Surprisingly long lines awaited late arrivals to Saturday's Italy match at BBVA Compass stadium.
Many had purchased their tickets via Living Social, according to stadium personnel, and so had to collect their tickets at will call. From a management point of view, this was a 'success problem' borne of selling 17,000-odd tickets.
Social media, Groupon-style discounts, and the two-year-old ground itself are all part of the story. Even three years ago, the last time a European power came to the US, the dynamic did not exist.
Over the past decade, American society has regularly delivered game changers to rugby, ranging from purpose-built soccer stadia that are big enough for a rugby pitch but not so big as to be uneconomical, to webcasting that diminishes TV production costs, to the bevy of online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that make it possible to create and amplify low-cost marketing.
Not to mention rugby's admission to the Summer Olympics, which has validated the sport as a mainstream endeavor, brought in new money and facilities from the US Olympic Committee, and created manifold television and advertising possibilities.
The upshot: American society is rushing toward rugby much faster and more powerfully than the best of the game's organic developments -- the USA 7s tournament and its derivative Collegiate Rugby Championship, college conferences, gym class curricula, and growing school-age competition -- are moving into the domestic sports community.
This is to be welcomed. The question is: How does rugby progress from tactical opportunism to a coherent strategy for economic development, one that is distinct from its rivals and achievable with still-modest resources?
C'mon Kurt, none of your readers are smart enough to comprehend this topic.
Posted by: 3rd grade ruggers | 27 June 2012 at 10:12
Oh, none but you, that is. Amirite, smart guy?
Posted by: Too good to comment here, | 27 June 2012 at 10:28
Also, while I'm not usually an online grammar Nazi, if you're going to post something about how everyone else is stupid, you should know that you should have written, "...none of your readers IS smart enough..."
Posted by: "None" is the subject, not "readers". | 27 June 2012 at 10:30
C'mon. You wouldn't ever see or hear "none is going to the baseball game today", would you? That sentence would be "none are going . . . ." Do you still think "is" is correct? If that correction was a joke, I guess I fell for it as I responded as if it wasn't.
Posted by: East Coast | 27 June 2012 at 11:14
An increasingly common misconception is that "none" must always be treated as singular. The argument offered most frequently in support of this view is that "none" is a substitute for "not one," which implies singularity. In fact, "none" is just as likely to imply "not any," which implies plurality. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today."
The erroneous "singular" usage of "none" was promulgated in the widely distributed 1959 edition of Strunk & White's Elements of Style, and thousands of educators mistakenly jumped on the bandwagon. This error was corrected in subsequent issues of Strunk & White, and the singular usage has been rejected by most other leading usage guides.
The New York Times stylebook addresses the issue as follows: Despite a widespread assumption that it stands for "not one," the word "none" has been construed as a plural (not any) in most contexts for centuries. H. W. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) endorsed the plural use. Make none plural except when emphasizing the idea of not one or no one - and then consider using those phrases instead.
The most sensible rule is the one that governs similar words designating a portion of something (fractions, percentages). Just as we write "some of it is" or "two-thirds of it is," we would write "none of it is." On the other hand, just as we write "some of them are" or "two-thirds of them are", we would write "none of them are."
Idiomatically, few of us would be comfortable with "None these people is happy" or "None of my friends is going with me." The sense here is plural: not any. Clearly, you would say, "None of these people are happy."
In the simplest of terms, when the sense is plural, as indicated by a plural noun or pronoun in the subsequent prepositional phrase, none is plural; when the sense is singular, as indicated by a singular noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase, none is singular. When the sense is plural, use plural words.
It is difficult to avoid treating none as a plural when it is modified by almost - "Almost none of the children were (not was) well-behaved." And, in constructions such as "None but a few of the students were able to complete the test," none must be treated as a plural.
Challenge:
For those who insist on none being singular, how would you deal with the following sentence:
"None of the volunteer musicians (are/is) paid for (their/its) participation."
Obviously, it is correct to use the plural "are" and "their" in this sentence. It would be ridiculous to say, "None of the volunteer musicians is paid for its participation."
Or how about this one:
"The children are all sitting at the table, but none (are/is) eating (their/its) lunch."
Again, in this example, none must be used in the plural form, "The children are all sitting at the table, but none are eating their lunch."
Can you imagine saying, "The children are all sitting at the table, but none is eating its lunch."
Neither can I.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_none_singular_or_plural#ixzz1z1Fwxi00
Posted by: East Coast | 27 June 2012 at 11:19
This grammar discussion is more interesting than the blog topic. Or at least easier to understand.
