The USA 7s team nabbed a bronze medal at the Pan American Games, while I bungled describing the competition's format.
Zach Test's game-ending try lifted the Eagles to a 21-17 victory over Uruguay, as the US finished an uneven weekend 2-2-1. The win paves the way for USARFU to receive additional US Olympic Committee funding.
Based on an International Rugby Board release, my pre-tournament analysis emphasized the Eagles' youth and inexperience and wrongly pointed to Sunday's semifinals as resulting from Saturday's pool play.
On the one hand, one could argue that overnight reseedings leading to a quarterfinal round allow for greater margin of error -- which the Eagles needed after Saturday's unexpected tie with Brazil. On the other hand, a close loss in the semis indeed proved the catalyst for a fraught bronze medal match.
Having taken a 7-0 lead over the Teros, Al Caravelli's troops were outscored 17-7 and trailed by 3 with less than 2 minutes to go. A Test lineout win led to the 22-year-old's tournament-saving scoring run. The last-minute result contrasted with the previous match against Canada, which saw captain Roland Suniula score with a minute to go, only for the US to concede a converted try on the final play.
Watching the tense conclusion of America's World Cup match against Russia, I observed to a colleague that 'the Bears are the new Uruguay'. Here again, maybe I spoke too soon. While in past years the Teros have often narrowed 15s games the Eagles should have easily won into uncomfortably close affairs, it seems the overachieving Uruguayans have not lost the ability to make things difficult.
It is interesting to note that Maka Unufe, at 20 years of age this weekend's youngest 7s Eagle, will be older by the time of the 2016 Summer Olympics than the team's average age in Guadalajara, Mexico. More important, although there has been rather more pressure on the youngish 7s team, its selections have been more aggressive than those of the test squad, and there has been nary a discussion of pathways, just scouts with clipboards.
PS: Before I left for the weekend, Howard Kent tried to point out my error, and since I had limited connectivity, I for one appreciate his match updates. Thanks!
Pan American Games 7s
v Chile 14-7
v Brazil 19-19
v Canada 21-29
Quarterfinal: v Guyana 24-12
Semifinal: v Canada 19-21
Bronze medal: v Uruguay 21-17
Mark Bokhoven (Denver Barbarians), Colin Hawley (Olympic Club), Rocco Mauer (Chicago Lions), Folau Niua (San Francisco Golden Gate), Milemoti Pulu (San Francisco Golden Gate), Nu'u Punimata (Old Puget Sound Beach), Blaine Scully (Univ. of California), Roland Suniula (Boston), Shalom Suniula (captain, Belmont Shore), Zack Test (undeclared), Peter Tiberio (Univ. of Arizona), Maka Unufe (Utah Warriors)
Russia is not the new Uruguay, Russia is the new Romania.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 31 October 2011 at 19:05
Or maybe Georgia is the new Romania and Russia is the new Georgia.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 31 October 2011 at 19:41
Rugby has been declared the national sport in Georgia and the government is going to pour funds into the game. Wealthy Russian oligarchs are funding pro rugby in Russia and the government is putting the game in schools throughout the country now that it is an Olympic sport. Not sure what is going on it Romania, but if the USA doesn't get their act together the Eastern Europeans will be routinely crushing us in rugby.
Posted by: Red Rugby | 31 October 2011 at 20:42
Rugby in Romania is actually kind of a sad story. At one point, they were clearly the 6th best team in Europe. They could occasionally beat 5 Nations teams and on their day could hang with anyone. They, along with Argentina, were definitely the best out of the big 8 "foundation" countries. But two things did them in.
First, they had the great misfortune of being good when rugby was a much more insular game. France played them a lot, but there was no way the powers that be (the powers that were?) would have expanded the 5 Nations to include them...which is a shame, because that would have given them the foothold they needed to really improve.
