Category Archives: John Ryan Commentary

3 Quarterfinals at the Same Time: Big Problem? Not Really. Just Watch 2 of Them on Thursday

Posted on by
Why not watch These 2 Huge Quarterfinals on Thursday. Even with Bonus English Language Commentary from me and Chris O’Reilly.

I haven’t written about “time shifting” in a while, but with 3 quarterfinal matches scheduled for the exact same time… There may never be a better time for handball fans to adopt this viewing strategy.

What’s Time Shifting?

Basically, it’s just a fancy way of saying watching something later instead of live. It’s certainly not rocket science, but honestly I’m a bit puzzled why more folks don’t do it. Basically, all you’re sacrificing is real time social media engagement. And, yes it actually is a bit of a sacrifice when you’re watching a match alone. Reading tweets and IG during the match and at halftime can create a fun “two screen” community experience.

But, with 3 matches all at the same time? It won’t be a two screen experience. No, it will be a 4 screen experience and that any pilot will tell you that is “task saturation.” Honestly, two matches at the same time is impossible for me… At least from a true enjoyment/engagement perspective. I typically end up spending 90% of my time on one match and occasionally glancing at the other during timeouts. Heck, I often even find myself psychologically happy when the other match is a blowout because I can say to myself, “Well, I’m not missing much.” But, tomorrow, I won’t be surprised if all 3 of those late matches are close. Surely, at least two of the three will be.

Don’t Worry. We Got You Covered

So here’s the game plan for the quarterfinals. Watch the 1st match between Denmark and Egypt which is on all by itself and then watch the Sweden-Qatar match live. Both of these will have English language commentary with Paul Bray. In the U.S. you can watch these matches on ESPN+. In the rest of the world you can watch them on the IHF Youtube channel. Depending on where you live though you might need to take some extra measures.

Then after you’ve watched those 2 matches live you can watch Norway-Spain and France-Hungary at your leisure. And, with the semifinals not taking place until Friday, you will have all of Thursday to watch.

Bonus English Language Commentary

As an additional bonus I’ll post some English language commentary for both of those matches. I’m doing the France-Hungary match while ehfTV commentator, Chris O’Reilly will do commentary for Norway-Spain. These commentaries will be on an MP3 file and I will provide instructions on how to synch up the English with the video here: Link

UPDATE: Here are Direct Links to the Video and Audio

  • Spain vs Norway (-1.5) (YouTube)
    • Commentary MP3 with Chris O’Reilly: Full Match MP3
      • 1st Half (Set YouTube Clock to 7:30)
      • 2nd Half (Set YouTube Clock to 1:00:30) (MP3 time: 42:20)
    • Be sure to listen to Chris and the other lads on (Un)Informed Handball Hour
  • France (-2.5) vs Hungary  (YouTube)
    • Commentary MP3 with John Ryan

Social Media Habits Die Hard

Of course, for maximum enjoyment you’ll want to watch oblivious to the final outcome. And, doing so can be real hard…But, just do it. Put down the phone. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did.

Handball on ESPN+ (A Review at the Halfway Mark)

Posted on by
The current Handball icon at ESPN+. Can somebody out there design a better one?

As we are about halfway through the IHF Men’s Handball World Championships I thought it might be a good time to review the ESPN+ Handball web streaming product.

The Viewing Experience

Overall, the viewing experience has been pretty good, albeit with a few hiccups. For me personally, watching streamed content is pretty much like watching regular TV. Occasionally, I’ll get a little buffering or pixelation, but overall the picture quality is outstanding and better than what I get via YouTube. I’ve been watching via the ESPN+ app on Roku and it’s pretty much like watching Netflix or Amazon Prime for me.

There have been a few glitches with the audio as sometimes the English commentary track has been missing. Usually, just a few minutes at the start of the first match, but on the 19th it went missing the whole day for some reason. I tweeted to @espnfansupport, but perhaps a few more voices were needed to get their attention to fix it.

Finding the matches has also been a bit challenging at times. Most notably, upcoming handball matches don’t show up in the upcoming matches section on the app until maybe 5 minutes prior to the start of the match. This has led to my consternation and to others who would message me “where’s the match?” when there is nothing to see on the ESPN+ app related to handball.

A Disappointing Lack of Promotion (So Far)

As one who’s trumpeted ESPN’s broadcasting of handball as the biggest and most important development in the entire history of team handball in the United States let’s just say that so far the promotion of the sport has been underwhelming. (For an amusing discussion on my expectations and the resigned viewpoint from another longtime follower of the sport (Chris Cappelman) check out this Facebook discussion: Link).

I guess my expectations were directly related to the way ESPN hypes and promotes sports on their very popular social media channels. Most notably, two Sports Center Instagram posts (Link 1 and Link 2) from back in 2017 and 2018 are probably the most viral handball related posts in U.S. history. Simonet’s behind the back shot got 1.2M views and Sigurdsson’s penalty shot punch in got 2.2M views. My logic: Wow, if ESPN was hyping handball when it wasn’t even being shown on ESPN, just imagine what they will do when it’s their content. (Background stories on ESPN posts: Link 1 and Link 2).

Sigurdsson on ESPN’s Instagram Account

And, if one goes back further in time, who can possibly forget the attention that Scott Van Pelt and others paid the sport during the 2012 Olympics: Link

Scott Van Pelt’s “Handball Talk” was a daily feature during the 2012 Olympics

Again, I kind of figured that if ESPN talk radio got excited about handball when it was broadcast on NBC, maybe they would get really excited when it was their own product. At the very least I thought they would talk a little bit about handball while it was simultaneously being broadcast on ESPN+. Interviews with U.S. coaches or players. Maybe some discussion on Gauthier Mvumbi’s viral videos and shout out from Shaquille O’Neal? Instead, I haven’t heard a peep. Heck, at times it feels as if handball was still on beIN Sports.

We’re only half way through the Championship, though, so there’s time for things to pick up. We shouldn’t also forget that the U.S. withdrawal from the tournament was a huge setback. One, that for a short while even had me worried that ESPN wasn’t going to broadcast any matches. It also didn’t help that the NFL playoffs were in full swing. After Sunday’s conference finals there’s a two week lull until the Super Bowl. And, at the same time the World Championships really get going with the Quarterfinals, Semis and the Championships on the 31 when there is no football on TV. Yes, things could definitely pick up.

A Bright Spot: Handball on ESPN+ Long After the World Championships are Over

While I would greatly prefer for the World Championships to be on ESPN’s linear channels where it would reach virtually every home in the U.S. there are some advantages to being on the lower profile, web streaming only, ESPN+.

A Targeted Audience: The first advantage is that this smaller audience is also very, very sports oriented. Or, to put it another way, the type of sports fan who would be more inclined to watch something they maybe have never seen before or perhaps just once or twice during the Olympics several years ago. Further, they are more inclined to become a greater fan of the sport. And, if they are young enough they might even investigate finding out more about possibly playing the sport.

A Home for More Handball Content: This ties to another advantage of ESPN+. Namely, it could become a home for additional handball content. Suppose these new fans want to continue to watch handball. Many of those potential new fans probably think they will have to wait for the next Olympics or World Championships. After all, this is just some game that a P.E. teacher made up. Well, what better way could there possibly be to educate these new fans on the wonders of the EHF Champions League than to put Champions League matches on ESPN+ (ATTN ESPN: Those rights are available) Or, what about adding some U.S. content like our National Team matches or the Collegiate National Championships. Just think what a recruiting tool this could be? Why imagine some intramural all-star at Wake Forest seeing North Carolina playing Virginia in the Collegiate Handball Final Four and instantly thinking, “We could kick those guys asses.”

Forever Content: And, this leads to the final advantage of handball on ESPN+. The fact that streaming services aren’t limited by hours in a day. During the dog days of summer when there’s nothing new on TV, handball could still be on ESPN+ just waiting for someone new to discover. New fans, new player, new sponsors not just during a magical two weeks during the Olympics every four years. But, a trickle coming in at all times of the year. Here’s what that handball sub-channel could look like:

A Better Handball Icon is Needed

It took awhile, but ESPN has finally added handball to its list of sports on the ESPN+ App.

Unfortunately, it’s not the best icon or logo for handball, but just a placeholder. Maybe we can help out ESPN with a better icon. There are several examples from other sports there for comparison. But, this is actually a little bit tricky, for a couple of reasons. One, there is the other handball in the U.S. so that causes confusion. And, then a simple ball drawing could easily result in something that looks like another soccer ball. So, we need something simple that says “our handball.” If anybody out there has got some artistic or design talent… show us what you got.

