20 years ago USA Team Handball conducted its own Philadelphia Experiment: A flawed, austere Residency Program for the Men’s National Team that was shut down after only one year. It provides a cautionary tale for the current administration as it apparently makes plans to restart Residency Programs.

In the first part of this series I tackled the basic question of whether Residency Programs were in principle a good strategy for developing U.S. National Teams.  In the next two parts I addressed the question of whether now was the right time to start Residency Programs.  Part 2 looked at prospects for qualifying for the 2016 Olympics and Part 3 addressed financial considerations.  Continuing the “Right time?” discussion I look at some planning considerations that need to be factored into any decision to start Residency Programs.

A Major Decision with Big Consequences

In most everyone’s life there are a handful of major decisions that have to be made.  What we decide for a career, where we choose to live and who we choose to marry are probably the three biggest ones.  Make a poor decision on any of those and be prepared to face the consequences.  No wants to spend their day doing a job they don’t like, residing in a place they don’t like or living with a spouse they don’t like.  In most cases we can recover from our decisions that haven’t turned out the way we wanted them to.  We can start a new career, move to a new city and divorce/remarry.  But, it goes without saying taking those steps in not always easy and without major consequences.

Starting Residency Programs is the rough sports federation equivalent of making all 3 of those decisions at the same time.  It is a huge decision and if USA Team Handball makes a poor choice there are some potentially big consequences.  And this isn’t just random conjecture from “some guy with a blog.”  No, USA Team Handball has been down this road before.  And the decision to pull the trigger sometimes has had disastrous consequences.

A Cautionary Tale:  The Philadelphia Experiment

As I gathered my thoughts for this series, I reflected on my own personal experience with Residency Programs.  Part of the trip down memory lane included a decision made almost exactly 20 years ago in 1993 to move the U.S. Men’s program from Colorado Springs to Philadelphia.  At the time the move was sold with the following rationale:

1. The U.S. population is more densely concentrated on the East Coast and locating in Philadelphia will make it easier to recruit athletes and have them move to join the program.
2. An East Coast location would make it easier for U.S. teams to travel to Europe and vice versa.  The costs of going to/from Colorado were an additional expense that sometimes precluded such travel.
3. USA Team Handball would be embraced by the City of Brotherly Love and we would no longer be one sport of many at a crowded Olympic Training Center.  Philadelphia would become America’s home for Team Handball and everyone would soon forget Colorado.

Needless to say many members of the National Team weren’t pleased with the prospect of moving.  Pretty much everybody liked Colorado Spring and some had started to set down roots in the place.  The move was made right before the National Team headed to Europe for the 1993 World Championships with some players moving their personal belongings and others (myself included) hedging their bets until after the World Championships.  The team gathered in Philadelphia for a few days prior to flying to Finland for a training camp and I caught a glimpse of what the program would be like.  The dorms at LaSalle University were a bit run down and it wasn’t clear if there would be access to a cafeteria or even a gym.  In short there were quite a few questions to be answered.

When the team came back from the World Championship, I personally had to make a decision regarding my future with the sport.  For those that have seen my less than spectacular talents it may seem somewhat laughable to think that I had any real decision, but playing in the World Championships had been a revelation for me.  Somehow, the afterthought player who had actually failed to even make a regional Olympic Festival team a year and a half earlier had worked his way into the starting lineup.  Albeit, only on defense and for a team that didn’t win a single game, but trust me if you are passionate about the sport and you get to play on the world’s stage, you’re allowed to have illusions of grandeur.

I contemplated the possibilities.  Leave the Air Force; find an aerospace job in Philadelphia; go to the Olympics in 1996.  But rationale thought and reality kicked in.  I assessed the odds were too long and the consequences were too severe.  And, easing that decision along for this athlete was an assessment that the Residency Program in Philadelphia wasn’t up to snuff.  It would have been one thing to continue the dream in quality surroundings; It would have been another thing entirely to so in a crappy environment.

