<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>CPD Rankings for May 2</title>
		<description>Discuss CPD Rankings for May 2</description>
		<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 19:43:50 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/721/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>CPDfan says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1229</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After a few years there will be another call for change and some new set-up will be created. Do it properly with an eye on a quality product sponsors can get behind, or just have regional/conference/state competitions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>CPDfan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 22:23:46 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1229</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>gunnar says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1226</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Much talk about Cal and BYU, and then everyone else. No one can question their dominance for the time being. Just sitting here thinking what's everyone going to say when somebody suddenly knocks one of those two off? The Life team is predominately comprised of freshmen and sophomores. The CPD teams will equalize in skill, ability and teamwork......and the league parity will eventually settle in. Give it a chance to mature. It's a "Work in Progress".....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>gunnar</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 21:41:28 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1226</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>CPDfan says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1223</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yep. American like winners and quality when it comes to sports. Let's face it there are three tiers in men's collegiate rugby that have a shot to be a marketable team. Tier 1 - BYU & Cal Tier 2 - Next 4 to 6 Teams Tier 3 - 9 thru 31 + top D1 Why not be honest about the product we have and put the best out to start something sustainable? Grow from there. When 4-6 can compete with Cal & BYU, then we expand from 8 to 10 teams, then 12, then 14 or 16.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>CPDfan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 21:05:27 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1223</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gilitin209 says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1220</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So you would rather have 8 teams continue to widen the gap with every other college team, and leave the rest by the wayside? You feel that is the best for rugby in America? As for some of you other "complaints": Success on the pitch will be a lagging indicator of better run programs and school cooperation. Thats reality, sorry. As for multi-purpose fields, ill take a multiple lined, well groomed, 3000 person stadium over a purpose lined field with no bleachers or other amenities every day. You really thought the broadcasting and sponsorships were going to fly in just because a league was created? No, teams are stepping up to the table, showing the league can be viable and bring in an audience. That is what the first season is about. The possibilities are there, and the CPD has had a great first season, providing evidence to take to the negotiating table. I know you have some complaints, nothing is perfect, but before the CPD, business as usual was not going to work.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gilitin209</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 20:39:39 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1220</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>CPDfan says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1219</link>
			<description><![CDATA[USA Rugby didn't do anything but hire a guy that kept stats. The videos still show fields with motorway cones for field markers and multi-lined all purpose fields. Why not do things right? Establish an elite group of teams (twelve with a goal of 8 meeting standards)that are candidates and have entry standards for facilities, admin support, local media support, internal media support for webcasting, financial stability proof, etc. Select your eight teams after this process and pre-sell the competition to potential sponsors and broadcasters who will appreciate the due diligence as a confidence builder to invest in the competition. Then have the inaugural season. The way it was done was half A$$.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>CPDfan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 19:29:55 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1219</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Coach says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1218</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From a game perspective the commitment from USA rugby was significantly higher. File share for the teams, compiling stats,referee number and quality much higher. The approach from the teams much higher. A lot of people are basing their opinion on score lines sure there was some blow outs but everyone put in a good effort based on resources. If it wasn't tried we would be in the old structure and have no new info to work from.there will be changes for sure. And there will be nay Sayers standing and watching but there will be a lot of soldiers doing work to make it better. I commend USA rugby for putting forth the effort. The qtr,semi and final will be great.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Coach</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 18:44:24 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1218</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>CPDfan says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1215</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm not confused. I saw the emails and was in on some of the calls where coaches were begging to get their team in the newly formed competition. Promises of high powered alumni writing checks, how their administration would make them varsity, how they could bring in sponsors, etc. It was a cart before the horse situation if there ever was one. Todd Bell had it thrown onto his lap with an expectation that he could get sponsors and broadcasters based on the hype from a handful of ARN podcasts and the hysteria of coaches saying anything to get their team into the comp. This is no way to launch a venture, which is my main point.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>CPDfan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 16:07:50 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1215</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>gilitin209 says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1212</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Are you talking about the CRC or the CPD? The CPD was an opt-in league. Every top collegiate team had the same opportunity. No offense but I feel you are a little off-base with your criticism.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>gilitin209</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 14:26:04 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1212</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>CPDfan says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1210</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Two points. 1) The CPD (CDL at that time) was sold in as a must be done in 2011 because there are dollars on the table. That is sponsorship and broadcast dollars. Don't you remember JC pumping up this competition on the ARN podcasts? 2) The process to get it was a joke. You had coaches lobby hard to get in either to feed their ego, or because they are delusional to think their team was premier. You had big name NCAA powerhouses being courted because it looks good to sponsors and broadcasters. Who cares if their rugby team is mediocre at best. This is no way to start a competition.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>CPDfan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 13:26:42 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1210</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Oso says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1206</link>
			<description><![CDATA[CPD Fan: Even now, you're not going to fill up a stadium every week for a top 8 competition. Only the rivalry game (BYU vs Utah or Cal, Cal vs St. Mary's or UBC) can fill up a stadium. Does Arkansas State even charge admission to their home games? How many people come out to a Life home game? Does St. Mary's charge admission to its home games except for Cal? BYU and Cal have been charging admission to every home game for many years. Until you believe in the value of your product enough to charge admission, you're just another club/social program. Even Utah hasn't been charging admission to its on-campus home games. The only really valuable home game is against BYU at Rio Tinto. How can you send out someone to market your league if teams can't even get their fans to pay to see it? I don't get it. And then there's the matter of paying for a $10k-20k flight every week. How could you ever fund such a competition?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Oso</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 10:03:35 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/cpl/721-cpd-rankings-for-may-2.html#comment-1206</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
