The USA's prospects (split thread)

[bakakumon]

Chief executive of World Rugby Brett Gosper admitted that the ceremony at which England were paired with Wales and Australia was conducted "a long way out" from this year's event, having taken place almost three years ago.

That was two days after Wales lost in the last minute against Australia to drop out of the top eight of the world rankings and into the third pot of seeds at just the wrong moment for England, with the subsequent draw sparking criticism that the true potential of each team had not been fairly reflected.

The current rankings are significantly different from those in December 2012 and bear out that argument. Were the draw to take place tomorrow, for example, the Pool A rivals England, Wales and Fiji would all be seeded higher than they were three years ago.

Speaking at an event to mark 30 days until the World Cup, Gosper said: "You want it to be a true reflection of the position at the time of the tournament. You've got to balance the proximity of the tournament with all of the planning that goes into it. We'll look at that next time to see if it's possible to make that draw closer to the tournament."

Gosper confirmed that such a change was currently "under discussion", although it appears unlikely World Rugby will go as far as adopting the Fifa model of waiting until six months before a World Cup until conducting proceedings.

Gosper also sought to demonstrate how seriously World Rugby was taking the threat of concussion at the tournament by warning that any team flouting its new protocols risked punishment.

"We have a series of sanctions at our disposal," he said, insisting he was confident that nations with fewer resources would have no excuse for failing to adhere to the regulations.

The use of Hawk-Eye technology at the World Cup will make it easier to identify concussion-related incidents during the World Cup.

Gosper confirmed that Hawk-Eye footage, which will be captured by up to 33 cameras at each match, would also be used to stamp out foul play, with the material made available to citing commissioners. Gosper said that meant players who had committed foul play were more likely than ever to be caught. Gosper also said that Hawk-Eye footage would be shown uncensored on the big screen at match venues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11811099/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Novice-fans-offered-idiots-guide-to-the-rules.html

 

[HowieLO6]

I think that's fantastically optimistic.

Why is it so optimistic? They've got a colossal population, and one that it becoming increasingly fatigued and concerned by the NFL. They have a university system that produces top tier athletes as if it were a factory conveyor belt. And they have the resources..

Rugby is gaining in popularity over there, with some excellent universities already offering rugby scholarships. Are you really suggesting that in 10 years they wouldn't be in a position to challenge? I'm not buying it, and its pretty glib just to write them off out of hand. They've no league to speak of, and rarely get a crack at any decent opposition. If the former changes, then why shouldn't they be knocking at the door of all European teams.

 

[goodNumber10]

Why is it so optimistic? They've got a colossal population, and one that it becoming increasingly fatigued and concerned by the NFL. They have a university system that produces top tier athletes as if it were a factory conveyor belt. And they have the resources..

Rugby is gaining in popularity over there, with some excellent universities already offering rugby scholarships. Are you really suggesting that in 10 years they wouldn't be in a position to challenge? I'm not buying it, and its pretty glib just to write them off out of hand. They've no league to speak of, and rarely get a crack at any decent opposition. If the former changes, then why shouldn't they be knocking at the door of all European teams.

Because of this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ague-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/

Rugby and any other sport will always be second to NFL and Baketball because it will always be a secondary career option. That means while they have a fantastic college system that produces amazing athletes it doesn't produce amazing RUGBY oriented athletes.

Professional rugby will offer a new opporunity but 10 years to challenge the worlds elite? not going to happen.

 

[HowieLO6]

Because of this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ague-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/

Rugby and any other sport will always be second to NFL and Baketball because it will always be a secondary career option. That means while they have a fantastic college system that produces amazing athletes it doesn't produce amazing RUGBY oriented athletes.

Professional rugby will offer a new opporunity but 10 years to challenge the worlds elite? not going to happen.

Firstly, lets not pretend that they're starting from scratch. They've been knocking in the high teens for years, albeit with not much progress, but the landscape is changing.

Schools (state-equivalent ones, no-less) have 7 figure budgets for athletic programmes. Football is a commercial behemoth, but participation in school rugby is rocketing, just as its slipping for football. Affluent households ($100k+) gravitate away from football, and now form the bedrock of the game, with 11,000 watching the university championship and 28,000 registered high-school players (13-17, 2011). The fastest growing college sport, bar none.

I'm not suggesting they'll be knocking over Ireland any time soon, but if you've got that many kids - and those with the best resources - playing the game now, its pretty naive to think that they can't at least challenge in a decade. They treat it as a summer sport, so its a compliment to football, not a competitor.