And while losing me as a prospect was no real loss, it does illustrate the type of negative impact a shaky Residency Program can have.  I wasn’t the only player to make a similar decision and I can think of at least two talented athletes (Luke Travins and Brian Parath) who probably could have made the 96 Olympic Team if they had kept playing.  Not to mention the fact that the year in Philly was in many respects a lost year of prep for the 1996 Olympics.  I was not there, but the hardship stories are legendary.  It’s safe to say that training really didn’t get into full swing until the Philadelphia Experiment was unceremoniously ended and a Residency Program was established in Atlanta in 1994.  Would have another year of preparation made a difference?  Perhaps a close loss to Sweden becoming instead an upset victory?  We’ll never know, but a consistent training program wouldn’t have hurt.

And, this is but one example.  More recently, the Women’s program trained in Cortland, NY.   The setup there was also less than desirable with the athletes there making all sorts of sacrifices in terms of living conditions and job prospects.  (This ESPN article highlights some of those conditions.)  Not surprisingly, the program struggled to find quality recruits and was not very successful.  Even more recently, the U.S. held a training camp in Edmond, OK and at a press conference the Federation highlighted the possibility of starting Residency Programs there.  Alarmed, I wrote this commentary on that prospect.

Criteria to consider in locating Residency Programs

My commentary included a top level list of factors to consider when evaluating locations for Residency Programs.  These criteria included the following:

1. Quality and Availability of Facilities:  Ready and easy access to facilities
2. Local support:  Will the Residency Program be embraced by the local community
3. Ease of Travel: Both for teams visiting and recruiting. (Yes, there was some logic behind moving to Philadelphia)
4. Academic Opportunity and Quality:  The desired athletes are college age and many will want an opportunity to pursue a degree.
5. Athlete Financial Incentive:  Tuition, room and board, stipends, etc.
6. USOC Support:  An Olympic Training Center would be ideal, but the USOC also has arrangements with other facilities too
7. Intangibles:  Call this factor X; maybe there’s a benefactor out there willing to financially support a program
8. Gut reaction:  Some locales simply by their name will make recruiting easier.

This is just a top level summary, there’s a little more detail in the commentary from two years ago.

Olympic Leverage

In all likelihood USA Team Handball will evaluate these factors and more and will consider multiple locations before making such an important decision.  So, what are the chances that it can secure an arrangement with at least some of them in place?  At this point in time (March 2013) I would assess there’s probably only one scenario whereby a decent arrangement could be started.  And that would be the USOC reversing long standing policy to let a minor sport with negligible chance of medaling in the near term set up shop (beds for 32 athletes, meals in the dining hall, weight room access and dedicated court time) at one of the Olympic Training Centers.  It’s certainly possible, but the prospects seem slight due to the competing demands from a lot of sports, many with smaller footprints and more feasible medaling prospects.  Perhaps facility access might be provided, but room and board is probably a stretch.

Entities with a loose affiliation with the USOC are probably a more likely prospect, but it’s also hard to see them offering up much more than a gym to practice and perhaps in-state tuition rates.  (This should immediately conjure up images of Philadelphia and Cortland.)  The problem is simply a lack of negotiating leverage– as in USA Team Handball has little if anything to offer up at this point in time.

But, maybe there is a point in time, in the not too distant future, where USA Team Handball might have a little leverage. Yes, I’m referring to the prospects of a USA hosted Olympics in 2024.  Hey, that’s over 11 years away, you might say.  Working back the timeline back from that future date, however, shows that host city campaigns and selection isn’t that far away.

