<?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>Op-Ed: New Regs Hurt Vets</title>
		<description>Discuss Op-Ed: New Regs Hurt Vets</description>
		<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:14:13 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/4700/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>deckside says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13904</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I would not be surprised to see universities pulling their support from clubs due to these rules. By offering support to a sport that discriminates they are opening up themselves to lawsuits. Simply not worth it to them and will end up marginalizing our sport even further.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>deckside</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 23:46:41 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13904</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>deckside says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13903</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Indeed, yours is a bad argument. It would be more fair and just for USAR to keep McCaw and Matfield from playing college rugby by enforcing amateurism. NCAA does this very well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>deckside</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 23:41:36 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13903</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Patrioticrugger says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13895</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Anton Oliver Allblack hooker and Captain retired from international rugby and then played for Oxford university. Let's just keep are expectations low and let Russia and Japan pass us up.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Patrioticrugger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 22:36:11 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13895</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Patrioticrugger says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13894</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another one of Don's bunk theories. High school enrollment is age restricted, college enrollment is not. When legitimately enrolled college students are denied the right to play based on age it ceases to be a college sport. Thanks for your service Don.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Patrioticrugger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 22:32:07 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13894</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>blackfolksplayrugby2 says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13883</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The eligibility time frame of 5 years is cool, and not different than what we had previously (as I remember anyway) The clock ticking from high school graduation is not though. We need to decide if we are going to be age grade or school formatted in collegiate rugby.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>blackfolksplayrugby2</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 17:37:26 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13883</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mr. D says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13881</link>
			<description><![CDATA[USA Rugby should have a grace period. Maybe implement the new rules in 2 years, and grandfather in any players that are now 23,24,25 and have only been playing for 2 years.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mr. D</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 17:27:56 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13881</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dstone says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13871</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Almost every high school high school district has rules limiting players in sports to the age of 19. Not sure why USA rugby limiting the age of its players to a maximum of 23/24 would cause such an outcry. Five/Six years of eligibility should be enough. Yes it does discriminate against those who served our country. The whole point of these rules is to level the playing field so that the only difference is the players, coaches, and university. PS - I served for six years in the military and truly understand the others side of this argument.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dstone</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 15:32:38 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13871</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>mjmcnerney says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13864</link>
			<description><![CDATA[USARUGBY 's problem is that they are trying to regulate a structure that they have ignored for years. The methods teams have adopted are now systemic, and built into their success. You can't punish teams for their success, but as it stands now, only the extremely well financed teams can compete. If we put the top 12 colleges together and have them form a league based on money resources, there is still the problem of someone is going to have to finish at the bottom, which would raise questions on a team's money to success ratio. This could cause the bottom teams to move back to DIAA, blah, blah,blah. There is no easy answer because the national office can't define what they want college rugby to be. What is the mission statement on college rugby ? And please don't say grow the game.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>mjmcnerney</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:28 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13864</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tom OHara says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13854</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with deckside 110%. Two of my son's Binghamton University Rugby teammates were in the Army Reserve and were called up for a year's deployment to Afghanistan, after which they returned to Binghamton and rugby. (1 now serves with my son on the NYPD, for whom they both play rugby.) Another of their Bing Rugby teammates did two tours in Iraq and was wounded in Fallujah before returning home and entering Binghamton. C'mon, USA Rugby-- do the right thing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tom OHara</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 03:47:19 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13854</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jb says:</title>
			<link>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13851</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Spot on! I cannot see what problem the new regs are supposed to solve. Rather, they appear to cause a host of new eligibility issues for many teams and many players. Does USAR really think their sport is so different that it must have different eligibility rules than all NCAA-sanctioned sports? Five year to play four seasons, starting from first term of enrollment, with allowances for any volunteer/military experiences seems pretty fair. And can someone point me to one of these mythical sides that are "loading up" on 28-year-olds?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 23:39:48 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://rugbymag.com/op-eds/4700-op-ed-new-regs-hurt-vets.html#comment-13851</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