Posted by: wow | 27 June 2012 at 12:43
Those sentences are poor examples because they put forth an incorrect possessive determiner, make it clear that it doesn't fit, substitute another incorrect possessive determiner, and work backwards from there to answer the question of whether the subject is singular or plural. Because "its" is not the correct possessive determiner for an individual person, the choice between "its" and "their" is a false choice. "His" is a better word, which leads to the perfectly adequate "The children are all sitting at the table, but none is eating his lunch."
Now of course some people might object to the sexism implied in the use of the universal masculine, in which case "The children are all sitting at the table, but none is eating his or her lunch," is a perfectly acceptable alternative, though it is a bit awkward.
If you want to be especially modern and gender-neutral, you could also say "The children are all sitting at the table, but none is eating hir lunch," but I wouldn't go that far.
Posted by: C/P wiki answers might be better than yahoo! answers...but not by much | 27 June 2012 at 13:41
In those examples, it appears that you are using none to mean "not one," which implies singularity, as my cut and paste from Wiki acknowledges. But when "none" is just as likely to imply "not any," plurality is applied. The sentence from the original poster - "none of your readers are smart enough . . . ." - implies "not any" in my opinion. But I suppose reasonable minds could read it to imply "not one" as the meaning for "none". But when it could mean either, plurality is the default. As far as the weight of the wiki answer I pasted in, Strunk and White and the NY Times stylebook cited therein are rock solid, seminal grammar sources. Win or lose on this, I am walking off the pitch now, giving you a well-earned handshake and a "good game".
Posted by: East Coast | 27 June 2012 at 14:35
I am not sure where Kurt is going with this but a few things to clarify in his piece.
The ground is brand new as it opened May of this year so that could be a factor except they had played 6 soccer games & one soft opening so that was not big a deal.
There were lines for the "Groupon types" but only if you ignored emails to get there early. I had my ticket so I just walked in 20 minutes prior to kick off with no wait.
You do know that the social media marketwas less than 14% of all tickets sold? Those sales are interesting in that while helping to push Houston past the record of 16,000 set in Robertson Stadium in Houston in 2001 they also are very cheap advertising for those who don't grab the offer in time. So it has an unintended effect, well at least to this marketing novice, of being great mass advertising. Its cost is the discount but a non-cash expense, but it brings attention to the event & the number is capped.
A final thing to note about Houston is to compare it to the great job they did in Glendale selling 4,000 tickets at $15.00 ea for Georgia this year. Houston sold 17,214 with tickets upper & lower between try lines starting at $40 & all the way up to $150 on the field.
Groupon is a new dynamic but not why we sold 17,214. That happened because it was successful joint effort by an NFL franchise, an MLS franchise, the locals & the folks at USA Rugby. We made some mistakes but who has ever charged those prices & achieved those numbers?
Posted by: John Connolly | 27 June 2012 at 15:55
Yourself, Paul, and the rest of the crew that brought us the realization of Malcolm's vision did a great job last weekend. Hard work paid off and a good model has been set forth. Let's do it again, next year (12 years from now would be a really stupid long time for USAR To wait to bring rugby back to Houston)!
Posted by: Grant Cole | 27 June 2012 at 18:33
BYU Rugby got an exclusive deal from Adidas. Adidas provides BYU Rugby everything. Boots, uniforms all the gear. Adidas brought World Rugby Shop into the fold and will sell BYU gear to the public through WRS. Not only does BYU Rugby have national following they have international fans who want their gear. Bright future for BYU Rugby.
How's that for tactical opportunism and economic strategy ?
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 27 June 2012 at 20:07
Kind of surprised that Cougar Rugby would partner with Adidas since BYU is a Nike school. Usually its much more advantageous to purchase from the school's apparel agreement and that's usually what the fans want anyway.
Since Cal and BYU are both IMG schools, surely they can use those contacts to get their new competition on TV.
If only our National Governing Body had leadership that was connected to advertising... oh, wait...
Posted by: Everybody gets free balls | 28 June 2012 at 05:53
The BYU athletic department has a deal with Nike. That doesn't extend to BYU rugby. this is the same deal that the ACRL signed with adidas two years ago, but with the additional part of having WRS sell adidas gear. Don't be surprised to see ACRL teams with their gear available on WRS soon. These partnerships are out there for the taking. Guys with absolutely no business background are making these deals for college conferences. Yet our $300,000/year CEO can't get similar deals done for D1-A? What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: adidas | 28 June 2012 at 06:05
USA rugby can't force every school in D1a to wear Adidas.
Also, World Rugby Shop is a huge supporter of USA Rugby, and D1a already.
Get your facts straight before talking about things you clearly know nothing about.
The only thing you got right is that Pat Kane and his ACRL bunch have no business accumen.
And just because BYU and Cal are IMG schools does NOT mean IMG gives two shits about their rugby programs.
