Backwards Title IX at it again

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

........why are the women practicing with the men? Reverse it, do you see the men practicing with the women to get better?

Is this a serious question? Why do power lifters not practice with lighter weights to get stronger?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Now, Adam, was that charitable?

No, but it was edited. Does that count?

I'm sorry, but to consistently be so wrong on rules references while trying to come off as an experienced ref/assignor working college now? I might buy your college player/rec ref story, but I don't buy the college officiating experience or even the hs varsity experience.

Maybe I'm just crabby today.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, but it was edited. Does that count?

I'm sorry, but to consistently be so wrong on rules references while trying to come off as an experienced ref/assignor working college now? I might buy your college player/rec ref story, but I don't buy the college officiating experience or even the hs varsity experience.

Maybe I'm just crabby today.

Sorry, Adam, you are the soul of gentleness and grace. I was just being flippant and glib, which always gets me in trouble. I'm 50 now, do you think I'll ever learn?

I think it's becoming clear that OS was or is a college player who works rec and intermural ball, and just hasn't realized the depth and extent of the training most "patched" or "certified" officials go through. It seems to me that she ( and I'm assuming now that she is a "she" although she still hasn't actually said so) is starting to realize how provincial her views have been, and she's actually opening her eyes a little. I'm conjecturing that what she's called college experience and hs varsity experience has come from working at tourneys and camps run by her college, and she never realized that that was different from doing "real" games.

Now, OS, it's up to you to support me in this. You are entitled to your opinion about the male practice partner thing, even though we don't agree with you. And I'll defend to the death your right to express yourself based on your experience and thoughts. But you are beginning to see that there is a lot to reffing that hadn't been apparent to you, aren't you? Eh?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It seems to me that she ( and I'm assuming now that she is a "she" although she still hasn't actually said so) is starting to realize how provincial her views have been, and she's actually opening her eyes a little. I'm conjecturing that what she's called college experience and hs varsity experience has come from working at tourneys and camps run by her college, and she never realized that that was different from doing "real" games.

And her English and spelling have improved dramatically. I can't quite account for that, but it's a sign that she's becoming engaged in the conversation rather than just ranting or venting. Seems to me like an interesting development.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is this a serious question? Why do power lifters not practice with lighter weights to get stronger?

It's about getting better not getting stronger. You strengthen the committees arguments. The college game is about skill and finesse, not who's the strongest.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

It's about getting better not getting stronger. You strengthen the committees arguments. The college game is about skill and finesse, not who's the strongest.

Nope.

The argument is not that the men practice players are making the woman's game too physical.

The argument is the men are taking practice time away from the women.

Two completely different things.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Nope.

The argument is not that the men practice players are making the woman's game too physical.

The argument is the men are taking practice time away from the women.

Two completely different things.

Actually, you are wrong. These are very related. This is exactly the coaches point or position the coaches/opposition is taking. Why change it is the question? Because, point #2, men are taking practice time away from the women.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

Actually, you are wrong. These are very related. This is exactly the coaches point or position the coaches/opposition is taking. Why change it is the question? Because, point #2, men are taking practice time away from the women.

Either you're full of sh1t and making this up as you go along or you'll provide a link to a member of any ncaa woman's rules committee explaining in no uncertain terms that male practice players are causing the woman's game to become more physical.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Either you're full of sh1t and making this up as you go along or you'll provide a link to a member of any ncaa woman's rules committee explaining in no uncertain terms that male practice players are causing the woman's game to become more physical.

You are focusing too much on being more physical. The position of the coaches is it makes the players better, quicker, the game more competitive, and yes, weaker players stronger. The committee could care less about more physical, but I am assuming that they are thinking that female practice players can do the same thing in helping to improve the players. Not a bad stance to take, excellent upper level thinking and not a bad move, imo. Again, there going to have to overcome conventional thinking here. Not an easy undertaking.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Old School

blah
blah
blah

No link eh?

What a surprise.

[Adam]

We've established that coaches are competitive and selfish (most people are, so this isn't bad thing, it's just how it is.) Most men's teams use their gray squads as defacto recruiting tools also. Tom Davis, when at Iowa, was noted for pulling the occasional gray squad member onto the team when he felt they could help the team in games. It's a player development program for walk-ons.

I think it's fair to say that if coaches thought female players could provide their teams with comparable improvement, then they'd use the females available to them and in the process develop potential scholarship athletes.

One other thought, and it's just a thought. With Title IX, a lot of schools are giving scholarships to female athletes who didn't even compete in the sport in high school. One example is crew, where a lot of colleges are just looking for female athletes they can give a scholarship to and teach them to row. So, along with the fact that any female basketball players on campus who could provide any sort of competition for the scholarship players are already on scholarship; most of the really good female athletes are already on scholarship for one sport or another.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

...not a single coach of a women's team is for this.
If the top coaches (and female ones, no less) think it's important to do this, who cares what some administrator thinks?

Rich -

According to the second of the two articles posted by BoBo yesterday (and shown below), there may actually be some women's coach support for this initiative - (which is why I said I'm real curious as to exactly who these people are) - which is odd, especially when it would seem, as you've basically stated, that most, if not all women's coaches would be against this.

"According to one source who wanted to remain anonymous, a group of senior women administrators across the country is spearheading the proposal, although at least one coach of a top-15 team is believed to be both a proponent of the initiative and the one lobbying for the group's support." - (from article at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/column...ncy&id=2701428)

Also, what Snaq posted about the Iowa gray squad (pulling players from it to "walk-on" to the varsity team at times) is fuel to the initiative's argument. I hadn't thought of that before, but I'm guessing it's something they have.

[Adam]

My point is that the coaches are going to do what's best for their teams. If playing against the men didn't provide significantly more benefit than competing against women, they wouldn't do it for reasons of player development. Since they're not, then we have to assume they think the competitive benefits outweigh whatever minor benefits of changing.
My other point is that Title IX may actually be reducing the number of quality female athletes on campus that aren't already on scholarship (not a bad thing, but it is a logical result of Title IX). Any female basketball players who are capable of competing with the starters (particularly the post players) are either already on the team or on scholarship at another college. The talent pool for female basketball players just isn't as deep as it is for men. And you don't develop basketball players from scratch at the college level; it's too late by then.

[coachgbert]

If you can't play by 7th grade around here you are simply not put on a team at school. The girls practice against the boys in high school. We started scrimmaging boys teams in 4th grade. If you can't play with the boys around here you are not a "stud" on the court.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by coachgbert

If you can't play by 7th grade around here you are simply not put on a team at school. The girls practice against the boys in high school. We started scrimmaging boys teams in 4th grade. If you can't play with the boys around here you are not a "stud" on the court.

Coach, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the NCAA proposal. If you don't feel comfortable putting in up here to get slapped around, you could PM me.