Mudassar Nazar
New Member
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
It's only rude if its not true.
It's only rude if its not true.
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Alright guys, that's enough. I don't want to have to delete any more posts from this thread. I'd rather you keep discussion on topic as this thread is about America's involvement in cricket. So leave it at that.
We've already had one person offended by comments on here, I don't want anymore and I don't want petty little flame wars to spring up across the forum.
Stereotypes and abuse towards countries won't be tolerated so refrain from that type of activity on here as it is against the forum rules.
Stick to the topic at hand guys.
Alright guys, that's enough. I don't want to have to delete any more posts from this thread. I'd rather you keep discussion on topic as this thread is about America's involvement in cricket. So leave it at that.
We've already had one person offended by comments on here, I don't want anymore and I don't want petty little flame wars to spring up across the forum.
Stereotypes and abuse towards countries won't be tolerated so refrain from that type of activity on here as it is against the forum rules.
Stick to the topic at hand guys.
D
Dave
Guest
T
timmyj51
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Australia fielded like crap in England during the summer and they're six months
older now. My prediction: 2-3 of the old geezers will break down before
the tour's over and Young will eat his words.
Australia fielded like crap in England during the summer and they're six months
older now. My prediction: 2-3 of the old geezers will break down before
the tour's over and Young will eat his words.
S
Stamislav
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
As much as I would like England to win, it doesn't seem realistic at this point. Australia has too much depth. If Langer fails they've got Jaques. If the fourth or fifth bowler fails they've got Tait, Johnson, Watson, Symonds, and MacGill. If Gilchrist fails they've got Haddin.
timmyj51;116382 said:
As much as I would like England to win, it doesn't seem realistic at this point. Australia has too much depth. If Langer fails they've got Jaques. If the fourth or fifth bowler fails they've got Tait, Johnson, Watson, Symonds, and MacGill. If Gilchrist fails they've got Haddin.
D
Dave
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
An influx of people from Britain and its former colonies brings the sport to Central Florida.
An influx of people from Britain and its former colonies brings the sport to Central Florida.
D
Dave
Guest
T
timmyj51
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
"I'd love to see more catches in the outfield." Well, he's getting more
of this with 20/20 cricket.
"As the background of the event going back to 1882 was outlined I sat there in awe."
Maybe he'd be in even more awe to know Yanks were playing pommies at cricket in 1859 and Australia in 1878.
"I'd love to see more catches in the outfield." Well, he's getting more
of this with 20/20 cricket.
"As the background of the event going back to 1882 was outlined I sat there in awe."
Maybe he'd be in even more awe to know Yanks were playing pommies at cricket in 1859 and Australia in 1878.
C
copernicus
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Yep, and look where they are now. That kind of history certainly overshadows that of the Ashes....
timmyj51;118102 said:
Yep, and look where they are now. That kind of history certainly overshadows that of the Ashes....
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
You want to know why the majority of Americans don't know about cricket or don't care about it? There are no incentives!! Why do we play golf? Because we want to be like Tiger Woods and make millions. Why do we play baseball? Because we want to be like Derek Jeter and make millions. Why do we play football(gridiron)? Because we want to be like Jerry Rice and make millions. Why do we play hockey? Because we want to be like Wayne Gretzky and make millions. What incentive do we have in learning to play a sport(like cricket) or enjoying to watch a sport(like cricket), where there are no established incentives for us to learn to want to be good at it? Why is bass fishing on ESPN? Because there is prize money for getting the most fish. Why is bowling on ESPN? Because there is prize money for getting the highest score. Look at poker. Why has poker boomed over the last 5 years? Because you could win a million dollars just like that! Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of getting cricket off the ground here in the States. As a matter of fact I have just recently become a fan of the sport because I was recently exposed to cricket on a trip to OZ over the past year and have been learning as much as I can about the sport. I read an article recently where "Centrex" is pumping 10 million to promote cricket in the US. I am very curious as to how they are going to do this over the next 10 years. My suggeston: have a Grand Final every year for the next 10 years and the winning team each year gets $1 million. Then you will get Americans to start playing the sport. Otherwise, it will be a recreational sport in the US for a very long time to come.
