The Baylor Lariat (TBL) published an article on August 29th that stated the Baylor Rugby Club's position regarding the conference they will play in the 2012-2013 season (Allied Rugby Conference). I presume this article is in response to Pat Clifton's RugbyMag article, Turmoil in Texas College Rugby, regarding the "controversy" Baylor's move to the ARC created.
To recap, Baylor stated that they wanted out of the SWC for various reasons (numbers, competition, conference management). The SWC needs a seventh team in their conference to automatically qualify (AQ) for USAR's D-1AA National Round of Sixteen and wants Baylor to fulfill a three year commitment to the conference (whether such a commitment exists is part of the contention). Baylor originally wanted to move to Division 2 (Lonestar Collegiate Rugby Conference). The Bears were told that they could compete in Division 2, but could not advance to Nationals because of Baylor University's NCAA D1 status in football (USAR's anti-sandbagging rule from a few years back). With no other route to play, Baylor responded to the open invitation for application to the ARC and liked the opportunity presented.
Honestly, I do not think much controversy exists.
Baylor wanted to be out of the SWC. We could go back and forth all day (and a couple of weeks) regarding the reasons, but, bottom-line, Baylor does not want to be a member. Other than the "protecting the other clubs in the conference" argument, I see no reason for a conference to want a club that does not want to be a part of it.
That brings us to the "protecting the clubs" argument. USAR has 14 conferences competing in D-1AA, 12 of which are AQ'd to the National Round of Sixteen. I do not foresee the Competitions Committee squeezing out the SWC (or the other non-AQ conference) from one of those four open spots. THAT would be a real controversy. USAR has too many issues on their plate to allow a molehill like this to become a mountain, especially in D1AA, where several of the supposed top teams will be competing in the Varsity Cup instead of the Round of Sixteen.
What competitive advantage does Baylor give the ARC? Baylor's Head Coach Nick Lane says his team understands the challenges ahead. They understand that being a factor in the ARC will take more than one season. However, Baylor University is enjoying a huge freshman crop this year and the Baylor Rugby Club intends to build on that. Baylor's been at the top of the heap before (2001 USAR Collegiate Division 2 Champions under the steerage of Mike Kwedar). The Bears can get there again.
The Lariat's article possessed some back story facts that do not tell the whole story.
To recap, Baylor stated that they wanted out of the SWC for various reasons (numbers, competition, conference management). The SWC needs a seventh team in their conference to automatically qualify (AQ) for USAR's D-1AA National Round of Sixteen and wants Baylor to fulfill a three year commitment to the conference (whether such a commitment exists is part of the contention). Baylor originally wanted to move to Division 2 (Lonestar Collegiate Rugby Conference). The Bears were told that they could compete in Division 2, but could not advance to Nationals because of Baylor University's NCAA D1 status in football (USAR's anti-sandbagging rule from a few years back). With no other route to play, Baylor responded to the open invitation for application to the ARC and liked the opportunity presented.
Honestly, I do not think much controversy exists.
Baylor wanted to be out of the SWC. We could go back and forth all day (and a couple of weeks) regarding the reasons, but, bottom-line, Baylor does not want to be a member. Other than the "protecting the other clubs in the conference" argument, I see no reason for a conference to want a club that does not want to be a part of it.
That brings us to the "protecting the clubs" argument. USAR has 14 conferences competing in D-1AA, 12 of which are AQ'd to the National Round of Sixteen. I do not foresee the Competitions Committee squeezing out the SWC (or the other non-AQ conference) from one of those four open spots. THAT would be a real controversy. USAR has too many issues on their plate to allow a molehill like this to become a mountain, especially in D1AA, where several of the supposed top teams will be competing in the Varsity Cup instead of the Round of Sixteen.
What competitive advantage does Baylor give the ARC? Baylor's Head Coach Nick Lane says his team understands the challenges ahead. They understand that being a factor in the ARC will take more than one season. However, Baylor University is enjoying a huge freshman crop this year and the Baylor Rugby Club intends to build on that. Baylor's been at the top of the heap before (2001 USAR Collegiate Division 2 Champions under the steerage of Mike Kwedar). The Bears can get there again.
The Lariat's article possessed some back story facts that do not tell the whole story.
- Texas resigned from the SWC "free and clear". According to both Scot Courtney of the SWC & Craig Coates of the ARC, Texas commited to fulfilling it's obligations to the SWC before leaving for the ARC only. In fact, Texas will play in both conferences this season.
- Texas A&M and Texas Tech were denied access to the Southwest Rugby Conference.
- TBL omitted that it was A&M's Developmental XV that was not granted play in the SWC, but WAS allowed to compete in the TRU Collegiate Division 2. So it wasn't as if A&M's Development XV wasn't allowed to compete at all.
- Also, the reasons behind Tech not lying under the SWC blanket have to do with travel time and expense for the other clubs. Personally, I think that if you play rugby in Texas, get ready to travel long distances and make good relations with clubs where you can play by meeting in the middle. I think these attitudes will change as the Texas HS rugby players begin to matriculate into Texas Collegiate rugby. No one hears Alliance and McAllen complaining because they have to meet at Burr Field to play!