There's much ado about which collegiate men's teams deserve to be in what divisions this year. Every one seems to have an opinion and, yes, I have mine. The Collegiate Premier Division (CPD) had me, and many others, hopeful of the direction of the game. I had one reservation - the CPD at the time (and now) started out with too many teams involved. There was another contribution to the disparity that I was not fully aware of at the onset. Many critics of the state of men's collegiate rugby dub it "the Haves" (clubs with other-than-club-sport-status at their university) and "the Have-Nots" (clubs shackled in the sports club system).
Regarding the size of the competition, I think we should have started smaller, perhaps 8-12 teams instead of 31. Sure, that equals more travel for the teams involved. However, if the original CPD teams were vetted to understand their capabilities more fully, this obstacle may have been overcome. In 2009, this may have meant a 6-8 team CPD. In 2014, it could result in a 12 team Division 1A.
What teams might make this pipe-dream competition? I think it could be a division with two conferences, East and West. East could be composed of Army, Navy, Life, Penn State, Davenport, and Notre Dame. The West could be Cal, St Mary's, BYU, Air Force, Lindenwood, and Arkansas State. Notre Dame is a club sport, however their status will likely change after the large influx of endowment money they have recently received. That change, their brand name, and their obvious recruiting prowess will soon make Notre Dame Rugby a force to be reckoned.
A Division 1A set up as such would also put "the Haves" into a status of their own, thus negating that pesky issue.
The quality of rugby that this competition would enjoy might produce numerous benefits for rugby in the United States. An 11 game regular season is marketable and manageable, especially if played in a Super Rugby format. Use that same format for a Championship Round - West 1 v East 2 and East 1 v West 2 in SemiFinals - and there will be some very exciting semifinal and final matches.
Additionally, as tough of a competition as this obviously would be, at least 15-20 rugby athletes per season would be produced that would be ready for the next level. One of the things we do not enjoy as a burgeoning rugby nation at the moment is a crop of ready for the next level players that are improving the quality of our rugby. This could solve part of that problem.
What of promotion/relegation and expansion? Surely those not included would want a piece of this pie at some point. Such a competition should allow for such ambitions, of course. But it would be remiss if some strict rules were not set as to what it takes to challenge for a promotion/relegation match(es). I would propose (but not limit to) that items such as financial capability, university support, team status within the respective university's system, and the team's history of play and program continuity be considered as qualifications for a promotion/relegation match.
Expansion should surely be in the cards. As teams slowly but surely move out of the sports club system and into a team sports set-up under their athletic department, an eye should be kept out for those deserving of inclusion. Penn State and Stanford have shown us the way in their fund-raising efforts. These teams are no longer shackled by the sports club system because their alumni raised the necessary funds to support the individual teams.
I think that after 2016 we will see a rush of universities looking at this option. The Olympics and an inevitable men's professional competition(s) will change the face of college rugby in the US. Successful clubs such as San Diego State, Utah, Kutzown, Dartmouth, Texas A&M, Bowling Green, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Cal Poly, UCLA, Delaware, and Central Washington (just to name a few) have already raised considerable funds and will raise more once alumni begin matriculating to the Olympic and professional realm in greater numbers. The conundrum for the athletic departments will be what to do with a sport that is not governed by NCAA or NAIA (and does not want to be). I have no answers for that at the moment, but it does need to be discussed and considered.
What about "the Have-Nots"? I propose two issues need to be addressed:
1) Allow the conferences to build and play as they please. Division 2 clubs know who they are and do not enjoy getting smashed by Division 1AA clubs every week, and vice-versa. Enable both Divisions' success by presenting them with viable post-season playing options and heed when they desire to play what form (7s & XVs) of the game.
2) Get rid of that insanely stupid rule stating that clubs in universities with FBS/FCS football teams must compete in Division 1A or 1AA for national championships. Again, these clubs are shackled by the sports club system. All cannot compete at the same level (as evidenced by the scores we have seen this year). Do not force them to do so.
Many of the Have-Nots (and a couple of the Haves) also need better coaching. I do not have a tried and true theory on how to address that. However, if I coached a college rugby team with varsity status, I would explore the possibility of requiring my players to complete coaching and refereeing certifications after their first two years of play. I have witnessed the outcome of younger players obtaining such certifications. Some may never use them as designed. Some do. All were better rugby players upon getting certified. We need better players, more coaches, and more referees. This idea cannot hurt the game.
Is this a perfect concept? No. There are some ideas in here that might work wonderfully, there are some that might fall flat quickly. Hopefully, sharing my pipe dream might engender some much needed discussion that eventually will produce a positive outcome for college rugby in the US.