I'm also not suggesting that it'll ever de-throne football, baseball, basketball, etc, but it doesn't need to.

Back to my point, teams that end up 3rd and 4th deserve their own RWC knockout competition.

 

[Shaggy]

Because of this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ague-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/

Rugby and any other sport will always be second to NFL and Baketball because it will always be a secondary career option. That means while they have a fantastic college system that produces amazing athletes it doesn't produce amazing RUGBY oriented athletes.

Professional rugby will offer a new opporunity but 10 years to challenge the worlds elite? not going to happen.

I think people are under estimating the importance to the USA of any sport with an Olympic Gold Medal attached to it (Sevens), and it's flow on effect to the fifteen aside game; Rugby is the fastest growing sport in North America after all. Also, if Wall street can see bucks to be made in it, you just watch how quickly a professional league in North America changes the rugby landscape internationally, they manage to support viable Ice Hockey and Baseball leagues, in addition to the other two that you mentioned, so why not Rugby also. The money that could be on offer to the best players in the world, to play in the states, could dwarf what's currently on offer in the likes of France.

If the best players are playing there (and the best coaches coaching there) there's no reason the local US players can't improve significantly to be serious contenders internationally.

I don't think things will change much any time soon. There are six teams in the Six Nations but Scotland and Italy are generally rubbish. Neither side has a great domestic set up and neither side seems to be improving at the youth level. The four Rugby Championship teams are always up there. The Pacific Islands are hit and miss. They never have a great build up between cups so it is all about how they can pull together. You would never count them out of the odd upset but they are just as likely to turn around and lose to Georgia. The USA/Canada are improving but need regular games against higher quality opposition.

You mean, like the All Blacks playing the US last year, and the Wallabies playing them this year?

 

[William18]

I think people are under estimating the importance to the USA of any sport with an Olympic Gold Medal attached to it (Sevens), and it's flow on effect to the fifteen aside game; Rugby is the fastest growing sport in North America after all. Also, if Wall street can see bucks to be made in it, you just watch how quickly a professional league in North America changes the rugby landscape internationally, they manage to support viable Ice Hockey and Baseball leagues, in addition to the other two that you mentioned, so why not Rugby also. The money that could be on offer to the best players in the world, to play in the states, could dwarf what's currently on offer in the likes of France.

If the best players are playing there (and the best coaches coaching there) there's no reason the local US players can't improve significantly to be serious contenders internationally.



You mean, like the All Blacks playing the US last year, and the Wallabies playing them this year?

They need to be playing at least 5 games a year against Tier One opposition. So, no, that isn't what I meant.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm not suggesting they'll be knocking over Ireland any time soon,

its pretty naive to think that they can't at least challenge in a decade. They treat it as a summer sport, so its a compliment to football, not a competitor.

You're contradicting yourself in the space of one post.

You're basing your whole theory on the fact they produce great athletes in other sports, the problem being that's other sports. These people aren't skilled in Rugby - look at Carlin Isles, he's got better but it's taken him 5 years or so to become a pretty average player on the 7 circuit and how many world 7 series have the US played in before getting their first result of genuine note?

So yeah, it is naive, you can have as many people as you want, but the difference is coaching and quality of domestic competition. They don't have that, and until they do they will not develop internationally.

The simple fact is they currently don't have the player base, nor playing or coaching infrastructures to compete at elite international level. Bar the occasional big result they will not be in a position to compete for a good 20 years or so if you can't understand that what's the point?

- - - Updated - - -

I think people are under estimating the importance to the USA of any sport with an Olympic Gold Medal attached to it (Sevens), and it's flow on effect to the fifteen aside game; Rugby is the fastest growing sport in North America after all. Also, if Wall street can see bucks to be made in it, you just watch how quickly a professional league in North America changes the rugby landscape internationally, they manage to support viable Ice Hockey and Baseball leagues, in addition to the other two that you mentioned, so why not Rugby also. The money that could be on offer to the best players in the world, to play in the states, could dwarf what's currently on offer in the likes of France.

And you think this will happen in 10 years?

If the best players are playing there (and the best coaches coaching there) there's no reason the local US players can't improve significantly to be serious contenders internationally.

Hypothetical. The best players and coaches aren't there, and even if they were it would take more than a decade to turn them into global competitors.

