The blue boxes represent the recruiting envelope for USA Team Handball National Teams. Where should the USA push the outside of the envelope?  (Answer: In the direction of the green arrow; not the red arrow)

In Part 1 I provided some top level definitions to define the types of potential athletes USA Team Handball should recruit.  In this installment I focus on the recruiting envelope or the athletes USA Team Handball can or should recruit.

As a former flight test engineer at Edwards AFB in California it should come as no surprise that one of my all-time favorite movies is “The Right Stuff.”  The movie which depicts the lives of test pilots and the first astronauts popularized the phrase, “pushing the outside of the envelope.”  The “envelope” refers to the flight envelope for an aircraft which is the combinations of speed and altitude an aircraft can fly during level flight.  Every airplane has limits based on its engines, aerodynamic characteristics and the altitude that it’s flying.  Inside the envelope the plane can fly.  Outside the envelope is where the plane can’t fly.  In theory, this envelope can be determined by engineers.  In reality, however, it needs to be tested and that’s where the test pilot pushes the outside of the envelope by flying higher and/or faster than the paper design.

This graph depicts a flight envelope and you can perhaps see how I’ve adapted it to create a team handball recruiting envelope with “speed” and “altitude” being replaced with “raw athletic ability” and “age.”  The blue boxes are the recruiting envelope.  Inside this envelope are the athletes that USA Team Handball can or should recruit.  But, just like a test pilot, USA Team Handball can push that recruiting envelope.

The “Should Recruit” Line

On the top left hand side of the recruiting envelope is the “should recruit” line.  Above the line are athletes that should not be recruited because are either “too old to start,” have “insufficient athletic ability,” or in the worst case, both of those characteristics. Below the line are athletes that are should be recruited as they have the requisite athletic ability and enough time to develop into world class athletes.  As previously discussed it certainly can be debated as to where these lines should be drawn, but such lines surely exist.  I doubt that anybody thinks USA Team Handball should be recruiting 35 year old athletes or athletes that couldn’t earn a varsity letter in high school.  It gets a little more muddled, however, when we started talking about athletes in their mid 20s with respectable athletic skills.  Certainly, USA Team Handball could push the envelope along this line by recruiting older athletes or athletes with borderline athletic skills.  Maybe there are some outliers that will stick with the program into their late 20s or early 30s to become productive national team members.  Maybe there are some hard workers of modest athletic ability that will develop the requisite handball skills.

Historically, USA Team Handball has indeed pushed the envelope along this line.  Why?  Well, because if your talent pool is thin and you are limited in what you can offer prospective athletes it might be the only way to field a national team.  Further, if you establish a residency program you need at least 14 athletes to conduct decent practices and scrimmage.  It remains to be seen whether the current incarnation of U.S. National Team residency programs pushes this envelope line too much.  Certainly, given the current state of the USA talent pool it won’t be too surprising if this line is crossed quite a bit to start out.  As the program matures, however, crossing this line should become the rare exception.

The “Athlete Available” Line

On the bottom right hand side of the recruiting envelope is the “athlete available” line.  Above the line are athletes that are readily available to be recruited since they are not currently competing in either high school or college athletics.  Below the line are athletes that are unavailable because they are focused on high school or college athletics.  But, are all of these athletes truly unavailable?  Is this a solid line that can’t be crossed or can USA Team Handball push the envelope here to snag some quality athletes at younger ages?

The answer is that it can indeed be done.  In fact, it has to be done if the U.S. wants to become more competitive.  In particular, waiting for the best athletes to become available after their collegiate careers are over at age 22 will time and time again result in eventually losing too many of  those athletes to “life decisions” to pursue other activities.  This isn’t theoretical conjecture and anyone who’s followed the sport in this country can think of dozens of high quality players who bowed out of the sport in their mid to late 20s.  More recently, I discussed this very issue with USA Team Handball Circle Runner, Jordan Fithian. He’s not totally bowed out, but some life issues precluded him from signing a contract with a Div 2 German Bundesliga side.  (The relevant discussion starts around the 12:40 mark: Link)

It may not seem like a big deal to land a player at age 20 rather than age 22 or so, but those two years can make a world of difference on down the line.  It can easily be the difference between keeping an athlete focused on handball for two Olympic cycles, vice 1.  It could even change the calculus of a European club’s decision to offer an athlete a pro contract, and the U.S. actually keeping some world class players into their 30s.  Additionally, for many young adults graduation from college represents a turning point in their lives.  The thought process on future plans for many changes abruptly and the prospect of a handball adventure while appealing suddenly seems less practical.

Collegiate Athletes for Targeted Recruitment

But, how can top quality athletes be convinced to give up their collegiate careers for Team Handball?  Well, in many cases they can’t be.  In particular, it’s simply unrealistic to think that an athlete with a full ride scholarship to a Division I NCAA school could ever be convinced.  Fortunately, though, the percentage of collegiate athletes that fall into that category isn’t as high as one might think.  Many sports offer only partial scholarships and have rosters filled out with walk-ons with no scholarship.  Breaking it down further, here are some categories worthy of extra focus.