You want to know why the majority of Americans don't know about cricket or don't care about it? There are no incentives!! Why do we play golf? Because we want to be like Tiger Woods and make millions. Why do we play baseball? Because we want to be like Derek Jeter and make millions. Why do we play football(gridiron)? Because we want to be like Jerry Rice and make millions. Why do we play hockey? Because we want to be like Wayne Gretzky and make millions. What incentive do we have in learning to play a sport(like cricket) or enjoying to watch a sport(like cricket), where there are no established incentives for us to learn to want to be good at it? Why is bass fishing on ESPN? Because there is prize money for getting the most fish. Why is bowling on ESPN? Because there is prize money for getting the highest score. Look at poker. Why has poker boomed over the last 5 years? Because you could win a million dollars just like that! Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of getting cricket off the ground here in the States. As a matter of fact I have just recently become a fan of the sport because I was recently exposed to cricket on a trip to OZ over the past year and have been learning as much as I can about the sport. I read an article recently where "Centrex" is pumping 10 million to promote cricket in the US. I am very curious as to how they are going to do this over the next 10 years. My suggeston: have a Grand Final every year for the next 10 years and the winning team each year gets $1 million. Then you will get Americans to start playing the sport. Otherwise, it will be a recreational sport in the US for a very long time to come.
T
timmyj51
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Puttin' the cart before the horse. Golf, tennis, bowling, etc. became "bit money" sports in the USA because their
was popular demand for them, not vice-versa. Show the American public cricket can be as exciting, appealing, and athleticallly
demanding as the "big money" sports they know and the game may be on its way to becoming the same. Won"t happen
by just forking over big $$$ to some nondescript team.
Puttin' the cart before the horse. Golf, tennis, bowling, etc. became "bit money" sports in the USA because their
was popular demand for them, not vice-versa. Show the American public cricket can be as exciting, appealing, and athleticallly
demanding as the "big money" sports they know and the game may be on its way to becoming the same. Won"t happen
by just forking over big $$$ to some nondescript team.
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Popular demand for those sports(golf, tennis, bowling) was driven, and is being driven, by big money and high paid endorsements from companies like Nike, Adidas, Taylor Made, Brunswick,...you name it. There is nothing of that kind for cricket here in the US. There is no way in hell you are going to get the majority of Americans to enjoy cricket, like baseball or football(gridiron) or golf, when there is no money at the end of the rainbow. You say that just by showing Americans that the sport is physically demanding, exciting, and appealing as our other major sports, that will "maybe" get it on its way to popularity. How, pray tell, are you going to do that?? There are tons of sports here that we play that are exciting,physically demanding, and appealing, that have no national recognition because it is only for recreational use or there is no big money involved. We are a capitalistic society here, driven by marketing and "show me the money" mentality. If the goal at stake here is to get cricket as recognized as all the other sports that are shown on TV here in the States, someone is going to have to put up some serious endorsement/prize money for people to get interested in playing. And I don't think that if a team were to win a Grand Final event here in the US for $1 million, that team would be nondescript. I think they will get some major attention in the world of cricket, especially if the team, as a whole, can put up serious numbers on the boards. If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.
Popular demand for those sports(golf, tennis, bowling) was driven, and is being driven, by big money and high paid endorsements from companies like Nike, Adidas, Taylor Made, Brunswick,...you name it. There is nothing of that kind for cricket here in the US. There is no way in hell you are going to get the majority of Americans to enjoy cricket, like baseball or football(gridiron) or golf, when there is no money at the end of the rainbow. You say that just by showing Americans that the sport is physically demanding, exciting, and appealing as our other major sports, that will "maybe" get it on its way to popularity. How, pray tell, are you going to do that?? There are tons of sports here that we play that are exciting,physically demanding, and appealing, that have no national recognition because it is only for recreational use or there is no big money involved. We are a capitalistic society here, driven by marketing and "show me the money" mentality. If the goal at stake here is to get cricket as recognized as all the other sports that are shown on TV here in the States, someone is going to have to put up some serious endorsement/prize money for people to get interested in playing. And I don't think that if a team were to win a Grand Final event here in the US for $1 million, that team would be nondescript. I think they will get some major attention in the world of cricket, especially if the team, as a whole, can put up serious numbers on the boards. If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.
T
timmyj51
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
"And when I mean Grand Final event, I mean like a national tournament with lots of teams involved. Not just throwing two teams on the field and giving $1 million to the winner."
We alrady have a so-called "national" USA cricket championship and,
believe me, you wouldn't want to pay these guys $9.99.
"And when I mean Grand Final event, I mean like a national tournament with lots of teams involved. Not just throwing two teams on the field and giving $1 million to the winner."
We alrady have a so-called "national" USA cricket championship and,
believe me, you wouldn't want to pay these guys $9.99.
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
If you are saying our current national champions aren't much to be desired, it is probably because there is no incentive for them to really play at a high caliber level. It is more of a recreational level of play. I think if you flash $1 million in everyone's faces here to be a national champion in cricket, the sport will definitely get some high publicity and gain more exposure(TV, magazines, etc), the competition level will increase, and more people will come out of the woodwork to want to play the game. I really don't see any other way to get this sport up and going here.
If you are saying our current national champions aren't much to be desired, it is probably because there is no incentive for them to really play at a high caliber level. It is more of a recreational level of play. I think if you flash $1 million in everyone's faces here to be a national champion in cricket, the sport will definitely get some high publicity and gain more exposure(TV, magazines, etc), the competition level will increase, and more people will come out of the woodwork to want to play the game. I really don't see any other way to get this sport up and going here.
C
Chandu
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
kudu, don't mean to sound insulting, but how much business background do you have and just how old are you? If you understood basic economic principles and laws of supply and demand, you wouldn't be making the statements you're making.
Unless of course you're interested in spending your own personal $1 million, you're welcome to take the risk. But in that case, you wouldn't be going off on this message board, rather preparing business proposals with detailed implementation plans, forward looking statements, legal plans, risk analysis documents, contingnecy plans and having meetings with Rupert Murdoch and company.
On the other hand, if your idea is about burning other people's money, I'm assuming you've identified those "other people". If not, I know some people here in Menlo Park you may be interested in meeting. You can still prepare those documents without any concern for the source of money (assume a bottomless pit, since it's other people's money), and let's see how long they'll entertain you.
kudu, don't mean to sound insulting, but how much business background do you have and just how old are you? If you understood basic economic principles and laws of supply and demand, you wouldn't be making the statements you're making.
Unless of course you're interested in spending your own personal $1 million, you're welcome to take the risk. But in that case, you wouldn't be going off on this message board, rather preparing business proposals with detailed implementation plans, forward looking statements, legal plans, risk analysis documents, contingnecy plans and having meetings with Rupert Murdoch and company.
On the other hand, if your idea is about burning other people's money, I'm assuming you've identified those "other people". If not, I know some people here in Menlo Park you may be interested in meeting. You can still prepare those documents without any concern for the source of money (assume a bottomless pit, since it's other people's money), and let's see how long they'll entertain you.
T
timmyj51
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
"]If you are saying our current national champions aren't much to be desired, it is probably because there is no incentive for them to really play at a high caliber level."
No, you flash big $$$ in front of all the $9.99 players (and that's all there is in this country) and they'll still
be $9.99 players.
"]If you are saying our current national champions aren't much to be desired, it is probably because there is no incentive for them to really play at a high caliber level."
No, you flash big $$$ in front of all the $9.99 players (and that's all there is in this country) and they'll still
be $9.99 players.
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
Chandu-
The $1 million I am referring to comes from the $10 million that "Centrex" is supposedly bringing in the US to promote cricket(see my post #66). I could care less about the laws of supply/demand and basic economic principles. Businesses and ideas are built by taking risks, whether it be with planning and/or financially, and thinking outside the box. When you are dealing with people in the US, like I said before, who are driven by marketing and "show me the money" mentality, you have to think outside the box of basic business and economics. Yes I am offended by you asking me how much business experience I have and what my age is. What difference does it make because I don't see any proposals coming from you on this post as to how we can get cricket up and going in the US.
timmyj51-
Pessimism will get you nowhere if we are trying to get cricket in the major US sports market. I beg to differ that there are only "$9.99" players here in the US. There are a ton of great athletes here in the States, fully capable of learning the sport and putting together a great team and being a major competitor in the world of cricket, but you need to give them an incentive to want to learn how to play and be good at it. Take a look at poker over the last couple of years. People have come out of the woodwork, learned how to play, played in online or card room tournaments and within a calendar year, gone to Vegas and won lots of money at the World Series of Poker. Why have so many people wanted to learn? $$$$$$$$$$$$
What really bugs me is the pessimism people have in saying that the US won't accept cricket as a major sport, blah, blah, blah. If the cricket world wants the US involved in the sport, market the crap out of the sport here and show us the money!!!
Chandu-
The $1 million I am referring to comes from the $10 million that "Centrex" is supposedly bringing in the US to promote cricket(see my post #66). I could care less about the laws of supply/demand and basic economic principles. Businesses and ideas are built by taking risks, whether it be with planning and/or financially, and thinking outside the box. When you are dealing with people in the US, like I said before, who are driven by marketing and "show me the money" mentality, you have to think outside the box of basic business and economics. Yes I am offended by you asking me how much business experience I have and what my age is. What difference does it make because I don't see any proposals coming from you on this post as to how we can get cricket up and going in the US.
timmyj51-
Pessimism will get you nowhere if we are trying to get cricket in the major US sports market. I beg to differ that there are only "$9.99" players here in the US. There are a ton of great athletes here in the States, fully capable of learning the sport and putting together a great team and being a major competitor in the world of cricket, but you need to give them an incentive to want to learn how to play and be good at it. Take a look at poker over the last couple of years. People have come out of the woodwork, learned how to play, played in online or card room tournaments and within a calendar year, gone to Vegas and won lots of money at the World Series of Poker. Why have so many people wanted to learn? $$$$$$$$$$$$
What really bugs me is the pessimism people have in saying that the US won't accept cricket as a major sport, blah, blah, blah. If the cricket world wants the US involved in the sport, market the crap out of the sport here and show us the money!!!
C
Chandu
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
The article you're referring to is:
http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000033/003336.shtml
The budget is nowhere close to being able to burn $1 million for purse money in 1 year, and expect it to help long term growth of the sport. Anybody with a basic business understanding would know that.
For a $1 million annual purse, you would need of the order of $100 million or more golden pot. Show me where that is.
When you start talking in a "dream" language, assuming other people are going to take financial risks to fullfil your interests and disregard basic economic principles, you have no credibility.
For micro-niche products, you cannot think outside the realm of basic business and economics.
Selling soccer or Formula-1 in USA are niche products. At least USA has a reasonable strcture for soccer with MLS and national team. Or structure for Formula-1 with having hosted annual US Grand Prix in Indianapolis.
Selling cricket in USA is a micro-micro-niche product. For them to even come to the level of soccer and Formula-1 is a steep mountain to climb.
If you had followed the growth of soccer in USA since 1986 to 2006 and how much of a 1 step up, 2 steps down struggle it has been, you wouldn't be offended by the "age" question either. I must have dealt with countless number of high-school age kids with no long-term perspective on anything making claims about throwing "marketing money" at soccer to take it to next tier. I'm not accusing you to be of certain age, and why should I? There is nothing wrong with being of any age ever in anybody's lifetime. Your proposal on the other hand is typical of people with no long-term perspective which is common with younger kids.
Throwing marketing money at any problem cannot magically create demand beyond its maximum ceiling. It can certainly increase demand if it's below the ceiling. With cricket in USA, that's definitely possible. But in my opinion, the maximum ceiling itself isn't that high.
With soccer in USA, multi-billionaires like Phil Anschutz and (now late) Lamar Hunt have been literally throwing funding money for 12+ years, almost like bottomless pits of money. There certainly is tangible progress, but it is at such a slow pace that it is still not self-sustainable. Lamar Hunt already passed away. If his heirs don't have the same level of commitment or if Anschutz loses interest or something unfortunate happens to him (not that I'm wishing anything like that, but it is a routine business practice to do contigency planning for death of business leaders), the whole thing could fall apart like a deck of cards.
Some battles are not worth fighting. This is one of them.
Well, actually I will make an 2 compromises.
My first proposal will be exactly opposite of yours, of "baby steps" form. (With the caveat that I have high expectations for this proposal to fail as well, due to too many moving parts, political issues etc. At least it won't fail as miserably hard as your $1 million a year purse proposal.)
I will propose that instead of viewing the entire "USA" as problem space to solve, it be broken down into multiple smaller areas with smaller budgets, e.g. Northern California, Southern California, Florida, New York and so on. Each small area should be given their autonomy to begin with, and they should all focus on growth at grassroots level, youth player development etc. Only after 5 years or so of such an intense organic growth should a union of markets be considered.
My second alternative proposal will be that you get in touch with Centrex International looking for a job somehow involved with cricket marketing. I propose you experience for yourself the pain, anguish, blood/sweat/tears, the apathy or outright hostility of various people you would have to face, the whole package.
Some of the biggest business failures have been of the "throw money at a problem for quick fix" form. They bring in a hands-on drill sargent for a problem who is not necessarily even a domain expert, do a roll-up-sleeves launch with big fanfare, only for them to experience dirty realities on ground zero and abandoning sinking ship in the middle of a night followed by low-key announcements.
ESPN Asia has been showing pool and billiards for so many years in China and India. How big have they made as "sports" in those countries?
kudu;125098 said:
The article you're referring to is:
http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000033/003336.shtml
The budget is nowhere close to being able to burn $1 million for purse money in 1 year, and expect it to help long term growth of the sport. Anybody with a basic business understanding would know that.
For a $1 million annual purse, you would need of the order of $100 million or more golden pot. Show me where that is.
See, this is where you lose credibility.
When you start talking in a "dream" language, assuming other people are going to take financial risks to fullfil your interests and disregard basic economic principles, you have no credibility.
For micro-niche products, you cannot think outside the realm of basic business and economics.
Selling soccer or Formula-1 in USA are niche products. At least USA has a reasonable strcture for soccer with MLS and national team. Or structure for Formula-1 with having hosted annual US Grand Prix in Indianapolis.
Selling cricket in USA is a micro-micro-niche product. For them to even come to the level of soccer and Formula-1 is a steep mountain to climb.
I'm honestly not concerned by you getting offended, especially the "business experience" part. See comments above.
If you had followed the growth of soccer in USA since 1986 to 2006 and how much of a 1 step up, 2 steps down struggle it has been, you wouldn't be offended by the "age" question either. I must have dealt with countless number of high-school age kids with no long-term perspective on anything making claims about throwing "marketing money" at soccer to take it to next tier. I'm not accusing you to be of certain age, and why should I? There is nothing wrong with being of any age ever in anybody's lifetime. Your proposal on the other hand is typical of people with no long-term perspective which is common with younger kids.
Throwing marketing money at any problem cannot magically create demand beyond its maximum ceiling. It can certainly increase demand if it's below the ceiling. With cricket in USA, that's definitely possible. But in my opinion, the maximum ceiling itself isn't that high.
With soccer in USA, multi-billionaires like Phil Anschutz and (now late) Lamar Hunt have been literally throwing funding money for 12+ years, almost like bottomless pits of money. There certainly is tangible progress, but it is at such a slow pace that it is still not self-sustainable. Lamar Hunt already passed away. If his heirs don't have the same level of commitment or if Anschutz loses interest or something unfortunate happens to him (not that I'm wishing anything like that, but it is a routine business practice to do contigency planning for death of business leaders), the whole thing could fall apart like a deck of cards.
Lack of any proposal from me is "my proposal". Inaction is a form of action.
Some battles are not worth fighting. This is one of them.
Well, actually I will make an 2 compromises.
My first proposal will be exactly opposite of yours, of "baby steps" form. (With the caveat that I have high expectations for this proposal to fail as well, due to too many moving parts, political issues etc. At least it won't fail as miserably hard as your $1 million a year purse proposal.)
I will propose that instead of viewing the entire "USA" as problem space to solve, it be broken down into multiple smaller areas with smaller budgets, e.g. Northern California, Southern California, Florida, New York and so on. Each small area should be given their autonomy to begin with, and they should all focus on growth at grassroots level, youth player development etc. Only after 5 years or so of such an intense organic growth should a union of markets be considered.
