As college teams catch sight of new opportunities, America's longstanding preoccupation with 'true national championships' looks to be waning.
Last month, Brigham Young declared it would opt of the division 1A title chase, just weeks after winning the 2012 edition, in order to set its own postseason agenda. Almost simultaneously, Navy said it was bowing out of the league altogether in favor of the up-and-coming Atlantic Coast Rugby League.
For many years, would-be contenders bore any burden to compete in nationwide playoffs, while administrators jousted to secure additional or favorable berths for their constituents. Now, top teams see a future outside USARFU's 'all comers, no compensation' framework.
Priorities have changed due in part to the advent of self-managed conferences, which have made teams more aware of their brand assets and commercial capabilities. The rise of the USA 7s' College Rugby Championship also has changed the environment.
America's national championship program began expanding in the 1980s and reached its peak over the following decade. The 1996 foundation of the Super League, which created a parallel senior title, initiated the counter trend. By the time USARFU took legal action over the 2004 RSL playoffs, it was evident the union's focus was not aligned with the clubs' interests.
More recently, college teams have aggressively looked in new directions. The Midshipmen concluded the ACRL schedule is more attractive to its student body and athletic department, while the league's commercial returns are superior. Cal made clear its belief 'the [division 1A] model has a ways to go to better what teams can do on their own'. For Dartmouth, another team which exited the nationwide league a year ago, choosing the Ivy League over USARFU's unknown College Premier Division was obvious for historical reasons alone.
BYU and others are said to be interested in a postseason invitational that would take advantage of the enormous crowds the Cougars have drawn, so far with little compensation. And virtually every school is clamoring to get into the CRC, which projects rugby 7s on national TV as a mainstream sport, thus improving relations with stakeholders they've long neglected: school administrators and alumni.
The broadening postseason could spell immediate improvements for the athletes, because college teams tend to plow extra cash / new revenue back into improved facilities, training programs, and even paid staff.
United States High School All-Americans to South America
15 July Vina del Mar Chile Under 19
18 July Santiago Chile Under 19
21 July Montevideo Uruguay Under 19
25 July Montevideo Uruguay Under 19
28 July Buenos Aires Argentina Under 18
Forwards: Solomone Anitema (Maui), Zach Bonte (Back Bay), Oliver Drew (Bryanston), Kelepi Fifita (Tempe), Nick Gadbaw (Camas), Stuart Harr (Chapin), Andrew Iscaro (Gonzaga), Codi Jones (Oceanside), Levi Kinney (Cathedral Royal Irish), Titi Lamositele (Chuckanut Bay), Bradley Luvender (Katy Barbarians), Tyler Norris (Katy Barbarians), Tama Paogofie (Kona), Sam Peri (Lamorinda), Inoke Raikadroka (South Bay), Matteo Salvalaggio (Latymer), Andy Sandoval (Los Angeles Cougars), Vili Kihe Toluta'u (Mana O Maui), Joe Whalen (Gonzaga)
Backs: Nuulaiti Aiava (Keauka'a), Isaiah Chinen (Kona), Benjamin Cima (Gonzaga), Fitou Fisiiahi (Titans), Joseph Kelly (Greenwich), Billy Maggs (Mustangs), Jesse Mander (London Wasps), Michael Reid (Warrenton), Anthony Salaber (Dixon), Bradley Shaw (Columbus), Zach Webber (United), Calvin Whiting (United), Greg Wood (Cathedral Royal Irish)
"As college teams catch sight of new opportunities, America's longstanding preoccupation with 'true national championships' looks to be waning."
I'm not sure the conclusion of this opener follows from the premise. The CPL was/is expensive in terms of travel cost, and the teams dropping out are either not winning their division or the cost/benefit ratio isn't working for them, or both. Many of these teams now stand to be top dog in the league they are (re)joining which ups the benefit part of the equation in many ways, and lowers the cost part. But there's been no talk and I don't think any expectation of the national championship going away. With so many of the very top teams dropping out of the CPL, the question now becomes, who is the CPL serving and for what purpose, and what does a CPL championship mean? For a couple of years, it was inarguable the CPL winner was the country's best college team. I don't think anyone can say that now. ... Time to rethink the strategy.