MLS is a prime example, started in the early 90's and we're only now seeing the USA compete to get out of the pool stages of the world cup and that's in a sport where the freak result is far more common by nature of the scoring system.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think some people are misjudging the sleeping giant that USA is to rugby. Remember, they are the last team to win the gold medal when rugby was an Olympic Sport, and here I'm not talking about 7's.

There is a massive influx of South Africans going to the USA to either play for a college, or become part of the coaching setup. And with our Currency being so weak, this will just keep on happening as long as the money is good. The college scholarship program in the USA is something that holds a lot of sway over our younger generation here in SA. If we look at our South African Swimmers, Chad Le Clos, Cameron van den Bergh and Lyndon Ferns. They All won Olympic Gold Medals and all of them had sports scholarships in the USA. Believe me, there's a lot more youngsters studying in the USA from South Africa.

The other drawing card is that our government doesn't give out many scholarships to our caucasian kids. So they jump when they get the chance to go and study in the USA.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not sure winning the Olympics in a 3 team tournament in 1925 is exactly relevant.

 

[William18]

I think some people are misjudging the sleeping giant that USA is to rugby. Remember, they are the last team to win the gold medal when rugby was an Olympic Sport, and here I'm not talking about 7's.

There is a massive influx of South Africans going to the USA to either play for a college, or become part of the coaching setup. And with our Currency being so weak, this will just keep on happening as long as the money is good. The college scholarship program in the USA is something that holds a lot of sway over our younger generation here in SA. If we look at our South African Swimmers, Chad Le Clos, Cameron van den Bergh and Lyndon Ferns. They All won Olympic Gold Medals and all of them had sports scholarships in the USA. Believe me, there's a lot more youngsters studying in the USA from South Africa.

The other drawing card is that our government doesn't give out many scholarships to our caucasian kids. So they jump when they get the chance to go and study in the USA.

The problem is that there needs to be a mechanism to make a Tier Two country a Tier One country. In 2007, Argentina came 3rd in the World Cup. That was a bit of a golden generation for them with their team a lot stronger then, than it is now. Between 2005 and the start of the World Cup in 2007 Argentina played Ireland twice, New Zealand, South Africa, the Lions, Wales twice, England and France. The USA would need that sort of fixture schedule to have a breakthrough at the World Cup. What the USA really needs is to hope that as it develops, Canada and Japan develop also. If Canada gets a bit better then the USA is likely to get better to in order to keep up.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The problem is that there needs to be a mechanism to make a Tier Two country a Tier One country. In 2007, Argentina came 3rd in the World Cup. That was a bit of a golden generation for them with their team a lot stronger then, than it is now. Between 2005 and the start of the World Cup in 2007 Argentina played Ireland twice, New Zealand, South Africa, the Lions, Wales twice, England and France. The USA would need that sort of fixture schedule to have a breakthrough at the World Cup. What the USA really needs is to hope that as it develops, Canada and Japan develop also. If Canada gets a bit better then the USA is likely to get better to in order to keep up.

But that development is already happening. That is what I'm trying to get at. We as the general public in other countries might not see it yet, but it is definitely happening. If the USA keeps on it's development at College-level, then they will very soon get to the point where they could break into the tier one grouping, or at least be at the same level as Italy and Scotland.

If the USA use their stronger currency to their advantage, they could very easily strike a deal with South Africa where the Springboks could play them on a yearly basis. If the incentive is good enough for SARU and the players. It's just another method of improving relations. Todd Clever, who used to play for the Lions in South Africa is a guy that could definitely be the spokesperson to broker such a deal, especially since he lived in SA for a year.

 

[HowieLO6]

You're contradicting yourself in the space of one post.

You're basing your whole theory on the fact they produce great athletes in other sports, the problem being that's other sports. These people aren't skilled in Rugby - look at Carlin Isles, he's got better but it's taken him 5 years or so to become a pretty average player on the 7 circuit and how many world 7 series have the US played in before getting their first result of genuine note?

So yeah, it is naive, you can have as many people as you want, but the difference is coaching and quality of domestic competition. They don't have that, and until they do they will not develop internationally.

The simple fact is they currently don't have the player base, nor playing or coaching infrastructures to compete at elite international level. Bar the occasional big result they will not be in a position to compete for a good 20 years or so if you can't understand that what's the point?

- - - Updated - - -




And you think this will happen in 10 years?



Hypothetical. The best players and coaches aren't there, and even if they were it would take more than a decade to turn them into global competitors.

