Category Archives: USATH News

post

USA Men’s Team getting ready for PanAm Games

Posted on by

Adam El-Zoghby fit for fight again

The squad for Guadalajara was announced today, in connection with a presentation and interview opportunity via a conference call.  There were no surprises.  Head coach Darrick Heath noted that all the players he had wanted for the squad were available, except that back-up goalkeeper Ivan Ignjatovic cannot make himself available at the training stage and is now an alternate.  In any case, the limit of 15 players (as compared with 16 for other IHF events) meant that Heath had opted to go with two goalkeepers instead of three.

It is certainly good news that Adam El-Zoghby has been declared fit for fight after his unfortunate injury in the qualifiers against Canada last December.  He will even be able to fit in some games with his Egyptian club team Al Ahly, before it is time to join the squad in the training camp that will precede the travel to Mexico.   This camp will, as in the case of the women, take place in Lake Placid.  It might have been more ideal to have it in Colorado Springs, as preparation for the high altitude in Guadalajara, but apparently handball did not rank high enough to get this wish accommodated by the USOC.

The training camp and the time after arrival in Mexico will not include the opportunity for any practice games.  The focus will be on intra-squad scrimmages.  Coach Heath indicated that he has a pretty clear idea of who will be his starting seven in the PanAm Games.  But he also felt that he now has a lot of players at his disposal with both talent and valuable, continuous match experience from clubs in Europe, so he feels that they will be able to hit the ground running.  He also commented on special efforts to achieve the all-important cohesiveness on the court.  Moreover, film studies of the key opponents from Mexico and the Dominican Republic will constitute a high priority in the preparations.

While it will be tough to match up favorably with perennial powerhouses Argentina and Brazil, both Darrick Heath and USATH General Manager Steve Pastorino viewed it as a realistic goal to fight for the third place.   There is really a whole bunch of teams who see themselves being in contention for that spot, not just because it might be as high as they realistically can hope to climb, but because that third place brings with it the eligibility for the IHF’s qualification tournaments next spring for the final slots in the 2012 Olympics.

Apropos the hypothesis of reaching the third place, Steve Pastorini indicated that while there is no special funding for these qualification tournaments, the money to ensure such participation simply had to be found.  The team members were already substantially out of pocket in connection with the qualification games against Canada and the ‘last chance’ tournament in Guatemala.   While they now have to set aside more than a month for training and for the event in Guadalajara, at least they will have their travel costs and related expenses paid.  (Ed.: The players on the Canadian men’s team are being asked by the Canadian Olympic Committee to pay several thousand dollars each as a contribution to the expenses for their participation in Guadalajara).

When asked to describe the overall financial situation of the USATH at this point, Steve Pastorino used the telling word ‘precarious’.  He noted, without getting into details that, following the recent severe cut-backs in staffing, ‘some of the remaining staff’ were now operating on a volunteer basis.   Contrary to the hope which was expressed previously, that part of the amounts cut in the funding from USOC during 2011 might be restored, Steve suggested that it might instead be more realistic to expect a further cut of 20% in 2012.  The budget submission from the USATH for 2012 is currently being prepared.

Steve Pastorino implied that USOC seemed to want to ‘have it both ways’, by stating that they would insist that funding be used for development and grassroots activities, while at the same time using the lack of results on the part of the national teams as the main rationale for the reductions in funding.  He appeared to suggest that the emphasis on medals as the only thing that matters is just getting stronger.  This dilemma is, of course, not a new one to handball in the U.S.  It remains to be seen how the USATH leadership intends to deal with this situation, presumably in collaboration with its membership.

The link to the USATH press release, including the roster: http://usateamhandball.org/news/2011/08/17/men-s-national-team-roster-for-pan-american-games/44121?ngb_id=42

post

Partille Cup: How can USA Team Handball best maximize this opportunity?

Posted on by

USA Girls in action at the Partille Cup

The USA sent two youth teams recently to participate in International Handball Federation (IHF) Olympic Solidarity Program and the Partille Cup in Sweden.  The Olympic Solidarity Program is an IHF funded program held to support developing handball nations and the Partille Cup is a massive youth tournament with club teams from all over Europe and the world participating.  While I think it’s great that a handful of young American players are getting this exposure to Handball, some of the ugly score lines from the tournament got me contemplating whether the USA is maximizing this opportunity.

Boys Team Results from Partille Cup

Olympic Solidarity Camp Friendly Games
USA National Team 26-22 China
USA National Team 44-29 Singapore

Pool Play (16 and Under)
USA National Team 7-32 OV Helsingborg
USA National Team 9-22 Kärra HF
USA National Team 16-14 BK Ydun
USA National Team 17-22 TV Birsfelden
USA National Team 9-19 HC Eynatten-Raeren

Knock Out Tournament
USA National Team 8-21 Elverum IL

Girls Team Results from Partille Cup

Olympic Solidarity Camp Friendly Games
USA National Team 10-18 Scotland
USA National Team 12-23 Scotland

Pool Play (15 and Under)
USA National Team 3-22 Vorup FB
USA National Team 4-28 Kungsängens SK
USA National Team 4-27 Skövde HF
USA National Team 1-27 Klaebu IL
USA National Team 4-30 Skedsmo HK 1

Knock Out Tournament
USA National Team 5-14 Röyken og Hurum Graabein

Results Overview

A quick assessment of the score lines show that the boy’s team had some measure of respectability.  They won their two friendly games against China and Singapore at the Olympic Solidarity Camp and compiled a 1-5 record in their Partille Cup games, with an average score line of 10-19.  The girl’s team results were more lopsided.  They lost both of their solidarity camp games to Scotland and were totally overwhelmed in every Partille Cup match losing their 6 games with an average score line of 4-25.  (Note:  These matches were 2X15 minutes, so to get a true picture you might want to multiply the scores by 2)

Top Prospect or Any Prospect?

While these score lines were ugly we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking this was a wasted trip.  I’ve written before about lopsided scores and the benefits the learning experience provides to the losing team.  And in that commentary I was talking about much older teams.  The two teams sent to Sweden were far younger and coupled with the training at the Olympic Solidarity Program this event was surely worthwhile for every athlete that attended.  All that being said, however, I think USATH needs to be  more low key as to the composition of this “national team”.  This was clearly a developmental team and I would classify the participants as more any prospect then top prospect.

The play on words refers to the current youth focused effort established by the USA Federation: the Top Prospects program.  There are a lot of positive things about this program as it’s providing funding, curriculum and structure to different regions of the country.  There’s a clear application process and it may be presumptuous on my part, but I think if someone is motivated and takes the time to fill out an application they probably stand a good chance of getting some support to develop a local program.  In short, the Federation is providing much needed support and incentive to start new pockets of development throughout the U.S.

But, while what I’ve just described is all well and good it appears that the program is probably falling well short of its stated mission of identifying “talented” future Olympic Players.  I say this based partly on the ugly looking score lines from the recent Partille Cup.  While those poor results can be partially chalked up to the vastly more experienced European clubs I think a team of future Olympic athletes could use that superior athletic ability to keep the game a little more respectable.   This is especially true when you factor in that most of the clubs participating at the Partille cup are only drawing athletes from one small dot on the map, not an entire county or 300 million people.

But, then again the current reality is that the U.S. is probably working with a youth talent pool smaller than what many of those clubs are working with.  In fact, based on Federation articles written promoting the trip and tryouts a cynic might even assess that just about anyone willing to pay for airfare probably could have put on a USA jersey.

The challenges of identifying top young talent

But, even if USA Team Handball had thousands and thousands in the talent pool vying for Partille Cup spots, identifying the future Olympian at ages 15 and 16 is probably a futile mission.  Out of curiosity I checked out the USA Basketball website to see what kind of Under 19 and Under 18 rosters they’ve sent to assorted FIBA tournaments in the past 15 years.  I didn’t do an in-depth review, but the typical roster only had 1 or 2 players whose names I recognized and with a few notable exceptions (Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh) I didn’t see a whole lot of Olympians.  And this is for a U19 roster for a major sport where colleges spend hundreds of thousands of dollars recruiting and assessing potential high school prospects.  So, with all those resources being applied they are either missing some talented players or more likely those talented players are still developing as athletes.  And this is at ages 18 and 19!  If you look at ages 15 and 16 players like Michael Jordan (he got cut from his HS Varsity team as a sophomore) would never ever get selected.

Recommendations:  Focus on maximizing exposure

So, if you take into account that a sport like basketball can’t do a great job of identifying Olympic talent at young ages, it’s very unlikely that we’re going to do the same for Team Handball.  And if you couple that fact with the other challenges our sport faces competing against other more established sports, we need to make sure were maximizing the potential benefits of Partille Cup participation. And in my opinion, maximum benefit equals maximum participation.  With that in mind I have the following recommendations.

1) Maximize nationwide participation: The rosters for the Partille Cup had fairly heavy representation from only a few Top Prospect programs.  Notably, the girl’s team was mostly from New Jersey while the boy’s team was spread out a little better with 3 players each from Salt Lake City and Chicago.  I would argue that it would be better to further spread out that representation, so that only 1 or 2 players be allowed to participate from a local youth program.  Such a quota would give more players from clubs and Top Prospect programs exposure to the Partille Cup experience.

2) Limit participation to “one and done”:  Attending an event like the Partille Cup can be life changing for a young athlete.  It is a totally unique opportunity and has the distinct possible outcome of creating new Handball fans for life.  Attending the same event in subsequent years, however, will not have a significant multiplying effect.  Therefore, it would be far better to maximize the numbers of kids who get that opportunity.  Hence, my one and done proposal to ensure that as many kids as possible get that experience.  Undoubtedly, this will mean the official USA teams that are sent won’t be as strong, but results are really secondary at these ages. (A short side note here:  There’s nothing to prevent anyone participating or creating their own team to play in this event.  I’m simply talking about the teams that are getting resources from USA Team Handball.)

3) Come up with a new name for the team:  Since the criteria above will keep us from sending our best team forward the USA team should be given a name like “USA Select” or “USA Development Team”.  This is semantic, but in terms of promotion to the rest of the world it will help to at least partially explain ugly score lines.

4) Continue to promote the event:  My compliments to Kyle Hanson and the USATH staff for their regular reporting on this event.  This isn’t the first time a team from the USA has attended, but it’s the first time it’s gotten the exposure it deserves.  Future prospects will read those reports and target this as an event they want to play in.  Promotion is key to getting the word out and expanding the talent pool.

 

USATH:  Top Prospects Program Overview:  http://assets.teamusa.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/37770/Top_Prospects.pdf

USATH (18 Feb 11): 20 Athletes Converge on Colorado Springs for Youth National Team Selection Camp: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/41031

USATH  (10 Jun 11): USA Team Handball youth taking on the 2011 Olympic Solidarity Program and Partille Cup in Gothenburg, Sweden: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/42763

USATH (15 Jun 11): U16 Boys and Girls Rosters Named for Partille Cup: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/42855

USATH (28 Jun 11): U16 Girls Training Camp in August at the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/43135

USATH (13 Jul 11):  Youngsters shine at Partille Cup:  http://usateamhandball.org/news/2011/07/13/youngsters-shine-at-partille-cup/43521

Partille Cup VIDEO: Olympic Solidarity Overview: http://partillecup.com/eng/index.php/home/webb-tv/?film=4407

USA Basketball (Under 19 History): http://www.usabasketball.com/mens/u19/history.html

 

post

PATHF Second Chance Tourney: USA – Uruguay draw 23-23

Posted on by

23-23: A draw vs Uruguay means goal differential will be key for the U.S. tonight against Guatemala

Game 2 of the Pan American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) 2nd chance tournament ended in a dramatic 23-23 draw.  According to a recap provided by USA Team Leader, Jim Thome, the match was a see-saw affair throughout with the largest lead being a 3 goal lead for the U.S.  The match was a physical affair with 15 two minute penalties being assessed (8 for Uruguay and 7 for the U.S.)

A further account of the match including the last minute is at the USA Federation site:  http://usateamhandball.org/news/2011/06/04/usa-ties-uruguay-in-second-chance-tournament/42643

Qualification for the PANAM games will now come down to goal differential in the final match between USA and Guatemala later today.  On Friday, Uruguay beat Guatemala, 20-12, so a 9 goal or more USA victory would put the USA at the top of the table.  A 7 goal or fewer win would see Uruguay qualify.  An 8 goal victory would revert to the next tie breaker, total goals scored, so the U.S. will be looking to score 21 or more goals in the match.

Guatemala cannot win the title, but as host, can play the spoiler.  For a young team playing in front of a home crowd against the big country to the North this will surely be a challenge they will relish.