Posted by: Eric Pittelkau | 14 July 2012 at 07:01
REALITY:
The CPL/D1-A is the hole in which USA Rugby is going to throw the $250K in development funds granted them by the IRB.
MELVILLETOPIA
IRB will see we made an investment into the college game, AND we get to promote the investment to justify taxing college kids via CIPP so we can pay for the Eagles. Win-WIN!
Posted by: Melville's Magic | 14 July 2012 at 15:18
Whose going to be the first conference to have the balls to say,
"Hey, we don't have to pay Cipp dues, we don't need it?"
Posted by: Bastille | 15 July 2012 at 05:19
Ivy League or PAC 12 would be my guess.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 15 July 2012 at 06:16
This story illustrates how out of touch USAR is with the established sport structure here in the USA. Instead of embracing a system that is deeply ingrained in both High School and Collegiate sports our "national" body creates and embraces an alien and unpopular means of administering and growing rugby here in America.
Americans will always gravitate towards the "better mouse trap" at the expense of the more traditional and established norm. If USAR does not recognize its vulnerabilities and change its approach, it will find itself sharing our national junk heap with VCRs, leisure suits and skate keys while a new more responsive organization rises to replace it.
Posted by: Jeff Greene | 15 July 2012 at 09:28
The CRC has raised the bar for college championships. Stadiums, sponsors and TV all make USAR's events look second rate. Of course teams are "clamoring" to get in the CRC.
What needs to happen is a XV version of the CRC. Maybe this is what the Varsity Cup is meant to be. It looks like the new college rugby leadership of Cortez, Battle and Snyder are going the other way with their plans. More lower quality teams in D1-A. More local matches, less national crossover in the playoffs. More cost effective use of the team's lower quality venues, less TV ready venues capable of large crowds. It really does seem like the wrong plan in what is turning out to be a competitive situation. They appear to be retreating to the national college 7's played at the Texas A&M rec fields. Their tactic should be a flight to quality, but they are going full-recreation.
Rather than investing in growth, they are electing to salary a USAR college staff and throw a few grand at the playoff teams from a grant which might not be renewed. Even if it is renewed, the welfare approach will not hold up verses the CRC pro approach. The college staff are rugby types but they don't understand much about sports marketing or rugby at CU, Wyoming and UC Santa Barbara would look better.
This USAR crew is no match for the pro's running the CRC. Or the pro's at NBC god forbid for USAR.
In the end, competition is good for the growth of college rugby. USAR's paid staff is going to have to work harder and smarter. This is ultimately good for college rugby.
Posted by: competition is healthy. | 15 July 2012 at 13:20
One of the great things about America is we are not afraid to start something if what we got isn't working up to par. Might fail or might make it. I say good for the college teams. The recentley hired long winded lawyer who loves the sound of his own voice held meetings in Houston and rumor has it that he is by himself in the same room still talking. USA Rugby should act as a trusted servant of the game instead USA Rugby is known as the evil tax man who only wants his money not caring if the tax payer is happy. Good luck to the college teams.
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 15 July 2012 at 13:22
I understand the hatred for USAR but you guys realize those CRC sponsors are mostly NBC sponsors that aren't actually paying USA Sevens for advertising, right?
USA Sevens has lost well into seven figures on the CRC. People would be leaving pipe bombs at the front door of the national office if USAR was burning through that kind of money on an invitational it was trying to brand a "national championship".
Don't like USAR? Fine. But you're making a mistake by calling the CRC an example of how to "do it right".
Posted by: Show Me The IRB Money | 15 July 2012 at 14:26
HSAA win against Chile u 19. Good start to the tour.
Posted by: Grumpy rugger | 15 July 2012 at 16:55
Okay, I have read several times now how the CRC is incurring millions of dollars in losses. So I have to ask - how does it keep going? Is NBC bankrolling it? If so, then isn't losing money, really. If someone or some entity is playing the long game, and accepting years of losses while it gets going, how is that happening? Not calling anyone out, I just am curious about the details.
Posted by: East Coast | 15 July 2012 at 18:24
Good win for the HS AAs today, although the lack of info from USAR regarding the matchday squad is pretty poor. The Chile U19 starting XV included 4 players from their JWRT U20 squad which finished 5th, ahead of Canada, so this is a good win on the road IMO.
Posted by: Regal Eagle | 15 July 2012 at 20:40
CRC is a sports/entertainment business venture and USA Rugby is a sports governing body. Comparing them as competitors is absurd.
NOTE: CRC is partially funded on the backs of the participating universities who are required to sell a parcel of tickets at their own loss. Call it a tax or whatever, but it is more costly than a CIPP fee.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 15 July 2012 at 21:21
Too many folks have been clamouring for rugby on TV for too long. So, they won't give up on the CRC regardless of the path it may follow. To them, it IS a competition between CRC & USAR because CRC is giving them something USAR did not. This doesn't objectively validate their opinion on the CRC, but it does strengthen their emotional connection. So, they will hold onto the CRC even if it is dead and lying prostrate on the pitch.
Whether the CRC is making money or not is moot. USA 7s is making enough money or has enough money backing them to make plans for 2013.
The tickets sales portion of this deal puts about $700 worth of responsibility on each player, but the invited teams do get some sort of travel and kit package (or so I've been told, I'm sure someone will confirm/beat down this). There remain teams waiting to get into the fray, so the ROI may seem worth the price of admission (er, invitation).
The jury is still out on USA 7s viability as a successful rugby marketing tool. It's good to have our sport on TV. It's a shame to have folks new to the sport learning it from the likes of Hightower & Seward. They deserve credit for giving it the old college try (puns intended) even though there is room for improvement.
Posted by: Grant Cole | 16 July 2012 at 03:52
Teams are required to sell 300 tickets at $30 each. Over the past few years some teams haven't met the commitment and some weren't invited back because of it (ex. Utah).
Teams receive some financial assistance with travel and room and board is completely covered once they arrive in Philly including meals during the event.
This year USA 7s upped the requirements in an attempt to get each team to actually sell the 300 tickets to someone that would actually show up in the event since many teams were simply writing a $9k check. Clearly most if not all teams failed to meet this requirement.
The CRC was profitable this year. The above statements related to sponsors being NBC's and implying that only NBC benefited from their involvement is incorrect.
The same model should and will work very easily for the Varsity Cup.
Posted by: Eat Fresh | 16 July 2012 at 06:15
@Eat Fresh
If you (or anyone else reading this forum) have any input, please have NBC replace the commentating crew!
And thank you for the clarifications!
Posted by: Grant Cole | 16 July 2012 at 07:53
The CRC is the most successful annual rugby event in America. It does not matter how the sponsors are attracted, through NBC or USA7's, the event has sponsors. Name brand sponsors paying money to make the event sustainable, along with 9-11k paying customers. The CRC is sustainable enough to keep growing for another two years in Philly, as announced by the President of NBC Sports, right after the former Governor spoke.
I know, you're thinking this doesn't sound like a USAR event and its not. USAR has nothing, zero, zip to do with the College Rugby Championship which is why it is such a fantastic success. USAR, its Board, Congress and employees are given the weekend off to watch the potential of US rugby on NBC network television from their living rooms.
100% of the player's-team's expenses are paid: flights, lodging, meals, ground transport. Not from IRB welfare, but from event income. Class hotel, stadium, locker rooms, player lounge.
Teams are asked to sell 300 tickets. The selling tickets part is what it is, like a football bowl game I guess.
The CRC is what college rugby needs in the fifteens game. I hope the varsity cup becomes the...College Rugby Championship Varsity Cup, brought to you by Subway or Geico or Toyota or Motel (we'll leave the light for you) 6. Or any of the CRC sponsors. College rugby looking good on network TV, fans in the seats. Lots of commentary about the Olympics and the growth of US rugby.
Shoot all of us for even thinking this. Dreaming that college rugby could be more than it is today.
The other option appears to bring any team willing to D1A, with USAR handing out small unsustainable travel grants they borrowed from the IRB for the last rounds of the playoffs. Which are to be played on hardscrabble recreation fields in front of 200 fans, poorly streamed on the internet.
