New York Times on rugby

[spooky]

I'd just like to point out in reference to the blowouts people are talking about, Rugby League did attempt to minimse these in the last Workd Cup with a somewhat controversial format, where the stronger teams and weaker teams were grouped together. The result was the largest blowout score being Australia 52 Fiji 0 in the semi final. It actaully worked pretty well, with a lot more competitive games overall. The developing nations still got to play in the world cup, but they also had a chance to win some games.

This is yet another reason why League needs to distance itself from Union IMO. We're an innovative sport that is not afraid to change things up to make for more entertaining rugby. Something the kick and clappers seem incapable of doing.

 

[deluded pom?]

I actually didn't even realise the RUWC went on for seven weeks :shock: such is my interest in it. Again, I didn't realise they had twenty teams in the competition. Aren't they looking at a loss financially in NZ for this tournament? If they are then no wonder. How much must it cost just to accomodate the competing teams for that length of time? I agree with spooky. We may not like the super pool concept but on the whole it does keep the minnows away from the better teams where floggings are inevitable. The problems occur when the RLWC has floggings that are highlighted and ridiculed by not only a pro RU media but also our alleged own pro RL media. On the contrary any floggings at the RUWC are glossed over at best and ignored at worst.

 

[Wilson1]

I actually didn't even realise the RUWC went on for seven weeks :shock: such is my interest in it. Again, I didn't realise they had twenty teams in the competition. Aren't they looking at a loss financially in NZ for this tournament? If they are then no wonder. How much must it cost just to accomodate the competing teams for that length of time? I agree with spooky. We may not like the super pool concept but on the whole it does keep the minnows away from the better teams where floggings are inevitable. The problems occur when the RLWC has floggings that are highlighted and ridiculed by not only a pro RU media but also our alleged own pro RL media. On the contrary any floggings at the RUWC are glossed over at best and ignored at worst.

The RWC will, as always, make masses of money for the IRB. The last one made well over 100 million in profit and much of this was distributed through developing countries. The NZRU and the New Zealand government will make losses for this tournament but it's not about making money for those two groups. All they want to do is provide a spectacle for the people. The New Zealand economy will make a lot of money from this world cup.

 

[Parra]

Not allowing developing countries to play the top teams is counter productive. That is a huge part of the world cup. The minnows already play each other, but they don't get to test themselves against the top nations outside world cup matches.

What the RWC needs is some sort of plate final to be run in conjunction with the main finals. It was suggested somewhere that this could run midweek during the finals - keeps the lower-tier nations in the tournament and provides more matches.

The RWC makes a small fortune - hence the bleating this week from the ARU & NZRU for a bigger slice of the profits.

 

[Big Picture]

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".

Give this man a cigar, he's hit the nail on the head here. As I've said elsewhere the profile of RU in North America is extremely low. The views of American and Canadian sports fans toward it can be summed up as follows: a tiny minority of aficionados appreciate it, the rest either know nothing about it and/or regard it as an inferior sport we gave up decades ago.

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).

Maintaining distance from RU is very important for RL on this continent, RU isn't much of a factor in these parts and we're much better off having no visible association with it. I'd be inclined use a name like International Football to highlight the parallels to American football. It's the football audience and sponsors we need to make inroads with here more than any others, and the parallels between the two games point the way forward.

 

[juro]

Talking about blowouts, it happens in virtually every sport. Take a look at the tennis grand slams. You often see scores of 6-1 6-2 in the womens draws. The top players often go through to the very end without dropping a set. But this is all accepted as part of the game, and since there are multiple games played every day, there will be other closer scores which mask the one-sided ones.