Why do Handball Coaches Insist on Using the 7v6 Offensive Strategy?: Because it Works Really Well Sometimes: Revisiting Serbia’s Upset Victory over the Netherlands

Posted on by
Lois Abbingh and Martine Smeets are all smiles after back to back empty net goals give the Netherlands a 6 goal lead over Serbia with 17 minutes left in the match. Yet again, the stupid, desperation 7v6 strategy is failing miserably…

We’ve all seen it… We’ve all thrown objects at the TV… We’ve all cursed at the stupid coach when yet another ball is casually thrown into the empty net. The 7v6 strategy is a hopeless strategy and it never works… Except when it does.

Down 6 at the Half and Running out of Options

Lost in the midst of Croatia’s incredible run of surprising wins at the 2020 Women’s European Championship was arguably the most remarkable upset of the entire tournament: Serbia’s come from behind 29-25 defeat of the Netherlands in the preliminary round.

The match surely didn’t look like an upset for the first 43 minutes of the game. At halftime the defending World Champions, the Netherlands, had a commanding 15-9 lead and to make matters worse for Serbia they had lost their star player, Andrea Lekić, to injury. Without any obvious solutions, Serbian coach, Ljubomir Obradovic, decided to switch things up dramatically at halftime, choosing to employ the 7v6 offensive strategy. This tactic involves pulling your GK on offense and replacing them with an extra player on offense. This is called 7v6 since the offensive set has 7 offensive court players playing against 6 defensive court players.

7v6 Pros and Cons

The one obvious advantage to this strategy is that, in theory, one offensive player is always open and unguarded by the defense. The other less obvious advantage is that the extra circle runner generally forces defenses to hug the 6 meter line more closely, thus opening up more jump shot possibilities.

The obvious drawback to this strategy is the open net at the other end of the court. If you turn the ball over chances are the defense is going to get an easy goal. The same is true if the GK makes a clean save and retrieves the ball quickly, or worse, catches it. Perhaps nothing demonstrates this more ably than this video compilation that the (Un)informed Handball hour put together to highlight Croatia’s use of the strategy against Brazil at the 2019 Men’s World Championship. The six empty net goals were certainly a huge factor in Brazil’s 29-26 upset win.

The First 11 Minutes of the 2nd Half: Decent Results, but Simply Trading Goals

The first 11 minutes of the 2nd half: Trading Goals

Serbia – Netherlands Match Video: Link (The 2nd half starts 1:03:27 on the ehfTV clock.)

For the first 11 minutes of the 2nd half the strategy works fairly well. Serbia has 9 possessions using the 7v6 strategy and they score on 5 of them. And, the Netherlands also fails to cash in on two empty net opportunities with GK Tess Wester whiffing on a long shot and Dannick Snelder getting blocked on a fast throw off shot after a made goal, by a just in time return by Serbian GK, Jovana Risovic. At the 38:42 minute mark the score is 20-14 with both teams have scored 5 goals a piece. The Netherlands then gets a 2 minute penalty and Serbia scores 2 goals when playing 6v5, cutting the lead to 20-16.

A Huge Setback: Back to Back Empty Net Goals

Disaster Strikes

With the lead cut to four goals Serbia seemed to be showing some signs of life, but then at the 41:36 minute mark everything seemingly falls apart. On back to back possessions Serbia turns the ball over to the Netherlands for 2 open net goals. In less than a minute the score is 22-16 and the game is right back where it was at the start of the 2nd half, a 6 goal deficit.

There aren’t too many things more demoralizing to a team than a string of empty net goals in quick succession. It’s one thing to give up a goal after playing tough defense for 40 seconds. It’s another thing entirely to watch the other team effortlessly score against literally no defense whatsoever. On more than one occasion I’ve seen obviously demoralized players hanging their head, or worse, glaring with not very well concealed anger toward their coach and the stupid 7v6 strategy the coach is making them play.

We don’t see anything like that, however, from Serbia in the video feed. Instead, we see the Netherlands team with all smiles. The defending World Champions have weathered the storm. They’ve got a 6 goal lead and things are seemingly looking good for them in their opening match of the tournament.

Cue Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture: Time for a 7 Goal Barrage from Serbia

Relentless Execution: 7 straight goals in 6 minutes

But, as we all know in handball, “seemingly” is often replaced with “reality.” And, the reality that happens in just 6 minutes is a combination of great defense at one end combined with a textbook, masterclass in how to execute the 7v6 tactic at the other end. 7 offensive possessions for 7 straight goals and a 22-16 deficit turns into a 23-22 lead. One of the goals is on a fast break, but the other 6 are all scored using the 7v6 offensive strategy. And, the shots come from all over the place. Wing shots, breakthroughs and jump shots now coming from a bit shorter range thanks to the strategy.

Why, if I had better video editing skills I would make a video like the (Un)informed Handball Hour did, but this time I would replace the Dating Game theme with the 1812 overture with each of the 7 goals being synchronized with the cymbal clashes.

Seriously, it’s a rapid and relentless beatdown worth reviewing. For the full effect, start by first watching the Netherlands score their two fast break goals (1:17:15 on the ehfTV clock)

Continued Execution, but at a Less Efficient Pace

Continued success, albeit at a less successful rate.

The remaining 11 minutes offer more of the same, but the success rate drops from perfect to just pretty good. Serbia just scores on 5 of its 8 remaining 7v6 possessions. They also turn the ball over a couple of times with one of those turnovers leading to an empty goal for the Netherlands. Serbia’s defense also allows a couple of more goals for a final score of 29-25.

Keys to Success

Here are a couple of summaries of the 2nd half. First, a look at Serbia’s offensive possessions.

Key 1: High offensive efficiency: 16 of Serbia’s 26 7v6 possessions resulted in a goal, a success rate of 62%. That’s pretty good and certainly better than the 9 for 28 (32%) success rate in the first half. I’d have to do more research on Serbia’s average over several matches, but I think it’s safe to say that 2nd half performance was well above average.

Key 2: GK Readiness: Perhaps, just as important if not more important was Serbia’s GK readiness following 7v6 possession. Of the 26 7v6 possessions their GK was read in the net on 20 of those possessions. And, the Netherlands was only able to cash in with goals on just 3 of the 6 possessions when the GK was either late or not in the goal at all.

The Real Key (scoring instead of turnovers): However, it should be noted there is a huge correlation between 7v6 offensive success (scoring a goal) and GK readiness. And, of course, there is a huge correlation with turnovers and GKs not being ready on the other end.

An Outlier?

Well, clearly this match is documented proof that the 7v6 strategy can be very, very effective. But, is it simply an outlier amongst an overwhelming number of failures like the Brazil-Croatia match? I wish I knew the answer to that question, but I don’t. To varying degrees I’ve seen this strategy work before. In fact, back in 2016, I saw Belgium almost pull off a similar upset against France. At the time, I chalked this up to an unprepared French team that didn’t know how to counteract this new fangled strategy. Four years later, no such excuse can be valid anymore.

Anecdotally, I can assess that this strategy fails more often it works. But, I don’t have the hard data to say how often it works and how often it fails. And, even if I did it would be hard to read too much into it because there are so many other factors to consider. In particular, a big part of Serbia’s comeback was their defense in the 2nd half.

But, here’s one aspect to consider: If one changes just 2 Serbia 7v6 possessions from goals to turnovers it’s likely a 4 goal swing, meaning 29-25 becomes 27-27. One always wants more goals than turnovers, but with 7v6 the impact of that ratio is even more pronounced. Perhaps one could even come up with a benchmark ratio for success if they had enough data.

Finally, regardless of what the numbers might say regarding how unlikely 7v6 was to work for Serbia, the reality is that it worked. And, it surely was more likely to have worked than a conventional strategy would have.

Translation: Sorry 7v6 haters: This strategy isn’t going away anytime soon. Not without a change to the rules, anyway.

Link

A Closer Look at the U.S. 2021 Men’s World Championships 20 Man Roster

Posted on by

Coach Robert Hedin and the selection committee have released the official 20 man roster for the 2021 IHF Men’s World Championships. Here’s a review of the roster from a few different perspectives.

U.S. Roster (By Age)

The USA Men’s National Team Roster (By Age: Youngest to Oldest)

The 20 man roster ranges from 17 Jakob Rysgaard Christensen) to 36 (Gary Hines) and has a very young average age of 23.5. Five of the athletes (Jonas Stromberg, Amar Amitovic, Paul Skorupa, Rene Ingram and Nicholas Robinson) were on the U.S. Jr World Championships team and Pal Merkovsky was on the Hungarian Jr World Championship team.

Much has been said and written about the U.S. getting an unwarranted helping hand to participate in this championship. That the U.S. didn’t earn it’s slot. There’s some truth to that, but no one can argue with one of the rationales for the U.S. bid: That participating in this World Championship will help develop athletes in preparation for the 2028 Olympic Games.

It’s difficult to project out 7.5 years, but the bulk of this talented and youthful roster has a future with the U.S. National Team. We will be seeing several of these athletes in a U.S. uniform in Los Angeles at the 2028 Olympic Games. How many? I’m thinking 5, but it could be as many as 10.