Posted by: nice choice | 16 July 2012 at 09:12
nice choice -
You do realize your mentioning of the 300 tickets requirement negates your 100% of the teams costs are paid for statement don't you? If a school is too far away and cant actually sell 300 tickets to an event 500 or for some teams even a 1000 plus miles away, then they still have to pay for them... I love the CRC mind you, just saying, its NOT free for ALL teams.
Posted by: MattD | 16 July 2012 at 09:48
True MattD. But lets consider the value proposition. Team expenses for the 'far away teams' are more than the $9k worth of tickets, so comparing the CRC to any USAR event, all 16 CRC teams are winners before they begin. Sell a hundred of the 300 ticket and the team is really starting to make out.
Staying to the more central point of the CRC's quality over that of USAR. Could a well marketed College Rugby Championship XV's bring in 15,000 fans for the final? Think so. What will the USAR D1A final of Life vs Davenport bring in? Less than 1000, no matter where it is played! With both of these varsity NAIA scholarship teams being granted travel funds from USAR via the IRB. Please give this money to the HS's! What a waste.
Posted by: nice choice | 16 July 2012 at 10:15
And there it is, we now have 3 different Div 1 Championships!
I really do think the whole concept of the VC Rugby is solid, and wish the teams much success.
But...but the rumors are troubling.
1. Cal goes VC because they can no longer defend being Varsity vs NAIA and Chiropractic Schools.
2. BYU could not field 12 starters in the final under the new USAR Eligibility.
3. The Military Academy schools do not want to play the Rugby Academy Schools.. our military is not up to a challenge?
I am not sure if these are true or not, maybe this board will filter out. But, in the end, if schools or better yet the Brands want to have a go, then great, more exposure for our College Game is good. There could be some good rugby on TV with Brands and 5-10k of paying customers sounds good to me.
Lets grow the sport, the NAIA/non brands will continue to improve and compete and soon enough, we will have 20 Collegiate Rugby programs playing at a high standard.
Posted by: 3 div ones | 16 July 2012 at 10:54
Oh I totally think the CRC is worth the price tag, but again, its not free. That's all I was saying.
And yes a Life vs Davenport match wouldnt bring in much in terms of ticket sales. I'd even guess it would bring in less than a 1,000 pending on the location of the game.
Without BYU this year, USAR will need to push the Championship elsewhere. Rio Tinto would look like a ghost town with out them.
Posted by: MattD | 16 July 2012 at 10:59
We need both the football brand schools and the NAIA/NCAA lower division teams (preferably NCAA). Other than Title IX, one of the primary reasons the big football schools don't consider rugby at present for varsity status is because it is not an NCAA sport. As we get more Lindenwoods and Wheeling Jesuits, we get closer to NCAA status. It's a long ways away, but it's not out of the realm of possibility like it might have been just 5 years ago.
Posted by: Regal Eagle | 16 July 2012 at 11:07
Completely agree 3Div. 1) I think Cal goes PAC 12. 2) D1A has changed the eligibility rules back, BYU has nothing to worry about. 3) Our Military Academies are up for any challenge.
You have to consider the very real possibility that the best Ivy, Military, big name schools just don't want to play the chiropractic type schools. Not because they might lose, but because it doesn't grow their rugby. It also needs to be acknowledged just how poorly and expensively USAR has run college rugby. Add up everything we have paid Jim Snyder, Todd Bell, Rich Cortez and Kevin Battle and donate it to the HS All Americans. This would make a difference for US rugby. There is no difference being made with the current approach.
The conferences beginning this self-rule approach is a direct result in teams losing confidence in USAR. New conferences are leading to new post-seasons. New post-season competition leads to a more CRC approach.
It seems the USAR supporters are suggesting the teams heading to non-USAR competitions are afraid of competition. Maybe USAr should ask themselves if they are afraid of competition. The College Rugby Championships don't seem too frightened.
Posted by: competition is good | 16 July 2012 at 11:22
You don't have to be Colombo to figure out what is going on with the Varsity Cup.
The #1 priority for Jack Clark is to keep varsity status. One of the few times I have seen JC stick his neck out on an issue was when it was taken away. JC's master is the Cal administration and playing Life in a final doesn't support his narrative about rugby being an important varsity program (i.e. Olympics, Eagles, etc). The Cal hired consulting firm looking at where to cut costs stated clearly that rugby doesn't need to be varsity because it is the only varsity program in the USA (at the time) out of the 300+ college rugby programs that competed against Cal. A Varsity Cup with known brands and a final with fans in a stadium keeps the Cal administration at bay. The fact that 95% of the rugby programs, including the ones with varsity status on par with Cal, are not in the competition will be the dirty secret. JC's master will be none the wiser.
BYU has another problem as stated above. They can't play their 25 year old students in the USA Rugby competition.
The rest (Arizona, UCLA, Army, Notre Dame, etc) just want to sniff the same air as JC and BYU. They are playing the "fake it till you make it" game and the Varsity Cup suits them fine. Actually, any new idea seems to satisfy this crowd (CPD, conferences, etc).
The reality is that the St Mary's, Life, Davenport, Ark State, etc group will produce more Eagles than the Varsity Cup teams will. Further proof that the tail always wags the dog in USA collegiate rugby, and JC wouldn't have it any other way.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 16 July 2012 at 11:27
"The conferences beginning this self-rule approach is a direct result in teams losing confidence in USAR. New conferences are leading to new post-seasons."
Do you think maybe it isn't a loss of confidence in USAR and more about watching Cal and/or BYU dominate the competition for decades knowing that without varsity status or access to 25 year old rugby-wise Pacific Islanders they never had a chance to win? A couple decades of paying to go to National Championships will add up to a few hundred grand as well.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 16 July 2012 at 11:38
@ Regal Eagle
I like the NCAA Div 3 schools getting serious about rugby and making it a varsity sport. Less crazy about the trade schools beating LSU like a dead horse.
@ MattD
D1A has already waved the white flag on Rio Tinto. They are moving back to home games for the higher ranked side. Think a dozen pickups pulled up against the touchline and 78 fans in Jonesboro for the semis.
Posted by: wrt | 16 July 2012 at 11:40
"The reality is that the St Mary's, Life, Davenport, Ark State, etc group will produce more Eagles than the Varsity Cup teams will."
Dude pass the pipe.
Posted by: no really, pass the pipe. | 16 July 2012 at 11:45
Davenport had the oldest team in the national competition, not BYU. Thanks to 20 'over 5 year waivers'.
Posted by: word | 16 July 2012 at 11:48
American rugby owes the leadership of BYU and Dave Smyth a big thank you for founding the Varsity Cup. Viva the Varsity Cup.
Posted by: word | 16 July 2012 at 11:53
Davenport recruited older players when they were established as varsity and had scholarships to offer. Now established it appears they are going to use those scholarships to recruit HS rugby players and not pursue older players.
On the other hand, older players is a byproduct of religious duties at the core BYU foundation, and the history of territories where Mormon have had success with Mormon proselytism. They can't change that fact and there will always be 25 year old Pacific Islanders that want to play rugby on the BYU campus.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 16 July 2012 at 11:55
How many teams are going into the varsity cup? Is it 16/8/4? They should have four top teams, get right to it.
Life will now dominate USAR D1A. Next tier down will be SMC, Ark St and Davenport. Teams like Army, Navy and Penn St wont get a sniff. Where is Utah going, are they a VC team? If so, the VC not only has better teams it is more competitive.
Posted by: VC???? | 16 July 2012 at 12:04
Navy, Dartmouth going VC.
Posted by: just sayin | 16 July 2012 at 12:08
Any truth to the rumor Ark St is going to play in the VC? They are an NCAA school.
Posted by: VC??? | 16 July 2012 at 12:11
The value of competition talk aside for a moment. There is one bad thing which will come from the VC. The VC teams will only get better, the rich will get richer. The VC will have more exposure and funding. More kids will want to play for VC teams. It will be just like the stories we are hearing from the CRC teams. The VC will better assist what the teams are trying to achieve on campus. This in the long run might hurt the overall growth of the other teams. I know holding teams back isnt the answer, but I'm not sure of all boats rising with the tide thing.
Posted by: VC??? | 16 July 2012 at 12:21
Yes, the Varsity Cup will be a walled garden, but it will only prosper if it is a commercial success. If not, it will fade away like the CPD concept. If BYU and Cal are the only to make any money because they take the profits of a final, than the "fake it till you make it teams" will have a cow and it will turn into a s#!t show.
Like it or not USA Rugby has managed to keep a national championship going without the luxury of revenue. The first year they did make some money from a collegiate championship JC took the ball and went home. The next year BYU did the same. Like I said earlier college rugby is a game of the tail wagging the dog and I don't think that is good for the development of the game at the collegiate level.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 16 July 2012 at 12:44
All the teams in the CRC benefit by way of exposure with the elite teams in an elite venue etc. Why won't the VC be similar?
I think it will be better for the lessor VC teams to lose to BYU in front of a large crowd, than to get pumped by Davenport (who?) in front of no fans. Then you go home and explain the team was beaten by south africans, chiropractors or 7th years at Davenport. Now that is a lose lose.
Posted by: lose lose | 16 July 2012 at 12:56
It is a growing concern to many of us within the blogosphere just how shockingly uninformed many of the gainline posters have become... Anyone that's hung around the college rugby water cooler for 15 minutes knows who the Varsity Cup teams are. But, a couple of the teams have hedged a bit because of the concern over the need for a regular season competition since the Varsity Cup is only a three week playoff with loser going home.
Posted by: Eat Fresh | 16 July 2012 at 13:07
The Varsity Cup serves Cal and BYU only. The rest are just hedging their bet that something will come from the whole project. Firstly, it sounds good - Varsity Cup - when they tell the Campus Recreation folks that manage them that they have to travel to the "Varsity Cup" to play "a big name school", but the reality is that the people managing club sports don't give a hoot.
Posted by: Reality Check | 16 July 2012 at 13:33
RugbyMag's added three new articles about college rugby, all of them premium-only. As have been the last four articles regarding the future of D1-A. Very frustrating. I can't think of any other site that puts solely it's most important news stories behind a firewall.
Posted by: The Almost-varsity Cup | 16 July 2012 at 17:45
Still not going to subscribe though - its utter shite!
Posted by: Bastille | 16 July 2012 at 17:58
Anyone got the scope on this utterly earth-shattering news?
Posted by: Goofmag | 16 July 2012 at 18:02
This should have been released by USAR not Alex Guff and hidden behind his farce of a blog!
What the hell are we paying Cipp dues for again? Great start Mr. Cortez!
Posted by: Rugbyspam | 16 July 2012 at 18:06
If you don't like the "premium" section of Rugbymag.com, complain to their owner. The fine people that bring you IRB Sevens in Vegas and the beloved College Rugby Championship (Invitational).
USA Sevens
11 Martine Avenue 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
914.831.6200
Posted by: Consumer Power | 16 July 2012 at 18:43
The same people who praise what the CRC is doing complain about RugbyMag's pay-to-read stories without realizing that they are sister entities.
Cue Beagles or realist telling me to STFU...
Posted by: Grant Cole | 16 July 2012 at 19:06
I have no problem with Rugby Mag having premium content, but the content they typically are charging for is really controlled content. Since Rugby Mag is really the only rugby news player in the space they are the only media outlet interviewing national team coaches or USA Rugby employees. They they charge for it. This is BS in my opinion because I am already paying CIPP fees. If Rugby Mag wants me to pay for content, it has to have journalistic merit (i.e. someone researched a story and then wrote a piece that puts the researched topic into current and historical perspective). It's total crap and amateur beyond believe.
Posted by: Get Real | 16 July 2012 at 19:18
Here is USA Sevens latest business venture.
http://rugbyrecruiting.com/
Posted by: Get Real | 16 July 2012 at 19:21
USA Rugby should have interns putting articles and announcemets out daily,for free. USA Rugby never fails to fail. It the easiest thing to do as Mr Stills says.
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 16 July 2012 at 19:55
It is about time that someone has looked at promoting Rugby in a business like manner. The CRC was an enormous success and considering the costs covered by the organizers, the $9000 fee was a great deal for all the exposure the participants got. The problem is that there aren't enough events like this year round. The demand is out there. The NC HS Rugby Association along with the state SBRO hosted a regular season game between Life and Notre Dame in March. We drew a paid crowd of 3500. This sport needs a little more PT Barnum and whole lot less infighting. The move toward Conference play will go a long way to building on existing rivalries. It will bring many of the schools closer to Varsity status and in turn respectability and administrative acceptance.
Posted by: Jeff Greene | 16 July 2012 at 22:13
The Varsity Cup is the best thing for men's collegiate rugby since the College Premier Division.
Posted by: King Tard | 16 July 2012 at 22:19
I've been away from the water cooler for the past few weeks. Would someone care to enlighten me as to which schools will be playing in the Varsity Cup?
Thanks
Posted by: Can't have your cake and eat it too.... | 17 July 2012 at 04:55
You need to pay Alex Goff for info about USA collegiate rugby.
Posted by: realist | 17 July 2012 at 05:44
USAR - get off your @$$ and inform your Cipp paying dues members what the hell is going on.
All collegiate organizations should only give press releases and information to Rugby Mag only on the condition that it is made available to the public.
Posted by: Rugbyspam | 17 July 2012 at 07:29
USA Rugby is probably getting a cut from Alex. HA!
Posted by: King Tard | 17 July 2012 at 07:30
From This is American Rugby, the confirmed Varsity Cup teams so far are Cal, BYU, Air Force, and Notre Dame. It seems like the other teams are Army, Dartmouth, and Utah (all leaked from the Varsity Cup itself a few weeks ago) and someone in this thread mentioned Navy, which is a logical fit as a 4th eastern team.
If we assume they want to stage two of rugby's biggest rivalry matches as Varsity Cup playoff matches (the smarter commercial choice) then the match-ups are BYU-Utah and Cal-Air Force in the west, and Army-Navy and Dartmouth-Notre Dame in the east.
Posted by: The Almost-varsity Cup | 17 July 2012 at 08:13
AFA, BYU, Cal, Dartmouth, Navy, ND and Utah. One TBA team. Two teams for one spot.
Posted by: looks great | 17 July 2012 at 08:22
Guess they showed Gary Lane and Dave Sinton the door pretty quick.
Posted by: realist | 17 July 2012 at 08:29
Can't have four teams from the Pac-12. This thing has been built to be sold. Private church schools, military academies, Ivy champ, big public school like Cal. It hits all the buttons. West Coast to New England. The only pocket is BYU and Utah, but they are among the best, if not the best in the country. They could use a team from the southeast.
Posted by: built to be sold | 17 July 2012 at 08:54
Varsity Cup will be in the dust bin within a couple years just like the CPD. Cart before the horse again.
Posted by: realist | 17 July 2012 at 09:13
Looks like the Big 10 will be a D I-A rugby conference next season.
Either that or somebody hacked their Facebook account.
http://www.facebook.com/BigTenRugby
Posted by: Show Me The IRB Money | 17 July 2012 at 10:53
Realist, I actually agree with you on this one.
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 17 July 2012 at 11:16
Man there are some really bad Big-10 rugby teams, I mean really bad. Not AA, but D2! So D1A is just an open division for any team which wants in.
Also noticed on RM that the Central Washington team was set adrift my the California schools who didn't want to travel to Ellensburg. What a shame for them. Now CWU is in D1A as a conference of one team, an independent.
Posted by: more strange every day | 17 July 2012 at 11:45
And now it appears the Big Ten Rugby Facebook page no longer exists. The Twitter account is still there, but they have taken down their logo. Very strange.
Posted by: The Almost-varsity Cup | 17 July 2012 at 13:02
It's official: http://byurugby.com/2012/07/17/byu-joins-varsity-cup-championship/
Posted by: Competition is a good thing | 17 July 2012 at 13:37
Facebook page is still there, just unpublished to the public. Twitter will be coming down shortly. Lawyers are getting involved and until we get official approval from the actual Big Ten Conference to use the name "Big Ten" we cannot refer to our conference as the Big Ten Rugby Conference, Big Ten Rugby, B1G Rugby, B10 Rugby, etc...
Posted by: So sayeth the lawyers, so sayeth the Lord | 17 July 2012 at 13:52
Varsity Cup is official says David Smyth on RM.
Posted by: more strange every day | 17 July 2012 at 15:09
Reading the release it's essentially the college rugby equivalent of the NIT - a postseason invitational.