Second, it was favored by the Ceaucescu government, which was kind of an incredible relationship between a communist government and a non-Olympic sport, but then he was always kind of an oddball by communist dictator standards. But after their revolution, there was less support and a lot less money - particularly because it really hurt the crypto-professional teams run by the Army and the Securitate. The post-revolution turmoil and economic devastation really put rugby out in the cold.
Since then, they have been in a slow decline in both participation, interest, and international results. Exporting professionals has kept them (barely) in the game. But they were passed up by Italy, who had the good fortune to get good during a more inclusive era. Then they were passed by Georgia, one of the great success stories of modern rugby, and now by Russia. During the last FIRA D1 championship (essentially a 6 Nations B, though it was a double round-robin with relegation), an event in which first place was a formality until not very long ago, Romania finished third and had to qualify for the RWC through the "repechage", which meant beating Tunisia and Uruguay. And they faced a real possibility of dropping all the way to fourth place (behind Portugal).
They continue to hang on mainly through inertia and relative ease in their top players playing professionally elsewhere in Europe, but eventually (2015 or 2019) they will fail to qualify for a RWC, and that will be all she wrote.
So hey, there's a lot to complain about in USA Rugby, but of the teams who participated in the first RWC, we've got a brighter future than at least two of them!
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 01 November 2011 at 08:17
Sorry for such a long, off-topic comment. I guess if a lot of people think that "Rugby in America, the way it is and could be" has no room for rugby league, then it definitely has no room for a treatise on the decline of Romanian rugby.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 01 November 2011 at 15:41
To improve US rugby we must understand what has worked and has not worked in union and league in other countries. To think that all solutions to improve US rugby will be home grown and unique to the US is foolish.
Posted by: sevens | 01 November 2011 at 16:02
The info on Romanian rugby was interesting. Most discussions tend to veer off topic at some point or another and at least what you had to say was interesting and informative...
With regards to the moles that are trying to bring league into the discussion - head on over to WeAreRugby and enjoy yourself. Nobody is stopping you but this is barren terreritory for league ...
Posted by: I played drek rugby - and loved it | 01 November 2011 at 17:25
@ rwc thanks for the history lesson it was very informative and impressive. Seriously good stuff
Posted by: pacific nations cup | 01 November 2011 at 17:40
I loved the Romanian rugby history stuff. It is very interesting to learn how the fortunes of some national sides have greatly waxed and waned over time. For example, did you know that the German national rugby union side played the French national side a few times every year in the 1920s and 1930s. The Germans won more than a few of those matches and were generally competitive at the least. Then, as now, France was one of the top sides in the world. Germany's rugby decline came about for obvious reasons. Now they probably could not stay within a hundred points of France, despite the fact that Germany is experiencing a bit of a rugby revival itself.
Posted by: East Coast | 01 November 2011 at 18:10
http://www.gainline.us/.a/6a00d8341c0c1253ef01543633806c970c-pi
This chart Kurt posted in an earlier article is worth revisiting while on this subject. Talking about countries on decline is interesting, but no one has mentioned the big red juggernaut in the top left.
As the bishop said to the actress, its not the size that counts! The real interesting fact is that of that massive playing number, only 6.5% of them senior males.
If the RFU were to really get their act together and stop being a bunch of in-fighting idiots, England will be unstoppable in the future. The youth game is the life blood of any club, team or country.
We won an award for Rookie Rugby - thats where ALL our resources and energy should go.
Posted by: Jack's back | 02 November 2011 at 06:24
I happen to agree with your "Children are the future" opinion, but a counter-argument to it is that this is presumably not a new thing for England to have the Senior Male proportion to be so low. And yet, they have been outdone in the RWC by countries whose SM percentages are 17.3, 19.8, and 43.2. And their performance relative to other European teams (both in and out the World Cup) is quite poor relative to their total population, playing population, and SM playing population, suggesting that a tremendous number of youth players is not in itself a panacea. That the countries with the 1st, 3rd, and 7th highest proportion of SM players all finished in the top 4 of this RWC, and just eyeballing these percentages and considering historical results, it appears that there is essentially no correlation between national team performance and youth participation rates.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 02 November 2011 at 09:06
Thats the point, if only the RFU fully utilized what they have, England would world beaters over a longer period of time. There are bigger issues like immediate performance - there is too much expectation on instant results which makes a coach not look at the youth because he's fearful of his job! The only time they got it right they won the RWC.