Posted by: Kooga | 28 June 2012 at 06:20
You spelled acumen wrong.
Posted by: adidas | 28 June 2012 at 07:27
Actually, the BYU Rugby team has occasionally skied off the existing Nike contract in the past and, if you have looked closely, has equipped their team using Nike apparel for all but the on-field uniforms. As you said, there are lots of benefits to doing this, especially in marketing club apparel through the on-campus outlets. Unfortunately, the USA Nike team catalog (that has to be used to do the ordering almost a year in advance) doesn't have any rugby gear, so no U.S.-based rugby team can equip itself through the normal Nike channels.
Cal reportedly has an off-shore Nike connection that they use to get access to European Nike rugby gear, in addition to the warm-ups and equipment bags, etc. that they get through the athletic department in the usual way. The advantage, of course, is that it gives them a nice, homogeneous Nike look and a real exclusivity that no one else has.
BYU has had (an sent press releases about) an exclusive deal with Canterbury for the last couple of years that effectively gave them a substantial amount of free gear. But, since Canterbury's well-reported financial problems, the rumor is (from several sources) that they've occasionally seemed a bit unresponsive (you can understand why that might be).
Anyway, the new deal with Adidas is a win-win because Adidas has been pretty much on the sidelines in the U.S., with only a few contracts in place (Dartmouth uses them, I believe) even though they have a flagship deal with the All Blacks on the international scene. The BYU deal gives them a top-tier exemplar with plenty of TV exposure, now two college programs to point at in their catalog, one 7s, one 15s, and it gives BYU a bunch of kit for not much (if any) money.
I'd be hard-pressed to say, though, that this means that there a ton of like deals just waiting to be plucked. There aren't many BYUs or Dartmouths out there that are multi-year national champions with a national following that big-time athletic suppliers like Adidas would be chasing.
Posted by: Nike, Cal, BYU & Adidas | 28 June 2012 at 07:39
...
or is it there IS a ton of like deals? Singular? Plural. Wow, grammar is hard.
Posted by: Nike, Cal, BYU & Adidas | 28 June 2012 at 07:42
Spelling is obviously not his forte. He spells Kooga wrong as well. He probably spells words like 'Sonday', 'Leegal achshun', 'USA Sevuns' as well.
Posted by: College Conference | 28 June 2012 at 07:43
College Conference has that right.
If Adidas are kitting out BYU then they will want BYU on TV taking part in the only live broadcast college rugby event on mainstream TV.
NBC will not move it from Sunday so where does this leave BYU?
Talking to its lawyers I guess?
And I would have thought Adidas will be reading the fine print of the contract as well.
Posted by: Hooga Kooga | 28 June 2012 at 07:53
Dartmouth was with Boathouse but perhaps things are changing because they are only selling their gear until July 9th?
http://www.dartmouthrugby.com/index.php
Posted by: Hooga Kooga | 28 June 2012 at 08:02
So BYU gets their off field apparel at 50% of retail, a set of jerseys that a third party manufacturer makes and they embroider on the Adidas logo, the ability to sell BYU Rugby stuff at WRS and maybe some free game balls. That's an awesome deal.
Dartmouth is pretty tight with Boathouse.
Posted by: Team Adidas | 28 June 2012 at 08:51
Gee, I must have been mistaken about Dartmouth. Sorry if I passed along false info. I'll take my 40 lashes here on the whipping post of this blog. I'll check out my sources better next time. Since the terms of the Adidas/BYU deal weren't released, Team Adidas doesn't have any more idea than I do about just how much benefit BYU gets from it. The deal with Canterbury provided > four figures worth of on-field and off-field apparel at wholesale (i.e., at essentially no cost to BYU) each year, so it wasn't 50% off a bunch of jerseys made by 3rd parties. For all I know, the off-field apparel was made in China by 3rd parties, as you said. I have no idea where it came from. It was all part of the same deal.
And it is important for Adidas to have an on-campus store presence as well as through WRS. Most BYU team jersey replicas etc. are currently sold through the BYU Bookstore Website and the team's own Website (that vectors to the bookstore).
There's always someone to throw crap on the parade when others have worked to create value and marketing clout for college rugby. It's nice to see anyone benefit financially from on-field success.
Posted by: Nike, Cal, BYU & Adidas | 28 June 2012 at 10:24
Cal's Nike deal comes through the university because they are varsity. Cal is a Nike school. The rugby team gets sponsorship cash and product. Sweet deal.
Posted by: nike | 28 June 2012 at 11:18
Interestingly, the article that Kurt references in his post above is pretty interesting and actually manages to make Nigel Melville sound like a reasonable guy trying to work (tirelessly) behind the scenes to make rugby more mainstream in the U.S.