Posted by: Show Me The IRB Money | 17 July 2012 at 16:37
Yea kinda an NIT only with 31 of the last 33 national champions as participates. Add in a bunch of final fours from Utah, Navy and Dartmouth and NBC's favorite team ND and yea its like a National Invitational Tournament. It will turn out much like the CRC.
Posted by: more strange every day | 17 July 2012 at 19:16
And yet the question will still remain whether the VC champion can beat the D-1A champion, and vice versa. 31 of 33 national championships and still figured out a way to make it 32 of 34 with an asterisk. Sucks for everyone, TV or not.
Posted by: Grant Cole | 17 July 2012 at 19:23
@GC
It doesn't matter what you think is legit and what has an asterisk. Really doubt if anyone cares your opinion. Rugby is gaining traction in events like the CRC and trying to pull off a XV version makes sense.
Dartmouth doesn't think their two CRC titles have a asterisk and Life even though the came 4th at the CRC doesn't feel like their USAR 7 college title over Central Washington has an asterisk.
If Cal and BYU aren't in the USAR championships there are no asterisk for the USAR winner. If Utah wins the VC, no asterisks.
On the other hand Grant Cole the blogger, near everything you write needs an asterisk.
Posted by: grant cole is a blow hor air | 17 July 2012 at 20:50
CUT TO APRIL 2013
(Jack Clark interview with Alex Goff)
"The Varisty Cup is the premier men's collegiate rugby event and it is an honor for Cal to participate in this championship. The guys have worked very hard to this end knowing they are competing at the pinnacle of the college game in the USA."
CUT TO JANUARY 2014
(Jack Clark interview with Alex Goff)
"The Varsity Cup had all the potential to be a commercial success, but [insert TBD organization or individual] didn't have the business acumen to market the competition in a way to attract sponsors or broadcasters so we are not going to participate in the next Varsity Cup."
Posted by: King Tard | 17 July 2012 at 21:58
To be fair, I think the strategy behind the VC is coming 100% out of Provo, UT.
I think JC is putting his energies into Pac-12 rugby and he's riding the BYU coattails on the VC. He has been pretty vocal on pac conference rugby and silent on the VC. I wonder if Cal is fully on board with the VC?
Posted by: college fan | 18 July 2012 at 09:51
College fan, source that VC is coing out of Provo?
Posted by: Shooter the Dog | 18 July 2012 at 13:02
1) BYU recently withdrew from D1A and in the withdrawal press release said they were seeking other options. This was code for we are beginning the VC. 2) BYU coach Dave Smyth attended the D1A coaches meeting held in Houston and presented his VC idea to the coaches. 3) Smyth has been the person contacting and presenting the VC opportunity to coaches around the country. 4)The press release was marked Provo. 5) Dave Smyth is the only person offering comment.
Posted by: college fan | 18 July 2012 at 14:15
Any truth to the rumor that the VC doesn't have eligibility requirements the same as USA Rugby? That would be a huge incentive for BYU to keep playing their 6th and 7th year guys.
Posted by: CollegeRugger | 18 July 2012 at 14:31
The D1A coaches relaxed those same eligibility rules in Houston. It turns out that lots of those D1A coaches want to play 6-7th year players. D-A-V-E-N-P-O-R-T.
All the rules will now be in place for D1AA and D2, with D1A doing whatever they want. Not sure what the VC will do with eligibility but AF, Navy, Dartmouth, ND and Cal have younger type teams of 4 yr students, 5 max.
Posted by: college fan | 18 July 2012 at 14:39
I hope they figured out the legal details with using the name Varsity Cup. This is the name of the South African university competition. From the marketing point of view, it is not smart to pick this name, since google search on the term "Varsity Rugby" will be about South Africa, and the South Africans already own the twitter handle and Youtube channel "varsitycup".
Posted by: FrontRow | 18 July 2012 at 16:06
It's okay FrontRow. There is no such thing as an international trademark. So unless The SA competition, for some reason, applied for a trademark in this country, they will be fine.
Posted by: College | 18 July 2012 at 16:31
Yeah, because Front Row expressed concern about an IP violation.
Perhaps you would prefer to lay to rest his concerns about marketing issues.
Posted by: Front Row Refugee | 18 July 2012 at 18:52