alternate sports what if: American football banned in 1903

[1940LaSalle]

American football was already professional at this time. If rugby as a sport was to thrive, it would be the League code due to the strict amateurism of the RFU, essentially the governing body of the Union code at the time. Under no circumstances would they tolerate the paying of players.

Combined with a willing playing base of professional players transferring from American Football, the scene is ripe for rugby league - just as it was in Australia and New Zealand at roughly the same period.

Handball as the current indoor 7 v 7 sport didn't exist until much later in the century.

No, it wasn't. The NFL wasn't founded until 1920.

And I strongly suspect that some sort of work-around would be found yielding a sport that looked a lot like what was known as football, but circumvented the proscription. And good luck outlawing a sport entirely: that'll be about as successful as prohibition.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

No, it wasn't. The NFL wasn't founded until 1920.

And I strongly suspect that some sort of work-around would be found yielding a sport that looked a lot like what was known as football, but circumvented the proscription. And good luck outlawing a sport entirely: that'll be about as successful as prohibition.

I thought something was wrong about that statement, too. still, with football gone ITTL, I think soccer might gain some steam. granted, the reason I bring rugby is because it looks like football and, honestly, it's because of personal bias, as I prefer rugby. I feel like the only way for rugby to catch on across the world is not only American football being banned so that rugby is the contact ball sport that the US plays, but also the rugby union allowing payments for players in 1893.

yeah, I think we're going away for the real purpose of this thread: answering the question and guessing which sport would thrive without football around.

 

[sirjackalot]

IIRC IOTL some colleges did ban American Football in the early 1900s because too many students were dying and it was largely replaced with Rugby. American Football is based off of Rugby too begin with anywho. I definitely believe Rugby would fully replace American Football in a TL where American Football dies off in the early 1900s.

 

[Kuba24]

Seeing how colleges like Cal Berkeley switched to Rugby briefly in OTL, it would be possible that some form of rugby would replace football to an extent. Another possibility is that if some teams adopt Canadian Football since it is technically a different sport. As for Soccer, I don't think it would be as big in the 20th century because of OTL's "Soccer Wars", but the MLS would have a higher standing today than OTL. the NHL should also be better off as well in TTL. Baseball would likely remain the biggest sport up until maybe the 94 strike when Basketball briefly becomes #1 thanks to Michael Jordan boosting the sport's popularity. After Jordan's retirement, Rugby would probably be the top sport if the US ends up hosting the Rugby World Cup sometime down the road with the NBA being the close second.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

Seeing how colleges like Cal Berkeley switched to Rugby briefly in OTL, it would be possible that some form of rugby would replace football to an extent. Another possibility is that if some teams adopt Canadian Football since it is technically a different sport. As for Soccer, I don't think it would be as big in the 20th century because of OTL's "Soccer Wars", but the MLS would have a higher standing today than OTL. the NHL should also be better off as well in TTL. Baseball would likely remain the biggest sport up until maybe the 94 strike when Basketball briefly becomes #1 thanks to Michael Jordan boosting the sport's popularity. After Jordan's retirement, Rugby would probably be the top sport if the US ends up hosting the Rugby World Cup sometime down the road with the NBA being the close second.

I'm Canadian myself, and frankly, I don't understand what's so different our football. apart from the number of players allowed and the single point rule, it's pretty much same old football to me. maybe ITTL, Canada plays rugby and the grey cup is a separate knockout tournament for pros, semi-pros and amateur clubs like the FA cup in soccer?

as for the soccer wars, do you mean the honduras-el Salvador conflict? what does this have anything to do with the growth of soccer in 20th century US? especially since we have 6 decades to build up the sport in the country before this conflict happened. don't see it having any impact on US soccer TBH.

also, the US Soccer league might not necessarily be the MLS. it could've potentially been the old ASL from the early 20th century or something, which would be able to thrive ITTL now that football is gone. anything is possible.

speaking of which, we'd also need to look at what would the professional competitions look like ITTL, too!

 

[Kuba24]

as for the soccer wars, do you mean the honduras-el Salvador conflict? what does this have anything to do with the growth of soccer in 20th century US? especially since we have 6 decades to build up the sport in the country before this conflict happened. don't see it having any impact on US soccer TBH.

I am referring to the infighting between the ASL and clubs who participated in the American Challenge Cup. This infighting led fans being turned off from the league, and the Great Depression was the final blow to the ASL.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

I am referring to the infighting between the ASL and clubs who participated in the American Challenge Cup. This infighting led fans being turned off from the league, and the Great Depression was the final blow to the ASL.

really? I didn't know that. what were they fighting for?

 

[Will Ritson]

No, it wasn't. The NFL wasn't founded until 1920.

And I strongly suspect that some sort of work-around would be found yielding a sport that looked a lot like what was known as football, but circumvented the proscription. And good luck outlawing a sport entirely: that'll be about as successful as prohibition.

The introduction of professionalism has nothing to do with the formation of the NFL, and everything to do with whether players received payments or not, which was already commonplace for two decades prior.

The outlawing of the sport was the point of the original posting.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Rugby I think would replace American football or Gaelic football could be adept to US by Irish immigrants. A new unique American football evolving later on is still possible too.

The former British colonies are ironically the least into soccer. Ireland has its own football. Australia has rugby and it’s own version of football too. New Zealand has rugby. The whites in South Africa had rugby be more popular then football too. Canada has hockey(not football at all but contact sport) and its own football form too.

Globalization and public access to sports isn’t mainstream yet. Sports are often still forming out of unique regional circumstances and limitations.

Rugby being adopted in US would be interesting pod because they would have way more international competition. I am pretty sure a generation of American football greats could have done great at rugby too if they spent their childhood tossing rugby ball around instead of throwing a football. The passing did not become big until later. Old school football isn’t too different from rugby.

The American Ivy League schools after football is ban could just end up copying rugby from Brits. This leads to the sport developing in popularity similar to otl football. Most of the colleges and teams back then had no clear set rules or system yet. They were often just college kids figuring out things as they went along. That’s basically what American football started as. A bunch of rich rowdy Ivy League kids tossing a ball around in the mud and hitting each other. Colleges now still ban frats and college kids from repeating or starting violent or overly aggressive traditions, events, or games. These college kids will likely try to find a way around this eventually and being New Englanders and often being kids of wealthy people there who often have very close ties with England(money wise) they learn about this interesting new formalized sport from England called rugby that is similar to the game they just ban at home(on campus). Being from over pond and formalized it has legal legitimacy to start up where football left off and lacked in.

Many people do prefer contact sports. I do think it appeals to many where soccer does to the same people.

American pro rugby probably has even more Polynesians in it. This might actually help Australia sports and athletics wise. If butterflies leave rest of history similar to otl when American becomes superpower and expanding economically overseas that could be a lot of money for good Australian and New Zealand.

A rugby World Cup would be neat and entertaining. If US adopts rugby that could spread to Canada and rest of America’s too. Rugby is a cheaper sport too. So more lower class people can play it earlier on(some farm boys and urban labors make better athletes then lawyers and doctors at Yale if coach right). Football only became able to lower class in America when the equipment and set up for it is publicly/state funded. Most places American football is too expensive to become widespread. Rugby much less so and later on the lack of helmets will avoid concussions issues which avoids sports becoming more tamed.

Athletes and people are just more reckless with their body with full pads. People do often just do dumber shit when they have a helmet on. Like a drunk running head first into a wall with a football helmet which you can find videos of. People naturally flinch more or don’t throw there head into someone body without a helmet. Your biggest worry is getting a knee to face or head if you screw up tackling. But that often ends in busted lips and teeth knocked out more often. You do want your head behind his body when you grapple/tackle him to ground.

Rugby taking place of football in America could really do a lot for sport internationally(mostly funding wise. America has a lot of money and sport has room to grow much more). It actually might hamper or compete with soccer down line in Latin America, Caribbean, and South America. But unlike soccer US rugby team could actually be best in world. US has a lot of raw athletes. It’s really a question of what sport is most available to them and which is funded the most.

American sports top in modern day could be rugby at 1, basketball, and baseball behind them. I think basketball still grows like otl. The circumstances and environment for it are there still like otl for basketball. Rugby might be second biggest international sport and quickly catching up to soccer in total popularity.

Sports do have major impacts of how a society and culture develops. I would argue part of west success is focus on physical education and training.

