A wishful thinking future headline? Maybe, but arguably an overseas residency program has the best chance of making a headline like this a reality someday.

Background

Simply putting out the welcome mat won’t populate a National Team Residency Program with the type of athletes desired. A concerted recruitment effort is needed to get better athletes with real potential to the door.

Background

Because the U.S. has a very limited grass roots base, U.S. clubs have developed only a handful of national team caliber athletes.  To overcome this deficiency USA Team Handball has historically relied on the recruitment of “crossover athletes” for its National Teams.  There has been a lot of debate as to whether this is a good strategy or not.  Opponents blast it as a shortsighted, quick fix strategy that has produced mediocre results (at best) and squanders limited resources that could be spent on building up the grass roots.  Proponents argue that the grass roots growth will follow national team success and that the U.S. should take full advantage of its large size and accompanying raw athletic talent pool.  I’ve tackled this debate in other commentaries, though, and will not it address here.  Instead, I’ll presuppose that focusing on crossover athletes is the right strategy and that finding better ways to recruit these athletes are needed.

While I would have liked to have seen a Board of Directors really tackle the basic fundamental question of whether crossover athletes should really be the focus before starting residency programs I am pleased to see that the current shortcomings in recruiting are at least now being identified as a major challenge. (July 2014 BoD Meeting Minutes) Most troubling to me was that for several months after the start of the Residency Programs there appeared to be almost no recruitment whatsoever.  Just simple announcements on the Federation websites for National Team tryouts, which coupled with the athletes having to pay their own costs to participate often resulted in very low turnouts.  It’s not clear what else was being done behind the scenes, but one meager solution to address the problem was to hire unpaid interns to focus on recruiting:  (Link 1, Link 2)  At the last tryouts in July there were 6 men and 14 women participants.  None of the male athletes that attended were picked up and to the best of my knowledge every player in residence on the men’s team has come from our existing, but very limited grass roots programs.  On the women’s side there have been a number of crossover athlete recruits, but it’s unclear as to the long term potential of these athletes.

There’s a fairly stark underlying reality to the decision to establish full time National Team Residency programs.  If you’re going to the expense to have them you better be able to fill those programs with quality athletes.  And, if you don’t have established grass roots programs churning out athletes that means you’re really going to need some real emphasis and support to recruiting efforts.  Here are some steps that could be taken to beef up USA Team Handball’s recruiting efforts.

1. Put someone clearly in charge of recruiting.  This might sound somewhat obvious, but I suspect USA Team Handball has not clearly delineated where the “buck stops” on this all important task.  Most likely everyone drawing a salary is involved in some aspects of recruiting and if you’re assigning interns and volunteers even those that aren’t being paid.  That’s a good use of staff time, but someone needs to be in charge and accountable.  This “someone”  could be the coaches, the Tech Director, the CEO, or even a newly hired recruiting coordinator.  Regardless, recruiting should move very high on their job jar list.
2. Assign clear metrics to guide recruiting focus and measure success.  In many respects, the real measure of success will be National Team wins and losses over time.  But, those results won’t be known for several years and there are other near term metrics that could be established to measure success, such as simply the overall numbers of athletes trying out for the national team.  Even better, would be some sort of weighting system that would take into account an athlete’s age and skill level.  For sure, signing a pretty good athlete at age 18 should be seen as a major recruiting coup, whereas signing a 25 year old athlete, even a really good one is less desired.  Without clear metrics to guide recruiting the temptation may be to simply find warm bodies willing to move to Auburn.  That may fool the USOC and perhaps some members of the Board, but it won’t solve our recruiting deficit.  And, worse it means that the Federation is wasting resources and being disingenuous to an athlete making significant sacrifices.   (For an idea on what those recruiting metrics might be see these earlier commentaries:  Link 1 and Link 2)
3. Hire someone to be a full time recruiting coordinator.  A strong case can even be made that  recruiting is so important and at the same time so challenging that it justifies expending resources to hire someone full time to tackle this job.  Someone who wakes up in the morning focused on addressing and solving the recruiting challenge.  Someone without other tasks distracting them.  Someone who knows this is their job and keeping that job means bringing in quality recruits.  That wouldn’t mean that this person was the only one recruiting per se, but for sure that individual would be orchestrating other staff and volunteers in their efforts.  It’s a tough task and a skill set for which a Team Handball background while desired is not really necessary.  Such an individual might be someone with college recruiting experience at the Division 2 or Division 3 levels.  The logic being that USA Team Handball could benefit from someone with skills finding athletic diamonds in the rough missed by the Division 1 schools.
4. Provide more resources to support recruiting efforts.  A lot of recruiting can be done on a budget thanks to the internet and the good old fashioned telephone call.  Some recruiting efforts, however, will be more successful with a physical presence.  And, this will require a travel and event budget.  Some of the travel would be to events where high school athletes congregate like summer camps and tournaments.  There would be an art to finding the athletes that aren’t going to get the Division I scholarship, would still be great handball players and be willing to try a residency program.  And, this would require a lot of networking and some face time to establish relationships.  USA Team Handball could also set up its own clinics/tryout events for high school and college age athletes in select markets.  Unlike, the open announcement that have been used in the past, though, there would be a significant amount of legwork up front to ensure that targeted athletes would attend.  Phone calls, letters, and perhaps a visit from a former Olympian would all be part of a targeted strategy.
5. Provide greater financial benefits to selected recruits.  Ideally, USA Team Handball would have the resources to more effectively recruit some of its athletes.  In particular, a college scholarship, even a partial one, could turn some heads and entice some border line Division 1 athletes (in their chosen sport), to commit to USA Team Handball.  And, it goes without saying, that ideally these athletes have been carefully assessed as athletes with skills  that would make them ideal candidates in their new chosen sport of Team Handball.

Pros

1. More and better recruits being identified.  Assuming success it’s hard to find much fault with the concept of better recruiting.

Cons

1. Diverts resources and attention from grass roots development.  The old, never ending argument again:  The resources applied to recruiting could be applied to setting up grass roots programs that, in theory, would develop players that would never have to be recruited to play for Team USA.
2. Diverts resources from current national team prospects.  Again, resources applied towards recruiting and future success may have to come out of the budget lines dedicated to current national team training and competition.

Risks

1. Inability to recruit desired athletes.   Quite possibly the challenges of recruiting athletes, particularly younger ones, to play for Team USA might be too difficult to overcome.  The extra emphasis may yield no significant improvement over the trickle of athletes that already comes in.  This risk is so significant that it might be wise to reluctantly consider no significant efforts to improve recruiting, and, in turn, a rethinking of the Residency Program model.

Costs

• The first two steps identified (clearly assigning responsibilities and establishing metrics) can be implemented at fairly low cost.  Increasing the emphasis on recruiting and spending more time on it will, however, mean that some other tasks will get less focus.  There are only so many hours in a day and something else will surely no longer get done as well.  Clearly established metrics, however, should free up some time as Federation staff will no longer waste time recruiting athletes that don’t fit the desired metrics.
• Hiring a full time recruiter will likely cost in the neighborhood of $40-80K in personnel costs.  Alternatively, USA Team Handball could hire someone to work the recruiting issues half time while working other administration issues.  A travel/event budget could run upwards to $100,000/year.   If trips are judiciously planned it could be much lower, but events like the ill fated summer festival are more expensive and could easily bust the $100K budget in no time, especially if more of the prospective athlete costs are paid for.
• Providing financial support for select athletes could get real expensive quickly.   Tuition and other costs for an in-state student at Auburn University runs $29,000/year.  Barring a huge increase in financial support it’s pretty unlikely that USA Team Handball will be handing out full ride scholarships anytime soon.  That being said even a small amount of scholarship aid coupled with the opportunity to represent your country in international competition might be enough to sway some heads.  The big secret is that outside of football and basketball many Division 1 scholarships are really only partial scholarships.  This support varies from sport to sport and from school to school.  Additionally, athletes are often given preferential treatment for traditional financial aid, which explains at least in part, how the Ivy League schools, which technically have no scholarships, somehow attract Division 1 talent.  Bottom line:  some level of support; even a small amount could help recruiting efforts.

Timing for Implementation

The first two steps (clearly assigning recruiting responsibilities and establishing metrics) could and should be implemented immediately.  The timing for hiring a full time recruiter and/or providing more recruiting resources probably should wait until the current effort to qualify for the 2016 Olympics runs its course.  One possibility would be to let one of the national team coaches go and to use that salary towards recruiting.  Alternatively, recruiting could be clearly delineated as a coaching responsibility (See below for further discussion on that possibility).  And, as always, it sure would be nice if there was more money available to just simply bump up the recruiting budget.  Barring that happening, though, USA Team Handball needs to take a hard look at whether some other part of the budget should be lowered to meet the recruiting challenge.

Side Analysis (The American Collegiate Coaching Model and the Traditional Coaching Model)

As, I pointed out in an earlier series success in collegiate sports in the U.S. is very closely tied to recruiting success.  And while recruiting is a vital part of success in most team sports, to the best of my knowledge there is no other sporting league or entity where coaches are expected to take on so much of the responsibility and accountability for recruiting success.  In professional team sports there is usually a general manager who is responsible for acquiring and hiring players.  The coach may be involved in the process, but his primary role is to take the players given to him and coach them to win matches.  For national teams it is much the same story and when a nation already has a strong grass roots programs there is virtually no recruiting.  Essentially, the nation already has its available players and the coach’s job is merely to pick which players they want on their roster.  The only occasional recruiting is to acquire a naturalized citizen or perhaps to coax an aging veteran to continue playing for his nation.

This is a stark contrast to American collegiate sports where success on the field hinges largely on a coaches ability to convince highly touted 17 year old kids to come to their college.  Money can’t even be used to recruit athletes, although some like Charles Barkley joke that isn’t necessarily followed.  While USA Team Handball doesn’t have to follow collegiate rules the residency programs are essentially competing for the same athletes.  Further, with a thin talent pool, a U.S. National Team coach can’t be successful with merely picking the best 16 players available.  This means that recruiting will be a big part of U.S. National Team programs for years to come.  The question then becomes can the U.S. expect or even find a national team coach that can essentially function like a U.S. collegiate coach?  To be responsible and accountable for successful recruiting?  That’s certainly a tall order for a foreign national and that’s one of the reasons why I questioned the hiring of the current coaches.  Conversely, it’s also surely tough to find a skilled American recruiter who can also coach the finer parts of handball.  This suggests that unless someone uniquely qualified with that dual skill set can be found it’s probably necessary to separate the coaching and recruiting roles.

Should USA Team Handball take a bold step to change the focus of its Residency Programs?

Background

USA Team Handball has established Residency Programs for its Men’s and Women’s National Teams at Auburn University in Alabama.  Goals for these programs have not been explicitly stated, but based on the majority of the athletes that been recruited the programs appear to have two primary goals:  developing new players and national team preparation for competition.  These goals, however, often conflict with one another and trying to do both simultaneously with a national team can be problematic.

In particular, the immediate need to prepare for competition results in a competition mindset and a focus on near term performance.  At first glance this may seem like an obvious and desired effect.  After all, what’s the point of having a national team, if not to do the best we can in competition and ideally win a lot of games?   A broader look at the landscape of world handball and the very, very thin U.S. player pool, however, warrants careful consideration of a change in mindset to unequivocally focus the Residency Programs on future player development.

Such a focus would include the following steps

1. Establish mission and goals for the Auburn Residency Program that clearly identify its focus on future player development. To the best of my knowledge there is no documentation that fully describes the purpose of the Auburn Residency program.  Developing such a document would provide an opportunity to clearly delineate what is desired for the program.
2. Rebrand the Residency Programs program to clearly identify them as development programs.  Something like the “U.S.A. Team Handball Academy” or “U.S.A. Team Handball Future Development Program” would clearly signal the future developmental focus of the program.
3. Decouple the National Team coaches from the development program.  To further emphasize the development focus the coaches or training directors administering the program would not be dual hatted as National Team coaches.   The administrators would still work closely with the National Team Coaches, but their focus would be developing players for the talent pool; not coaching players in the talent pool.
4. Establish an age range for athlete participation.  It can be debated as to what this range should be, but I would advocate ages 18-23.  While it would be desirous to have even younger athletes in a high school program current U.S. structures will make it nearly impossible to do so.  And, while it may be easier to recruit quality athletes at older ages those athletes are very unlikely to meet the “future potential” requisite inherent with a development program.
5. Establish a time limit on participation.  The goal of the program would be to improve athlete skills to the point where they can play competitively in a professional environment.  Historically, athletes introduced to the traditional Residency Program Model improve dramatically as players during their first two years of participation.  Eventually, though, they plateau due to the limits of their fellow participants and a lack of competition opportunities.  In other words, it’s easier to improve when you’re playing and practicing against more skilled opponents, but more difficult to improve when you’re playing against weaker opponents.  At some point athletes would “graduate” and be encouraged to seek better competition overseas.  This time limit would also have the added benefit of freeing up spaces to let more athletes participate.

Note:  An earlier series of commentaries written in 2009 describes this player development residency model in more detail as well as some problems with the traditional residency model.