The question Kurt asks actually is at the core of what this blog purports to be all about: how do we create (and publish) a coherent strategy for the evolution of rugby in the U.S. rather than wander about nipping at this tactical opportunity or that. He is suggesting that, with an actual published and regularly-updated strategy, even Nigel could accomplish a lot more, since activities would reinforce one another by design rather than by serendipity.
Jack Clark, with all his faults (and he's got 'em), has a written strategy for Cal that he runs his team by and measures his progress against. He also has a marketing plan that contemplates regular activities and patron contact.
It's the boss's job to create and maintain the central strategy for an organization. Once created and shared, it must be regularly updated and used as a measuring tool against which the tactical plans are gauged. This important "regulation" is supposed to happen in regular team meetings. It's the most important job a CEO has.
For example, it's more important than tweeting about what's going on in the CEO's life.
Posted by: If we build a strategy, will they come? | 28 June 2012 at 11:26
My team is in the ACRL and through our adidas/world rugby shop deal I personally got over $500 of free adidas equipment this year, as did most of my teammates. I don't know how much of a discount we got on other adidas gear, but based on the low cost of the stuff we did have to pay for I'm guessing it was a pretty good discount. I think it was made in India, though, not China. And yeah, we got customized match balls too. My guess is that BYU's deal is even better, which it should be based on the fact that they are the top college rugby team in the country and that BYU has a huge worldwide alumni following. Good for them.
Posted by: adidas | 28 June 2012 at 11:37
Nike, brings up some fair questions & there should be continued measuring of a CEO's performance but some in here, & I don't post much but occasionally read, are never happy. I don't understand that mentality.
In this instance there was a plan. I saw Boulder, while not perfect in execution, performed far better than my historical dealings with them & that goes back as far as 1991.
Locally, while at times we were taking each other's heads off but overall we got the job done even if not always in the most efficient fashion. Much of our frustration driven by fear of failure & lack of control.
All groups involved in rugby need to measure & regroup. Stealing a page from Cal will far more often than not have you going in the right direction. We also need to stop taking each other's heads off, utiize strengths & support/correct weakneses.
USA Rugby should be allowed to put this one on the board but we can demand accountability w/o blowing up Boulder.
Posted by: John Connolly | 28 June 2012 at 13:36
I noticed Utah was also kitted out in full Under Armour kit, including playing uniforms. U of Utah is an Under Armour school and UA doesn't sell any custom rugby kit in the USA, so good on them for taking advantage of the school's contacts. I believe Notre Dame does the same with Adidas since Adidas has a representative employed at the school.
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 28 June 2012 at 14:52
Goff is such a douche.
Important news like the formation of a Varsity Cup and he locks it up, yet he lets us read his editorial drivel.
Go figure...
Posted by: Goof | 28 June 2012 at 15:52
It's not worth reading anyway. But if you really wanted to read it, you'd pony up you cheap bastard.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 28 June 2012 at 16:00
I don't see why I should pay for such crap.
USA Rugby doesn't consider the news earth shattering or they'd have it on their website!
Posted by: Goof | 28 June 2012 at 16:03
It's not earth shattering. It's Jack Clark trying to avoid the embarrassment of asking to be let back into D1A.
After what he pulled in D1A, It's beyond me why any coach would follow Jack Clark into another competition that he has dreamt up.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 28 June 2012 at 16:06
This is just a hunch but Adidas would not sign BYU to a contract if something wasn't in the works. My guess is BYU-TV / ESPNU partnership.
BYU has a international following and Adidas knows wants to capitalize on that following. The idea thrown out earlier that Adidas just threw money at BYU with no idea of a return on investment is silly.
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 28 June 2012 at 16:55
I'll wait 'til I see the press release. I can't believe that Jack Clark's name appears on a press release announcing another competition. How many schools are there and what are their records in the playoffs? Cal, BYU and who? Utah? Who else? Can they also play in USAR playoffs? Will they stay in the D1A regular season, then do their own thing in the post-season?
Posted by: Questions, questions? | 28 June 2012 at 16:56
Trust me, Jack Clark's name is aaaaalllll over this thing, and he wants nothing to do with any other league/competition.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 00:31
Cal, BYU, Air Force,Army,Navy,Utah to name a few
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 29 June 2012 at 04:53
Edit Navy out
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 29 June 2012 at 04:54
Does anyone have any actual information on the Varsity Cup? Is this competition now replacing D1A or is this Jack's attempt to thumb his nose at it?
Posted by: Welcome to the CPDD1AVarsityCup | 29 June 2012 at 07:04
Several major college programs, led by BYU and including Cal, Utah, Air Force, Dartmouth, Army, and others will formally announced early as Friday that they have formed an independent, knockout rugby competition for the spring of 2013.