Those guys on nfl lineups are not just big fat asses like some soccer players like to mock them as. They are more explosive and power base athletes. Not all sports require same fitness type. American football has multiple within itself. Rugby a good bit less so. They are performing in short and full intensity action. In soccer and even rugby to lesser extent you are going for much longer periods so you must manage and reserve your energy a bit more. Basically paste yourself. Your body does have limits. You can’t run a full soccer game. American Football you can go all out every play with conditioning and shorter plays with breaks.

Some of them might be 300 pounds but many can run under 5.0. Some 4.7. Rugby requiring more endurance and long distance conditioning would see weight of average players drop a good bit from modern otl American football by current. They are probably more in 240 to 280 range. American rugby team with otl football popularity and funding might put England and European teams in hospital. They would be big and mean. Australia and New Zealand would be most likely to beat US team in this pod but they still be dominate force but not as much as otl basketball.

Defense American football fans or “old school” ones might actually like rugby more in long run then otl football. High scoring and speedy offense probably does not get nearly as big in American rugby. The more international structure leads to more uniformed rules. I see one rugby system fading in favor of US one or both merging together.

Hockey would also still likely grow as otl without football maybe a bit more but not outside of north until way more modern. Can’t really have hockey become big in places that lack cold winters. Preferably really cold ones.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

@Modern Imperialism

damn, that has got to be the most in-depth answer we've got to date!

yeah, not just more Polynesian athletes, but maybe native Americans, too! rugby could potentially be used as leverage to heal up America's rocky relationship with the natives, just like how it's used to unite new Zealand's native and white population together!

I'm curious though...you only briefly mentioned soccer in your post. how do you think soccer would fare ITTL? I thought that it would be able to thrive in America now that football is gone. being way less physically harmful than rugby would be a major factor for parents and schools to push their kids to play that sport instead, too.

EDIT: I chose a word poorly.

 

[Philip]

I thought that it would be able to thrive in America now that football is gone. being way less physically harmful than rugby would be a major factor for parents and schools to push their kids to play that sport instead, too

For most of American (Anglo? European? World?) history, the danger on the game was a feature not a bug. The thinking that playing through the pain and suffering for your team builds character, makes a man out of you, etc.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

For most of American (Anglo? European? World?) history, the danger on the game was a feature not a bug. The thinking that playing through the pain and suffering for your team builds character, makes a man out of you, etc.

yes, that, I agree, and rugby is really good at teaching teamwork, respect and building character. still, you can't deny that some people would be put off by how hard-hitting it can be, so these people would have their kids play soccer or baseball or basektball instead. maybe handball, volleyball or futsal even!

 

[Modern Imperialism]

@Modern Imperialism

damn, that has got to be the most in-depth answer we've got to date!

yeah, not just more Polynesian athletes, but maybe native Americans, too! rugby could potentially be used as leverage to heal up America's rocky relationship with the natives, just like how it's used to unite new Zealand's native and white population together!

I'm curious though...you only briefly mentioned soccer in your post. how do you think soccer would fare ITTL? I thought that it would be able to thrive in America now that football is gone. being way less physically harmful than rugby would be a major factor for parents and schools to push their kids to play that sport instead, too.

EDIT: I chose a word poorly.

You could still have people think soccer is a “girl sport” here. The point of contact sport is too teach kids how to vent and control their emotions in a structured matter. It does depend on culture.

The ironic nature of US is our most physical sport started as a very upper class dominated sport. Even our upper class was into physical sports. That isn’t norm especially when compared to Western Europe. That does say something about Americans.

New Englanders back in day was a lot more of a religious(Puritan influences) and Victorian in mindset. They were big into “Protestant work ethic” and being “proper” like brits. Imagine how a sport where you don’t have to deal with any of that bullshit might appeal to these people. Contact sports are often more just raw emotion and athleticism when not structured enough. It’s only place you could lay someone out without getting in trouble or “look down on”.

When it became accessible to lower class many Americans took out all their daily life frustrations out in practice or games. Imagine the thrill of being a simple kid from poor background and feeling powerless in life but when on that field you can be one on that field laying out people and trucking them while they try to tackle you. If you aren’t that smart all you often have or focus on it your athletic ability(this is why I think treating athletics as below academics is wrong and misguided). It is often will, mind, effort, and raw ability.

This is reason football became so popular in south. If you are a poor black kid from ghetto or even a poor white kid from rural area you often just play football all time. Better to hit someone on field instead of real life which will get you in trouble. It is venting out more primal impulses of people.

Waterboy is overtop example but somewhat true on mindset of many people who play football or contact sports. Many are going out there with mindset of “I’m going to fucking kill whoever in front of me”.

Soccer does not do same for people like this. People play football to let loose. Soccer is very technical and structured in nature.

Rugby safety wise is less of issue because they do teach better tackling form. Punching and cheap shots in a pile will be more of issue those but refs don’t usually see that. But not having as many pads or helmet does mean you are more likely to get a full fist or knee to face or head. Ribs and kidneys are also more open to being punch now too. The reason some Americans wear gloves while playing football is to protect hands against getting stepped on and dirty ones so they can punch helmet or padding without jamming fingers or hurting your hand. Padding makes people more reckless and bold. That’s is often what makes American football a more dangerous sport often times. You do have to be more technical and have somewhat of sport iq to do well in rugby. Less pads might lead to more bruises and cuts but less brain damage and possibly broken bones too.

Also no forward pass is big here. A lot of sprains and twist happen when jumping up to catch. Or if your in open field and have to stand up and reach more to catch pass you are completely open to getting laid out by a person that has track star speed and possibly is benching and squatting over 400 pounds. That can fuck you up really bad. That is when you see people fly in air from a hit and land on there necks or get helmets knocked. Think how hard they are getting hit if helmets and shoes come off. You nfl line man has more force behind him then a battery ram sometimes. They can run through doors in pads. Or imagine if they hit you from underneath and behind while jumping high in air. You are literally trying to catch a ball at top speed yourself and you have someone just as fast or faster and incredibly strong coming at you full intensity and hitting you right when ball touches your hands.

The reason many hate helmet to helmet calls and leading with head when your going that fast and hard you often aren’t always thinking or can help it so people understandably get pissed when someone old little fat ref that can hardly keep up throws a flag over that.

Rugby does eliminate all these issues while still being aggressive to point people won’t be upset overnight sport becoming too “soft”. Rugby also solves some title 9 issues later on. Rugby teams aren’t as massive at all. They would not have a much higher number of scholarships then other sports because they would not need it as much. This helps female sports and smaller ones in general for colleges and high school. You would need less money for rugby there for more funding for other sports especially as title 9 comes around.

You would have more balanced while still powerful and big athletes in US. But they would have to go down in size somewhat for endurance reasons compared to nfl or otl college football.

The issue for soccer is Americans already have a non contact sports like baseball and to lesser extent basketball too(actually rather physical in past but not technically contact sport). Basketball would still be go to sport in more urban and crowded areas because it’s easier to play and do there. You still need a field which does make sports like this more common in more modern developed cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Southern cities for example are much more spread out then northeast coast or Western Europe. You do often have little forest or farm land between suburbs and city. Schools often build themselves in areas like this. Even if you can’t afford field set up all you have to practice is an open and flat area which is easy to find in Deep South. The field only would need to be set up with lines for games. Also many private and “volunteer” groups helps with this

 

[kinnikuniverse]

@Modern Imperialism

interesting that you brought up the title 9 stuff for college sports. I didn't know what was that term until I searched on Google. with rugby only needing 15 players and 7 subs (or 13, depending if, like the other guy mentioned, they play rugby league due to its open embrace of professionalism, unless we create another POD where the rugby union accepts payment of players in 1893), there is much less scholarships being given to one sport, so women's sports and other, more obscure sports like volleyball, handball, lacrosse or even futsal can have better financing. maybe ITTL, there might even be professional volleyball, handball and futsal leagues in the US!

speaking of professional sports leagues, how would pro rugby work in the US? because the European sports leagues, be it rugby or soccer, the clubs are independent entities that play in multiple divisions that go up and down through the promotion/relegation system. they also don't have drafts and trades. clubs acquire new players by either developing them through their own youth academies or by direct cash transfers. rugby goes even deeper, as almost every rugby clubs is part of their region's specific unions.

the way I personally see it, this tier, promotion/relegation system might work at first, with the east-coast based unions forming the National Rugby league (Australia's NRL would be renamed "tesla premiership" or "winfield cup" in this case) system and the west coast-based unions eventually forming their own league system, the American Rugby Football league due to flight travel and coast-to-coast exchanges being extremely rare outside of trains at the time, and also to be this TL's equivalent of the NFL-AFL rivalry.

then, when we reach the late 50s-early 60s, when flight travel and coast-to-coast exchanges becomes available for relatively cheap, like OTL's NFL and AFL, the two leagues merge together.

however, something like promotion/relegation in a US national league wouldn't work, simply due to travel expenses, geographical gaps between states and owners wanting financial staibilities. this would cause another problem: the clubs. by this point, the clubs of both leagues would have to be sacrificed to make way for a franchise system, which they wouldn't be happy about as those clubs would probably have developed lots of history playing at a top-flight level as well as in the cup competitions.

with that in mind, I personally propose that, for the new, post-merger NRL, that they would use a system created in the southern hemisphere: representative teams!

inspired by the system used in OTL's super rugby and new zealand's mitre 10 Cup, the representative team system is a sort of franchise system where a union in a particular region creates a team representing the entire union, with the roster being mostly filled by players playing for clubs in that particular union, the rest by either foreign players or just regular players in general

for example, let's take a hypothetical team called the new England patriots. (well, not so hypothetical

​

the patriots, as its name implies, represents the new England rugby union, which encompasses Massachusetts, Connecticut, new hampshire, rhode island, Maine and Vermont. with this large territory, the patriots can fill their rosters with players playing in clubs from that union, as well as drafted players and players brought on transfers from foreign leagues or trades with other teams in the NRL. they can also use clubs from their union as feeder clubs in order to develop their drafted players, so that they can gain experience before moving up to the first team roster.

if they want, the unions can even use an already-existing club as their representative team, such as the northern California rugby union using the San Francisco golden gate as their representative team, for example


with that system, you can have the best of the franchise system (entry draft, financial stability, trades, minor league feeder clubs) and the traditional club system (close ties to home region, close relationship with the fanbase, transfers for foreign players, local player developement, involvement in the community)!

of course, if any of you have a better idea for American pro rugby, feel free to share them!

what do you think?

 

[Modern Imperialism]

People in America and many places can stomach and accept bruises, cuts, losing teeth, and etc but brain damage is much more serious to people. Even if your body is fuck up when you get older many do take comfort in knowing they are still there mentally. Also with drugs and advances in medical science your body being messed up is something many people can live with or put up with. In future we might and few decades from now we might have ability to even repair broken spine completely. This does help sport like rugby more so then football.

We can more easily fix our physical bodies way more so then brain damage. That probably is a long way from our ability to fix currently if ever. Once a part of brain is damage you probably would not ever fully recover from that or get that back. The brain is where modern medicine is still most unsure and has most room for errors.

Look at hockey. They beat shit out of each other all time but due to brain damage being less common in it people can tolerate that more and even more openly encourage it.

It isn’t by chance that most of the contact or combat sports getting most heat, criticize, and pressure to change are ones that have more head contacts. Boxing and American football being great examples. People can accept fact that stuff might have wear and tear effects on their body but no one wants to be completely gone in head. Many rather honestly die first or have someone put them out of their misery by that point. You can literally lose control of yourself and it can often be slow process that you see slowly coming as years past by.

Rugby that will be no where near as common if at all if it took off in US. Retired US rugby players will look more like retired hockey players. Missing teeth, bruises, and old cuts scares. They might look rough up a good bit but not empty in eyes and slobbering from mouth while eating oatmeal.

Your body is be softer then a skull but that is because it is protecting more recoverable parts of body. You might cough blood if hit hard in right place but in long run that might be less bad then repeated shots to head. That’s why UFC is actually more well structured and more realistic to actual fight then boxing. Smart people in actual fight would not fight like boxer especially without gloves. The skull is hard. You can easily break a hand or damage it without gloves and the fight is actually done once person is out. Boxing is one of few sports you could be knocked out for few seconds and get back up to fight. In UFC or real fight once you are knocked out fight is done because if your out cold in real fight for even second you are probably not getting back up especially if he or she keeps punching you.

If rugby replaced football could see Americans biggest weakness in rugby on international scene being how ignorant or reckless some might be on field. US rugby probably often more aggressive and smash mouth but I see Australia or New Zealand pulling upset by being actually smarter at sport and technique wise.

