<?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>Turmoil in Texas College Rugby</title>
		<description>Discuss Turmoil in Texas College Rugby</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:17:21 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/5597/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16523</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The real problem here is that clubs that made a commitment to each other for 3 years. Now a couple of them are now refusing to live up to it and USA Rugby is reluctant to hold them to that commitment. SWC is not a for profit entity, but is simply for the benefit of its member clubs. Those member clubs that have done what USA Rugby asked (form a Conference) and abide by USA Rugby regs, are now being punished. Why? Because clubs are being poached and recruited by a for profit company owned by two individuals that are the head of rugby at two of that conference's competing schools (A&M & SHSU). I applaud T5 1/2 for the effort and hope they have a program and scheme that improves college rugby and benefits their members, but not at the cost of all the other college programs in Texas. Clubs can do whatever they wish, but if they contract with other clubs, they must be held accountable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:14:07 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16523</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16521</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Baylor simply tendered their resignation and that was it. SWC advised them of their commitment under the By-Laws both before and after their resignation, but went without responce. UT made it clear from the beginning that they were/are committed to their commitments with SWC. If Baylor wishes to satisfy their commitment to SWC, as UT has and intends to do; then I am sure the SWC would make accommodations to allow them to do so, however that has not been their tact in the matter. This is why they are included in the SWC schedule. In fact the last communication on Baylor's behalf was an email in early July from Craig Coates containing a laundry list of ridiculous demands that went without responce. However, on July 5, 2012, SWC Commissioner sent a position letter to Baylor Pres Brent Brookshire, Craig Coates & Rich Cortez to succinctly & definitively state SWC's position in the matter. A copy is available to any interested party upon request.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:58:51 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16521</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GrantCole says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16520</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Scot,Thank you for the response. Collegiate rugby is a dicey landscape at times. Not every club is a program with year-to-year consistency and those that possess (or are possessed by) such a system are sometimes vilified by those that do not. I think what USAR intended to occur when they called for conferences to direct collegiate rugby was to give an impetus for the necessary consistency one step higher than the club level. You, obviously, are providing this consistency for the SWC (Administrators are the brick & mortar of college rugby, IMNSHO). Has Baylor been given the opportunity to abide in both conferences? It seems that Texas has been afforded this option (or is this incorrect?), thus precedent seems to have been set.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>GrantCole</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:17:44 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16520</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16519</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the spirit of full disclosure and just in case some readers do not know our identities: scottytex is myself, Scot Courtney-Discipline Director of SWC, former and present Interim Discipline Director of TRU, Western Rugby Union Discipline Committee Member & Coach at TXST. Anyone can contact me with questions, if they choose and can find my contacts on the TRU website. GrantCole is a noted commentator, sports/rugby writer and former Texas A&M Coach. http://www.thisisamericanrugby.com/2012/08/opening-kick_9.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:08:35 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16519</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16518</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If your referring to my comments, check again. Contrary to what was reported in the article you site: 1) "Coach" Arroyo never contacted SWC seeking admission, nor did anyone else at Tech. The "SWRC Organizer" cited in the article is even omitted. During the very early stages, Tech was part of the discussions at the TRU Winter AGM in Ft Worth, however they had serious doubts about their status for the next year. (i.e. possible Coach vacancy and diminished club member numbers due to graduation and attrition). Since they had one more year eligibility to play in DII, they chose to stay in DII, re-build and indicated they may seek admission into SWC the next year (2011). They have never sought admission into SWC; 2) On the other hand, UT applied after SWC's formation and was accepted; 3) As for comments attributed to SWC organizers by others, again who made these statements were omitted as well. A&M was never told their "school was too large".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:56:46 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16518</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GrantCole says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16515</link>
			<description><![CDATA[https://www.rugbymag.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=658:southwest-conference-doesnt-include-texas-aam-tech&catid=48:mens-di-college&Itemid=208 Perhaps some folks in Texas might want to brush up on the history here. Pat published this article in April 2011. SPOILER ALERT - Quotes in the above-linked article and adjacent forum thread contains information and assertions contrary to those recently published (not referring to you, Pat).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>GrantCole</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 10:32:42 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16515</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16514</link>
			<description><![CDATA[3) Baylor has never voiced concern regarding "the way it it was being ran". The only two issues they had with the administration was SWC sanctions for: 1) forfeiting a Conference Match (due to inability to travel & membership numbers); and 2) their past-due balance owed to SWC Sponsor, DNA Sports for equipment delivered months earlier. In fact, they voiced no concern, nor dissent at the SWC Annual meeting in May 2012 and only began considering ARC when Lonestar Conf. (Div II) advised they would be considered for admission if leaving in-good-standing from their present conference (SWC).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:42:17 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16514</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16513</link>
			<description><![CDATA[2) Texas Tech was never "discouraged from even trying to get into the league"; they have never contacted SWC to even discuss the possibility of admission. In the Spring of 2011, Tech was facing pending sanctions from TRU based on their inability to fulfill their Div I Match schedule and chose to compete in Div II to re-build their club. Difficulties in travel & membership numbers also contributed to their most recent decision not to travel for Div II Nationals, which again subjected them to possible sanctions from their competitive league (TRU Div II).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:41:22 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16513</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>scottytex says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16512</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My quotations are absolutely accurate, however there are a couple of factual clarifications necessary: 1) UT did not resign or depart SWC. UT advised SWC that they wanted the opportunity to compete at the DI-A level this year, however fully intended to fulfill their obligations to SWC (i.e. XVs Match commitments, dues, 7s Championships & test matches, etc...), therefore SWC determined that they were compliant with all SWC Club requirements and agreed with their request. UT remains a SWC Member.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>scottytex</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:44:54 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16512</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GrantCole says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16505</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is unfortunate. It is obvious why the SWCRC wants to hold on and why Baylor wants to be represented by what they think is a superior product (the ARC). This may not bode well for the SWCRC in the long run.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>GrantCole</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:50:30 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/college-premier-league-/5597-turmoil-in-texas-college-rugby.html#comment-16505</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