• The high quality walk-on.  Often the term walk-on immediately conjures images of perhaps the most famous walk-on of all time, Rudy.  Let’s be clear, USA Team Handball does not need or want any Rudy’s on its roster.  Perhaps the right attitude, but clearly Rudy lacked in terms in raw athletic ability.  No, instead the focus should be on the high quality walk-on.  The type of athlete that could have played and might have even starred in Div II or Div III, but for whatever reason, chose to seize the brass ring and play Div 1.  In their junior year when it becomes clear that they are never going to be that walk-on who surprises and makes the big time they could be enticed to give handball a try.
• The marginal scholarship athlete.  Many Div 1 athletic careers don’t turn out the way that athlete hoped it would.  This happens for a number reasons.  Sometimes the athlete isn’t good enough, has injuries or simply doesn’t get along with his coach.  When these athletes are relegated to the bench or sometimes even lose their scholarship altogether they should be ripe for the picking.
• The motivated senior (not good enough for a pro career). Some athletes have productive, but modest careers all four years of college. They’ve been dedicated to their chosen sport, but just don’t have the skill required to continue playing at a professional level.  This is the type of athlete USA Team Handball has recruited for years, but rather than waiting for graduation the recruiting campaign to secure this player’s interest starts earlier while the athlete is still in school and hungry to continue competing.

Characteristics to Consider

While plenty of athletes fit these categories not every athlete should be targeted.  Instead a little investigation is needed to further assess whether an athlete might be a good candidate.  Some characteristics to consider are:

• Multi-Sport athlete. A good indication as to whether an athlete might make a good handball player is whether the athlete has played and excelled at multiple sports.  This is because playing multiple sports suggests adaptability and the ability to perhaps pick up a new sport more quickly.
• Handball build and skills.  This is not easily definable in words, but some athletes just look and move like a handball player.  And they just may be the type of athlete that is pretty good at his current sport, but could be perfectly suited for handball.
• Whole person traits: This includes many traits such as leadership, hard working, team player, fondness for Olympic ideals and worldliness.  Playing on a USA National Team will not be a pampered experience and will involve personal sacrifice.  Team players are definitely a requirement for this team game.  Athletes with a fondness for Olympic ideals, a desire to see the world and wear a USA on the back of their shirt are also more likely to fit in and stick around.  Again these traits are not necessarily easy to define, but should be factored in.

A Simple Investigation:  Auburn Football

Last Saturday, nearly 88,000 fans poured into Jordan-Hare Stadium to watch Auburn upset Alabama in one of the more remarkable endings in college football history.   In attendance were some of the current members of the USA National Team Residency Program which has been started on the campus there.  But, might there also be some future handball players on the field or standing on the sidelines for the Auburn football team?   Some athletes that fit the rough categories and characteristics that I’ve identified above?

Focusing on the QB and Tight End positions which I previously highlighted there might indeed be some candidates worthy of further investigation.  Using the roster and depth chart of the Auburn football team and a little bit of internet searching I’ve identified a few prospects.  To the best of my knowledge none of these athletes have played a single down for Auburn so far in their collegiate careers.

• Ben Durand:  A 6’3’’ sophomore walk on QB who starred in four sports in High School.  The most famous pass he’s thrown at Auburn was one over the jumbotron.  I’m guessing he could probably throw a handball fairly well too.
  Auburn Football Profile: Link
  Hometown Newspaper story: Link
• Wirth Campbell: A 6’3” walk on TE who also played QB in High School.  Somebody that apparently can play both of the targeted football positions that often make good handball players.
  Auburn Football Profile: Link
• Wade Norberg:  A 6’6’’ TE who played junior college football and basketball in high school.  At 210 lbs he needs to bulk up for football, but probably less so for team handball.
  Auburn Football Profile: Link
  Hometown Newspaper Story: Link

Who knows whether further investigation would lead to an assessment that they are strong candidates for USA Team Handball?  Or, for that matter that their long shot bids for Div 1 participation materialize with a break out performance during Spring Football?  Identification and recruitment inevitably leads to many, many dead ends.  The good news is that this is just an assessment of 3 players on the 113 man Auburn roster.    Surely, there’s a few more for consideration at other positions and at other sports and at other colleges.

But, a top level identification of potential recruits is just the first step.  In the next installment I’ll address the challenges of identifying, recruiting and convincing athletes to give team handball a try. 

The blue boxes are the target. Is the U.S. finding enough athletes that meet these age and athletic ability definitions?

In 2003, Michael Lewis wrote a book (recently turned into a movie) that revolutionized Major League Baseball (MLB), titled, “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.” The book chronicles how the Oakland A’s, a small market team was able to use advanced statistical analysis to compete with MLB franchises with far greater resources.  The crux of their strategy was identifying players that were undervalued by other franchises and then strategically adding those players to their roster.

While the sport of Team Handball does not lend itself to in-depth statistical analysis, the subtitle to the book, “The art of winning an unfair game” immediately hit home to me as an American fan of the sport.  And the “unfair game” that is so self-evident is the challenge of identifying, convincing and training athletes into world class team handball athletes.  Team Handball in this country has paltry resources, practically no exposure and accordingly, a very, very thin talent pool to draw from.  How can the sport even begin to compete against other sports in this country like basketball and football for athletes?  Seriously, by comparison Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s have it way too easy in my opinion.

But, while it’s a difficult challenge it’s not entirely impossible.  Team Handball is a great game, fun to watch and play and with the carrot of being an Olympic athlete, the U.S. has found some diamonds in the rough. In most cases these athletes have been crossover athletes that decided to give Team Handball a try after their collegiate or high school athletic careers were finished.  Indeed, targeted recruitment of such athletes is the only viable solution if you want to improve national team performance in the near term.  I, and others, have repeatedly argued that it’s a short term solution with some major limitations and significant long term drawbacks, but that’s not the focus for this particular commentary.  The focus instead is how to make targeted recruiting work as well as possible.  In other words, how can USA Team Handball apply some Moneyball like tactics to get the best players possible?

Two Basic Axioms

Before, I delve into the details I’ll first postulate that there are two basic axioms in regards to the types of athletes USA Team Handball wants to recruit for national team consideration:

1. USA Team Handball wants to recruit the best possible athletes to devote themselves to the sport
2. USA Team Handball wants those athletes to commit themselves to the sport at the youngest ages possible

I think that few people would argue with the validity of these two premises.  The first one surely needs no further explanation.  And as far as the second axiom goes the desire to recruit athletes as young as possible relates to the time involved in learning the finer points of the game.  It can take several years to take raw athletic talent and turn it into handball talent.  The younger a player starts that process the sooner he/she will develop into a world class talent that can contribute to the national team.  And, in turn the more years that player will likely be able to contribute.

Defining the X and Y Axes 

Taking the two basic axioms into account it’s possible to graphically depict those two factors (age and raw athletic ability) along an X and Y axes:

X Axis (Raw Athletic Ability):  For illustrative purposes, I’ve depicted raw athletic ability from 0-10.  Defining a “10” is relatively easy.  Think Cam Newton, Lebron James or any number of professional athletes that if they chose to play team handball would be can’t miss world class players.  (OK, maybe there’s no such thing as a “can’t miss player,” but you get the picture.)  Defining the numbers down, however, is more challenging and way wide open for debate. For the purposes of discussion I decided to limit the pool of athletes to include only those that take their sporting endeavors fairly seriously.  In other words a “1” in this instance is not someone that doesn’t play any sports, but perhaps an athlete who was a minor contributor in high school.  Athletes from “5-9” are pretty good athletes, many perhaps the best athletes on their high school teams, but just not quite good enough to play collegiate sports at the highest level.  Athletes from “9 to 9.8” are closer to the top of the pyramid and were granted scholarships to Div 1 NCAA schools. Athletes in the “9.8 and higher” category are of the “can’t miss” variety and go on to pro careers.  I’ll be the first to state these numbers are arbitrary and the lines could be drawn differently.  In particular, if you want to really define the athlete population more accurately, the delineations that I start at “5.0” could start at “9.5” or even higher.  Additionally, many athletes develop sport specific skills that trump their limited raw athletic ability and allow them to compete in college.

Y Axis (Age):  Defining the age of athletes is pretty definitive. Unless, we’re talking about some Latin American baseball prospects, we know exactly how old athletes are.  There certainly can be some debate as to how much the age of an athlete matters, but there can be no debate that it matters.  For the purposes of discussion I broke the chart out into 4 distinct blocks of 4 years.  Conveniently, this delineates two fairly well defined periods of athletic endeavors for many athletes in the U.S.:  High School and college.

The Non Candidates 

As you look upon the X and Y axes several areas where USA Team Handball should not focus for target recruited can be readily identified.  I’ve grouped these would be potential candidates into the following categories:

Insufficient Athletic Ability:  The largest area of the chart is composed of athletes that simply do not have the raw athletic talent that will ever allow them to be productive and contributing members to USA national teams.  This may seem a rather cold indictment that doesn’t take into account an individual’s motivation and determination, but it is a reality for many, many athletes.  To be sure it’s not always easy to delineate where the line is.  While it may be easy when an athlete is a “1”, it’s not so easy when an athlete is a “6.5” and a real hard worker.

High School Athletes (with collegiate aspirations):  This area is composed of the top tier of high school athletes and virtually every future U.S. National Team players (with the exception of dual citizens) will spend their ages 14-18 playing high school sports other than team handball.  While it certainly would be desirable to get these athletes playing team handball seriously at these ages it is currently nearly impossible to do so.  Perhaps some pilot programs could be started, but it will be challenging to do so in the near term in significant numbers.

