Top flight rugby coming to the USA?

[renard_ruse]

Super Rugby, the premier Southern hemisphere professional rugby union competition might expand into the United States and Japan by the 2015 season according to rumors. They are talking specifically about a team in LA!

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/23/super-rugby-expansion-tokyo-and-la/

I think it could really work, especially since there's no NFL team in LA. What do others think?

 

[eyer]

Thanks...

...but I'll wait for Super-Duper Rugby if it's all the same to you.

 

[renard_ruse]

I definitely think it could work. The teams already travel thousands of miles between Aus, NZ, and SA, so why not?

Plus, you get even one team in the US, you can get onto TV a lot more easily and grow interest in the sport exponentially. Its a no-brainer.

 

[Radiohead]

US doesnt do real sport is the obvious response.

Past that... 4 nations, I mean 5 I mean 6 havent had a boston team yet, and they are more desperate to at least get a world cup trophy, and they are closer than SANZAR.

 

[eyer]

Now all you bozos need is for Stewart Pidd to climb on board and you can call it a movement...

 

[1sickbastard]

I got all the rugby I need, for free.

 

[eyer]

I got all the rugby I need, for free.

Does it tingle when they all call you Daddy?

 

[pointless]

you remember the CFL USA? yeah, no one else does either. there's a lesson there.

 

[renard_ruse]

you remember the CFL USA? yeah, no one else does either. there's a lesson there.

One key difference is that Super Rugby is probably the top club rugby competition in the world, while the CFL is at best a minor league of a sport that is already played at the highest level in the US.

You'd be seeing some of the best players in the world, which Americans like.

 

[kiwi_submissive]

One key difference is that Super Rugby is probably the top club rugby competition in the world, while the CFL is at best a minor league of a sport that is already played at the highest level in the US.

You'd be seeing some of the best players in the world, which Americans like.

And the players have REALLY tight jersys *sigh*. Only reason I watch rugby.

 

[Scentofawoman]

Does it tingle when they all call you Daddy?

I know I tingle...


I don't know if US is ready for Ruby. Look at soccer. Even bringing Becham over didn't boost the sport. I think if Americans watched rugby a lot of people would say "what the hell is up with all the lateral passes?"

 

[1sickbastard]

Does it tingle when they all call you Daddy?

Only with younger women (note I said women, not underaged girls)

 

[renard_ruse]

If Major League Soccer can survive with dozens of teams playing second rate soccer, why couldn't rugby make it with one or two teams playing at the highest level?

You can't tell me Americans prefer people kicking a ball around to a real man's game like rugby.

 

[KRCummings]

Yeah because America has always been so accepting of new sports leagues.

 

[renard_ruse]

I know I tingle...


I don't know if US is ready for Ruby. Look at soccer. Even bringing Becham over didn't boost the sport. I think if Americans watched rugby a lot of people would say "what the hell is up with all the lateral passes?"

I agree older people would not take to it. I got my 82 year old dad to watch part of a World Cup game last year. He sat there quitely staring at the TV for about ten minutes. I was like, cool, he's into it. Then he just said it looked like disorganized chaos, got up and left the room.

So, yes, it would take younger generations which are more open minded but you have to start somewhere. That's what soccer did.

 

[eyer]

Only with younger women (note I said women, not underaged girls)

Riiiight...

...Daddy.

 

[1sickbastard]

Riiiight...

...Daddy.

You're a GIRL?

AhHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Okay, whatever.

You want to call me Daddy, that's all on you.

 

[eyer]

You're a WOMAN?

Fixed it for ya; don't want anyone seeing through your Playgrounder cover...

...do ya Daddy?

 

[Scentofawoman]

I agree older people would not take to it. I got my 82 year old dad to watch part of a World Cup game last year. He sat there quitely staring at the TV for about ten minutes. I was like, cool, he's into it. Then he just said it looked like disorganized chaos, got up and left the room.

So, yes, it would take younger generations which are more open minded but you have to start somewhere. That's what soccer did.

True younger generations play soccer. Then big ten football and basketball gets funding and scholarships. Soccer goes to the wayside. Even our best soccer players end up in other countries or football kickers.
The money is not there. You get revenue for how long? When the money runs out, so will the team.

 

[renard_ruse]

True younger generations play soccer. Then big ten football and basketball gets funding and scholarships. Soccer goes to the wayside. Even our best soccer players end up in other countries or football kickers.
The money is not there. You get revenue for how long? When the money runs out, so will the team.

I believe they are talking about only one team to start with. That could consist pretty much of the US national team, which could certainly compete on the field (it wouldn't be playing the All Blacks or the Springboks, but regional teams).

You don't think they could get enough money from TV or whatever to fund even one team? I don't think it would even matter how big the crowds are, with TV money all going to one team. Sure, there aren't enough players in the US to make a dozen teams at the Super Rugby level, but for one team sure. If Victoria or Western Australia can afford to field teams and get enough players when rugby is not popular in those parts of Australia, I'm sure the entire US could round up enough good players and that could be supplimented with a few imports as well.

 

[Scentofawoman]

Probably not. Look at all the professional teams that struggle even with major funding. The Anaheim Ducks for example. They had the support of the NHL.

 

[1sickbastard]

I believe they are talking about only one team to start with. That could consist pretty much of the US national team, which could certainly compete on the field (it wouldn't be playing the All Blacks or the Springboks, but regional teams).

You don't think they could get enough money from TV or whatever to fund even one team? I don't think it would even matter how big the crowds are, with TV money all going to one team. Sure, there aren't enough players in the US to make a dozen teams at the Super Rugby level, but for one team sure. If Victoria or Western Australia can afford to field teams and get enough players when rugby is not popular in those parts of Australia, I'm sure the entire US could round up enough good players and that could be supplimented with a few imports as well.

That brings up a relevent point about pro Soccer, Rugby, Footie or Cricket in the US.

Football and Basketball are literally made for TV, with lots of commercial breaks tailor-made for advertising.
The aforementioned sports aren't, at least not for the USA market.

And I think it's also true that these sports, along with Hockey, aren't orderly enough for American audiences. Watching these sports requires focus and concentration over long stretches of play.

 

[renard_ruse]

Probably not. Look at all the professional teams that struggle even with major funding. The Anaheim Ducks for example. They had the support of the NHL.

The Ducks are the closest NHL team to me, but I would never go to see them. I'm a Kings fan, period. There was no need of two NHL teams in Southern California within 20 miles of each other. Disney bribed the NHL for the team, but it was poorly thought out and both the Ducks and Kings have suffered because of it.