U.S. Roster (By Nation Where Athletes First Played Handball)

The USA Men’s National Team Roster (By Country Where they First Played Handball)

All of these athletes are Americans, but the U.S. is a large nation with a global population. Estimates vary, but as many as 9M American citizens live in another country so it’s no real surprise that some of those 9M learned to play handball where they grew up. In fact, 85% (17 of 20) of the U.S. roster originally played handball in 13 different countries. Germany leads the way with 6 athletes while Denmark, France and Sweden have 2 each. Other nations: Bosnia & Herzegovina (1), Croatia (1), Egypt (1), Hungary (1), Spain (1).

(The fact that the U.S. has so many dual citizen athletes is sometimes seen as controversial, but it shouldn’t be. I addressed this reality and its implications for the U.S. National Team and the sport’s development previously in a series of commentaries Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

In terms of the 3 U.S. athletes that were raised stateside, 1 athlete (Drew Donlin) first learned to play at a college club (Air Force), 1 athlete (Ty Reed) is a product of the former Auburn Residency Program and 1 athlete (Gary Hines) was a product of an Atlanta based youth program and the Condors club.

U.S. 20 Man Roster (By Position)

When the 35 Man Provisional Roster was released I did a projection of who I thought would make the Final 20 Man Roster. I was 17 for 20. Here’s a closer look at the 20 Man Roster with some analysis as to why these athletes were selected.

USA Left Wings

Only PANAM Games veteran, Sam Hoddersen, made the 20 man roster. I projected that Lukas Hansen would also make the cut, mostly based on the fact that he plays for a top division Danish Pro Club, Fredericia HK. I’ve heard there may be some issues with his passport, but I don’t know if that was the deciding factor or not. The fact that only 1 left wing was selected and 4 right backs were taken leads me to believe that we will also see a lot of Gary Hines at left wing as well.

USA Left Backs

It was pretty much a given that Fofana and Hines would be selected, but it was less clear who else might get selected here. I had chosen Seb Wheeler based in part on his PANAM Games Alternate selection last year, but the coaching staff went with Amar Amitovic.

USA Center Backs

Again, there was zero doubt that the Team Captain, Ian Hueter and newcomer, Alexandre Chan Blanco, who leads his Liga Asobal club, Cisne, in scoring would make the team, but I went with Amir Seifert as the 3rd option. The coaching staff decided to just take 2 center backs and have identified Michael Williams and Philipp Scholz as potential replacements.

Also, another factor to take into account. Chan and Hueter might both be worthy of starting and playing a lot of minutes. I won’t be surprised to see both of these athletes on the court at the same time with one of them moving to left or right back.

USA Right Backs

For me right back was the hardest position to project. The PANAM Games roster had no true right backs on its roster. A situation that was problematic at times. Now for the World Championships the U.S. will have 4 right backs. However, each of these athletes have question marks. Briffe played professionally in France, but hasn’t been able to play indoors in the U.S. due to the pandemic. Elzoghby played great for the U.S. back in 2010-11 but was less impressive in friendlies last year. Stromberg played well at Jr World’s, but is he ready for the Sr level? And, of course, the same is true for Christiansen who is just 17. (He must really have potential to be selected at that age). I suspect that the coaching staff (like me) is a little in the dark and will use the training camp to figure out who emerges from these 4 options.

USA Right Wings

I only projected Reed and Binderis getting selected here, but Nicolai Weber must also have impressed with his game film. Reed is the projected starter and I suspect the coaching staff will use the training camp to evaluate who will be the primary backup.

USA Circle Runners

The U.S. is well stocked at circle runner and I think these four athletes will all get significant playing time. And, we will likely see two circle runners playing on offense some of the time and on defense most of the time with one of these 4 also subbing in as a defensive specialist. Alex Binderis is the victim of a deep depth chart and was selected as an alternate.

USA Goalkeepers

Last year, I thought the U.S. was lucky to have 2 young, quality goalkeepers with a future. Now we have 3? And, the new addition, Pal Merkovsky, may even be better. That’s crazy good fortune. It should be a great training camp with all 3 GKs looking to impress the coaching staff. I know nothing about the other 2 GKs selected as alternates, but in this time of COVID, where multiple positive test results is a real threat, keeping extra GKs as alternates that can be called up is a wise move.

Previous Articles Assessing the USA Men’s Player Pool

  • American Citizen Male Athletes (Overview): Link
  • USA Men’s Elite Player Pool (Overview): Link
  • USA Men’s National Team (Part 1: A Closer Look by Position- GK and CR): Link
  • USA Men’s National Team (Part 2: A Closer Look by Position- BC and RW/LW): Link

Breaking Down the U.S. Men’s National Team 2021 Handball World Championships Provisional Roster

Posted on by

The IHF and USA Team Handball have posted the 35 man provisional roster for the 2021 World Championships.  Here are some break downs of the roster by age, where athletes first learned handball and by position.

USA Provisional Roster (Youngest to Oldest)

U.S. Provisional Roster (Youngest to Oldest)

The ages on the 35 man roster range from 16 to 36 with an average age of 23.9. This is surely one of the youngest teams every for the U.S. and this is due to quite a few younger dual citizens list on the provisional roster. Almost a third of the roster (11 of 35) are under 21 and could form the nucleus of a pretty decent Jr team.

USA Provisional Roster (Nation Where they First Played Handball)

U.S. WC Roster (Where they First Played Handball)

All of these athletes are Americans, but the U.S. is a large nation with a global population. Estimates vary, but as many as 9M American citizens live in another country so it’s no real surprise that some of those 9M learned to play handball where they grew up. In fact, 80% (28 of 35) of the U.S. roster originally played handball in 13 different countries. Germany leads the way with 7 athletes followed by Sweden with 5. Other nations: Denmark (3), France (2), Bosnia & Herzegovina (2), Croatia (2), Austria (1), Colombia (1), Egypt (1), Hungary (1), Israel (1), Norway (1), Spain (1).

(The fact that the U.S. has so many dual citizen athletes is sometimes seen as controversial, but it shouldn’t be. I addressed this reality and its implications for the U.S. National Team and the sport’s development previously in a series of commentaries Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

In terms of the 7 U.S. athletes that were raised stateside, 3 athletes (Hamm, Kennedy and Donlin) are products of Collegiate Clubs, 3 athletes (Lee, Reed and King) are products of the former Auburn Residency Program and 1, Gary Hines, was a product of an Atlanta based youth program and the Condors club.

USA Provisional Roster (By Position)

I’ve broken out the provisional roster by each position listed for the athletes on the roster. I’ve also taken a stab at projecting the 20 man roster. As, often is the case, this was a relatively simple task for the first 15 or so, but much more difficult as one gets nearer the cut line. Further complicating the task are these factors:

  • Some of these athletes have never played for the U.S. before (and, I’ve never seen them play before).
  • Some of these athletes have been playing regularly and some athletes haven’t been playing at all due to the pandemic. This could clearly boost the chances of athletes who are already in game shape.
  • The coaching staff might factor in long term plans for the U.S. and this could give a boost to a younger player’s consideration.
  • Generally, rosters contain 2 at every position and then a couple of extra players. With an expanded 20 man roster it’s tougher to project which positions will take 3 or more athletes.

That said, here’s my depth chart at each position with the athletes in green getting my nod. Again, I’m flying somewhat blind here, but we’ll see how close I come. For sure, I don’t envy the tough, real decisions the coaching staff will have to make.

USA WC Roster (Left Wings)

Sam Hoddersen was a steady performer at the PANAM Games, but projecting the #2 is challenging. Lukas Hansen is an unknown quantity, but plays on the youth team for one of Denmark’s top clubs, Frederica. And, he’s even played a few matches for their pro team in Denmark’s top level of play. Michael Lee and Michael King were alternates For the PANAM Games and will also get consideration. Juan Felipe Zabala Carvajal plays for Inter Miami and I’m not familiar with his play. A further wild card: Gary Hines has shown that he can play this position as well.

USA WC Roster (Left Backs)

Abou Fofana is the projected starter at Left Back and Gary Hines will also likely play some there as well. Hines could also, however, ending up playing Right Back like he did at the PANAM Games or Left Wing as well. I see Seb Wheeler as the 3rd option here ahead of the other Left Backs listed.

USA WC Roster (Center Backs)

Ian Hueter is the key to the U.S. offense and has been playing well this season for his club team, Dormagen. Alexandre Chan Blanco is the biggest newcomer to the U.S. roster and leads his Liga Asobal club, Cisne, in scoring with 79 goals this season in 14 matches. He’ll play some at CB, but I’m thinking he might also be moved to RB as well. Certainly, he is in playing form and the U.S. will need to find a spot for him. I think Amir Seifert is the 3rd option here, but, a case could also be made for Aaron Hamm, who played at Jr Worlds. Also, Michael Williams makes a return after a long absence. He was a key player on the 2011 PANAM Games squad, but I haven’t seen him play since.

USA WC Roster (Right Backs)

Overall, I found this position the toughest to project. For the PANAM Games, coach Hedin chose to have Gary Hines play quite a bit of RB which was a bit out of position for him. In theory, none of these players could make the roster in favor of left backs and center backs moving over to right back. If, however the U.S. chooses to go with a left hander at this position, Benjamin Briffe is the most experienced option. He played a few years in France’s highest pro league, but he is currently living in the U.S., and thanks to the pandemic, he’s unlikely to be in game shape. Jonas Stromberg is an up and coming player that is showing progress and Adam Elzhoghby is another experienced option. There’s something to be said, as well, to having an Egyptian American on your roster at a WC that is played in Egypt.

USA WC Roster (Right Wings)

Ty Reed, currently training in Flensburg, is the obvious starter here, but it’s not clear who his back up will be. Max Binderis is a known quantity, but I have no idea as to pedigree of the newcomer, Nicolai Weber.

USA WC Roster (Circle Runners)

The U.S. has it’s most depth at the circle runner position so I see the U.S. taking 4 or even 5 players at this position. I’ve seen both Hueter and Donlin play several times this year and I give the overall edge to Hueter here. Donlin, however, has been making great strides while playing backup at Liga Asobal side, Leon, so he will see plenty of playing time. Domagoj Srsen is a bit of a question mark since he’s not actively playing. Still it’s hard to see a defensive specialist who’s played for Zagreb and Hannover not making an impact. Paul Skorupa edges out Alex Binderis, but I wouldn’t be surprised if both are taken.

USA WC Roster (Goalkeepers)

The U.S. goalkeeper situation is also fairly clear. Rene Ingram (IFK Kristianstad) and Nicolas Robinson (Elverum) were the U.S. GKs during the PANAM Games and are both training with Champions League clubs thanks in part to the Forum Club Handball. I haven’t seen Pal Merkovsky play, but he appears to be the backup GK for Gyongyos which is professional club that plays in Hungary’s top league. It will be interesting to see how he stacks up against the other two keepers.

Previous Articles Assessing the USA Men’s Player Pool

  • American Citizen Male Athletes (Overview): Link
  • USA Men’s Elite Player Pool (Overview): Link
  • USA Men’s National Team (Part 1: A Closer Look by Position- GK and CR): Link
  • USA Men’s National Team (Part 2: A Closer Look by Position- BC and RW/LW): Link

Commentary: Re-Imagining the U.S. Collegiate “Olympic” Sports Model (Part 2): “Free” Development Courtesy of American Football. Why? And, Why Just for some Sports?

Posted on by
This Collegiate System doesn’t make much sense… It just doesn’t.

In Part 1, I highlighted the dramatic funding disparity between club and varsity sports. In Part 2, I review how much “Olympic Sports” cost Ohio St and why to a large extent American Football pays for everything.

There are a lot of ways one can classify or categorize the sports that are played at American colleges and universities. It can be confusing and sports are often lumped together in categories that can be misleading. Here are some of those categories and some basic definitions for them:

  • Revenue Producing Sports: These are sports which produce significant amounts of revenue and at many colleges they have a positive balance sheet.
  • Non Revenue sports: These sports do not generate much revenue and in most cases have a negative balance sheet.
  • Varsity Sports: These are sports that are managed and funded by a school’s athletic department
  • Club Sports: These are sports managed and partially funded by a school’s Student Services or Recreation Services department.
  • NCAA Sports: These are sports that are sanctioned by the NCAA. Schools choosing to participate in NCAA competitions are required to follow NCAA rules, particularly when it comes to recruiting and scholarships.
  • NCAA “Head Count” Scholarship Sports: These are sports where the NCAA requires every scholarship athlete to receive a “full ride” scholarship. (In other words everything is paid for.)
  • NCAA “Equivalency” Scholarship Sports: These are sports where “partial” scholarships can be awarded and split among the roster of athletes. Coaches can still choose to award full ride scholarships to some athletes, but this will then limit the number of partial scholarships available.
  • Olympic Sports: These are Olympic sports, but the definition is pretty fluid. Non varsity sports (which also happen to be Olympic) are usually not part of the discussion. Additionally no distinction is typically made as to what role these college competitions actually have in terms of developing athletes for Olympic competition.

These categories can overlap into some fairly complicated Venn diagrams, but I’ve tried to group them in terms of net revenue and their relevance to athlete development for future Olympic competitions. Remember this analysis is for just one college, Ohio St, and it was compiled using this publicly available data: link

Net Positive Varsity Sports

At Ohio St, and at most colleges, there are only two sports that generate significant amounts of revenue: American Football and Men’s Basketball. At Ohio State they are also way on the plus side and generated $55M and $14M respectively in 2019. And, as we shall see as we look at the rest of the categories they essentially pay for all the other sports that lose money.

Varsity Sports (Olympic: Primary Development Pathway)

These 21 sports are Olympic sports where college programs are the primary development pathway for future Olympic athletes. It can be debated somewhat as to how vital college programs are for each individual sport, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that the vast majority of the athletes in the sports listed above would not have been Olympians if these college programs didn’t exist.

Here’s some food for thought:

  • How much value is the USOPC and the individual sports National Governing Bodies (NGB) getting out of these programs at Ohio St? Well, if one divides the net revenue (-$27M) by the total scholarships (179.3) it amounts to roughly $150,000/year for each full scholarship athlete. Multiply that by 4 and that is $600,000 over 4 years of college education… all for 1 potential Olympic athlete. (Yes, if one wants to further divide by partial scholarships and walk on athletes (total 702) you’ll get a smaller number: $38,000/year or $153,000 over 4 years.) That being said, in most cases the top athletes with the most potential will probably have a full ride scholarship.
  • Keep in mind… that these college sports program cost the USOPC and the individual sports NGBs nothing. All of this development of athletes is “free” and does not come out of their budget.
  • And, this is just for one college. Ohio St is big college with a fine tradition and one of the largest budgets, but it’s still just one college. There are 130 large schools (D1 Football Subdivision Schools (FBS)). There are an additional 217 Colleges with sizable budgets (D1 basketball schools without a D1 FBS football program). And, then there are several hundred smaller colleges with sports programs, albeit with fewer or no scholarships.
  • All of this is paid by college football and to a lesser extent Men’s college basketball? How does that make sense? Did the players sign up for this?

Varsity Sports (Secondary/Very Limited Olympic Development and Non Olympic)

The 12 varsity sports above have only marginal or zero benefit in terms of the development of Olympic athletes. The reasons vary, but are mostly related to athletes turning pro without collegiate careers or in the case of gymnastics and synchronized swimming athletes become high level competitors without college training. And, then the last 4 sports listed aren’t Olympic sports. Baseball and softball will be back for Tokyo, but won’t be played in Paris. Lacrosse hasn’t been an Olympic sport since 1908 although they surely would like to get back on the Olympic Program.

A Side Note on Fuzzy Math

It should be noted that all of this self reported data from Ohio St should be taken with a grain of salt for multiple reasons. One big reason is the actual cost of a scholarship is open for a lot of debate. In most instances schools are not actually paying that full cost or losing out on the money that another non scholarship athlete would pay. Further, if one reviews the Ohio St database there’s some big accounting lines that aren’t associated with any particular sport. A whopping $75M (expenses) and $61M (revenue) is not explained or attributed to any individual sport. (See pages 15 and 16 in the report) I’m thinking one could probably actually attribute those costs if they really wanted to. As an example, how much time to you think the Athletic Director spends on football and synchronized swimming issues respectively?

Why this Crazy System?

If you ever live outside your home country, you’ll get the chance to see first hand how other countries do things and inevitably you’ll find yourself questioning how things are done back home. For me, personally, there were two big topical areas that came to mind. Health care and our sports structures. I won’t get into health care, but let’s talk a bit about how sports are organized in the U.S. and specifically, our college sports structure.

The European sports model is by no means perfect, but once exposed to it, it doesn’t take long for an American to compare it to the system they are familiar with… and start to scratch their head. Honestly, it’s pretty hard to look at the numbers above and defend this crazy system. Certainly it is impossible to do so from a fiscal viewpoint. Men’s football and to a lesser extent men’s basketball subsidize almost everything. That just doesn’t make any sense. And, worse the athletes playing those sports are not paid their market value and they have to become college students in order to play. Don’t get me wrong. Getting a college education is a good thing, but there’s no real reason it has to or should be tied to playing a sport.

So why do we have this crazy system? Well, if you do a little research you’ll discover that over time a system which made sense for amateur collegiate competitions gradually made less and less sense as two sports, American Football and Men’s basketball, grew into bigger and bigger sports with professional leagues. Instead of these sports becoming fully professionalized from age 18 and up, colleges hung on to these sports creating pseudo professional leagues which also became the de facto development competitions for the pro leagues.

At the same time other collegiate sports did not grow to the same extent, but since they were part of school athletic departments and the NCAA they were still provided substantial levels of support. This support was provided in part due to tradition and in part, due to NCAA requirements. Further, a U.S. law, Title IX required colleges and universities to provide equal opportunities in terms of sports and scholarships for women.

So essentially, over time we have created a system where hundreds of colleges in order to keep their cash cow revenue sports have agreed to fund dozens of other sports which are a net revenue loss.

A Crazy System, but it’s not All Bad

This system might seem a little crazy, but depending on where you stand it’s not all bad. More opportunities for women to play sports… That’s a good thing.

If you are involved with one of the dozens of sports propped up by this system it’s a great thing. If you are an athlete you have the opportunity to perhaps earn a scholarship and play in a well organized competition. If you are a high level coach there are multiple, good paying job opportunities. If you are part of the youth sports industry this system will help ensure that plenty of youth athletes will be interested in furthering developing their skills via sports clubs. If you are a sports NGB all of this development from youth to college is infrastructure that you don’t have to pay for. Indeed, it is often an additional source of revenue.

Of course, I know what supporters of these dozens of sports are saying as they read this. They are saying that their sport isn’t being propped up, but rather the demand from athletes was already there. That colleges are just responding to the growing demand from their sport.

I would argue, however, that they are exaggerating this demand in most cases. For sure, all sports have some level of intrinsic demand. Sports are fun and people play them just for fun. That being said most sports if they lost NCAA status, the great organized competitions that come with that status and, of course, the scholarships would see a significant decline in interest at all levels.

Different Tiers, Different Perspectives

Much has been written and said about how American football and men’s college basketball athletes should be paid for their efforts. After all they are bringing in revenue. Call these sports the top tier.

Much has also been written and said about the other NCAA sports that are in some cases now being cut from some schools. And, that these “Olympic Sports” are getting short changed. Call these sports the middle tier.

And, then there are sports like team handball and rugby with no NCAA status. Call this the bottom tier.

As a proponent of a sport in the bottom tier I can only look at the middle tier’s whining and say, “Give me a break! Good lord. You guys all lose money. Quit whining. You don’t realize how good you’ve got it.”

Here’s some food for thought for you:

  • Ohio St University (just 1 college) spends more on 33 sports than USA Team Handball does as a national federation. Yes, for the last several years the expenses for USA Team Handball has been around $500,000. Divide that in two for Men/Women and only Men’s Rifle and Women’s Pistol at Ohio State have a smaller budget.
  • NGBs which have an NCAA component typically receive more grant money from the USOPC than USA Team Handball does. Contemplate for a moment where those NGBs would be in terms of competitiveness and fiscal status if they didn’t have that NCAA component?
  • Finally, here’s something else that will have you scratching your head again. Quite a few scholarships are actually awarded to foreigners. In fact, in 2019 there were 3,455 international student athletes playing Division 1 sports. Roughly 12% of Division I. Yes, U.S. colleges are spending millions of dollars to develop foreign athletes; many that have gone on to win Olympic medals. How does that possibly make sense?

Time to start over? The pandemic has exacerbated the dramatic difference between Tiers 1 and 2 with some schools dropping some sports. But, maybe this just isn’t an issue between tiers 1 and 2? In part 3, I’ll discuss how the pie should be split more equitably between tiers 2 and 3.

The USA Gets a 2021 WC Slot, While Greenland (and Others) Stay Home (Part 2): The Competitive Case

Posted on by

 

Greenland vs USA All Time Record:  All very interesting, but how relevant is it?

In Part 1, I endorsed the first five “business case” reasons that the IHF listed as rationale for selecting the U.S. to participate in the 2021 IHF Handball World Championships. I won’t, however, endorse the 6th listed reason:

  • From those teams that have registered for the planned qualification event and showed interest in playing the qualification (Canada, Greenland, Puerto Rico, USA), USA are the best-ranked team at the last official competition, namely the 2019 Pan American Games.

Why? Because, while true, it’s a tone deaf slap in the face to Greenland handball since Greenland is not allowed to participate in the PANAM Games. And, if you can’t compete in a competition it’s impossible to get ranked at that competition!

A Primer on National Team Handball Tournaments in the Americas

When it comes to national team competitions in the Americas a lot of folks get confused, and, for good reason as these competitions have similar names and participants. The best way to understand how everything is structured is to know which sport’s organization has overall jurisdiction for that competition. Or, to put it another way, what final tournament are the nations trying to qualify for?

For the IHF World Championships the IHF is ultimately responsible and until the Pan American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) was split into two confederations the event that qualified teams for the World Championships was the Pan American Championships. These Championships were held every 2 years and Greenland was able to participate because they are member of the IHF.

For the Olympic Games, the IOC is ultimately responsible and Greenland cannot participate because they are not a member of the IOC. Working with the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO), PATHF decided in 1987 to have the PANAM Games, which is essentially a mini-Olympics for the Americas as the handball qualification event for the Olympics. The PANAM Games are held every four years and Greenland cannot participate because they are not a member of the IOC or PASO.

As to why Greenland isn’t a member of the IOC it relates to Greenland’s semi-autonomous status as part of Denmark. The IOC currently requires full independence for new memberships. Which, incidentally, is why Puerto Rico competes in the Olympics despite their semi-autonomous state as they were “grandfathered” in as member prior to the change in policy.

Incidentally, since the North/South split of PATHF there has been no indication of any IHF plans to grant both the NACHC and SCAHC an Olympic slot. This status quo regarding Olympic qualification implies that the North and South will continue to share an Olympic slot that will be awarded at the PANAM Games.

The Tale of the Tape (All Time GRL-USA Competition Record)

So, while Greenland and the USA have never met in a PANAM Games competition they’ve met eight times in Pan American Championship tournaments, once in a North American Championship and once even at the World Championships. Here’s the all time match record based on Wikipedia results pages.

As an American, all I can say is, “Wow, this head to head summary pretty much summarizes the dismal performance of our men’s national team in the 21st century. 1-0-9 vs Greenland. A 330,000,000 population vs 55,000. This isn’t a rivalry. This is an ass whuppin. Seriously, what is wrong with handball in our country?”

At least that’s how it feels emotionally as someone who really, really cares about handball in this country. Putting on my analytical hat, however, none of this should be that surprising. So what if our population is almost 6,000 times larger. That doesn’t matter if more Greenlanders than Americans are actually playing handball. And, while our total GDP as a nation is massive, I suspect that Greenland spends more on handball than the U.S. does, from grass roots all the way to national teams.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

Looking at this historical record is quite the trip down memory lane and it really does mirror the decline of handball in the U.S. since the 1996 Olympic Games.  Note, how the sole U.S. victory is the very first match between the two countries in 1998. A ten goal victory with a roster that surely had some holdovers from that Olympic team.  But, as those players got older and nothing was really in place to develop athletes with traditional grass roots or a residency program the balance of power shifted.   In 2001, thanks to Cuba bowing out, the U.S. got a ticket to the World Championship where the U.S. was totally uncompetitive losing by an average of 22 goals, including an 8 goal loss to Greenland.  A year later with a trip to the 2002 World Championships on the line Greenland steam rolled over the U.S. 27-7.  The score at halftime:  11-2.  Two goals in 30 minutes?  To Greenland? When I first heard that result I was astonished.  When I asked an old teammate, “What the hell happened?” I got kind of a shrug and no real explanation.

And, for me personally, it was the beginning of a wakeup call, that the times they were a changin’.  A wakeup call, that was further realized by living 5 years in France and getting a close up view of what we up against on the world stage.  With support from the U.S. Olympic Committee being drastically cut and with no real grass roots structure in place it was the start of some real lean years for USA Team Handball.  Gone were the days when we could recruit some great athletes, train them up with a residency program and go take on the world.  At least that’s what was ridiculously obvious to me.  However, it was not so obvious to others and we attempted to recreate our “glory days” with an underfunded residency program that struggled to recruit athletes and couldn’t afford to travel to Europe for the competition that was needed to improve.

A Wakeup Call and a Change in Direction

Poor results continued as did the U.S. losing streak to Greenland.  In 2018 came the low water mark.  At a North American Championship, the U.S. finished 5th out of 6 nations and failed to even qualify for the Pan American Championships.  It did, however, finally elicit a wakeup call for USA Team Handball

Coincidence or not, my plea to shift to dual citizens was heeded and a totally revamped roster was put together to qualify for the 2019 PANAM Games.  Overnight the U.S. had a much better team and they qualified with relative ease over Canada winning a 2 match aggregate qualification by 12 goals.  And, having witnessed both matches in person, I would argue that it wasn’t even as close as the scores suggested.  The U.S. didn’t do as well as I would have liked at the PANAM Games, due in part to some injuries, but the score lines were better and we notched a victory over a Cuban team that’s also improved significantly.  The U.S. also performed well at the 2019 North American Emerging Nations Qualifier and the 2019 Emerging Nations Championship.

