<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>California Teams Win Two in WPL</title>
		<description>Discuss California Teams Win Two in WPL</description>
		<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 03:20:00 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/2004/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>sue sylvester says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6719</link>
			<description><![CDATA[People need to be realistic, anyone who thinks that Glendale, Atlanta, ORSU and probably NOVA aren't better than 2 or even 3 of the WPL teams are incorrect. ORSU dropped without a contesting a match and then picked up a bunch of former Eagles. Atlanta refused to challenge for a WPL spot. Glendale is almost unfair and if their pack was bigger things would get ugly. NOVA has a huge club, with strong administration and strong 7s tradition. All of the clubs listed above will pay to travel and put dues into USA Rugby but none will get the chance to be the best team in the country this year. It's a sign of a broken system-a system that was broken from the first moment it was cooked up in some shady backroom. Remember none of the teams who got left in DI had any say in this situation]]></description>
			<dc:creator>sue sylvester</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:31:15 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6719</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rugby says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6711</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also note that WPL veteran Emilie Bydwell scored 6 of the Surfers' tries this weekend...she wasn't in D1 last year.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rugby</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:04:49 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6711</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alpharugger says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6635</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No conclusions should be drawn about any D1 team being better than any WPL team (or the rel/del policy in general) based on scores after 2 games. 1) Rosters change considerably from season to season. Retirements, injuries, and player transfers/departures make material differences in the chemistry of the team and how long it takes for them to find a rhythm. 2)Travel costs mean that players on budgets must pick and choose which away games they can afford to attend. Fundraising helps, yes, but the cost for 23 people to fly if tickets are $300/pop = $6,900 x 3 away games= $21K BEFORE nationals. I would hazard to guess that away rosters when airfare is involved]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alpharugger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:16:50 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6635</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Phoebe - All Blues says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6634</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I sat on the board that decided the promotion/relegation policy last year and we considered a great MANY factors when deciding how many teams to move up and down. I think we will be revisiting the topic next year so please reach out to your WPL regional rep (or myself) to discuss further. This is only the 3rd year of the WPL so there are still kinks to be ironed out and we welcome feedback. Thanks. (also note, the other team that would've been knocked down was Keystone and they beat Beantown last week...so it's an Any Given Sunday situation sometimes)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Phoebe - All Blues</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:01:48 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6634</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Interesting. says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6605</link>
			<description><![CDATA[All these lopsided scores indicate a problem with the wpls delegation promotion policy. The league was created to improve the level of play at the top, and specifically prevent teams from having to spend a ton of money on travel for games with these sort of scorelines. This is the surfers first season in the wpl and they destroyed two of the historical superpowers. The surfers score sat the d1 round of 12 and final four were winning scores, but not blowouts, so I wonder how many of the beter d1 teams would be better suited for the wpl than teams IN the wpl? Any ideas?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Interesting.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:58:49 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/women's-clubs/2004-california-teams-win-two-in-wpl.html#comment-6605</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