Pros

1. Broadening of talent pool for years to come.  The successful implementation of this program would create a much wider talent pool of prospective athletes.  Not only would more athletes be trained up, but since they are younger, they would have more playing years ahead of them.  The obvious added benefit of this would be more athletes to choose from for national team competition.  A not so obvious benefit will be the trickle down improvement in U.S. based club competitions as players who participate in these programs, but do not quite pan out at the highest level are still more likely to continue playing through their 20’s and early 30’s.
2. Improve prospects for American players to have pro careers:  If one looks at the world’s top teams it’s plain to see that their rosters are entirely composed of professional athletes.  Even the Pan American teams that the U.S. competes against for Olympic berths have rosters with a number of athletes playing professionally (some at the highest levels) in Europe.  Professional athletes will almost always defeat amateurs and if the U.S. can get more athletes overseas it will greatly improve national team prospects.  A U.S. Team Handball Academy could be the vehicle to boost skills of young athletes to the point where European clubs show interest.
3. Ensures focus on development.  While it can be argued that the current Residency Program could still be directed to focus on younger player development the establishment of a Handball Academy and its associated guidelines would guarantee that focus.  Older athletes simply could not be recruited and the coaches running the program would not have conflicted priorities.

Cons

1. Weakening of current National Team prospects.  Moving forward with this change in direction will immediately result in weaker U.S. National Teams at international competitions.  Practicing on a regularly basis in one location creates a more cohesive team as players become very familiar with each other’s skills and abilities.  Additionally, Residency Programs create a team bonding that can provide an additional advantage in competition.  Any slim hopes the U.S. had of 2016 Olympic qualification are probably eliminated and 2020 Olympic qualification prospects would also be weakened as this change in direction would probably take several years to bear fruit.
2. Lack of support for older National Team players. This change in direction would likely end the careers of many older National Team players as many of them are either not skilled enough or do not desire to live overseas where they can continue their development as players.

Risks

1. Inability to recruit desired athletes.  Probably nothing challenges the implementation of this youth based movement more than the reality that recruiting athletes at younger ages with the desired athletic ability will be challenging in the U.S.  The top athletes at those ages generally play another sport and USA Team Handball will be competing against colleges that can offer either full or partial scholarships.  This risk is so pronounced that additional actions to address this recruiting challenge should probably be implemented in conjunction with or prior to establishing a future player focused residency program.  (Separate recruiting initiative: Link <to be written>)

Costs

1. Residency Program Costs. With the Residency Programs already in place this primarily is a change in focus/rebranding and could be executed for little or no cost.   A level of support for athletes is already in place and while more is desired, it could continue at the same lever for the younger athletes envisioned.  In terms of administration salaries are already being paid for 2 National Team coaches.  These coaches are already providing training instruction and could simply be rehired as Sports Academy coaches or administrators.   Additionally, as the focus would be entirely on player development USA Team Handball could also consider having just one coach so another salary could be freed up for other requirements like recruiting.  Finally, while this is development program a handful of trips for competition is still desired.  Ideally, these would take advantage of IHF challenge competitions where financial support is provided
2. National Team Costs. By combining competition preparation with player development USA Team Handball was benefiting from certain cost efficiencies.  With the decoupling of these two roles either more funding for National Team support will be needed or support to National Team will have to decrease.  Assuming a decrease in funding, possible cuts include making the National Team coaching positions part time volunteer positions, eliminating all trips for friendly competitions, and even requiring athletes to fully fund or partially fund trips for qualification competitions.  These are not pleasant possibilities to contemplate, but if the U.S. wants to get serious about future player development funding should be diverted from senior team programs.
3. Recruiting Costs.  It’s hard to see this program being successfully implemented without more resources being devoted to recruiting efforts.  This may necessitate the hiring of a full time recruiting coordinator or require having another staff member devote significant man hours to this task.  Additionally, there will likely be some travel costs if recruiting is to be more effective.

Timing for Implementation

This change could, in theory, be done immediately, but probably should be phased to coincide with upcoming Olympic and World Championship qualification.  An implied (if not explicit) promise of support has been made to a number of athletes that don’t fit the development concept (i.e., they are significantly older) and an immediate change in focus would be unfair.  Both, the men’s and women’s program can qualify for the 2016 Olympics by finishing first or second (if 2016 Olympics host Brazil finishes first) at the 2015 PANAM Games which take place in Toronto next July.  While it’s unlikely either team will qualify they should be given that opportunity with the support that the current Residency Program model provides for training.  Should they fail to qualify for the Olympics next July or even fail to qualify for the PANAM Games (via a qualification tournament in January, 2015) USA Team Handball will have a logical break point for redirecting the Residency Programs.

Another logical break point for the Women will coincide with the 2015 World Championships.  Due to Brazil’s winning of the 2013 World Championships, Pan America will have an unprecedented 6 spots for the 2015 World Championships to be played in December, 2015.  The U.S. will have a decent chance of securing one of those spots at the 2015 Pan American Championships and this may support keeping the Women’s team intact through that tournament.  The Men’s next World Championship qualification even will not take place until January, 2016 at the earliest, so it should be less of a consideration.

Overall Assessment

Well, it should come as no surprise that I am fully in favor of taking this bold step.  Ideally, it would be better to implement such a program after we have further developed our collegiate club competitions and established some sort of High School competition, even if only in one U.S. city.  Further, it would be better to have funding to support a recruiting budget.  All of these shortcomings makes the chance of success somewhat iffy, but with the Auburn program in place it makes little sense to wait for those things to happen first.

Finally, the current state of our talent pool makes near term success very unlikely.  If U.S. qualification prospects were more realistic I could enthusiastically support an all out run for 2016 qualification.  The reality, however, simply doesn’t support it.  Even 2020 is a bit of a stretch, but I think with a switch to a development focus, we could make a respectable run.  And, more importantly start to populate our national team rosters with athletes that could really make a difference in 2024, when the U.S. might very well be hosting an Olympics.

Many options for developing handball in the U.S. Which way is the right path forward?

Previous commentaries have focused on the shortcomings of National Team Residency Programs, why I felt it was too soon and unwise to start a program up in Auburn and the historical debate between supporting grass roots and national team programs.  With this new series I turn the page to focus on some programs and initiatives USA Team Handball should consider as it charts its way forward.

Many Options

The old saying goes that there are many ways to skin a cat.  And, when it comes to charting a way for USA Team Handball there are indeed a number of possibilities.  For the most part this series will focus on initiatives that will help “enable United States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence“.  This was pulled directly from the USA Team Handball mission statement.  Granted, this is just one part of the mission statement, but as you go through the initiatives, proposed programs and broad overarching strategies you’ll see that many of them have a grass roots flavor.  But, Grass Roots with a focus on identifying and developing talent with National Team potential.

1) Modify the National Team Residency Programs to focus strictly on player development: Link
2) Increase the emphasis and support to National Team recruiting: Link
3) Develop or participate in a European based residency program to provide athletes more competition: Link
4) Upgrade College Team Handball:  Following the rugby club model to nationwide participation (Part 1; Part 2)
5) Upgrade College Team Handball:  Seeking NCAA status on the heels of the O’Bannon Ruling
6) The “Title IX Field Hockey Strategy”:  Focus 90% of USA Team Handball’s resources on Women’s Programs: Link
7) The “Iceland Strategy”:  Focus a large percentage of USA Team Handball’s resources on one geographical location (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
8) The “Alberta Strategy”:  Fully assess Alberta’s successful development program and fund a U.S. version in one region of the U.S.:  Link
9) Youth and Junior Teams Emphasis:  Fund U.S. participation for up and coming athletes first
10) Funding direct to clubs:  Reward high performing club programs with real and tangible financial support
11) High School Team Handball:  Following in Lacrosse and Flag Football’s footsteps
12) True Youth Movement:  Follow the AYSO soccer model to develop a massive player and fan base at even younger ages
13) U.S. Olympic Handball Festivals:  Bridging the gap between club and national teams

(Editor’s Note:  As this series evolves this list will likely see several modifications.  The intent, however, is to keep this as a home page for future reference.)

Limited Resources

Unfortunately, while a good case can be made for each of these options, the harsh truth is that USA Team Handball has very limited resources.  The last published IRS Form 990 from (July 2011 – Jun 30, 2012) lists only $512,000  in total revenue and last December former CEO Matt Van Houten indicated that USA Team Handball was literally counting every penny.  USA Team Handball’s new  Board Chairman, Dr Harvey Schiller, has many connections in the corporate sports world so there’s room for optimism that fundraising efforts will become more successful.  That instead of choosing one possible initiative soon USA Team Handball will be able to choose several options working in tandem.

Hard Choices

It goes without saying that if you have many options, but limited resources you can’t do as much as you would like to.  Inevitably, this should lead to some hard choices.  Hard choices that often no one wants to make.  Case in point, was NYAC Coach and legend, Laszlo Jurak response when I asked what should be done if you don’t have the resources to support both National Teams and Grass Roots?  His response:  “Then you have to quit.”  (Audio:  Link  (around the 21:00 minute mark)

While tongue in cheek, this is the resignation that many old timers feel.  And, unless you are on the USA Team Handball Board of Directors it’s pretty much a theoretical question, so most of us can simply refuse to contemplate such an unpleasant question.  Well, I guess Board Members could also quit, but the reality is that they are indeed making these hard choices even if, (and, this is very important) their choice is simply to continue with the status quo and not fully consider other possibilities.

There’s no getting around it.  All one has to do is follow the money and the man hours expended.  Where time and money is spent is the answer to what’s been decided.  These decisions should be tough ones to make.  Decisions based on a careful analysis of the merits of several good options.  Decisions based on a review of current programs and metrics that measure success and failure.

Could of, Would of, Should of and Moving Forward

As you read through this series chances are you might get some light bulbs turned on.  And, those light bulbs will be some revelations along the lines of:

• The U.S. should have pursued some of these initiatives prior to starting and focusing so much of its resources on residency programs.
• That a particular initiative is definitely worthy, but we just don’t have the funding for it.  And, the reason we don’t, at least in part, is because our residency programs are taking too big a chunk of resources.
• That many initiatives should probably be co-located with our residency program.  And, that there are quite a few places in this country that would be better suited for implementation than a college town in rural Alabama.

Unfortunately, though, the die have been cast.  A commitment of some level has already been made to the residency programs at Auburn.  It would have been better to first methodically assess and weigh these initiatives (and others) prior to this commitment, but you can’t change the past.  You can only plan for the future.

And, in the hopes of influencing the decisions being made regarding that future the follow on parts to this series will assess each initiative, program and broad strategy by taking a top level look at its overall objective, pros/cons, risks, costs and timing for implementation as part of a coherent, long term strategic plan.  While some might think that this is an exercise in futility I’ll take the optimist’s point of view.  It’s only a matter of time before the sport of Team Handball gains traction in this country.  With good planning, though, it can happen sooner and that traction will be so much greater.

14 years ago Germany implemented a long range plan to fix its soccer development programs. It appears to have worked well. Should USA Team Handball do the same?

In part 3 I addressed the competing “National Team First” and “Development First” philosophies USA Team Handball has had over the years.  In this latest installment I highlight how both can be done with a long range plan built around a once in a generation opportunity.  Part 1 Part 2

Lessons from German Soccer:  Focus on Development and be Patient

In handball circles the news lately has been about how the Men’s German Handball side has been gifted a qualification slot for the upcoming World Championship.  The German National Team has fallen on hard times lately and what couldn’t be accomplished on the court through qualification matches to the detriment of Australia has been accomplished with the stroke of a pen. What a strange contrast that presents with the recent German soccer World Cup triumph.  14 years ago German soccer was humbled by a very poor performance at the European Championships and came up with a plan to address systematic problems with youth development.  A World Cup title and a very deep talent pool of up and coming players strongly suggests the plan was a good one and this short article in Business Week and this longer article in the Guardian highlight what the German Federation has done.    In a nutshell, Germany revamped its youth programs to find and train talent as early as possible.  One would think the German Handball Federation would be taking a close look at the German Soccer model to see if it could be applied to German Handball.   And, come to think of it, maybe USA Team Handball should take a look as well.

Unfortunately, though, what the Germans implemented didn’t come cheap and I don’t think USA Team Handball is going to find 85 Million Euros (on a yearly basis) lying around to duplicate the German Soccer development program.  Heck, $850,000 would be awesome.  That being said there are a number of initiatives that could be enacted at lower funding levels.  And, each of those initiatives or programs should ask and answer a basic question:

How does this initiative or program help USA Team Handball find and develop more quality athletes with great potential (e.g. younger ages) for our National Teams?  

If we start to implement initiatives that successfully answer this question the U.S. will gradually grow a talent pool from which a competitive National Team can be fielded.  The key word is gradually.   This won’t happen overnight and we could debate how long it will actually take.  For German soccer it took 14 years and it wasn’t like they were starting from scratch.  But, then again I don’t think we’re talking about world domination here.  We’re talking fielding competitive U.S. National Teams.  Teams that can win a Pan American title and can compete with the Europeans.  Heck, even start to beat them.  Rosters with plenty of talent and several players playing in Europe on some of the world’s best club teams.  It’s going to take awhile, though and it’s going to take more resources then what USA Team Handball has right now.   Still if you’re planning for the future it’s best to not have an open ended time frame on a difficult challenge, but a target to shoot for.   USA Team Handball has often planned in 4 year blocks focused on the upcoming Olympics.

The U.S. Olympic Goal

For the world handball community the handball tournament at the Olympic Games is a big deal.  For countries where handball is a significant sport it’s an opportunity to compete for a medal.  For the top players in the game it’s a capstone career opportunity to showcase their skills on a big stage.  For countries like the United States where the sport is less popular or virtually unknown, though it’s even a bigger deal.  Having a men’s or women’s (or ideally both) participating in the Olympic Games provides exposure and access to funding opportunities that is hard to match.  It can truly be a game changer and could ultimately be the vehicle to propel the sport from virtually unknown to a significant niche sport with a significant fan and player base.  This is why the U.S. Federation has almost always made qualifying for the Olympic Games the top priority and accordingly directed the bulk of its resources to making it happen.

Olympic Prospects

Unfortunately, though, there’s very little to suggest that the U.S. can make it happen anytime soon.  I’ve highlighted U.S. prospects for 2016 previously and there’s been little progress in the past year.  Honestly, it’s probably about a 50-50 chance as to either the U.S. Men or Women can beat Uruguay and will even qualify for the PANAM Games.  (If the 2nd chance tourneys are hosted by the U.S. those odds improve; if either the men or women have to travel to Uruguay they drop.) And then placing either 1st or 2nd (if Olympic hosts Brazil wins either the men’s or women’s title) at the PANAM Games is even a longer shot.  Probably, around 40-1 for the men and 20-1 for the women.  Some might think based on recent results that I’m being overly generous, but with the resources being invested there’s actually a chance the U.S. could become competitive enough for a long shot bid in a year’s time.  So, despite a long trail of dismal results there’s still a chance, albeit slim, of Olympic qualification.  Also, the women’s pool (minus Brazil) is somewhat weak and injuries to say Argentina could make the tourney wide open.

I haven’t addressed 2020 prospects specifically before, but the prospects are also pretty bleak, particularly for the women.  Brazil’s hosting of the Olympics in 2016 presented a one time opportunity for the other PATHF nations to avoid the likely necessity of defeating that world class side.  Heck, strike “world class”, they’re the World Champions!  Come the 2019 PANAM Games in Peru I doubt that the Brazilian Women will be as strong as they are now, but it’s foolhardy to expect that they will have an epic drop in quality.  Undoubtedly, there will be several player retirements, but there will still be some holdovers.  Additionally, they must have some upcoming talent based on their Junior Team’s 29-19 defeat of Team USA recently.  This Junior Team (athletes no more than 20 years of age) actually blitzed the USA to a 19-4 half time lead, suggesting the outcome could have been worse.  For the USA Men, Brazil will also again factor into the qualification mix, but the real class side is Argentina with its standout centerback Diego Simonet.  Arguably, at age 24 now he is already the best male player to ever come from a PATHF nation and he will likely be in peak form four years from now.  Injuries can always play a role, though, and Argentina, Brazil and Chile do not have overwhelming pools of talent.  The USA Men are significantly below those 3 sides now, but it’s feasible that a full fledged residency program could field a team within shouting distance in 4 years time.   With some of the USA Men’s top players pushing 30 or greater, however, several new players would have to come on strong.  Even with this happening, though, 2020 is still a long shot.

Which leads us to 2024 and a sudden huge increase in USA qualification prospects.  Of course, this qualification prospect has nothing to do with the quality of Team USA 10 years from now and everything to do with USA prospects for hosting the 2024 Olympics.  We won’t actually know whether the USA will host the 2024 Olympics until 2017, but the stars appear to be aligning for this to happen.  The USOC decided to forego a 202o bid and has been strategically positioning for 2024 now for several years. Stung by defeats to win several Olympic bids they’ve mended fences and built repoire with IOC members.  I wouldn’t bet the farm on Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston or Washington,D.C. hosting in 2024, but I would feel far more comfortable on that bet then a USA Olympic slot in 2016 or 2020.  Overall, reading the tea leaves, there’s maybe an 80% chance that USA Team Handball will be taking the floor at the 2024 Olympics in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston or Washington D.C.

A Logical Long Range Goal

So, if you couple the long odds for Olympic qualification with the time requirements related to player development there’s a logical long range goal staring USA Team Handball in the face.  And that goal is to field competitive USA National Teams at the 2024 Olympics.  More broadly, it’s how best to maximize the opportunity the 2024 Olympics will present in terms of exposure and continued sustained growth for the sport.  Anyone who was around for the 1984 or 1996 Olympics saw the bump the sport got when the U.S. hosted those Olympics.  Recruiting was easier, sponsorship was easier and interest in the sport increased.  Actually, this happens with every Olympics, but when that Olympics is also in the U.S. the effect is tremendously magnified.

As sure as the sun comes up in the east a big bump is coming.  The thinking now should be what can be done to turn this big bump into a massive bump?  A bump that starts a couple of years earlier than it did in either Los Angeles or Atlanta, a bump that rises higher and is sustained long after the Olympics.  A bump that results in a “tipping point” that makes team handball a nationally recognizable sport with a real following and opportunities for continued growth.  It should not be lost on anyone that the Los Angeles and Atlanta bumps were not as big as they could have been as interest was not sustained and growth did not materialize.

Some might argue that this is all well and good, but this opportunity is 10 years away.  USA Team Handball has got lot to be done in the mean time.  True as well, but I would argue that current efforts can and should be accomplished with both eyes squarely focused on the future.  Programs to support National Teams today can be structured to smartly build for the future.  And grassroots programs can be developed so that they maximize opportunities to identify and train future National Team prospects.

In short, USA Team Handball should look at everything it spends time and money on and ask a simple question:

How does this initiative or program help USA Team Handball field competitive teams at the 2024 Olympic Games?

And, if the answer is that the initiative or program doesn’t do much, if anything.  Well, then the next questions should be why are we doing it and can we modify it so it does support this long term goal.

This concludes my series tackling the grass roots vs national team debate.  Next, I’ll start addressing initiatives and programs that USA Team Handball should consider implementing.  First up, I’ll address the Residency Program at Auburn and how they could be modified to better focus on the future.

In part 1 I addressed the recent Women’s National Team results and in Part 2 I highlighted the weak club system in the U.S.  In this part I take a step back and philosophize a bit about how to go about determining the appropriate level of support for U.S. National Teams.

Both the U.S. Men’s and Women’s Team recently traveled to South America for competition.  The Women played several friendly matches in Brazil while the Men played a couple of preparatory matches in Brazil prior to traveling on to Uruguay for the Men’s Pan American Championships where they placed 6th out of 8 teams.  Both trips weren’t free and as a proponent of more spending on developmental efforts you might think that I would argue against them being made; but, you would only be half right.  For reasons, I’ll elaborate on I think the Men’s trip was warranted while the Women’s trip was not.

History Lesson: A Swinging Pendulum of Support

First off, a brief history lesson in regards to the level of support that has been provided to U.S. National Teams in the past is warranted if you want to better understand contextually what could or should be done.  The graphical picture at the top of the page is a simple depiction of the level of support that has been provided in the past.  It’s simplistic in that the actual level of support varied from year to year.  At some points the residency programs were more austere than full fledged.  The competition trips overseas varied and at times funding and resources were shifted towards different development programs.   In general, however, overall I think the years depicted on the pendulum accurately reflect an overall philosophy in regards to funding and support towards National Teams.

And, if you look at the depiction, you’ll note that the philosophy and focus most of the time has been towards National Team support.  In fact, you could argue that except for the Dieter Esch era (2007-2011) it’s always been National Teams first.  It’s just that since the USOC dramatically reduced funding support after the 1996 Olympics there hasn’t been sufficient funding to support them properly.

For the purposes of discussion I’ll first highlight the arguments for the 2 viewpoints on the opposite end of the spectrum:

Philosophy 1: National Teams First 

Here’s 3 arguments as to why USA Team Handball should have a “National Teams First” philosophy:

1) It’s the raison d’etre.  Fundamentally it can be argued that this is primary reason for sports federations to exist at all.  National Teams simply have to have a Federation providing the logistical and administrative structure backing their existence.  The USA has the best basketball players in the world, but somebody has to hire the coaches, organize the training camps and logistically set up the trips for competition.  What’s true for USA Basketball is true for USA Team Handball.

2) It’s the best platform for recruitment and development.  The performance of our National Teams has been downright dismal of late and in reality never very good, but undeniably a legitimate National Team program is a beacon for recruitment and development.  I speak of this first hand from my own experience as an athlete.  The possibility of training and playing for the U.S. National Team was a tremendous motivator for me.  Absent this carrot I doubt that I would have invested the time and energy to become a decent player.  What was true for me 25 years ago is still true today.  Also, a National Team regularly training and competing (even a weak team) will help promote the sport and spur development.

3) The USOC forces this upon the Federation.  The primary source of USA Team Handball’s funding historically has been the USOC and the USOC has been fairly clear that the bulk of it’s funding support needs to be spent on High Performance Programs (HPP).  The Federation might prefer to direct funds towards development efforts, but the USOC won’t allow it.

Philosophy 2: Development First 

Here’s 3 arguments as to why USA Team Handball should have a “Development First” philosophy:

1) It’s also the raison d’etre.  While it is undeniably true that only a Federation can provide the structure for National Teams it’s also undeniably true that development is part and parcel to the purpose of a sports federation.  One just has to read the Federation mission statement:

The mission of USA Team Handball shall be to develop, promote, educate and grow the sport of Team Handball at all levels in the United States and to enable United States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence to win medals in international and Olympic competition.

Why, one could even read this mission statement and it’s initial emphasis on development and conclude that it has primacy over the afterthought, second part of the sentence.

2) Grass roots programs are in a deplorable state.  Many other sports federations in the U.S. put very little emphasis on development.  Thing is, however, to varying degrees those sports already have robust grass roots development in this country.  For instance, USA Basketball doesn’t even have to lift a finger in regards to development as nationwide programs already exist.  For USA Basketball, all they have to do is pick which athletes they want from a pool of thousands.  By contrast, USA Team Handball has only a few legitimate prospects from a handful of programs.   Focusing on National Teams without establishing a credible foundation is foolhardy and a recipe for continued failure.

3) USA National Teams aren’t currently competitive and won’t be anytime soon.  Both the Women’s and Men’s National Teams haven’t been competitive for several years.  I’ve highlighted this lack of competitiveness several times and depressingly we are not only regressing we’re getting older.  There’s a handful of new prospects with long term potential, but far too few to justify the resources currently being dedicated to our National Teams.  Anyone who things either the U.S. Men or Women have a legitimate shot at qualifying for the 2016 Olympics is in a state of denial.  Why, even with dramatically improved recruiting 2020 is a huge long shot.

Is There a Middle Ground?

In many cases the proponents on the opposite ends of the spectrum will state that they they value both grass roots and national teams, but with limited resources money talks and philosophies become entrenched.  At times it seems as if many in the National Teams First crowd take comfort in the clarity of purpose a National Teams focus provides.  It might be a difficult objective to field a competitive National Team, but the basic tasks are straightforward and concrete.  Hire some coaches, find a place for teams to train and send them to competition. Ignore the low prospects for success and adopt a Don Rumsfeld like philosophy that can be characterized by his infamous response to a soldier that complained about inadequately armored vehicles: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

Rumsfeld was critiqued pretty strongly for this cavalier response, but in some respects there was some legitimacy to his point.  After all in WW2, the U.S. didn’t wait around to build up its forces after Pearl Harbor.  But, as critics pointed out that legitimacy gets pretty weak when the war you’re talking about is not a necessity, but a war of choice.  Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, the grass roots crowd often gets caught in a perpetual building for the future mindset.  They dramatically don’t realize the extent of the problem they want to fix and the fact that it might never be fully solvable in a country as vast is the U.S.

A Middle Ground, but Where to Draw the Line?

Obviously, there’s a middle ground between the two extremes and even if your feet are squarely in one camp or the other, I’d like to think that most folks at least recognize the legitimacy of the basic arguments presented.  And, everyone with an opinion should also be able to take a step back and acknowledge any biases that might be unduly weighing where they stand.  For instance, I’ll draw upon my own experiences and unequivocally state that I was squarely in the National Teams First camp from ages 20-30.  (Not, coincidentally, I was also of National Team athlete age.)  Ever since then, however, I’ve steadily moved more to the other camp.  Lots of things have undoubtedly influenced this besides getting older such as struggling to start new clubs and seeing first hand what the U.S. is up against in terms of European structure.  I suppose if either of my daughters get the handball bug, maybe I’ll non-coincidentally switch camps as they enter their 20’s.

But, despite being for more development, I still see the need for a National Team program.  Back in 2011 I was outraged by the Federation’s decision to essentially abandon the National Teams and not even attempt to qualify for the Olympics.  Not that I thought the U.S. had a snowball’s chance in hell.  It’s just that I felt a line should be drawn somewhere and that a Federation should as a minimum roll out a team every two years for Pan American Championship or PANAM Games qualification.  In my mind’s eye those events were the equivalent of “going to war” and regardless of how weak our teams were we needed to show the flag and benchmark where our nation stood in comparison to other teams.  Of course, that’s just my opinion.  It wasn’t the Federation’s opinion at the time and now I see myself on the other side of the argument.  Sending an aging Women’s team with little chance at 2016 Olympic qualification on overseas trips for friendly competition while our development cupboard is bare is pretty hard to justify in my opinion.  And, I’ll state the same thing if I see the Men’s team being sent abroad for friendlies now too.  Of even more importance is taking a very critical look at the Residency Program at Auburn and assessing how it matches the long term goals and objectives of USA Team Handball.

Finally, to beat the dead horse into even more senseless submission I’ll reiterate that this will require some strategic planning and actually stating what USA Team Handball’s long term goals and objectives are.  And then, doing the same thing for the near term and mapping programs and initiatives to those goals and objectives along with benchmarks to assess whether those programs are being successful.  Such a process was started two years ago and abruptly stopped.  It’s time to quit pretending that this never happened and USA Team Handball has a well thought out plan in place.