NOTE: While I was proof-reading this, I saw the Cal-Penn St score from last night. Penn State and Stanford have suffered hard losses at the hands (and feet) of the Golden Bears. I do not think this is indicative of a low level of play on the part of the Cardinal and the Nittany Lions. Clark and Billups have set (and reset) a super-high standard for college rugby. Penn State's Head Coach Don Ferrell says it best, "We aspire to play like them and the only way to do that is to play them. They play at pace with passion and great skills."
Regarding the size of the competition, I think we should have started smaller, perhaps 8-12 teams instead of 31. Sure, that equals more travel for the teams involved. However, if the original CPD teams were vetted to understand their capabilities more fully, this obstacle may have been overcome. In 2009, this may have meant a 6-8 team CPD. In 2014, it could result in a 12 team Division 1A.
What teams might make this pipe-dream competition? I think it could be a division with two conferences, East and West. East could be composed of Army, Navy, Life, Penn State, Davenport, and Notre Dame. The West could be Cal, St Mary's, BYU, Air Force, Lindenwood, and Arkansas State. Notre Dame is a club sport, however their status will likely change after the large influx of endowment money they have recently received. That change, their brand name, and their obvious recruiting prowess will soon make Notre Dame Rugby a force to be reckoned.
A Division 1A set up as such would also put "the Haves" into a status of their own, thus negating that pesky issue.
The quality of rugby that this competition would enjoy might produce numerous benefits for rugby in the United States. An 11 game regular season is marketable and manageable, especially if played in a Super Rugby format. Use that same format for a Championship Round - West 1 v East 2 and East 1 v West 2 in SemiFinals - and there will be some very exciting semifinal and final matches.
Additionally, as tough of a competition as this obviously would be, at least 15-20 rugby athletes per season would be produced that would be ready for the next level. One of the things we do not enjoy as a burgeoning rugby nation at the moment is a crop of ready for the next level players that are improving the quality of our rugby. This could solve part of that problem.
What of promotion/relegation and expansion? Surely those not included would want a piece of this pie at some point. Such a competition should allow for such ambitions, of course. But it would be remiss if some strict rules were not set as to what it takes to challenge for a promotion/relegation match(es). I would propose (but not limit to) that items such as financial capability, university support, team status within the respective university's system, and the team's history of play and program continuity be considered as qualifications for a promotion/relegation match.
Expansion should surely be in the cards. As teams slowly but surely move out of the sports club system and into a team sports set-up under their athletic department, an eye should be kept out for those deserving of inclusion. Penn State and Stanford have shown us the way in their fund-raising efforts. These teams are no longer shackled by the sports club system because their alumni raised the necessary funds to support the individual teams.
I think that after 2016 we will see a rush of universities looking at this option. The Olympics and an inevitable men's professional competition(s) will change the face of college rugby in the US. Successful clubs such as San Diego State, Utah, Kutzown, Dartmouth, Texas A&M, Bowling Green, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Cal Poly, UCLA, Delaware, and Central Washington (just to name a few) have already raised considerable funds and will raise more once alumni begin matriculating to the Olympic and professional realm in greater numbers. The conundrum for the athletic departments will be what to do with a sport that is not governed by NCAA or NAIA (and does not want to be). I have no answers for that at the moment, but it does need to be discussed and considered.
What about "the Have-Nots"? I propose two issues need to be addressed:
1) Allow the conferences to build and play as they please. Division 2 clubs know who they are and do not enjoy getting smashed by Division 1AA clubs every week, and vice-versa. Enable both Divisions' success by presenting them with viable post-season playing options and heed when they desire to play what form (7s & XVs) of the game.
2) Get rid of that insanely stupid rule stating that clubs in universities with FBS/FCS football teams must compete in Division 1A or 1AA for national championships. Again, these clubs are shackled by the sports club system. All cannot compete at the same level (as evidenced by the scores we have seen this year). Do not force them to do so.
Many of the Have-Nots (and a couple of the Haves) also need better coaching. I do not have a tried and true theory on how to address that. However, if I coached a college rugby team with varsity status, I would explore the possibility of requiring my players to complete coaching and refereeing certifications after their first two years of play. I have witnessed the outcome of younger players obtaining such certifications. Some may never use them as designed. Some do. All were better rugby players upon getting certified. We need better players, more coaches, and more referees. This idea cannot hurt the game.
Is this a perfect concept? No. There are some ideas in here that might work wonderfully, there are some that might fall flat quickly. Hopefully, sharing my pipe dream might engender some much needed discussion that eventually will produce a positive outcome for college rugby in the US.
NOTE: While I was proof-reading this, I saw the Cal-Penn St score from last night. Penn State and Stanford have suffered hard losses at the hands (and feet) of the Golden Bears. I do not think this is indicative of a low level of play on the part of the Cardinal and the Nittany Lions. Clark and Billups have set (and reset) a super-high standard for college rugby. Penn State's Head Coach Don Ferrell says it best, "We aspire to play like them and the only way to do that is to play them. They play at pace with passion and great skills."