MLS is a prime example, started in the early 90's and we're only now seeing the USA compete to get out of the pool stages of the world cup and that's in a sport where the freak result is far more common by nature of the scoring system.

I get it. You're meticulous on here and enjoy digging into posts. Fair play. I'll try to be a little more succinct.

I'm not contradicting myself. Challenging the decent teams does in no way suggest knocking them over. Italy usually put up a good challenge, but haven't come close to knocking anyone over. Not sure how you consider challenging a team to equate to knocking them over. Your call, I guess.

You're talking about the current player base, yet are we not talking about in a decade's time? 28,000 high-school kids at well-equipped schools (granted, loosely based on which colleges are playing the game) in 2011 suggests that theres a reasonable foundation upon which to build on. What part of that don't you understand?

Currently, you're right. No-one is arguing otherwise. But in 10 years time, you don't think a country with as much appetite for sport, with resources vastly exceeding the majority of current countries, and with so many 13-17 year olds playing the game and nationally-televised college games won't be able to challenge the celtic nations? I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.


Again, you're talking elite, I'm talking about challenging the celtic teams. Big difference, no?

And the MLS, a poor example. Its been noted that when they first tried the MLS post world-cup, they were too soft with their push to get it into the public arena. While the quality isn't great still, just look at the numbers watching the game now that its gone into overdrive. Participation is through the roof at all age groups. They've done a whole lot better than England in recent years. The chaps who are behind the push for professional rugby leagues have said they won't follow that mistake.

- - - Updated - - -

But that development is already happening. That is what I'm trying to get at. We as the general public in other countries might not see it yet, but it is definitely happening. If the USA keeps on it's development at College-level, then they will very soon get to the point where they could break into the tier one grouping, or at least be at the same level as Italy and Scotland.

Bingo. Got it. They have so much room to grow, and quite the appetite for it.

 

[goodNumber10]

But that development is already happening. That is what I'm trying to get at. We as the general public in other countries might not see it yet, but it is definitely happening. If the USA keeps on it's development at College-level, then they will very soon get to the point where they could break into the tier one grouping, or at least be at the same level as Italy and Scotland.

Do you have links or something to prove/illustrate this is happening to a level that will develop them to Tier 1 in 10 years, or is it purely anecdotal?

If the USA use their stronger currency to their advantage, they could very easily strike a deal with South Africa where the Springboks could play them on a yearly basis. If the incentive is good enough for SARU and the players. It's just another method of improving relations. Todd Clever, who used to play for the Lions in South Africa is a guy that could definitely be the spokesperson to broker such a deal, especially since he lived in SA for a year.

Could is are.

They don't' have a professional league, that won't start to 2016 at best, and will be only 8 teams, they just came 2nd from last in a tier two-centric competition (though admittedly they ran Samoa close), they have neither the infrastructure nor finances to implement the changes relevent to becoming a tier 1 nation and even if they did to hope that would impact in less than 10 years is dreaming at best.

There are good pathways and good coaches in America, who take the game seriously and are working hard to develop the sport - but they are a couple of decades awy from a fully sustainable program that will make them competitive on a global scale.

On Sevens, well it is Sevens, even with it hitting the olympic program it has little bearing on the development of 15's, you do not develop props & locks via 7's you develop backs and back row.

- - - Updated - - -

I get it. You're meticulous on here and enjoy digging into posts. Fair play. I'll try to be a little more succinct.

If you don't want people to read what you say and then discuss it don't bother posting it.

I'm not contradicting myself. Challenging the decent teams does in no way suggest knocking them over. Italy usually put up a good challenge, but haven't come close to knocking anyone over. Not sure how you consider challenging a team to equate to knocking them over. Your call, I guess.

You're arguing semantics.

You're talking about the current player base, yet are we not talking about in a decade's time? 28,000 high-school kids at well-equipped schools (granted, loosely based on which colleges are playing the game) in 2011 suggests that theres a reasonable foundation upon which to build on. What part of that don't you understand?

I'm not talking about the current player base, i'm saying more players does not equate to better rugby it equates to more players.

Without the correct level of coaching, and competition those players will remain average players. Development pathways need to be of a sufficient standard, you are talking about future rugby players yet America didn't even qualify fo the u20 World Trophy, the second tier international competition.

Until they are competiting consitently at junior level their seniors will not develop through.

