.10150538044723140.434277.341122858139&type=3
Posted by: Reason | 24 January 2012 at 20:07
Todd Bell got fired because a bunch of women went to the USOC and complained that they were not getting equal representation and the USOC leaned on Nigel. Fact. End story.
Posted by: Title IX may not be in rugby but the USOC follows it | 25 January 2012 at 09:20
@Title IX - that makes very little sense. Todd Bell has absolutely nothing to do with the contracted 7s players, and his position's job description also has nothing to do with the contracting of professional 7s players.
If he was made a scapegoat for a problem with title IX, there will surely be another firing coming down the road.
Posted by: guest | 25 January 2012 at 10:13
@guest-
That actually makes alot of sense. Militant feminists write letter to Nigel complaining about gender equity, most specifically with the NCAA initiative. USOC gets pissed at Nigel. Nigel fires Todd. Seems to be the way things work in Boulder with our Teflon CEO.
Posted by: Scapegoat | 25 January 2012 at 12:00
I don't think it has as much to do about the contracted players as it does him not pushing women to the forefront. There was supposed to be this big push to get more women's clubs to varsity status and I dont think that was moving fast enough in their minds. And since the USOC has leverage on USAR, I'm sure when the women went to them and complained about it, and they (the USOC) made a similar call to Nigel that there wasn't enough being done.
Posted by: Title IX may not be in rugby but the USOC follows it | 25 January 2012 at 14:00
My bet would be that Todd's replacement will be a woman who will completely focus on the varsity initiative for women's rugby. Let's face it the folly that both the coaches association and JC pushing for a CPD sucked all the oxygen out of any real movement for a collegiate rugby plan. Todd was doomed from the get go. Now the focus will be about the women's collegiate game and turning clubs into varsity programs. They will have success there and if the USOC likes it, so will Nigel.
Posted by: Paper Tiger | 25 January 2012 at 14:27
It looks like all the college conferences and GU's will have to fend for thmeselves with no USAR support. If they have control of the money this is probably a good thing. Hopefully the conferences and GU's will find better staff than USAR.
Posted by: sevens | 25 January 2012 at 15:16
Completely agree the next College Director will be a women, or at the very least a male who is super committed to the gender cause. I think JC saw this among other issues coming and cut ties.
The CPD is now yesterday's plan. Today's plan is the SEC, ACC, Big-10, Pac-12 and Big-12. Today's plan is independents like ND battling on TV verses Navy just like they do in football. Today's plan is NBC, not a bad USAR stream feed.
USAR is going to be owned by the USOC and their agenda the same way they follow the IRB around with their nose up their arse. The USOC won't be a completely bad thing, but it will bring on some changes to the priorities. Mark this down because truer words have never been spoken...The USOC isn't getting excited about foreign students playing XV's or 7's for that matter. South Africans, older students, recreational rugby are all yesterday's news. In fact winning championships will be less important than developing players for the USOC pipeline.
Schools and Conferences which can control their rugby along with the key independent schools will be calling their own shots away from USAR. When they play, who they play, who ref's the game and where the next national guard sponsorship funds go will all change.
The "real collegiate rugby plan" is control your rugby away from USAR. It will be less about administrations and more about matches and who controls them.
Last thing, women's college rugby has had a good month. Bell is gone, Melville is drinking the cool-aid and their hand picked college director is within sight.
Posted by: gender call | 25 January 2012 at 15:55
@gender call
Less than a year ago the CPD was the best thing for college rugby and now it is considered a joke. What a bunch of clowns the rugby community is!
Posted by: LAX Fan | 25 January 2012 at 16:06
@gender call-
What you list as good for the women's game is also good for the men's game. Because as soon as that new college director handpicked by Sue Parker scissors her way into office, the men's game is going to waltz on out the door and into the exact situation you describe-away from USAR. And man will that be a glorious day.
Posted by: Yup | 25 January 2012 at 18:59
And if 'the real collegiate rugby plan' is control your rugby away from USAR, you gotta hand it to those guys and gals who set up the conference restructure because doing that sure looks a whole lot easier now than it did a year ago. D1-AA could cut ties with USAR tomorrow and survive just fine.
Posted by: Yup | 25 January 2012 at 19:03
Hey LAX fan.... why don't you take your cute little stick and your little rubber ball and go find a "LAX" sight to comment on.
Posted by: Title IX | 26 January 2012 at 08:37
Truth hurts. Collegiate rugby is run by clowns.
Posted by: LAX Fan | 26 January 2012 at 17:45
@LAX Fan
Men's college rugby is the best thing US rugby has going. More fans, the best facilities, the most TV and media. College rugby has 4 of the top 10 men's sides in US rugby.
USAR are clowns, but the college game is doing very well thank you. College rugby should swap administrations with LAX and it would be on TV every week.
Posted by: LOL | 27 January 2012 at 08:42