The RSL was established by US Rugby to act as the Premier Rugby Club competition in the United States. The objectives upon its establishment were to provide a greater level of competition for local players and to assist in educating the American public’s awareness and interest in the sport.
While the general interest is growing, best demonstrated by the 15 percent annual growth in participation figures, what the U.S really lacks is a viable National League structure.
The RSL has failed to achieve this.
For a supposedly semi-professional competition, the RSL leaves a lot to be desired. With US Rugby looking to develop a College Super League, rugby in the US must rethink its Premier Club Competitions.
As it stands, the RSL is made up of individual clubs similar to Subbies clubs in Australia, though several have over time developed their own facilities, whilst others suffer from the lack of accessible training grounds and equipment.
For example, there are currently two teams operating out of Chicago (Lions and Griffins) and another two out of New York (NYAC and Old Blue). In both examples, one team has very good structures while the other doesn’t.
There is a massive discrepancy.
This makes the RSL an unattractive product for TV and subpar in quality.
To raise the overall standard of the RSL and create an even playing field would require the abolition of the RSL itself, to be replaced by a North American Rugby Football League.
This will require the unification of the US RSL and the former CRSL teams to form a Two 10 Team Conference City based League.
Instead of Two Teams out of New York and Chicago, there should be one each with, if need be, the two current RSL clubs merging to form the new entity. The same could be said of Boston and the Californian-based clubs.
There would need to be set criteria too.
1. Set levels of sponsorship.
2. Links to local rugby clubs in their City/State, including Colleges.
3. Development of promotional material, such as merchandising and youth development programs with the assistance of US Rugby.
4. A professional set up to support a higher level of competition, including organisational structure and business plan.
5. A minimum 5,000 seater stadium with merchandising facilities in order to qualify.
It would be the responsibilities of both National Unions to find an appropriate TV broadcaster in each country. Both countries are already working on their lower levels so such a competition shouldn’t be that much of a stretch in the near to medium term.
For the record, these are the teams I envisage for this League:
Canada
Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara and Newfoundland.
USA
San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Las Vegas, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, New York, Washington, Charlotte, St Louis and Miami.
Of course, the League would be open to new clubs as they meet the criteria.
manley
Roar Rookie
Kooga makes good shorts, at least they will have that going for them. Too bad it wasn't Nike... Great rivalry between Adidas and Nike, would have been fitting. An article I wrote on the subject: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/218939-all-blacks-whats-in-a-jersey
Working Class Rugger
Guest
There changing to Kooga in October.
manley
Roar Rookie
This is very off topic. With Canterbury closing its European side, many UK club will be without a kit. As a whole, the company is up for sale. What does this mean for the USA Eagles kit deal? To be honest, hope they have to kind a new kit provider because I don't like what they have going on for the Eagles right now. On another note, I heard the Wallabies will also be moving away from Canterbury in 2009 sometime. However, I have heard conflicting rumors and was hoping someone could clarify. Who is going to be: Nike or Kooga?
Working Class Rugger
Guest
The should also establish there on indepedent association something along the lines of the American States Rugby Association/Organisation/Union.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Matt Completely agree with you. The state unions should look inward and establish a state based representative squad on a semi-professional basis. All the other clubs from within those states will filter directly toward the State team. There was a report write up about the optimum timing of any future Rugby Championship and it suggested that it should be run directly after the NFL season. There could be a 3 or 4 week "internationals break" for incoming tests during the season and then have more international at the end of season.
manley
Roar Rookie
I have said for a long time that the current structure is silly, but that goes for all levels of USA Rugby. From D3 up to Super League. Yes some clubs are better than others, but 4 levels of play running at the same time just is not warranted. My thinking is that the States themselves need to turn inwards and get a way from territorial unions and move to state based organizations. Many states already have these for youth rugby and they work so much better than a Commonwealth-style system. "National Championships" are a joke anyway, so why not put the focus on state/regional championships? Teams play locally in club-type competitions from September to January. Take the best players from those teams and develop a semi professional competition that runs from February to August (NFL off season.) Of course you would work in an International season, too. I say run things parallel with the Southern Hemisphere comps for 2 reasons: 1) Can't compete with the NFL, so don't bother. 2) Opens up the possibility for better international competition.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Thurston That is why there would need to be set criteria to meet in order to participate in the League. Those where just my suggestions for teams, the reality could be very different. I didn't intentionally overlook any region.
AndyS
Guest
It has always been the timing that has made me scratch my head too. Rugby as a winter sport in Canada and the north of the USA has always seemed a hell of a hurdle to me. Given that it is still in the process of finding its feet, should the code perhaps consider changing the calendar? One advantage might also be then the alignment of both North and South America for subsequent internationals...
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
ESPN may be the go given its recent interest. The clubs will resist mergers, but bringing in new criteria can flush them out. 2 teams in such large cities, while laudable, makes no sense unless both are strong. It also reduces the exposure elsewhere, as it means someone somewhere is missing out.
Thurston
Guest
WCRugger - I like your idea for the new league. In Canada, I'd have Niagara combine with Toronto (2 1/2 drive up the QEW). Include Calgary which has a vibrant rugby community. Vancouver (Bayside, Burnaby, Meraloma, UBC) would be strong, and you'd have to include Victoria (Vikes, James Bay, Castaway Wanders, Velox) which has the best combined team in Canada. But bear in mind, those prairie and eastern teams would be snowed in in the winter. In the States, a team out of SL City would take advantage of the BY trickle down presence. Detroit because the game's healthy in MI. Seattle for the Pacific Northwest rep. Very little TV interest in rugby in Canada. It's all hockey, hockey, hockey plus the Jays and the Raptors, the NFL and the CFL and, of course, Nascar. In the US, I don't know how rugby could get shelf space. ESPN and The Outdoor Channel have to deliver lowest cost per thousand, and we're all still waiting to hear if Setanta is going to be viable. Rugby's a niche market and PPV streaming may eventually be the answer if the quality and reliabilty improves.