2017: IOC selects 2024 Olympic host city
2015: Bid cities selected by nations start campaigning
Late 2014: USOC intends to select USA candidate city Link
Early 2014: USOC intends to narrow USA candidates to 2 or 3

So, might a U.S. city interested in getting selected to host an Olympics be willing to do a little bit more than they normally would to help a minor sport.  Maybe as part of a bid package San Francisco or some other city would include a training program for USA Team Handball at one of the local universities and job employment assistance with Silicon Valley companies.   (Finish your degree at Cal-Berkeley, work for Google and play Team Handball:  wouldn’t that be a nice recruiting pitch.)  With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it’s at least conceivable that competing cities will at least entertain possibilities that might make their host city bid package more attractive.

Besides the leverage possibilities in the host selection bid process the advantages of simply co-locating with the city that gets selected are also very significant.  Local sponsorship would certainly be easier to secure.  Start the program in 2015 and you would even have time to implement a Title IX High School program.  And those are just some of the possibilities.

The cart before the horse?

There’s no guarantee, of course, that the U.S. will get the 2024 Olympics, but surely the odds have never been better.  And, perhaps USA Team Handball can get a good deal at an Olympic Training Center without having to wait.  If it’s truly a good deal with good guarantees, why not?  But, if all USA Team Handball can get is a so-so deal for an austere program with a lot of question marks there’s a lot to suggest that it would be a smarter move to wait a bit.  To sum up, here are 3 big reasons to really think twice before moving forward with Residency Programs anytime soon.

1. U.S. National Teams stand very little chance at qualifying for the 2016 Olympics Link
2. USA Team Handball doesn’t appear to have the funding to fully support a program Link
3. Leverage for a better deal might be just around the corner

So that sums up my concerns with starting Residency Programs.  In the next installment I tackle the issue of whether it makes sense to hire full time coaches at this point in time and whether USA Team Handball has hired coaches with the right skill sets to match its current needs. Part 5

Will the US National Teams reside at an Olympic Training Center or will they have more austere arrangements?

In part 1, I tackled the top level question of whether Residency Programs were a good strategy for U.S. National Team development.  In Part 2, I started to address whether it was a good time to start Residency Programs by assessing U.S. chances for 2016 Olympic Qualification.  In this part, I continue that assessment, this time by addressing the financial costs of Residency Programs and whether the U.S. Federation can afford such programs at this point in time.

How much does a Residency Program cost?

The obvious first step in assessing the funding considerations for Residency Programs is to figure out how much those programs would cost.  I won’t try to break down exact dollar figures as doing so would require quite a bit of research and guesswork as there are several variables in terms of “in kind” support that might be provided by organizations like the USOC.  What I will try to do, however, is identify the key budget line items and provide a few notes as to what each might entail in terms of costs at the high and low end.

Practice Facilities
– High end: Rental fees for gym and weight room
– Low end: Free; provided by USOC or other source

Coaching
– High end:  $100K/year/coach or $200K/year
– Low end:  Volunteers with minor stipend; $10K/year/coach or $20K/year

Athlete Lodging
– High end:  Rental costs for apartments or dorm rooms
– Low end:  Nothing (athlete’s responsibility) or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Meals
– High end:  Contract costs for cafeteria
– Low end:  Nothing (athlete’s responsibility) or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Insurance/Medical
– High end:  High end plan paid by Federation
– Low end:  Low end plan paid by Federation or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Stipends
– High end:  $25K/year/athlete or for 32 athletes ($800K)
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Athlete College Tuition Assistance
– High end:  Full ride scholarship provided as part of host college program arrangement
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Athlete Travel
– High end:  2 round trips home/year; extra funding also available to bring European based athletes to U.S. for periodic training
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Recruitment
– High end:  Full time recruiting coordinator; substantial travel budget for athlete tryouts and recruiting visits
– Low end:  Recruiting performed by coaches; very limited travel budget.

Full Fledged vs. Austere

If one does a little back of the envelope calculation into the high end costs it’s fairly easy to come up with Residency Program costs of $2/3M/year.  Of course, given the current state of Federation finances it would be impossible to fund programs at anywhere near that level.  Even when the Federation had more funding the Residency Programs were more towards the low end even if in kind support from the USOC at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, helped stretch limited funding.