This competition would work independent of, and parallel to, D1-A and D1-AA, and will be called the Varsity Cup.
Cal v. Utah from this past spring. A friendly that ended in a close Cal win, this could be a special cup match in 2013. Joan Shepherd photo.
It will run in the spring separate from USA Rugby and its playoffs. The teams are divided into East and West divisions and will play in quarterfinals, semifinals and a final. Five teams have been confirmed by RUGBYMag.com, but three others, almost all in the East, have not been confirmed.
Helping spearhead this idea is BYU. The program has tried to hide its annoyance that the last two D1-A finals have been profitable but have not returned money to the participating teams and the league. The finals were big draws in large part because they were held at Rio Tinto Stadium in Salt Lake City, and BYU was a participant.
Neither D1-A nor BYU saw any financial windfall from the events (run by USA Rugby). Instead, the 2012 D1-A final helped finance the hosting of national finals for boys high school, boys high school club, D2, and D1-AA.
That displeasure in the business side of D1-A was one of the reasons why BYU announced recently that it would not compete in the DI-A playoffs. The Cougars had hoped to play in the D1-A regular season, and then formulate the Varsity Cup to serve as their own postseason.
However, that could be changing after last weekend’s DI-A meeting in Houston, during which DI-A member teams rejected the idea of teams playing in the DI-A regular season but opting out of the postseason. Varsity Cup teams appear to have been told that they would have to commit to both D1-A playoffs and (if they want it) the Varsity Cup. Playing in both could be a logistical nightmare for some teams, who could be looking at six straight weeks of playoff games, possibly all on the road.
Those logistical challenges seem to have been the reason why at least one program decided to opt out of the Varsity Cup.
The Varsity Cup final was originally slated for the same weekend as the DI-A final, but the suggestion arose to create room in the weeks prior to the DI-A final for the Varsity Cup final.
The new Varsity Cup is centered on the idea that games between name schools that are good at rugby can be compelling for fans, and possibly for TV or webcast.
For 2013 the teams would be seeded 1-4 in the West and 1-4 in the East. Seed #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3, with games slated for good venues. Participants say that the idea, should it have legs, could easily expand to more teams.
One attendee of the Houston powwow said there was a sense of optimism in the meeting that an agreement could be reached between DI-A and the Varsity Cup teams.
The final details will emerge soon. But it’s clear that the marketability of certain strong rugby programs, combined with their desire to play tough competition, has prompted them to create their own plan, and that the teams in the Varsity Cup are likely looking for something that D1-A members have struggled to secure – control of their rugby, marketing, and schedule.
Posted by: CC | 29 June 2012 at 07:33
good info. thanks. sounds like a logistical nightmare, but a very interesting idea.
Posted by: Welcome to the CPDD1AVarsityCup | 29 June 2012 at 09:41
CC: Way to copy and paste Goff's article and pass it off as your own. High School must have been a breeze for you with plagiarism skills like that.
Is it that hard for people to support a rugby business with what, $10 a month? If you are all so desperate to read this stuff, they pay up!
The rugby community always amazes me how damn CHEAP everyone is. If rugby is to flourish in this country, someone has to be able to make money off it. Don't be pissed just because it's not you.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 09:49
Sounds like round 3 in what is the men's collegiate rugby cluster F#$K. Wasn't it just a couple years ago when Jack Clark was telling everyone that CPD was the future and a commercial slam dunk?
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 29 June 2012 at 10:16
Jack Clark / BYU View Of College Rugby
GOAL: Figure out how to have all the revenue from a Cal v BYU match go into the pockets of those two teams.
HOW: Invent a competition that gives both teams the best chance to get to the final and snatch the cash.
TRICK 1: Eliminate real competition by saying your program has to be from a university with a "brand" to be in the new competition. Bye Bye Ark State, Life, Davenport, etc.
TRICK 2: Convince those programs with a "brand" that they have a chance to get to the final. (lemmings like Dave Sitton will fall in line and the egos of others will make this not much of a trick)
Posted by: Fools Gold | 29 June 2012 at 10:48
Pennies
I would willingly support a rugby business. I don't consider Goof, Fat Pat and Elmer Fudd as a credible rugby business. Especially when they hide genuine news yet allow us to read their awful diatribe and rants at referee's.
Posted by: CC | 29 June 2012 at 10:52
Lets say there are two national college championship competitions.
One final four has: Life, Davenport, Arkansas State and St Mary's.
The other final four has: BYU, Cal, Air Force and Dartmouth.
The rugby is similar in quality. The marketability isn't. One of these competitions is much more likely to draw 15,000 fans and be on TV with sponsorship. The other will be a much smaller event financed by the teams.
This is the CRC vs USAr college 7's all over again. If you don't know how this is going to end you have your head in the sand.