Yikes.  Easier said than done. This is complicated.  Where should USA Team Handball start?  If only there was a way to get our arms around all that’s needed to be done with some resources and within a reasonable time frame.   But, maybe there is a once in a generation event on the horizon that just might make it feasible.  In the next part I’ll discuss that event and the 10 year plan that should be developed.

USA with two national club titles. NYC takes Canadian title while NYAC repeats as American champions. But, the real winner in terms of development is Alberta: the Canadian runners-up:

In part 1, I highlighted that recent national team performances should at least call into question the U.S. Federation’s focus on National Teams.  In this part, I address the state of club handball and the development of home grown talent in the U.S. and whether the Federation should prioritize improving it.

Last month U.S. club teams pulled off a double championship. NYC Team Handball skipped the U.S. National Championships and instead went to Toronto and took the Canadian title.  Meanwhile, NYAC held down the fort in Reno, and repeated as U.S. Champions.  On the surface one might look at those results and come to the conclusion, “Not too shabby.  Our clubs won two titles and  New York City must be the epicenter for grass roots development in the U.S.”

Of course, anyone with even a casual interest in Team Handball in the U.S. knows that statement would have little basis in reality.  The NYC Team Handball Club is almost entirely comprised of expats and naturalized U.S. citizens who learned the game in another country.  I would also guestimate that the average age of the club’s members is around 33 years of age.  Meanwhile, NYAC does consist mostly of home grown talent, but the average age of the club is an eye-popping 39.7 years old!  As an old timer I take a little satisfaction in that guys that I played with and against in the 80’s and 90’s can still do it.  Why, it almost makes me want to round up the old Condors and take the title away from them next year.  Don’t laugh, with Gary Hines playing for us I wouldn’t count us out. I also haven’t seen Darrick Heath in years, but something tells me that at age 49 he could probably still  make the U.S. National Team roster if he wanted to.  And why stop there, if we want to truly go old, old school I bet the the Sushi Masters with several players pushing 60 could do pretty well.  (Perhaps an update to this 18 year old video is in the offing?) In all seriousness, though, the fact that I am only half jokingly entertaining these thoughts, speaks volumes about the state of club handball in the U.S.   There’s something seriously wrong with our club system if the best team in our country has an average age of 40.

Meanwhile, up north in Canada, most of the teams participating featured rosters dramatically different in composition.  Runners up, Alberta, for example was entirely composed of home grown athletes and had an average age of 22 years old.  With the exception of collegiate participants like West Point, Air Force and North Carolina, the U.S. has no club teams that are comparable.  Heck, most club teams don’t even comes close to those demographics.

Before I continue on, I’d like to make something perfectly clear:  I’ve got nothing against expat and old timer teams.  As I’ve written numerous times before, having these teams around is great for development in our country as they can show newcomers how to play the game.  Nothing perhaps motivated me more as a newcomer to the game then getting beaten by somewhat older, often a little out of shape, Euro players who knew the game.  The problem is not those teams.  The problem is that there are very few newcomers around that are benefiting from playing those teams.

Clearly an Issue, but is Fixing this Problem a Priority?

I’m fairly certain that virtually everyone who cares about the sport in this country would assess that our lack of up and coming, homegrown talent is an issue of concern.  More teams with younger players enthusiastically playing and improving their handball skills is something in principle everybody can get behind.  Even if you are wholeheartedly convinced that National Teams should always get the lion’s share of the budget, you still need players for that roster and it sure would be nice to get even a few trained up internally via a vibrant club system.

When push comes to shove, however, and decisions have to be made on where to spend limited funds and where to direct staff man hours something’s gotta give.  And, you don’t have to do much forensic analysis to quickly come to the conclusion that the U.S. Federation has decided over the past couple of years to mostly direct funds and man hours towards near term performance of our National Teams.  Hiring full time coaches, setting up the residency program at Auburn, and trips to Puerto Rico and Brazil are obvious indications of this.  Lacking recent budget information or recent documentation of Board of Director decisions it’s not possible to know exactly how much is being spent, but I would guess that around 80% of the current Federation budget is being directed towards our National Teams.  And, at the same time I would estimate that the Federation staff is probably spending around 80% of their time addressing issues related to the National Teams.  Residency programs don’t run on autopilot and trips abroad undoubtedly require a lot of coordination and legwork.

A Quiet Cancellation

This is not to say that nothing is being considered or done in terms of development, but it clearly is getting the short end of the straw.  Probably nothing demonstrates this more than the very quiet cancellation of the Summer Handball Festival that was originally planned to take place early in July at Auburn.  Announced in January this event was to be focused on identifying athletes aged 17-22 and appeared to be similar in concept to the Olympic Sports Festivals that were staged by the USOC from 1978 to 1995.  At those 2 week long events four regional men’s and women’s team usually composed of current National Team and up and coming players practiced and played several matches.  Having participated in 3 festivals I can tell you first hand what a great event they were and how important they were to USA Team Handball in terms of recruitment and player development.

I was pleasantly surprised by the January announcement, but immediately noticed the glaring omission as to costs for prospective participants.  In correspondence with the Federation I found out that prospective athletes were going to be expected to pay around $400 plus their travel costs to Auburn.  Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to immediately assess that finding new blue chip recruits willing to pay those costs was going to be challenging.  (In contrast, everything (room, board, travel)  was paid for at Olympic Festivals.)  In order for this good idea to be feasibly implemented it surely was going to need either an influx of cash or some motivated prospective athletes to come out of the woodwork.  I’m guessing that neither materialized, necessitating it’s cancellation, but perhaps it’s still on the drawing board for future implementation since it’s still being advertised on the Federation webpage.

How is USA Team Handball Prioritizing?

When an organization like USA Team Handball has constrained resources it’s impossible to do all the things that need to be done.  Heck, it’s tough to do even a few of the things that need to be done.  Faced with this reality USA Team Handball needs to carefully think through what it wants to do and what it hopes to accomplish.  What will get the best bang for the buck?  What are the critical needs?  Are funds being directed towards efforts that stand a good chance of succeeding? I’ve got real doubts as to whether these questions are being fully considered and whether enough alternative options are being weighed on their merits.

Case in point are the USA Women’s trips to Puerto Rico and Brazil.  I don’t know how much those trips cost, but for sure those funds and resources could have been spent elsewhere.  And, if a summer handball festival was already being planned, funds could have gone towards making the Summer Festival less austere.  If viable recruits were in short supply than manpower could have been redirected towards aggressive recruiting of younger athletes as opposed to training athletes that are nearing the end of their national team careers.  And, this is but one possibility as there are many more possibilities worthy of consideration.