Is this new U.S. team World class?  No.  Our top prospects are playing in the German 2nd Divisions (Ian and Patrick Hueter) and the French 2nd Division (Abou Fofana).  And, then we have several players (thanks to support from the Forum Club Handball) are playing with top clubs like Spain’s Leon (Drew Donlin), Flensburg (Ty Reed, Tristan Morawski), Elverum (Nico Robinson) and Kristianstad (Rene Ingram).  With the exception of Donlin, these athletes are playing with 2nd teams, but also are training some of the time with the first team.  Those are all great training environments and every one of these athletes has improved since their PANAM Games opportunity last year.

They are not going to beat Norway and France, but they should put up a credible fight and we’ll see some flashes of real promise.  And, likely some wins in the President’s Cup.  Several of these athletes are also in their early 20s and will also likely be representing the U.S. in Los Angeles come 2028.

Better than Greenland?  (Or, Cuba for that Matter?)

Well, first to reiterate with emphasis:

No one.  I repeat no one is happy that no championship could be held to decide a winner on the court.  No one.

That being said, my educated guess if the North American & Caribbean Championship had been held this is the percentage odds as to who would have won.

  • Cuba: 40%
  • USA: 33%
  • Greenland: 25%
  • Another team 2%

Of course, this is just an educated guess, and we’ll never ever know for real, but here’s some more rationale.  Cuba and the U.S. played 4 times last year and split the matches 2-2, but I would assess that Cuba are a little deeper in terms of overall talent.

Neither the U.S. nor Cuba have played Greenland recently so it’s harder to extrapolate.  One might argue that Greenland’s performance at the 2018 Pan American Championships would make them the better team.  After all, they almost knocked off Chile to qualify for the 2019 WC, but those results are a bit tempered by the home crowd atmosphere they had pulling for them.  Further, their team is getting older with their top 3 players, Minik Dahl Hoegh and the Kreutzmann brothers all in their 30s and stepping away from full time handball.  And, there is no depth whatsoever on the Greenland roster.  Doesn’t mean they can’t overcome these shortcomings, just suggests that it would be a bit tougher for them to do so.

Does it Matter? Shouldn’t the IHF Just Look at Recent Results?

But, why just spitball how good the current teams are?  Let’s just look at the recent results.  I guess I could go along with that logic if it was written down somewhere that is the process that has to be followed.  But, lacking an established process it becomes a bit of gamesmanship.  Like the gamesmanship of using the PANAM Games as criteria to exclude Greenland.  How far back does one go in order to determine relevant results?  Should one factor in that both Cuba and the U.S. are dramatically different teams now?  Why or Why not?  Again, when one establishes criteria after the fact, one can select criteria that makes their case better.  Lacking such criteria, I would suggest that the business case for the U.S. couple with their recent improvement in performance makes the U.S. the logical, best choice to represent the NACHC.

An Awesome Set of Rivalries Shaping Up

I guess to end on a positive note, this little confederation is shaping up to be quite interesting.  Cuba and the U.S. have already renewed their rivalry and Greenland will be joining them.  I suspect the next GRL-USA match will be a hard fought one.  Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are surely thinking don’t forget about us.  Yes, one can really look forward to a real championship played on the court.  The sooner, the better.

The USA Gets a 2021 WC Slot, while Greenland (and Others) Stay Home (Part 1): The Business Case

Posted on by
Yes, the IHF is a business and business concerns are rightly part of the decision making process

Yesterday, the IHF nominated the U.S. to participate in the 2021 IHF World Men’s Handball Championship as the North American & Caribbean Handball Confederation (NACHC). It didn’t take long for a firestorm of protest to emerge pointing out that this wasn’t deserved and that Greenland should have been selected instead. It was very predictable and on the surface it seems pretty unfair. If one digs deeper, however, one can also conclude that it was clearly the right decision.

Establishing some Bonafides

For the record, I’m an American and former U.S. National Team player. I bleed red, white & blue and, of course, one could consider me as ridiculously biased. How could I possibly be objective here?

Well, let’s take a trip down memory lane to the 2006-2007 timeframe when Greenland was unceremoniously removed from the Pan American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) for essentially being too good. (And, yes, I regret to say that my own nation was part of those machinations.) Why, on two occasions (2002, 2006) Greenland beat the U.S. to secure World Championship spots. The 2006 defeat was a real bummer because I was living in Europe and looking forward to covering the U.S. at the 2007 World Championships in Germany.

Instead, I got to watch Greenland play instead. As you can see and hear from this 2007 article/podcast I became a pretty big fan. For sure it was very obvious that the whining I had heard in the states that Greenland’s team was just a bunch of Danish mercenaries, was totally hogwash. This was a legit team with real fans that were proudly Greenlanders. That’s why I was outraged when Greenland was kicked out of PATHF and used my soap box to lobby for their reinstatement. Whether this little website played any role is debatable, but thankfully the IHF forced PATHF to reinstate Greenland.

13 years later I still am a big proponent of Greenland handball. In 2018, I watched Greenland almost pull off a big upset over Chile on home soil to secure a 2019 WC slot. What a match and atmosphere! Check out this interview with Minik Dahl Hoegh regarding that match and handball in Greenland.

Anyway… If all this doesn’t convince you I can be objective… Nothing will. Moving on.

The IHF Role: They Decide and There’s No Established Criteria

So, why is the IHF making this decision? Well, due to the COVID-19 and probably the limited budgets of the nations involved it became impossible to hold a NACHC Championship. And, let’s be absolutely clear here:

No one. I repeat no one. Is happy that no championship could be held to decide a winner on the court. No one.

So no championship. How is this resolved? Does one turn to the NACHC regulations to see what it says under force majeure? No… not even if such regulations exist. As the IHF announcement points out, the applicable regulation is IHF Competitions, Section 2.8, World Championships: Non Appearance which states in part:

“If a Continental Confederation does not use its performance or compulsory places, the IHF Executive Committee shall decide on the reallocation of such places.”

So, with no championship being held, technically, the IHF didn’t even have to give this World Championship slot to a NACHC nation. They could have decided (as some have suggested in social media) given this slot to North Macedonia.

IHF Rationale for Selecting the U.S.

So, basically this was a free ticket for the IHF with no actual requirements dictating a solution. The IHF, however, provided some rationale, which I mostly agree with. That rationale is listed below:

  • USA are a very important handball nation for the worldwide handball development;
  • In view of the size of the population, a specific strategy was developed to accelerate the progress of handball in USA, aiming to grow the IHF’s TV audience worldwide and increase the social network impact of handball, which will help to maintain the status of handball in the Olympic system and ensure the future of handball at the Olympic Games;
  • The former Pan American continent was split in order to increase the number of handball activities and offer the countries in NACHC better chances to reach IHF major events. A special focus was placed from the very beginning on the USA being a major market. 
  • An agreement with major TV broadcasters in the USA has been made to show handball matches.
  • As Los Angeles, USA is hosting the 2028 Olympic Games, having strong host teams should be an overall target;
  • From those teams that have registered for the planned qualification event and showed interest in playing the qualification (Canada, Greenland, Puerto Rico, USA), USA are the best-ranked team at the last official competition, namely the 2019 Pan American Games.

The first five sets of rationale listed all relate to U.S. development and growing the U.S. market. Strictly from a business standpoint it’s hard to find fault with this rationale. And, make no mistake, the IHF is a business. Honestly, after years of shaking my fist in frustration at the lack of effort to develop a U.S. market, it’s refreshing to see criteria I’ve championed before being listed as reasons to give the U.S. an opportunity on the world stage. To promote the sport in this country.

A Rising Tide Lifts all Boats

It’s also worth noting that what’s good for USA Team Handball is also good for handball, in general, both in North America and the World. I get how the other nations of the NACHC might be resentful of the economic weight of the U.S. dictating this decision. Even if it is a unique, one off decision that’s only be made due to a global pandemic it still can leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.

But, make no mistake if the U.S. becomes a handball nation it will help everybody, much the same way the U.S. development as a soccer nation has helped the development of the CONCACAF. Yes, the CONCACAF isn’t UEFA, but make no mistake the U.S. caring about soccer now means some big paychecks for that organization. Big paychecks that have trickled down to all the CONCACAF nations.

Could the same thing happen with the NACHC? Yes, it could. Nicer competitions with a crowd and a TV contract. The U.S., Cuba, Canada, Greenland and others battling on the court for a WC slot in a nice arena in front of cheering fans.

So that’s the business case, but there’s actually a pretty solid case to be made that the U.S. is also the better team on the court. In Part 2, I’ll take a deep dive to explain why I think that is also true.