There is no correalation right now between results and that percentage, but there should be.
Posted by: Jack's back | 02 November 2011 at 10:51
Perhaps a correlation between the numbers of youth playing baseball, football and basketball in the US and the success of these sports in the US?
Posted by: Mark Mowery | 02 November 2011 at 10:56
Sorry to drive the conversation off a cliff but how about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2055856/London-Irish-play-Heineken-Cup-game-America.html
Posted by: PeteM | 02 November 2011 at 12:19
The US has more youth soccer players than any country in the world yet the National Team is currently ranked #34 in the world. A base of youth players is important but there must be high performace pipeline that gets players from the entry level to the elite level. Colleges are a key part of the HP pipleline but top players still need somewhere to play after college to prepare for international competition. Currently European pro-leagues are the best place for elite players to develop. Foreign amateur clubs are the next best option. RSL does not provide the needed level of competition to make an impact at the international level. At best RSL is the minor leagues for the better foreign clubs to draw from.
Posted by: sevens | 02 November 2011 at 13:13
I'd be more inclined to agree that this indicates that England is missing an opportunity if there were otherwise a decent correlation and England's performance was an outlier.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 02 November 2011 at 13:36
Brian Lowe http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/34680/time-for-elway-to-think-post-tebow)
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 02 November 2011 at 14:43
Damn, that totally didn't work:
Brian Lowe < Tebow
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 02 November 2011 at 14:44
Competition, time on the job, selections, deep player pool, good coaching, hp environment, referees all have equal billing in how a country plays at the top level. Playing style, weather and other factors come into the equation as well.
Questions for people are how fast or when do we want a competitive let alone winning national team in 15's and 7's? We need to look at countries like Australia and Jamaica in the Olympics and figure out that they bat above their weight. NZ does as well, but are a country in rugby who lives and breaths the spot.
If you have 40K kids who can't make their varsity football, soccer, or basketball playing rugby (yes this is shifting a bit) let alone almost zero opportunity for them to get better in college (lack of coach developmental program means lots of shitty practices) we can make that 100K.
Making it 100K will be like the Army sending 1m applications to infantry soldiers, 10% becoming Rangers and 1% becoming special forces. You can do it through numbers alone to a point, but if we did not have the best training and weapons we would be struggling.
Too many analogies to pick apart the numbers alone comment.
Posted by: Corrolation | 02 November 2011 at 15:00
Sevens, you continually rip the RSL, NYAC and several other clubs have had overseas pros and overseas amateurs who were quite impressed with the level of competition and they really enjoyed it. It is by no means perfect, but it is free since USA Rugby gives it ZERO money and support. Given that, it's pretty good, not many nations have a comp with ZERO support.
Maybe you played and coached RSL and have perspective, but it doesn't sound like it. It just seems like rip, rip, rip. Often you say good things, just remember RSL guys and former RSL guys coach a lot of youth, HS, college, and club rugby.
They aren't the only ones but they are in it heavily, so ease up a bit.
I'm sure you are dedicated and believe you are local to NYC in a club that is very active and helpful and a strong member of our union, but certainly not in a position to throw stones.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 02 November 2011 at 16:08
Not meaning to throw stones. I know that RSL administrators, coaches, and players are among the most dedicated in the US. My point is that an all-star RSL team would not be very be competitive internationally. US players need access to better competition. RSL is a good start but only a stepping stone. A US based pro competition in 15s is unlikely any time soon. The best pathway for Eagles is RSL to pro-leagues abroad and then to the Eagles.
