NFL knows US professional rugby union could be a very good deal indeed (MLS mentions/comparisons)

Someone forgot to tell Robertson and Clements that
1) MLS is steadily growing as a league in this country
2) That virtually all the modern era sports leagues that started big out of the gate in the US no longer exist or are going to be out of business before any real growth.

 

If soccer fans are a niche audience in the US, what are rugby fans? Is there a huge immigrant population of Kiwis longing for local rugby?

 

Know what would be better that pro rugby union?

Rugby league!

But to really get Americans to watch they need to tweak it a little. Maybe allow tossing the ball forward? And allow contact off the ball, that would be awesome!

Of course, if they do that the players should probably wear pads and maybe a helmet. It would also be cool if they put more lines on the field so you could see exactly where the ball is on the field.

Oh Yeah! Now I'm ready for rugby!

 

Club matches in Rugby Union in large stadiums is not the norm except in maybe South Africa. I watch enough Super 15 and Heineken Cup and other rugby union competitions to think that going into NFL stadiums would be a bad idea from a financial and TV viewing perspective. MLS stadia are perfect for rugby and they already have hosted many rugby matches. If the game grows, then they will be in NFL stadiums.

 

"The vision: think big, start big. Robertson and Clements believe that the prudent, slow start made by MLS since its formation in 1996 has doomed soccer to limited growth and appeal in the US. They feel that Americans will only embrace a new competition if it is high-grade right from the start and that fans will not have the patience to wait a decade or more for a league to become credible, as was the case with MLS."

Actually, I think there's some truth to this. The soccer specific stadium was a lifeline, but their smaller capacity limits growth and revenues. They're prefect for the niche MLS is trying to serve, but if MLS really wants to be mentioned in the same breath as world class teams from world class leagues, the current stadiums would need to be expanded and overhauled. Few, if any, world class teams play in 20,000 seat stadiums, after all.

The problem with "starting big" is that it isn't usually possible to get that kind of fan support that quickly. MLS and NASL teams rattled around with small crowds in bigger stadiums, just as I suspect rugby will.

 

And how about we stop play after the ball stops moving, and then add in TV timeouts, and also give the coaches a set number of timeouts each half......

 

Rugby Sevens seems like the best shot at an audience in the US. It's easy to get into. Though I still think football fans would miss the forward pass.

 

Sevens moves fast enough that the lack of forward pass shouldn't be an issue.

I watch the college 7s when they're on. The quicker pace and quicker matches make it ideal.

 

How much are people going to pay for a 20 minute game?

 

There is a substantial population that played 'club' in college and drank from the boot every Saturday night during the season.

 

Will US rugby play in accordance with the international calendar? Or will it be second class and play when it thinks it can make money?

 

Right. Sevens works for tournaments but not for a league.

 

Carlin Isles is fun to watch on the 7s tour. But for 7s to take off here, we need more Carlin Isles for the US.

Sigh. If only our best athletes played rugby!

 

The wannabe US rugby league needs to partner with a wannabe US cricket league - I have no idea if one exists, I just assume it does - and go halfsies on a bunch RCSS of about 12,000 or so seats with a really big pitch. #OnlyHalfJoking #KnowItWontActuallyHappen

EDIT: might as well have pro lacrosse share that stadium, too!

 

Which would be a pretty easy fix.

Your season comprises of "rounds" and each city hosts a round or two over the course of the season (depending on the number of teams). The "home" team is featured in the last match of the day.

 

seem like a ploy for NFL owners to have there stadiums used outside 8 times a year.

 

Nah, IMO the only issue is in-between the correct 20K (some/most are expandable to 25-30K) and the NFL size stadiums.

If Chicago ever got popular enough then Soldier the team could move to soldier field, but that is not and will not be a problem for the FIRE in the foreseeable future.

 

But then your team only gets a couple of home events a year. Your local team would have to make a lot of money on those couple of events. There is only so much revenue you can get out of that small base of fans. I just don't see that as a sustainable model.

Unless it is a kind of single-entity league and the thing becomes a traveling road show. Or you did Sevens the first year to build interest without requiring teams to put out a lot of money to rent stadiums. But for it to work long term you have to go to a regular league format with a lot more home games. There is a reason why team sports work the best in a head-to-head two teams at a time schedule. Each team gets half their games at home.

The current Sevens tournaments work because they are supplement to the existing clubs and league schedule. I don't see how they could be the basis of a league.

 

Initially yes ... mostly because there most likely wouldn't be many teams and that model would probably be the most economical/etc. I mean it isn't like the cost is going to be astronomical at the get go.

Moving forward I think it'd be kind of like multiple mini-games making up a larger result. Either 2 out of 3 or something. That, or have the home club hosting two clubs at a time and play 3 matches.

It's all literally off the top of my head ...

 

It's possible to get things started I guess.

Have you been to a Sevens tournament? Teams usually play multiple games on a weekend. It's not like there are just a couple of games. When we had the womens' Sevens World Series here in Houston this winter there were 12 teams who played a total of 34 games in two days. The U.S., "the home team", played six of those with basically the same lineup.

 

I haven't been in person to a "major" one but I've watched and have several friends that play.

 

I clicked through the link in the original article to find out more about this. Right now it is just one exhibition game in the U.S. and one in the U.K. After that the plan is for a small regional league to start. So the "think big, start big" is kind of an interesting description.

 

Ok. I wasn't sure because of the playing best of three matches thing.

 

I'm waiting for a test cricket league myself.