Commentary: Re-Imagining The U.S. Collegiate “Olympic” Sport Model (Part 1): The Enormous Disparity between Varsity and Club Sport Funding

Posted on by
Yearly expenses for several sports programs at Ohio State University. Team Handball actually does have a bar, but at $3,376 it just doesn’t register at this scale.

The COVID-19 Pandemic has been a catalyst for several colleges and universities to reevaluate their collegiate sports programs. And, that reevaluation has resulted in 90 sports teams being dropped from the athletic departments of 26 schools. All told, around 1,500 athletes will no longer be competing at the Varsity level. (Source: NBC Sports: College sports cuts in the wake of Covid-19 are clouding the future of Olympics participation)

As you might expect a number of people are very upset with this development. This includes the 1,500 athletes who in many cases have lost a partial college scholarship, the college coaches who have lost jobs and the Sports National Governing Bodies (NGB) that have lost multiple sources for the development of potential future Olympic athletes. Not to mention the entrepreneurial $30 Billion dollar youth sports industry that has sprung up in part to develop athletes to get those scholarships.

Many articles and comments are along the lines of what a shame it is that this collegiate support for “Olympic” sports is being lost. And, that it will inevitably impact Team USA performance in future Olympics. My gut reaction to all this hand wringing is…

Hold on a second…You’re not talking about “all Olympic” sports here.  Cry me a river and welcome to my world, fencing, shooting, etc.

This visceral feeling is well founded, both as a former college handball player and coach.  I’ve seen first hand the disparity in terms of resources and support with what an Athletic Department “Varsity” sport receives and what a Club Activity sport receives.  It’s night and day.  Varsity sport athletes have scholarships, full time coaches, dedicated practice space and substantial travel budgets.  Club sports typically have no scholarships, volunteer coaches, often compete for gym space and sometimes get a little funding to defray a portion of their travel costs.

As I started working on this commentary, however, I realized that I needed to go beyond the gut reaction and that it would be better to quantify just exactly what the financial disparity actually is.  This resulted in a trip down the rabbit hole only to discover that it’s even worse than I had imagined.

Ohio State University Support to Sports Programs

There are many colleges and universities in the U.S., but only 19 collegiate handball clubs in the U.S.  For my initial investigation I chose Ohio State University which has an extensive NCAA sports program and a team handball club. 

It took a little digging and some reorganization of available data, but here is a table which lists the total expenses for every varsity sports program and the team handball club. 

Sources: Ohio State University Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (EADA) 2018 submittal; Ohio State Handball Club Financial Summary (avg of last 2 seasons)

Time to Rethink These Allocations… You Think?

For me, this data was a real eye opener. I always knew that club sports were getting the short end of the stick, I just didn’t realize how short it was. Seriously, handball’s budget is over 1,000 times smaller than men’s ice hockey. Or, just 44 times smaller than women’s pistol. Pick your varsity sport. It doesn’t matter. It’s a big difference. A really big difference.

Does such a big difference make sense? Should there perhaps be some reimagining about how this funding is allocated?

Of course, there should be. And, I’m not alone when it comes to such thinking. Recently, the New York Times published an essay by Tom Farrey of the Aspen Institute, “Colleges Are Cutting Varsity Sports. That Could Be a Good Thing.” In the essay he make several great points about why indeed it could be a good thing. How such a shift could lead to fewer parents chasing scholarships for their kids and how club sports can often provide a better balance for students between athletics, academics and just being a college student.

Overall he concludes that:

“Reducing the number of varsity teams will mean fewer athletic scholarships, but also potentially less money spent pursuing them and more university support for other forms of campus sports.“

I’ve added the italics and boldface, because the words “potentially more university support for other forms of campus sports” are music to my ears… except for that pesky word, potentially. Because such a reallocation is easier said than done.

In Part 2, I’ll take I’ll examine what it might take for the word potentially to become reality. At the same time I’ll try and play devil’s advocate to justify why sports like Ohio State’s Synchronized Swimming program should continue to expend resources at a $1.1M/year clip.

Forum Club Handball (Part 1): An Overview of this Influential Organization

Posted on by
Forum Club Handball: An organization quietly influencing handball behind the scenes.

Recently, I’ve fielded some questions regarding the Forum Club Handball (FCH). What is this organization and why are they helping the development of U.S. players.

Fortunately, a couple of podcasts were aired recently to help educate handball fans about the FCH. First, Xavier O’Callaghan was interviewed by Bini Mustafa on the Straight Handball Talk podcast and was asked about it. O’Callaghan was the President of the FCH and he provides a great top level explanation from a European perspective.

Then, on this Shootin’ Straight podcast I was also asked about the FCH. To answer that question, though, I first went on a bit of a diatribe to explain how U.S. and European pro sports are organized differently. This is because understanding those differences first is fundamental to understanding why there was a need for an organization (FCH) to represent Europe’s top clubs. I also elaborate on why it’s a “loose confederation” or forum and why initially the EHF was a bit wary of this upstart organization.

More Information

  • Forum Club Handball Website: Link
  • FCH Key Message: Link
  • FCH Member Clubs: Link (Note: voting rights shift based on participation/performance in European club competitions)
  • FCH Wikipedia Page: Link

Side note: There was lots of great discussion on a variety of topics (U.S. challenges and college development are a couple) in the Shootin’ Straight podcast that’s worth checking out.

In part 2, I’ll take a closer look at the FCH’s support to U.S. player development

ehfTV with a Fresh New Look… but are the Days of Free Handball Numbered?

Posted on by
Things that make you go Hmm?: “Free” registration at an “ehfpayments” url.

<IMPORTANT UPDATE (3 July, 2020)>

The EHF has informed me that the answer to this question is “No. There are no plans whatsoever to change ehfTV to a paid subscription service. The misleading URL is a result of the switch to a new streaming partner which serves other entities that charge a subscription. The URL has been flagged for an update. The EHF, however, noted that handball fans will need to register and login to ehfTV to watch live matches. A small requirement, though, to watch the world’s best handball free.

<Original Article (Posted 2 July, 2020)>

ehfTV: The Best Thing Ever for Handball Fans in Far Flung Countries

Big things are a foot with the European Handball Federation (EHF). A new 10 year contract for TV and Marketing rights is now in full swing. The result: a revamped Champions League format, fresh new web pages and a new look ehfTV.

If you’re reading this article and are any kind of a handball fan you already know what ehfTV is. Why, it’s the best thing that’s ever happened to me as a fan of the sport here in the U.S. All of the Champions League matches, European Cup matches and even the European Championships available* for free viewing. Free! What a deal.

Are the Days of a Free Ride Coming to an End?

ehfTV is such a good deal that I’ve been wondering for years just how long it would last (Article from 2016). I mean we have to credit the EHF for being so forward thinking with this positive promotion of the sport, but they are a business and “free” generally is not a smart long term business move.

And, indeed in some countries the free ride ended a few years ago. There’s an asterisk on “available” and that’s because some matches are geo-blocked in some countries if the TV rights have been sold. That’s totally understandable. If I was a TV network owner I wouldn’t want the match being shown for free elsewhere. I would want viewers watching my channel.

But, it’s only understandable if the match can actually be seen in the country in question. In the U.S., beIN Sports (the previous rights holder) usually only aired 1 match a week on a delayed basis on Wednesday mornings. But, because they had a TV contract that match and many others were geo-blocked. This was extremely frustrating and forced handball fans like me to use VPN to watch matches on line. VPN is a less than desired workaround, but as a paying beIN Sports subscriber I had no moral qualms with using that alternative.

A New U.S. Network?

With a new 10 year contract kicking in there is now a chance for the EHF Champions League being seen on a new network. There are several possibilities that hopefully are being considered. NBC is a possibility and they’ve already shown the 2019 Men’s and Women’s on the NBC Olympic Channel. Other possibilities include Fox Sports, CBS Sports Network, TNT, 11 Sports or yes, a return to beIN Sports.

My preferred choice, however, is ESPN and specifically a combination of ESPN linear channels and ESPN+. As this earlier commentary highlight ESPN+ practically begs for a dedicated handball sub-channel: Link

Maybe Everybody Pays?

But, there’s another model that might at some point come into play. If you’ve checked out the new ehfTV platform you may have noticed that it invites you to register for free: Link

But… the url is for ehfpayments.streamamg.com. Yup. The “free” registration is at “ehfpayments”. Which is certainly a “Hmm” moment. As in, “Why would you call it that?”

Pure speculation on my part, but I can envision the EHF eventually transitioning ehfTV to a tiered service with some matches still being free, but adding a subscription to watch more matches and additional content.

Assuming such a subscription was reasonably priced this would actually be a good solution. Some matches on regular TV, some matches on free ehfTV and some matches on premium ehfTV. Actually I could get real used to that. HBL, LNH… are you listening?

How We Get There… Or, More Accurately, Can We Get There? (Part 2): National Team Targets and Assessment Methodology

Posted on by
USA Men’s results at the key Olympic Qualifier (The PANAM Games)
Can the U.S. take Gold in 3 years time at the 2023 PANAM Games in Santiago, Chile?

