|
I've thought for years that Sevens could be the vehicle for mainstream attention, and now with the Olympic involvement, it appears the powers that be (the networks) finally agree.
However, some questions still remain about this event.
It strikes me as odd that Yale, the fourth placed Ivy League team, was invited, or Arizona State, who has fallen in to Division 2.
And what about Michigan? They were in last place in Midwest East this year, not winning a single league game with a -220 point differential. One could also argue Florida and Notre Dame, both of which have had good years recently, but still have not made nationals (Florida since '97, Notre Dame ever).
I'm sure there are a lot of programs that may have declined due to scheduling issues or various other reasons, but I'd like to be at least somewhat assured they were offered to attend (Arkansas State, LSU, Air Force, BYU, Bowling Green, Indiana, St Mary's, etc).
I would also like to know how long this event has been in planning, and why it appears as if there was no effort to hold qualifying events. What was the criteria for an invitation?
The additional exposure granted to the programs involved with this event (on national television, no less) is huge, so for the fans, players, and alumni of the programs not in attendance, questions need to be answered.
Erik V. Geib
I read the announcement of the College 7's tournament to be televised by NBC, of course my question is, when were the teams selected to compete in this tournament? Who selected them and why?
I firmly believe that my club, Kutztown University could compete in 7's with all of the teams on that list.
I have sat in on a round table discussion with Nigel Melville and the territorial coaches when the topics of college rugby and television broadcasts were discussed.
Kutztown, Cal Poly, St Mary's, Arkansas State, Life and other schools without the national marketing clout, but with better rugby track records, were pushed to the side.
I understand the reasoning on the part of NBC and most television networks, but isn't the caliber of rugby important. For example, Michigan is a D-2 club and Yale, along with some other teams on that list, couldn't compete with the previous teams I mentioned.
Also, wouldn't it be to the television network’s advantage to have a few "underdog" schools in the competition, especially since America loves the underdog . Only thing, those rugby programs are not really underdogs at all.
Therefore , whoever sets this up should take into consideration that the so called underdog teams, to the viewing public, have a high percentage chance of advancing and bringing the American viewers right along with them.
Case point scenario, hypothetically, Kutztown and Cal or Kutztown and Tennessee square off in the finals of this 7's tournament and the broadcast team had built the David and Goliath story.
Who do you think America would cheer for in that contest? Being an American, I can guarantee you it would be the underdog, Kutztown. If Kutztown wins, the network has a Cinderella story and it only helps the sport and the broad cast.
Only problem, the networks in conjunction with our rugby administrators feel that the American public will only tune in if they see marquee university names on the screen. I guess all of us "little giant killers" will have to wait until there is a collegiate 7's national championship tournament to have the chance for any national exposure.
I certainly don't want anyone to tell me that these schools have to earn it first. I challenge you to try and win that argument with Yale, Harvard, Michigan, Florida on your list instead of St Mary's, Cal Poly, Kutztown, Life and Arkansas State.
Dr Gregg Jones
Kutztown University Rugby
Editor's note: USA Sevens is the driving force behind this planned Invitational. Their New York-based execs handpicked the teams. It's our understanding that plans have been in the pipeline for some time.
Looking at that college 7s list of teams again, does Notre Dame have it in all of their contracts that they get top billing in any media outlet?
Earl Dewey
The sooner USA Rugby makes an age limit for collegiate rugby the sooner rugby will start to improve and grow faster.
Age range for collegiate should be 22, anyone older should play men's rugby and if a college has players that are older than 22 then they should start a men's program at their college.
It is ridiculous to have 24+ year olds (experienced and physically more developed) playing against 18 and 19 year olds. Coaches must get a big kick out of seeing older players smashing up youngsters. So good for rugby.
Collegiate rugby should be used to groom younger players for the next level, anyone that is over 22 and not already considered for USA Rugby has no place in Collegiate rugby.
The rest of the world has age group of U21, so there must be a reason for it. But I suppose that beating teams by 100 points is good for rugby, the good player will not learn anything from that and the losing team can not enjoy that.
Come on USA Rugby, do something for rugby.
Bruce Anderson
You've been around the sport much longer than I have. Could you attempt to explain why the IRB sees it necessary to put out weekly world rankings?
FIFA ranks nations monthly and even that at times seems like overkill, but it makes more sense to me than what the IRB does.
Jason Gatties
Editor's note: While we're not 100% sure why the IRB does it, we suggest the reasoning may be similar to that of other rankings such as the BCS, AP Poll, Coaches Poll and even our own ARN Top 25.
Teams play every week, meaning there are wins and losses each week. Those results affect a team's ranking that week, so it makes sense to reflect a team's movement, either upwards or downwards, as it happens rather than inputting a lot of data into a computer on a monthly basis.
It could be argued that FIFA's rankings are not as current or up to date as others. Perhaps FIFA should take a leaf out of everyone else's book and get with the program.
