In the Northeast there are almost no challengers to NYAC in the qualifier tournaments to their territorial championship. In fact the territorial championship itself will be little or no challenge to Winged Foot. In the South, a points system at specified

Among the reasons for this dearth of teams aspiring to greatness is the attitude that winning something small, or easy, is better than losing at something hard. Those who espouse this think we should not both having a national team unless that team wins (but how do you know?). They are also the ones who have splintered the national game – divided a sport into three divisions in men’s rugby and into over 2,000 clubs when we probably should have 1,600. They are the people who want to start on the 1^st XV, and if they’re not good enough they don’t work harder, they form a new club. They are the people who would rather strut home with a Social Division cup rather than a Championship 3^rd place.

It’s cultural. We live in a nation where, it seems to me, it’s more desirable to win something than to achieve something. (A personal aside: my 8-year-old son entered a 2-mile road race and, it turned out, won a trophy. He accepted his 1^st place for 7-9-year-old boys but was visibly upset. What was wrong? He didn’t like getting the trophy. He knew he hadn’t really won and to this day says more proudly that he came in 43^rd out of 80 and ran a personal best. He’s running in another race soon and says he doesn’t want to wait for the trophy presentations.)

Territories try to address this by coming up with different ways to choose a champion. In the Pacific Coast they have four qualifying tournaments, and the top two from each go to the territorial tournament. That provides no incentive for any team to enter more than one tournament (if they do well), and in fact the first three have had qualifier fields of four, two, and two.

In the West there’s a points system and no territorial playoff. Three Super Regionals give six points to the winners. Other smaller tournaments give three points to the winners. You take all your Super Regional points and your best two small tournament finishes. More teams have entered, but not many more, and it is clear now with one Super to go who the three seeds to nationals will be.

The Northeast has qualifiers, but few teams that want to compete. In the South they have a points system leading to a qualifier, and a smattering of teams have entered. In the last qualifier, though, only three teams entered. The South system also gives points for any team that enters, even if they finish last.

In the Mid-Atlantic participation has been somewhat better, and it is much better in the Midwest, where they use a points system leading to a playoff. Early in the season the Midwest holds more than one qualifier on a weekend to ease the travel burden on teams, but also to get more teams feeling they have as shot. The Midwest also increases the points values based on the number of teams entered.

The points standings leading to a playoff, with multiple opportunities to earn points, seems to work the best. But what bugs me about this is that every territory seems to be going out of its way to encourage teams to compete for the territorial title. Since when do we have to beg rugby players to compete? What are we, a bunch of pansies? Aren’t we the big, tough rugby players who face down terrorists and don’t wear pads and aren’t afraid of anything?

Apparently not. We apparently don’t want to get our feelings hurt because we lose to another team.

But there remains a cadre of clubs who want to play at the highest level. That number appears to be somewhere around 30, but might be a little larger. Is it conceivable then that instead of finding ways to beg, plead and cajole the clubs that are on the fence, we find a way to accommodate those clubs that wish to make the commitment?

How about a Super League of 7s? Create a series of national tournaments for clubs that declare their national status. Create a points system and then pick the best 16 for the national finals. The serious teams already travel, would they not be more energized if they weren’t hampered by territorial borders?

The USA Rugby Competitions Committee may have a say in all of this. They want the best 7s teams at Nationals and there is an idea floating around that would somehow standardize the points systems. The idea is you assign a total number of points available to be earned in the 7s season, and each territory has 1/7 of those points to dole out how they see fit – it could be in a series of tournaments, or only in their territorial championships.

The numbers I’ve seen are 550 total points per territory, which makes a total of 3,850 nationally. Clubs could earn points at tournaments in other territories (but would be barred from a territorial championship not their own), and the top 16 points earners, regardless of location, would go to nationals.

This points system is a little convoluted (the explanation I saw was 1,600 words long) but it allows for plenty of freedom of expression. The idea is essentially a national league without forcing any club to be in or out. If you want to go around to other areas to earn points, you can do so. If you want to earn all your points in one or two big tournaments, you can do that, too.

What I like about the national league or national points system idea is that it shies away from accommodating the don’t-wannas. Those are the clubs who not only don’t want to participate in qualifiers, but seem to not want anyone else to try hard, either. Instead, creating a national summer 7s competition says "fine, you go do that, we’ll go do this."

Something must be done. We cannot have these territories so limited in their qualification processes that they have only two or three teams at a tournament. It’s not good for the tournament or the game. Let’s break down these territorial borders, get the clubs who want to play playing each other, and let the social 7s clubs do what they want to do.