Posted by: sevens | 02 November 2011 at 19:03
The standard is not the issue for the RSL, it's not being able to play a 16 or so league match schedule is the problem. It's the chicken egg situation with building a product, attracting revenue from fans and sponsors.
Posted by: Craig | 02 November 2011 at 19:59
More games are key but there are 20 competitions abroad, listed below, that are more competitive than RSL. Until US players have greater access to these or equivalent comps, the Eagles will struggle to improve.
Tri-Nations
Six Nations
Super XV
Heineken Cup
ITM Premiership
Aviva Premiership
Top 14
Magners League
Currie Cup Premier
Super 10
Currie Cup First
Vodacom Cup
ITM Cup
Shute Shield
Amlin Challenge Cup
Top League
Colin Caird Shield Shield
CDI Premiere League
Henderson Shield
Mazda Australian Rugby Championship
Posted by: sevens | 02 November 2011 at 20:45
@sevens
The Australian Rugby Championship lasted only one season so you should remove that from your list. However, I would add the Championship (2nd Tier of English Rugby, ProD2 (2nd Tier French Rugby), Hospitals Cup (Brisbane Grade Rugby) the the All Ireland League (AIL) to that list. Could even argue that as a whole in terms of home grown leagues you could also add the Russian Professional Rugby League.
Regardless of the current quality that may exist in the RSL it simply doesn't provide 1)Enough quality high level games. And 2) In its current form it simply isn't a marketable product meaning as a competition commercially i is only able to move sideways rather than forward.
A new structure is needed. One that concentrates talent as well as at the same time provides a more marketable product. USAR are moving both the College and High School competition and Championship structures to more familiar competitive setups within the US sporting landscape. If you look at any Pro or even high level Semi-Pro competition in the US they are franchise clubs unifying a city or region. Rugby needs to continue this movement.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 02 November 2011 at 21:53
WCR and Sevens
I would also add the English level 3 and 4 league competitions as being better than the RSL. A majority of teams in these leagues would beat most RSL sides. And I guarantee that no RSL team would beat Hartpury College or Richmond which are level 4 right now. Some English teams even at level 5 are part-time professionals on win bonuses.
Posted by: Wurzel | 03 November 2011 at 06:03
so these same english guys that aren't good enough to play 1st side in RSL can now beat us consistently.
the argentine championship is better as well. that all said, its a miracle that the USA even stays in games
macdonald, biller, pittman, van der geisen, stanfill, clever, johnson, petri, malifa, suniula, suniula, emerick, wyles, swiryn all have played in the RSL (i'm sure there are others, but this is off the top of my head)
richmond had quite a few players in RSL who found ways to consistently lose and underperform (they all played together for the same team as well). teams in RSL routinely lose with premiership, robodirect, shute shield, ITM, etc. players all the time.
it is better than many think, there are massive disparities, but all comps have that and it goes in cycles.
as i said, it isn't perfect and there are holes for certain, but there is ZERO support. No other country can say that.
what USA players need is access, it would hbe great if teams outside the top 8 in the world could play in pro comps overseas as locals. this would give them merit based access to the competitions and we'd have a chance at more people playing. that to me is key.
the other key is to get old boys teams to start doing youth rugby clinics and events instead of playing games. that is what helps grow the game and develop future stars.
Posted by: bruce mclane | 03 November 2011 at 06:30
How many serious men's lacrosse clubs are out there? how many soccer and football men's clubs? How many baseball and wrestling and basketball men's clubs are out there? I am talking clubs where they have infrastructure and multiple practices/week and travel around the country on their own or old boys' dime to play other clubs?
I'd say there aren't many. Beneath the pro versions of these sports in the US is not an entire club system like we have for rugby. It is mostly rec leagues. Guys playing, just playing, once a week with a few, but certainly not weekly, practices to get their teams in order.
These sports are our competition. When their college athletes are done playing in college they dont begin 10+ year club careers. Most of them stop playing and there are many more of them available as a percentage to coach youth/hs/college than there are in rugby. That's my guess. We have thousands of guys playing for clubs like they are still in college. Practicing 2-4 nights a week with no shot of ever making the national team or any other elite level.
And who do we have coaching youth/HS/college? Old men who played in the 70s and 80s who never changed with the game. We dont have young guys going back to their high schools where they played football/lax to try and start rugby teams. We dont have young guys on coaching staffs teaching the modern game. The US coaching ranks are filled with dinosaurs. And the best coaching prospects we have are playing club rugby as they try to hold onto the experience they had in college. Guess what guys? It's over. It's time to give back to the game.
The best system we could have right now to move the sport forward is 2 top levels of rugby, RSL and D1, that develops our elite talent and the rest folding into recreational leagues. rec leagues with much less organization, no national championships, no multiple practices/week. Instead the clubs would play what amounts to loosely organized pick-up games and focus resources on building youth touch competitions and starting and coaching area HS programs.
Posted by: college | 03 November 2011 at 07:05
Agree that in Senior rugby there should only be national championships for RSL and D1. USA Rugby has limited resources and should not be concerned with running a national comp for D2 and D3 at the Senior level. If D2 and D3 teams want to play for a national championship, they should win promotion to D1 and go from here. Ideally RSL and D1 clubs will work together to develop talent in the local D2 and D3 clubs through camps/clinics along with supporting the youth, HS, and college for the good of rugby in their region. Camps/clincis can be run at a profit similar to tournaments and can help to offset RSL and D1 travel costs.
Posted by: sevens | 03 November 2011 at 09:50
College,
Your last paragraph speaks volumes. As someone who came to rugby later in life, I was surprised (and still am) at the level of committment and organization for what is recreation. I'm not against it, just surprised at the allocation of resources. It shows how much everyone cares about this great game and I respect that.
However, would anyone be worse off if D2 or D3 teams were combined into one division, only practiced once a week, didn't play nearly year round, nor had to chase costly championships? Not really. Everyone would still have just as much fun and there are always plenty of big tournaments to get your fix of different teams.
If a team has higher aspirations, then by all means they should chase that goal and put in the effort to reach D1, but I'm willing to bet 90% of the D2 and D3 teams in the USA are perfectly happy where they are.
A more simplified adult level competition structure, that has a decreased level of committment, would open up a host of players and administrators to focus on youth and high school rugby.
Posted by: Brain Freeze | 03 November 2011 at 09:53
I cant begrudge people doing what makes them happy. I know guys in D2 and D3 rugby who take the game seriously and their clubs' success seriously, but as you said it is a terrible allocation of a rugby community's resources. Lacrosse college grads are starting youth programs, camps, and entering the youth/hs coaching ranks in general. Our college grads are focused on what club they are going to play for. That enthusiasm to continue playing is the exact same enthusiasm that fuels people going into coaching. The people who aren't looking to play rugby after college probably aren't trying to coach either. At least that is what I have seen. So the seriousness of lower division club rugby is cannibalizing our potential coaching ranks.
How do you change it? I've no idea. Whatever division, these clubs take themselves very seriously. They have Old Boys and old rivalries and are entrenched in setting the "get to nationals" goal or whatever other goal clubs set. I agree that these clubs wouldn't mind so much if nationals were taken away from D2/D3. They are largely out there to have fun. But since nationals do exist, then it is natural to work to compete for it.
You have seen the same thing for high schools and colleges who have no shot at actually winning the national championship (not to mention it doesnt exist in other HS sports), but since it is there, they feel compelled to compete, and spend resources, on trying to qualify for it. Thank god HS nationals is waning and will only exist pretty much for only those clubs who have built their entire program around winning it like Xavier, Gonzaga, Highland, etc. (if there wasnt nationals, what would those teams compete for? Is there even a NY, UT, VA State championship?)
