The USA 7s Collegiate Rugby Championship has 'sparked a mini-revolution', organizers claimed yesterday in announcing the June 2012 tournament's competitors.
It's fair to say the CRC's 2010 launch prompted scores of school teams to take up the abbreviated game. USARFU's national championship, which debuts next month, has accelerated the trend while creating the impetus for regional qualifying tournaments.
The CRC's unique, groundbreaking contribution may lie more in revitalizing invitational competition in American rugby.
The success of the NCAA's basketball championship has promoted the idea that inclusive knockout competition and commerce must go hand-in-hand. Not so.
Like the NCAA tournament, the primary objective of Boulder's national championships is to embrace all comers, so the competitions are seen as a 'true national title'. The purpose of the CRC, on the other hand, is to advance American International Media's sports entertainment business, notably its flagship 7s World Series tour event.
For the CRC, competitive merit is vital in order to execute the business plan, but not the overriding criterium. Certainly there are college teams who could defeat many of the CRC competitors, but 7s is difficult to predict anyway. AIM favors teams with local appeal in the Philadelphia area, the ability to sell tickets to large bases of alumni, or nationwide brand recognition that enhances the TV broadcast.
The CRC's venue, sponsor, and broadcast arrangements demonstrate the commercial side of the equation is working. Evidence the technical approach is also successful can be seen in the surplus of teams wanting to get into the 16-team pool, and in rugby fans debating who should and shouldn't be there. Exclusivity is the essence of desirable invitations.
Because the tournament is geared to appeal to the sporting mainstream, rather than tailored to the rugby community, the participant benefits for look to be strong. 'Since the [2011] CRC we have raised an additional $10,000 from alumni, landed a new apparel sponsor, and have been contacted by 90 students (including two [defensive backs] from the football team) who want to play rugby', Texas coach Jacob Liberman said in statement circulated by the CRC.
USARFU officials have suggested the marketplace was never going to respond to its new championship before seeing proof of concept. The CRC exposed that fiction two years ago, preselling the event to NBC and sundry sponsors. Instead, Boulder's burden is to demonstrate it can rally commercial interests to its universal mandate.
It is not clear there is common ground, and the trajectory of the emerging college 7s tournaments may tell us something about the division.
For many years, American senior teams staged 15s tournaments in order to schedule more games and to raise money. By the 1990s, they lost their value for various reasons, one being that tournaments rarely reached audiences beyond the local rugby and merchant communities.
Now, as college teams realign themselves as conferences, brand-name schools have new opportunities to tap into large, ready-made fan bases. It is not necessarily fair that North Carolina State, Texas, and others will enjoy this advantage over competitive but lesser-known outfits such as Kutztown and Life. But it would remiss of the Atlantic Coast or Southwest leagues not to exploit their resources. The Ivy Rugby Conference, and specifically its 7s tournament, has already proven the model.
Ultimately, rugby's commercial trajectory may be like college football, with its invitational bowl games, rather than basketball. Gridiron's championship is imperfectly inclusive but highly lucrative. Its success does not rely solely on the NCAA, just as it is folly for rugby to wait on USARFU.
Defending champion Dartmouth, Army, Penn State, and 15s power Cal head the CRC's 2012 roster. Utah, which won the 2010 title, is among those hoping to earn the final invitation at a tournament staged in conjunction with February's USA 7s.
Separately, LSU has declined its invitation to USARFU's college 7s title, Rugby Magazine reported, becoming the first outfit to turn Boulder down after Wednesday's announcement of the 24-team field. Several teams made it known in advance they would decline to participate.
2012 USA 7s Collegiate Rugby Championship
Army, Arizona, California, Dartmouth, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina State, Navy, Notre Dame, Penn State, Temple, Texas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
It is an invitational and not a championship. They should name it accordingly and not try to defraud the television audience new to the game of rugby. It is an insult to the rugby programs around the country that have built a competitive program, but don't fit the marketing plan of the organizers. It's pathetic.
Posted by: Will Not Watch or Attend | 12 November 2011 at 02:43
Blah, blah, blah...
You're pathetic, not the people spending millions trying to get a wider audience to watch our sport.
Instead of being so parochial and inbred in your mickey mouse university or trade school, try seeing it from a programs standpoint that is in the shadow of football.
Try as they might, some teams cannot ever get into a position that they will ever be able to compete with an academy side like Davenport, Life or even ASU. Academic standards, lack of facilities and time with their kids are always going to hamstring these coaches.
But if they can get on NBC at the CRC, then there is just an small chance that the AD or school might just take them as seriously as one of the smaller NCAA sports. Long shot, but just maybe.
