Politics

This isn't a "national" political rant. I learned my lesson on that subject. This, like everything else, is about rowing. Settle in and enjoy, as this will be a long one.

Henry Kissinger once said "The lower the stakes, the worse the infighting." He was referring to the battles he had within the Harvard history department after his ascendancy into the faculty. Comparing the bull**** he dealt with as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Harvard was small time. However, Harvard gave him more backbiting, stress and headaches than dealing with the North Vietnamese peace talks. While I do not agree with many of Kissinger's policies nor his worldview, I have to agree with the above point. The lower the stakes, the worse the political lunacy.

Rowing is a prime example.

Today I'm going to tackle the great "club vs school" debate, lay out the various points of view as I understand them, and ask the guys for their opinions. My own should be rather clear by the end of this post, or I really need to edit a little better.

Rowing clubs are nothing new; every team starts out as a club. Walk down boathouse row in Philadelphia and anyone can see the beginning of the sport is based on club rowing. Put simply, club rowing on the school level makes a lot of sense when the sport is in its infancy. As we all know, this sport is not cheap. Equipment is a large capital investment, along with a suitable building to store it. Adding in costs for transportation, launches, insurance (a new addition) and finally (it seems) coaching and the result is a massive financial undertaking if anyone wants to get a team off the ground from scratch. A pre-existing club mitigates much of this cost, as the equipment can be rented and coaching costs pooled. Secondly, there are other members of a club that can row with one's infant team, bringing numbers up. It is not very easy to be competitive when one's school team is made up of six members.

School teams are more desirable, instantly fostering a sense of unity, representing the school and building on the school's natural athletic rivalries. Think Harvard-Yale. On the high school level, in the Philadelphia Flick series, where schools duel over the season for supremacy, the competition gets heated and the kids get rather vocal about their school team. In theory, school teams compete on an even playing field, with the schools' best rowers racing the best from other schools.

The scholastic argument against racing clubs goes something like this: our scholastic teams shouldn't be racing these "all-star" composite crews. It isn't fair, because the clubs have a greater number of rowers to choose from. The clubs win everything because of that advantage, so we will not race them nor allow them into our regattas.

I see several flaws in this argument. The school teams themselves foster such "all-star" mentality, with larger, private schools dominating the rowing leagues. These schools scream about the clubs, when their own rosters include a third varsity rowing in a three year old top of the line boat. If they cannot compete against clubs, how are small public schools supposed to compete against them? Are we heading for the day when there are "levels" of racing, much like A, AA, AAA in football, based on school size?

One of the great things about rowing is the progression of the championships. If a team does well at its regional level, it can progress to a higher level (nationals) and compete against crews from around the country. I simply do not understand why anybody would think this is a bad thing, racing against clubs or not. Really, do we want to be like football, where the Western Pennsylvania championship might be the highest to aspire to? What coach really feels proud when he lists "Wyoming state champion, lightweight novice boy's 4+" on his resume? What have you accomplished as a crew when you limit your competition opportunities?

The school crews need to recognize a few facts. First, most clubs aren't faster than they are. Those clubs are starting out, struggling harder than these rich private school crews. Some clubs (like mine in high school) only have eight rowers of each sex in total. What can be so scary about that? Where is the advantage?

Secondly, there will never be enough quality coaches in the United States for every school that wants a team to have one. In case anyone has noticed, the main advantage our FC crew has over everyone in the Pittsburgh area is the quality and quantity of our coaching staff. The crews that do not have that situation struggle and ultimately fail. The established school crews with coaches in place don't care about this fact, because they really don't want anybody else in the sport.

I believe there should be reforms on the club side as well. When a club gets so big that its membership numbers dwarf everyone it races, other clubs included, there should be enough kids from one school to split off and form a school crew. Starting a school crew with a base of experienced rowers brings success much faster than starting from nothing. Are we not all, as coaches, dedicated to growing the sport of rowing? If there is interest, more rowing no matter the form is a good thing.

There are too many people on either side of this debate trying to protect "what's theirs" and deny or hobble others through rules and subterfuge. What are we becoming as a sport, the Indy Racing League and Championship Auto Racing Teams? Two circuits devoted to the same type of racing? Doesn't work and isn't very logical, is it? Politics and petty crap such as this has no place in a sport a pure as rowing. Shut up, line up and race.

I haven't said my entire opinion on this subject. There will be other posts, but it's time to wrap this one up. I especially encourage comments on this one. There must be healing of this rift for the good of the sport, or everyone's desire to raise the stature of rowing will be unfulfilled. There is too much of a struggle against other sports for the attention of athletes. Why, as a sport, are we fighting ourselves?

Categories: Rowing, Juniors, Politics