It looks like Fox Soccer Plus is going to pick up where Setanta left off with rugby coverage. http://static.foxsports.com/content...S+_press_release_clean_FINAL1266517297555.pdf
I agree FOX or ESPN does need to make a deal with SANZAR and get the Super 15 and Tri Nations on TV stateside.
I know that it is wishful thinking, but you never know. As rugby grows in the US we could see one of the sports networks make a deal with SANZAR.
I know that union is probably more popular, but I feel that league has the possibility for a brighter future in the US than union if marketed properly.
Looks like nice deal ..!! Hope you will have nice and comfortable place to be a franchising company.. Good to see someone coming about with zeal to lift up the spirit..!! Brain..!! . rugby training equipment | need rugby training equipment
Having watched the US vs. Canada hockey match last night I really think that USA Rugby's next port of call should be setting up a three match rugby series with Canada. The problem USA Rugby has is that the CC is in July and they want the teams to go on tour in November. However, for commercial reasons I really think that they should either have the three match series in November or have the USA select XV (A side) play in the Churchill Cup and the USA Eagles play against Canada at the same time in July. Either way I think that three match series is the way forward inorder to develop an economically viable rugby comp that he broadcasters, sponsors and fans will love. Not that I don't love the CC, but with all the A sides it just hasn't grown fast enough for me.
wonder how a multi-sport challenge could work between the US-Canada with rugby being one of the sports. That could be a way to draw in more people. a three match series in hockey, canadian football, and rugby?
After watching the professional show espnHD had for the US/Canada match on July 4th last year, and the disgraceful production in Canada, I don't think it's going on FS+ or anywhere else. Neither rugby code has any REAL organization when it comes to growth in the United States. Sorry.
Unfortunately Nigel Melville is trying to make up for decades of infighting and mismanagement. For 3 decades their only approach was to recruit college football players and try and make them into world class rugby player, not going to happen. The grassroots program that USA Rugby has implemented will work, it is just going to take time and sponsorship money. American has a rich rugby history. If you look at the last 100 + years rugby probably has a richer history than soccer in this country. Hell, 5 years ago my friends and family in North Carolina had not one clue what rugby is. In one year my parents have been to a college rugby game near their home (NC State vs, USC), watched tha 6 Nations on tv and been to see Invictus at the movie. IMHO that is progress. Also, the poor quality from the WCRQ was probably due to the specific unions having to pay for the production. Remember what MLS was like when it first started out.
I completely agree with you. I emailed Nigel Melville this as well. To his credit he responded 4-5 days later with a well spoken response about why he agrees with me but is doing it in a different way. He said if the two countries National teams keep playing the other they are going to both remain stagnant. The idea of the Churchill Cup is to play other countries as the USA and Canada play each other a lot. He wants them exposed to other offences, defenses and set plays. He did say the idea has traction because of this they have set up the North America 4 to play the up and comers against good opposition and also have talked to college rugby in the USA while Canada talked to the BC university teams to play a sort of North American college championship and arrange tours. Ideally they'd like to see a true cross continent university format. Surprisingly the resistance came from the BC clubs who play in the BC Premier League (UVic, UBC etc) and could afford that before playing games all over the place. Dino - (its Paul S from ABA OSC board, I'm sure you will know my avatar as Pinnochio-Joe) I remember watching that with you and the ridiculous Canadian feed was an absolute disaster. Normally TSN or Rogers Sportsnet will broadcast the Canadian feed. The debacle in Edmonton was the worst broadcast I've ever seen.
I can see what he is saying about exposing the team to a higher level of competition. He also has to realize that if we keep getting beat by 3 to 4 tries every match, the players, fans and sponsors are going to give up. The only time we play Canada is during the CC and WCRQ matches. To him that might be alot, but look at how many times the 6 Nations and Tri Nations teams play each other. I was thinking more of developing our own tournament that would draw fans and sponsors. I might be wrong, but I just don't think the Eagles playing A sides or the select XV playing A sides is going to be economically viable. However, I can see that he is think more of player development. As far as the college comp I would love to see a US college premiership or even an invitational tournament like the NCAA played in June. We could then host a rugby tournament with the All Americans, Canadians and a couple of other international university teams.
And on this side of the world, that's who? Canada, who usually beat us. Uruguay, who we beat by 30 every time we play them. Argentina, who could send a second XV and beat us comfortably. No other national team in the hemisphere is worth talking about as far as competition for the U.S. The Six Nations and Tri-Nations national teams aren't going to bother with sending a full national team to play us. The Churchill Cup is as good as you're going to get as far as international play. And it's not even economically viable outside of IRB and English RFU sponsorship.
I agree with everything that you are saying, but I still believe in the long term some sort of series with Canada would be marketable. Right now the CC and North Americas Champioship are more of a player development competition and a lot less of a series for the fans and sponsors.
to be honest, what fans and what sponsors? they draw some fans for national team games but not enough to pay the costs of the games I don't think and the only sponsor of note is the National Guard and the National Guard makes it perfectly clear they're there for the colleges, and the colleges may leave USA Rugby altogether to have their own competition and USA Rugby will then lose a ton of dues money, making the national team very cash-strapped and a lot less visible; a national team can't play if there's no money in it
I prefer to see the potential of rugby in the US. For to many years USA rugby has been mismanaged, but I do believe there is potential there. Remember the reputation soccer had for years as a minority sport and still may. The NASL failed because there wasn't any grassroots fan support there. It has only been since Melville took over USA rugby that they started looking at and investing in youth rugby(6 to 12 yo.) before that all they did was try and convert college football players who weren't good enough to make the NFL. Also, just because a bunch of college coaches with an axe to grind form a group(USCRA) doesn't mean that college rugby is going to leave USA Rugby. First, in the eyes of the world governing body (IRB) USA Rugby is the National governing body and second the coaches and players don't own the teams the universities do, so they would have to agree to leave USA Rugby. It is going to take some time, but I feel rugby can become an established sport in the US, it already has the history.