Posted by: CRC fan | 29 June 2012 at 11:21
It's a shame since one competition has four great teams and the other only has two. Dartmouth and AF will get rolled by 50+ against BYU and Cal, not to mention they'd get rolled by DU, LU, Ark St and SMU. They shouldn't even be considered.
Let's take the snobbery out of college rugby and let the best teams play. I don't think the College World Series suffered any legitimacy when Stony Brook and Kent State made the final rounds.
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 29 June 2012 at 11:35
The graphic with those six teams' logos has been taken off of the official page and Facebook page for the Varsity Cup Rugby Championship. I'm going to guess this means more teams have confirmed they are in.
The name is a bit of a misnomer if they are going to exclude non-"brand" schools, which includes all of the varsity programs besides Cal.
Posted by: The Almost-varsity Cup | 29 June 2012 at 11:41
I don't think college teams should try any new competitions. Just pay CIPP dues for nothing in return and follow the lead of employees who have never accomplished much. USAR will allow all of us to pay these dues and all the cost for the events, travel etc. What do we have to complain about? TV is overrated. Fans are overrated.
Posted by: quit complaining | 29 June 2012 at 11:49
Titling the competition "Varsity Cup" is smart. This term isn't owned by anyone. This is the type of smart positioning rugby needs. No one from a college is going to mind if their club rugby team plays in a postseason competition known as the varsity cup.
Posted by: what in a name | 29 June 2012 at 11:57
Hulka - I get what you're saying but the college World Series is established and can afford to have teams like Kent State and Stony Brook. However, both of those teams are D1 and D1AA atheltic programs mind you so its a little bit different than what you're saying. But I get it.
Posted by: Welcome to the CPDD1AVarsityCup | 29 June 2012 at 11:58
Enjoy watching the Varsity Cup Championship on a BYU Webcast. Paul Meyers is so good at it, it won't matter it's not on ESPN!
Varsity Cup is a terrible idea. There is no money behing it (unlike CRC), so its just going to cost the teams involved a ton of money, just so Army, AF, etc can get beat by BYU or Cal in the first round, and have a 1 game season. I know my college team isn't going to schedule Army for a "friendly" just so they can prep for their own competition. Thats why kids sign up for a "varsity" team, so they can play a 3 game season and be called "Champions" of an un-official and un-sanctioned comp.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 12:02
To everyone feeling sorry for the no-name schools: They will be fine, because the one thing everyone forgets in all of this is college rugby isn't about Jack Clark, Mormons or NBC. It's about the kids playing college rugby. And last time I checked great players are still going to the no-name schools. It took Arkansas St just a few short years to catch BYU, same with Life and Davenport. And it's reasonable to believe that in the next 5-10 years players from these no-name schools could very well over take Cal and BYU grads on the national team. And then there won't be any faking it, everyone will know who is producing the best players. So in 20 years when professional rugby is a viable career choice kids will go to the schools that are producing the best players. If you don't believe me look at college football. For all their history the Ivy & Academy teams couldn't hold off the programs who were better at producing pro football players.
So here's to Clark and Smyth changing the plan every other year! Have at it boys. I think it was Robert Burns - or maybe Pat? - who said something about the best schemed plans of mice and men...
Posted by: Roger Roger | 29 June 2012 at 12:19
If losing in the first round of the postseason is a "one game season", then half the playoff teams have one game season's. It might be better to lose to BYU in the quarterfinal than Davenport.
Posted by: what in a name | 29 June 2012 at 12:21
What regular season? Im betting Varsity Cup teams will not be allowed to compete in D1A, then go about their own post season.
My College team will not be scheduling anyone in the Varsity Cup just for the courtesy of giving them a match. I'll play the teams in my competition, thanks.
Jack and David can't have their cake and eat it too.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 12:29
"I know my college team isn't going to schedule Army for a "friendly" just so they can prep for their own competition."
Yea if you cut your nose off right in front of them this will really bother a collection of the best and most marketable teams. But you know what, I bet you will still do it. LOL
Posted by: what in a name | 29 June 2012 at 12:29
Who says I want to follow the "best and most marketable" teams? I don't. I want to compete in a competition that includes ALL the best teams, who will play for an ACTUAL national championship.
Brands aren't everything. Like the guy above said, the CWS didn't have any problems with Stony Brook. The NCAA Basketball tourney has small teams. They do OK.
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 12:49
Been watching this slow motion college crash coming for awhile. USAR has failed the teams and now whole entire bunches of teams are heading off to conferences and now a breakaway post-season.
Now the USAR fightback is D1A teams "won't play them". How stupid and pathetic is this? Won't the varsity cup teams just each other more often, play D1AA teams and the friendly traditional teams close to them? All the partial boycott does is further damages the quality of the D1A even more than it is already.
