<?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>Grizzlies Look Good but Nats Elusive</title>
		<description>Discuss Grizzlies Look Good but Nats Elusive</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 02:38:36 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/626/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Dave-Former Grizzly says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-868</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's time to do away with the West and all TUs. Let's get on with the Geographical Union/SBRO format that have professionals managing the day-to-day and people that are truly passionate and care about growing rugby LEAD. Good bye West. Congrats Grizzlies!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave-Former Grizzly</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:12:51 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-868</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Special Treatment says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-803</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Seeds are awarded to the LAUs prior to the season. This should not be confused with naming the teams to participate. It is then up to each LAU to accept the seed or decline to participate. If the LAU elects to accept and participate, it needs to have a tournament at which the teams will claim the seeds. Colorado chose not to participate this year. I'm sure they will be welcomed next year. As far as doing "what's right," I assume you mean do what YOU think is right ... let a team in that has not won its LAU tournament, to represent a LAU that declined to participate, then scheduled its championship on the same weekend as the West. BTW, if you want to talk about a team that has a real grievance, the Texas HS champs, St. Thomas, will not be at the Wests because the school admin thinks winning a state championship is glory enough and that the boys should concentrate on the final month of school, prom, finals, graduation, etc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Special Treatment</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:15:06 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-803</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Roger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-778</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How do you 'award seeds' prior to season performance? Force the inclusion? How about just doing what's right? Again, penalizing the kids for bureacratic reasons... How about some prior planning for 'At Large' entries based on performance?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:56:42 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-778</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Special Treatment says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-753</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The West set its playoff rules last fall, awarded seeds, and announced the rules and procedures. Colorado does have a vote on the Board. Not only does one team -- which has not yet even won their SBRO championship -- want in, but they want to force the inclusion of another team or two to even the brackets. And if Colorado was really serious about having a team at Westerns, why did they schedule their championship on the SAME weekend (where CS is the #2 seed) -- and after the West schedule was published. So not only does a team want the West to completely blow-up its tournament, it wants to be annointed as the Colorado rep based on good showings and a poll. But congrats on a great season -- I'm sure lots of folks hope CO will be a full participant in the West playoffs next year, although we're all missing the big picture: kids need to be playing for State championships; nationals championships for HS kids is ridiculous for so many reasons -- a discussion for another time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Special Treatment</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:44:08 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-753</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Crashtheline7 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-705</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is an absolute sham. What John Patterson has built in Colorado Springs is nothing short of brilliant, and to not allow the young Grizzlies to compete is a mockery. The man has, with the help of a few, developed a very professional, yet inclusive outfit which fosters a hard-nosed work ethic, and sense of family just like his model(Canterbur y). He has provided players with elite rugby coaching in a camp like setting as well as guiding young men to alternate pathways to play the best rugby they can play. This is probably someone WE the paying members of USAR might look to in order that we find a way to progress out of the present rut we find ourselves in.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Crashtheline7</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:54:40 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-705</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Roger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-699</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After re-reading the article, and passing around the office, does it really simply come down to money? Given an opportunity, I'm sure the Grizzlies could come up with the CASH to pay to play...hardly seems right, does it?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:37:52 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-699</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Roger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-697</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's a crying shame to penalize a team with the caliber of play the Grizzlies have displayed - the inability to be flexible as Nationals come around is ridiculous. There should be AUTOMATIC births into the National level competition for teams within the top 10 rankings - regardless of whether or not they submitted the paperwork 'on-time'. Ultimately the boys pay the penalty for the bureacracy that doesn't pass the common sense test. A crying shame.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:19:56 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-697</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Craig Brown says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-668</link>
			<description><![CDATA[" asked in February to be included in the West RFU playoffs. They were refused, with WRFU President Bill Sexton saying that Rugby Colorado and the Colorado Springs club had asked too late (four months before the West RFU U19 playoffs." "In short, in the West, SBROs must pay to be in the playoffs" Just about sums it up! weak, very very weak call by the West Management.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Craig Brown</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:52:19 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/boys/626-grizzlies-look-good-but-nats-elusive.html#comment-668</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
