Non-existent? I'd like to hear who proposed this and why... obviously someone doesn't think it's non-existent.

You mean other than concluding his remark meant "using male practice players is the only possible way for a female athlete to improve"?

If the article he posted was about the NCAA banning the use of jump ropes manufactured in China (for whatever silly reason) would you be so fast to claim that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve?

I think Trigger’s sentiment is bolstered by this quote from the article, “It also suggests the contention by coaches and players that men make women better players isn't, even if it's true, worth the cost of lost opportunity.”

Basically, they're saying that the added improvement isn’t worth it.

When will we have to stop "making opportunities" like this? There are no shortages of female students on campus.

BTW, the only thing I saw while I was in college in the late 80s was the elimination of the men's swimming, diving, wrestling, tennis, golf, and cross-country teams. Go Title IX. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's what I mean.

But I'm claiming the opposite. That women can improve without male practice partners. I'm not saying male practice partners aren't a good way to improve, just that they're not the only way. And it sounds as though trigger thinks they are the only way.

No, it's quite the opposite. The improvement that comes from male practice players is additional to other kinds of improvements. Trigger makes it sound as though there is no other way to improve.

Okay, I still think that my inference from Trigger's post was reasonable. But on the other hand, I really, really want that Slappy. Tough choice. If I admit that I was being overly-irascible and that I mis-read what Trigger was trying to say, can I have my little trophy with the diamond eyes? And still get credit for conducting an intelligent argument in the rest of the thread?

Huh? Huh? Can I, can I?

Trigger's just sore because his alma mater had to drop baseball.

Okay, I'm going to stop joking for a bit. Give Trigger a chance to answer your concern before you start imputing motives to his post. Maybe he thinks it's the only way to improve, or maybe he thinks it's the best way (obviously most coaches do). Either of those sentiments can be deduced by what he wrote. In these cases, charity is my preferred angle.

And you're also inferring that trigger does not agree with this.

There's no basis for this inference.

(I'll leave alone the question of whether this practice tool used by the actual coaches has any value to them and what standing you or I have to agree or disagree with their professional opinion. We already agree the NCAA is being silly inserting themselves here.)

Sheez, Snaq's now you're hitting a little close to home. I know you know what that code means.

You're right, of course. And I am properly chastened. But please don't tell Dan. Fighting with him is the only thing that gets me up some days.

The words "prevent" and "promote weakness" aren't a good basis? Seriously?

The concern is the loss of spots on the team for women basketball players. If teams can use men scout team players, they don't have to carry 15 players on their roster. Some D1 women's teams are now carrying 12 or 13 on their roster, instead of the permitted 15.

But aren't they allowed only 12 scholarships? I may be wrong here, but I thought Title IX only mentioned equal number of scholarships for men and women, not equal numbers of walk-ons.

errr...you're not paying attention. Here's who proposed it:


Here's what some against it have to say (my italics btw)

Yea, I know. Duh! I mean, why it was brought to them as a proposal. What individual came to the group and said, "You know, I don't like this male practice player thing...."

Just as serious a basis as if the article was about the banning of Chinese jump ropes led you to conclude that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve.