Rugby World Cup 2007 Qualifiers Thread

And that's the one thing I personally hate. TITLE IX. That took away my alma mater's football team in 1991, as well as a lotta other football programs that I liked to follow. I will never forgive those who supported/passed/fap at this rule.

The USA can do well without this rule. In spite of how women have profitted from this: I am in favor of Congress repealing this measure in hopes that NCAA will sponsor rugby. AND 49er football with the Big Brown Music Machine returns in earnest.

Pardon me for being a little bit off topic, but I wanted you guys to know my feelings for this measure. It sucks. And if I were Congress, George W. Bush, AND the Supreme Court justice majority all in one, I'd get rid of it. NOW.

 

How did hockey get out of it? Do you mean the sport itself or the universities?

IMO- NCAA hockey still can't compete that well as now Canadian universities and colleges have started full ride scholorships and the 3x Junior Leagues under the umbrella of the Canadian Hockey League.

 

http://media.libsyn.com/media/narr/rwcfinal.mp3

Short podcast by a Canadian and American rugby reporter following the USA-Canada game.

 

What's that then?

 

Title IX was a congressionally-mandated law that said universities had to split sports financing 50-50 between men and women. This sounds good on the surface, but the problem arises with American football. American football has around 70 or so scholarships for most large colleges. American football is a 100% male sport, and there is no equivalent of American football for women. So what a lot of schools did to comply with Title IX was they got rid of some of their small male sports while adding female sports. Some schools (Pacific, Long Beach State, Boston University) got rid of American football altogether. But what Title IX has created is a culture where male sports that do not create revenue (pretty much everything except football, basketball, and baseball) are frowned upon. So colleges have women's volleyball but not men's, women's soccer but not men's, and so forth. For this reason, most schools are not going to add varsity (as in giving scholarships to the students in the sports) men's sports. Right now, the rugby teams at schools are clubs, whereby the students on the team pretty much finance the team themselves through various methods.

 

Dont know much about how the qualifiers are going but are USA set to get qualify?

 

Frankly speaking we didn't deserve to beat Canada. Canada had 9 or 10 pros returned from Europe and the other guys were full timer amateurs based in Canada.
USA had 3 pros' all either born elsewhere and moved to the USA as teenagers with their parents or born here to Australians and South Africans living here temporarily and grown up elsewhere.

Canada has developed a good team and a great program. We have not, which is why we have to do a home and home vs Uruguay and maybe a repechage game vs Spain or Zimbabwe

 

Wrong.

 

.............wrong because we deserved to win in Newfoundland????


.............wrong because Canada has a better program than us?????

...........wrong because our 3 pro's were not schooled in Rugby in the USA????


............wrong because we can beat Uruguay and not have to face the African or European runners up.


We didn't deserve to win, Canada has a vastly superior program to us, our 3 pro's are Americans because of circumstance and not growing up here and hope as I might we beat Uruguay, I'm not holding my breath. Still going to France to cheer the Eagles on but not holding my breath.

 

Very surprising score, indeed. It seems that Namibia never recovered from their crushing defeat during WC2003. It's really sad to see a team destroyed on the long term by this competition.

Woaww. What a score ! A thrilling game, I am assuming ? Anyway, looks good for Morocco, who should be Africa 1.

 

I remember Spain playing in the last WC, but I can't recall Czech Republic. It seems that expectations would predict Spain.

 

Wrong again. You really don't know what you're talking about, so I'd recommend you stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.

 

Namibia's problem is that their country is 85% black, yet their rugby team is even whiter than the Springboks. I don't think there were any black Africans in the last World Cup, just a few Coloured players. When you're picking from a talent base of around 125,000, you won't do well.

Anyway, the Kenyans are actually pretty decent. Their sevens program has really paid off. I'd harbor a guess their backline is very good, just their tight five isn't as much. Morocco will likely beat them, since their XV plays mostly in France and is assisted by Benazzi.

 

They played in 1999. Spanish rugby went in the crapper for a while but they're really benefitting from closer contact with France, Scotland (! - a team from Barca plays in the Scottish lower divisions!) and the support of the deportivos - Barca is giving great support to a club side and other deportivos are following.

 

How nice of you to actually back up your analysis. Next time you come back to the table try to do something to spice up your argument a little, maybe throw in a fact, or try to include some proof. HEY!!! what about a score!!! Try that, that might help you.

This doesn't. Oh well, keep trying little pal. Hopefully USA Rugby will be able to dig themselves out of a deep hole.



toulousain - excellent job reporting the scores. Thanks a bunch.

 

Big matches for the US the next 2 weeks. Away to Uruguay tomorrow, then the home leg a week later. Would be nice to secure qualification now and not have to go through the further repechage rounds.

 

Look. You've probably never seen more than a few rugby games late at night on Fox Sports World, so I'll just pat you on the head and realize you'll never understand how US rugby works. I'm not doing your leg work for you.