<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Ruggamatrix America Show 89: Rules & Reviews</title>
		<description>Discuss Ruggamatrix America Show 89: Rules & Reviews</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:11:18 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/4794/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Age Speculation says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14173</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@pasta I'm pretty sure that your examples are not relevant to the discussion at hand. A missionary or returning enlistee or peace corps volunteer gets a career that MAXES OUT at 4 years. Anyone not serving has a career that MAXES OUT at 5 years. At Cal, for example, the average career for a player is almost exactly 5 years. At BYU, for instance, under the new rules, since nearly every player serves a mission, the average career is limited by these regs to less than 4 years. Thus, the reg must be biased against servers as compared to the rest of the universe of players. You can point out the odd counterexample here or there, but the net effect is to deprive a minority class of players of eligibility, on the average, as compared to the majority's average career (by about 20%). If BYU doesn't sue, the ACLU surely will. You just can't do something so blatantly biased against a minority and have it stand. I hope USAR has deep pockets.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Age Speculation</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:35:32 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14173</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pastafarianism says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14159</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Under the new regs, a CFSM missionary that spends two years of service digging wells (and cooking some delicious pasta) in Africa after high school graduation would only get to play 4 years as well. And, a high school graduate that takes two years off to be a volunteer fireman also only would get to play 4 years of rugby. Maybe, just maybe, the point is that the new regulations treat every student athlete equally regardless of their life choices while also limiting the ability of teams to use regulatory exceptions to gain a competitive advantage.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pastafarianism</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:27:31 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14159</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Age Speculation says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14132</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What friend Chip doesn't say is that everybody but BYU's (and Utah's, Utah State's, Southern Utah's, etc.) missionaries get 4 years of eligibility but Cal's (and everybody else's) non-missionaries get 5. From a civil rights standpoint, if a reg disadvantages a particular entity or class of entities (here, the effect is to shorten a mission server's career by 20%), the reg is biased "on its face" and can only survive if its implementation solves a well-documented and pervasive problem, the solution of which outweighs the reg's inherent bias (disadvantage to a group). Also the solution has to have the fewest negative effects of any possible solution. So far as I know, no one has ever documented that there is an existing inequity or danger that acts to the detriment of the existing participants. People continue to speculate, but no study has been made to show that having older players in fact disadvantages or endangers younger players.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Age Speculation</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 21:31:50 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14132</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14110</link>
			<description><![CDATA[3. Chip wants to see more evidence before he would say the new rules are a mistake, but justifies the changes with zero evidence. (I don't fault Chip for that; it's an example of confirmation bias, which is juat a human weakness.) 4. "We're not saying they can't play rugby, just not college rugby." I'll go out on a limb and say that if every student is not given equal eligibility, then it's not *College* Rugby.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 14:35:47 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14110</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14109</link>
			<description><![CDATA[2. If the issue is *age*, then why start the clock on high school graduation (which isn't fixed to an age)? Also, Chip's admission that he wasn't familiar with English secondary schools was frustrating. I don't expect the committee to know about every country's educational system, but if you're making rules based on high school graduation, you ought to at least consider foreign students beyond assuming that their "high school equivalent" operates the same as American high school. To be continued...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 14:35:10 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14109</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14108</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great show! That first segment was a very good interview. Some observations: 1. The changes to the eligibility rules were supposed to keep club-level rugby "fair" by keeping the age ranges relatively similar. That would imply that teams gain an "unfair" advantage by playing older players. Then why doesn't every team do it? Are there no vets walking on their campus to recruit? How can an advantage be "unfair" if the option is available to all teams? To be continued...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 14:34:37 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/ruggamatrix-america/4794-ruggamatrix-america-show-89-rules-and-reviews.html#comment-14108</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