USAR should also be concerned what the USOC is going to think about this leadership. That gender complaint from the women wouldn't be anything like this complaint. USAR playing bully wouldn't go over very well. I don't think messing about member universities is a very good USOC policy. Universities are where the Olympians come from, its not from that little Boulder office.
Circling back it was always going to end up this way. The teams pissed off at USAR and wanting to see if they could do it better and USAR in panic attack making mistakes desperately trying to hold their reign on college rugby together.
Posted by: predictable | 29 June 2012 at 13:12
Pennies, something tells me you have been factored in to the decision. You will be happy watching the USAR streamed national college championships. I also bet the people who watched the CRC on NBC liked it and will come back. To each their own.
Posted by: what in a name | 29 June 2012 at 13:16
Pathetic? Really? It's the Varsity Cup guys who are the ones picking up their toys and going home because Jack and BYU didn't get tier way.
Plus: "Won't the varsity cup teams just each other more often, play D1AA teams and the friendly traditional teams close to them?"
1) "Wow! Cal is playing BYU AGAIN for the third time this season, but THIS time its for the Varsity Cup, wich is not a National Championship, but kind of, but not."
2) Why would I want my team to drive all the way to Westpoint to play a team that is not in my competition, when I have a perfectly good comp to play in, and could get to a national championship? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that no one in the west will play Cal in a "friendly" other than St Mary's, Utah, and UBC.
I'm just saying... who on earth would follow Jack Clark into another competition?
Posted by: Pennies a day | 29 June 2012 at 13:33
"Titling the competition "Varsity Cup" is smart. This term isn't owned by anyone."
Except for the competition in South Africa that's been using the name for a few years.
Posted by: The Almost-varsity Cup | 29 June 2012 at 13:48
This article about College Baseball brings up similar issues with college rugby: warmer climate schools dominating and the idea of a split season...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/sports/in-college-ball-northern-teams-look-for-help.html?src=recg
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 29 June 2012 at 14:01
Last I checked USA Rugby is you... and you... and you... and you... etc. There haven't been many directives that have come top-down from Nigel that affect college rugby - especially not any that I can think of. Nigel didn't make the CPD, isn't the dictator of D1A, and didn't write the regulations everyone hates. I'm pretty sure all of those things were accomplished by college coaches on committees which are open for appointment to. Hell, I must have received 5 e-mails last year asking me to be on the college eligibility committee because THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYONE. And yet, all the yucksters on here hate the regulations (for example).
Get on the committees, get control, and make the changes you think are better. If you can't, obviously most others don't agree with you. Jesuschristmonkeyballs.
Posted by: Delusional College Rugby | 29 June 2012 at 15:41
The obsession with "brand" is only hurting the game in general. NCAA doesn't care that much about brand when it comes to becoming an NCAA championship sport, which is what women's rugby is trying to do at this moment. If there were 50 Davenports and none had a brand, NCAA would be very interested in creating a men's rugby championship.
Posted by: RealityBites | 29 June 2012 at 16:16
USA Rugby is a failure. I listened to the interview with Cortez and he liked the sound of his own voice. BYU and Cal SHOULD get a part of the gate.
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 29 June 2012 at 17:15
^^ Paul Meyers, for the love of god, please stop posting on here. Your opinions are so skewed and misled its comical.
Sincerely,
The American Rugby Public
Posted by: Grumpy Old Men | 29 June 2012 at 17:53
Cal and BYU want the gate? Tell ya what - let's put the game in a neutral site like Chicago and let them take a share of the profits generated (and/or pay for the losses)...
Posted by: Delusional College Rugby | 29 June 2012 at 17:57
GOM
Thank you for giving me so much power. I'm not sure just which of these posts you think are mine, but I haven't said one thing about the Varsity Cup, pro or con, especially on this site. Geeze, I hope my grammar is better than most of these posts I see. If you miss me, just contact me offline and we can talk about the future of college rugby, over which I have absolutely no influence. I sure hope you do, 'cause I'm dying to meet you.
Posted by: Paul Meyers | 29 June 2012 at 19:11
I'm wondering when the CRC folks and the Varsity Cup folks are gonna put their greedy heads together and make some money off of this issue? While several folks might not be happy about their exclusion from the money-maker. Someone needs to work out the kinks to make a profitable and successful competition out of collegiate rugby. The Varsity Cup might be the elitist money-grab that it seems to be, then again it might be the next step towards rugby excellence in the US (but I don't think so).
I do like how the D-1A conferences are panning out and think that once they find their footing, we'll see some quality rugby being played by those teams. But these things take time that too many people are not willing or able to invest.
