New York Times on rugby

[MattyCLark]

I understand that this is a RUGBY LEAGUE forum. But I think that this article effects the whole of rugby in the United States. And before everyone gets on their Union vs League horse this is the USA, we don't know enough about the battles to care. Respect to other countrys and their rugby code issues. USA has none, most of us play both codes if we can. Yes for those of you that don't know we are a country of Sunny Bills.
Anyway the explination is over enjoy the article. I just wanted to see your thoughts. Ok so I can't hyper link it but here is the info.


At Rugby’s Big Event, Let the Routs Begin
By VICTOR MATHER

Published: September 27, 2011




It is the biggest stage in the sport: the Rugby World Cup, held every four years, matching up the best teams in the world and captivating millions of fans. It is sometimes called the third most popular sports event in the world, after the Olympics and soccer’s World Cup.







And here are some of the scores from this year’s event in New Zealand: England 67, Romania 3; New Zealand 83, Japan 7; South Africa 87, Namibia 0.
The sport of rugby, venerable in its own bone-crushing way with its rucks, mauls and scrums, can seem puzzling to a nonaficionado. But any hopes that its appeal will move much beyond the old British Empire seem oddly undercut at what is supposed to be the sport’s best moment.
Take, for instance, the decision to stage the event over seven weeks, nearly a month of which is used to play 40 games that reduce the field only from 20 to 8. That is nearly twice as long as soccer’s World Cup, which manages to reduce 32 teams to one in a month. Add the complication of having only about 10 teams that have any significant chance to make the final eight, and you have a recipe for meaningless games, blowouts and boredom.
Despite the organizers’ aspirations for the cosmopolitan reach of soccer, the truth is there are only a few countries where rugby is played at any kind of high level: the nations of the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France and, in recent years, Argentina. With a field of 20 at the World Cup, that leaves half the spots for teams that not only have no chance to win, but also little chance to be competitive with the top teams.
Organizers say these countries, often called the minnows, are admitted to the Cup to try to increase the popularity of rugby worldwide.
The dominance of the elite teams at the Rugby World Cup is not a new phenomenon. In six previous World Cups, only five different teams have made the final, and only eight have made a semifinal. And some of the scores from earlier Cups were even more lopsided: New Zealand 108, Portugal 13 in 2007; Australia 142, Namibia 0 in 2003; England 101, Tonga 10 in 1999. (For the uninitiated, scoring is similar to American football; a try, equivalent to a touchdown, is worth 5 points, a drop kick, like a field goal, is worth 3.)
The results of most Cup games are in so little doubt that fans focus on the margin of victory. In the first game of the tournament, on Sept. 9, New Zealand beat Tonga, 41-10, only to be sharply criticized by the news media and fans for not trouncing the islanders by a bigger margin. After his team’s 81-7 shellacking of Namibia, Wales Coach Warren Gatland told the BBC he was disappointed. “We started off with 22 points,” he said, “and then the guys felt the game was all over, went to sleep and stopped being aggressive.”
Also compounding the problems of the weaker teams is the schedule. Broadcasters want the top teams playing on the weekend, so they have usually had a full week off between games. The minnows have been slotted in wherever openings remain, so many of them have been playing some of their games after only a few days’ rest, a big disadvantage in a physical game like rugby.
To be sure, there are blowouts in other sports. Super Bowls have been decided by scores of 55-10 and 52-17. But these results are generally surprises. No one expects anything but a rout when a minnow meets a rugby power. Bookmakers decided that Ireland, for example, was a 42 ½-point favorite over Russia on Sunday. (In the end, Russia could not even cover that number, losing, 62-16.) On Sunday, New Zealand will play Canada, and the point spread is a whopping 64 ½. And Canada is not even one of the worst teams at the tournament, having beaten Tonga.
There is some impatience with these early-round games in the countries that are rugby powers. “Mismatches undermine the World Cup,” read a headline in The Independent Online of South Africa. “Do World Cup Thrashing Benefit the Sport?" The Guardian asked its readers. (They were split.)
Others suggested that things could be worse. An essey in The New Zealand Herald contended that the smaller countries were actually beginning to close the gap on the big nations, citing Japan’s mere 26-point loss to France, and Georgia’s being supposedly “exceptional for long periods against England.” (England won that game, 41-10.)
By Sunday, all the teams will have finally played four games each. The Cup then turns into a single-elimination event, and no doubt there will be some high-quality rugby combined with actual uncertainty. And the minnows will be on their way home.
Still, there are no signs that the weaker teams are sorry to be at the Cup.
“Exposure like this you just never get,” Colin Hawley of the American team said after a game against mighty Australia. “That game tonight has taught me so much.”
Final score: Australia 67, United States 5.
Emma Stoney contributed reporting from Wellington, New Zealand.

