Americans: Vote with your Remotes, Mouse Clicks

With the future of the Setanta Sports network on unsteady ground, Americans' access to rugby union and league is in jeopardy. If you haven't already subscribed to Setanta in the United States, you probably either can't or won't, but this weekend there's an easier way to help out rugby union in the United States.

ESPN, which doesn't exactly air a lot of rugby union, is showing the USA v. Canada World Cup qualifying match this Saturday at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. If you want to see rugby union on television in the United States, you're only part of the solution if you show ESPN why it's worth their time to broadcast it. "They should show rugby on TV," is a comment lament heard in the United States among enthusiasts, but not all of them step up to make it worth the networks' trouble.

Problem is, it's unlikely that ESPN will know you watched the match unless you are in one of the relatively few households that are used to collect ratings data by Nielsen (or some other group). So how else can you tell ESPN that you like seeing rugby union on television?

If you have access to ESPN360 on the Internet, you may want to watch it there to help the most. Only some Internet providers have access to ESPN360, so you may not have the option, but if you do you may want to watch the match online (a few times). Strangely enough, it can be more positive for a television program's success if you watch it online than if you watch it on television because of how Internet viewing is tracked (plus some tendencies preferences associated with the online audience that are attractive to some advertisers). Incidentally, there is plenty of other rugby and rugby league to see on ESPN360 if you have access.

If you can't or won't watch the match online, you can still us the Internet to cast a vote for rugby union. One option is to send a quick comment to ESPN through their online form to let them know that you are glad to have the match on and want to see more. While you're at it, you can take a second to hit the little "recommend" button on the USA Today story about this week's match to show your support for news coverage of rugby as well.

A drop in the bucket, of course, but not a lot of work and better than nothing. Want to see more rugby on American TV? Do something about it!

In the meantime, the Eagles have their work cut out for them. The United States haven't beaten Canada since 2005 and did not finish strong when the sides met last year. While you're waiting for Saturday, have a look at some moments from the 2008 USA-Canada showdown:

Irish A's are Smiling

The Churchill Cup is a key event each year for rugby union in the United States as it provides a large portion of the U.S.A. Eagles' annual matches and was even held in the United States this year. Although a few of the tournament's other entrants (Canada and Georgia this year) are also national sides, many of the other participating nations put a second-level version of their national side in the competition. The 2009 competition was won by one such side, Ireland "A," on Sunday.

That "A" is a key letter in the team name, as it indicates that the side is Ireland's second side and not the "true" side. That might imply that their matches don't mean as much, but you wouldn't so from looking at the Irish side as they won the tournament final 49-22 over their English counterparts, the England Saxons.

The contest between these representative sides brings to mind the broad variety in the names so many nations provide for their second-tier side. It can cause a bit of confusion, particularly given that at the club level many sides choose to refer to their first side as an "A" side and can thus misinterpret the "A" designator's meaning at the national level. To help out any confused parties, here's a list of prominent national second-level sides in rugby union with a brief explanation of each:

• "A" sides: In addition to Ireland, a number of other nations refer to their second side as the "A" side. Scotland, France, Italy, Wales, and Australia have all fielded "A" sides in recent years, though the latter two of these countries are not presently fielding an "A" side.
• England Saxons: The Saxons used to be referred to as England "A" (and previously as England "B," to add to the confusion), but have been known as the Saxons since 2006.
• Junior All Blacks: Though the term "Junior All Blacks" might suggest an age-grade side, the Junior All Blacks are New Zealand's second-grade side and do not have any age association.
• New Zealand Māori: Not technically a second-level side, New Zealand Māori can be mentioned on this list as a similar and unique national rugby union side. Players for the side are New Zealanders with at least one-sixteenth Māori heritage. Although the Junior All Blacks are New Zealand's actual second-level side, the New Zealand Māori outfit has sometimes functioned as something similar to a second-tier New Zealand side by occasionally participating in tournaments such as the Churchill Cup and the Pacific Nations Cup in the Junior All Blacks' stead.
• Emerging Springboks: Like the Junior All Blacks, the Emerging Springboks might sound like an age-grade side, but they are South Africa's second-level representatives. Given that they earned a draw against the touring all-star British and Irish Lions yesterday, some might say they've already emerged!
• Argentina Jaguars: Like the Saxons, the Jaguars have a dedicated nickname that differs from their first-grade counterparts the Pumas.

In rugby league, officially-named second-tier national sides are featured less frequently, though there are some interesting representative sides such as:

• New Zealand Māori, which has the same eligibility requirements as the union version of the side,
• Indigenous Dreamtime, an Australian counterpart to the NZ Māori whose players are all at least one-sixteenth aboriginal in heritage, and the
• Prime Minister's XIII, a side picked each year by the Australian Prime Minister to play against Papua New Guinea.

Hopefully that will help you keep track of all the monikers given to these second-string sides, which provide as much excitement as their first-grade versions in tournaments all over the globe each year.

Are any "A" sides missing from the list? Post a comment if so.

The "French Exception" to New Zealand's Dominance?

Scholars of politics, culture, economics, and other fields talk of "The French Exception," an apparent tendency for France to consistently show uniqueness in opposition to trends and patterns of various types across Europe and around the globe. After last weekend, it may be time to add another example of the French exception to the annals: France's refusal to follow the pattern of New Zealand's dominance in rugby union.

New Zealand has the top side in the world, says the International Rugby Board's rankings formula. They won the 2008 Tri-Nations series and went undefeated in ten 2008 matches against Northern Hemisphere opponents. In their first match of 2009, the favored New Zealand All Blacks were hosting a depleted French side.

But France didn't do what they were supposed to do this past Saturday. Instead, France went ahead and beat the mighty All Blacks 27-22.

Alone, one result like this isn't too surprising. However, looking at a few other key France-New Zealand contests in recent memory shows an interesting pattern. In 2007, New Zealand were the World Cup favorites, but lost 20-18 to France in a quarterfinal match. That's a little bit like 1999, when New Zealand were also the favorites but lost 43-31 to France in a semifinal match.

In addition to boosting the local arrest rate, this most recent loss has even rattled some hopes in New Zealand about the 2011 World Cup despite it being a couple of years away.

France and New Zealand square off again this Saturday. Will there be more of the "French Exception?"

Here are some highlights from last week's win:


And some from that 2007 upset:


And from 1999: