Author Archives: John Ryan

European Club Handball — What solutions are best for whom?

Posted on by

From a USA vantage point, it may be easy to be affected by the traditions of the concepts of NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB etc., but it may not be so easy to understand all the considerations involved in figuring out how European club handball should best be organized to accommodate its many constituents!

First one needs to appreciate the rich traditions involved in the European ‘pyramid’ structure within [u]each[/u] country with a proud National league at the top. The system is also based on annual promotions and relegations throughout the pyramid, totally unlike the ‘closed’ approach in professional sports in the USA. There is the same strong support from the fans and the communities for the individual teams in each country as there is for each team in a USA Pro league.

But there is also a strong tradition for European Championships and Cups for both national teams and club teams in handball, just as in other sports such as football. It is the evolution of the formats of the club team competitions that is interesting, as the migration of the best players to a select group of teams in a very few countries creates a major ‘imbalance’ on both the men’s and the women’s side. This affects the TV and marketing situation, it affects the financial situation of the clubs (both the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’), and it affects spectator interest.

The fans and clubs in the individual countries still see it as major matter of prestige to have [u]their[/u] team compete for the chance to play the other league champions, or for the opportunity to participate in of the other European cups. At the same time, the owners and fans of the top European clubs (from a very limited number of countries) see it as a vital business interest to have as much competition as possible against each other. Many Handball fans are torn, because while they want to support their local club they also have a great interest in seeing the big clubs playing each other, live or at least on TV.

So where do you strike the balance, and who has the right to decide? It has been taken for the granted that the EHF, as the ‘umbrella organization’ for all the national federations and their leagues should have this task. The top clubs beg to differ, talking about an illegal monopoly situation and point to European Union legislation. And EU does indeed take an interest in such matters, as has already been evident in the context of football regarding different proposals that FIFA or UEFA felt free to introduce.

Of course, one extreme is to say that all national champions must be allowed to play in the ‘Champions League’ and not just in some ‘pre-pre-qualifying’ event with a slim chance to get in. The other extreme is to say that the best 16 or 24 clubs in Europe (although with questions about how this is fairly determined) should be allowed to play in the highest competition, without regard for the resulting nationality distribution.

On the men’s side, the EHF has this year come up with a compromise, at a moment when the total number of teams in the Champions League is reduced to 24, which further complicates the issue. There are now 3 teams each from Germany and Spain, and 2 teams each from Denmark, France and Hungary taking up half of places. Then there are 7 additional national champions, with 4 slots set aside for winners of qualifying groups plus this year’s new feature: 1 slot for the winner of a ‘wild card’ group with the next teams in line from 4 top countries. Needless to say, a compromise never really satisfies everyone!

But then there is also the totally different idea, primarily pushed by the Group Club Handball (GCH), http://www.groupclubhandball.com/ an association of a large number of the perennial top teams. Why should there be an EHF formula for selecting the lucky teams; why should not the ‘perennials’ instead be able to ‘break away’ and create a league outside the EHF, with independence financially and in other ways!? This happened already a long time ago in basketball and has been discussed in football.

And of course yet other ideas: why base such a concept on the existing group of perennials, many of which are located in small towns? Would it not make sense to allow some financially strong and otherwise attractive cities of Europe to have a team (‘franchise’) But what would it mean for the fans and the traditions, based on which the sport has thrived?

Of course, all the different approaches also have an impact on the survival of the national leagues. What would ASOBAL in Spain be without 4-5 of its top clubs? How long would the fans and media in country X put up with a ‘national’ championship when it is known to everyone that the 2-3 best teams are perennially missing, playing instead in a continental league? Or would these traditions soon be forgotten, as long as there is an opportunity to see the best players confront each other in exciting matches every week?

Because one thing is clear, it is not possible to have it ‘both ways’. Today’s situation is not really tenable. The EHF tries every which way to satisfy both the top clubs and the top federations, with a fair participation, while at the same time actually reducing the number of games in which the ‘overburdened’ top clubs and top players have to appear. Quite ironic! This is not said to dismiss the notion of ‘overburdened’. But what creates the excess: the matches on the national team, the Champions league, or perhaps (which nobody ever seems to argue) the excessive number of useless matches in the national league? I do not mean to offend the likes of Torrevieja, Balingen, Alcobendas or Wetzlar, but the only excuse for 18 teams in Bundesliga or 16 teams in ASOBAL is to earn the extra money through some meaningless additional home games!

In other countries it may be different. In Sweden, for instance, one reason for pushing strongly for a firm place in the Champions League was the concern about setting aside 10 potential match dates in the season calendar, just on the chance that [u]one[/u] club might qualify for the Champions League through the qualification process. The gaps would be wasted if the team did not qualify, so why not instead play 10 extra income-bringing rounds of league games for the benefit of [u]all[/u] the teams in a league that has a much more modest financial situation. Especially as the other EHF cups are simply money-losers.

* * *
Despite the many seemingly conflicting arguments, the answer is at least clear to me: a drastic change is needed, as the ‘compromise solutions’ we have had until now do not make much sense. For me this means that a European League, playing throughout the whole season with 16-24 teams needs to be tried. EHF, the key national federations and the top clubs need to get together and work out the structure, the financial aspects and the administrative responsibilities. Yes, as noted above, this will have a major impact for those leagues providing several of the teams, and there will be an impact also in other countries, but there are so many benefits of this approach that it must be tried.

I know you will say that it is easy for me to argue for such change, as the personal impact for me is mostly limited to the issue of access to top games on international TV or web broadcasts, so I want to give you a chance to react, if you are immersed in the both national and continental competition in Europe: what do YOU think?

Does the approach I propose make sense? If so, do you have any views on how it should be arranged?
Or do you prefer the hybrid solution we have today or some other variation on it?
Or what about the idea that the European League should include the 16-24 best [b]national teams[/b], not the club teams, and how could that then be financed and arranged?
Or do you feel that the focus should really be on the individual [b]national[/b] leagues, with a much reduced continental competition?

Continue the discussion in the forum: https://teamhandballnews.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1281.last

Olympic TV channel set to launch after 2010 Olympics

Posted on by

The long rumored US Olympic TV channel has been given the green light. The USOC announced earlier today that the new channel, officially called, the U.S. Olympic Network (USON) will launch shortly after the 2010 Winter Olympic Games ins Vancouver. The USOC’s intent is to provide exposure to the Olympic movement outside of the actual games and give air time to lesser publicized sports like Team Handball. (Yes, Team Handball along with Judo were singled out as examples). The network will be a partnership with Comcast cable and will include video on demand and online programming. Much of the programming will be archival footage, but the network will also include original programming.

Beyond the USOC family, though, not everyone was pleased with the launch of the network. Richard Carrión, an IOC executive board member criticized the deal indicating that it hadn’t been fully coordinated with the IOC and that there were concerns as to how it would affect future TV rights. Additionally the new channel will eventually become a direct competitor of NBC’s Universal Sports channel http://www.universalsports.com/, which is already operating in some markets and online. While USOC representatives indicated that the two channels would compliment each other, they did concede that there would be some level of competition when NBC’s rights to Olympic Trials will expire after the 2012 Olympics.

Commentary: On the surface this looks like great news for Team Handball in the U.S. It’s 8 months, though, until the Vancouver Olympics are over on February 28, 2010 and a lot of things can happen in the interim. We’ve been waiting for years for a broadcast outlet for the sport in the U.S., so I guess we can wait a little while longer. Additionally, it remains to be see whether other cable networks and satellite channels will pick up the Comcast network channel. Sometimes the negotiations between these outlets can take forever.

USOC: USOC and Comcast partner to launch the U.S. Olympic Network: http://teamusa.org/news/article/14101 (Former USA National Team Goalie Matt Van Houten is quoted)
USOC: Olympic Family Reacts To USOC Network: http://teamusa.org/news/article/14134 (Steve Pastorino and former Olympians, Kathy Rex, Yaro Dachniwsky and Darrick Heath are quoted)
Seattle Times: Fulltime U.S. Olympic Network coming to TVs, computers in 2010: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjuddsolympicsinsider/2009433094_fulltime_us_olympic_network_co.html
Washington Times: Olympic Sports 24/7, 365: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/sportsbiz/2009/jul/08/olympic-sports-247-365/
USA Team Handball: Steve Pastorino Blog Post: http://www.usateamhandball.org/blog/post/968
New York Times: Olympics Channel Draws A Rebuke From the I.O.C.: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/sports/09olympics.html?ref=sports

A Framework for Creating U.S National Team Success (PART 1: INTRODUCTION)

Posted on by

INTRODUCTION

A forum posting a while back about why U.S. national teams haven’t had much success in recent years sparked a lot of discussion. I postulated 3 main reasons why the U.S. hasn’t had much success:

1) The raw athletic ability of national team athletes has been low
2) The handball skill level of national team athletes has been low
3) The quality of other national teams, particularly in the Pan American region, has improved dramatically

I don’t think too many people would disagree with this assessment as to why we haven’t had much success. It’s pretty self evident. Where the big disagreements arise, however, is in the solution to the problem. It’s almost always easier to point out problems, than it is to solve them. And in the case of Team Handball in the U.S., if building a quality national team program had been an easy task, it would have been accomplished years ago.

So, how could the U.S. create National Team Success? I won’t try to lay out all the specifics, but I will try to lay out a basic framework. Along the way, I’ll also point out some fallacies with previous efforts and reasons why I think some proposed strategies also aren’t likely to succeed.

First off, a note on funding: It will be difficult, if not totally impossible, to establish any type of credible program without sufficient funding. Securing the necessary funding is probably the most important task that the Federation has. I and others have written about how important it is for USA Team Handball wean itself off limited USOC funding and establish other revenue sources. Of course, simply stating this fact won’t make it a reality. On top of that the current economic situation makes this difficult task even more challenging. Still, some level of funding will be available, especially if Chicago secures the 2016 Olympic bid. This post, however, is not about how to secure more funding. Instead it is about what to do with that funding to create a successful national team program.

Now, to frame the discussion I will put forward a couple of premises that I’m pretty confident are accurate and hard to refute.

Premise #1: The U.S. will never achieve a high level of success if the preponderance of athletes on its National Teams consists of players who first start playing handball in their 20s.

Handball is a relatively easy game to learn, but one that takes several years to master at the highest level. A player who starts out at age 20 can become a world class player with around 5 years of dedicated training and a handful of American players, in fact, have demonstrated that it can be accomplished. But, it has only been a “handful” of players and a number of “life issues” have usually precluded players from getting to that higher level. These “life issues” are career and family concerns that are typical and to be expected for Americans in their mid-twenties starting to think about their futures. As a result of these outside handball concerns, players often reached a plateau level of performance which was good enough for them to make the U.S. National team. They then participated in an Olympic Games and then promptly retired from the sport once that goal was obtained.

Players in the top Handball nations have a vastly different path to their National Teams. Typically, those players begin playing the sport at a young age and start to master the game in their early 20’s. They also have a different outlook on the sport directly related to the fact that they are professional athletes, which leads to premise #2.

Premise #2: The U.S. will never achieve a high level of success if the preponderance of athletes on its National Teams consists of amateur athletes.

Amateurs will lose to professionals almost every time and an amateur team will [i][b]never[/b][/i] pull off the string of victories needed to medal at the Olympics. Professionals, as they should be, are dedicated full time to their sport. Amateurs can also be very dedicated, but the training regimen and regular competition offered to professionals makes it impossible for amateurs to compete with them on an equal footing.

Years ago the U.S. could achieve a certain level of respectability with top collegiate athletes crossing over to handball. The U.S. was always handicapped by less handball experience, but in terms of raw physical talent the gap was often marginal, and sometimes the U.S. arguably even superior. As the sport became more professional in Europe though, the gap in raw talent and handball skill widened. Even worse, the pool of top amateur athletes from cross-over sports like basketball became smaller due to greater opportunities for those athletes to pursue professional careers in Europe and other parts of the world.

So, if you accept these premises (and I challenge anyone to come up with valid arguments to dispute them) it’s pretty clear that in order to field competitive National Teams you need to develop a framework that will create a National Team in which:

1) Most of the players are professionals
2) Most of the players start playing the sport in their teens.

To accomplish this a framework needs to be established which will support player development at younger ages and create a pathway for those players to develop into professional athletes. This could be accomplished with 3 major program areas:

1) Grassroots Program (with a primary focus on ages 12-18)
2) National Development Team (ages 18-22)
3) National Team Program

Coming up: Part 2: Grassroots Programs

Tangible Benchmarks for USA Team Handball: USA Today cover page article and an ESPN “mother ship” broadcast

Posted on by

Readers to this site, know fully well my thoughts on misapplying success stories from other sports to developing Handball in the U.S. https://teamhandballnews.com/news64.html But, they also know that the one sport where I see the most parallels to Handball is rugby. https://teamhandballnews.com/news372.html

Notably, USA Rugby is achieving two very important benchmarks in the development/publicity department during this quiet sports week in the doldrums of summer. The first is the feature cover story in the USA Today Sports section which is all about the USA national team and its upcoming World Cup qualifier with Canada this weekend. In the article, you’ll note a number of handball/rugby parallels including cash strapped budgets, the challenges of competing against more established sports for attention and the challenge of competing against professional athletes. As a side point the article inaccurately downplays the significance of the growing contingent of professionals on the Eagles side. A few of these players are not mere afterthought athletes playing for minor clubs, but full time professionals making good money and playing for top clubs. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.629 But, aside from the inaccuracies, there’s nothing better than a feature article in the top U.S. National daily sports section to promote your sport.

Well, actually there is and that’s a live broadcast on a Saturday afternoon. Sure, it’s the 4th of July and many folks will be out celebrating, but there’s no denying that you’ve hit the big time when a pivotal match is broadcast live on the #1 sports network. Undoubtedly, it will be the biggest TV audience ever in the U.S. for a rugby match. Rugby has been on basic cable many times, but in most cases the broadcasts have been tape delayed and edited. Additionally, the broadcasts were typically on the lesser known ESPNU, ESPN2 or ESPN360. With the broadest market penetration, the decision to show the match on the “mother ship“, ESPN, in High Definition (HD) means that the suits at the ESPN network our saying that this rugby match is the most marquee product available for this time slot.

[b]Tangible Benchmarks for USA Team Handball[/b]

Every four years during the Olympics, Team Handball gets a media boost as reporters either watching on TV or in person discover the sport. Occasionally, a quality feature article gets published like the one that ran recently in the NY Times: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.748 More often than not and especially in recent history, the story has been about Handball in other countries and how the U.S. is a unorganized basket case.

A tangible benchmark for USA Team Handball, which hopefully is not too far in the future, would be to see a featured article extolling the USA national team in the same vein as the Rugby article does. And even more desirable would be an ESPN broadcast of a Handball match. A U.S. national team match would be great, but I’d also take a World Championship, European Championship or Champions League match. Perhaps this may even happen sooner than we think. In January, with a little nudge from the U.S. Federation, ESPN broadcast World Championship matches on its web platform, ESPN360. ESPN must have liked the numbers it got, because in May they broadcast the Champions League Final. And more importantly this time they chose to buy the rights all on their own without any push from the Federation.

You’ve got to start somewhere and ESPN360 is as good as place as any. Here’s hoping that the viewership numbers continue to impress, the U.S. national teams improve and we all see Team Handball go to the mother ship!

USA-Canada Rugby World Cup Qualifier (Match 1): July 4th, 4:00 PM EDST on ESPN HD

Note: Similar to Champions League Handball this is the first match in a home and away aggregate series. The 2nd match will be Saturday, July 11th in Edmonton. Combined aggregate scores will determine the overall winner.

USA Today: Earning their stripes: U.S. rugby team takes aim in spotlight: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-06-29-us-rugby-cover_N.htm

Real news from official Handball websites?

Posted on by

If you have ever read the “About the Site” https://teamhandballnews.com/page9.html page on our website, you’ll notice that there’s a short discussion about the “news” provided by official Handball websites. Essentially, the argument is that it’s very difficult for an organization to critically report on itself. Several recent events in the Handball World and the way some official websites reported on them certainly illustrate the inherent problems with self-reporting. Here’s a few examples covering a variety of topics:

[b]New Zealand Handball Federation: [/b] NZHF – newest member of the IHF: http://www.handball.net.nz/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=63
For a fledgling organization that has liked to point out that they were all about developing the sport in New Zealand and didn’t care for the politics of the sport this article is notable for its omissions, naivety and/or dishonesty. While trumpeting their organization’s recognition by the IHF there is no mention of the IHF’s removal of the Oceania Federation President, Vern Winitana, from the Executive Council. Winitana and his family has been closely affiliated with the now deposed, Handball New Zealand. The closest the article gets to this issue is its mention of a “complex political situation.” There may very well be some legitimacy to the NZHF’s complaints that Handball NZ had done a poor job in the development of the sport in that country, but it’s naïve/dishonest to not recognize that the “love” being provided by the IHF is all about striking back at Winitana and has nothing to do with NZHF’s development efforts. Trust me, if Winitana was still in good graces with the current IHF leadership we certainly wouldn’t be treated to photos of the NZHF with the IHF leadership in Cairo.

[b]IHF: Interview with Dr Moustafa:[/b] http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=1843
Well, this interview doesn’t even need commentary. Seriously, would anyone expect anything interesting to come out of such an interview?

[b]USA Team Handball Federation: Interview with Dr Moustafa:[/b] http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/13304
This interview, however deserves some commentary. As an American who has invested a considerable amount of time and energy exposing the many shortcomings of Dr Moustafa this interview, to put it mildly, rubbed me the wrong way. Back in May during the USA National Championships, USATH send out an invite to all of their followers on Twitter to send in their questions for the IHF President. I sent in a number of questions, two of which actually made it into the interview, believe it or not. As you might expect, though, none of my questions on Asian Olympic Qualification, finance irregularities or doping were asked. Instead a litany of softball questions were lobbed toward Dr Moustafa with no probing even gently into any of those issues. Of course, some might argue that a national federation shouldn’t ask probing or controversial questions in an interview. But those folks are making the wrong point. The correct point to make is that a national federation shouldn’t be doing interviews with controversial figures for official news publication. Why? Because when you do an interview with a controversial figure and you lob questions like, “You have been a successful player, coach and administrator of handball throughout your life. What have been your proudest moments?“ and omit the discussion of real issues you lose credibility and imply that the controversial issues really aren’t important anyway.

USA Team Handball has big plans to further develop the sport and they need to work closely with the IHF, regardless of whether it’s the cleanest or most corrupt sporting organization on the planet. But, that work can be done quietly behind the scenes. Posting an absurd, fluff interview on the official website accomplished nothing other than to upset the sensitivities of some (one can only hope, most) of its membership.

[b]EHF reporting on 2009-10 Champions League Format and Seeding:[/b] In general, I would assess that the EHF does the best job amongst the official handball sites, in their efforts to self report. But while they might be the best, they all too often fall short of the mark, especially when it comes to their frequent omission of relevant facts. Case in point has been the controversies swirling around which clubs were being given direct tickets to the Main Round and which clubs were placed in qualification or wild card tournaments in next year’s Champions League. Leon Ademar won Spain’s National Cup tournament and felt they should have got direct placement into the main round ahead of Valladolid. Instead they will host a tough wild card tournament with Germany’s Lemgo a real threat to win. Additionally, Sweden was able to lobby successfully for a direct ticket to the Main Round at the expense of one of the other nations playing in the qualification groups. And underlying all of this is a debate throughout Europe as to whether the Champions League should be a league for the Champions or a league for Europe’s best teams. In other words, how is it decided that 4th place teams from German and Spain are more important than 1st place teams from other countries. Not surprisingly, there’s no mention of these controversies, just simple announcement as to the seeding for the draw.

To their credit the EHF has reported on negative issues like the spate of referee controversies pretty well for the most part with periodic announcement as to the status of their investigations. Sure it would be nice to get more detail, but at least they are providing an official position.

[b]Canada: [/b]While the EHF has been posting official positions on some negative issues, I’m a little disappointed that Canada never posted anything regarding their non-participation at the ongoing Women’s PATHF Championships. When asked, Canadian Federation Ward Hrabi, was very forthcoming with the circumstances surrounding this decision. But the issue here, is that I first had to notice they weren’t playing and then find the time to ask the questions and write the story. I do my best to keep up with what’s going on, but inevitably worthy stories fall through the cracks. Undoubtedly, many Canadians probably already knew what had happened, but for those that don’t a simple announcement was probably warranted.

[b]The Solution: [/b]Official sites should follow these 3 guidelines when deciding what to report and how to report it:
1) Don’t report on controversial subjects not directly related to your organization
2) When something controversial happens directly related to your organization, however, don’t ignore it. Provide an official explanation on your webpage
3) And finally, when reporting the controversial topic don’t omit obvious aspects of the controversy

PATHF Women’s Championship: Argentina takes Gold in Overtime; Chile secures Bronze and final WC ticket in Double Over Time

Posted on by

Earlier today, for the 4th consecutive time Brazil and Argentina met in the Gold Medal game of the Women‘s PATHF Championship. But unlike the 3 previous matches Argentina came away the victory against the heavily favored Brazilians. Tied 23-23 at the end of regulation, Argentina won in the 2×5 minute overtime period by a final score of 26-25. This victory marks the first crack in the total dominance the Brazilian women have had in recent years in all PATHF competitions.

In the bronze medal game Chile needed two overtimes to subdue the Dominican Republic by a final score of 34-30. According to an account on the Chile Federation webpage, Chile was fortunate to send the game into overtime at the end of the regulation. The Dominican Republic took a 23-22 lead when Judith Granados scored one of her 13 goals with 5.4 seconds left. Chile, however, was able to immediately strike back with a tying goal by Inga Feutchmann to send it into overtime tied 23-23. The first overtime ended 27-27 and the 2nd overtime saw Chile pull away for the 34-30 victory. The win means that Chile will attend it’s first ever World Championship later this year in China. The Dominican Republic which qualified for 2007 will stay home.

In a game to decide 5th place, Mexico and Uruguay played to a 23-23 tie. By virtue of their larger victory over Uruguay, Mexico secures 5th place. Paraguay which lost to both Mexico and Uruguay finished in 7th place. Along with Canada, which did not participate they will be relegated to the Division 1 Championship tournament tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2010.

Editor’s note: In an odd coincidence all 3 matches played on the final day ended regulation with a 23-23 tie. I estimate the odds of all 3 matches being drawn as 500-1. The odds that they would all be drawn with the same score: At least 5,000-1 and probably more.

PATHF Website: Final scores: http://www.panamhandball.org/index.php?option=com_joomleague&func=showPlan&mode=1&p=4&Itemid=14
Chile Federation: Chile qualifies for the World Championship (Spanish): http://www.balonmano.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=267&Itemid=30

PATHF Women’s Championship: Brazil and Argentina dominate Group Play

Posted on by

As expected, both Brazil and Argentina advanced to the semifinal of the 2009 PATHF Women’s Championships without losing a match. In Group A, Argentina beat the Dominican Republic 24-17 and Uruguay 29-21 to advance. The scoreline in these two matches were important, however, as the Dominican Republic and Uruguay had played to a 21-21 draw on the first match day. With 2nd place in Group A coming down to whoever lost by less to Argentina, the Dominican Republic edged Uruguay by a 1 goal, losing by 7 to Uruguay’s 8 goal loss.

In Group B, Brazil has been totally dominant, winning all 3 of their matches by an average of 21 goals. The battle for 2nd place was won by host, Chile, who won their key matches against Paraguay, 34-30 and Mexico, 27-19.

Brazil will face the Dominican Republic in the first semifinal today and Argentina will take on host Chile in the 2nd. The top 3 teams in the tournament will qualify for the 2009 Women’s World Championships in China later this month.

USA Team Handball Competition Committee: Big Challenges Ahead

Posted on by

USA Team Handball has established a Competition Committee to develop a comprehensive plan for next year’s club competition. The committee, which is composed of a diverse group of club members and national federation staff has been given instructions to “examine formats for regular season competition, regional seasons and tournaments, and post-season championships in youth, open, elite and collegiate divisions.”

This is a very much welcomed move to me and others who have voiced concerns that the new Federation has not involved its dues paying membership sufficiently in areas that directly impact them. Importantly, it also appears the Federation is empowering the committee by giving them basic overall objectives and then sufficient leeway to come up with a comprehensive plan on their own. Rest assured it will not be a simple task. The U.S. is a vast country with handball developed unevenly throughout it. A one size fits all format won’t work and inevitably a number of compromises will be required.

Finally, I think its fairly safe to say that almost anyone involved in USA Team Handball has at least one member of that committee that they are comfortable with enough to discuss key competition issues that will affect their club. If you have suggestions on what should be done, it behooves you to contact those individuals now and in the upcoming months…. Instead of later, after the fact.

USATH Website Article: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/13662
Earlier Commentary: USA National Championships (Format Problems and Solutions): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.745

My First Tweet

Posted on by

Of course, everyone’s probably been hearing about Twitter with news accounts of how it has been used by the protesters during the current unrest in Iran. I’ve been somewhat ambivalent about Twitter and what to do with my account. Heck, the only reason I had signed up in the first place was to get USA Team Handball’s feed. I enjoyed getting Handball scores from the National Championships on my cell phone, but other tweets are simply redundant to information you can get at the website. With that concept in mind, I didn’t think it was too necessary for me to both tweet and write at the Team Handball News website.

Yesterday, however, I felt that a timely message was warranted to Handball devotees. As I had my morning breakfast and checked out the latest Handball news, I saw a posting on the Handball123 forum concerning a live web stream for the Slovakia – Hungary qualifier for Euro 2010. As one of the only matches remaining with any real meaning I looked at my watch and clicked on the link and lo and behold, there was the match on my laptop live from Hlohovec, Slovakia. As I watched, I got to thinking, “Would I like to get a tweet on my cell phone with this news and a link?” And hence I sent my first tweet yesterday:

[i]Live webstreamed Euro 2010 Qualifier: Hungary at Slovakia. Slovakia needs win to Qualify 1600 CET http://www.stv.sk/live/?3[/i]

Alas, Hungary pounded Slovakia 30-19 to secure the last spot for Austria next January. Still, it was kind of neat to watch the match live from my kitchen table.

So, if you want to join the Twitter universe and get tweets like this feel free to join up and follow me on Twitter. http://twitter.com/TeamHandball And, if you don’t– Well, I won’t be offended.

Canada to not compete at Women’s PATHF Championship

Posted on by

The Canadian Women’s national team will not be participating at the upcoming Pan American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) Championships next week in Chile. In email correspondence, Canadian Handball Federation President, Ward Hrabi, indicated that several factors played a role in this decision which was made by the Federation’s Board of Directors. Chief among these factors was the unanticipated retirement of several veteran players and an insufficient number of skilled junior players ready or willing to make the commitment for national team training and competition. In particular, the lack of an experienced goalie was seen as a major handicap to fielding a competitive team.

Hrabi, added that the decision with its impact on future qualification tournaments was not taken lightly. As a result of this decision Canada is automatically relegated from the PATHF’s Elite Division to Division I status. Assuming that the current PATHF World Championship qualification system is used again for 2011, Canada will now be required to participate in a Division 1 Championship in Fall 2010. Additionally, at about the same time, qualification for the 2011 Pan American (PANAM) Games should also take place. In 2006 Canada beat the U.S. in a best of 3 match series to qualify for the 2007 PANAM Game.

2009 Women’s PATHF Championship: http://www.panamhandball.org/images/doc/schedule_panam_women_2009.pdf

Translation Request: Der Spiegel article on IHF Congress

Posted on by

Der Spiegel, one of Germany’s leading weekly magazines has an article on the IHF Congress. Included in the article is a mention of USATH President Dieter Esch's actions at the Congress. I’ve placed an automatic google translation at the wikispace page link below. German readers are invited to clean up the translation at that page. To make correction just click on the “edit this page” button and start typing.

Der Spiegel Article: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,630297,00.html
Wikispace Translation page: http://teamhandball.wikispaces.com/Translation-+Der+Spiegel+IHF+Congress+Article

Which is the better format?: “Home and Away Aggregate” or “Final Four”

Posted on by

The EHF Champions League has decided to dramatically alter its format next season by replacing home and away aggregate matches for the semifinals/final with a final four tournament. So which format it better? I’ll go over the pros and cons and try to answer that question. And just because I’m an American, I’ll propose another and better alternative.

[b]The Formats[/b]

[u]Home and Away Aggregate (H and A): [/u]This traditional format has the two teams playing two matches, one on each club’s home floor. The matches are typically a week apart and the winner advances based on the aggregate score for the two matches.

[u]Final Four (FF):[/u] Borrowed from the massively successful American NCAA tournament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_four and later adopted by the basketball Euroleague this format is a simple knock out tournament played over one weekend at a neutral site. The semifinals will be played on Saturday with the winners squaring off in the finals on Sunday.

[u]Best of Seven playoff (B of 7):[/u] Over a span of two weeks two clubs play matches every 2 or 3 days until one team wins 4 matches. Teams alternate hosting matches with either a 2-2-1-1-1 or 2-3-2 split. This is, of course, my American alternative and the format that the NBA, NHL and MLB have used for years. I also realize that there are a whole host of reasons why this format can’t be implemented for the European Champions League. More to say on that later, but keep in mind this is a theoretical piece.

[b]Pros and Cons[/b]

1) Which of these formats is best for the local home town fans?

For this question I think it’s a pretty good assumption that this question boils down to which format is going to give me more games to see at my local arena?
[u]H and A:[/u] Local fans would get to see either 1 game (semifinalists) or 2 games (finalists) in their local arena.
[u]FF:[/u] Unless they happen to live near the host city they’re going to have to travel to the final four. And for some fans this will be too expensive. For other fans, they might not be able to get a ticket with a good seat.
[u]B of 7:[/u] Local fans would get to see at least 2 games and possibly 4 (semifinalists) in their local arena. Finalists would get at least 4 games and possibly 8 games.
[u]Assessment: [/u] Using the strictly numbers theory, B of 7 is clearly the best format followed by H and A. For local fans an FF is a disaster.

2) Which of these formats is best for the fans watching on TV?

For the hard core fan, this question again boils down to simply determining which format provides more matches. For those fans it’s a no brainer to want to see the top 4 teams playing each other as many times as possible. For less casual fans the answer to this question is a little more nuanced as the concept of seeing too much of a good thing may start to apply.
[u]H and A:[/u] Using this format for both the semifinals and finals would result in a total of 6 matches for the TV viewer. This traditional format will serve up compelling handball, but in my opinion is hampered somewhat by the 1 week layoff between each match.
[u]FF:[/u] As this is a knockout tournament it will simply involve 3 total matches for the TV viewer. Each of these 3 matches will be must see for hard core and casual fans. The only shame is that it will be all over so quickly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If the semifinals and finals were to use this format there would be 3 best of 7 series for a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 21 games for the TV viewer. This format is a feast for hard core fans, but is it too much of a good thing for the casual fan? To answer this I will draw upon my own personal experience in following the NBA for 30+ years. In my younger years I was clearly a hard core fan who watched virtually every playoff game from beginning to end. As I’ve become a fan of other sports and family commitments have eaten away at my personal leisure time I’ve become much more casual in my NBA devotion. The NBA now uses the best of 7 format for all 16 teams that make the playoffs and there’s absolutely no way that anyone can watch so many matches. In the early rounds, I will definitely pick and choose what games I watch and even then I find myself fast forwarding to the 4th quarter fairly often. But as the teams are eliminated my interest picks up and I watch more and more. This year, the semifinals (Lakers-Nuggets and Magic-Cavaliers) were genuinely compelling. And the sequence of the matches with the two series playing on alternate nights for 12 straight nights creates a rhythm that is pretty hard to beat for the TV viewer. There’s certainly, no need to wait very long to see how a team will respond to a tough loss.
[u]Assessment:[/u] As is probably fairly obvious by my lengthy diatribe on the merits of watch a B of 7 on TV, I think it’s the best format for fans watching on TV. For hardcore fans there should be no debate whatsoever. And while there may be an overload concern for less casual fans, I think they would still be engaged with the B of 7 format for the last four teams. If it was done also for the round of 16 and quarterfinals, though, a strong case could be made that too many fans would lose interest.

3) Which of these formats is best for fans with the time and funds to travel to matches?

[u]Assessment: [/u] This category is a no-brainer victory for the FF format as it is the only format which will allow a fan willing to travel to make trip plans months in advance. This includes fans of the clubs involved, as well as, a handball fan who doesn’t even care if his club is in the tournament. In fact, if done right, the final four could become a destination event for a certain coterie of fans who simply make plans to attend it every year. I for one, could envision planning a trip to Europe to coincide with the final four, especially if it’s in a destination city. London’s O2 arena perhaps?

4) Which of these formats would provide the best arena atmosphere?

The FF format is again the clear winner here. It’s really hard to beat the party atmosphere that is created when 4 clubs and their followers descend on one venue for the semifinals.

5) How fair are these formats to the teams?

But who cares about the fans. Which format is the fairest in terms of not giving one side a clear advantage over the other.
[u]H and A:[/u] Perfectly symmetrical; this is the ultimate in fairness
[u]FF: [/u]At a final four, fairness will clearly depend on the teams and location. Clearly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] The club with home court advantage has the advantage, but over 7 games this advantage can be overcome by the better team.
[u]Assessment:[/u] This category clearly favors the H and A, with the only marginal advantage given to either side being the opportunity to host the 2nd game. B of 7 is also a pretty fair format with the most significant advantage being the opportunity to host a 7th and deciding game. A huge advantage, but one that is mitigated by playing 7 games. In a two game series one bad game can spell doom for a team, but over 7 games the better team more often than not is going to come out on top. A FF is only fair if the court is truly neutral. Unfortunately, this is often not the case and the German sides will have a clear advantage next year in Cologne. Additionally, it’s tough to bounce back from a bad game in a two game series, but in a knock out tournament it’s impossible to.

6) Which of these formats is the most profitable?

Well, the answer to this question depends somewhat on who’s asking the question and how the money is split up. Clearly individual clubs stand to make money by hosting matches at their arenas. The EHF also gets a slice of that money as well as TV rights fees. How all that money is split is not clear, but I will speculate on how they compare financially.
[u]H and A: [/u] This format would feature 6 games at to be determined arenas, some of which might be of modest size. I’m guessing that the host clubs keep the attendance receipts mostly for themselves as well.
[u]FF:[/u] While only 3 games will be played these matches can be staged at a large arena and probably for significantly inflated ticket prices. I’m also guessing the EHF folks ran the numbers and determined that more money could be made for the EHF otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. I would guess that TV revenue will also increase for these must see games. It’s less clear, however, how profitable this format will be for the individual teams. Surely, they will get their slice, but I expect they will make less money overall.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If fully implemented this format would also be a cash cow for European Handball. Profits, of course, would depend on the arenas, but a major TV contract for these playoffs would likely eclipse the other two formats.
[u]Assessment: [/u]There are a lot of variables that factor into this answer. Those variables include arena size, ability to fill that arena and TV contracts

7) Which of these formats would provide the most drama?

This is a tough one to answer because I’ve seen pretty high drama with all 3 formats. Here’s the pros and cons:
[u]H and A:[/u] On the plus side the aggregate factor eliminates the possibility of a boring match in the first leg as both teams will play to the end with the knowledge that every goal counts. On the negative side, the 2nd match could be essentially over midway through the first half if one side has a big aggregate lead. Still it’s hard to beat the drama of a match going down to the wire in this format.
[u]FF:[/u] Win or go home always has the potential for drama. Additionally, the knockout format makes it more feasible for a weaker side to rise up get that 1 upset victory.
[u]B of 7:[/u] With a B of 7 format the drama question often depends on the matchup. If one team is overwhelmingly better few will sit through 4 blowout matches. But, if the teams are competitive than it’s pretty tough to beat the drama that can ensue. Each game builds upon the next. If one team is blown out or suffers an overtime loss everyone wants to see how they will respond the next game. Add a scuffle or two or some incendiary post game commentary by one of the coaches or players and the drama builds even more. Ciudad Real – Kiel played two great matches; instead of being tied 1-1 and moving on to game 3 it’s over just as it should be getting started.

[b]Overall[/b]
As a hard core fan, I’m going to vote in order of which format gives me the most games, so B of 7 is my clear winner, followed by H and A and FF. From a current marketing standpoint, though, I’m going to give the edge to the new Final Four format. It’s probably the right move at the right time for the EHF and it will undoubtedly give the sport a grand weekend and great exposure.

[b]A final conceptual argument: Could a B of 7 be done for Handball?[/b]

To start off let’s reverse this theoretically exercise (i.e., Ask the question for the NBA: Which format is best?) I think it would be virtually impossible to find anyone who would recommend an NBA Final Four or Home and Away aggregate. The concept of the NBA changing to either format is laughable. So if this format works for this very successful basketball league, can it work for European Handball?

The answer is no, but it has nothing to do with the sport Handball, itself. Handball is more physically demanding than basketball, but two top professional Handball clubs could play a B of 7 over 2.5 weeks. If it can be done for a contact sport like Ice Hockey, it can be done for Handball. Enough said on this topic.

The reason it can’t be done is simply that the current league structures/schedule in multiple countries won’t support the time required it would take to implement a playoff system. Or to put it more sarcastically, meaningless and all too often lop-sided regular season matches are preferred to compelling matches pitting the very best against each other. The only way such a playoff system could be implemented would be to ditch the national leagues in favor of a true European Super League. And with national interests involved it will be tough to change the current landscape any time soon. Although, I think I could make a strong case for it, I’ll save that for another commentary.