Also New Zealand native population might be one of few teams with enough size to compete against US. Imagine all those nfl lineman but more trimmed and cut fitness wise. They would be mean.

If rugby just takes the place of otl football on how it develops you could have a very interesting pod that impacts culture outside of sports as well. Imagine college rugby instead of football. College probably being what made sport widespread and big in this world.

A interesting pod might even lead to college ncaa system mixing with pro sports more. Rugby might introduce more club athletic structure to American sports system at least for rugby. For example, ncaa is treated as more of youth teams or minor leagues. You can get recruited into colleges teams for solely athletics alone. Maybe a special status of sorts. People who are recruited for athletics ability or lack academic requirements can join these sports clubs as a “non student member”, employee, or make physical education a trade school that is part of regular college still but as separate branch of school. Basically any kid good at sport or athletic but can’t get into regular school due to grades and academics can now just get ged and not even graduate high school and get let into trade school for cheap or free(full ride). They are technically being given degrees separate from main university and ones that only certified them in working within physical training or sports. Coaches would be thrill because they can literally just have them focused on sports whole time.

Many of them lack common sense so teaching them sports iq could be really helpful. The reason they might pick up college system like this is because with more international competition many will bitch and complain about not having enough time to focus on sports due to how tied to academics it might become. If US starts losing enough internationally many places might take that with bitterness and as a shot to there pride.

Americans hooligans might be much more of thing with an international rugby team and competitive competition. Also if the college and pro team are basically interconnected that is a lot of possible money for college and tax right offs/exemptions for pro team. The players during college just practice their sport all day and have people teach them finer details of athletics in class or lab type setting(stuff like health, training, and technique. Sports IQ classes basically).It would be nice to see more pro teams connect to local communities and greater variety in them. Maybe an Alabama University does great at rugby at college and pro level. The universities might take more part in local and regional athletics. For example, send retired players to go coach and help youth league kids or high school. Or do events and etc. The government sponsors and encourages this and ncaa rewrites this system to adept to this(academic focus schools might be pissed but ncaa is technically a “voluntary” organization. So if a enough teams with money or care more about sports side with them other schools will be forced to accept it). Maybe alt Bear Bryant who coaches rugby encourages creation of this new system or reform(he wants more good players just like otl. He did do shit like this. This was main reason academic schools like Tulane and Georgia Tech left SEC in otl).

The only downside to this Americans and foreigners might get much more chipping with each other which could impact social and cultural views greatly. People do stupid, impulsive, and straight up ignorant shit when at sporting events especially when drunk.

The US rugby team might be only country where rugby is more popular among black people then soccer. Black people in US play soccer less then white people unless they are actually African immigrants.

I imagine you might have a few “incidents” regarding chants due to this in some places. It would change many people view if they see foreign fans team making monkey noises and growing bananas at them. Racist chants like that would lead to many otl nfl players or this alt rugby starting fights with opposing team. They would try to hurt other team if they do shit like this. This isn’t soccer. They will intentionally try to hurt you bad if you piss them off. Imagine US rugby team being majority black in 80s playing majority white South African team in 80s. It might make them think Alabama people are not so bad. At least they like whoever helping them win games.

Rugby like football could help slowly fade away and bridge racial divides in US especially south. Racist foreign fans can have indirect effect of only increasing that.

Europeans often make sports more political. Americans do at times too but I would argue majority use sports to get away from that and get pissed when it is brought into sports in any divisive ways. Europeans fans are going to piss off Americans with some of chants they do to the point our teams might actually do better because that’s how pissed they will get. You would not want to be on that field. I imagine if we had international events like soccer for rugby a good or dominate US team might get a lot of colorful or offensive chants depending on country in question.

Hooligans are often just punks outside of Eastern Europe. Americans will have actual thugs on and off field that won’t put up with some skin head talking shit. If Italian rugby player did nazi salute during game or after doing something he would get immediately dropped and blinded sided by US player with his team following behind.

I remembered seeing jokes about how French team were all from Africa when they won World Cup. Jokes like that towards black people in US would only piss them off. Many don’t like being called Africans and like whites from south easily get angry when you talk down to them or they think you are disrespecting them. The issues this can cause in a physical contact sport should be obvious.

