Same with rugby. Every player has the opportunity to get to a point where he or she plays for an all-star team, wins a championship, or plays for the Eagles. Every player at any moment could be picked. You don’t have to be playing for a specific club or team. It doesn’t matter. But the misleading point aspect of all that is that some start to think their turn will come. It won’t. Everyone has the opportunity to try, but so many of us will fall short. It’s the innate nature of elitism, whether for a player or a team. Only a few reach the top.

Still I like the idea that every team in the country starts the season with the idea they could win a national championship, and that every player begins his or her career with the goal, should he or she choose to adopt it, of making a national team.

But I wonder if that doesn’t muddy the waters. More than anything, I think the image of rugby needs to be straightened out through semantics. Rugby should be divided in divisions not I, II, and III, but more along the lines of club goals. Are you a social club that wants to play hard, have fun, hoist a few at the end of the game, and go home? Is your idea of an off-season workout not ordering dessert with a meal? Is your social chairman the hardest-working guy on your club?

Or are you a serious team, where players work out every day, sometimes on their own. Where several of you have played LAU or territorial rugby, and you make regular appearances in territorial playoffs or higher? Do you have no-alcohol policies during game weekend? Do your jerseys match?

One isn’t better than the other, it’s different. In my own personal experience my last few years of playing rugby was at a social level. It was fun, but I wasn’t going to put everything into it. I wanted to enjoy myself, and winning a national championship wasn’t a goal. As a coach of U19 players, my goals changed rather quickly, as it became evident that the kids I was coaching wanted to play at a high level, win championships, and make all-star and national teams. While I am always happy to coach the player who just wants to be a part of it, the overall team goals are loftier than my own were as a player.

I often think, then, that rugby should be divided along those lines. We should make American rugby like one big 7s tournament, with a Competitive division and a Social division. If within the social division they want to create a championship structure, that’s great. That would be what the LAUs and TU are for, right? In the Competitive division, the structure could be set around getting the best players together to play the best games. It could all be up to the player.

College too – where you create Club rugby and Inter-Collegiate rugby would be the same.

Something as simple as changing what things are called. To be honest and say when social rugby is social rugby isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing. Players want to know. But if you’re a club that expects lots of extra time and travel, then say so. Right now we have both types of teams in all divisions of rugby, and it’s downright confusing.

I am all for the maverick nature of the sport, and the fact that anyone can be anything in rugby. But I maybe there is something in a name.