This is part of an ongoing series: Link

A Little History: Ambitious Targets that have become Increasingly Difficult to Meet

Since I’ve been following USA Team Handball the goal has always been to qualify for the Olympics. And, then once at the Olympics to medal or to reach the quarterfinals. Up until the 2000 Olympics these goals were perfectly reasonable. Qualification was expected. Indeed the only failure to qualify prior to 2000 was the Men falling short in 1992. Getting a medal was a bit of a stretch, but the 1984 Women’s team came close as a win over West Germany would likely have earned a bronze medal. (The U.S. lost 18-17)

But, since hosting (and automatically qualifying) for the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996, neither the U.S. Men or Women have come close to qualifying for the Olympics. There are multiple paths to Olympic qualification, but in practical terms for nations in North and South America it has meant winning the PANAM Games Handball tournament in the year prior to the Olympics. Neither the U.S. Men or Women have made it to the title game since 1995 and the few teams that we’ve made the semifinals it has resulted in a double digit loss. In 2007 and 2015 the U.S. even failed to qualify for the PANAM Games. (Historical PANAM Games Results: Link) Here is a summary of the U.S. performances since Handball started being included at the PANAM Games in 1987.

U.S. National Team Targets for the 2024 Quadrennial

Going forward, USA Team Handball appears to have similar targets. As a review here are the Strategic Plan targets for the National Team

  • Qualify for the IHF World Championships by 2024
  • Top 12 Finish at IHF World Championships by 2024
  • Top 2 finish at 2023 PANAM Games
  • Qualify for the 2024 Olympic Games

Additionally, there are some top level plans identified as potential ways to support achieving these targets:

  • Project France, whereby the U.S. National Team would compete as a team in a French league
  • Identifying up to 200 athletes new to handball and sending them to Europe for additional training. I’ll call this the Great Leap Forward Elite Player Pool Project.

Past Projections

Being the analytical type, I’ve done my best to project U.S. chances for Olympic Qualification for the past two quadrennials (2016 and 2020) and I’ve even already projected out to 2024. Here’s a summary of those assessments and when they were made:

  • March 2013: Assessment of U.S. Chances for 2016 Olympic Qualification: Link
  • September 2015: Assessment of U.S. Chances for 2020 and 2024 Olympic Qualification: Link
  • October 2017: Assessment of U.S. Chances for 2020 Olympic Qualification: Link
  • November 2017: Assessment of U.S. Chances for 2024 Olympic Qualification: Link

The cliff notes summary is that I’ve been pretty spot on with only a few things surprising me a bit. (i.e. Perhaps, I just might know what I’m talking about.)

Methodology for 2024 Quadrennial Assessments

While, reviewing my assessments, however, I noticed a couple of shortcomings. First, I didn’t fully characterize and define the “What We Have” starting point that USA Team Handball was working with. Perhaps it was obvious to some readers, but I’m not so sure. In particular, I don’t think key decision makers fully comprehended just how low of a starting point USA Team had been working with for years.

The second key shortcoming was the lack of actual targets and benchmarks to shoot for. This has now been rectified with the Strategic Plan. Again, it’s not a perfect document, but it does provide structure in terms of what we want.

Finally, I’m going to try and take a look at what happens to the “Can We Get There” if we change cost, schedule or performance constraints. Of course, we can’t always actually change them (the 2024 Olympics most likely will occur in 2024), but such analysis can provide further insight as to the feasibility and rationale for different projects

First up: A closer review of how feasible it is for the U.S. Men to qualify for the 2024 Olympics and other targets in the 2020-2024 Quadrennial.

How We Get There… Or More Accurately, Can We Get There? (Part 1): The Project Management Triangle

Posted on by
The Project Management Triangle: There’s just no getting around these constraints.

This is part of an ongoing series: Link

Finding the Sweet Spot: High, but Achievable Goals

I spent quite a bit of time and energy reviewing “What We Have” and “What We Want” (Yikes: 17 articles!) But, that tedious process was really, really necessary.  Sure, it’s a lot more fun to actually draw up the plans to move this great sport forward.  Heck, that’s true with almost any planning process.  Enough, already!  Paralysis by analysis.  Let’s get to work!

Problem is, though, if you don’t do that legwork up front you could well be drawing up plans that given your current situation simply aren’t practical.  Or, you might be planning for something that doesn’t actually match your organization’s goals very well.  Sometimes big projects will even take on a life of their own so much so that nobody can even remember what the original reason for them was in the first place.

All of those are big reasons why it’s necessary to closely look at “What We Have” and “What We Want” and determine how feasible it is to get from one to the other.  Because if it’s not feasible that’s a major problem.  And, that major problem can only be fixed in one way:  By scaling back “What We Want”.  Sure, it would be nice to magically change your “What We Have” starting point, but you can’t change your current reality.  It is, what it is.

And, at the other end it can also be tough to lower your expectations.  To downscale lofty goals.  That’s no fun, either, but often that’s the only thing you can do.  Otherwise you’re simply setting yourself up for failure.  The fix, however, is not to come up with simple goals that can be easily met.   No, the solution is to find the sweet spot of high, but achievable goals.  Obtainable goals worthy of special effort that can genuinely move handball forward as a sport in this country.

The Project Management Triangle: Cost, Schedule and Performance

So, how does one determine whether it’s possible to go from “What We Have” to “What We Want”? For “projects” or project like efforts that assessment can be done through a review of the project plan. A “project” is defined as a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result. In terms of USA Team Handball there have been a number of “endeavors” over the years intended to grow the sport or to produce good national team results.  The Boys & Girls Club pushes in Los Angeles (1980s) and Atlanta (1990s and early 2000s) could be classified as projects.  The various residency programs implemented over the years were projects typically focused on maximizing national team capabilities for the Olympic Handball Tournaments.  Currently, efforts to grow collegiate handball, youth handball, improve near term national team performance and yes, the Big, Hairy, Audacious Project are all projects.

And, like any project they are constrained by cost, schedule and performance.  What is often referred to as the Project Management Triangle.  A project has an intended performance outcome, but only has so much money to spend and time to work with.  And, if you want to alter one element of the triangle it’s a given that you have to change the other parts of the triangle in some respect.

A Test Case for Illustrative Purposes:  Growing College Handball to 100 Clubs

Let’s take growing collegiate handball as an example.  Let’s say our goal is to have 100 collegiate clubs by the end of the 2020.  With currently only 15 Men and 4 Women’s clubs that’s pretty ambitious.  Throw in the COVID-19 Pandemic and it seems pretty unlikely that we can meet our targeted performance (100 clubs) in the desired schedule (31 Dec 2020).  Keep those constraints and you can only attack the problems with more money.  I guess if we had $5M we could provide direct cash payments to 81 colleges to start college handball programs and hire 5 full time staffers to be 100% focused on this effort, but that doesn’t seem very practical.

This logically means scaling back schedule and/or performance.  With the pandemic it’s not clear what the 2020-21 season will even look like and that could make starting new clubs pretty challenging.  It’s debatable, but a better target end date would likely be May 2022 or May 2023.  Further, some more work is probably needed in fleshing out a good target for performance (# of clubs).

Defining Performance: Clearly Defined Deliverables and Targets that can be Tracked and Measured

This leads to another aspect that requires some careful thought and consideration.  Namely, a project plan with a schedule and clearly defined deliverables and targets.  Simply having broad objective statements like “we want 100 college clubs” leaves way too much open to interpretation.  Clear targets like “100 college clubs that contest 15 matches/year” are better along with other deliverables like a college handball start-up kit that will help get to the final project objective.

Competing Goals and Projects

It would be nice if USA Team Handball had just one goal and one project to worry about.  Unfortunately, however, that has never been the reality and this has been most visibly displayed over the years by choices that have been made between grassroots development and national team preparation. There has never been enough funding to properly do both (or even just one) and in most cases, the “decision” has been made to focus on national teams. I’ve put “decision” in quotes because many times it’s not been clear as to whether a thorough decision making process to prioritize limited resources was used or whether the decision just happened by default.

I bring this reality up, because sometimes folks think that it doesn’t matter if we as an organization fall short of lofty, audacious goals. That such goals can serve as inspiration and we’re going to strive for our best regardless of whether we fall short… So, what’s the harm? Well… the harm is that there are competing needs and spending resources on an effort that is unlikely to succeed is highly questionable if there are other options with greater chances of success.

Can We Get There?: Determining Feasibility

The next parts of this series will assess the feasibility of a number of different efforts that USA Team Handball has started or plans to start in the near future. In particular, it will review “What We Have” and assess whether can feasibly get to to “What We Want” in terms of cost, schedule and performance.

Spoiler Alert: We are likely to fall short in almost every instance. Please don’t shoot the messenger…