Alternatives for National Team Success

What are some of these alternatives?  Well two years ago in Salt Lake City, USA Team Handball hosted a Strategic Planning Conference where a whole host of possibilities were discussed.  In a commentary I wrote last year I highlighted some of those initiatives and added a few of my own.  Here’s the list:

– Establish regional Centers of Excellence
– Establish a European based training center in collaboration with the IHF and other developing nations
– Provide stipends for overseas training with clubs to the nation’s top 30 players
– Provide funding to 10 U.S. based clubs to support player identification and training
– Designate one metropolitan area in the U.S. for Elite competition and apply funding to make it happen
– Identify national team coaches for an extended period of time, but pay them only part time wages
– Hire a full time recruiting coordinator and have them focus on expanding the player pool at ages 18-22
– Hire a full time youth development coordinator and have them focus on developing a model program in one U.S. metropolitan area
– Work with a designated school district to implement a sanctioned High School Team Handball League to serve as a model for other school districts.
– Work with the NCAA to identify one Division 1 conference to support a Team Handball League
– Conduct a 10 day U.S. Olympic Festival style training camp for 120 elite NCAA athletes.
– Sharply curtail current expenditure on U.S. Senior teams and focus entirely on Under 21 development in hopes of improving odds for 2020 qualification
– Sharply curtail Men’s National Team funding and focus on the brighter prospects (weaker competition/Title IX) for Women’s team development .
– Sharply curtail funding and resources related to adult club teams and focus efforts on college and youth teams. (i.e., Don’t waste time organizing competition and national championships for predominantly Expat players or athletes over the ages of 25)

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I think it’s only a matter of time before the Federation takes a critical look at its current programs and reassesses its options going forward.  Not that I would envision a dramatic shift away from the current National Team focus, but surely there’s some potential for tweaking and modification of the Residency Program to more closely align with long term development.  Even better, maybe some additional funding through new sponsors will come available meaning that instead of choosing between competing alternatives the Federation will have the means to implement multiple initiatives.

In the hopes of influencing those upcoming decisions I plan to assess these alternatives in terms of their pros/cons, feasibility, risks and costs involved with implementation.  And, I’ll also be adding a few new possibilities that come to mind:  Like figuring out what the heck is going on in Alberta in terms of development and whether that success can be duplicated in the U.S.

But, before I start delving into the alternatives I’ll take a closer look at the rationale behind the Auburn Residency Program.  The one alternative that was summarily chosen.  It’s not the “no brainer” way ahead for USA Team Handball that some people think it it, but there’s actually some decent rationale that even a die hard grass roots proponent can get behind.

Dr Harvey Schiller, Mike McNees and Bob Djokovich: 3 great additions to the USA Team Handball Board of Directors.

It’s taken several months for the Nominating & Governance Committee to complete its work to select three new Board Members, but they are clearly to be commended for their ultimate selections, Dr. Harvey Schiller, Mike McNees and Bob Djokovich.  This post on the USA Team Handball website provides some top level background on each of the new Board Members.  Below is some supplemental information and some additional thoughts in regards to how they might help USA Team Handball.

Dr. Harvey Schiller

If you read a bit on Dr. Schiller’s background your first reaction should be along the lines of “Holy crap, this guy is going to sit on USA Team Handball’s board?”  The resume is long, varied and impressive.  He’s been the Executive Director of the USOC, the Commissioner of the most prestigious NCAA Conference (SEC), the President of Turner Sports and the President of Yankees/Nets.  And that’s just the highlights.  Watch these sports business reporters gush about his career and read the accompanying article to get a full appreciation.

Here’s a very accomplished sports executive that could have chosen do a number of different things as his next big thing and he’s chosen USA Team Handball.  The doors that he can open for the sport in this country are many.  Who could be better to talk to the USOC about more funding support than a former head of the USOC?  Who could be better to talk to the NCAA about making Team Handball a varsity sport then the former head of the SEC?  Who could be better to talk to sports networks about broadcasting Team Handball on TV then the former head of two major networks.  It’s hard to understate what a potential game changer his selection to the Board could be  for the sport in this country.

Mike McNees

Mike McNees appears to be another quality selection to the Board, but for different reasons.  Outside of a short stint as USA Track & Field’s Chief Operating Officer he’s mostly worked as a city manager for several mid-sized cities.  He surely learned a lot about the effective operation of a sports federation during that time and he was even the acting CEO during a critical transition period.  This short mention by noted Olympic columnist, Alan Abrahamson describe McNees as someone “who has kept things moving steadily, quietly forward, seeking little screen credit.”  Based on his background and this short commentary he could be an ideal independent director.  Someone with no dog in the fight, who has been in the trenches with another Federation and who could quietly apply some real world management oversight to USA Team Handball.

Bob Djokovich

With the selection of Bob Djokovich the Board adds a distinguished handball veteran who also has been a successful manufacturing executive.  The captain of the 1984 U.S. Olympic Team, he is generally considered to be one of the best players in U.S. history.  (In my book, certainly the best Center Back this country has ever had.)  Djokovich is also a former USATH Board President and will surely be able to bring that experience to bear as the new Board weighs decisions going forward.

Nominating & Governance Committee Process

While I personally think Djokovich is a great addition to the Board, I would be remiss if I didn’t address how his selection by the Nominating & Governance Committee might be called into question for a couple of reasons.  The first reason is procedural and relates to Djokovich being appointed to the Nominating & Governance Committee earlier this year in April.  The Nominating & Governance Committee was tasked with selecting the 3 Independent Directors and the Federation By-Laws clear state in section 8.10.5 that

“No individual who serves on the Nominating and Governance Committee may serve or be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.”

The recent announcement on the Federation website commends the Committee for its work, but notably, the original 5 member committee has been reduced to 4 members (minus Djokovich).  I suppose if Djokovich resigned from the Committee it skirts that provision for technical reasons, but it’s hard to see how it doesn’t violate the spirit of the provision.

Setting aside that procedural issue, however, it should also not be forgotten that in 2004 Djokovich lost his re-election bid for USA Team Handball President.  In hindsight this outcome was disastrous as follow on events eventually led to the USOC’s decertification of USA Team Handball.  Still, it was essentially a referendum on his four years as President and it would have been more appropriate in my opinion for him to run as a Membership Candidate.  In doing so he could very well have had a resounding and redemptive victory.  Instead his selection (rather than election) has a somewhat hollow feel to it.

If you read the by-laws, however, the Nominating & Governance Committee is empowered to select almost anyone on the planet to serve as an Independent Director.  Adding two true Handball outsiders (Schiller and McNees) and one Handball veteran (Djokovich) may be just the right mix in terms of  what is needed.  I for one, certainly can’t complain about the outcome.

(Editor’s note:  I’ve reached out to USA Team Handball CEO, Matt Van Houten regarding the procedural issues related to Djokovich’s selection and I will update this post when I have further information.)