Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

USA Rugby

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 00:52

ogrelord wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:June internationals, or at least the ones where the NH visits the SH, already don't happen in RWC years anymore. I'm pretty sure they can work out a schedule by pushing a few dates back or forward by a few weeks. The reality is June-July is the only feasible time to have a world cup in Nth America, and if WR sees a potentially big payday they'll be willing to move things around to accommodate it.


I'm not following this. Why is North America limited to June-July exactly? And why is anyone worried about accommodating leagues? It's not as if every World Cup to date hasn't interfered with domestic leagues. They all plan for it. As an aside, the June internationals are getting switched to July soon, no later than 2020.


The reason to be worried about accommodating leagues is multi-fold. One is that these leagues either have direct or indirect impacts on the votes. In the case of Super Rugby, this impact is obvious as the unions effectively own the league. In places like England and France, that is still going to strain relations between the unions and the clubs. Moving the RWC up is also likely to impact training in the leadup to the RWC, with Tier 2 teams almost certain to be the most negatively impacted.

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 01:07

ogrelord wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:[I'm not so certain you be trolling. But it's not about accommodation, it's about cash flow. The NFL will still have its games, College Football will have its games.


Legitimately not trolling. I hadn't even really considered the NFL or College Football being an issue. Maybe that's a good point. Is the average American football fan really the target? I honestly do not know if there is a correlation between rugby fans and NFL fans. Aside from the contact the games are a very different experience. NFL games are long and drawn out commercial enterprises with constant stoppages. A rugby game is fluid and over in 90 minutes. Also the USA is filled with expats and more importantly a popular destination for travelers from abroad. I agree with Ridnell, there would be a massive influx of tourists, likely the most the game has ever seen. Perhaps the TV conflicts would be the biggest hurdle but who knows what the media landscape will look like in 10 years.


Virtually every sports fan in America is an American football fan. Asking if there is a correlation between rugby fans and American football fans in America is like asking if there's a correlation between rugby fans and hockey fans in Canada. If you are holding a RWC in the US, presumably part of that is to grow the game and to appeal to non-rugby fans. If you ignore football fans, you simply cannot accomplish that on any real level.

Football dominates the sports media from September through early February. It also creates stadium availability issues. And Strobro is absolutely right when he says it would be sharing the stage. IMO it could be substantially worse than sharing the stage. It could be largely ignored by the sports media and TV.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 01:45

I imagine a fair few NFL stadiums would be part of any US bid, and the last thing you want in a World Cup is for their to be NFL markings painted out on the pitch. A Rugby World Cup in the US needs to avoid the NFL at all costs, this is why it baffles me why the Rugby League World Cup is pressing ahead to be played in North America when the only time it can be played is right in the middle of the NFL season in 2025.

Posts: 106
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby The Captain's Run » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 04:26

October is an absolute non-starter for an American RWC. You have the NFL in full swing, college football during conference play, MLB playoffs, MLS playoffs, and the start of the NBA and NHL seasons. That's a lot of noise to try to fight through.

Moving it up one month to August/September wouldn't be all that bad. August is a relatively quiet sports month - just MLB (teams have already played 100 games at this point) and MLS (not popular enough to be a huge concern). People are bored enough in August that they'll tune in for the Little League World Series, so I think the Rugby World Cup would be able to capture some interest at this time. September isn't optimal for the knock-out stages, but you can try to navigate it with clever scheduling and hoping that curious new fans stay tuned in. Going head-to-head with the NFL is a bad idea, so schedule games for Friday and Saturday nights - which, conveniently, ends up being Saturday and Sunday afternoon in Australia and New Zealand, which I'm sure they'd appreciate. (Not completely ignoring college football here, but this is the part of the season with the most cupcake opponents and match-ups that are only regionally important - not the most impenetrable part of the season.)

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 05:17

I still say Mid June to start would be optimal. NFL preseason usually starts in second week of August judging from recent schedules, and you'd need one NFL venue to be the main host stadium for the opening match, high profile pool games, both semi finals and the final.

Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed, 25 Feb 2015, 17:54
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: USA Rugby

Postby ruckovercdn » Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 05:20

ogrelord wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:[I'm not so certain you be trolling. But it's not about accommodation, it's about cash flow. The NFL will still have its games, College Football will have its games.


