The teams in the West are currently looking over the current league system and if it is beneficial or detrimental to teams & competition in the West. My post earlier this month talked about several topics including the geography of the West and about the costs of playing in the West. These two issues combined are hurting players, coaches and teams beyond measure.
Current talks now between teams are revolving about maybe moving back to the Best of the West Tournament, an East/West or South/North format, or a Tier 1 and Tier 2 situation or maybe a few other ideas.
The pros are that each team has 6 high level games that they are required and “get to” play. We are bolstering the competition in the West and helping ourselves grow as a result.
The cons of this format: Teams have 3 home games and 3 away games in a year. These are required league matches and almost all require a plane ticket. The Colorado teams are the lucky ones here as they have three teams within driving distance of each other. Austin has the worst case scenario here (and not just because I play for them) but because we are geographically the farthest away from the rest of the teams in the league. It is literally impossible for us not to purchase a plane ticket to play a different team in our league. (Buy a plane ticket or miss a day of work bc we have to drive 10 hours or more.)
This is basically a tournament where each team works to beat all the other teams. I believe there is some seeding that happens to predetermine your standings for the tournament (I have only played in one of these tournaments).
This tournament style can have its problems though, as it all depends on your team that one day. In the league format you have several chances to prove yourself, at the Best of the West Tournament you lose, you are out.
This topic has been discussed mostly because it is a similar format to what a lot of men’s teams do. Basically you draw a line down the middle or across the horizon and each region plays the teams in its region. However this format greatly benefits Colorado again because they would just have to dominate Black Ice and Boulder…who are currently ranked the lowest in the West League. Either way we try to split up the league it doesn’t seem fair and it always benefits one team or another.
This idea came across the email this morning…and has some potential in my mind. Basically we would go off the current rankings so:
Tier 1
1) Glendale
2) Jazz
3) Sabres
Tier 2
4) Austin
5) Black Ice
6) Boulder
Tier 1 would play the teams within and would fight for the right to represent the West (right now we have 2 seeds, but both seeds will be challenged in 2008). Tier 2 would fight amongst itself to be #1, as the #1 in Tier 2 would move up and the #3 in Tier 1 would drop down. Almost identical to the current National All Star Championships that we have every summer.
A few new ideas were introduced as well, could the #1 Tier 2 team challenge a team in Tier 1 for their spot? Also, how would the D2 teams fit into the mix (the West is working on sending a team to the D2 tournametn in 2008)? Could they challenge the lowest ranked team? There were several other ideas, but these two were of greatest concern to me.
If the West was to adopt this new format, does that mean that Austin, Black Ice and Boulder areut of luck from the 2008 Round of 16? Or do the Sabres drop down and Austin moves up? Then the bottom 3 teams have no chance at Round of 16?
Please leave thoughts in the comments, as I believe we are all open to new ideas and thoughts…
So in summary of all these ideas, there are more questions than there are answers. I just know that the current league system is costing teams more money and is stretching our team officers, players and budget. I think that all this talk is good, and I hope we can all come together to agree on a solution that builds the West up and the teams in it.
Share this:
Discover more from YSCRugby | Women's Rugby News
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Wendy,
No matter how it is formatted, Austin still has the problem of having to fly to all away games. Maybe a round robin on a weekend for the Tier 2 teams in the Spring(so flying is limited to one weekend) and the winner of the round robin gets to challenge the bottom seed in the Tier I to participate in the league schedule for the fall?
I think one of the biggest problems for some of the teams is the inability or unwillingness to get 22 players to put life on hold and spend all their cash on rugby. So the question is, other than Austin, which teams are even interested in fighting for (and paying for) a Round of 16 spot, and which are content in just playing locally or socially. I don’t even pretend to know the answers, of course – I just come up with more questions.
KDO
KDO,
Thanks for the comments and the questions! Yes, Austin will have to fly to all their games and so will most of the other teams in the West…but I think the focus here is less travel!
I would agree that getting 22 (HA! we had 16-18 at all our league matches) to put life on hold…is a big concern. Money, time, vacation, families, pets, life…lovers…its all a concern.
Whew.
I think another point (that is perhaps half moot) is working to develop rugby IN Texas. I know travel is an issue… but heavy involvement with the colleges, more local play, etc might help this. I don’t know what your schedule looks like, but its not uncommon for D2 teams in MARFU and NRU to play D1 teams developmental sides in the spring (or as “warm up” weekends in in the fall).
Also, I know the travel is overwhelming – and might be more so in a shorter season – but I’ve found the attrition rate to be a lot lower in the north, and I think its directly proportional to the shorter club side season (its a lot easier to commit for 10 or so weeks a season – 22 practices and 7 – 10 game days — than 3-4 months). 4-5 months a year is just easier mentally and physically than 8 or so (not counting 7s). Just something to think about.
Emily,
Currently we do support college, d2 and youth rugby in Texas. Some of this development is new (Youth rugby!) but most of it is keeping a team around for more than a year. We have teams drop off the radar for 6 mos, a year and then suddenly re-appear, but we have noticed that at the collegiate level (except for A&M) that they have a particularly hard time staying alive.
As far as the D2 stuff, a few TRU reps are working very hard to get the West involved in this. They are currently in talks with the West officials, so that is exciting to see!
I definitely agree that we need to grow TX rugby though…and feel like we are making some of the right steps towards that. As far as Austin goes, they have often struggled to find good quality coaches (currently we have an AWESOME coach, but one wonders if they would be a better player!! Love me some Pace!)
Interesting thoughts about the attrition rates though, I have never been on a team that played a competitive season and a developmental season. We are talking about it now though and it is an interesting concept.
Could have its benefits but could also have its downfalls. I know I get tired of playing rugby year round, but I also LOVE it at the same time. I really enjoy the winter break though…but can’t imagine not playing 7s in the summer or not doing select side stuff.
Guess everything is a trade off! Thanks for your comments.