Obviously, more can be done when the funding is tilted toward the high end of the scale and such a full fledged program would have a better chance of success.  Better facilities, better coaching and more competition opportunities are bound to result in better results.  And better living arrangements and financial incentives would vastly improve the odds of attracting talented athletes to the program.  In particular, if these programs are ever going to have any chance of attracting decent athletes in the 18-22 age bracket they are going to have to provide benefits that approach those that are offered by NCAA sports.

If the funding is not available for a full-fledged program, however, it’s still possible to offer a more austere one.   And, even without all the bells and whistles there will still be athletes interested in participating such programs.  From 2004 to 2007, the women’s team trained in Cortland, NY and this program was clearly at the low end of the scale.  This account of an ESPN writer’s tryout with the team gives you some insight as to how austere that program was.  A men’s program that was in place for a year in Philadelphia had similar conditions and even the Residency Programs that were established in Atlanta prior to the Olympics were nothing to write home about.

Hidden Costs

Aside from the actual dollars that would have to be spent on Residency Programs it’s important to note there are also some pretty significant costs that won’t necessarily show up in any accounting ledger.  In particular, the man hours involved in the initial organization and continued management of the programs would be substantial.  These programs would also become the most visible aspect of the Federation and how they are managed and how the teams perform will be closely scrutinized, especially if the USOC is providing assistance.

And, as anyone who works for a living knows, where you are scrutinized is where you usually spend more of your time and energy.  Not always, mind you, but it’s usually the case.  For better or for worse, more and more time will be spent by Federation staff to support National Team activities.  We could argue about just how pronounced that shift will be, but there will be one.  And the hidden cost is whatever grass roots development, marketing initiative or club programs activity that might have been done will now not be undertaken.

Austere Program or No Program?

So, if one factors in the actual dollar costs and hidden costs of even an austere program does it still make sense to start Residency Programs?  Maybe, but rest assured it not’s a simple decision or one that should be taken lightly.  A lot of it depends on what the available funding is and how austere it is.  If the program is too austere, it runs the risk of being pointless.  If it’s too robust, it runs the risk of diverting too many resources from everything else the Federation would like to accomplish.

It remains to be seen just what the “flexible residency programs” that are being mentioned will consist of, but they will surely be pretty austere programs if the U.S. Federation is counting every penny.  Either that or the USOC is going to come through in a big way with Olympic Training Center access to include facilities, dorms and cafeteria.

When will these programs actually start?

In addition to the lack of information regarding what these programs will consist of there’s been some strong indications that there are no firm plans in regards to their start.  The initial announcement indicated that the programs were “tentatively scheduled to begin in early fall of 2013.”  A follow up email from CEO Matt Van Houten, indicated that athletes identified at tryouts would “be sent to the club system to learn the game but the goal is to establish a residency program for full time training.” A federation webpage on national teams also referred to the Residency Programs starting in 2013/2014.

The words which I’ve put in bold face (tentatively, goal and 2014) all point to a fair bit of uncertainty in terms to their actual start.  This could be for a number of reasons, but I’ll speculate that the actual start hinges on a number of factors to include sponsor funding, USOC support and Women’s team performances in upcoming tournaments.  And on top of the shifting date there surely are some floating plans as to where the programs will be on the sliding scale between full-fledged and austere.   One could even conclude that there might not even be funding currently in place for even an austere program.   All of this leads to some very obvious questions:

Did it make sense for the Federation to announce plans for Residency Programs if it doesn’t really know when they would start or what they would consist of? 

Or, would it have been better to wait until plans were more firmly in place?

So, I’ve now addressed Olympic qualification and financial issues in regards to the timing for starting Residency Programs.  In the next part I’ll tackle planning issues.   And, in particular, planning considerations that should be carefully weighed in order to get the best possible arrangements for Residency Programs. Part 4

What are the prospects for the U.S. Men’s and Women’s to make it to Rio in 2016?

In Part 1 I addressed the basic question as to whether Residency Programs were a good strategy for our National Teams.  I concluded that if the programs were focused on developing younger athletes it could be a good thing, but if the program had too many athletes in the tail end of their careers it was a highly questionable strategy.  This installment, however, sets aside that conclusion and assumes that Residency Programs are definitely the way to go.  Instead, the question under consideration is simply, does it make sense to start these programs now?

Why don’t we already have Residency Programs in place?

To assess whether now is the right time to start Residency Programs it makes sense to first explore why we haven’t had programs for several years.  In fact, the last time the U.S. had a full-fledged residency program was 1996.  Following that Olympics, USA Team Handball’s budget dropped precipitously.  There simply was no way that Residency Programs could be maintained at the same level they had been maintained in Colorado Springs or Atlanta, so it was discontinued.  Later in 2004 a residency program was established for the women’s team in Cortland, NY, but it was an austere setup that was only a shadow of earlier programs and it closed down in 2007.

In 2008, a new federation was certified by the USOC and with substantial seed money being contributed by its primary backer, Dieter Esch one of the first questions I asked him and the newly installed General Manager, Steve Pastorino was whether they had any plans to restart Residency Programs and hire full time coaches.   The answer then and in subsequent years was always along the lines of “No plans at this point in time; Maybe on down the road.”  And, as we all know, “on down the road,” never materialized during the Esch-Pastorino era.  My informed speculation is that it was never started due to three primary reasons:

1. Olympic Qualification considerations:  It was assessed that qualifying for the 2012 Olympics was highly unlikely.
2. Financial considerations:  There simply wasn’t enough funding to establish a credible program and it was decided that resources would be better focused on grass roots efforts.
3. Planning considerations:  There were tentative plans for Residency Programs contingent on Chicago being selected as the host city for the 2016 Olympics.  When that didn’t materialize there was no backup plan readily in place.

In hindsight, those reasons actually appear to have been pretty valid for the most part.  The U.S. didn’t come close to qualifying so there’s little to suggest that a Residency Program for either the Men or Women would have put them over the top.  Funding could certainly have been diverted from some grass roots effort, but it still would have been a pretty austere setup that would have probably looked a lot like the Cortland program.  Finally, while Chicago didn’t get the Olympics the positive opportunities of setting up shop in a host city surely merited the decision to wait and see what would happen.

But, that was the decision 4 years ago.  Let’s take a look at each of these three considerations now in the context of the Federations decision to pull the trigger on residency programs.

Olympic Qualification Considerations

While Residency Programs aren’t necessarily established solely with the intent of Olympic Qualification it nevertheless is something that factors into the equation.  How much so is open for debate, but the Federation’s own words stating that the program is aimed at 2016 Olympic Qualifications suggest that it’s the major reason for the program.  If this emphasis is true, that carries lot of implications in terms of the program’s structure and how quickly it will need to move from a developmental program to one more focused on winning now or at least very soon.  Time is of the essence as the next PANAM Games, the most likely path for Olympic qualification are now less than 2.5 years away (July, 10-25, 2015).  Depending on the qualification format that means Team USA could be playing in qualification matches as early as December, 2014.  Here’s a quick look at the prospects for both the Men and the Women.

U.S. Men Prospects:  Can they beat Argentina?

Based on recent national team performances there is a lot to be done if the U.S. is going to be a serious contender for Olympic qualification.  The Men finished 7th out of 8 teams at the 2011 PANAM Games and lost 36-19 to Argentina, the Pan American qualifier.  This past June they faced Argentina again and lost 33-13 on their way to finishing 7th out of 9th at 2012 Pan American Championships.  With better training and more opportunities to play together the U.S. would have done better, but it’s hard to see them making up 20 goals without some quality additions to the roster.

