|
This is not to say that the teams that win over two days of play are not the best teams, Cal obviously is. It is just to say that I don’t necessarily think it is the best thing for the sport or for the players.
I coach HS rugby as well and I see how an injury or two, or even a ding in an early round game, can absolutely destroy a player’s and a team’s performance either later that same day or the next day. You see the same at the NASC for all levels of play.
I think this country is one of the only places that has most of its championships decided in two-day events back to back.
It is unfair to players, to give them inadequate recovery time. It is unfair to everyone to have to coach in such a way that you need to build your team for play on back to back days. I for one am not a fan of this all inclusive playoff crap, win your league and earn your way.
It seems that these days you get to play your LAU to get put into a seeding pool tournament (over two days) to re-seed what has already been decided by league play. Then you get to play other teams in other territories in seeding tournaments, then you finally play games to go to the national tournament.
Does anyone just get knocked out of the playoffs full stop? As a coach this feel good stuff is nonsense. Having to play these radically inferior teams in endless seeding rounds helps no one. For my money, first win your league, then move on. Play another league champion in your territory, then move on. Play in the national tournament.
For instance, instead of dumbing down rugby with all these so-called playoff teams, let’s use Met NY as an example. I say, win the met league and move on, everyone else is out. Play the New England champ. The winner plays the MARFU champ and moves on. That is it.
The Midwest winner plays the south winner and they move on, the West winner moves on, the Pacific Coast plays SoCal and that winner moves on. (I only kept the NRU and MARFU as one due to number of clubs, not anything else, adding South to the East is fine).
Rugby is not basketball, and while it is a nice event to have Sweet 16’s and the like, the local games would carry more weight, if they carried more weight in whether you ended up in post season play. Local rivalries would be huge.
Right now a team may rest a few people when the seed to the national tournament is sewn up. Teams may put youngsters in to tank a game to get a lower seed to be out of a bracket with Cal.
It should be like football used to be, if you wanted to go to the Rose Bowl, you had to win the Big 10 or the Pac 8 (later Pac 10), that was it. You lose, you play an inferior Bowl or the friendly match in rugby.
All inclusive playoffs are not rugby friendly. We need to compete, I don’t have a problem with it if it is like the RSL and over several weeks with one off games, but that is cost prohibitive for most teams and leagues.
I just think win, or go home, put your feet to the fire. I know this is unpopular and I really don’t care, I like the Sweet 16 and I think the best four teams came out, three from one region in my example. That can get re-tooled many ways, maybe a college RSL (like the MARFU league), but whatever it is, we are waiting for something bad to happen in two day play.
I at least think the All-Stars should be re-configured or ditched, playing two days in a row in the heat with teams that barely, if ever, trained together and who may have just met the night before is not the best way to find out who the best players are.
I certainly don’t have the answers, but I think I have the question right. I ran out of ideas on coaching this week, so I figured I would have a little rant.