Note:  I now plan to interview Mark Ortega after Sunday’s match.  Throw off is at 6:00 PM local (8:00 PM East Coast Time).  I will try to post the interview by 11:00 PM East Coast time.

post

Commentary: USA Team Handball National Teams: Are there too many guys with short haircuts and accents? (Part 2: Dual Citizenship Athletes)

Posted on by

Swedish-American Martin Clemens Axelsson and Norwegian-American  Karoline Borg are key members of the U.S. National Teams

Anyone who follows USA Team Handball’s excellent American’s Abroad updates has surely noticed that two groups of Americans (military members and dual citizens) are very well represented. In Part 1, I assessed that having a lot of military athletes on our National Teams isn’t a problem, but rather a symptom of a problem (thin talent pool). In part two, I’ll consider whether the same is true for dual citizenship athletes.
Dual Citizenship Athletes
USA Team Handball, since its inception has had dual citizenship athletes playing for its National Teams and certainly it isn’t the only sport to have sprinkled its roster with these dual citizen athletes. Notably, USA soccer, particularly in its development years in the 80s and 90s, has had its fair share of foreign imports. Additionally, a number of Handball nations (e.g. Spain) where there is no shortage of homegrown players have bolstered their roster with mercenaries (naturalized citizens) simply to improve their national team.
Until recently, however, dual citizen athletes have been a distinct minority on U.S. teams that have been overwhelmingly comprised of born and raised, domestic based players. Arguably, at no other time in the history of the sport in the U.S. have so many dual citizen athletes (e.g. El Zogby.Axelsson, Borg) played such pivotal roles on U.S. National Teams.
So, should we be concerned that we have too many guys with foreign accents?
Yes, for three reasons.
1) Again, this is a very clear indication that we have a thin talent pool. First off, let’s acknowledge that most dual citizens if presented a choice between 1) playing for the Handball nation where they’ve learned to play and spent most of their life or 2) playing for Team USA they are going to choose the Handball nation. Only, if they have no realistic prospects are they going to consider the U.S. option. There might be exceptions to this (perhaps, Adam El Zogby), but it’s a good rule of thumb. So, if a second tier (or third, or fourth or even lower caliber) player from Europe can make the U.S. team it’s probably a good indication that our homegrown talent pool is third tier (or lower). This isn’t all bad. Such players can still be huge contributors that can help us knock off the likes of Canada, Greenland and maybe even Brazil or Argentina someday. But, they are not likely to put us into the next echelon in the World Championships or Olympic Games.
2) Integrating dual citizenship athletes can be disruptive. It should also be noted that the integration of dual citizens on a national team can be a tricky business. I got a sense of this during my short stint on the U.S. National Team when we had tryouts for a couple of dual citizens from Norway and Sweden right before the World Championship in 1993. Both athletes that tried out were nice enough guys and experienced players, but there was also a little resentment with these “outsiders” potentially taking a roster spot from the born and raised Americans. As two outsiders amongst 15 players that had been practicing together for several months there were few integration problems. The only minor problem I recall was when they started conversing in Nordic to each other in front of their teammates. Never a polite move in any context and this was put to a halt with some friendly counseling.
As the current National Team structure has most players playing with clubs overseas, the context is clearly different from my stateside experience. And everything might be all hunky-dory now as relatively few athletes are competing for roster spots. As competition for National Team spots heats up, though, politics will undoubtedly enter the picture. Heck, I remember divisions and accusations of political favoritism based on geographical regions within the U.S. Those New York accents can take a while to get used, but add an even thicker one with an accompanying separate cultural identity and there could be real cohesion problems. An American citizen is an American, but let’s be clear that there’s no getting around the fact that there’s a big cultural identity difference between growing up in the U.S. and growing up in a foreign country. It doesn’t matter how well someone speaks English and how frequently they connect with relatives in the States, they’re going to be more culturally attuned to where they’ve lived. Fortunately, the U.S., more than any other country, is a melting pot of different cultures, so team integration of such a diverse group is still likely to occur. All things being equal, though, it’s simpler not to have such a diverse team.
3) Dual citizens are less likely to support development in the U.S. An ancillary benefit (at least a hoped for one, anyway) of athletes participating in National Team competitions is that those athletes will use that experience to support development of the sport in the U.S. Anyone who has been around the sport in the U.S. knows full well that is not always the case. In fact, it happens a lot less than we’d like it to. Still, it goes without saying that it’s even more unlikely that a dual citizen with stronger ties to another country will decide to move to the U.S permanently and become involved in development efforts. Also, not to be forgotten is the role model aspect of a local club member getting promoted to the National Team. This can inspire younger players to new heights with the thought, “well if he can do it, I can do it.”
Should anything be done to remedy this imbalance?
In many respects this problem can be resolved the same way the military athlete imbalance can be fixed. If we widen our domestic talent pool with better players then the standard for dual citizens getting consideration will be higher and accordingly there will be fewer of them.
While this should occur naturally I also think that USA Team Handball should have some policies that will indirectly boost opportunities for domestic players. Right now, with no U.S. based residence program it’s pretty much impossible for a domestic player to improve significantly as a player without moving to Europe. As such, by default, this has given the dual citizen athlete already conveniently living and acclimated to Europe a distinct advantage. While, I’m not advocating a return to the full-up residence programs of the 80’s and 90’s, I do think that some resources need to be spent on preparing domestic based athletes for overseas competition. (This is outlined in Part 3: A Framework for Creating U.S. National Team Success) In addition, more time and resources should be devoted to getting those domestic athletes on good clubs with strong training programs. A watchful eye should be kept on dual citizen athletes, but logically they will be more able to fend for themselves.
In the end, I’d like to see U.S. National Teams with a smattering of dual citizens playing key roles. Not because I don’t like dual citizens, but because I’d like to have the quality of our domestic players be such that only a few talented athletes can make the cut. And who knows, maybe I’m dreaming, but perhaps one day I’ll even get to read a German (or Danish, pick your country) commentary deploring the fact that they’ve lost a prized dual-citizen prospect to the Americans.
post

Commentary: USA Team Handball National Teams: Are there too many guys with short haircuts and accents? (Part 1: Military Athletes)

Posted on by

West Point (pictured) and the Air Force Academy have several graduates in the USA National Team player pool. Is it too high of a percentage?

Anyone who follows USA Team Handball’s excellent American’s Abroad updates has surely noticed that two groups of Americans (military members and dual citizens) are very well represented.  It’s worth reflecting upon whether this presents a problem or concern with the sports development in the U.S. Here’s my analysis on military athletes.

There has been a long tradition of athletes with military backgrounds playing on U.S. National Teams.  The 1972 Olympic team, in particular, included several army athletes that were introduced to the sport via Army sponsored training camps.  Anecdotally, I’ve even been told that making the team back then had the added incentive of avoiding a tour in Vietnam.  In terms of collegiate club programs West Point and to a lesser extent, the Air Force Academy have been the bulwark programs that have been around for years as other programs (with the exception of North Carolina) have come and gone.  So it should come as no surprise that more graduates from these schools have gone on to join the National Teams than from any other college in the nation.

