I’m curious as to what people think of Nationals as opposed to NA’s. I brought it up in the “Tour” thread but figured it warrants having a separate discussion.
I think there are a variety of pros to splitting it up.
-Two large tournaments instead of one. For example two 48 team tournaments allows more people to play then one 64 team tournament.
-Travel. No worries about crossing borders. Travel costs (in most cases) would be less. Domestic flights are easier and usual cheaper. Driving becomes an option more often.
-Bragging rights. Two teams can be named the best in their country.
In two years of playing polo I have played with players from all over NA and the world but I have not played with players from the two provinces to the east of me. The regional division in Canada is sort of wacky. It seems Saskatoon and Winnipeg have a hard time making some of the larger tournaments. Even Edmonton. In all the tournaments I’ve been to I’ve only been to three with other Edmonton players. We could easily split into a western and central region in Canada. Or even a western, prairie, central system. I don’t think much goes on east of Montreal. I’ve contacted Halifax a few times about joining the league but nothing has come of it. In the future I’m sure more cities will start playing there and need to be represented by an eastern region.
I envision having National Championship jerseys that teams would wear throughout the year. A golden mallet is all good but what do you do with it? In professional cycling it is a huge honour to don a national or world champ jersey and you wear it through the season with pride. I know myself in others really want to see this.
I’d like to see what Americans think of this as well. If they were to use a similar system it would take a major revamp of the regions. Or would it?
Where does Mexico fit into this? Would NAs still exist?