In theory, those quality additions could be new crossover athletes from other sports that would get their training through a Residency Program.  The best case scenario I can envision is the Men’s Residency Program starting up this fall and having a half dozen players developing rapidly in to raw, but decent handball players.  Those players would then mix with the more experienced players playing in Europe to field a team at the summer 2014 Pan American Championships that still isn’t strong enough to beat Brazil and Argentina, but can upset Chile for 3rd place and qualification for the World Championships.  That same team would then parlay that World Championship experience in Jan 2015 to field a team on top of its game by July 2015.  I still think it’s highly unlikely that the U.S. would be good enough to beat both Brazil and Argentina, but with Brazil already qualified as Olympic host, it’s possible the U.S. could play Argentina in a semi-final match that decides the Pan American qualifier.   And in a one match scenario it is at least possible to envision a big upset.

But, let’s keep in mind this all assumes quite a bit.  For starters, with Argentina having several of their top players playing in top leagues in Europe they are likely to improve as a team.  Chile, likewise and don’t forget that Canada will have the home court advantage.   Not to mention the wildcard of a Cuban entry.   No, the reality is that even making the semifinals at this point in time is less than a 50-50 proposition.  And then actually beating Argentina?  Anything is possible 2.5 years out, but it’s hard not to look at it as anything but a long shot (perhaps 20-1) at this point in time.

U.S. Women:  Can they emerge as the best of the also rans?

The performance of the U.S. Women in recent years at first suggests there is no hope whatsoever for qualification.  They didn’t even qualify for the 2009 or 2011 Pan American Championships and while they squeaked into the 2011 PANAM Games they finished 8th out 8 teams, including a total defeat by the eventual champion Brazil, 50-10.

Sometimes, however, it’s not how good you are, but who you’re playing against.  Beating Brazil in 2.5 years is a near impossibility, but Brazil’s hosting of the Olympics throws them out of the equation.  At the same time Argentina which has been the consistent #2 has conveniently regressed back to the pack of the also rans.  While they’ve been able to hold on to second place in the past two competitions they’ve been trounced by Brazil and have had to fight off teams like the Dominican Republic and Cuba in the semifinals.  So if one uses the following logic from the PANAM Games results:  Argentina beat the Dominican Republic 19-18 and the Dominican Republic beat the U.S. 33-26 then the U.S. only has to get around 8 goals better.

While such logic if often faulty it does suggest that an improved women’s team would have a decent chance of qualifying.  But, before we get our hopes up too much let’s keep in mind that all of the also-ran teams have been beating the U.S. in recent competition and it would be foolhardy to assume that they won’t also improve with an Olympic bid on the line.

As I see it the best case scenario for the women is significantly different from the men.  In particular, I would assess that they don’t need just a few new players, but instead could use a significant roster overhaul.   This assessment is based on the results of the past few years and what appears to be several players in the player pool who are older and unlikely to improve significantly in another 2.5 years.  Of course, that’s just one man’s opinion and it will better to just take a look at the results at next month’s North American qualifier in Mexico and at the 2013 Pan American Championships this summer in the Dominican Republic.  In particular, these two events should paint a pretty good picture of where the U.S. stands among the also rans.

And if a roster overhaul is seen as necessary this is where a full-fledged Residency Program with some top notch cross over athletes could make a difference.  Comparing different eras can be a shaky proposition, but I think if the U.S. brought in some raw talent similar to what they brought into the program in the 80s and 90s, they could assemble a team in two years time that is capable of taking 2nd place in Toronto.  Certainly, there’s little doubt in my mind that the U.S. Women’s team from 88, 92, or 96 would take 2nd if they could magically time travel to participate in the event.

It wouldn’t be easy, though, with just two years to work with.  The U.S. would need to do some phenomenal recruiting and it would require sufficient funding so that it was a full-fledged program.  A program that could entice the right athletes to commit and provide them a training environment in which they could improve quickly.

