<?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>Furies End With WPL Win</title>
		<description>Discuss Furies End With WPL Win</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/6404-furies-end-with-wpl-win.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 04:18:55 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/6404/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>proplance says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/6404-furies-end-with-wpl-win.html#comment-16914</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Will the WPL continue or go the way of the Men's Super League? How are teams able to deal with travel costs? It seems odd that Geography went out the window with NY having to travel for every match which is outrageous since they are close to Boston, Philly and DC. How was that decision made and how does that help Women's Rugby in the US? Apparently the decision makers weren't footing the bill for them. If the goal is to offer higher level competition, bankrupting existing clubs doesn't seem to be the answer which is what killed the Super League along wth the dominance of 2 clubs, NYAC and Golden Gate. Some Smart D1teams are now using NOT playing in the WPL as a recruiting tool for good young players. Perhaps there is a better way to provide higher level competition and not destroy the club culture along the way....think Canadian Men's Super League, based on Territorial teams. Wasn't that suggestion made as an alternative to the existing model?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>proplance</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:56:42 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/6404-furies-end-with-wpl-win.html#comment-16914</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