I am obviously biased, but I think most non-partial observers would also agree, that the typical service academy graduate who continues to play handball is both highly dedicated and disciplined in their approach to the sport. In simple terms they are usually highly coachable and true team players.  Aside from the right attitude, their Handball skills have generally been a notch above most other collegiate programs.  In other words a service academy graduate transitioning to the National Team isn’t starting at ground zero.

I suspect that the current preponderance of military athletes in the national team player pool is due to two primary reasons.  First, as I already alluded to, it’s simply a reflection of a very thin talent base.  This is clearly evidenced by only 4 men’s universities (West Point, Air Force, N Carolina and Texas A&M) and 2 women’s universities (West Point and N. Carolina) being represented at the recent collegiate championships.  With half the schools being Service Academies and the West Point men being so dominant that they played an intrasquad scrimmage for the championship it’s no surprise that our national teams have a lot of guys with short haircuts.

The second factor, undoubtedly trending towards more military athletes is the financial support being provided by the U.S. military’s World Class Athlete Program (WCAP).  This program allows military athletes in a number of different sports the opportunity to train full time in preparation for the Olympic Games.  I’m sure USA Team Handball would prefer to have its own funding line to provide generous stipends to any promising athletes, but that’s not currently in the cards.

So, should we be concerned that we have too many guys in short haircuts? Yes, for two reasons.

1) First, it’s a stark indication that we need more colleges playing the sport in the U.S.  If all of the athletes being identified for the next level (National team competition or pro leagues) in any sport are coming from only two schools that’s an anomaly.  And such an anomaly can only be the result of either powerhouse programs gobbling up all the talent or that there just aren’t very many people playing.  West Point obviously has a top notch program, but it’s more the latter than the former.  So, it’s a problem, but it would be a problem if it was any two colleges in the U.S.  They just happen to be Service Academies in this instance.

2) The second concern, however, is legitimately tied to the unique circumstances of military athletes.  And that is what the military can giveth with WCAP it can also taketh with military service.  This is evidenced by several Army players being pulled from the program after the loss to Canada last December. Relying too heavily on military athletes can severely impact a
program and given the choice (free of WCAP incentives) I’m sure that USA Team Handball would prefer developing players with no strings attached.

Should anything be done to remedy this imbalance?

Yes, but there’s no need for a plan with the specific goal of reducing our dependency of military athletes.  Rather, it should simply be a natural reduction based on more top players being identified and developed through youth based programs and more colleges playing the sport.  As the talent pool widens it’ll become more likely that only the top couple of players from any one school in the country will be identified as National Team prospects.   And with strong traditions at schools like West Point and the AF Academy it’s probably a good bet that they will continue to provide top prospects, they just will have a smaller percentage.

So, I’ve assessed our current preponderance of military athletes on our National Teams as not a problem, but a symptom of a problem (thin talent pool).  In part two, I’ll consider whether the same is true for dual citizenship athletes.

post

Is USATH serious about refereeing?

Posted on by

Having spent more than 20 years in charge of refereeing in handball in our country, the last thing I would want is to get caught up in the details of how things are being run today.  But it bothers me when I see that virtually nothing is being done, despite the availability of experienced and willing people.  Handball obviously does not exist for the sake of its referees, but it also cannot develop as a sport and support its young and inexperienced athletes in the absence of access to competent refereeing.

Many major handball countries strangely suffer from a lack of former referees with a willingness or ability to take on the task of recruiting, training and supervising new generations of referees.  They would be very envious of the situation that exists in the U.S., where we have a small group of people constituting a ‘national referee committee’ and an additional group of very experienced former international referees who are not just willing but eager to be able to help out.  In these circumstances it is absurd to observe that very little is happening, either due to a lack of constructive communications or due to negative attitudes on the part of the Federation.

The reason why I would venture to imagine that the problem might go beyond communications is that the Federation in recent time managed to alienate its small group of referees through a failure to take care of the reimbursement for the services for which the referees had been contracted.  Payments were made far too late despite many reminders or, supposedly, not at all.  Even in an organization that has to cope with financial difficulties, there should be no room for such lack of respect for a key group of volunteers.  But I still want to believe that the current situation is more related to a shortcoming in managerial or administrative capacity rather than due to an inappropriate attitude.

It seems that it should be relatively simple to mesh the technical knowledge of some people about how referees should be recruited, educated and monitored with the Federation’s knowledge of its resources from a budgetary standpoint to carry out such an effort; especially as the technical experts have long-term experience with this environment.  Plans and suggestions have been submitted, initially without reaction but eventually with a response that I could only interpret through my reading as ‘having the door slammed in the face’.  Without trying to second-guess the proposals or the responses, I can only say:  surely there must be a way of achieving a meeting of minds!

While there might be some differences of opinion about what constitutes the best approaches and about how to ensure that the resources are available, undoubtedly this can be worked out if there is a genuine desire to do so.  The Federation surely does not want to dismiss people who are willing to help? Perhaps the problem is simply that e-mail exchanges and the resulting (mis?)understandings of tones and messages need to be replaced by a brainstorming face-to-face!?  After all, the issue goes beyond the individuals involved in the dialog:  the impact involves the entire USATH field of activities.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that recruitment of handball referees in our country is not like the recruitment of basketball referees here or handball referees in Germany.  There can be no expectation of a natural flow of candidates.  Realistically they can only come from those few/small groups who are already actively involved, i.e., clubs, players and others in their surroundings.  So the clubs must feel an obligation to help out with candidates, essentially for their own sake.  This should not be seen as a burden or an unreasonable imposition, least of all from the vantage point of the Federation.  Much more awkward is the short-term ‘cover-up’ of bringing in guest referees from abroad, simply because the internal efforts are being ignored or delayed.

So I hope the parties concerned will get together and work out a solution without further delay.  But it would also be very helpful to the broader handball community in our country if the USATH leadership/management would be prepared to outline publicly its philosophy and intentions specifically with regard to refereeing.

post

USA Team Handball Announces New National Team Pool Criteria

Posted on by

USA Team Handball recently posted updated National Team Pool Criteria for prospective National Team players.  Some of the criteria appears to be simply a more structured rehash of criteria that has been previously used to assess and identify players.  There are the usual battery of physical tests and handball skills identified, but there are also some new requirements that caught my eye.

