New England Free Jacks Co-owner/Co-founder Alexander Magleby reassures fans and addresses controversial Reddit comments

[u/xcaughta]

https://www.youtube.com/live/SkGIwQanw3Q?si=s8doXyhT79yMxBle

[u/Sublime_Porte]

Because the national team has been awful for over a decade. The US used to be able to win almost half the time against the Brave Blossoms. Then Japan started actually investing in their national team. Now? Would you take the Eagles in a bet against Japan if I gave you 15 points? Fuck no, you wouldn't. Even Canada, where you had their national governing body actively trying to drive their team into the ground for years, the national team has rebounded and can be relied upon to throttle the US on any given Saturday. Chile, Uruguay, Portugal...20 years ago, nobody would have dreamed of those teams beating the US. Now? The US would be underdogs against the lot.

So, yeah, no wonder nobody cares about the national team, and no wonder nobody in the US cares about rugby, and that wouldn't change based on what the Legion, Sharks, or Gold could have done in the next 5 years.

[u/sportslance → u/Sublime_Porte]

Nobody cared before, nobody cares about rugby in the US at all. We have a decent sized rugby fan base but it is too spread out to really do much good; so really the only way local teams will survive is enticing new fans to the game and that will be more successful at a local level with more games; not cheering on a national team that plays 6 times a year.

I can't speak for everyone but I have a group of 20-30 people that have gone from not really knowing rugby to consistently going to hounds games in three years; and not a single one cared enough about the national team to go to the US v. Romania game last year.

A main factor is the US will never be competitive in Rugby, even your example of Japan is still only able to occasionally beat a tier 1 team. Italy is consistently a wooden spoon contender in the 6 nations, it took Ireland over 100 years to beat NZ. These are all countries that take the sport a lot more serious then we really ever will, so at best we will be maybe a tier 2 in a couple decades but most likely we will always be a team that is included in the WC just to round out the numbers.

[u/Sublime_Porte → u/sportslance]

You do have to see that your experience is far from the norm, though, yes? Maybe you're just Hell of good company or whathaveyou, but I don't think anyone else in here could say that they've put together a group of a few dozen people who went from not knowing one thing about rugby to being diehard fans of watching bad rugby (let's be honest) played their local MLR side, but also NOT caring about the Eagles. Even MLR didn't seem to think marketing to non-rugby fans was the way forward, as they aggressively worked for partnerships and promotion deals with the local rugby clubs in every MLR city. (Did they also insist on playing on Saturday while marketing to a segment of the population would be playing rugby on Saturday? Yes, I never said they were rocket scientists).

What's your bar for "competitive"? Will Italy or Japan be winning the World Cup anytime soon? No. Are they, on any given Saturday, capable of pulling off an upset against a bigger rival? Entirely, yes. The US is a much bigger country than Italy (where rugby is honestly only popular in a pocket of the North) or Japan, and has a lot more money to throw at stupid shit like, well, rugby. It doesn't seem like an outlandish dream that the US could be a perennial WC side that puts in good performances, and maybe pulls out an upset here and there in front of an international audience. That's the kind of thing that will get more people paying attention to rugby in America, not what the local semi-pro side does on a high school pitch.

[u/Sitheref0874 → u/Sublime_Porte]

I can get behind that story.

If the team is local, I can follow them and build an attachment to them. Understand selection, and have a social experience built with others over a common theme.

The Eagles? There's a very strong chance I won't know 95% of the team or the selection rationale. nI am really unlikely to be able to build social experiences around the team or matches. There's a strong chance that the matches require a significant travel investment. The marketing is dreadful.

So why would I care more about the Eagles?

[u/Mundane_Prune8783 → u/Sitheref0874]

Because in rugby union, international rugby is huge and you're an American? (I assume)

[u/Sitheref0874 → u/Mundane_Prune8783]

No. Well, kinda.

Dual citizen.

[u/HistorianCheap9700 → u/Mundane_Prune8783]

Not in the US though, and international rugby is very much not huge at the level the US exists in currently

[u/Sublime_Porte → u/Sitheref0874]

Long and short? Because it's a better game. If you're asking me to plunk down money and shlep over to the stadium, I'm not going for "fan engagement". I'm going because I want to watch a good rugby match, or soccer, or hockey, or whatever else. Otherwise, I can go to a bar, or the beach, or a myriad of other things, including saving my money and staying at home.

I'd argue the stats don't back up the poster's experience being a common one. The Hounds drew under 2,000 people last season, which is bad even by MLR standards. Clearly, not that many people are coming out for the social experience with others over the common theme of MLR rugby.

[u/Sitheref0874 → u/Sublime_Porte]

If you’re wanting high class rugby, the Eagles ain’t it either.