What do Americans think about Rugby?

epris - unfortunately this is about the USA's high water mark in terms of rugby. That being said, I'm very pumped.

The team is made up of.............
-guys who were born here and raised somewhere else (ie - Hercus in Australia)
-guys who immigrated here as teenagers from somewhere else
-a couple of guys from American Somoa, a couple of Tongans who lived in American Somoa
-guys who are actually American born and bred.

Those American born and bred guys are the future. Hopefully we amend it. Our lawsuit happy society and school systems who are cutting physical education means its dicey we keep going forward. Its my opinion that this fear of allowing rugby in schools, coupled with the likes of the IRB who allow the biding of TV rights to a company like Setanta are the two biggest obstacles.

I have 700+ channels on my tv (now I don't pay for them all, but the possiblity is there) and do you know how many showed todays game......0. Ya zero, because Setanta are a bunch of _______ who are essentially on the same satelite service as those dog and horse racing live feeds and can only be picked up in bars.

To be fair Setanta is trying to break into the home market by going on the two major satelitte services here, but..........they have no footprint on cable which is where 80 percent of Americans get their tv.

Unless we keep pushing the game to be played by youngsters and allow Joe-sixpack the American journeyman worker to watch a game in his living room, its doomed.

 

Rugby Union is a very, very niche sport in the US that basically exists only at the college level (no pro league here), and gets very little coverage in the mainstream media. If it isn't one of the team sports like 1) American Football, 2) Basketball, 3) Baseball, or 4) Ice Hockey, there is no coverage given to it. [the numbers denote their popularity]

I only heard of rugby because I've been outside the US (specifically China) and saw it on Sky Sports Asia, thinking afterwards how cool the sport is. I can't speak for other Americans here, though.

 

I like Rugby, so I'm not bashing it or anything.

But, just speaking of the popularity of rugby here, imagine the popularity of soccer in the US and divide that by anywhere from 50 to 100 and that's Rugby. That covers participation AND viewership. The "average american sports fan" has absolutely NO awareness of Rugby at all. I've never seen a rugby clip on a sporting news show ever, and it is never discussed. At least Soccer is discussed sometimes.

People here have heard of it. But, they sometimes, believe it or not, get cricket and rugby confused since they are both orginally English sports.

More younger people (30 or less) know sort of what Rugby is about, but don't know exactly what the objective of the sport is. They know that you don't where pads, unlike American football. They also know that guys run up and down the field, sometimes making huge man-piles. That's about it.

I will say that Rugby has GROWN a lot here in the US over the past 40 years. A lot of High Schools (including mine) have gotten club teams, not varsity teams. ("The Varsity team" is a team officially sponsored by the High school that you actually try out for. Clubs are sponsored independently, and really anyone can come out and play for them. They're not taken that seriously by those on the team). These club teams at the HS and college level have spread the word about rugby to young men and women. But, it is still the epidamy of a niche sport.

I've tried to get into Rugby recently. A few of my friends are into Rugby (one's from Ireland). It's a cool sport. I just wished they showed more of it on tv here. Getting the World Cup on tv here (even though it's on about a 3-day delay) was a HUGE step.

I actually went onto an american-football board today and saw someone talking about how they watched the Rugby World Cup on Versus (a lower-tier cable network here in the US that is showing the wolrd cup). I was SHOCKED. I asked him if he had ever watched Rugby before. He said no and compared it to watching a car-wreck that you want to look away from but couldn't. I was dissapointed by his reaction toward the sport, but at least he actually knows what it is now. Baby steps.

I'm more of disciple of soccer to the "average american sports fan" rather than Rugby (I don't understand the rules of Rugby as much as I should). So, I really don't care whether it gets big here or not. It's still a cool sport, though, don't get me wrong. I don't think it will digress at all, and it can only get more popular. However, I don't see it growing that much considering it and american football share enough similiarities to make people feel threatened by it. I don't think we'll ever even see a Rugby league even on the level of MLS playing here in the US. But hey, who knows? I hate to say NEVER to any sport.

