The focus, probably rightly, on recent IRB news has been on the money. Roughly $2.67 million to USA Rugby for their high performance plan. Funding academies for top players from U19 to senior level is a massive step forward

But what will perhaps have a higher profile will be the expansion of the Churchill Cup (a year earlier than anticipated) and the formation of the North American 6, a competition among three teams from the USA and three from Canada.

The NA6 will be between representative teams. That means it won't involve the Super League champion or anything like that. It will include teams from the two High Performance Academies, plus a third team ... I'd like to see the USA U23 men, and I fully expect to see Young Canada as one of the participants.

What this competition does is create another level between the territorial or the higher Super League levels and international play. It also create a viable, saleable competition that will have IRB funding behind it (over and above the $2.67 million) to ensure it happens in a relatively professional manner. As a result, it's an excellent opportunity to get rugby on television and use that exposure and the support of the IRB to bring in more sponsorship interest.

OK, great. All good. But what it also means is a possible change in other American competitions, for example:

If we hold the NA6 in the summer, we need to make sure other competitions are all finished in time to allow this competition to take center stage.

If this becomes the elite competition, does that change the purpose of the National All Star Championships? (Yes.) Could territorial representative play then be better served by somehow switching its focus? Maybe. I don't know if this means the NASC switches from December to June and becomes something of a trial for one of those teams, or if it switches to February and becomes a trial for one of the academies. Or maybe territories put their resources into supporting their players in the NA6 teams, and territorial teams serve as warmup competition for NA6 teams.

If that happened, then perhaps since the NA6 teams will likely be entirely made up of USA-eligible players the territorial sides could have no residency restrictions in the interests of finding the best competition.

And the Super League? The Super League needs to look at how it is put together – whether spring play is working (they can't start much earlier, can they?) or whether they need to move to the summer or fall. They need to look at the eligibility situation, and they must, MUST, institute a rule that allows players to move up from DI to Super League in the same calendar year.

Now, before you spit-take all over your keyboard, realize that I put forward these ideas in part to outline the fact that American rugby needs to be open to change. We need to be open to moving the Super League if that makes sense. We need to be open to (and I choke on my own words saying this) emulating the Canadians, whereby Super League team allegiance is free and clear and separate of club allegiance. We need to be open to moving the NASC (the women are going to aren't they? Isn't select side play moving to the spring?) or changing its mission.

(USA Rugby doesn't want less representative rugby, they want better representative rugby, so the NASC will only change if there's something better available. Like the NA6.)

It's all up in the air. It all must change. If the DI club championships need to move to the fall because there's too much going on in the spring, then we have to be open to that. If elite-level 7s has to move because the NA6 and test matches will crowd the summer, we have to consider that, too.

There cannot be any sacred cows in a country that is by world rugby standards still an adolescent.

But it's always been that way.

My answer: So?