 

[Evil Homer]

With due respect, this isn't anything to do with RL and I'm pretty sure the vast majority on this forum are indifferent at best towards the 'Rugby World Cup'. We all know it's a joke competition and it doesn't concern our sport whatsoever.

 

[MattyCLark]

With due respect, this isn't anything to do with RL and I'm pretty sure the vast majority on this forum are indifferent at best towards the 'Rugby World Cup'. We all know it's a joke competition and it doesn't concern our sport whatsoever.

I understand that this article is about rugby UNION and this is a RL forum. But it under North American Rugby League. The Rugby family in the USA is small and RL or Union we have to support one another. Players in the States play both codes and miss information here such as this< I feel effects both codes. I mearly posted it for some insight on the article and how people felt about rugby as a whole in the USA. I'm sure that with the RL World Cup maybe a nother article such as this maybe written. If I am in the wrong please remove the post.

 

[obsulete]

I see where you're coming from, especially the reference to British empire and then pointing out the blowouts. The league world cup, when it hits 16 teams again, will feature greater blowouts that's for sure. But.

"Still, there is no signs that the weaker teams are sorry to be at the Cup"

There's the bit that we as a sport can take from the article, they went through a proper qualifying process, and being there, at the main event, is reward enough for the participants.

 

[Number 16]

As far as RL is concerned, the thing to note here is that the NY Times actually ran a story about the RUWC. Sure, it's not exactly a glowing reference for the competition, but it's publicity.

If nothing else it highlights a potential benefit to RL of regular international competitions and World Cups.

The main criticism here is the many blow outs that occur, a problem that RL's equivalent will also have to contend with. Looking forward to 2017, our code should be looking to have a WC that embraces as many nations as it's reasonable to include, yet develop a competition structure that minimises the occurrences of whitewashes.

With inventive planning a credible tournament can be created that includes the bigger nations like England, Australia and NZ alongside the smaller like Serbia, Russia and Canada, but without the biggest meeting the smallest in the group stage.

 

[druzik]

I think the emphasis is all wrong.

World Cups, in any sport are there to showcase a sport. Its not about the powers and the minnows or close scores or blow out scores, its about allowing a sports world wide community to come together and actually show off the sport and to allow different teams the chance and opportunity to play against teams they normally would not get to play.

The soccer WC has "monnow" teams, what Victor seems to have lost on him is that even in that sport there is in reality only 8-10 teams with any real chance of making it through tho the semis or winning it. the rest are just there to make up the numbers and to promote and showcase the sport.

That is the point of world cups, hence any time that the idea of blow out scores get focused on and worries about, I think that does more damage then the actual blow out scores themselves, since the main point of a show case event is lost.

[sarcasm hat on]
An even more important point that has not been mentioned by the good upity Union folk is how many tens of billions of people have actually watched the World Cup!
[/sarcasm hat off]

 

[Thomas]

I note he doesn't mention the games that were close. Canada - Japan? Scotland - Romania? Ireland - USA?

c**k.

 

[Poul]

I understand that this article is about rugby UNION and this is a RL forum. But it under North American Rugby League. The Rugby family in the USA is small and RL or Union we have to support one another. Players in the States play both codes and miss information here such as this< I feel effects both codes. I mearly posted it for some insight on the article and how people felt about rugby as a whole in the USA. I'm sure that with the RL World Cup maybe a nother article such as this maybe written. If I am in the wrong please remove the post.

I think this article highlights the thinly veiled contempt or disdain that many Americans have for "rugby".
The British Empire reference would have you think that many consider the game to be an anachronistic vestige of said empire, namely "English Rugby".
This is why I feel that in the USA, Rugby League has to distance itself, at least in the eyes of the fans and potential sponsors ( if not players), from union, if it is going gain acceptance as a legitimate American sport.
I believe this can be done by renaming Rugby League in the USA, American Rugby (you may wish to comment in the thread I have posted previously on this topic).

 

[Knownothing]

I think this article highlights the thinly veiled contempt or disdain that many Americans have for "rugby".
The British Empire reference would have you think that many consider the game to be an anachronistic vestige of said empire, namely "English Rugby".

Victor Mather, the author of the article, mostly writes about that other English game, soccer - also an anachronistic vestige of the British Empire.

This is why I feel that in the USA, Rugby League has to distance itself, at least in the eyes of the fans and potential sponsors ( if not players), from union, if it is going gain acceptance as a legitimate American sport.
I believe this can be done by renaming Rugby League in the USA, American Rugby (you may wish to comment in the thread I have posted previously on this topic).

Either the word "rugby" stinks, or it does not. If it stinks as a stand-alone name, why does it not stink when it is preceded by the word "American"?

 

[Parra]

The author misses the point of the world cup.

If he wants to see elite, close competition he can watch the annual tri nations tournaments in either code. Or NRL or Super Rugby.

Or just wait and watch the finals of the world cup.

 

[Goddo]

I understand that this article is about rugby UNION and this is a RL forum. But it under North American Rugby League. The Rugby family in the USA is small and RL or Union we have to support one another. Players in the States play both codes and miss information here such as this< I feel effects both codes. I mearly posted it for some insight on the article and how people felt about rugby as a whole in the USA. I'm sure that with the RL World Cup maybe a nother article such as this maybe written. If I am in the wrong please remove the post.

I'll tell you what I think the attitude in the article tells me.

That the way towards domestic growth in the US is achieved with a strong domestic league that has exciting elements that strike a chord with American sports fans. NOT through representation in lop sided internationals.

If the USA is to play internationals, it is best done through playing similarily capable sides, especially those it traditionally has rivalries. RL rules are naturally suited to America due to similarities with NFL. RU is not.

In short, Rugby League should focus on strengthening the USARL as a true domestic league (the AMNRL is pretty pathetic), and engaging junior tallent and potential fans through universities and schools. Then get a small TV deal to improve exposure, and expand into more schools, engage more people.

 

[Parra]

Rugby 7s is an Olympic sport from the 2016 games. It will be interesting to see what impact this has.

 

[Poul]

Victor Mather, the author of the article, mostly writes about that other English game, soccer - also an anachronistic vestige of the British Empire.




Either the word "rugby" stinks, or it does not. If it stinks as a stand-alone name, why does it not stink when it is preceded by the word "American"?

Whilst the modern version of soccer (asscociation football) was popularised and spread by the British Empire, the game had preexisted in may different forms and in many countries for centuries, and now likes to promote itself as "the world game".

I don't think that the word "rugby" per se stinks, but I believe that in the eyes of many Americans, its association with the British Empire does. After all the Americans fought a war to remove themselves from that empire.

The word "American" allows Americans "ownership" of Rugby (League). American Football has evolved from a game played between McGill univeristy and Harvard in c1874, which was a version of rugby played at the time. How did the Americans differentiate their version of rugby or football? ....... by giving it the moniker American Football.
Did it matter that at the time they were essentially playing "English Rugby"? NO, because it was now an American game.

I believe we can change the perception that Americans may have for Rugby (League) by renaming it American Rugby.

 

[Evil Homer]

I understand that this article is about rugby UNION and this is a RL forum. But it under North American Rugby League. The Rugby family in the USA is small and RL or Union we have to support one another. Players in the States play both codes and miss information here such as this< I feel effects both codes. I mearly posted it for some insight on the article and how people felt about rugby as a whole in the USA. I'm sure that with the RL World Cup maybe a nother article such as this maybe written. If I am in the wrong please remove the post.

This is why I believe our sport needs to distance itself as far as possible from Union if it wants to succeed. Despite the public perception in America and the fact that many players play both Union and League, the truth is that they are completely different sports with no affiliation whatsoever. There is no sport called 'rugby', there are two different sports that have that word in their name. Although he seemed to be missing the point a little, to be honest I can't really find fault with most of what the author said in that article, and if the RUWC is a failure then that doesn't really have any bearing on RL, if anything it's probably a positive. The only problems for RL will come if people are unable to distinguish between the codes and understand that they are completely seperate sports, which is something that I think needs to happen on a far wider scale in the US.

 

[billy2]

Whether we like it or not, in many of the emerging nations we are riding the coat tails of RU, and the RU world cup is a good thing for us.

 

[Knownothing]

The word "American" allows Americans "ownership" of Rugby (League). American Football has evolved from a game played between McGill univeristy and Harvard in c1874, which was a version of rugby played at the time. How did the Americans differentiate their version of rugby or football? ....... by giving it the moniker American Football.
Did it matter that at the time they were essentially playing "English Rugby"? NO, because it was now an American game.

I believe we can change the perception that Americans may have for Rugby (League) by renaming it American Rugby.

I will be accused of being a troll, as usual. However, I have to ask you, do you realise what you are up against? For example, talking about traditions, and the ownership of names, the eight Ivy League universities have been playing what they call "rugby" against each other since the same period, the 1870's. Not continuously, but that does not particularly matter - they are certainly playing each other currently, so many of America's opinion-makers have at least a nodding acquaintance with the name "rugby" from their student days. The former President George W. Bush played fullback for Yale, for example.

That momentum would be a huge hurdle to overcome, taking lots of dollars, and lots of time. Who will bankroll the effort? Would not huge pots of money be better spent bankrolling teams, and competitions? Build a competitive sport from the ground up, the name does not particularly matter, what matters is to attract players, spectators, sponsors, and ultimately, media interest and big dollars. The teams, and the competitions, will be what makes the sport successful, not its name.


Shakespeare said it "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

 

[Parra]

The OP sums up the position well.

And before everyone gets on their Union vs League horse this is the USA, we don't know enough about the battles to care. Respect to other countrys and their rugby code issues. USA has none, most of us play both codes if we can.

If that is the way it is then that is the way it is.

 

[DINGb@T]

<Warning: long post>

Good post and I think it's really relevent to the American experience of League.

The idea of a world cup is clearly a quaint, somewhat alien concept for Americans. They miss any emotional investment in both soccer and Union's world cup and that's inevitably going to lead to a focus on the strangeness of the tournament and its unfamiliar mechanics.

And I also think that it clearly supports the idea that if you're going to do things in America then you're going to have to do it the American way. And that clearly means competitive-ness rather than joy-in-participation.

What I get from that article is the fact that the ability to be competitive is one of the most important aspects of supporting a team or sport. Why would Americans want to watch a sport in which they know that they're going to be beaten and beaten well? That's the WCs they see- competitions in which there's nothing on the line because to date there's simply been nothing gained and therefore nothing important to lose.

But also, why would they want to watch or support a team in any sort of competition (including domestic) if there's no sense of competitive success? You need a consistency of competition in which the object of your support (ie your team) is in an environment where their actions are a) significant, but also b) something that requires the supporters emotional investment because they believe it's important to get their team across that final line. Ie to scream and shout and cheer because of the importance of that single action or that critical choice etc.

If your team is getting a caning, or caning someone else, you don't really get that involved as each action doesn't have that much significance. Like America in the Union WC. Their flogging was inevitable and the reaction to each achievement is congratulory but not passionate.

Therefore that's what's more important in America, for either rugby. You need a competition that's worth something to American supporters. Americans don't have any emotional response to beating anyone at either WC so they're not really going to take it seriously. But beating those stuck up people from that other state, or the idiots from across town, or proving to the rest of America that people in their city can achieve awesome things etc IS something that can provoke passion.

For interntaional League to matter to America they need to care about beating other people, which isn't a really important thing to Americans. While the international games can help, America may be better served with a focus on producing a very competitive domestic comp where fans believe their team has a chance, that the struggle to acheive is involving enough to require their passion, and that the end goal can be seen as a significant acheivement evidence of <insert motivation here>.

However, that doesn't mean you can't produce a care factor in the international game. It's gonna take some fair dinkum comeptition though. I mean years of close games that go back and forth, rather than comps simply dominated by a single nation. After seeing the Colonial Cup recently I think that's a real possibility, you just have to convince your average American rugby fan that beating Canada and Jamaica in League is worth something. That might not be the easiest job.

 

[Poul]

I will be accused of being a troll, as usual. However, I have to ask you, do you realise what you are up against? For example, talking about traditions, and the ownership of names, the eight Ivy League universities have been playing what they call "rugby" against each other since the same period, the 1870's. Not continuously, but that does not particularly matter - they are certainly playing each other currently, so many of America's opinion-makers have at least a nodding acquaintance with the name "rugby" from their student days. The former President George W. Bush played fullback for Yale, for example.

That momentum would be a huge hurdle to overcome, taking lots of dollars, and lots of time. Who will bankroll the effort? Would not huge pots of money be better spent bankrolling teams, and competitions? Build a competitive sport from the ground up, the name does not particularly matter, what matters is to attract players, spectators, sponsors, and ultimately, media interest and big dollars. The teams, and the competitions, will be what makes the sport successful, not its name.


Shakespeare said it "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

I believe it is an indictment on union in the USA that their sport has been around for over a century, as you point out, and yet, even having been played by no less than two former presidents, it has had neglible impact on American sporting consciousness.
Obviously, union has done something wrong.
I am trying to look at ways for Rugby League to avoid the same mistakes.

Changing the name of a well established sport may be expensive, but for one that barely registers in American consciousness, I don't think it would be too costly.
I agree with your highlighted assertions, and certainly competitive teams and competitions will help.
However, I believe that for Rugby League to make the leap into American sporting consciousness, it needs to be renamed ..... American Rugby.

Out of respect for the OP, and not wishing to hijack this thread, I shall be posting all further comments on this subject in the "American Rugby"? thread.

 

[theblob]

The word "American" allows Americans "ownership" of Rugby (League). American Football has evolved from a game played between McGill univeristy and Harvard in c1874, which was a version of rugby played at the time. How did the Americans differentiate their version of rugby or football? ....... by giving it the moniker American Football.

But they don't refer to it as American Football. I've followed the NFL for almost 25 years and the only times I have ever seen it referred to as American Football is when marketed to a foreign audience or in research.

About the 1874 game, the sport was then known as the 'Boston Game', and it wasn't until Walter Camp that the rules changed sufficiently to make it a true, separate sport. I think the most important point to make is that the game didn't need to be marketed as American in style, as you are proposing for rugby league, because it was a sport that was created in America!