How've they been investing? My club has U-19 and U-15 outfits we field, but all the effort there has been our own, USA Rugby has done nothing with it as far as I can tell. They've been threatening it and that's the point. The colleges don't care at all about this. It comes down to money. College rugby via player dues only give $1.3 million to USA Rugby, and they're questioning that they receive far less than that $1.3 million in return, and that most of that money instead goes toward the Eagles, which does what to improve college rugby? (Not to mention the National Guard sponsorship which is entirely based on getting collegiate players to sign up for the National Guard, if they left so would the National Guard.) They're in a powerful position and they know it, without their dues and other college-driven sponsorship, USA Rugby would be incredibly weakened. They just want a bigger bang for their buck. These are not varsity programs, these are club programs, so the only form of control the university has is to make sure the club doesn't make a mockery of the university on moral grounds or they'll be banned. I doubt Cal or Brigham Young cares who their rugby clubs play under. If the universities had their way, the sport would only be played under the NCAA a la soccer probably.
Right now they are investing in Rookie Rugby. It may not be enough in your eyes, but they have to start some where. If USA rugby had done something like this about 30 years ago IMHO we would be in a much better position and USA Rugby would probably be able to help you club finacially. Instead they chose to waste their money on the Eagles etc. instead of the grassroots game and the sport of rugby never developed in the country. I would agree that college rugby is the single most marketable rugby product in the US and USARFU should be spending more on it. However, the age of people being introduced to rugby needs to drop, so unfortunately they need to spend some of those funds on setting up Rookie Rugby, Middle school and High School teams. But you are absolutely right they should spend more. I disagree the Colleges do have control and I don't think they would want to leave the sports governing body. Playing rugby for Cal or BYU isn't like signing up for Ultimate Frisbee or softball, it means a lot more to these players and coaches. If the players and coaches want to go off and form their own club teams great, but i doubt the university would allow a non university club team use their fields etc. As a rugby player it would mean a lot more to me to play for UNC of NC State then Chapel Hill RFC etc.
I'd be interested to find out more about this because I've never heard about it. Football, basketball, baseball, ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse, track, etc. None of them are played under the national sports governing body, they're all played under the NCAA. Rugby falls under USA Rugby because it's not a varsity sport. I'd agree because there is no Chapel Hill RFC. But that line of thinking also leads to players "retiring" from the game once they leave college at 22 years old.
It is for 6 to 12 yo. To get them introduced to the sport at a very young age, so once they hit high school they will know the basics of the game. http://www.usarugby.org/default.asp http://www.rookierugbyclub.com/home Football and baseball pretty much have non existant n.g.b., but you are right if rugby became an NCAA sport it wouldn't be under USA Rugby anymore. However I do think that they would still want to keep a close relationship with the USARFU, like most of sports that you mentioned do. The impression I get from the United States College Rugby Association is that they have an axe to grind and want to stick the bird up at USA Rugby and go their merry way, even if it is counter productive to rugby in America. Rugby is the most international sport that we play in the US besides soccer, the n.g.b. and irb should be closely involved. I realize that there is no Chapel Hill RFC I was only using it as an example. If I said Raleigh RFC someone might get annoyed. However, I don't think my statement leads to college players leaving once they finish college. Right now the college brand names are way bigger than the club names, maybe one day that will change, but right now that is the way it is. Club rugby in America has a lot to offer players leaving school and the rugby community with the help of USA Rugby should be pushing that. If you are an elite rugby player, but don't have a professional contract we have Super League or division 1 clubs. There is also social rugby clubs for people who want to make friends, make contacts etc.
But that is what is happening now. How national is it? No one tells the NCAA what to do, if you follow the gripe threads on college soccer on this board you can see for yourself. They think college rugby should be more important than USA Rugby treats it. And considering the dues money they generate, they probably have a point. Taking all the union's money and putting it toward a money-losing national team schedule hasn't really gained rugby in this country anything, has it? A lot of the top clubs in the country funded by sugar daddies have stepped down a notch over the past year. And at least where I live in the Mid-Atlantic, the teams that are or used to be in the RSL have declined or are complete shells of their former selves. My team played Washington RFC, formerly of the RSL, and beat them by 80 points last fall. Philly Whitemarsh is down in D3. Charlotte are still in the RSL but their play has declined. PAC of Washington are struggling against D1 teams they should beat easily. Out west Belmont Shore and Santa Monica self-relegated. There's a guy on here that at least used to be in the administration of Golden Gate, I wonder his take on at least the club structure of the game in this country currently. Basketball is far more popular internationally than rugby. Rugby is about as international as baseball and ice hockey once you look at what countries care passionately about it, what countries are good at it, what countries play it as a secondary sport and are decent at it, and count England/Scotland/Wales as one country. Although this really has nothing to deal with the argument at hand. (really, this discussion should be separated from the Fox Soccer Plus bit anyway)