Currently, you're right. No-one is arguing otherwise. But in 10 years time, you don't think a country with as much appetite for sport, with resources vastly exceeding the majority of current countries, and with so many 13-17 year olds playing the game and nationally-televised college games won't be able to challenge the celtic nations? I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

What don't you understand? They will not be a tier 1 nation until they are competitive at junior level and they are clearly a long long way form that.

Again, you're talking elite, I'm talking about challenging the celtic teams. Big difference, no?

No

And the MLS, a poor example. Its been noted that when they first tried the MLS post world-cup, they were too soft with their push to get it into the public arena. While the quality isn't great still, just look at the numbers watching the game now that its gone into overdrive. Participation is through the roof at all age groups. They've done a whole lot better than England in recent years. The chaps who are behind the push for professional rugby leagues have said they won't follow that mistake.

They've done better than England at what?

Bingo. Got it. They have so much room to grow, and quite the appetite for it.

Room to grow doesn't mean they will if the foundations are not good enough, and currently they are not.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Do you have links or something to prove/illustrate this is happening to a level that will develop them to Tier 1 in 10 years, or is it purely anecdotal?

I never gave a time frame, so don't try to force the "10 years from now" idea down my throat.

Could is are.

They don't' have a professional league, that won't start to 2016 at best, and will be only 8 teams, they just came 2nd from last in a tier two-centric competition (though admittedly they ran Samoa close), they have neither the infrastructure nor finances to implement the changes relevent to becoming a tier 1 nation and even if they did to hope that would impact in less than 10 years is dreaming at best.

There are good pathways and good coaches in America, who take the game seriously and are working hard to develop the sport - but they are a couple of decades awy from a fully sustainable program that will make them competitive on a global scale.

On Sevens, well it is Sevens, even with it hitting the olympic program it has little bearing on the development of 15's, you do not develop props & locks via 7's you develop backs and back row.

Perhaps. But there is no denying that they are focusing at an age group (College students) and work from there. Just because they don't have a professional domestic league doesn't mean they won't become competitive, look at Australia.

All I'm saying is that if they manage to throw some money to a tier 1 side like SA, then it could make their development program get a jumpstart that could change the couple of decades into a couple of years.

 

[HowieLO6]

they have neither the infrastructure nor finances to implement the changes relevent to becoming a tier 1 nation and even if they did to hope that would impact in less than 10 years is dreaming at best.





- - - Updated - - -



If you don't want people to read what you say and then discuss it don't bother posting it.



You're arguing semantics.



I'm not talking about the current player base, i'm saying more players does not equate to better rugby it equates to more players.

Without the correct level of coaching, and competition those players will remain average players. Development pathways need to be of a sufficient standard, you are talking about future rugby players yet America didn't even qualify fo the u20 World Trophy, the second tier international competition.

Until they are competiting consitently at junior level their seniors will not develop through.



What don't you understand? They will not be a tier 1 nation until they are competitive at junior level and they are clearly a long long way form that.



No



They've done better than England at what?




Room to grow doesn't mean they will if the foundations are not good enough, and currently they are not.

Well, I think its clear they have both the finances and infrastructure. If you're talking money and training facilities, they're way ahead of the curve. High school gyms that put our professional outfits to shame.

Really? Are you not also arguing semantics?! I said capable of challenging the celtic nations, not do them over. Of course there's a difference between those terms. Are you just being willfully obtuse?

Correct me if I'm wrong but saying "they currently don't have the player base, nor playing or coaching infrastructures to compete at elite international level", is that not referring to their current player base? Thats way off right now, I think thats abundantly clear to all. The rate at which its being taken up suggests that this won't be the case going forward. You made a very valid point RE the u20 cup, but are the u20 nations not extremely cyclical? A high turnover of players from year to year, so who's to say whats bubbling under in the u18 setup.

They've done better than England at soccer. Obviously.

And the foundations are at youth level, no? How are these youth levels in, say, Scotland compared to that of America? They're different, in terms of expertise, but the system is clearly more conducive to growth in the States. Again, like I say, challenge the celtic nations, not do them over.

 

[Peat]

Again, you're talking elite, I'm talking about challenging the celtic teams. Big difference, no?

If Ireland and Wales aren't elite, the last four years were even more depressing than I thought and I was pretty depressed by them already.

