<?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>5-1 Dartmouth Proves Something With Bowl</title>
		<description>Discuss 5-1 Dartmouth Proves Something With Bowl</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 15:32:12 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/6580/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>pedropeyjr says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17060</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@philbertus, you're dead wrong about very weak 3-4 teams. I was there. Other than UVA, there wasn't a technically weak or physically weak team in this tourney. What happened in my opinion is the old guard of Dartmouth, Cal and even Life, totally underestimated the speed at which other programs have learned and started to excel at 7s. Cal barely got by NC State who went winless on Friday fi it wasn't for two tries in the last minute and a half of the game, NC state could've won. Northeastern went 2-1 and no one even knew who they were. Middlebury punished teams. Heck Cal even lost handedly to San Diego State on Sunday. The format wasn't the problem, hubris was. Every single person I talked to said it was easily the best college 7s tournament they ever watched.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pedropeyjr</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:30:43 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17060</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>devendorf says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17058</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Burbank wasn't ruled to be "too old," he was ruled ineligible. If Dartmouth could have shown that he was within 5 years of having started college and had played college rugby last year, he could have played. They couldn't, so he couldn't play. Surprising that Dartmouth wasn't aware of the rules and the paperwork necessary. Clearly the Ivy League was not requiring eligibility verification throughout the season or else Dartmouth would have had everything in order for this player since September.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>devendorf</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:44:32 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17058</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>philbertus says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17057</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There was great rugby played throughout the tournament. Absent one bad half, Dartmough might have had a shot at the cup final. But that's 7s. I do think the tournament would be better served by NCAA Basketball type seedings and brackets. There were a couple great teams that didn't make it to the Cup round simply because they didn't roll up points against very weak 3-4 teams like teams in other brackets could.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>philbertus</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:34:05 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/6580-5-1-dartmouth-proves-something-with-bowl.html#comment-17057</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
