Backwards Title IX at it again
 

Let's prevent improvement in our sport and promote weakness! It's the Title IX way!






Women's basketball: NCAA rethinks battle of sexes
For years, women's teams have been honing their game by practicing against men. A panel says the custom violates the spirit of gender equity.
By Jerry Zgoda, Star Tribune
Last update: January 02, 2007 – 11:17 PM





Practicing against men has been a women's basketball tradition for more than a quarter century, designed to allow women to push themselves against bigger, stronger opponents. "It's good for us because it makes us better," Gophers freshman Ashley Ellis-Milan said.
But last month, the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA) called for a ban on male practice players. It concluded the custom violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX, the 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in sports.

On Monday, Division III administrators at the NCAA annual convention in Florida will consider two proposals to limit the use of male practice players, action that could influence both Division I and Division II athletics.

College coaches uniformly denounce the proposed ban. Michigan State coach Joanne McCallie called the committee recommendation -- which states "this approach implies an archaic notion of male preeminence that continues to impede progress toward gender equity and inclusion" -- political correctness gone awry.

The CWA contends male practice players deny women's players opportunity by diminishing practice time for teams' reserves. 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. It cites the loss of women's team coaching jobs to men in the 35 years since Title IX passed.

"I think people trying to make these decision don't understand where our game has gone and where it needs to continue to go," Gophers coach Pam Borton said.

Division I coaches argue that male practice players -- bigger, stronger and faster than even their best players -- help prepare their teams for competition in a manner they can't replicate with their own players or other female students on campus. Male scout team players, often former high school players plucked from school intramural programs, must meet the same student-athlete eligibility standards as women's players.

The Gophers daily use men players -- as few as three, as many as six, depending on their schedules -- to aid in drills, to simulate an upcoming opponent's offensive and defensive schemes and perhaps even improve team chemistry.

"These are competitive kids," said Gophers assistant coach Ted Riverso, who coached the University of St. Thomas for 15 years and led it to a Division III national title. "If you know you have to go through each other to get to where you want to go, it's tough. This enables them to play together and root and cheer for each other."

One staple of Gophers' practice is the rebound-outlet drill, which produces flailing limbs and possibly loosened fillings. A player rebounds the ball and immediately is smothered by two members from the team's male "scout" squad to contest the woman's next pass.

It is designed to help for games such as Thursday, when the Gophers visit Ohio State and 6-5 center Jessica Davenport.

"One of our scout guys is 6-5; I don't think anybody else can get us more prepared," Gophers freshman guard Brittany McCoy said. "Our team would not be where we are today if not for our scout team."

Starting junior forward Leslie Knight practiced against the guys when she was a ninth-grader playing for Hopkins High School. She played 52 minutes in 19 Gophers games during her first two collegiate seasons.

"I didn't play much, but I still felt like I practiced a ton," she said. "I never felt like I was sitting while the men played. I'd hate to see the scout team eliminated."

Some athletic administrators see the issue differently, in terms of insurance liability, eligibility enforcement and other matters that University of St. Thomas associate athletic director JoAnn Andregg calls a "whole can of worms."

Andregg, 57, grew up in California, in a different era for women's athletics.

"For people in my age category, it's kind of a slap in the face," she said. "If you haven't lived through the days before Title IX, if you've lost a sense of history, you do not understand the fight we've been through."

One Division III proposal would limit male practice players to two players, once a week. A second proposal allows five men for each of three practices a week. Division I and II administrators are studying the issue.

St. Cloud State coach Lori Ulferts is the captain for Division II's North Central Conference coaches and was asked to poll her peers, who are opposed to limitations on male practice players.

"Coaches want to make their own decisions," said Ulferts, who uses men "intermittently," primarily to challenge star 6-2 center Erika Quigley. "They don't want the NCAA to tell us what we can and cannot do with talented players."

Carleton College coach Tammy Metcalf-Filzen recently wrote an opinion piece on the subject for an NCAA blog. She calls male practice players important for her Division III team, particularly early in the season when her team has only eight or nine players while it waits for fall-sport athletes to join practice.

"The people making the decisions don't really understand the benefits," she said. "They just see guys taking women's spots and they're not looking at the reality of it."


Jerry Zgoda • [email protected]

God forbid women might actually get stronger and improve without men!!

That's not the point, Juulie. The better the competition, the quicker you will improve. A lot of these schools have no way of challenging their biggest and best players without bringing men in to play against.
Frankly, it's a benefit that the men's teams don't have.

This might be the single dumbest sentiment to be put into words and thrown into that great bucket of dumbness we call the internet.

Congratulations.

btw...it seems there's a less heavy-handed way to handle this: just count the male practice players against the ratio of male/female athletes a school must maintain under title IX. This would push the decision to use male practice players up to the ADs, instead of impacting the coaches.

Okay, well, I guess I don't understand. It sounded to me like trigger was saying that women wouldn't be able to improve without men. Somehow "prevent improvement" and "promote weakness" make it sound as though men are necessary to the process of improvement and gaining strength. I'll go back to my original language and quit trying to understand you English-speakers.

So, can I get a Slappy? I'll take it in solid white gold with diamonds for the eyes. Thank you.

You might as well argue that athletes shouldn't use heavy metal objects* (for instance) to improve for some unspoken politcal reasons (not enough Womyn working in the iron industry perhaps?**).

No one said it's the ONLY way Womyn can improve.

There's a school of thought that it is A way.

* what we English speakers call weight training

** of course once we open the door to politically motivated traning methods it's only a matter of time before we refuse to train with the Jews, the Blacks, the Whites, the Muslims, the left handed...and so on. For whatever reason.

Dan, Trigger did say it's the only way. He said that the Title IX Way is to prevent improvement and promote weakness. What that clearly means is that without male practice partners, women won't improve and can't get strong.

Sheez, what do they teach young people these days?

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

And just for the record, I'm not saying that I agree with what the NCAA is doing. I think it's silly. I just don't think it's quite as retrograde (retrogressive?) as Trigger makes it sound.

well, what other inference could there be? From what he said?

Ah yes, the emergence of a true poet and Renaissance Man.

I'm just so.....proud.

Almost brought a tear to my eye.

http://www.1000smilies.com/animated/crying.gif

Trigger's just a cave man anyway. He is from Minnesota.

Seriously, while I can see how it could be read that way, I generally find it helpful to grant someone the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and assume they didn't mean it the way it came across. ;)

It's a typical heavy handed way to deal with a non-existant problem.

Silly about covers it.

I guess I'm just missing the irascibility of our late, lamented JR, and so I had to get a little grumpy myself. I usually figure that when someone uses words like "prevent" and "promote" which aren't generally used as exaggerations, that they mean what they say. Silly me. But not as silly as the NCAA.

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.

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.

Not when you're dribbling the ball moron, that's what I meant. My girls HS are often better than the women's college games because of this one little bity rule, imho, of course.

Two words. Shot clock. Or do your women's games not have that.

Sure.......yup.....that's exactly what you meant,JMO........:rolleyes:

Late to the discussion....

Show me a school that can find 2-3 strong and fast 6'5"-6'6" women who are not already on the basketball team that are willing to show up for practices and provide strong competition for the teams' best players. Does anyone really think that the 5'7" women that would be the 13th, 14th and 15th on the squad would provide any reasonable competion for the starting center.

If you practice agaist someone who is somewhat bigger, faster and stronger than your opponents in real games, it can only cause you to be better.

Does it make sense to slow down the development of the better players to boost the development of the lessor players? Which one has the best benefit in the long run. In most things, the better participants pull the lessor participants up with them when allowed to excel while the opposite rarely holds true.

As a perfect example, look at our public schools. One tactic used around here to make the district look better is to not test the advanced students to determine their actual ability so that the delayed students don't appear so far behind. Does that really help? Or does it just make things look good on paper?

If they banned automobiles he could have said they were preventing transportation and promoting staying at home. You could have said, "Nonsense, you can still walk or ride a horse." True enough, but it sure would make it tougher to travel the same distance.

It's not like they pick one method and ignore the rest. Practicing against men seems to be, on the testimony of the coaches who use it, a very good way to improve. I'd say it's a way that can't be equally replaced.

Okay for starters that comment was directed at the people I was conversing with at that time, namely Dan, and, well, Dan... Dan knew exactly what I meant. He's badgered me for a long time about listening to my inner male and not being so female all the time. It's a joke, trigger. and it had nothing at all to do with you. So nyah, nyah, nyah.

Secondly, there's nothing sexist or derogatory about calling men "male." I'm sorry if that word (male) offends you, but it wasn't meant as an insult. My insult to you was more pointed, and was actually directed to you personally at the very beginning of this thread where I responded to your original post. THe least you can do is grant me the courtesy to be offended when I'm trying to insult you.

Thirdly, I don't make everything into a gender issue. I do see gender issues. That's only reasonable. It's pretty hard for me not to, since my gender is in the minortiy in this field in every respect, and it's pretty obvious that gender is often an issue in many situations. But there are other issues, and I do see those. The particular issue that YOU started this thread with, is a gender issue, isn't it? When I then address it as a gender issue, why does that make me a screeching female that can't see anything but gender? Do you see that as other than a gender issue? Can you explain that?

Fourthly, I don't speak quite a bit for people whose implications I don't understand. I do that occasionally, but most of us on this board do. It's part of the limitation of communication over the internet. Some implications are hard to express. I also admitted that I don't see it the way everyone else seems to. I'm perfectly willing to say that you didn't mean that women can't possibly improve without men. Funny thing, you haven't said that. So how can I apologize?

Finally, if you're saying that I'm the pot calling the kettle black, well, then you're the kettle and you're black, too? Or am I misunderstanding you?

BTW, if what you're really doing is trying to step up into the vacated shoes of The Great Irascible, I'd say you've got a few things to learn. He generally only insults people with whom he has developed a relationship of either friendship, or ongoing enmity. You, however, have slapped me quite firmly without provocation or excuse. That's not irascible, it's rude.

Good day.

I'm not arguing with that. You're absolutely right. In fact, you prove my point by saying that "prevent" doesn't mean hinder. It means no transportation at all. NONE. Thanks for understanding me. I can't seem to get through to anyone else.

And I'd also like to point out that I still agree with everyone that forbidding male practice partners seems silly to me. My only arguement was with my inference from Triggers original post, which some people think I mistook. ALthough trigger still hasn't said he didn't mean what I inferred.

OK, I have been alive on this earth long enough to know not to get between a PO'ed woman and the object of her...err...PO'ness...that said (geeze I know I'm gonna regret this...)

Yes, it's true. I knew it was directed at me, and I knew it was a sorry excuse for humor... (see? I regret this already. Good thing I didn't say it was some feminine sorry excuse for humor, eh?). Yes, yes, yes, it's a joke. Sigh....please remember, women say "nyah, nyah, nyah", men say STFU. Repeat after me...STFU...STFU...the rain in Spain falls mainly on the STFU...

OK, that's enough. I'm going to do the manly thing at this point and go take a nap.

Dan, Dan, Dan, I'm a woman. Yes, that inner male has his uses, but if I want to say nyah, nyah, nyah, well, it's in character, isn't it? So just STFU!!! (now are you happy?)

She's got it!! By George...she's got it!!!

http://www.ri.net/schools/Glocester/...al%20Notes.gif

The rain
In Spain
Falls mainly on the
STFU

Geeze, when did I die and go to EliasLand?

Sigh. Say <b>one</b> nice thing <b>once</b> and everybody assumes that I'm mellowing and turning into a snussy. Or a Chuck.Would it help, Juulie, if I told you to commit an indecency upon your own body? I've always tried to be an equal-opportunity insulter. Race, creed, color or religion mean nothing to me. It's true, it's true....

You're just mad because you just found out that Mr. Old School is really Ms. Old School, and she is a fellow(?) feminine of the female persuasion. Well, deal with it, Missy!

Just for the record, before anyone gets upset, I've always thought that Juulie and the other feminists are...well...cute.

PS- Does "fellow feminist" make any sense to anybody?

Thank goodness you've come out of hibernation, you cretin.

Now, STFU.

What about robots? Seven foot tall, fast robots? Would it be necessary to assign them a gender?

And as for you, Rainmaker, you've got my respect for standing up for yourself amongst this surly locker room mentality crowd of males! Myself included!:p

Oh crap! Do I need to change my signature, Juulie??? Should I make it PC?:confused:

What the heck does that have to do with this thread? or with me?

I'm trying to be more respectful to those of the other gender on this forum, and I'm wondering if it's wrong to say "It takes a MAN to suffer ignorance and smile." It was just meant as a little comic relief. Very little.

Well, I'm not the expert on PC, and I really don't like to think in those terms. But I don't think your quote is offensive. I'm reading between the lines a little, but thinking that the person who said it lived many many years ago when "man" and "men" usually did mean "people" or "person". I'm figuring that what Mr. Sumner meant was that it takes a mature person to suffer ignorance and smile. No matter who he is, or when he lived, I doubt seriously that he meant that women can't suffer ignorance and smile. If he did, I would prove him wrong in a very simple way -- I'd nod and smile pleasantly. And roll my eyes quite self-righteously when he wasn't looking!

PS I appreciate your efforts to be respectful. Perhaps if you lead well, and others follow, there will actually be "those" instead of just Rita and me.

By the way, I appreciate the irony in your signature. And for the record, Gordon Sumner is the given name of Sting from the Police. The line is from the song "Englishman in New York." Lyrically, his stuff does sound pretty old fashioned sometimes. If I believed in reincarnation, I'd probably say something like "He has such an old soul!" I'd call him old school, but I'm not sure that would have a positive connotation!

My head hurts. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/crazy.gif

From someone who actually does practice with the women's team at the college I go to, I can tell you the women on the team enjoy having us (3) practice with them and us being there improves practice and gives the women on the team a different player to practice against instead of practicing against the rest of the team (14 in this case) all the time. We usually only participate in 5 on 5 drills and when the next opponent's offense and defense is practiced against. The only time we are involved in other drills is when some players aren't practicing that day and we are needed.

I'm not saying the women can't improve without us, if anyone does think this, they need to rethink their logic.

I do not get a scholarship to practice with the women (although it would be nice with rising tuition costs, especially graduate school) and I do it to help improve the women's team and for the enjoyment of playing organized basketball instead of just pick-up games all the time. Practicing with a D2 team is faster, can be more physical, and is more demanding than almost any pick-up game I will ever see at my college.

In my opinion, having men practice with women is a good thing. The women on the team may lose some practice time, but the way people are shuffled at practice is enough that each person on the team practices with everyone else at some point.

I will say this. Many of the post players in the Women's game are taller than the average women on campus. There are not too many 6'0-6'4 females walking around on many campuses outside of the basketball team. In many cases there are many more men who are that tall and are not on the Men's basketball team because they are not good enough but likely played in HS on some level. I think this is a bad decision if this were to go through.

I do find it funny how people go nuts over these types of issues. I really find it funny that the people are that get upset over these kinds of issues are often the same people that cry foul when other issues are brought to the attention of this board. And if you even imply wrong doing by other factions, you are out of line. If this decision were to go through it would not be a tragedy or the worst thing in the world either. I feel it would be wrong in a way, but not the end of the world.