So, if one looks at Residency Programs primarily with a focus on 2016 Olympic Qualification prospects it appears that it will do little to enhance the Men’s teams prospects, but could, in theory, give the Women’s team a chance to qualify.  But, is the U.S. currently capable of establishing and supporting full-fledged Residency Programs?  Or, can all we expect at this point in time is an austere setup that can’t quite do the job?  In the next part of this series, I’ll look at the funding considerations inherent in managing Residency Programs and try to answer those questions. Part 3

USA Team Handball is looking to start  up National Team residency programs again. Is that a good idea? Maybe, but not it it means going back to the future.

Several weeks ago the USA Team Handball made a couple of very significant announcements.  First on 27 December in a notice regarding open national team tryouts it was briefly mentioned that the U.S. intends to start a long-term flexible residency program aimed at 2016 Olympic qualifications.  Shortly thereafter it was announced that high performance coaches had been named to develop national teams.  After some additional dialogue with USA Team Handball I was then able to confirm that these coaches are full time hires, although Coach Latulippe is not arriving until later this year.

Tucked away amidst typical news items like the location for the club national championships some readers might not have fully realized the significance of these two announcements.  Make no mistake.  These are major developments and a clear signal that the Federation has decided to dedicate more resources to its national team programs.

On the one hand, I see these developments as a welcome sign that USA Team Handball is finally going to start taking its national teams more seriously.  The revolving door of coaches and the cobbling together of players a week or two before major events clearly was not working.  The U.S. was not competitive and the results were dismal.  Even worse the previous Federation sometimes decided to not even send our senior national teams to World Championship qualification tournaments and initially even resisted supporting PANAM Games qualification, the path to the Olympics.

On the other hand, though, I’ve got some serious concern as to whether the residency model is the right long term strategy for developing our national teams.  And, even if it is the right strategy, I’m skeptical as to whether now is the right time to start it.  Going further I’ve got even more doubts as to whether now is the time to hire full time coaches and whether we’ve hired coaches which match our current needs.  What follows is a devil’s advocate review of Federation plans with the intent of influencing what appears to be a still evolving program for our national teams.

Residency Program (Right Strategy?)

First a short explanation of what a residency program is or at least was in the past.  As the name implies U.S. National Team athletes essentially lived and trained together full time.  Athletes were housed in a dormitory setting and coaches conducted daily practices (often 2/day).  In many cases the athletes coming into the program were exceptional crossover athletes from other sports who were unfamiliar with Team Handball.  As such, the program was often focused on teaching those athletes fundamental handball techniques.  Typically, however as the U.S. approached an Olympics the rosters would settle and the dynamic would switch from individual development to putting together the best team possible.

There are several good points to be made about the residency model.  First off, this model clearly resulted in the best teams the U.S. has ever produced.  The U.S. was able to qualify for several Olympics, routinely beat other developing nations and while we still rarely beat European sides, we could put some scare into them on the way to some respectable score lines.  Additionally, the residency program provided a tangible aspirational goal for every young player in the U.S.

All that being said, let’s be totally clear and honest about how successful Team USA was with that model.  We never won a medal and sometimes didn’t even qualify for the Olympics.  Let’s face it; in many respects talking about the heydays of USA Team Handball is roughly the equivalent to talking about the heydays of the Los Angeles Clippers and the Montreal Expos.  Americans aspire to win, not for respectable score lines.

Next and probably most importantly, residency programs are not cheap and over the years a lot of money was spent on a few chosen athletes, many of whom have barely touched a handball since punching their Olympic ticket.  While at the same time far less funding was channeled to grass roots programs that may have resulted in the establishment of a broader player and fan base in this country to develop the athletes needed.

Yes, I’m talking about the never ending debate between grass roots and national teams.  National Team proponents will argue that our grass roots haven’t producing the talent needed to compete.  Grass roots proponents will argue that funding residency programs is simply throwing money away on a handful of athletes that aren’t going to win anyway.