I know a couple of other guys already answered your question for the most part. But, just thought I'd give my insight, too.

 

Rugby's playing base in the US has doubled in the past five years.

It's gotten a lot more popular. The Eagles can get a decent crowd whereever they play. Nothing extraordinary, but about 5-8,000. That's actually better than the US soccer team got 20 years ago, which is kind of nice to think about...and for sure rugby is an easier nut to crack in terms of competition than football.

 

P-Celtic and I have very different views on USA rugby normally, but we both want it to succeed.

He's absolutely right, we've gotten some good crowds lately. We had about 12000 in Hartford last summer for Wales vs USA, and SF had some support when the Uruguay v USA RWC Qualifyer was played.

 

I would think the American sporting joe would be more receptive to Rugby than say soccer is? There is no diving or general snideyness in Rugby. And with the massive beasts smashing into each other and having ruck's and scum's with no pads (compared to NFL) the American alpha male would get into it better?

 

if Versus were smart they would get the TV rights to the Eagles Rugby matches (qualifiers and such) and show them live on TV. that would be awesome.

 

I live in a very much backwater part of the US, and there is a Rugby presence here in Fargo, ND. There are three active teams within 150 km of where I live, and so the game is not unknown. Where I used to work, there were at least four ex-college players and a guy from South Africa who followed the game some. I think this is typical of the US: the game is played at a very low level, the nichest of niche sports. I think there is a bit more rugby than cricket even though cricket is only played by graduate students from the subcontinent.

 

I'd thought about this recently and your point is true. If you present the three English sports (rugby, soccer, and cricket) to your general American sports fan I think rugby would win out over soccer (with cricket a very distant third).

Soccer is a very simple sport to follow. Rugby has enough similarities to American football that a first-time watcher would have somewhat of an understanding of the rules of rugby I think. Although some things would require a diehard to sit next to you to explain. (Like for example I don't see why a guy should get rewarded with field position just for kicking the ball into the grandstands upfield.) There are some players in American football that I would see being natural rugby players, namely run-first quarterbacks (a la Michael Vick pre-dogfighting) and cornerbacks for the free-running backs. Linebackers would make excellent forwards.

It's really just a case of zero exposure. I've never seen a rugby game at all on TV up to now. Versus, a tiny American sports network is showing selected Rugby World Cup games on 2-day tape delay, and I can never remember that happening before. However, they're on TV in the early evening, so they're being put on as a time-filler most likely. Highlights of the USA in the Rugby World Cup will not be on Sportscenter or other sports shows. This is the opening weekend for the NFL and college football is in its second week and they take up all the time along with baseball. Our country's sport culture is saturated and crowded.

Americans knew soccer through the NASL in the 1970s, eventual failure it was, it at least taught Americans how the game worked somewhat. Nothing like that for rugby has ever existed. NASL at least laid the groundwork. You had our national team make the World Cup in Italy in 1990 with predominantly amateurs and a couple pros, just like our rugby national team this year. Then in a rare moment of genius FIFA took a chance and gave our country a World Cup in 1994, which solidified the sport's presence in this country (part of us getting the FIFA World Cup was the USSF had to agree to start a national soccer league, which came to be MLS). Plus, soccer is helped here by the sheer number of expatriates that love the game, especially from Mexico.

For rugby, there's pockets of Englishmen and Irishmen and such, but not enough to form a general interest of any kind nationwide. And it leads to some clubs in cities here and there. For example, I was wanting to play rugby as a recreational activity. But I live 70 miles from the nearest club team, too far.

So sorry for the long story, but yes, I agree Americans would be more receptive to rugby than soccer.

 

Not a bad idea. There has to be as much interest in rugby as non-Tour de France bike races (which I Tivo and usually watch sometime during the week). Should we contact Vs with the idea?

 

We actually have a pro league! The USA Rugby Super League. Who knew?

Teams:

Belmont Shore - Long Beach, California
Denver Barbarians - Denver, Colorado
OMBAC - San Diego, California
Old Puget Sound Beach - Seattle, Washington
San Francisco Golden Gate
Santa Monica Dolphins - Santa Monica, California
Boston Irish Wolfhonds
Chicago Lions
Dallas Harlequins
New York Athletic Club
Philadelphia Whitemarsh
Washington RFC
Boston RFC
Charlotte Olde Originals
Chicago Griffins
Old Blue - New York, New York
Potomac Athletic Club - Washington, D.C.
St. Louis Bombers

Belmont Shore are 2007 Champions. http://www.usarugbysuperleague.com/template.php

There's also something the IRB setup called the North American 4 (NA4 for short) with 2 American teams and 2 Canadian teams that is paid for fully by the IRB and draws the best players in both countries. However, none of the teams have a city for a base. So I doubt if this tournament would survive long-term.

 

i think i'm going to email them

 

And I did!

 

With no disrespect to the sport, I would say that most Americans have never seen a rugby match, and probably 0.01% have any idea there is a World Cup going on. I was surprised to learn we even have a national team, let alone one in the World Cup.

As stated above, most Americans have probably heard of rugby, which puts it ahead of cricket, at least. It was a popular intramural sport when I was at college (intramural=played between teams of students from the same school). As far as I know, the National Collegiate Athletic Association doesn't sponsor any intercollegiate competition, but it's widely played at the "club" (that is, unofficial) level.

If Americans have any thoughts about rugby, it's that the players are tough to the point of insanity. "Give blood -- Play rugby" is (or used to be) a popular T-shirt among rugby players.

One edition of the single-panel sports cartoon In the Bleachers showed a guy in a car taunting a rugby team by saying, "Wimps! Why don't you play some real football?!" The title of the cartoon was "Cruising for a bruising."

My impression from catching a small bit of rugby on cable TV is that the sport would have a very difficult time as a spectator sport in the U.S. Like soccer, it suffers from not being broken down into itty bitty units -- it's more like let's throw out a ball and play for 80 minutes. So it's like watching a marathon or long-distance race; it's possible to watch for several minutes and not see "anything happen." Obviously, a fan familiar with the intricacies of what's going on would disagree, but that wouldn't cover Americans.

The prohibitions on offsides, blocking and forward passing seems to lead to a very crowded game, with the ball often invisible among dozens of legs.

Basically, my guess is most Americans would look at rugby and say, "Why don't they let them block, run downfield, throw forward and choose set plays instead of run around aimlessly?" In other words -- why not just play (American) football instead of something that just kind of looks like American football. I'd guess British people have the opposite reaction when watching our game.

From a practical perspective, it's hard to imaging an American television network choosing to air another sport that doesn't allow for in-game commercials. If you're a cable network with a choice between airing a rugby match that goes 40 minutes with no room for ads, or another poker show you can stop for ads every 10 minutes, which are you going to show?

That said, personally I'm intrigued somewhat by rugby. I like how players are expected to be multitalented. They have to be able to run and kick. It makes the NFL's placekickers look kind of goofy. I'm also very impressed by the way the players toss the ball to each other without even looking, as if they communicate telepathically. It's kind of like going back in time to the 1870s and watching an early American football game.

 

I disagree, for two reasons:

1. Many if not most Americans under 35 or 40 played soccer as kids; few played rugby.
2. Rugby is superficially similar to American football, so Americans might say, "Why should I watch this when there's a 'real' football game on?"

 

Yes, but there's no padding.*

When I was at school, I was considered the 'ardest geezer of the lot because I played rugby. Even tougher than the football players. It was totally false, but most Americans who know rugby think it's the toughest game around and the stereotype of rugby players are hard drinking psychos. So there is no way that anybody is going to turn off rugby because it's not "real" football.

Most people will turn off it because it's not an easy game to follow, and there are some fairly arcane rules. Try explaining the ruck laws in 50 words or less.

By the way, Super League is not professional. Some players get help with jobs or housing, but as someone involved with a Super League club (I'll let you guess which one), it's not professional by any means. These guys usually work 9 to 5's.

*there actually is, but it's very thin. Hold your index finger and thumb about a half inch apart, and that's the thickness allowed by the IRB. It's like a bullet proof vest - it can possibly protect against catastrophe, but it still hurts.

 

Just because atheletes are tough doesn't mean their sport is entertaining to watch. Boxers bash each other's brains out, but boxing is actually quite boring to watch outside of Rocky movies.

 

Okay. But you still have to sell an American TV executive that not only can he show this sport called rugby in the United States and get viewers, but that he will also make money on it from advertisers. No commercials is a killer. That is how most TV stations make their money. Soccer fans complain that poker is on ESPN and not more European soccer. Well, the poker is a lot cheaper to show and you can have commercials every ten minutes. Soccer cannot. It's just a business decision.

That's just the be all and end all of the matter. But rugby will not increase its presence in this country until it's on TV.

The best example that supports this argument is when the Canadian Football League tried to expand to the United States some years ago. Only one city (Baltimore before the Ravens came to town) supported the league in big numbers, partly due to American fans not accepting the differences of Canadian football versus American football.

 

There really doesn't seem to be much interest in the sport among most common sports fans even here in Utah which is sort of a hotbed for rugby in the US. Highland High School, located in Salt Lake City has a rugby club which is frequently among the best clubs in the country and has won national titles on a few occasions. The clubs at the University of Utah and BYU have each made the college national championship game at least once. But this sort of news warrants a very small article buried in the back pages of the local newspapers.

Moeakiola (sp?), who scored the try against England is from Salt Lake, played for the University of Utah club team, and currently plays for the Park City Haggis club. His feat went (to my knowledge) unnoticed on a very heavily used Univ. of Utah fan message board.

To put things in perspective, this board usually has considerable traffic when a former Utah player in a mainstream sport has an accomplishment, for example, Eric Weddle, a former (and outstanding) safety on the Utah pointy-ball team had a sack for the San Diego Chargers yesterday and there were about a dozen different messages and responses posted about the play within about 10 minutes.

We do seem to have some people out there who enjoy the sport though. About 5 years ago, the local rugby clubs managed to schedule a qualifier for the 2003 cup between USA and Chile which was played in the Salt Lake valley. I attended and the stands were packed (probably about 2000-3000 or so)

I enjoy the sport because like soccer, they don't have all these tedious time-outs and play the game constantly to its completion.

 

1. Rugby's a lot less boring than American football.

2. I love Boxing, so I would disagree with you.

 

1. Fun to watch the passing, kicking, running & hitting in the open field.

2. Can't tell what's going on in the scrum / ruck / maul, or why. I get the sense that my friends from rugby countries don't really get these either, unless they played the game themselves.

3. The guys are tough as coffin nails, and I love seeing them play hurt, rather than roll around like they've been shot (unlike soccer). It's great that all of them play the ball, tackle, and can go for 80 minutes (unlike gridiron).

4. They seem slow compared to what you see in an NFL game. I know there are some great athletes in rugby, but I think guys like Lomu or Howlett would be average for the NFL.

5. Penalties seem to be the most important thing in the game, which seems wrong and is frustrating for an occasional fan who can't really tell what is going on. (Maybe it's the effect of living through the Johnny Wilkinson era in England!)

6. Very hard to find any coverage of the World Cup here

7. Would love to see the USA do better in rugby in the future, but I don't know how this will happen. Youth sports in the USA tend to revolve around 2 things: safety and college scholarships. Rugby's not offering either of those, so "smear the queer" is the closest most people get to rugby before they get to college...

 

I think that the trend we're seeing in our amateur leagues of ex-high school and college football players gravitating towards men's rugby is the best thing that could have happened to rugby in the United States.

At halftime of the Bengals-Saints preseason football game, the Cincinnati Wolfhounds RFC played a 10 minute exhibition and 3/4 of the fans stayed in their seats and cheered. I think that exposure is the key. Get the game to the masses and they will love it.