Here is the description of the play at the National Championships, from an observer who posted to the USCRICKET.COM Forum:

" The three day tournament was reduced to only one day as rain got the better of everyone. Only Saturday's games were possible. The first game between NY and CW turned out to be an exciting one in the end. NY were bowled out in the 40th over for 187 runs. Top score for NY was 35. CW fielded exceptionally well and showed their agility in the field. CW chasing 187 started off with 50 odd runs before losing their first wicket. The other opener was out within the next 5 runs and it ended up being 57 for 2. Then it was the number 3 and number 4 that took the innings to 147 for 2 in 31 overs, needing 40 runs to win in the next 19 overs with 8 wickets in hand. Number 3 batsman retired hurt at 147 while the 4th wicket was run out and then there was a major collapse due to some reckless batting. CW required 5 runs to win in the last over with 1 wicket in hand and lost the game by 2 runs and 4 balls to spare. The last 6 wickets for CW fell due to reckless and irresponsible batting by CW batsmen. A game that should have been won by CW was lost due to their own negligence.
In the other game, CE batted first but could only manage 147 runs against some fiery bowling by Mutambawe. SE easily reached the target in the 20th over with 8 wickets to spare.
It was a pity that the rest of the 2 days were washed out as it would have been really interesting to watch the other games. Everyone wanted to see the young CW team face SE as it would have been fun watching Mutambawe vs some fine top order CW batsmen."

And that was it. South East Zone was awarded the Championship on the basis of run-rate for the entire National tournament scores-- at least that is what is assumed, though the official reasons will no doubt be made public later by USACA.

As a whole, this 2003 National Championship has been marked by a series of unfortunate circumstances. In the Western Conference in Chicago, there were major protests about umpiring and administration of the tournament. The Eastern Conference was played without incident, but there was considerable haggling and politicking over where the Finals were to be held. The decision to play at Houston was made fairly late in the day, with (as it happens) unforseeen and disastrous consequences.

While nobody can control the vagaries of the weather, one wonders if it was altogether wise to play the finals on the Texas coast, right in the middle of its stormy season. The tight scheduling of the Finals, over three consecutive days of a holiday weekend, means that not a day can be lost to weather. It is well-known to climatologists that it is the West Coast of the USA that has stretches of rainless weather during Labor Day. Surely Los Angeles, or the Bay Area, would have been more suitable for hosting the national Finals?

But favourable weather prospects were probably not uppermost in the minds of the USACA Tournament Committee. It would be interesting to know what factors led to the choice of Houston for the Finals. Even as a post mortem, the information might prove instructive.

POSTSCRIPT: DID the NY Region WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP? USACA says NO

Right after the National Championsip was concluded, there were disputes over the Net Run Rate rule by which the winner was decided.

One post in the USCRICKET.COM Forum Pages laid out a series of calculations showing that a different result would have been produced if the Net Run Rate rule was properly applied under the USACA rules. (See below).

Laks Sampath, USACA Board Member who was also on the USACA Tournament Committee, stated what appears to be the official position of the USACA Tournament Committee. The argument revolves around the USACA rule regarding the Net Run Rate which says: 14.2 Net Run Rate --- A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team THROUGHOUT THE COMPETITION the average runs per over scored against that team THROUGHOUT THE COMPETITION" (Emphasis ours). According to Mr. Sampath, the USACA Tournament Committee interpreted the rule to mean the NRR in the Super League only, not as carried over from the preliminary conferences which led to the Super League. Based on this criterion, the SE Zone was clearly the winner because of its comprehensive victory on the first day of the tournament, whereas NY and CE were so close in their match that there was hardly any "net run rate" to speak of.

An interesting point was that none of the other regions represented at the Finals had protested the decision of the Committee, as they might be expected to do if they felt that they had been "robbed". Whether the NRR rule interpretation was a matter of political expediency or an ad hoc misinterpretation, it was presumably accepted by all who actually participated in the Finals, and that would seem to be that.

In review, especially when compared with the fanfare and enthusiasm that accompanied the inauguration of inter-zonal championship play in the USA last year, this was simply not a good second National Championship for the USA. This time around, there was plenty of acrimony and dissent, too many questions about bad umpiring (in the Western Conference) and administrative mismanagement, and the Finals turned out to be frustrating and its outcome contentious. One hopes for a smoother, and better-conducted, National Championships in 2004-- that is, if there IS to be another National Championship next year.