Backwards Title IX at it again

[coachgbert]

Look for a PM from me tonight.

CoachGBert

[Adam]

Dang it. I'm interested, too, in hearing a coach's perspective on this.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Dang it. I'm interested, too, in hearing a coach's perspective on this.

maybe we could set up a "3-way" on chat. I think I can vouch to gbert for your gentle mercy and charity!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

maybe we could set up a "3-way" on chat. I think I can vouch to gbert for your gentle mercy and charity!!

Awe shucks, you're too kind.

[M&M Guy]

I was nosing around the NCAA website, and found this:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...yorktimes.html

Originally Posted by NCAA Website

For the record, Bill Finley got it wrong in his January 2 New York Times article (“A Man’s Place at a Woman’s Practice”) when, in writing about the use of male practice players in women’s intercollegiate athletics practices, he wrote, “Legislation to ban the practice at the Division III level will be voted on at the N.C.A.A.’s annual convention Jan. 11-15 in Indianapolis." In fact, the proposed legislation in Division III would have regulated the use of male practice players, not ban it. Also, the NCAA Convention was held in Orlando, January 5-8, not Indianapolis.

Division III members referred the proposal back to the Division III Management Council for further review.

While the Committee on Women’s Athletics did speak out against male practice players altogether, the Division III proposed legislation did not encourage an all-out ban. It is also important to note that whatever the outcome of the Division III final decision, it in no way would have predicted what Division I or II might decide is right for their respective members when it comes to male practice players.

The issue regarding the use of male practice players is working its way through the NCAA governance structure process at various levels. There is no clear consensus yet, and the discussion is energetic. The CWA has made its position known, as have others. We will have to follow the debate and see what consensus emerges.



Jennifer Kearns

NCAA Associate Director of Public and Media Relations

So, it looks like this is still just at the "discussion" stage.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I was nosing around the NCAA website, and found this:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...yorktimes.html

So, it looks like this is still just at the "discussion" stage.

Wow, what a find. You know, looking back over this discussion, it's really interesting how much we automatically assume the worst about people we don't necessarily like, instead of wondering, "Hm, I don't think this makes a lot of sense. Maybe we're missing an important detail."

I mean, since he quoted the meeting as happening in the wrong region of the country, doesn't it shed some doubt on the rest of the article? But none of us picked that up.

Interesting.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I was nosing around the NCAA website, and found this:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...yorktimes.html



So, it looks like this is still just at the "discussion" stage.

Looks like the NY Times made yet another "mistake"...nice to know the sun will come up again tomorrow.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Looks like the NY Times made yet another "mistake"...

Well, duh...didn't they say the Yankees were good, too?