That said, already we've had reports of some teams on the East Coast planning on skipping the trip if they qualify. Some clubs are estimating the trip to be at least $15-17,000. That's a lot of money but to be fair West Coast teams had to do the same to travel to Pittsburgh last year. Most clubs understand that's the cost and are willing to pay it but it still stinks.
With pros and cons of each side we thought it would be nice to clear up some misunderstandings on how Seattle came to host the tournaments. Take the jump to read more.Before we get into the bidding process we feel a disclaimer is in order. I live in Seattle and am excited not to have to travel to cover the tournament. (Note: if anyone needs any tips on the area don't hesitate to ask.) However, anyone who has followed the site for awhile should realize that we aren't on anyone's payroll and we try to stay as neutral as possible. We're proud of that.
Now, back to the bidding process. This year only one club east of the Rocky Mountains, Pittsburgh, bid to host the tournament. The other bids were all on the West Coast. Pittsburgh did a fantastic job hosting last year and should probably host more tournaments in the future. But as with anything you have to take into account what U.S.A. Rugby sees in the totality of the bid.
Seattle offered the resources of one of the most robust--arguably even better than U.S.A. Rugby--organizations in the country in Serevi Rugby. The bid also offered to put the event in a stadium. If you look at the way U.S.A. Rugby has directed their events in recent times you can see that is the way they are trending. This year's club championships in Wisconsin had the highest paid attendance in the history of that tournament. It was also held in a smaller but not too small of a venue similar to where the tournament in Seattle will be held. Further, the Seattle bid included a youth tournament, which is appealing to U.S.A. Rugby. Events like the test in Houston and others have been built into operations that feature multiple events.
What we don't know is if other venues offered the same things as the Seattle bid. However, if you look at past events it's not out of the realm of possibility that some of the bids simply offered facilities. Again, we don't know and that's the frustrating part. Still, if the Seattle bid was simply better than the others in terms of venue, infrastructure, auxiliary events, etc., then it's hard to argue against U.S.A. Rugby trying to raise the standard of one of their marquee events. Having the backing of Serevi Rugby would be hard for any other part of the country to match.
In the end this is a big country and no matter what there will be teams that have their finances strained. It comes with the territory of playing an amateur sport. Do we all wish that every club had a chance to travel? Absolutely. Just like we wish the bidding process was more transparent. But it is what it is and is Seattle can pull off what it promised than their is no question that a new standard has been set that will make it tough for other areas to follow.