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

I played union in high school (in Canada) where it was seen as a reasonable sport. I was probably only let on the field because I could kick conversions. I didn't know about league. I saw a couple of league matches a couple of years ago, and realized the gameplay is much better than union. Six downs, crazy kicking plays on sixth tackle, the weird drop goals. The only thing that sucks is slightly less laterals compared to union. Both codes have merit (I'll also watch NFL/CFL). But only generally if there's no soccer on, or it's the playoffs.

 

I think the most ridiculous thing about the plan is that they seem to think they can toss the NFL's also-rans into a rugby and they will preform at a high level. Rugby technique and strategy would take some time to master. Yes, some guys would pick it up pretty quick, but looking at the quality of tackling in every NCAA conference besides the SEC, I hardly think that these guys are rugby stars in the making.

 

Can't wait for the first idiot to run through the in-goal area without touching the ball down for a try...

 

The more I look at this, the more it just looks like ego-feeding for Anglo superiority. Something we're more than familiar with with soccer.

The U.S. national team has a full slate of events this summer. None of the international caliber American players will be involved. So you end up with a bunch of schlubs paired with "international stars". The difference of ability and skill should be pretty stark indeed.

The guy trying to put this on has a long history of failed projects, but apparently deep pockets. He's the one that had the schedule Rugby 7s tournament at the Home Depot Center that was canceled a couple of weeks before it was supposed to be played due to lack of teams.

I actually know some folks involved with USA Rugby and they're as curious and confused about this as we are.

 

I've always thought if the elite NFL athlete came into rugby it would revolutionize the game.

There'd be fewer laterals and more couple of laterals, hard cuts, and taking it to the house.

 

I don't claim to know what it would take for rugby or a similiarly "niche" sport to become successful in the US. However, I do know that those looking at the nature of the game itself and how it may or may not fit with some sort of American sports psyche are not on the right track. America is country where the likes of golf, football, NASCAR, baskeball, baseball are all successful. There's no common thread there as far as the nature of those sports is concerned.

 

i am not sure which way i am inclined to think about this.

on one hand rugby seems to have speed and violence that the "normal" sports population might appreciate. and it also has a perception as an "anglo" origin sport ... mostly thought of as being played and dominated by england, south africa, australia and new zealand (i know the truth is that many ethnicities play and succeed in rugby i am simply talking lay person perceptions here) so there isn't that automatic prejudice that soccer often faces as a "brown person"/"foreign" sport (which is obviously ironic as soccer is of anglo origins itself).

but on the other hand americans seem to love football and might view rugby as a pale imitation and poor substitution for a sport they already love.

i am inclined to think the later, the love of football and the non willingness to accept something so near to it, would probably be the more important factor here.

 

That's a relatively recent perspective.

Only 40 years ago, while I was growing up, you could drop basketball and NASCAR and replace them with horse racing, tennis, and USAC (open wheel racing).

Go back another 40 years and football drops away and boxing was big.

 

I think MLS has written the bible on growing a team sport in the U.S.

1) Forget about being as big as the "Big 4"

2) Focus on business fundamentals.

3) Respect the fans and the game as long as that respect does not conflict with point #2.

4) Be prepared to take decades.

Stability and survival are the keys. There are no shortcuts. Under-capitalization is the main enemy.

 

I took him to be saying, it's hard to say which niche sport will make it in the mainstream by comparing features of the niche sport with a sport that is currently popular. So whether rugby makes it in this country or not, it probably doesn't have much to do with whether it is similar to gridiron football.

 

I'd agree with that. I think it takes a confluence of factors.

I think rugby has an advantage over lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, futsal, floorball, handball, ultimate frisbee, water polo, volleyball and other team sports. But it takes a few lucky breaks and a very good business plan and a lot of time.

Frankly, I would be someone shocked to see any other team sport make it as big as MLS is right now in my lifetime (20-40 more years).

I do, however, think there's a viable niche for the sports that are organized enough, smart enough, and lucky enough to get to.

USA Rugby is roughly where the USSF was in the late 80s. But soccer, in general, has a much higher ceiling and potential than rugby, and I don't think that even in the best of circumstances that 30 years from now you see USA Rugby where the USSF is today.

I do think the USA Rugby national teams (15s, 7s, men, women, youth) have a lot more potential than a domestic professional men's league. We're already seeing the success of weekend 7s tournaments (national teams and collegiate). If Rugby 7s can break through as a television event in 2016 in the Rio Olympics, I think that would really help.