My second alternative proposal will be that you get in touch with Centrex International looking for a job somehow involved with cricket marketing. I propose you experience for yourself the pain, anguish, blood/sweat/tears, the apathy or outright hostility of various people you would have to face, the whole package.
Some of the biggest business failures have been of the "throw money at a problem for quick fix" form. They bring in a hands-on drill sargent for a problem who is not necessarily even a domain expert, do a roll-up-sleeves launch with big fanfare, only for them to experience dirty realities on ground zero and abandoning sinking ship in the middle of a night followed by low-key announcements.
Knee-jerk optimism won't either.
The poker thing is a completely unrelated straw-man argument. First off all it's not even a sport, except for "so-called sports" channels like ESPN in USA hyping it up and bunch of other non-sports. It has been nothing but a fad and is due to fall hard on its arse. The signs are already evident with ESPN having dumped poker. They have now appropriately made way on other "life and human interest" type channels.
ESPN Asia has been showing pool and billiards for so many years in China and India. How big have they made as "sports" in those countries?
It's not pessimism. It's called realism.
See above comments. The way for a new sport product to take ground in indifferent market is through organic growth. Not "marketing the crap out of it". This is not like how Vegemite was marketed in Australia, or Oreck vaccuum cleaners are marketed in USA. Those are not micro-niche products.
S
Stamislav
Guest
Re: only Yanks can revitalize world cricket
I agree that simply throwing out a million-dollar prize every year for some fancy national tournament is a totally unrealistic way to make cricket popular in the US.
Another problem with comparing cricket to poker is that poker basically requires no infrastructure. Cricket does. We lack sufficient pitches, fields of the right size and shape, and seating for those fields. There is virtually no good place to watch a game of cricket in all of North America. I know from experience; I went to see Brian Lara and several of his West Indian teammates play an exhibition match in New York. There are a few good places to play here, but not many, and only at a recreational level.
Americans do not play sports solely because they could earn tons of money by doing so. America is competitive in several obscure Olympic sports. Boys' and girls' lacrosse and girls' field hockey are popular in high schools and universities in many places in the US, even though opportunities are limited for the elite athletes. (There is a professional lacrosse league, but it is definitely a micro-niche league.)
The problem is simply that the average sports fan in America has limited knowledge about cricket, limited opportunities to play it, virtually zero opportunities to watch it, and several other popular American sports to give their attention to.
If someone were to invest money in advancing cricket in America, one of the best things I think would be to create several fields capable of holding good quality club-level matches (with at least one of these fields able to hold a decent number of spectators) within the same region, and to bring in some coaches, so that club teams could be started in several neighboring communities which could then play each other. In time if the sport became more popular it could eventually petition to become a varsity sport at the high school or college level.
I agree that simply throwing out a million-dollar prize every year for some fancy national tournament is a totally unrealistic way to make cricket popular in the US.
Another problem with comparing cricket to poker is that poker basically requires no infrastructure. Cricket does. We lack sufficient pitches, fields of the right size and shape, and seating for those fields. There is virtually no good place to watch a game of cricket in all of North America. I know from experience; I went to see Brian Lara and several of his West Indian teammates play an exhibition match in New York. There are a few good places to play here, but not many, and only at a recreational level.
Americans do not play sports solely because they could earn tons of money by doing so. America is competitive in several obscure Olympic sports. Boys' and girls' lacrosse and girls' field hockey are popular in high schools and universities in many places in the US, even though opportunities are limited for the elite athletes. (There is a professional lacrosse league, but it is definitely a micro-niche league.)
The problem is simply that the average sports fan in America has limited knowledge about cricket, limited opportunities to play it, virtually zero opportunities to watch it, and several other popular American sports to give their attention to.
If someone were to invest money in advancing cricket in America, one of the best things I think would be to create several fields capable of holding good quality club-level matches (with at least one of these fields able to hold a decent number of spectators) within the same region, and to bring in some coaches, so that club teams could be started in several neighboring communities which could then play each other. In time if the sport became more popular it could eventually petition to become a varsity sport at the high school or college level.