Hillary Clinton.

Anything else?

No, I'm tired. You guys are just so..... male sometimes. I'll see you in the funny papers

You're saying I've stopped preaching and commenced to meddling? :D

I'll take that as a compliment.

Anyways, I ate too much over the holidays, need to go get some excersize.

Maybe I'll go wrestle with my wife.

It'll just make her stronger. You gonna teach her to read, too?

You may have to wait until she's done with the male practise players.


or....alternatively......you can start without her.....like usual.

Sigh...looks like you guys can still hit the hanging curves...

From reading this tread alone....but there's many other treads just like this nonsense.

The article only gave us a small piece of the discussion, but a two-page report on what the coaches and everyone's negative thoughts about it. I for one would like to know more on what lead them to this conclusion or considering lessening the male practice participants. Not enough information for me. However, I can provide an opinion. Women should seek to be good on their own and not try to compete against the men. In other words, our game is our game, take it or leave it. It is not our goal to have our game be like the men's game. To have our players be like men's players. That's just my initial read but there could be something else driving this.

Getting to this conversation late but
 

here are two articles from espn which some of you may have read already.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/column...lle&id=2701436

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/column...ncy&id=2701428

just some more information for you to digest and more ammo to the fire.

by the way i live in a town here in iowa and the division III school here has had guys practice with them for over the past 5 yrs and from talking to the girls they say that is usually their best practices.

For someone who talks a lot of crap, you don't actually say much.

That's not all I saw. Just slightly more subversive, subtle, (and for some reason, not at all linked to the disappearance of men's minor sports in the general public's eyes,) and nearly universally viewed as completely acceptable was the beginning of exponentially raising men's head basketball and football coaches' salaries during that time - as well as the open non-enforcement and non-funding of this federal law by the President at the time (continuing the tradition set by his predecessor), up until 1989, after the succeeding President took office.

This is just a stupid idea. Players need competition to get better. If a college team needs to dip into the talent pool of the other sex to get competition that is more like what they'll see in a game, let them do it. Trigger and I played a lot of pickup hoops in college together (and I'm almost as mad for them dumping baseball) and rarely did we see women still playing. If the team needs the men for the competition, let them have it.

What exactly does that suppose to mean? I could infer that this is a completely sexist and derrogatory comment made towards men. But if I did that I would bring myself down to your level, where

A) You seem to make everything into a gender issue
B) You like to speak for other people quite a bit without understanding their implications

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.



If you want my honest opinion on this article, I think it's a flat out joke that people think this is a Title IX issue at all. Like all of these coaches are saying, the male practice squad members are only there to make the female players better. These coaches feel the men DO make the women better basketball players. What this ban is doing, in these coaches perspectives, as well as my own, is preventing said women players from improving to a higher level. Thus the players will be weaker players. This is completely not a gender equity issue, and that's why I find this proposed ban so humerous, yet I shake my head at the stupidity of this being an issue in the first place.



...Or maybe that's what you said I said.

The reason you shake your head is because you view this issue from a male's prospective. The women that are on the board of the college committee view this as a major concern. It is not about the men, it is not about the men practice players. It is about the women and how women see their profession growing into the future. They are concerned, much like the parents from South Dakota that the women on the end of the bench is not getting the attention and practice time deserved because of the men players practicing against the women. In other words, so much attention is being focus on winning (let's face it, that's why the women are practicing against the men) that they are simply trying to bring the swing back the other way towards being balance. Not sure how this becomes a Title IX issue because they could simply say as the college committee, no more, and be done.

I am so happy to see women basketball in college because you get a different leadership that is separate from the traditional good ole boy network that runs the men's where nothing ever changes. The women have just about written their own rulebook. They embrace new and challenging ideas. I do not necessary agree with this one, but I do support the fact that they have a right to address it in their own committee. I wish they would bring back the closely guarded for at least the DI level. I think that hurts the women's game more than removing the men practice players.

Lah me.....

NCAA rule 9-14-1b(2) is the NCAA D1 Womans closely-guarded rule. I thought that <b>all</b> college officials knew that.:rolleyes:

Keep away from rules references, Goober. You're 0 for 367 so far.