Legitimately not trolling. I hadn't even really considered the NFL or College Football being an issue. Maybe that's a good point. Is the average American football fan really the target? I honestly do not know if there is a correlation between rugby fans and NFL fans. Aside from the contact the games are a very different experience. NFL games are long and drawn out commercial enterprises with constant stoppages. A rugby game is fluid and over in 90 minutes. Also the USA is filled with expats and more importantly a popular destination for travelers from abroad. I agree with Ridnell, there would be a massive influx of tourists, likely the most the game has ever seen. Perhaps the TV conflicts would be the biggest hurdle but who knows what the media landscape will look like in 10 years.


Wait are you actually Canadian? The NFL dominates sports media in both countries when it's on. Let's also consider that "the average rugby fan" fan base is minuscule, it doesn't fill 5,000 seat stadiums for regular matches. Sure they'll sell out Soldier Field for a one off with the All Blacks, but they aren't going to sell out a 30,000 person stadium for Canada Romania like England did.

Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: USA Rugby

Postby 4N » Thu, 16 Mar 2017, 15:01

New one from Tony Ridnell.

This is INSANITY.

I thought @USA Rugby was becoming 'inclusive'. That's what the Chairman told me just last week in person. Instead, it is excluding the two time defending D1 National Champions from participating (literally only because of Seattle's geography). This is total BS and just representative of the idiocy at the leadership of our game. Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings at USA Rugby. Nice job encouraging top level performance. Pathetic. Absolutely not acceptable.

I am sure this exceptional team would welcome hosting any "D1" team in the country to visit Seattle. There is a beautiful venue, it's a great city.. Every game will be a 'test'. From what I can tell they are a pretty cool group of young women.

This decision is horrible.

This is just more fuel to the fire on the 'what the hell is going on' question. From what I read of all the bullet points in the Strategic Plan, it appears to me that this decision is contra to the Plan itself. Strike 1. Less than a month.

Despite having National Championships within the past 3 years in both Men's and Women's competitions (in both 7s and XVs), apparently Seattle does not rate a mention in the 'major market' category of the plan.

I hope people with share this. 100% short sighted by the governing body.

https://www.facebook.com/tonyridnell/po ... 2961795528

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby TheStroBro » Thu, 16 Mar 2017, 16:28



Days Since our last embarrassing headline: 0.
http://www.therugbybreakdown.com/single ... I-Playoffs

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Thu, 16 Mar 2017, 22:20

Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 00:10

Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 00:41

Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Depends on location of nationals and location of the club, but I can't imagine it being less than $10k for most teams. Probably closer to $20k if you have to fly cross-country on short notice.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 03:20

Coloradoan wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Depends on location of nationals and location of the club, but I can't imagine it being less than $10k for most teams. Probably closer to $20k if you have to fly cross-country on short notice.


Yeah, that money could go a lot further if they chosr to spend it on developing the youth side of their clubs.

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 04:27

Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 05:30

TheStroBro wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.


So do Australians. But if money otherwise spent traversing the country could be better spent expanding the player base particularly at the youth level both the game and the clubs will be much healthier for it.

User avatar
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: USA Rugby

Postby ihateblazers » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 05:58

TheStroBro wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.


More like amateur social players (anywhere around the world) have massive egos and don't care about the rest of the game.

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: USA Rugby

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 08:05

Working Class Rugger wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.


So do Australians. But if money otherwise spent traversing the country could be better spent expanding the player base particularly at the youth level both the game and the clubs will be much healthier for it.


Short sighted. Championships bring in sponsors. Most likely that 10-20k will be covered be a spomsor or the players themself. If you say once you don't compete for the highest level but chicken out, your sponsors are most likely gone and you won't attract new ones.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 08:13

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.


So do Australians. But if money otherwise spent traversing the country could be better spent expanding the player base particularly at the youth level both the game and the clubs will be much healthier for it.


Short sighted. Championships bring in sponsors. Most likely that 10-20k will be covered be a spomsor or the players themself. If you say once you don't compete for the highest level but chicken out, your sponsors are most likely gone and you won't attract new ones.


These are amateur clubs. They run on the smell of an oily rag. Finding these funds put a burden on them that if they wanted to could instead be used to strengthen their clubs.

