The college game is a popular topic of debate. Should we invest further in the College Premier Division? Should we revert back to Division 1 as the top league? Or should we change it up to a method that is along the lines of the traditional American sports. What I am referring to is Conferences that mirror the schools current athletic teams. Are conferences the best way to grow the college game?
Really the biggest draw to me as an alum/fan of a college team is the opportunity to play against traditional rivals. Good or bad at rugby, that is the draw.
People around campus get excited. Not just if Cal beats the University of Spoiled Children or UCLA, but Oregon State or Washington might get pumped up about beating Arizona or AZ State. Same thing in the SEC or ACC. The ACC is really spread out though from Boston College to Miami... so some allowances have been made. Does Florida State want to be in the ACRL? Do they want to have to travel to Maryland?
I get your point. It's a balancing act. Do the traditional rivalries get the attention of the administration? And does that attention get you more financial support? Or other support? As rugby grows, you're going to eventually look at the NCAA getting involved. At least that is what you should want. Baseball is heralded as the 3rd sport in college. While it is played all over, it doesn't necessarily get more coverage than women's hoops, lacrosse or hockey. Probably a little bit more. But Football and Basketball are huge. The CWS is big, but not as big as the former two.
But still, the NCAA gives support to all its championships and gets the attention of athletic directors. That's what we want in college. Well that is really the money and attention will help to foster the competitive environments for rugby that will lead to better domestic competitions and a stronger pool for the Eagles.
You have to ask yourself what your goals are. Do we want to grow the college game? Or are we trying to get better players for the Eagles? Growing the college game the right way and for the right reasons will lead to better players.
Really the biggest draw to me as an alum/fan of a college team is the opportunity to play against traditional rivals. Good or bad at rugby, that is the draw.
People around campus get excited. Not just if Cal beats the University of Spoiled Children or UCLA, but Oregon State or Washington might get pumped up about beating Arizona or AZ State. Same thing in the SEC or ACC. The ACC is really spread out though from Boston College to Miami... so some allowances have been made. Does Florida State want to be in the ACRL? Do they want to have to travel to Maryland?
I get your point. It's a balancing act. Do the traditional rivalries get the attention of the administration? And does that attention get you more financial support? Or other support? As rugby grows, you're going to eventually look at the NCAA getting involved. At least that is what you should want. Baseball is heralded as the 3rd sport in college. While it is played all over, it doesn't necessarily get more coverage than women's hoops, lacrosse or hockey. Probably a little bit more. But Football and Basketball are huge. The CWS is big, but not as big as the former two.
But still, the NCAA gives support to all its championships and gets the attention of athletic directors. That's what we want in college. Well that is really the money and attention will help to foster the competitive environments for rugby that will lead to better domestic competitions and a stronger pool for the Eagles.
You have to ask yourself what your goals are. Do we want to grow the college game? Or are we trying to get better players for the Eagles? Growing the college game the right way and for the right reasons will lead to better players.