Does USAR benefit from there being D2/D3 men's nationals? I know they dont pay for $hi# at them, but do they take in any money? Tshirt sales? If not, then I think it makes strategic sense to cancel them as well as limit the number of teams allowed in D1 so we dont have all the lower teams move up. This would help migrate the better players to D1 or RSL, assuming they want to play for a national ch., and allow those lower div clubs to turn to other club goals like growing youth rugby.
Posted by: college | 03 November 2011 at 10:27
Agree with you guys on not having a national championship for D2 and D3 for Sr Men's Competition. If guys want to compete for a championship then they should join a D1 Club.
The Pittsburgh area is the ultimate sample of what we should NOT want to have happen. Pittsburgh has a D1, D2 and (2)-D3 clubs and only the D1 club (Harlequins) do anything when it comes to promoting the game to the youth. Pitt City (D2) is too worried about their damn bar, And South Pitt runs one high school club to my knowledge, which I guess is better than nothing. the other D3 club isnt even worth mentioning. The local union (Allegheny Rugby Union) has been bastardized by Pitt City guys for years. From their LAU website that hasnt had a standings update since 2009, to their first objective in their constitution that stats "To encourage and promote the development and growth of rugby among youth, high schools, colleges, and clubs in the Allegheny Rugby Union area". yet they have no where for an interested high school or youth player to sign up for a local team.
They "claim" that they have 2 high school teams in the ARU. One is a U19 team form Erie and the other is in West Virginia. They, as a Union haven't added one single high school team since the Quins (Who are MARFU) started to develop their youth and high school programs. I haven't heard of one Rookie Rugby program taking place in the area. That union and those lower level clubs in Pittsburgh have been an absolute joke to the game for the past 20 years. They do NOTHING to promote youth rugby. Its a wasteland of yinzers trying to hold on to their drinking game.
And because of their utter lack of competency in regards to "developing and growing youth and high rugby" their local colleges have suffered and they've been sandbagging in D2 for the past 15 years.
Maybe if USAR took away Championships from the lower level rugby clubs, then maybe what "College" and "Brain Freeze" would come to fruition and we'd see these parasites starting to help more with the development of the game and we'd see less situations like whats going on the the Burgh.
And before people tell me to stop complaining and do something about it, I unfortunately moved from the area after college. I help with youth where I live now, and Im active with my alumni group. So I'm trying to do my part. I just get so sick of those bastards in the ARU, and this seemed like a nice place to tell them to go F#@% themselves.
Posted by: MattD | 03 November 2011 at 10:27
Having worked with USAR hostig National Championships I know that USAR makes no money from National Chmapionships. Host clubs typically lose money. Running a D1 Championship on a single field rather than on the three fields required for D1/2/3 would make the Championship more suitable for stadiums, large or small.
An ideal structure for club rugby would be fewer clubs with more sides, as is the case in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere where some clubs have 8 or more sides. We need more clubs that have D1, D2, D3, Sevens,and youth programs under one roof. These same clubs could support/partner local college and high school teams. This provides a needed crtical mass for financial stability, sponsorship and coach and player development. Merging clubs in to Super Clubs would be great but not sure how to get there.
Posted by: sevens | 03 November 2011 at 10:46
Good luck with merging clubs. Most Old Boys would rather die before they see their clubs come together.
Again I'll go back to Pittsburgh with my reference. There were talks of merging the Quins and Pitt City a few years back. From my understanding they actually sat down and tried to hammer out a deal. They were going to keep the Quins as the nickname, but change their colors to Black and Yellow... seemed fair right?... Well then things feel apart when Pitt City suggested that the Quins sell Founders Field and try to buy land closer to the City. For whatever reason they thought the Quins would go along with this inane idea.. The Quins would have given up their colors, but never their field. And it was Pitt City Old Boys who were stuck on this point. Talks abruptly ended and there hasn't been talks on a merger ever since, and probably never will be.