Peace

I agree with this. And the heart-warming stories (truly - no sarcasm here) in that first of the two article links BoBo posted of the grey-squad players were moving, and helps to illustrate the good that it does for these people, and how their lives are enriched. Unfortunately, this is not actually a relevant issue, at least when discussing opportunities for women in intercollegiate athletics. It's an interesting area of Title IX that I haven't even heard discussed yet - and like most here, my knee-jerk reaction is to think it's dumb. But when you remove emotion, look at the law, and listen to the pundits decide whether or not it applies to the practice squad, we may find that it actually does. Those in the decision-making circles are a lot more informed and educated on the matter than most of us here (and most of the general public), and will have their reasons (debatable, generally, yes) for whatever they decide to do. I'm really curious as to the inside scoop on how this initiative was started, and who the vanguard is/are. Unfortunately, the link to the NCAA CWA's release on this isn't currently working, and hasn't been all day.

Very well stated, and to add to this. This is a woman sport and the thinking coming from the seniors at the top, is they want to continue to seek opportunities for women, and women only, which is not a bad thing. IMO, the women's game has progressed to the point where they do not need the men's players anymore and still can put out a very good product. A female player who has gone thru the system and been in the trenches, can speak volumes for this game at the executive level and it appears to me that that is what's happening here. It does not matter who actually bought this up, but more so, does the issue hold merit. IMO, it does. The men may not like it, and it is all for selfish reasons, but they are going to have to get over themselves here. The game is for women, not for men, so from a womans prospective, why are the women practicing with the men? Reverse it, do you see the men practicing with the women to get better? Enter Title IX. Since there is no men's team that will "EVER" consider using a female to make the men's players better, then the women have the right (good or bad) to demand the same in return. In other words, let's use female players to get better.

Where the men gets shortsided here, is because there is not enough bigger women to really challenge a bigger women on the practice squad. They could have there alumni come in and provide the same thing in return, thereby offering this back to the female players. In no way do they need to continue to use men's players, and truly speaking, if you got a big man, there may not be another male at the campus that can really push this guy in practice either. If you are good, your talent will surface whether or not you practice with a male or not. I know it's fun to be able to be a part of the women's program. Men even take some pride in it, however, the women are saying today that we would like to give this opportunity to the females, so other female students are former players can say the same thing, imo of course.

I could only get through about 2 lines of this blather, but what you miss is that not a single coach of a women's team is for this. Pat Summitt at Tennessee is famous for using men on the practice squad and those spots are coveted at Tennessee and not easy to come by.

If the top coaches (and female ones, no less) think it's important to do this, who cares what some administrator thinks?

This is a coherent arguement, but not very convincing. It would have more merit if you could name some better female players who think that practicing only against other women is enough. I suspect the idea of banning male practice partners came from the 3rd string women who apparently are being cut from the squad, rather than from the starters. If that's the case, then what you are saying doesn't mean much.

I don't understand why the teams cant have their cake and eat it too. Are there rules about how many bodies can be on the floor at practice? Maybe those are what should change.

I understand this Rich but I'm sorry. This decision is coming from above them. Women coaches are all about improving there player as fast as possible which is selfish imo. They are not considering the overall women's game. Have you ever heard the saying; "why don't more women come out as fans to support women's basketball?" Here is a very small attempt to bring more women in. The senior committee is looking at it from a distance, addressing the women's game for tomorrow and beyond. Front line coaches are too close to the action to see the bigger picture here.

Hey, it may not work, but give them credit for trying. They are very smart too, bringing this up as a Title IX issue. Going against conventional thinking, you may need the backing of Title IX. I love the move.

OS, your real colors are flying now. I don't understand why you've been afraid to post them before now. You are or were a female college player who has done rec ball a lot, and some college intermurals, maybe even assigned the intermurals somewhere along the line. How'm I doing so far?

Your point of view is all player. Now I'm not saying this as an insult or discredit. You've gotta admit, it's true. Seeing you this way, so many of your posts make sense now. Why not come out of the closet, and tell us the truth. Where did you play? What's up with you now? And why not be real about it?

I'm not surprised.

Now, Adam, was that charitable?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

No link eh?

What a surprise.

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.

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.

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.

You don't develop female players in high school either...
 

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.

Hi Rainmaker..
 

Look for a PM from me tonight.

CoachGBert

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!!

Awe shucks, you're too kind. :)

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.

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

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