« On USARFU's outsourcing | Main | Scrum trial sign of Pacific success »

25 February 2013


The problem is that USAR was involved. This (like marketing and sponsorship deals) should be sub-contracted to one of the professional agencies out there. It costs nothing and is commission based - its got to be better than Nigel's outdated Rollerdex!

I disagree that USAr had a"player export approach". This statement implies USAr had a strategy. This isn't the case.

USAr had nothing to do with Ngwenya, Wyles or Manoa getting contracts overseas. Nor did USAr have anything to do with any other player finding professional rugby work overseas. The only approach or strategy coming out of Kevin Roberts and Nigel Melville is to sell the success of others as their own.

Allow me to explain. Roberts and Melville were (still are) failing on their big promises to the US rugby community. They even oversold (read lied) to the then national team coach Scott Johnson who was making a fuss at having the wool pulled over him. So reading the tea leaves Roberts and Melville decided to change course and declare that their strategy was to place players on professional contracts overseas. There were several players who through hard work had arranged to get agents and jobs, so why not just claim that this was USAr's strategy and take the credit?

Who would be the wiser. Congress is only just awake. The membership haven't seen a union financial statement in years. Why would they care about who gets credit for a few pro's. Clearly this lot would believe anything.

Once it worked, this became the new strategy of USAr.

The youth and HS crowd had grown tired of Boulder and its dues for nothing plan. They said in mass they were starting State Based Organizations to run their game and build their sport. This was USAr job. A job they had and still are failing to accomplish. So these parents and coaches have now fueled the US youth and HS rugby to significant growth rates. What does USAr do you ask? Take credit for it of course. It was their idea from the start. USAr brass even accept an award for growing youth/HS rugby from the IRB. Wow, you can't make this stuff up.

Credit for NBC? Yep they take credit for that too. Credit for the IRB Las Vegas 7's? Yep, it was hard at first but we (USAr) have it going now. The CRC? Yep credit goes to all the USAr plans in college rugby. And btw IRB, can we have another college grant to keep doing the outstanding work we're doing on the college game.

The USAr approach or strategy is to not have one. The only strategy is a sales strategy aimed at unethically claiming authorship and credit for the good work of others, while sitting in the chairman's box and collecting CEO paychecks.

There's a USA Rugby Collegiate Questionnaire being circulated? What's that about?


A Rolodex is a rotating file device used to store business contact information (the name is a portmanteau word of rolling and index) currently manufactured by Newell Rubbermaid

College - The survey asks questions about playing seasons and field availability.

Rollerdex - rollodex, who cares. Its an outdated piece of crap, just like our CEO.

I know that 60-70% of college teams will vote to have 15's Nationals in the fall. So there is no reason why USAR shouldn't mandate it.

College survey inquirers have a look...


One per team.

For those wanting USAR out of college rugby this survey is the best thing to ever happen.

First there are more colleges in the east so they vote for xv's in the fall.

Next the schools in the west and other parts will continue to play xv's in the spring.

This creates the big divide necessary to ask the question why do we care when USAR elects to have their championship.

USAR is playing right into the hands of those wanting them out of the college game.

USAR is not going anywhere and no serious rugby union is going to be played in the US without USAR. USAR is performance challenged and they might give more authority to conferences and SBROs but USAR is the national governing body recognized by USOC and IRB. Good to see USAR reaching out to the clubs for once.

Rugby is the only college sport which is managed by the sport's NGB. Time to cross the Rubicon.

So if USA Rugby doesn't run it, who does?

And if USAR did not run college rugby who would? This fantasy that there will be some break away group is just that - a fantasy. USAR is the only group that will ever run rugby, as bad as the current USAR is. Better to improve rugby where we can in the existing system that to fantasize about some new group.

@CollegeLax If the NCAA doesn't run rugby we have to compare it to other "club sports." If we do, the answer is "yes" NGB's do administer collegiate competitions.


not so fast. See:

Club Lax = MCLA
Club Hockey = ACHA
Club Volleyball = NCVF
Club Wrestling = NCWA
Club Field Hockey = NFHL
Club Water Polo = CWPA

Check with your club sports director. They will be able to provide more information.

Macy, you are so wrong in your last comment that you lost pretty much any credibility in this conversation. And if you think USAR is necessary to run college rugby, look at NSCRO, who is sadly operating outside USAR and providing a better experience for its teams than USAR is. And that is all work being done by ONE GUY with a little bit of help here or there. To sugest that we need an NGB to run a college competition is simply not true. And frankly, that was JC's biggest mistake with the CPD/CPL/D1-A. He created it on his podcast with Brian Lowe, but then didn't want to do any of the actual work and so handed it over to USAR to run. Also allowed him to conveniently place blame on USAR for the competition's shortcomings. But while USAR was focused on the CPD, a handful of people on a USAR-created committee were busy setting up a conference structure that lends itself very nicely to self-governance out side of USAR. MCLA (Men's Club Lacrosse Association) is the perfect example-for years they were associated with US Lacrosse and then one day realized they had their own autonomous structure and simply cut ties with the NGB.

There is also NIRSA - National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. 90% of college belong and they administer national championships - basketball, flag football, tennis, soccer and a couple others. Cost ? Zip - paid for as part of University membership to organization. Ask your club sports people that probably go to the annual convention where rugby is typically discussed each year.

Not sure why any organization is needed. Absolutely know that any organization wanting to collect a million dollars in dues isn't needed. The Ivy League rugby does OK without USAr or NIRSA. The ACC and SEC rugby conferences have competitions and championships without USAr. Looks like the PAC is getting along without any help, or administration from Boulder. The Varsity Cup will run its own postseason tournament without USAr. Why does anyone think they need USAr to play college rugby.

The CPD was officially formed at the high school national championships, at Rio Tinto, late spring 2010. At this meeting the coaches and representatives of the founding teams came together and decided to go forward with a premier college competition.

At this meeting it was decided that USAR would be responsible for managing the competition. NM presented his vision that the competition could generate sponsorships and broadcast. Newly appointed college director Todd Bell was assigned by USAR to be the lead point person in selling and managing the competition.

The group of representative elected for a flat voting structure, meaning that each team received one vote on all matters. JC/Cal had one vote and so did all the other 31 teams.

Was all this a big mistake? Did the competition have merit to be sustainable? Who knows. After the first year a half dozen teams departed. After the second year another half dozen. The only two CPD champions among the departed teams.

What we now know is conferences are run independent of USAR. New competitions and new championships are being formed outside of USAR. There is a clear divide in when teams want to play XV and 7's. USAR can't win this discussion. Half the teams will pull out of the USAR championships no matter when they place them. The new eligibility rules will further make USAR the former master of USAR.

Its a brave new world and its never going back to the old system where people cared what USAR thought about.

Many competitions are run independently with some coordination with USAR. This is good as there is more accountability within each conference region. Some conferences are well run and some not so well. USAR is still collecting CIPP dues and is still involved one way or another. For most players and coaches, USAR will have little impact on their rugby lives. It is the conferences, SBROS, and GUs' that will make an impact on rugby and support and criticism should be focused on the regional level where an impact can be made.

Deal with it
"criticism should be focused on the regional level where an impact can be made."

Yet we would still allow USAR to tax our players?

You sound like one of those Taber-bots brain-washed by Nigel in Boulder and then sent out to cleanse the American game!

As a college administrator - the one thing that really burns is the insurance. Liability Insurance - If you are recognized campus org. you are covered under the University's policy - so check. Individual medical - If you are a fulltime student at the institution you have to have or else purchase the university's insurance - so check. I'm willing to pay dues to support the organization, but I'm not willing to throw money away for no reason.

I'm no supporter of USAR. USAR management is awful. The only success USAR has achieved is implementing a structure in which USAR is not accountable to their members and USAR management can not be removed no matter how poor the performance. But that happened because the USAR membership was asleep for many years and was out-witted by Melville and Roberts. Realistically there is nothing anyone is going to do to change USAR. Complaining year after year about USAR is a waste of energy better spent developing the game locally. Many will continue to complain about USAR because it makes them feel better and hat is their right but it should not be confused with real efforts made by good people to advance the game.

[JMacy does research and then hangs his head in shame]

Thanks for the correction. I guess I just struggle to see these other orgs as anything other than a different NGB.

Not all NGB's deserve the scorn that USAr does. Many NGB's are really good at their roles. Many don't charge dues to participate, they make their income where they create benefit, not from just taxing participation. Plenty of NGB's offer services like insurance, they just don't demand that you purchase it even if you don't need it.

USAr is in a class of their own.

1) Tax every college player for the right to play.
2) Tax every club for the right to participate.
3) Demand every player and club purchases insurance through their USAr dues structure, even though they may be already purchasing better quality insurance elsewhere.
4) Decide my decree USAr owns the national championships.
5) Operate poor championship events at poor, sometimes out of the way facilities.
6) Demand that teams pay 100% of their participation expense at the USAr owned event.
7) While USAr sells sponsorship to the likes of the National Guard and Emirates Airlines and pockets the money to pay for a high priced do little Boulder staff.
8) Overall student experience in participating in USAr events is poor.

No other NGB in the United States operates like USAr.

It is clear just by the suggestions listed here that there is no need for USa rugby on the college level. None. See you in Annapolis.

It is really amazing how the topic of the thread always denigrates into basically the same topic again and again. This used to be - many many moons ago - an interesting place to discuss rugby. No longer.

This one took all of one response to become yet another USA rugby bashing thread ... you guys must be a blast to hang around with.

Sad, but true. I think we all (absent the odd shill) agree on USAR's suckitude, but reading (and writing, mea culpa) the same old laments that don't add anything to the conversation gets a bit old.

Is there anything else we can do but talk about it?
Looks like NM & KR have had us all set up as fools and have circled their wagons!

Since we're totally off-topic here, the US drew New Zealand, Canada & Georgia in its pool for the RWC 7s.

Format has six pool winners and the two best runners-up advancing to the quarterfinals.


Eagles have no chance to move out of pool play. NZ will win the pool and even if they beat Canada and Georgia they will not score enough in those games to be one of the two 2 second place teams. I tip Kenya, Scotland or Wales to be one of the top 2 to move on with the 6 pool winners based on this draw.

A real victory for the Eagles would be to be able to finally beat Canada in a non-circuit tournament. Canada beat USA in the semi-finals at the Pan Am 7s and went on to win the gold beating Argentina in the final. Canada has owned the head-to-head record. Then again by the time they kick-off in late June the Eagles may be out of the IRB circuit and Canada pushing on with a top 10 ranking.

Just to get back to the original topic - it is rumored that Rocco Mauer and his brother Dominic will spend a good chunk of the spring playing for a team in Rome. Dominic graduates from Bowling Green in May and will return to play in the national championships in late April & early May.

The comments to this entry are closed.


About Comments

  • Gainline.us values readers' thoughts and wisdom. While correspondents are encouraged to use given names, aliases in combination with a valid, publicly accessible email are acceptable. Profanity will be edited and unverifiable identities unpublished. Thanks to all who write in for helping to advance our collective understanding of American rugby, as it is and could be.

Corrections & Amplifications

  • Gainline.us values accuracy and fairness. If we fall short of the goal, we promptly correct errors or oversights. Strikethroughs denote text which has been replaced. *Asterisks* denotes text added after the initial post.
My Photo