International competition could be done two ways. Either best overs US rugby pro team is sent or one made up of best players. Maybe a mix of two. For example, if you have few foreign players that don’t meet requirements of being on US team your team going to represent US is more of a bragging right and you get a small tag or patch on majority of jerseys. Your coach is also team US coach. That coach can have his picking from top US citizen players if they are willing to join(most are unless they are from a bitter rival team). These players wear their team patches on US rugby uniforms. Team chemistry is important. You can’t just throw a bunch of great athletes together and expect to always have a great team.

I could even see brits pissing Americans off. They probably get dominated by US in rugby. Wouldn’t US at more international sports like this naturally see more hooligans and nationalist in some countries seeing this as opportunity to talk trash and hope for off chance they actually win? I see New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa being top competition. Italy and Ireland might be way better at sport then otl because I could see continued trade and immigration connections leading to sport expanding more there if US is rugby nation(money, the sport just has a lot more of it now). Russia maybe gets more into it and better too. Same with Latin America, South America, and Caribbean. England probably sucks at it in comparison in long run. Same might go for much of Europe that is more soccer dominated except for Italy who did ok at it otl.


International nature of rugby could lead to some unsavory and questioning of former cultural perceptions as we get closer to modern era and globalization. American teams would have started out regional and focused on playing each other in ncaa type of system and when sport grows to become second biggest international sport in 70s and 80s we see nationalist elements come more of issue at events. Americans are often ignorant of what other places think of them or have little idea of foreign cultures. Regular international sporting events make that much less so and might bring US more “patriotic” attitudes during sporting events. Especially if they play Russians/Soviets.

 

[kinnikuniverse]

@Modern Imperialism

oof, can't even imagine how violent and intense the USA-south Africa and USA-russia games would be in the 20th century! it would be a bloody war!

i can see USA-new Zealand and USA-australia be more of a friendly rivalry, what with both teams fielding a large number of minorities, especially if USA also fields natives like new zealand do with Maoris and Australia with indigenous players. USA-France would be entertaining, too, with the beautiful, artistic French flair going against American power and explosiveness and USA fans talking shit about the French sissiness lol

rugby taking off in the US could also mean Canada might take rugby too instead of our football. with a stronger Canadian side, our games would actually be worth watching! I can imagine a "battle of the borders" yearly series of games between us and the US. a USA-Japan yearly series could work too to celebrate their good relationship post-WW2.

and, uh, look, I appreciate the insight into the values clash between foreign sports customs and USA sports customs, with the monkey chants, americans not understanding european sports culture and everything, but I asked a question concerning how American pro rugby would be set up. so please stay in the subject.

in fact, I feel like i will switch to another subject very soon. enough rugby, let's talk soccer next!

 

[Philip]

there is much less scholarships being given to one sport, so women's sports and other, more obscure sports like volleyball, handball, lacrosse or even futsal can have better financing. maybe ITTL, there might even be professional volleyball, handball and futsal leagues in the US

That's not quite how Title IX works. Title IX requires equality in opportunity not outcome. A football team giving out say 85 scholarships to male players must be balanced an equal number of scholarships female players. This often results in schools providing scholarships to more women's teams that are otherwise inexpensive. Women's soccer benefited greatly from this, especially since it allowed for 20 some scholarships. But that leaves 60 some scholarships that need to be balanced. Other women's sports will have to be supported to make up the difference. When I was I school, rowing was a popular choice to help balance things.

Now here is the catch. The money to pay for those scholarships as well as the money to otherwise support the teams comes largely from the revenues generated by football and men's basketball. If you switch to rugby that only hands out maybe 35 scholarships instead of 85, you'll also see 50 scholarships for women's teams disappear. Since the money is being generated by the rugby team, it will just keep that money. Title IX is happy since the number of scholarships (opportunity) is equal.

with that system, you can have the best of the franchise system (entry draft, financial stability, trades, minor league feeder clubs) and the traditional club system (close ties to home region, close relationship with the fanbase, transfers for foreign players, local player developement, involvement in the community)!

More likely something resembling the minor league systems used by MLB or NHL would develop.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

@Modern Imperialism

oof, can't even imagine how violent and intense the USA-south Africa and USA-russia games would be in the 20th century! it would be a bloody war!

i can see USA-new Zealand and USA-australia be more of a friendly rivalry, what with both teams fielding a large number of minorities, especially if USA also fields natives like new zealand do with Maoris and Australia with indigenous players. USA-France would be entertaining, too, with the beautiful, artistic French flair going against American power and explosiveness and USA fans talking shit about the French sissiness lol

and, uh, look, I appreciate the insight into the values clash between foreign sports customs and USA sports customs, with the monkey chants, americans not understanding european sports culture and everything, but I asked a question concerning how American pro rugby would be set up. so please stay in the subject.

in fact, I feel like i will switch to another subject very soon. enough rugby, let's talk soccer next!

I included that too. I would not put it past ncaa to expand into pro sports by taking aspects of club system. There are many good athletes US misses out on because of the academic requirements of college. The example I gave above would provide a good idea about this new reform ncaa. Like club system they are more local and community base. In US that means a lot of tax cuts, exemptions, benefits, and etc especially for religious ones.

The issue with colleges expanding to next level is more academic requirements or “integrity” of institutions. But much of this can easily be reworded and expanded on. We just currently passed law allowing college athletes gain profit from their name and likeness. The ncaa and sport interest might push for ncaa to become more like clubs and expand into pros. College rugby could have been norm until 50s and 60s due to failure of independent professional leagues taking off(they try what nfl did but failed).

US after losing to Russia/Soviets or a bitter former rival gets pissed and is for anything that will beat those “damn communist”. This involves in refining laws regarding academic institutions and ncaa with support of multiple schools pushing Congress for “physical education” reform. This basically makes it where athletics and academics within these colleges are completely cut off from each other all but in name.

Physical ability or athletic success can be used as ways to get accepted into a college even if you failed out of high school. It isn’t a law degree or anything. They basically put in in a trade type of school that focuses of physical education and your sport. The degree you get is like getting one from sister school or trade school. The only thing is gives you certification to do is coach and be physical trainer. You aren’t a regular student at school. You are a paid “apprentice” or whatever nice legal words they won’t to use. You are basically getting free school, housing, pay, and food. It is like being a grad student somewhat within a special program. You are given benefits on top of pay but have to work for them too. If you get hurt they cover it but if you can’t play anymore they use you as coach or trainer somewhere(local high school or youth club or any events). If you are a good athlete all you do is focus on your sport. No worrying about grades and all that. That could create an impressive US rugby team. PE teacher would likely be less respected by other teachers those.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

That's not quite how Title IX works. Title IX requires equality in opportunity not outcome. A football team giving out say 85 scholarships to male players must be balanced an equal number of scholarships female players. This often results in schools providing scholarships to more women's teams that are otherwise inexpensive. Women's soccer benefited greatly from this, especially since it allowed for 20 some scholarships. But that leaves 60 some scholarships that need to be balanced. Other women's sports will have to be supported to make up the difference. When I was I school, rowing was a popular choice to help balance things.

Now here is the catch. The money to pay for those scholarships as well as the money to otherwise support the teams comes largely from the revenues generated by football and men's basketball. If you switch to rugby that only hands out maybe 35 scholarships instead of 85, you'll also see 50 scholarships for women's teams disappear. Since the money is being generated by the rugby team, it will just keep that money. Title IX is happy since the number of scholarships (opportunity) is equal.



More likely something resembling the minor league systems used by MLB or NHL would develop.

Less men sports would get gutted those. I am for equality in sports but title 9 often is schools more trying to fulfill requirements instead of achieving equality. They often just create a female sport that isn’t even largely popular to just say they fulfill requirements so they still get those nice federal benefits and funding.

Benefit of rugby over football is you would actually have more balanced between female and male sports. Football often screws over smaller sports for male teams. They will cut two male sports like men’s track and wrestling then add rowing or a less popular female sport. Some schools literally have no male track team but has female rowing but not female softball. That is just stupid and pandering to requirement.

The reason rowing is often added in as female sport is because it’s one of few sports females have that has closest amount of people and total scholarships as football does. I could be wrong on this but I would say by my educated guess and knowing sports well in general rowing isn’t nearly as popular among girls as softball. So instead of providing a sport they actually prefer to play they add in rowing just so they keep getting federal funding. Rugby would at least make system like this fair especially if female rugby on the off chance took off

 

[Enigmajones]

Personally, I think without football that baseball can retain its dominance.