Yes, "Varsity Cup" has been a competition in the RSA since 2008. Anyone remember JC talking about playing international university teams? Care to take a shot at the scoreline of Maties (Stellenbosch) vs Bears?
Posted by: Grant Cole | 29 June 2012 at 20:23
Eagles U20s take the JWRT Final in a tense but very engrossing game against what would have been a far more fancied Jpn team 37-33.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 30 June 2012 at 19:06
USA U20s, Great job of holding out at the end!!! Wonderful match!!!
Posted by: Grant Cole | 30 June 2012 at 19:19
What a great match! Congrats to the Americans. They played with not only skill, but an inellligence not seen at this level by Americans before.
Posted by: Not a hater. | 30 June 2012 at 19:29
Fantastic Win!
Posted by: Craig | 30 June 2012 at 19:36
Great win for USA ! Nice crowd on hand as well.
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 30 June 2012 at 19:51
Great win - congratulations to all involved.
Very proud.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | 30 June 2012 at 21:19
Wonderful match by both teams. I really enjoyed watching the splendid passing by the Japanese. They fired passes with great energy and, miraculously, it seemed, caught everything thrown their way. They looked as if they had been playing together forever. The Jr. AAs were a bit less organized and a bit less like clockwork, but displayed great resilience and heart and some pretty good skills. Mostly, though, the made key stops when they had to. That Cal kid who made a try-saving tackle at the 2 meter line when Japan was about to go up 3 tries was, in my opinion, the hero of the match.
All in all, one of the best matches not involving Cal and BYU that I've seen. Great suspense, great theater and great rugby, all in one package.
Posted by: Paul Meyers | 30 June 2012 at 22:34
Can USA get there U20 program in a position to not be embarrassed in the 2013 Junior World Championship? I doubt it. Nice win, but reality is going to be a bitch.
Posted by: Realist | 30 June 2012 at 22:46
Japanese fans are online in force claiming the ref blew the game. Just like the ref blew the game for the Eagles against Italy. IRB needs to sort this out.
Posted by: Ref Has A Rape Wistle | 01 July 2012 at 00:35
Here are the scoring highlights and USA's huge defensive stand at the end:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwoTGdW2Jzs
Posted by: M.O. | 01 July 2012 at 02:08
Last night's match was great. Disappointed USAR did not get someone to do play by play on the web stream for at least the final match.
Anyone know who from the squad will be eligible for next years side?
Posted by: Dreamer | 01 July 2012 at 05:29
@realist.
As an Australian, I'll use a common euphemism down this way and say "Give yourself an uppercut". Seriously, yes, they are going to likely struggle next year. But that still doesn't detract from their achievement in the JWRT. Undefeated over 6 games. Four in the tournament and 2 prior against Canada in Canada which effectively shattered the Canadians chances at the JWRT.
Eleven of the squad will likely be returning next year and there are some really promising players in this year's HSAA's. If they set out now to build their squad. Set out training programs they could put in competitive showings next year.
The important thing about this win is that it will allow not only the players but the coaches the opportunity to experience what will be needed to compete with the big boys as well as prove to many player both at present and in future that they can win and earn their position in the JWC. Hopefully it will become a regular thing.
It also demonstrates that in general the standards of play and of player is slowly improving in the States. That's a good thing.
You have to be a really miserble so and so not to see more positives out of this result ahead of how they'll perform next year. Either that or you're Brian Lowe in which this would be a bad thing for your interests.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 01 July 2012 at 07:05
Well Said WCR ... do you know which 11 are eligible for next year ?
Posted by: Dreamer | 01 July 2012 at 08:55
@dreamer
Not too sure at the moment but I can try to find out. What I do know is that 7 them started against Japan with the other 4 on the bench. Having those 7 will be very beneficial in forming an experienced spine of the team for the JWC. Something they'll need.
It will be tough next year for the Junior Eagles, really, really tough. They'll be facing bigger, stronger, faster and more professional players next year. A whole other level. They need to begin to put the work in now. I would be elated if they managed to stay up but in reality it will be a one year thing. However, I think this may be the first if a few visits through the JWRT for the Junior Eagles as long as they take the lessons learnt on board.
If they do manage to stay afloat in the premier championship, they;ll soon find they'll begin to be given a great deal more respect.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 01 July 2012 at 10:07
@WCR
Fair assesment (re: the U20s & the resident troll). 11 players from this tourney eligible next year, all 22 players this year were US passport holders, and 6 straight wins make for a good start to a program. Lawrence is right to state that a growing player base and improved overall coaching at every level has so much to do with the U20s success. It will take a concerted effort at all levels to produce quality rugby players on a consistent basis for the US to stay in JWC.
Posted by: Grant Cole | 01 July 2012 at 10:47