So, the Aggies are probably the first shoe to drop as the Division 1A (what had been referred to as “College Premier League”) begins to break apart. The idea originally put forth had teams raising money locally and selling advertising using the “brand”.
Most non-rugby folk – and plenty of rugby folk – didn’t give a hoot.
Cal dropped out after one season, as did a few others with name recognition. A&M chose to stay, and the Southwest Conference Rugby Conference shunned them (more on that below). Arkansas State and Life were the cream of the Aggies’ division (both are in the national semi finals) – and the A&M players are probably MUCH better for banging heads against those teams. But costs add up for those of us playing rugby.
In the end, it is a lot cheaper to drive to Austin or Houston (or even Lubbock and Norman) than flying to South Bend or Atlanta.
As stated in this article from RugbyMag, the Oklahoma Sooners are gonna make a change, too.
So, what does this mean for college rugby in Texas and Oklahoma?
As a very-non-influential blog run by some marginally-talented rugby players (but REALLY huge rugby fans), we officially call on the Southwest Conference Rugby Conference to admit Texas A&M and Texas Tech. Sure, the Aggies will whip everyone at first, but the addition of a super power usually raises all the boats in the harbor.
In addition, there should be a relationship with the D-II conference and promotion/relegation put in place. Why couldn’t St. Ed’s build their program to a strength position to eventually play A&M? Anyhoo, we would love to read your thoughts.
Oklahoma has a potential league with some of the old Big 8 schools (K-State, Kansas, Okie State, Nebraska) nearby. But we’d love to hear other ideas about it.
Bringing either of these schools into the SWC does not improve the SWC. Financially it is tough for most team in the SWC to reach Texas Tech. I played in the TRU for 3 seasons and was the President and VP for two separate seasons on a club that had to travel to Tech. Each trip to Tech took a huge chunk out of our budget (Vans, gas, hotel rooms, etc.), and this was with players paying for a majority of expenses. Location and money is the reason Texas Tech is not the SWC.
Texas A&M has a ridiculous amount of money compared to the rest of the SWC. This is what separates A&M from the rest of the SWC competition. UT and TXST are in the beginnings of this process of building a solid financial base, but it will be another 5 years before they get anything close to what A&M brings to the table. How did both of these schools get to this point? Winning Union and Conference championships. Right behind UT and TXST are three strong teams that are building lasting programs to compete in the SWC. SAM, Rice, and UNT will be looking for a SWC championship next season. How did these programs build to the point of being on the doorstep of a SWC championship? By being in a conference that has parity. Everyone has a legitimate chance at winning each season.
Building a relegation program isn’t a bad idea. Right now is not the time to put it into place. Yes Baylor got blown out this season, but they have enough history to build back quickly. The schools in DII are in DII for a reason right now. That reason is to be competitive and build a solid foundation for a run at the SWC. St. Ed’s is 3-5 years away from being able to compete in the SWC, as are several other DII schools. When they are ready the SWC will bring those schools in.
In conclusion, bringing A&M and Tech into the SWC will only hurt the conference. A&M immediately kills parity for 70% of the schools in the SWC. In turn, this destroys the growth of the conference, and collegiate rugby in the state of Texas that many teams having been working hard to build. It’s in the best interest of everyone involved in the SWC to leave A&M out. They’ll be able to find somewhere to play (Men’s League or the Big 8), just not in the SWC right now (Try again in 5 years). Tech players. Sorry. You go to school in Lubbock.
Texas A&M has stated to the SWC that they do not wish to be considered for admission. Immediately following the announcement from CLub officials that Johnny Smith would be taking over for Frank Rizzo as the Coach for Sam Houston State, SHSU immediately resigned from the SWC on May 11th. SHSU’s departure after one year, is contrary to their 3-year commitment to the SWC, as evidenced in the SWC by-laws ratified by SHSU as a Charter Member and approved by USA Rugby. Both A&M & SHSU have stated they intend to form the Alliance Rugby Conference (ARC) that is to be run by the for-profit company T5 1/2 Rugby Development Group, LLC, owned and operated by Craig Coates (TAMU Director of Rugby) & Johnny Smith (former Coach of TAMU). Texas Tech has never contacted SWC seeking admission.
I am not, nor will I be, taking over for Frank Rizzo as Head Coach at Sam Houston State. I resigned from Texas A&M University to spend more time with my family and I intend to do just that. To insinuate Sam Houston is leaving is due to me is not accurate. I believe if you contacted Sam Houston, they would give you their reasons.
A&M does not have a ridiculous amount of money. What they have are a bunch of ridiculously dedicated alumni, coaches, staff and players that work their butts off to have a successful organization. There is zero difference between A&M and any other school outside of commitment and ORGANIZATION. Their success is built around nothing but extremely hard work and long dedicated hours.
Texas A&M receives ~$4,000 from the university each year. Each player paid upwards of $1,200 to play this year. Why? Because the players want to be better and want to challenge themselves against the best. What does your nameless club charge for dues and travel fees?
Texas A&M withdraw their notification of interest in the SWC due to the inaction of the SWC leadership, spin it however you like.
T5 1/2 Rugby Development Group, LLC, is dedicated to promoting, improving and growing the game of rugby, check us out at t5andahalf.com Yes it is a for profit company although it was primarily formed to provide liability protection for our activities outside of Texas A&M, that were not covered under the protection of rec sports and the university liability policy that covers college students and club sports team.
Regardless, we have made significant asset investments and are on track to finish this year with our 2nd loss in 3 years of existence. As a result of those investments, not to mention the time investment; in the past 6 months we have conducted 2 youth rugby clinics for ~100 players, live webcast 6 college rugby games, live webcast 8 matches for the Rugby Texas State Championships, provided game film, breakdown and analysis for 9 additional high school rugby matches, provided game film and breakdown for 12 rugby games for referee development, and distributed over 150 DVDs of college and high school rugby games to coaches, players, and fans.
What have you done for the game lately?
T5 1/2 Rugby Development Group will be making an announcement this week regarding the Allied Rugby Conference (ARC), which will provide sponsorship, marketing, and profit sharing for member teams; as well as player, coach and referee development programs.
To address the not so subtle implication of a conflict of interest, I recused myself from the decision making process while Texas A&M Rugby decided their future conference affiliation. The choices were to remain in the financially costly DIA Mid-South conference, wait for information from the SWC, become an independent team, or join the ARC. Time will tell if the student officers and coaching staff made the right decision.
Misters Smith and Coates have indeed given much to the game of rugby in Texas. Personal attacks on them (or any individuals) will be met with response from the editors of this blog.
We look forward to following the developments on this front. We stand by our call for the SWC to invite Tech and A&M, we have read no good reason to not do so.
To set the facts straight regarding SHSU rugby, the men’s team is going through a major overhaul and while Johnny Smith will be involved in management and oversight, I will still be coaching at Sam Houston.
In regard to the commitment Sam Houston made to the SWC, it is true that the by-laws of the SWC require a 3 year commitment to the league but to my knowledge, there is nothing recorded that binds SHSU as an institution to that commitment. There are several reasons the club has decided the SWC is not a fit for SHSU rugby, as a result, they have decided to take advantage of another opportunity with the ARC; none of these reasons however, involve a coup by T5 1/2 to take over the rugby program at SHSU. Although I will say there will be more involvement from our alumni association as they have taken a greater role in helping te club.
I hope this clarifies some of the situation, while we have our work set out for us in re-structuring the club; we look forward to the challenge.
@ W, you have no idea what you are talking about.
1-TAM has about the same amount of money as every other large state school, what they do have that others dont is an alumni base that gives back to the program which is why they are the cream of the crop in Texas.
2-The SWC is not as good as you state. St. Eds and Tech could compete for a championship next year in the SWC and might have played each other in the championship this year in th SWC. Combined, those two schools were 2-0-1 against SWC teams last year. Tech defeated UNT by 20pts (the 3rd place team in SWC), St. Eds defeated Rice by 20pts (the 2nd place team in SWC)….last year. Oh and by the way, St. Eds played UT (the eventually SWC champion) to a draw early in the season.
Get your facts right before you start talking, Tech was left out because people did not want to drive to Lubbuck, I have no idea why St. Eds was left out. Why dont we ask the SWC why they invited teams like UH, who finished 3rd in D3 the year before.
At the so called “Informed Rugby Fan”, Rice’s A side never played St. Ed’s. St. Ed’s beat Rice’s B-side plus a few A-side players in a developmental pre-season 40 minute tournament match. For some of the Rice B-side players, it was the first rugby match they had ever played in.
Speaking from a Refs perspective, Teams always say that they play their “B” side when they lose to a lower division team. I had the pleasure of watching both Rice and ST. Eds this year in Cup games and I view them as very equel, very competitve teams. I would give the edge to Rice’s pack and a definite edge to St. Ed’s backline.
Anyway, funny how on Rices own web page, they make no mention of there “B” Side and just list it as “St. Eds defeats Rice”. Just own up to it, you lost a game, big deal. You never hear of a team like UT telling someone they put in their backups, they just shake hands and say good game.
http://www.ricerugbyclub.com/index.cfm/1,78,0,0,html/Schedule
Best thing is that this will get settled next year.