Collegiate Athletes:  This area is composed of athletes that have made collegiate teams and continue to play their primary sport from ages 18-22.  In most instances these athletes are on the higher end of the raw athletic ability scale (9-10).  The logic being that college teams are somewhat cold-hearted in their approach.  (i.e., they don’t waste limited scholarships on athletes with lower ability when they can get athletes with greater ability and potential.)  Again, while it would be nice to get these athletes to play team handball, they are largely unavailable until age 22 or so.  Perhaps it might be feasible if our residency programs could offer full ride scholarships and regular competition, but barring that it’s very unlikely a scholarship athlete would choose to abandon his/her current sport.

Pro Athletes:  This tiny sliver of athletes represent the elite of the elite.  It goes without saying that prying any of these athletes away is by and large Fantasyland.

Too Old to Start:  This area is composed of athletes that could have been great candidates for USA national teams, but have reached an age whereby it is increasingly unlikely that they will develop the requisite handball skills before their athletic skills decline or “life issues” result in them moving on to other endeavors.  It’s certainly debatable as to where this line should be drawn.  I’ve assessed that for high school cross over athletes that line should be drawn at age 23-24 and that for college cross over athletes it should be around age 25 or so.  Arguments can be made to draw those lines at younger or older ages, but lines should be drawn somewhere.

The Candidates

By the process of elimination there are then two small boxes where USA Team Handball should focus its efforts for targeted recruitment:

Post High School Cross Over Athletes:  This group consists of talented athletes who have not made collegiate teams in their chosen primary sport.  In many instances this was because they simply were not good enough to obtain a college scholarship.  Accordingly, these athletes will tend to fall a little lower on the scale of raw athletic ability.  While it would be preferable to get athletes further to the right of the scale those athletes will be harder to come by.  This disadvantage, however, can be offset by the younger age that they start focusing on team handball.  With more time to work with its possible that they will be able to offset their lower raw athletic ability with greater handball skills and technique.

Post College Cross Over Athletes:  This group consists of exceptional athletes who either weren’t good enough for a professional career or play a sport with limited professional options.  Historically, this is where USA Team Handball hasn’t gotten most of its top national team athletes.  Given enough time to develop and train these athletes the USA was able to field national teams that were competitive.

Theory vs. Reality

While I doubt that USA Team Handball has ever drawn lines on a graph or identified hard cut lines in terms of ages or athletic ability National Team rosters decisions have undoubtedly been made along these lines in the past.  All too often, however, circumstances related to a very thin talent pool have moved the lines too far to the left or the top of the chart.  In other words, USA Team Handball has often had rosters with too many athletes that were either too old or didn’t have sufficient athletic ability.  Comfortably ensconced in middle age I’ll declare that I myself, might very well have been in both categories during my short stint on the U.S. National Team.  For sure, I was in the upper left hand corner of the post high school crossover box.

And looking at today’s national team player pools I’ll generously assess that both the men’s and women’s teams are rife with players in that upper left hand corner of the crossover high school and college boxes.  Throw out the dual citizen athletes and it paints a pretty bleak picture.   And, if you add in that reality that Rio 2016 is a long shot at best and the more realistic focus is Tokyo 2020 then only a handful of athletes in our current player pool even have a realistic chance of being Olympians some day.

All of this points to a dramatic need to move from the upper left corner of the chart to the bottom right hand corner.  Younger and better athletes.  Duh, a no-brainer.  Easier said than done for sure.  In the next installment I’ll delve into some Moneyball Handball analysis and recruitment tactics, however, that just might make it possible.

Shuffling the deck: Rethinking the seeding of Olympic Qualification Tournaments

Christer Ahl’s preview of the upcoming IHF Congress he noted that Japan and South Korea were proposing changes to Olympic qualification to add more slots for non-European nations.  As anyone who’s watched Olympic handball  knows with the exception of the South Korean women these tournaments have been very heavily weighted towards European nations.  And yes, that reflects actual relative strengths of the continents, but the optics of a mini European tournament on the Olympic stage are problematic.

I haven’t seen the exact proposals, but reportedly they would give Africa, Asia and Pan America 2 guaranteed slots each thus limiting Europe to a maximum of 6 of the 12 slots for the Olympics.  Christer concluded that this was going a bit too far and suggested that instead one of the 3 Olympic qualification tournaments be set aside for the non European nations.

This got me wondering just what exactly this might mean for the Olympic Qualification tournaments in terms of competition so I took a look at the 2012 tournaments and reshuffled them using Christer’s suggested compromise.

2012 Men’s Olympic Qualification (actual tournaments and results)

IHF Qualification Tournament #1
2nd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Spain
7th at 2011 WC: Poland
Europe (2nd place at 2012 EC): Serbia
Africa (2nd place at 2012 African Championships): Algeria

Results
1) Spain (3-0-0) 6 Points
2) Serbia (1-1-1) 3 Points +5 Goal Differential
3) Poland (1-1-1) 3 Points -10 Goal differential
4) Algeria (0-0-3) 0 Points

IHF Qualification Tournament #2
3rd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Sweden
6th at 2011 WC: Hungary
Pan America (2nd at 2011 PANAM Games):  Brazil
Europe (3rd at 2012 European Championships): Macedonia

Results
1) Sweden (3-0-0) 6 Points
2) Hungary (2-0-1) 4 Points
3) Brazil (1-0-2) 2 Points
4) Macedonia (0-0-3) 0 Points

IHF Qualification Tournament #3
4th at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Croatia
5th at 2011 WC: Iceland
Asia (2nd at Asian Olympic Qualification Tournament): Japan
Pan America (3rd at 2011 PANAM Games): Chile

Results
1) Croatia (3-0-0) 6 Points
2) Iceland (2-0-1) 4 Points
3) Japan (1-0-2) 2 Points
4) Chile (0-0-3) 0 Points

2012 Men (with proposed alternative)

IHF Qualification Tournament #1
2nd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Spain
4th at 2011 WC: Croatia
6th at 2011 WC: Hungary
Europe (2nd place at 2012 EC): Serbia

IHF Qualification Tournament #2
3rd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Sweden
5th at 2011 WC: Iceland
7th at 2011 WC: Poland
Europe (3rd at 2012 European Championships): Macedonia

IHF Qualification Tournament #3
Pan America (2nd at 2011 PANAM Games) (Tournament Host): Brazil
Africa (2nd place at 2012 African Championships): Algeria
Asia (2nd at Asian Olympic Qualification Tournament): Japan
Pan America (3rd at 2011 PANAM Games): Chile

2012 Women’s Olympic Qualification (actual tournaments and results)

IHF Qualification Tournament #1
France (2nd at 2011 WC) Host
Montenegro (7th at 2011 WC)
Romania (Europe #2)
Japan (Asia #2)

Results
1) Montenegro (3-0-0) 6 Points
2) France (2-0-1) 4 Points
3) Romania (1-0-2) 2 Points
4) Japan (0-0-3) 0 Points

IHF Qualification Tournament #2
Spain (3rd at 2011 WC) Host
Croatia (6th at 2011 WC)
Argentina (Pan America #2)
Netherlands (Europe #3)

Results
1) Spain (2-0-1) 4 Points (+3 GD in head to head games vs Croatia and Netherlands)
2) Croatia (2-0-1) 4 Points (+0 GD in head to head games vs Spain and Netherlands)
3) Netherlands (2-0-1) 4 Points (-3 GD in head to head games vs Spain and Croatia)
4) Argentina (0-0-3) 0 Points

IHF Qualification Tournament #3
Denmark (4th at 2011 WC) Host
Russia (5th at 2011 WC)
Tunisia (Africa #2)
Dominican Republic (Pan America #3)

Results
1) Russia (3-0-0) 6 Points
2) Denmark (2-0-1) 4 Points
3) Tunisia (1-0-2) 2 Points
4) Dominican Republic (0-0-3) 0 Points

2012 Women (with proposed alternative)

IHF Qualification Tournament #1
2nd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): France
4th at 2011 WC: Denmark
6th at 2011 WC: Croatia
Europe (2nd place at 2012 EC): Romania

IHF Qualification Tournament #2
3rd at 2011 WC (Tournament Host): Spain
5th at 2011 WC: Russia
7th at 2011 WC: Montenegro
Europe (3rd at 2012 European Championships): Netherlands

IHF Qualification Tournament #3
Pan America (2nd at 2011 PANAM Games) (Tournament Host): Argentina
Africa (2nd place at 2012 African Championships): Tunisia
Asia (2nd at Asian Olympic Qualification Tournament): Japan
Pan America (3rd at 2011 PANAM Games): Dominican Republic

Analysis

If one compares the actual tournaments that took place and the hypothetical tournaments that would have taken place a few trends can be discerned.  Here are the major impacts as I see it:

1) Every nation would have a shot at qualifying:  In theory, this was already the case, but in reality the prospect of any of the non-European teams knocking off 2 European teams at a tournament staged in Europe was pretty remote.  Intead those non-European teams would have legitimate chances with a tournament featuring evenly matched 2nd tier nations.  I suspect that Brazil and Algeria would have qualified in the Men’s tournament, but I wouldn’t have counted out Japan or Chile.  With the Women’s tournament I’m guessing that Tunisia and Japan would have qualified, but Argentina as the theoretical host would have been in the mix as would have been the athletic Dominicans.  And it goes without saying that any of the European sides could have envisioned themselves placing 2nd in the European tournaments.

2) Every nation would have a a very real possibility of not qualifying.   Conversely, those European nations would also face a very real prospect of slipping up and not qualifying.  Again, this was already the case, but pretty unlikely.  Most egregious are the 3rd qualification tournaments with 2 European and 2 non-European teams.  Those tournaments have been essentially glorified exhibitions that unfairly reward the 4th and 5th place WC qualifiers with all but free tickets to the Olympics.  With 4 European nations participating in the alternative setup even the host nations would have to be very wary of a slip up against 3 opponents each capable of beating them.

3) Tournaments worth watching:   A corollary of 1 and 2 above, from a fan perspective is that 3 tournaments with relatively predictable results would be replaced with 3 wide open tournaments.  Instead of perhaps 1 or 2 interesting matches among the 3 tournaments almost every match in the alternative setup will be competitive.  Heck, I would even bet that some of those tournaments would see a final day with every side still having a chance at qualification.  Talk about TV worth watching!

4) New nations qualifying for the Olympics.  Aside from the better qualification tournaments, opening up 2 spots provides an Olympic opportunity for nations like Japan, Algeria, Chile and the Dominican Republic.  Participating in an Olympics can provide a tremendous boost to the development of the sport in countries where the sport is less popular.  While, I’ve seen first hand how this boost wasn’t  sustained as much as I would have liked it to have been in the U.S. after the 84 and 96 Olympics it still was significant.  (For instance this website surely wouldn’t even exist.)  And while the U.S. example might not be a good one, take a look at what has happened in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Argentina and South Korea.  Creating more opportunities for more nations means more potential for making the sport truly global.

5) Two European nations would miss out.  Of course, this is the corollary to #4.  Is it fair to “punish” a better European side, perhaps a side that could beat the non-European side by 10 goals?  Should a professional player who’s devoted his/her life to the sport sit at home while an amateur player who’s played for a few years walks into an Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremonies?  It’s hard not to be sympathetic to the plight of those would be athletes.

6) The quality of the Olympic Tournament would decline.  Obviously, if you take out 2 of the top 9 nations of the world and replace them with 2nd tier nations the overall quality of the tournament will decline.  The question then becomes one of how serious of a decline would it be?   Realistically, at this point in time I don’t think any of the 2nd tier nations that would be capable of reaching the semifinals.  Whereas, the 8th and 9th European representative would have a legitimate outside chance of doing so.  So, we would be replacing a really long shot with just a long shot.   And there would likely be a couple more lopsided scores, but I think these 2nd tier nations are capable of playing competitively against the top nations maybe even getting an upset along the way.   In other words, losses of 5-10 goals instead of 20 goal shellackings.

Overall, I would argue that the benefits of  the proposed tweaking of the qualification system to allow more non-European nations outweigh the negative consequences.  As Christer suggested, balance is what’s desired.  Adding 2 non European nations seems about right at this point in time and it would help the growth of the game.

Rasmus Lauge-Schmidt is a huge fan of American Football.  How about finding and creating some American footballers who are fans of Team Handball?

The ehfTV “Rewind” show is highlight show of Champions League action with a few interviews thrown in for good measure. Last week, as an American I did a double and triple take when I saw the “Inside the Game” profile with Kiel’s Danish center back Rasmus Lauge-Schmidt. The cause of the double take? The video shows Lauge-Schmidt practicing a bit of American Football in full pads.

It turns out that the 22 year old, Lauge-Schmidt is a huge fan of the National Football League (NFL), the professional football league in the USA. So much so that every Sunday night he watches from 7:00 PM until the early hours of the morning. (As a former resident of Europe, I can attest to doing the same thing; That time change certainly alters your NFL viewing clock.) I haven’t confirmed with Lauge-Schmidt, but I’m pretty sure that his fandom has been restricted to viewing and he’s never actually played the game. I suspect that the EHF set up a mock practice with the local club in Kiel to provide some good optics for the interview. After all, it can be a little boring to just watch someone talking. And the interview did get me thinking about the current status of American Football in Europe and some lessons that might be applicable to Team Handball in the U.S.

American Football popularity abroad

A lot of people in the U.S. are probably under the impression that the game isn’t played much outside of the U.S and Canada and while that’s certainly true to an extent, the sport is played in most European nations. I was first made aware of this many years ago when I stumbled upon a full contact scrimmage of the London Ravens in Hyde Park. Long time LA handball player, Mika Maunala, amused me with stories of playing QB in Helsinki and I had a German work colleague in Paris that played, by coincidence for the club in his hometown, Kiel. (Yes, ironically I was the bigger handball fan in my office.) Sure enough Lauge-Schmidt photo op was with the local club there, the Kiel Baltic Hurricanes.

It’s hard to fully gauge how popular a sport is from a few personal anecdotes, but clearly American Football is gaining a foothold in Europe. NFL broadcasts are readily available in most countries even if it’s usually with a cable outlet. In London the NFL now plays two regular season matches to sell out crowds of 80,000 plus at Wembley Stadium.  There’s quite a list of nations with leagues even if it’s uncertain as to the level of amateurism/professionalism, but at least some of the teams appear to draw decent crowds. The Hurricanes for instance drew 7,000 fans for a semifinal match recently. While that doesn’t even begin to approach a typical crowd at an NFL game the U.S. right now can only dream of a crowd approaching that for a handball match in this country.

Such a foothold wasn’t obtained through osmosis. Sure, it’s a great game to watch and generally when newcomers are exposed to the sport they become fans. Lauge-Schmidt is but one example. Virtually every expat I’ve met who’s emigrated to the U.S. has become a fan of the sport. (count my colleague, Christer Ahl in that category.)  There’s lots of sports that fall into that category and just like American Football generally newcomers to Team Handball like what they see when exposed. And that’s where the NFL is the difference maker as they do an absolutely masterful job of packaging and promoting the sport. Perhaps this can best be summed up by what I heard French basketball player Tony Parker say once in describing American sports production:  “They make every weekend of games seem like the World Cup.”  The pageantry, aesthetics and TV production involved in packaging the sport are simply unmatched. And the promotion is strategically planned both home and abroad. For years the NFL has cultivated a following. Even going so far to create an NFL developmental league there for several years. While that league eventually folded it surely played a key role in the sports development overseas.

Proof that foreigners can learn to play an alien game at the highest level

If there ever was greater proof staring the handball world in the face that it’s possible for a game totally alien to a country’s sporting culture to take root there is no better example than American Football in Europe. Sure, the sport isn’t as popular as many other sports, but think of all the crazy obstacles it’s overcome to reach the level of popularity it has. First off, there are probably only a handful of games more expensive to play. Unlike the typical school team in the U.S. with equipment handout on the first day of practice every player has to buy his own personal set of pads. Then think of the complexities of the game that have to be learned. The idiosyncrasies of the rules and the penalties might seem second place if you’ve watched it all your life, but coming in cold it’s pretty complex. Finally, think of all the unique skills like blocking and tackling that have to be taught and learned. Not to mention the concept of intricate play calling where every single player has to memorize responsibilities and formations for every single play. With all those obstacles to overcome it’s a wonder that the sport is played anywhere outside the U.S. and Canada.

Yet, amazingly the level of play has risen to the point where there’s now a trickle of foreigners getting recruited by American colleges and then eventually making it into the ranks of the NFL. Notably, there are now two established German players, Bjoern Werner and Sebastian Vollmer. Probably not household names back home, but with salaries of $2M and $4M respectively they make more on a yearly basis than anyone playing handball in the German Bundesliga. If Germans can learn to play American Football to the highest level it’s not so difficult to think that Americans can do the same with Team Handball. And while it has indeed happened in recent times, Americans (who learned the game in the U.S) haven’t ascended to anywhere near the highest levels in Europe. For instance, arguably America’s current best player, Gary Hines, plays for German 3rd Division side, HC Bad Neustadt.

Probably, for Americans to make the leap into the upper pro ranks in Europe, it will take a greater number of athletes picking up the game at younger ages. And then those athletes heading over to Europe at younger ages with enough time to further develop as players so that top clubs are interested in signing them.

Or, alternatively, some absolutely top quality athletes could be enticed to give Team Handball a try after their career with their first sport winds downs. In Part 2, I’ll take a closer look at this possibility with a focus on the American Football to Team Handball pipeline.

World Baseball/Softball Confederation officials react stoically as International Wrestling Federation officials celebrate behind them. Could handball suffer the same fate in a future vote?

Previously, we looked at the IOC votes for the 2024 Olympic host city and IOC Presidency.  This time around we look at the IOC’s decision to bring back wrestling and whether there are any implications to handball’s future.

Earlier this month at the IOC congress, the IOC held a vote to see whether wrestling, baseball/softball or squash would join 24 other disciplines to be part of the Core Olympic Program. The sport of wrestling had been in the Olympics since its inception and had been shocked by an earlier decision by the IOC Executive Council to be removed from the Program.  Suddenly on the outside looking in, wrestling cleaned up its act, enacted several reforms and easily won remittance by beating back baseball/softball and squash.  It was a disappointing defeat for the combined Baseball/Softball Confederation and they vow to fight on for inclusion in future votes.  Critics have cited baseball’s lack of popularity in many parts of the world and it had me wondering if handball could be susceptible to falling to the same fate.  Here’s my analysis, first taking a look at the popularity of the sport.

Handball’s world-wide popularity?

Measuring popularity is an inexact science. How could it not be? As popularity by definition is pretty much subjective.  There are some metrics that can be used to measure popularity.  Numbers of registered players, fans in attendance, numbers of TV viewing hours during the Olympics, number of mentions in local media and the number of countries with sports federations to name a few.  Some of these metrics, in fact, have been touted to claim that handball is the 2nd most popular sport in the world after soccer.  Which while it’s not usually explicitly stated is probably a team sport ranking claim as comparing sports like swimming and gymnastics to team sports is difficult.

While I’d like to think that I’m a pretty big handball fan and promoter of this great sport I’ve annoyed more than a few folks at different times by basically saying, “STOP!  Quit pretending that this European sport has a significant world-wide following.  It doesn’t, period.  In fact, even its European following in several European countries is nothing to write home about.”