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 14:20

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:Semi-related possibly unpopular opinion: we as a country spend too many resources on national championships below the top level (my understanding is that D1 is a step down from WPL, correct if wrong). How many D2 or D3 men's teams could be building youth clubs, marketing or doing whatever else with the money they spend on traveling last minute to national championship playoff matches? Just my opinion, but I believe the non-top level of club rugby should be about regional championships with the top level for national championships. The main issue with this, of course, is that in some places top level rugby doesn't exist. But that is for USA Rugby to figure out how to create better unified structures.


How much does it cost competing at nationals? Either way, that money would be better spent on building comprehensive club programs. Those being from U6s to the 1st XV.


Americans like to compete for things.

In the Saracens case they have a DI and DII Women's side. The Saracens have one of the most extensive programs in the county and are built around the Atavus Academy which has served as the de facto GHSAA academy for some time.


So do Australians. But if money otherwise spent traversing the country could be better spent expanding the player base particularly at the youth level both the game and the clubs will be much healthier for it.


Short sighted. Championships bring in sponsors. Most likely that 10-20k will be covered be a spomsor or the players themself. If you say once you don't compete for the highest level but chicken out, your sponsors are most likely gone and you won't attract new ones.


I'm not suggesting eliminating championships. I'm suggesting eliminating national championships in lower divisions and replacing them with regional championships. And I'm only suggesting it for club rugby, not for college rugby, which is a different animal.

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 16:08

Having championships is a recruiting tool. Saying that it's about ego is completely shortsighted. I understand you could use some of those funds elsewhere, but who's to say you get those funds for the youth programs? You probably don't.

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 17:44

TheStroBro wrote:Having championships is a recruiting tool. Saying that it's about ego is completely shortsighted. I understand you could use some of those funds elsewhere, but who's to say you get those funds for the youth programs? You probably don't.


No one is suggesting eliminating championships. Regional championships are an effective recruiting tool within the region. And sorry, but D3 clubs are not recruiting serious players from outside the region.

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: USA Rugby

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 20:01

Image

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/03/16/houston-teases-major-league-rugby-plans/

Houston Strikers tease new stadium for their new team. Major League Rugby seems to be doing things well from my perspective, independent clubs so not overly relying on one person, a joint sense of responsibility for growth and owner-occupier stadiums for a few of them.

Fingers crossed for this one.

Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: USA Rugby

Postby 4N » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 20:05

Old news

The Captain's Run wrote:Here's a little something on the Strikers from this summer, related to the stadium imagery on the Twitter page: https://www.facebook.com/thisistexasrug ... 3403523915

Posts: 1691
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Coloradoan » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 20:47

Their Facebook page is new though. It's worth a follow. This image, with their explanation in the comments, is a good one, and seemingly in line with MLR's overall plan. Apparently they'll be funding the levels in blue (600 youth rugby players, 4 high school teams and a U20 team):

Image

Posts: 156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: USA Rugby

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 21:08

Knowing that the stadium will be built in sustainable phases is interesting. Because if it's through the same contractor as the Huns their costs are pretty low. The Strikers final capacity will be 11,000.

As far as pop-up, reduced cost stadiums is concerned I was driving in Tempe and have seen Arizona Rising FC's stadium come to live as I had no clue what it was when the sod went in a month ago. 6,000 capacity stadium built in under two months on the Salt River Pima Indian Community land. The USL franchise just filed for MLS expansion and if accepted will build a temperature controlled facility.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: USA Rugby

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 22:44

TheStroBro wrote:Knowing that the stadium will be built in sustainable phases is interesting. Because if it's through the same contractor as the Huns their costs are pretty low. The Strikers final capacity will be 11,000.

As far as pop-up, reduced cost stadiums is concerned I was driving in Tempe and have seen Arizona Rising FC's stadium come to live as I had no clue what it was when the sod went in a month ago. 6,000 capacity stadium built in under two months on the Salt River Pima Indian Community land. The USL franchise just filed for MLS expansion and if accepted will build a temperature controlled facility.


I looked up the company the Huns are partnered with. According to them they can knock up a 8,000 seat stadium in 90 days and at least 50% the cost of conventional construction. Which is interesting. They also have training facilities and hospitality packages.

Be interesting if the Strikers and others look to engage them. I know the Chicago Lions have plans for a 5,000 seat facility that they have costed at $11m. If this company could cut that in half then their facility could be up and running sooner than expacted as well.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], RugbyPUBtbilisi and 10 guests