For instance, some basic minimums were identified in terms of matches and practices each year.  A relatively modest number of matches is required (15), but a fairly substantial number of practices are now required (48 court and 72 non court).  This may seem rather simple to our European readers, but I suspect that there are very few club teams in the U.S. meeting the 48/year requirement.

More noteworthy, is a requirement for senior players to relocate to designated Regional or National Centers of Excellence by June 1, 2012(#5, page 13).  Section 5 goes further to highlight that the process for selecting these locations is planned for the first half of 2011 and that preliminary plan is to re-establish a residency program (either walk-in or live-in).  As far as I know, this is the first written indication that USA Team Handball was going to take this significant step.  More details will hopefully be coming soon in regards to the specifics of such a program and how it will fit into the current practice of encouraging European Club participation.

Also added is a requirement off the court in terms of being an Ambassador for the sport with options to support development through recruiting, refereeing and fundraising.  An appropriate requirement, in my opinion, for a sport that needs as many people promoting it as possible.

But what really caught my eye, were the closing comments in the “Athlete Development Pipeline Model” document:

Finally, as uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncanny it may feel, there is absolutely no science based nor practice based evidence of a “fast track” for high achievers to become masters in their fields. To the contrary, as Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller “Outliers” put it (sic): “researchers and practitioners in variety of fields have settled on what they believe is the magic number of for true expertise: ten thousand hours.”

“The 10,000 – HOUR RULE” sends very clear and strong message to us all involved in handball.  Handball must evolve into year around activity.

A table is then provided which tabulates what this mean in terms of 25 day month (assume you 4 or 5 days off) over a 12 year span (2.77 hours/day) or 16 year span (1.56 hours/day).    I’ll have a follow on commentary about the 10,000 hour rule.  But suffice it to say, this is a very telling stat that speaks volumes as to the historic lack of U.S. success and the challenge of developing handball experts who pick up the sport in their late teens.

USATH: Live the Olympic Dream: Tryout for Team Handball!: http://usateamhandball.org/news/2011/02/23/live-the-olympic-dream-tryout-for-team-handball/40313?ngb_id=42

USATH: National Team Pool Criteria:  http://usateamhandball.org/national-teams/national-team-pool-criteria

USATH: USA Team Handball Athlete Development Pipeline Model:  http://usateamhandball.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/38081/USATH_Athlete_Development_Pipeline_Model_Application_Guidelines.pdf

post

USA Team Handball’s Egypt Connection

Posted on by

A strange twist of events resulted in USA Men’s National Team Captain, Mark Ortega, witnessing history in Egypt. Looking for a better training opportunity in preparation for the upcoming PANAM Games 2nd Chance tournament Mark moved to Egypt in January to train with fellow teammate Adam El Zogby’s club team, Al-Ahly, in Egypt. In two video reports, Mark chronicles Adam’s recovery from ACL surgery, life in Egypt and his search for a club to join. What starts as a handball travelogue seems starts to take a dramatic turn as protests in Egypt engulf the country. Video 2 ends with the protests starting and a discussion with a Cairo cab driver regarding their significance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6Rcpx9Xto&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCcmSYU6GNs&feature=player_embeddedUSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpPpey64_k&feature=player_embedded

Team Handball’s weekly report on athletes playing overseas reports that Adam El Zogby is continuing his recovery and is safe and sound in his apartment situated a little over a mile from El Tahir Square.

USA Team Handball: Mark Ortega Profile.
USA Team Handball: Americans Abroad Report.

USOC slashes funding forcing USA Team Handball cuts

Posted on by

USA Team Handball (USATH) General Manager, Steve Pastorino, has informed Team Handball News that the U.S. Olympic Committee has dramatically cut funding support to Team Handball and several other Summer Olympic sports. As a direct result of this reduced funding East Regional Director, Dominique Dumont and West Regional Director, Brian Finley have been let go and that further restructuring may be necessary.

The level of USOC funding support for 2011 has not been released, but based on personnel moves it is likely that it is substantially less than what was provided last year. According to an earlier interview with USATH, USOC funding in 2010 was approximately $260,000, or approximately 30% of their $800,000 operating revenue. USOC funding support in 2010 was nearly double 2009 ($140,000) and USATH had been hopeful that the 2011 support line would increase and start to align with USOC support provide to other NGB’s. Clearly this has not happened.

As we learn more about this restructuring we will provide more information.

THN (5 Oct 10): Interview: USA Team Handball General Manager, Steve Pastorino: Part 4: Federation Organization and Financial Status: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1110

Interview: USA Team Handball General Manager, Steve Pastorino: Part 4: Federation Organization and Financial Status

Posted on by

In the 4th and final installment of our interview, we discuss how USA Team Handball is now organized and its current financial status.

[b]Federation Organization/Financial Status[/b]

John Ryan: One of the bigger changes between the old Federation and the newest incarnation is the radically different staffing philosophies. For many years 3 or 4 staff members oversaw operations from a national office. The current staff is much larger. Exactly how many full time and part time employees are there?

Steve Pastorino:

Full Time ADMINISTRATION:
1. Steve Pastorino/General Manager (UT);
2. Dan Bush/Membership & National Teams (UT);
3. Alex Leopold (IL) / PR, Website/Development

Full Time HANDBALL DEVELOPMENT:
4. Mariusz Wartalowicz/Technical Director (IL)
5. Brian Finley/West Region (CA)
6. Dominique Dumont/East (FL)
7. Marko Brezic/Regional Coach (UT)

PART TIME/INTERNS:
8. Greg Myers/Marketing & Chicago Youth Development (IL);
9. Aida Kulasic, Intern Chicago (IL)
10. Brandon Gustafson, Intern SLC (UT)
11. Tim Fifield, Intern Fresno (CA)
12. Jaclyn Rymer, Intern LA (CA)
13. Timo Krueger, Intern Chicago (IL) (from Germany)
14. Ditte Rasmussen, Intern (UT) (from Denmark)

JR: Why the change in staffing philosophy? What are the benefits?

SP:
1. I believe we should be a national federation, with presence in multiple regions. There is not one central hub of handball in America where all of the resources/people/development should be centered (not Atlanta, not NY, not LA).
2. I think we need to be significant enough (in size, dollars, manpower) to run this sport with the attention, breadth and aspiration it deserves. Therefore, my staffing plan is bigger and more aggressive than in the past.
3. Mariusz, Brian, Dominique and Marko give USA Team Handball a face and on-the-ground presence in four important and different regions. We are trying to be far more ambitious in scope than our predecessors, and our staff is far more useful in four different time zones than all in one place.

JR: Such a staff takes a bigger slice of a limited budget. Are you concerned that this will preclude other expenditures like international travel, funds for club development, etc?

SP: Everything requires money. We have made a case to USOC that handball deserves substantially greater funding, and our message has been well-received when we pitch our long-term plans to them. I want to grow USATH into a $1M-$5M/year organization, with proper grassroots programs, proper National Team expenditures, substantial staff/club/player/referee/coach development.

JR: I understand that USATH wants the budget to grow, but in the meantime you’re dealing with a limited budget. Some tough decisions are being made that impact a lot of people. If the U.S. was spending a little less on salaries we wouldn’t have athletes digging into their own pockets to represent our country in international competition. Conversely, someone could even make the argument that if we cancelled a few more trips we could hire another regional director. Everything does require money, but how are those tough decisions being made?

SP: My staff provides budgets based upon their geographical location and/or projects where they are assigned; I compile these and then I present proposed budgets to our board; and they assist me in the prioritization process.

JR: What are the current year projected overall revenues and expenses?

SP: Approx. $800,000 (up from $500k in 2008-09 fiscal year.)

JR: Do you see overall revenues increasing from year to year? Can you give me a rough idea of where will be in 2012,2016,2020?

SP: I’d like to be a $5M/year organization by 2016.

JR: How much has Board Chairman, Dieter Esch, personally contributed since being certified by the USOC?

SP: More than $500,000.

JR: Wow. Even for a wealthy man that’s a significant chunk of change. Where would USATH be right now without that level of contribution?

SP: There would be no USATH. Perhaps there would be another group running a federation; or perhaps the USOC would still be administering the sport.

JR: Have all other independent board members contributed the $50,000 required by the Federation by laws?

SP: Several are spreading the payments over multiple years. All are on track to make at least $50,000 in donations.

JR: How much funding has the USOC provided? What percentage of total revenue is it? Do you see that percentage becoming smaller?

SP: In 2009, it was approximately $140,000. In 2010, approximately $260,000. It has been less than 30% of operating revenues. We anticipate that USOC will continue to increase their contributions, and the percentage of overall revenues will be in line with other NGB’s of our size and scope.

JR: How much funding have our sponsors provided on a yearly basis? Do you see this increasing over time? How much has progress on this front been stymied by the recession?

SP: $100,000 – $150,000 in 2009 and 2010; I would like to see this grow substantially. The recession has made it difficult, but sponsors and grants are a key to our long-term viability.

JR: You indicated that USATH wants to grow the budget to $5,000,000. The current budget is $800,000. How does the USATH increase its budget 6-fold?

SP: We’ve tried to build a business model for the long term. We have identified new areas of income (international events i.e., Battle of Chicago) and taken advantage of new and/or less cheaper technology to connect and promote our sport (televising events both on our website and channels like ESPN3 and Comcast Sport Net, making our home page a portal for news/info relevant to handball players in America, social media such as Facebook, etc. We’re trying to make the federation less dependent on one board member or one Executive Director by bringing board and staff on board with different business acumen, geographic location and ideas about sport development. We’ve forged a close relationship and accountability with USOC and multiple federations and clubs across Europe. This business foundation allows us to do more of the sport development at youth, teen and adult levels.

JR: The current Board of Directors (BoD) construct consists of 7 members with independent credentials and 2 athlete representatives. None of these directors, with the exception of the athlete reps are elected by the membership. While, I think the independent directors have given the Board a better business orientation I’m concerned that the rank and file doesn’t have much of a voice on this current board. Do you think this is true? Should it be a concern?

SP: We are adding another athlete rep who will be elected by a broader group of individuals than the AAC Rep (which is an artificially small number per USOC Bylaws). The rules for this election will be established this week. This Board member will have an important voice. Additionally, we have had guests at several board meetings now, and we will continue to facilitate that. Any rank-and-file member who wishes to voice opinions (through board members, my staff or directly to me) is encouraged to do so – and we hear from members every single day. I think our Board representation is fair and this has not been an issue to date.

JR: Some sports have a larger body (e.g. a congress) that provides input to the board in an advisory role. Do you see USATH adding that?

SP: We’ve discussed it… but until I see / hear more feedback that it is requested by the membership, it is not a priority.

JR: You’ve covered a lot of ground in this interview and I’ve found it very informative. In some respects, though, I think it only scratches the surface in terms of USATH’s plans for the future. Does the USATH have a more detailed plan which outlines objectives and includes benchmarks to measure performance? If so, can the membership see that plan and provide input?

SP: We provide a High Performance Plan to USOC annually, but they primarily want to know about our long-term Olympic prospects, not the broader plans, business model, etc. I have read several “10-year Plans” that were written in the past at USTHF, and unfortunately, none of them came to fruition. I prefer to let our work speak for itself, but there is always room for more public input and participation.

JR: In closing, I’ll ask the same question I asked you two years ago when we first met at the USA Team Handball Summit in St Louis. You had just taken the GM job and had heard 8 solid hours of discussion in regards to the challenges of developing Team Handball in this country. I asked you then if you were starting to realize just how hard it was going to be and whether there any second thoughts about taking on this challenge. You were full of optimism then. Two years later, how do you feel?

SP: No second thoughts. This sport is rich in history and tradition, inspires great passion and has unlimited potential. Is it a challenge? Absolutely. Is it exciting to be a part of the process? Without a doubt. I’m still optimistic. Go USA.

This concludes the interview, here are links to the other 3 installments.
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101
Interview Part 3 (Part 3: College Programs and Club Issues): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1104

Interview: USA Team Handball General Manager, Steve Pastorino: Part 3: College Programs and Club Issues

Posted on by

In part 3 of our interview, we discuss college programs and club issues in the U.S.

[b]College Programs[/b]

JR: What’s the USATH plan for college programs?

SP: We work with interested college students, club sports organizers, athletic departments, etc. On a case-by-case basis, we are trying to build programs. We try to identify an advocate everywhere we go. Success stories include: Texas A&M, Ohio State, Florida Atlantic, Oregon State, Gallaudet, Cal Lutheran – all of which participated in events last year. This coming year we are working with many schools including: Claremont Colleges, Utah, BYU, Colorado State, University of Illinois-Chicago, Western Kentucky, Penn State, Pitt, several Florida and Georgia schools. We don’t have an advocate / see a path to get it done more quickly on an intercollegiate/conference/regional basis.

JR: This year’s tournaments didn’t have a lot of college teams participating. What steps are being taken to expand the number of college clubs? Long term, how many clubs do you think the U.S. will have?

SP: I think we can get to 24 schools by 2012, with roughly half west of the Rockies. One key is to develop them in clusters, so they have nearby competition. I think the idea of College Nationals is ahead of its time; and we’d be better served with College West and College East championships, but for now, it’s worthwhile to protect and continue the tradition of one collegiate champion. I loved having Nationals outdoors in Myrtle Beach – it attracted a lot of attention and was a fun Spring Break type destination for our athletes, but it’s an expensive place to get to by air. We’re looking at similar environments near hub airports in the future.

JR: There was a short snippet in one of the Board’s Meeting minutes highlighting Cal Lutheran in Southern California as becoming a training site. What exactly is planned for that program?

SP: Cal Lutheran is one of USA Water Polo’s training centers so there’s precedent for their relationship with an NGB. They have lined two gyms with permanent handball lines and purchased equipment. They have supported the formation of a student club. They are making dorm space and gym space available to us on an annual basis for tryouts, clinics and/or camps. We will likely hold residential camps in the summer there as soon as 2011. We’re talking to University of Utah to do the same; and to schools in Central and Eastern time zones as well.

JR: Funds are limited and choices have to be made. Are college clubs seen as a cornerstone for USA development or a “nice to have”? In other words where does it fall in terms of priorities?

SP: They are a cornerstone. But we felt that we needed to establish a base of high schoolers playing first so we could begin to direct them to college programs starting in 2012 or so. We’ve spent more time on HS programs (futures and other grassroots) but always had our eye on colleges that would complement our other programs.

JR: Are there any plans to get Team Handball back on the NCAA Emerging Sports list? Could we even envision it as a fully sanctioned NCAA sport?

SP: It could be sanctioned NCAA sport sooner on the women’s side – which is why the Futures program was launched for girls one year before boys. But there’s a lot of work to do. We need dozens of established clubs before we can even think about Varsity status. When we have 10-20 solid clubs on men’s or women’s side, then we’ll revisit the idea of being an Emerging Sport again.

JR: Some sports federations, (USA Rugby for example) have a full time college director. Is that a possibility for USATH?

SP: Some day.

[b]Club Issues[/b]

JR: A lot of our discussion has focused on the end goal of a competitive National Team. But, this is not necessarily a priority for many members of the rank and file that just want to play the sport. How do you balance developing national teams while serving the needs of the membership base? Which has a greater priority and what’s a rough percentage as to how the USATH splits its efforts between those needs?

SP: I ask our regional directors (currently Brian and Dominique) to focus on clubs, members, grassroots – and as little as possible on National Teams. Mariusz and Dan spend time split between National Teams and Clubs. In Mariusz’ case, he oversees Coaching, Referees, Domestic competition, National Team organization, etc., so he’s pulled in many directions. Dan spends a significant chunk of time managing our Membership, but also helps communicate with the National Team pools and spending a few weeks a year with National Teams (where he doubles as our trainer).

Our members and their heritage as handball’s core supporters in America are still a huge priority. But we ask them to demonstrate that they are building a bridge to the next generation – incorporating young players into their clubs; coaching/mentoring kids; helping us with clinics/tryouts or other developmental activities. I think we’ve found a good balance between sustaining traditional competition, managing developmental programs and establishing a structure for National Teams.

JR: With a few exceptions, the current demographics for U.S. clubs tend to be older and international. How big a concern is this and what can be done to get to change those demographics to more and younger Americans playing?

SP: The overwhelming majority of participants in all of our new programs (Futures, urban programs in NYC/ATL/CHI, recently established clubs, grassroots programs) are individuals with US citizenship. We need to get the sport into the psyche of young American people and let them grow into our future. I know the demographics are changing, but you can’t tell yet by the rosters at Nationals. We are discussing an Olympic Sports Festival style event in 2011 that is for Youth & Junior National team candidates only.

JR: USATH has implemented a qualifying system for the Elite Championships. Are you satisfied with the current system? Do you expect it to continue to evolve?

SP: I’m sure it will evolve. For now, I think it’s what the member clubs want.

JR: There’s a real lack of legitimate Women’s clubs in the U.S. How is this being addressed?

SP: The Futures program introduced 150 young female athletes to the sport – and that number will hopefully double in 2010-11. As they get older and move on to college, they will be the core athletes that will comprise our next generation of college programs. If we form a dozen strong women’s collegiate programs, I think women’s clubs will follow. NYC THC, DC & Philadelphia are to be commended for starting women’s teams in 2009-10. Army, UNC, Furman Boston and Chicago continue to provide opportunities for women. The Futures program is primarily in the West right now, where opportunities have been especially thin.

JR: Many clubs in the U.S. put forth either no effort or only a token effort in regards to broadening their club to include youth and women teams. Is this a concern? How can these clubs be encouraged to do more?

SP: This is an old generalization, based upon “old clubs” in a club structure that is somewhat archaic. New clubs are putting more of an emphasis on broader development (Denver, Minnesota, DC, Philadelphia, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake, Chicago all come to mind). There will be a place for all of these clubs in the future… but we hope the majority of clubs become broader based.

JR: The National Championship Tournament has evolved to include a Men’s Elite and Open Division. Do you foresee this format continuing? Are you concerned that the open tournament might get too big?

SP: I hope we can continue the format… and I hope the Open tournament gets so big that it challenges us in every way. More clubs and competition is good – we all have to work collectively to make sure we can sustain and fund the growth.

JR: The Houston Firehawks Women’s team which dominated the Women’s Championship was almost entirely composed of Mexican citizens living in Mexico. Will USATH rewrite the rulebook to preclude non-American teams participating in the U.S. National Championships?

SP: Our Championships are open to teams that adhere to the Rulebook and meet the established criteria. There are no plans to overhaul the Rulebook. If we elevate the level of women’s handball in the USA, the Firehawks’ makeup won’t be the issue.

JR: U.S. sanctioned events now charge foreign clubs an extra $100 to participate. This has upset some Canadian clubs that were never charged before. What’s behind this policy? Is the extra revenue worth the ill will it may have caused?

SP: The more teams that compete in events in the USA, the higher the costs are for the organizers and USATH (referees, sanctioning, insurance, facilities, etc.) It’s a modest fee to ask (roughly $5-$10/player) when we ask our own players to pay $60 to compete. In Minnesota next month, we are waiving the fee because Canada is supplying some referees. If Canadian teams/players would rather register as USATH members, they can avoid the $100 fee. It is not intended to cause long-term strife between us and our friends in Canada.

In the 4th and final part of our interview, we discuss USATH’s organizational structure and financial status.

Links to Parts 1 and 2:
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101

Interview: USA Team Handball General Manager, Steve Pastorino: Part 2: Overseas Players and Future’s Program

Posted on by

In part 2 of our interview, Steve Pastorino provides an overview of USA Team Handball’s efforts to place athletes with overseas clubs and to develop more youth athletes through its Future’s Program.