And arguably that right there is why people should be cautious about attaching too much to the weight of resources argument. We out-resource Ireland and Wales considerably and have spent the last four years (and longer) being their *****. The USA's potential resources are ma-hossive to be sure but getting resources to come out at a notably stronger 15 man team appears to be really difficult. Well, either it's really difficult, or English rugby is even even more depressing than previously thought.

I would refer the honourable gentlemen to hockey. The Americans have fantastic hockey teams. They've pumped a lot of money into it over the years, a lot of years, they've built a real culture. They basically own club hockey. And they got pummelled by Finland, a country with more lakes than non-alcoholics. The US are one of the good teams, but their resources don't allow them to be dominant.

I think there is a huge amount of building in terms of a rugby culture and training kids early enough needed for the US to be on the level and while that happens, the rest of the world will keep moving the bar higher.

 

[HowieLO6]

If Ireland and Wales aren't elite, the last four years were even more depressing than I thought and I was pretty depressed by them already.

And arguably that right there is why people should be cautious about attaching too much to the weight of resources argument. We out-resource Ireland and Wales considerably and have spent the last four years (and longer) being their *****. The USA's potential resources are ma-hossive to be sure but getting resources to come out at a notably stronger 15 man team appears to be really difficult. Well, either it's really difficult, or English rugby is even even more depressing than previously thought.

I would refer the honourable gentlemen to hockey. The Americans have fantastic hockey teams. They've pumped a lot of money into it over the years, a lot of years, they've built a real culture. They basically own club hockey. And they got pummelled by Finland, a country with more lakes than non-alcoholics. The US are one of the good teams, but their resources don't allow them to be dominant.

I think there is a huge amount of building in terms of a rugby culture and training kids early enough needed for the US to be on the level and while that happens, the rest of the world will keep moving the bar higher.

Firstly, I was only suggesting they'd be capable of challenging the celtic nations, rather than doing them over. I see a significant difference between those two statements.

In terms of elite, I'd contest that the elite are the absolute pinnacle of any given field. The choicest, the very best, the superior, however you wish to put it. Namely, the ABs, SA, possibly Oz too.

In terms of hockey, its a decent example but the significant support and interest comes largely from the northern states, with the majority from Minnesota, Michigan and new Hampshire. Of the top 30 cities for NHL player origins, Sweden has two, the US has two, Finland has one, Russia has one. Canada? 24. Its not an American sport and the nationality of the top tier players clearly shows this. They have plenty of successful American franchises - lets be honest, they're great at this - but its not a game that has significant participation in the populous states. Where is rugby taking off? California, Texas and the affluent east coast.

I suppose that this does support the idea that number do not equate to world dominance, but I'm not suggesting they'll be an elite setup.

 

[ncurd]

Are the USA really doing better at Football than England? England have probably underperformed at every tournament since 1990. Last year was the first time the USA since then have performed better than England even then they only made it to the Round of 16 going out to Belgium (and only made it through on GD thanks to eventual winners Germany giving Portugal a monumental kicking in their opening match).

The stars in their league is basically made of retired Premier League players.

Don't get me wrong they are getting better but I don't think that's more due to **** poor management of the English game than anything else.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Right, so I've missed some of the conversation. However the jist seems to be can the US put it up to the 6 nations sides in 10 years time? The answer should obviously be no. That'd require the 18-21 year old players in the US system right now to be as good, if not better, than their counterparts in Europe. I'll take your word for it that it's growing quickly, but you have to consider what a low base they're starting from. They're still in a position where they're giving caps at fly-half (a position which is a reasonable barometer to where you are as a rugby nation. If you can't produce good ones you're probably not a particularly strong nation) to AJ MacGinty, who went to Blackrock and never got a look in with even the Leinster academy.

So they're starting from a very low point, and then they've got to deal with Football. How does rugby get the calibre of player it needs in the states when football can offer so much more money, has a scouting network that will detect 99% of prospective talents and is already a cultural institution. Jarred Hayne is currently showing that the talent difference between top class rugby and the NFL isn't so large, so you're not going to get anywhere trying to remould Football cast-offs at 18, 22, etc.

I just don't see how it's going to happen in a period of time shorter than 20 years. I'd like it to, as rugby needs more stronger international sides,but we're getting a long way ahead of ourselves.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here's a few interesting articles:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/07/16/usa-rugby-isnt-coming-its-here-now/
http://therugbybowl.com/site/why-rugby/
http://www.thespectrum.com/story/sports/2014/11/10/rugby-continues-americas-fastest-growing-sport/18830397/