 

Yes, this is what I was saying. The idea that there are specific characteristics of sports, and by that I mean the games themselves, that are necessary to appeal to American tastes is not something I can agree with. That rugby is where it is in the US sports landscape has nothing to do with things, such as, how much lateral passing there is in rugby relative to Americans' willingness to accept lateral passing in sports.

 

So if this is all filler for the NFL Network, then is it like rugby was on the old Fox Sports World channel before it became soccer only? Less the late night darts that is?

 

I loved the 8 year-old ODIs on Fox Sports World. Mainly because you know the only reason that one would show an 8 year-old cricket match is because the ending would be exciting.

 

Surely I can't be the only one here that has no ********ing clue how Rugby works? I'd imagine that would be the biggest hump for most of the population if something like this happened....

For all the trouble soccer has had catching on in this country, at the very least it is simple to pick up and follow.

 

I think you guys are onto something.

 

I actually witnessed this a couple years ago at an NCAA game. I can't blame the girl though, the field was complete mud and the lines were pretty much gone. In the end she did get the try as she finally figured out where she was before she went over the end line (I was standing there with a camera) and the defense caught up.

And these were all players that knew the rules. What a snowy, muddy, mess that day was.

Personally, I have found - much like American football, I can enjoy rugby in person, but I have no interest in watching it on TV.

 

I try to watch Rugby Union here and there but I find the game to be too flat. "Five yards and a cloud of dust " never rang truer than with Rugby.

If we're honest, there's usually one or two laterals and some big goony guy goes charging straight into 3 guys just waiting to tackle him without even trying to put a move on them. Due to the nature of the sport, there really are no electrifying runners like those found in the NFL.

On occasions, a team will chain some good laterals together and a guy might break a tackle and take it to the house but even that isn't that exciting. The most exciting runs in the NFL are when the ball carrier is weaving in and out of defenders and breaking wave after wave of tackles. Just doesn't seem to happen like that in Rugby, mostly because teams just line up in two long lines.

I don't know, I just think it resembles football too much and a lot of the things Americans lost love for in football, to ever really take off.

 

I find that to be the most frustrating thing whenever I watch rugby, which isn't often since it is never really on TV, and to me it becomes boring pretty quick. The only time there appears to be a lot of big time runs is when there is a big mismatch between the level of the teams playing. I guess there is a strategy behind not trying to evade tacklers but since the announcers are taken from a feed, presumably from a country where the sport is popular, they don't explain anything to the lay person.

 

My thoughts I posted on a rugby forum:

 

Totally agree on all of it. I know I don't understand the finer details of the game but I do appreciate the level of strategy in it. It is a more strategic game than say Soccer which is a more creative game.

Big runs don't excite me necessarily. Runs that are made in straight lines aren't exciting.

Unfortunately, if you watch rugby try highlights they're virtually all straight line runs. I like when guys are juking, stutter-stepping, spinning and making ankle breaking cuts past 5 or 6 guys. Those are what keep me watching.

 

you'd like 7s more than XVs then

a couple plays as examples of pretty much the best you'll ever see in XVs rugby, first is from the 2007 RWC and created by the U.S. national team of all rugby teams, second is from the French and is called "Try from the End of the World"

 

5 Thoughts

1. Rugby is much more popular here at a participation level than alot of people here give it credit for. And that is only going to increase as kids want to play a contact sport but their parents dont want them to break their neck. Football is dangerous to your head. Rugby isn't. Thats pretty much a proven fact at this point. That said I think its a bit early for a pro Rugby Union league in USA.

2. Like someone said, I don't know how you can train a guy who has never seen rugby to play Scrum-Half, Fly-Half, or kick at an elite level in 3 months.

3. I would say I'm probably one of the few on BS to have played rugby, and watch football (NCAA, NFL) and rugby(Six Nations, Heineken Cup) regularly.

NFL and Rugby are similar in that they have slow, defensive games sometimes, but also have awesome games sometimes. Thats just the game. But when Rugby is awesome, its alot of fun to watch:


4. I don't understand why NFL and College Football don't play at different times. It would double the amount of national TV time each sport got(being able to play Sat or Sun all day), therefore hugely increasing the money received (correct me if I'm wrong here).

I'm a big fan of this because I love football, and more TV time for college football means more money for some of the lesser programs.

5. GAA Football I think is one of the best sports in the world to watch. I think it would be awesome if that caught on here. But thats just a dream.