Of course, both proponents are absolutely correct in many respects.  Back in 2009 I wrote a three part series titled, A Framework for National Team Success (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) that addresses these issues in greater detail.  In part 3, I identified six shortcomings of the residency model, many of which I had experienced firsthand.  Those shortcomings were

1. The athletes were often too old to warrant the spending of development resources:  Often the athletes were in their mid to late 20s
2. Lack of whole person development: Athletes didn’t have many opportunities beyond handball
3. Uneven Funding: Sometimes the funding wasn’t there to fully support it.
4. Lack of competition:  Practicing against each other can get real old
5. Unclear commitments (both from the Federation and athletes): Players didn’t know where they stood; sometimes athletes bailed out
6. Uneven player skills: Athletes would plateau when there weren’t better players to push them

(This is just a short synopsis; for a further explanation read the whole article)

What’s the Alternative?

Of course, if a residency program is not the right strategy it begs the question:  What’s the alternative?  Cobbling a team together a couple of weeks prior to an event, as I already pointed out, hasn’t worked for the U.S. very well.  Thing is though, that’s pretty much what the rest of the world does nowadays.  Long gone are the days when the former Eastern Bloc countries kept their national team players on a short leash.  On the men’s side, all of the players on world’s top national team are professional athletes with club commitments.   Training and playing with the national team is an important, but secondary part of their handball careers.  The same is mostly true with the women’s teams, albeit for less pay, with the possible exception of South Korea.

The nations with middling success (Argentina, Brazil, Tunisia, Egypt for the men; Brazil and Angola for the women) have teams with mixed rosters (some professional, some semi-professional and amateur).  The teams with very little success (USA, Canada, Great Britain and Australia to name a few) are almost entirely amateur.  And, adding to their level of difficulty is the reality that their domestic amateur competitions are also at a very low level.

These facts all point to a logical, inescapable conclusion:  If you want to have sustained national team success you’re going to have athletes capable of playing at a top professional level.  So, the right strategy has little to do with how a national team trains and prepares for competition.  Sure, it certainly is beneficial to train together, but the quality of the players is far more important.  Accordingly, the right strategy is all about identifying, recruiting and developing quality athletes.

For nations with a quality club system and a professional league everything is already done for them.  For other nations they can either try the quick fix (the residency program) or go for the long hard slog to develop the grass roots, which is by no means guaranteed to succeed either.

A Third Way?

But, perhaps there’s another way.  A Residency Program that eschews the quick fix and seeks to develop quality athletes for the long haul.  In part 3 of my earlier series I outlined a residency model with limited objectives that was focused on taking college age athletes and boosting their handball skills so that they could play competitively in Europe.  The rough pathway I envisioned was an 18-21 year old player training at a residency program then at at 22 making his/her way to Europe playing in the 2nd or 3rd division to start, continuing to improve his/her game and then making the ranks of top sides around age 27 or so.

I won’t say that the model I’ve identified is the definitive one. What I will state, definitively, though, is that going back to the future to a residency program that mirrors the ones put in place in the past is a highly questionable strategy.

As of right now, it’s unclear as to what the Federation plan or overall objective is.  In particular, will the residency program be the key element of an intense effort to qualify for the 2016 Olympics?  The Federation announcement indicates that it’s aimed at 2016 qualification, but its certainly possible to seek qualification with an eye wide open towards the more feasible prospects of qualifying in 2020 or even 2024.  A key indicator will be the ages of the athletes participating.  Other signs of intent will be the overall cost of the program and how much funding it siphons off from grassroots efforts.  To date, the U.S. Federation hasn’t released a whole lot of details other than to indicate that it will be “flexible” and that they would like to start the program in the fall of 2013.    Information will surely trickle out as the program moves closer to actually starting.

Which leads to the next question I’ll tackle in this series:  Does it make sense to start a residency program now? Part 2