I LOVE the idea, but until the old boys who founded those clubs die off... it will never happen.
Posted by: MattD | 03 November 2011 at 10:58
As a college coach, unless my graduating players have the ability to play at the RSL or D1 level, I tell them to hang up the boots and pick up a whitsle and either coach or ref. They can dust off the boots 2 or 3 times a year for the alumni game and some fun 7s tournaments. I strongly discourage anyone from going to play for a D3 and to a lesser extent a D2 men's club for all the reasons posited above. I played for a D3 men's club after college because that's the only thing there was in my area. And all I did during that time was perpetuate all the bad rugby stereotypes and probably decrease my life expectancy by a decade or so. I will say, however, that the big thing that my D3 club cared about (after drinking, that is) was winning our league championship. 95% of the team had no idea there was even anything beyond that. We certainly did not need a national championship in order to enjoy our experience. So yeah, get rid of a national championship for D2 and D3. If you are a good D2 or D3 player, become a good high school coach or a good ref.
Or if you really want to keep playing competetively, then go play D1. My hope is that we will start to see more kids making this transition after college because by the time they have graduated they will have played 8+ years of high school and college rugby and they will be ready to move on. I only was exposed to the game in college, so I wanted to play more rugby after I graduated. Meanwhile, I had had my fill of soccer by the time I was 18...
Posted by: college coach | 03 November 2011 at 11:15
"Hang up the boots and pick up a whitsle"
This should be USAR's slogan to most of its members.
Posted by: MattD | 03 November 2011 at 11:21
What is the marginal cost to USAR to include lower divisions in the championship? It has to be a lot less than those clubs pay in CIPP. If those clubs contribute to the system (and they do - quite a bit more than the D1 clubs), then there's nothing wrong with USA Rugby giving them what they want.
Southern California is wrestling with the idea of secession. How much more likely would that be if USA Rugby were to say to the lower division clubs "We'll keep taking your money, but get rid of one of the few things we actually do for you"?
The "ideal" club structure of fewer clubs with more sides would be a disaster. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of clubs with lots of sides at every level of competition. Santa Monica, which competes in D1, D3, D4, Women, and runs two youth programs (each having boys and girls at lots of age groups) is a wonderful thing. But having a lot of unique clubs also does a lot of good. Despite the experience in Pittsburgh, there are plenty of lower division clubs (some of them newly created themselves) out there supplying refs, creating youth programs and growing the game. I think proliferation is a lot more valuable in the long run than simply concentrating talent and resources. Much better for each club to grow and new clubs to continue to emerge than to simply eliminate clubs and thus not have rugby be present in various locales. There's no good reason why Santa Monica's neighboring clubs like Lawndale, LA Rugby Club, South Bay, Long Beach and Belmont Shore can't each organically create something similar. And that's a lot more useful than all of them creating something similar simply by merging.
And the idea that your average nobody club player should hang up his boots and "give back to the game" is absurd. One of my least favorite things about our society is this idea that only the best should participate, and everyone else should get out of the way and watch. It certainly applies to team sports (rugby being an exception), as well as many other things. We are poorer as a culture as a result. What's more, we are such an immature sport in terms of cultural proliferation that we should welcome ANY participation. Your vision might get some number of ex-college mediocrities to contribute more to the youth game. It also pretty much cuts off from the game anyone who wasn't lucky enough to have discovered the sport before finishing college. And I don't know how many times I've seen it where an unlikely player joins a club and brings totally unforeseeable second and third order benefits. That out-of-shape 35 year old b-side reserve who has never played before might be best friends with a terrific potential sponsor - or his newborn nephew might grow up to be a great Eagles lock. But you'd never know because you'd exclude him from participation altogether, never giving him the chance to fall in love with and spread the word about the game.