[b]Overseas Players[/b]

John Ryan: Helping athletes find playing opportunities with European clubs is clearly a priority. Why has USATH made it a priority?

Steve Pastorino: Better culture, better training environment, better coaching, better competition. The gap between training environment in the USA and Europe cannot be bridged at this time – we’re too far behind the rest of the world.

JR: How many athletes are playing overseas? What are their ages and what levels are they playing at?

SP: They range from early teens to 30+, but the majority are 16-25 years old. Athletes who have succeeded in Varsity sports (at HS or college level) are preferred. (More info on U.S. players abroad is available here: http://usateamhandball.org/news/2010/09/08/americans-abroad-preview/38428?ngb_id=42 )

JR: I’ve seen some of these athletes play, so I’ve got my own rough opinions on their current skills and potential. Others, I’ve never seen play. Still, with this limited information, I would assess that for many of these athletes their “age” and “current level of play” is mismatched. In other words, I think it’s unlikely that they will develop into “world class” athletes on our national teams before they become “too old” and reassess what role handball plays in their lives. This, of course, is debatable. Do you think we have the right match in terms of talent and age?

SP: Not necessarily But at the same time, athletes who go to Europe to train are getting a rare and memorable experience. We will continue to encourage athletes of all levels to go. Identifying opportunities for teens to live and train is critical and this is the second consecutive school year where we’ll have at least six teens abroad. We’re also finding more and more dual-passport young Americans to incorporate into the pool.

JR: What assistance is USATH providing these athletes? Is there any financial support being provided? How much are athletes doing on their own initiative?

SP: USATH is heavily involved in coordinating the HS program; Matching athletes, families, schools, clubs, etc. College and older athletes have to do much more on their own, but we regularly contact clubs and agents to help us find appropriate places for our athletes to play. Some financial/transportation support has been given as well.

JR: Several of these athletes are active duty members of the U.S. military training under the World Class Athlete Program (WCAP). Can you briefly highlight what this program is and what its advantages are?

SP: We have five men and one woman in Army WCAP right now; There are three men in Air Force WCAP. Army and Air Force provide different levels of support for National Team members during Olympic cycles. As long as we are eligible for 2012 Olympics, these athletes are paid as Army/AF officers but given the opportunity to train full-time in their chosen sport. These individuals have had some of the best stateside training you can get in handball. They are natural leaders. They are good athletes. They are motivated and committed. It has been an important part of the puzzle for multiple NGB’s. We’d be foolish not to try to take advantage of it.

JR: Air Force and West Point have produced some great talent, but it’s never been more than 1 or 2 athletes every four years or so. Military commitments can also get in the way sometimes. Are you concerned that there might be too much focus on military athletes?

SP: If we get 1-2 great handball players out of the military every four years, it’s well worth the time and attention (there is very little cost to us). It also provides ongoing motivation to the two Academy programs. AFA hopes to restart a women’s program this year – it can only help.

JR: Several athletes with dual citizenship have been identified in Europe. Is this a stop gap measure until we develop more youth programs in the U.S.?

SP: No, I think it’s an ongoing reality. Michael Williams is SG Flensburg’s top youth player; Karoline Borg is playing in Norway’s first division; Sophie Fasold is being asked to join the German Women’s National Team program; They are all under 20 and dreaming of representing the USA in the Olympics – they can be part of the solution!

[b]Future’s Program[/b]

JR: My rough understanding of this program is that it is an attempt to get more high school kids playing handball. Can you give me a rough overview of how the program works?

SP:
– We identify volunteers to run HS age programs in various USA markets. Unlike our grassroots programs, we target recruit “elite” athletes to train in handball. We had a dozen applicants for coaches in 2009-10, and chose six coaches who we felt had the coaching & organizational skills to be successful. Kathy Rex administered the program. We selected as coaches: Dawn Lewis (Bozeman, Olympian), Kathy Rex (Colorado Springs, Olympian), Julio Sainz (LA, experience from Cuba), Robert Michalik (NJ, ref & exp from Poland), Attila Agoston (Denver, ref & exp from Hungary); Angie Webb/Marko Brezic (SLC). All six programs recruited 15-30 girls and trained them for one season, culminating in HS National Championships in Colorado in May.

– Next year, we anticipate 12 programs, and expanding to include both boys and girls. Possible markets include Chicago, Florida, Atlanta, North Carolina, Texas, Las Vegas, Fresno. We need to be more consistent with age groups and/or develop two levels of teams in each market, especially as kids grow older each year, and we continue introducing younger players annually.

– We’re also getting experience in training parents as coaches, volunteers and refs – we need all these people at a local level as well.

JR: I heard some good things about the Utah program that new board member Jeff Utz has started. Can you provide some background on what’s been accomplished so far?

SP: Salt Lake Handball Club has taught the sport to thousands of athletes in schools; and recruited 100’s who want to play on an ongoing basis. We’re developing a 4-6 team fall league with teams in Provo, SLC, Murray, West Valley, Park City and/or Ogden (see Utah map). Each team has its own coach and facility, and the best players come together at least once a week in a “all star” environment. It’s designed to be self-sufficient, with local families and sponsors providing funds for coaches, equipment, gym space, etc.

JR: If I’m not mistaken USATH has never really tried to engage younger players on such a large scale. Is it tough to convince top athletes to give up their primary sport, even if only for a couple of weeks?

SP: We have to try… and we feel like we’re making progress. It has been hard to find our “season” because of all the sports conflicts. But I think in most markets, we’re a Fall/Spring/Summer activity – but winter is tough everywhere because of competition from basketball and other sports for gym space. We have found many athletes ready/willing to devote time to handball and in most cases, we’re not asking them to give up other sports entirely. Even in Iceland/Denmark, some of our teens have/will play other sports – not just handball.

JR: Talent identification at younger ages can be tricky. One just has to look at all the college scholarship players that don’t really pan out in college. Are you concerned that a lot of resources have to be expended to find the athletes that will pan out?

SP: There is no alternative. We have to recruit younger. That’s one of the reasons we need more numbers – we have a better chance to find National Team caliber athletes if the pool is 1,000 (or 100,000) – not just 100.

JR: Does USATH plan to participate in PATHF championships/qualification matches for youth and junior World Championships? If so, when?

SP: We plan to… if we have the resources to do it right. Again, 2013 is the year we’ve targeted to re-enter international competition, but it could come sooner.

In part 3 of our interview, we discuss college programs and U.S. Clubs

Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098