April 13, 2005 — Well we did see it coming, didn't we?

When Aspen retooled for another run at a championship two years ago, the new names were not those of recently-graduated college kids, transfers from DI clubs, or football players with no league to play in. They were experienced players, often originally from overseas. And while many of those players stayed on in Aspen to build lives, the source of players was not as renewable as, say, in-state college talent.

So, eventually, the great names of the late 1990s and early part of this century moved on – Walker, LeClerc, Hightower, Morrow, Williams, and now Mbereko, Shaw, and Mo'unga. Some came back. Others retired. Others moved. But while it was happening, Aspen didn't have the same caliber of players to fill in.

This isn't unique, of course. Teams have their ups and downs, and the arrival or departure of a really great player can make much of the difference.

But what hastened the change in Aspen fortunes was the enforcement of two rules, one that makes little sense to us and one that was brought to the forefront because of Aspen to start with.

That second one first: by going to court over the Rata Going issue, Aspen made the whole issue of three-year-residency players a hot button. While many feel the new rules eliminating the three-year player are a little too tight, they came about as a direct result of Aspen's decision to fight for a playoff spot last year. As the saying goes, they won the battle, but lost the war.

As for the rule we don't like, as GoffonRugby has stated in several previous pieces, there should be freer movement for players wishing to move from a lower division club, or a college, and the Super League. Aspen would have had far less trouble working through its depth issues if it could have recruited some players from clubs that are essentially done for the season. Can you blame some clubs for bringing in help from overseas when that is easier under USA Rugby rules than bringing in an American player?

Several not even connected with Aspen have said the following: "the rules seem to be in place to make it harder to play rugby, rather than easier."

On this one regulation, we agree.

But even with all that. Even with the loss of players to injury, retirement, moving, and the change of status of players from resident to foreign, Aspen could still have gone on ... everyone can go on. They chose not to.

More than anything, perhaps, that is what will stick in the Super League's craw.

So many clubs have been through this cycle. While we acknowledge it's a difficult adjustment for a team used to winning 90 percent of the time to drop to the bottom of the table, every club has had its ups and downs. You didn't see Washington, at one time a legitimate title contender, drop out because they stopped winning games. You don't see Boston, which has been slammed with injuries, dropping out.

Belmont Shore were champions in 1999 but injuries, retirements, and players moves saw them go through 2001-2002 2-11. A year later they were champions again.

In 2001 Boston was 5-2, a year later 1-5, and then 4-3 in 2003. The Dallas Harlequins went through similar highs and lows from 1998-2000. In fact, every single team in the Super League except Aspen and Life (who had to leave the league in 2003 for institutional reasons) has had at least one winning season and one losing season. Every single one. That is a statistic that should make the league proud, and should give every club pause when they think it's falling apart.

So in the end, what we see here is a clarification of what it will take to be successful in the Super League in the future. Foreign players will always have a role – four per team is still allowed. They will continue to do what they have always done, and that is raise the level of the game in the United States and also help bring the experience of being part of a club and of a rugby culture to clubs over here. But clubs will also be forced to work harder to ensure they have a pipeline of domestic talent providing them with depth. Putting aside for the moment whether you think the rule right or wrong, as it stands now, you cannot just wait for a foreign-born player to get his residency. You have to find 11 Americans (or guys with green cards) to fill out the roster. And even when they do that, a good club, one with lots of trophies in its cabinet, may well have a lousy year.

Perhaps that is too much for Aspen. Isolated in the mountains as they are, the Gents may be a special case. But you know what? I wasn't surprised last year when they fought tooth and nail to stay in the playoffs. And I wasn't surprised when they brought in a player or two from overseas to bolster their performance in previous season. And I wasn't surprised that they won three championships, including an astounding Super League/DI double in 1997. But when I heard the rumors that they would be quitting the league I couldn't believe it. And now they've done it? Yes, I am surprised, and disappointed.