At this point, we need to fling the gates open as wide as we can. Yes, we need to improve out pathways and find a way to bridge the gap between high level club rugby and international rugby. But the idea that the lower levels of rugby are the ones responsible for holding that back is absurd.
Posted by: RWC 2051 | 03 November 2011 at 11:41
I don't think that all lower level rugby clubs are holding USAR back, just the ones in Pittsburgh. HA!
Seriously though, in my opinion, it would be better for places like Pittsburgh to have all local Pittsburgh clubs coming together under one umbrella in my opinion.
And if they are all paying CIPP dues under one team name they wouldn't have to worry about defection. The top players and teams would compete at RSL or D1 levels with Championships and the lesser talents would play D3 LOCAL rugby for their conference title. The better players move up, the old boys can still play OR they can hopefully "pick up a whistle" and I still think the 35 year old guys can still stumble into rugby, and I'd say they'd have a greater chance to do so, with a bigger club presence.
All that club dues, sponsorship contacts, manpower ...etc. going into one pot could be stretched twice as far as the 4 of them by themselves. Plus if you have a bigger club with 3 or 4 sides, you have more power when potential sponsors say "what's in it for me to put my logo on your jersey" ...hundreds of Old Boy connections and hopefully hundreds of new high school and youth kids. I just think there is such a great benefit to merging (SOME) Sr Mens clubs. I'm sure it wouldn't be the same in every location.
Posted by: MattD | 03 November 2011 at 12:01
USAR provides a national championship for 16 D2 teams and 16 D3 teams. Less than 10 percent of cipp players get any benefit. I agree we want more number in the game but USAR should provide camps/clinics and other development resources to the D2 and D3 clubs rather than a meaningless national championship. D2/3 clubs should spend their money on development not travel. As they improve they can win promotion to D1 and then compete for a national championship.
Posted by: Sevens | 03 November 2011 at 12:09
@RWC2050 Like I said,I dont think they should stop playing altogether. I just think it should be less serious. It should be recreational like most post-college, non-professional sports in the US.
As far as weighing pros and cons, I would take the scenario that takes the majority of recent college rugby players entering the coaching/reffing ranks and just playing pick-up rugby whenever over the status quo. Yes you'll lose so rare as to be mythical 35-yr old rookie who brings in sponsors, but you will have thousands upon thousands of recent players looking to start hundreds and hundreds of high school programs or shore up those programs in need of help and modern rugby knowledge. In that world, we would build a gigantic base of youth players which will have much more probability of getting supporters/sponsors like you were saying.
There's room somewhere in the middle for a successful growth model. And I am sure USAR can find a better way to make D2/D3 cipp money worth its while for those sectors. Not that that point is really valid since USAR doesnt spend any money on the national championships.
Posted by: college | 03 November 2011 at 14:20
The huge sucking sound you hear every year is the sound of DII/DIII Clubs spending hard earned money to go on to these silly National Championships. Instead of saving their money and building a consistent Program, saving for an actual Rugby Field, or better field/practice equipment they chase the elusive dream. Just ask the the Clubs that have gone on to these things what it actually costs in Travel costs to go to the National Championships-all three dates-quarters, semi's and finals. In addition, the establishment of different Clubs in small markets or fragmentation of Clubs into lower divisons in large markets does not produce better Rugby players, just look at Tucson and Phoenix.
Posted by: Army Rugger | 04 November 2011 at 08:29
Our club estimated the spending for regional playoffs using ground transportation to be about $8,000. Flying to the Final Four could result in as much as $20,000 of spending per team. The D2 and D3 teams likley spend about $400k each year to crown a National Champion in what is effectivly the fourth and fifth grade comps (behind RSL, D1, and College D1-A). The money would be better spent locally building infrastrucutre, improving coaching resources, and preparing for D1.
Posted by: sevens | 06 November 2011 at 07:40