Backwards Title IX at it again

[TriggerMN]

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]

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by TriggerMN

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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

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.

[rainmaker]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

[rainmaker]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

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

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

Almost brought a tear to my eye.

[Adam]

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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 as Trigger makes it sound.

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

Silly about covers it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.