Those 'golden spoon' schools have all the advantage and good for them I say. But do you honestly feel that having a Davenport versus Life final at the CRC is going to help promote the sport?
Posted by: College #4 | 12 November 2011 at 06:40
I have no quibble with the CRC as an invitational. Heck, they could invite any team composed of students from one college, wherever it is (like Oxford, or Cambridge, for example). What chaps my hide is the blatant use of the word "championship". I know it's a small thing to some, but not to me. Pat Clifton even went so far to say that the CRC had NEVER claimed to be a national championship. Hmmm. But then what does the second "C" in "CRC" signify? I went to the usasevens.com Web site and the promo clearly says Collegiate Rugby CHAMPIONSHIP, Philadelphia. Is it then the championship of metropolitan Philadelphia? Of the state of Pennsylvania. Of the confines of the stadium? Of what is it the championship? Inquiring minds want to know.
Just change the name to CRI and I'm happy. Such a simple word, invitational. Just say it out loud, you can do it. It won't hurt. Collegiate Rugby Invitational. From now on, that's how I'm going to refer to it, even if no one else does.
Posted by: No one of importance | 12 November 2011 at 09:41
My college side is one of the sixteen in the CRC. But I have no problem calling it an invitational. That's fair and accurate.
Posted by: East Coast | 12 November 2011 at 11:14
The production quality of UFC on Fox is infinitely better than anything that has been done for Rugby in the US.
Posted by: Sevens | 12 November 2011 at 18:08
Yea mate, I don't like the use of "championship" term in the marketing cuz we can't play for it. Doesn't seem right.
We don't mind not being able to play in this tournament, but we take offense at it being called the college championship because all the best teams aren't there.
Posted by: Go Cougars | 12 November 2011 at 20:32
Classic "Fake It Till You Make It" strategy they are taking with their collegiate sevens tourney. Try to make the match ups local and look like NCAA football rivalries is probably the right tactic now, but down the road it is a recipe for failure. Look at hockey and lacrosse and they never tried to fake it and only put the best teams in the spotlight. My guess is that the USA Rugby national championship and the LVI tourney to decide the 16th spot in the CRC will be more compelling and better athleticism than the CRC. That is reason enough to scrutinize the CRC.
Posted by: Will Not Watch or Attend | 13 November 2011 at 06:42
Everyone agrees that college players need exposure more elite level competition to improve the national player pool. While not perfect, the new USAR Sevens comp will provide better competiton than teams will find locally and it will increase exposure for the game across the country. So now we will have three national Sevens comps for college players that did not exist five years ago: CRC, LVI, and the new USAR comp. More competitions is a good thing.
Posted by: sevens | 13 November 2011 at 07:32
Lax let ND in for many years while most lax people knew it was a joke. ND and others eventually got up to standard. lax needed to get off east coast only so found a way.
Posted by: Bruce McLane | 13 November 2011 at 10:01
Put the best on TV and let the rest rise to that level. CRC is a made for TV show to fool a non rugby audience that collegiate rugby is the same big brands they recognize from football and basketball. It is a fraud.
Posted by: CrapRugbyComp = CRC | 13 November 2011 at 10:30
UFC's relauch years ago focused on athltetes who where not the best in the US or the world. As the UFC TV market grew better athelete were added. UFC is now a business worth over $2 billion with a seven year contract with Fox Sports. The CRC marketing strategy is not a fraud.
Posted by: sevens | 13 November 2011 at 11:09
The most important aspect of this post is this will all soon come to college XV's.
The best teams might rather play in a well organized invitational post season than pay their way though the USAR championship. Maybe it will be bowl games, but USAR is being passed by in the only thing they truly own, their national championships.
Posted by: it is a new day | 13 November 2011 at 11:55
@ CrapRugbyComp
There will never be TV or sponsorship interest for schools like Life, Davenport, KTown, Ark St. There isn't interest in their own backyard, much less on a regional or national basis. If these types of teams are the better teams in your competition, which they are, there is nothing to promote.
Stating that other teams need to come up to their standard might be true, but is also waving the white flag on US college rugby ever making it. Invitationals make sense. There needs to be room for both types of competitions. One type to grow the game and one to allow everybody something to play for.
Posted by: sorry | 13 November 2011 at 14:20
I like the strategy. I think they should do the same thing for collegiate 15s. Why not put University or Southern California vs. Notre Dame on NBC in a 15s match? People would watch and who gives a crap about Cal vs. BYU or St. Mary's vs. Ark State?
I mean if the NCAA had half a brain they would put a Texas vs. Oklahoma hockey match on TV instead of Minnesota Duluth vs. North Dakota. WTF? Who cares? Give me a Florida vs. Florida State match up in hockey! F-YEAH!!
Posted by: Will Not Watch or Attend | 13 November 2011 at 18:00
Yes, we couldn't possibly have anything to learn from other sports that are trying to get public attention and market share (and have succeeded to some extent).
Geez, you sound as ridiculous as some PETA or ALF member who claims that humans have nothing in common with cats and mice and thus testing on these animals should have nothing to do with the drug discovery process.
Posted by: Marketing Matters | 13 November 2011 at 18:34
Mr. Will not watch or attend
Don't let the door slam you in the a$$ on your way out, now will yer?
Your empty seat in Philly will be missed.
Best stay at home watch re-runs of the Waltons or something!
Posted by: College #4 | 13 November 2011 at 20:58
Hey "Will Not",
Not a bad idea. USC v ND!
However you mistakenly made the counterpoint when mentioning Cal v BYU. This match sells out whenever it is played. The 12,000 fans last year would have been there even if it wasn't a national championship. These are two good teams, that are well branded with large a following.
So the question becomes if Ohio State decides to play Arizona in a bowl game is this a better experience than playing in the USAR post season? Maybe. This holds true for all the brand name schools.
An 8 team invitational might be far more attractive than the USAR premier post season.
Posted by: will be there | 14 November 2011 at 12:26
Off topic but...
Anyone know what happened to http://www.americanrugbynews.com
The site has been taken over by a make-up site!
Posted by: lv_rugger | 14 November 2011 at 13:46
The poorly branded teams, Life being the poster child, need the better branded teams more than the other way around. The reason ASU protested not being allowed in the SEC was because playing big named schools is what they need for validation. It isn't the competition, it is the fact ASU is playing against Tennessee. The problem is this validation doesn't work in reverse for the big name school.
Posted by: interesting story | 14 November 2011 at 14:42
Big name school + mediocre rugby = success?
You guys are idiots.
Posted by: CrapRugbyComp = CRC | 14 November 2011 at 15:41
Rugby will benefit from both the new USAR comp and CRC.
College basketball's NIT invites teams based on strength of TV audience, not rankings or league standing. NIT succeeds with big name schools who are not top ranked (aka mediocre).
The NCAA basketball tournament in March is mostly a play-in structure but also involves all sorts of subjective invitations based on polls and other inputs.
College Football does not have a national playoff and relies an invitation structure based on polls and other inputs.
So maybe there is something to be said for the made-for-TV approach.
Posted by: sevens | 14 November 2011 at 18:23
Compare collegiate rugby to basketball and football all you want, but those arguements don't hold up. Apples and oranges.
Posted by: CrapRugbyComp = CRC | 14 November 2011 at 22:03
@will be there
The 8 team invitational championship would be a great idea. Maybe someone should float this idea to USA7s LLC. They have the connections and business structures to be able to mange something like this.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 15 November 2011 at 00:05
@lv rugger
Its administrator started another site and left it to die. He's started another about Rugby League where he continually derides Rugby.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 15 November 2011 at 00:07
I can understand having a couple teams that are local to sell tickets (Delaware, Temple, Penn State) and I can understand having a couple teams in for brand name (Texas, NBC's baby Notre Dame), but Mr. Goff please don't act like you did last year on your show as if the only thing constraining teams from playing in Philadelphia is they're not willing to blow a significant amount of their annual rugby team budget to go play a 2-day tournament in Las Vegas when only the winner gets anything out of it. It's greatly insulting to the national rugby community, especially schools east of the Mississippi River. It's not like rugby is a rich sport here, it's incredibly cash-poor. And these are schoolkids traveling to play, they're not adults with jobs like exists at senior club level.
There is a minimum standard of level of play that should be expected in order for it to be a TV-quality product, that's why I'll bet any amount of money that Cal plays every year, because the organizers know they have to if they wish to be taken seriously. (I thought Utah was one of those types of teams although I guess I was wrong.) Although I really don't get the logic of inviting a nothing school both in terms of rugby and in terms of fanbase and is not close to Philadelphia like Boston College was last year.
All that said, I hope Life wins in Las Vegas and then wins in Philadelphia to piss off the organizers. :D
Posted by: FR | 17 November 2011 at 12:50
"The poorly branded teams, Life being the poster child, need the better branded teams more than the other way around."
Life doesn't need anyone. From what I understand the Life rugby community provides plenty of money to the rugby program and it covers their costs, provides a good field, the players have scholarships, they recruit the best rugby players from Atlanta and Charlotte, etc. Not the case for the rugby program at the University of Georgia in contrast.
Posted by: FR | 17 November 2011 at 12:57