Of course, the same sorts of things can be said about a lot of other sports.  Baseball for instance; In fact, I would argue that if one compares the popularity of baseball with handball you’ll find some striking similarities.

• Both are primarily popular in one part of the world:  handball- Europe; baseball; North America.  Although baseball can make a case that the significant popularity of the sport Japan, South Korea and Taiwan actually shows a broader worldwide reach.
• Both are mostly an afterthought outside of their strongholds.  Most Americans don’t even know handball exists.  Most Europeans only know baseball from Hollywood movies.  The rest of the world is a mixture of recognition.  Some regions (South America, North Africa) have shown some handball growth; Other regions are developing a greater interest in baseball (Australia, East Asia).

And continuing the similarity comparison further you’ll likely get the following reactions from the sports conscious fan in their respective popularity strongholds when asked about the merits of the other sport.

• North American:  “Why is this handball sport in the Olympics?  I bet it was invented by Europeans just because they were tired of the U.S. whipping up on them in basketball.”
• European: “Pffft. Baseball? This is the most boring sport ever invented and, as if, the world needs to add an American sport to the Olympic program.”

This isn’t conjecture.  I’m only paraphrasing actual commentary I’ve read or heard many times.  Each continent is largely ignorant to the importance of the other sport.  I’m guessing that many Europeans aren’t aware that the average individual salary of a Major League player ($3.2M) is more than the budget for most European club teams.  Heck, around 24 players make more all by themselves than the operating budget of Paris S-G (handball’s richest club).  Conversely, most Americans don’t know that handball exists.  Let alone that there are thousands of clubs at the professional and amateur level.

Is handball safe?

So, could handball fall victim to the same fate as baseball?  A regional sport tossed out in favor of some new up and coming sport.  A sport (with the exception of South Korea) that is totally dominated by one continent during Olympic competitions?  A sport like wrestling with its share of problems in recent years; questionable doping controls and allegations of match fixing?

Answer:  Handball’s safe and here’s why:

1) Europe is made up of roughly 50 countries and it dominates the IOC.  It’s common practice to compare the U.S. to Europe for a number of reasons.  They have a similar population, similar economies and both have a significant role in world affairs.  If you were to combine all of the countries into one United States of Europe you would essentially have a counterbalance to the U.S.  But, that isn’t happening anytime soon.

Sometimes, it’s good to be the big dog and throw your weight around.  In particular, the economy of scale that the U.S. presents is a big reason why everyone in the world watches American movies and listens to American music.  And when you present the world’s largest market for goods and services generally everyone is interested in grabbing a portion of that market share.

Sometimes, however, it’s not so good, and in many diplomatic circumstances the big dog can get outmaneuvered by a pack of smaller dogs.  And while the IOC is not a one country, one vote organization like the UN, there is a natural tendency to not let any one country have too many IOC voting members.  For sure, there is still some skewed representation, but the membership is spread around.  If the U.S. had somehow evolved into a patchwork of 50 nations (instead of states) with California and Texas competing under separate flags at the Olympics it’s probably safe to say that the IOC representation for that patchwork of nations would be far greater than the 4 IOC members the U.S. currently haves.  But, the U.S. is not about to split up into multiple nations anytime soon and with over half of the IOC members being from Europe it’s far less likely that a European sport will get tossed out.

2) Other sports are more vulnerable.  By almost any practical measure sports such as modern pentathlon and field hockey are more ripe for picking off the Olympic Program.  In terms of team sports field hockey (particularly men’s field hockey) is clearly more unpopular.  If it’s decided that a team sport needs to go because of the larger footprint (e.g. the number of athletes involved) it’s hard not to see that sport going first.

3) Friends in high places. With a German, Thomas Bach, at the head of the IOC, it’s hard to see handball leaving the Olympic Program.  Additionally, the reported power broker, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah of Kuwait is a fan of the sport even if that fandom might be viewed unfavorably due to his involvement in the controversial 2008 Olympic qualification match between Kuwait and South Korea.  With those individuals holding considerable power and influence it’s hard to see them allowing handball to suffer the fate of wrestling or baseball.

Safe, but be prepared

While handball appears to be in a safe zone it should be kept in mind that few would have thought the sport of wrestling was in any danger not too long ago.  Reportedly, a re-evaluation of the Olympic sports program is high on the agenda of new IOC President Bach.  And, the process to add a new sport failed to add one, so that will surely be looked at as well.  Shiekh Ahmad was even quoted recently stating, that the criteria for a sport’s consideration needs to be clearly defined.  Let’s hope that this is indeed the case and that the IHF places as a top priority making sure that handball scores high in that criteria.  For rest assured while handball right now may be primarily just a European sport the Olympics is the absolute best vehicle for making the sport truly global.  And while it might be a low risk that handball could be booted from the Olympics, the consequences of that low risk happening would be totally devastating to the sport’s chances for growth.