| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/12/06 12:03 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Some (perhaps most) coaches use the availability of male practice squads as an excuse to not recruit additional women. Since it isn't necessary to have sufficient players to practice internally and recruiting resources are limited, it's easier to concentrate on a smaller number of recruits and increase the likelihood of landing them. Few major conference teams are using their full allotment of scholarships for this very reason. These unused scholarships are opportunities for women beng taken by men on the practice squad. |
Sometimes those open scholarship spots simply aren't because coaches didn't recruit players. Take Purdue this season, for example. Currently, the Boilers have 9 players who can practice, when the intention was to have 14. Natasha Bogdanova tore her ACL. Stephanie Helgeson transferred. Cherelle George was ruled ineligible by the university after potential academic violations. Amber Harris and DeeDee Jernigan renegged on their LOI. And just like that the team goes from 14 scholarship players to not being able to scrimmage against itself.
|
|
RubberTroll
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344
Back to top |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
|
RubberTroll
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 3:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| but maybe what the 9-14 roster spots need is more skill development and less scrimmage time. One of the stupid things about the report is the assumption that if you aren't scrimmaging, you are just standing and watching. |
I agree that the attention economics of the the report are simplistic. But 'maybe'
the assistant needed for the skill development is tied up teaching the boys the
opponent's plays. I realized it ignores economies of scales and all sorts of
subtilties, but I see the report arguing that a classroom size of 16 (roster plus
redshirts) is better than a classroom size of 26. And saying any attention given
the 10 class crashers is attention that could be given the 16 players in general
and players 9-14 in particular.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 8:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| RubberTroll wrote: |
| But 'maybe' the assistant needed for the skill development is tied up teaching the boys the opponent's plays. |
if there were any reason to believe that something like that is actually happening, i would feel a little differently about the issue.
but as far as i know, there isn't.
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 8:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Can we invoke Godwin's law based on the word "femi-nazi"? 
The CWA is right on one point. It reduces opportunities for women.
The chance to be a practice player is available to men only. Creating participation opportunities that are only available to men is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Title IX. Gender equity isn't being served by having more spots that are exclusively male, and it creates a further imbalance for schools trying to use proportionality as proof of compliance.
Some (perhaps most) coaches use the availability of male practice squads as an excuse to not recruit additional women. Since it isn't necessary to have sufficient players to practice internally and recruiting resources are limited, it's easier to concentrate on a smaller number of recruits and increase the likelihood of landing them. Few major conference teams are using their full allotment of scholarships for this very reason. These unused scholarships are opportunities for women beng taken by men on the practice squad. |
Have you ever watched a practice with a male squad? The only coaching they get is what defense to run. While the scrimmage is going, you have 4 coaches either working with the players on the sides or evaluating the women playing. Usually after a couple of minutes, the women change out 100% or as close to it as their numbers allow and go at it again. The ONLY time I have ever seen the coaches address the guys is when one of them goes at it too hard and starts showing the girls up. Basically they are they are treated like living tackling dummies from football in that they are just part of the equipment. How are they depriving any of the women anything? Also, they usually are only used 1/3 to 1/2 of the practice, the rest of which they sit on the sidelines watching. No9w, I will give the committee the benefit of the doubt that they have seen a practice and know what they are protesting against. So, again their arguement doesn't stand up to the light of scrutiny once you know the details. This is a solution in search of a problem. Two years ago when this was first put out, the reasons were different then also. Since the reasons are faulty and keep changing, one can only assume that they are smokescreen for a real reason that the committee is unwilling to share. There is a segment of radical feminists that want to erase thousands of years of evolution, wave a magic wand and make men and women athletically equal. I love women's basketball, and I think it in no way slights it or the women playing it to acknowledge that on average men are much more athletically gifted then women. The burden of reproduction is much less on male physiology then women's. Tradeoffs have been made through evolution because of that and it is a fact that men are more athletic on the whole then women.
Back to what the consequences of this will be. For many teams, this will take away their ability to have 5 on 5 scrimmages which will result in less opportunities for the female players to be individually coached and to advance. This is a wrong headed proposition that will only hurt everyone except those that cannot abide the thought that male walkon practice players are better then the best of the women. They will be able to finally sleep at night safe in their delusions.
Michael
_________________
Michael
|
|
bballjunkee212
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1906
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 8:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Politics, folks. The cited reasons for "eliminating" male practice players are patently invalid, and the proposed "solution" wouldn't eliminate the practice.
The point is that all the talk about "gender equity" and "opportunities" has become, in this instance anyway, doublespeak for something else-- probably the conservation of money in the hands of those who have the most of it.
Don't get caught up in the "merits" of male practice players, because it is a smokescreen for what's really happening.
_________________
~Bill
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66951
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Creating participation opportunities that are only available to men is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Title IX. |
as to the letter, where in Title IX does it say that you can't have spots just for men? |
You're suggesting that creating positions that could be filled by men or women and filling them exclusively with men doesn't violate gender discrimination law? WTF is the point of the law if it doesn't prevent that sort of thing?
| Quote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Gender equity isn't being served by having more spots that are exclusively male, and it creates a further imbalance for schools trying to use proportionality as proof of compliance. |
these aren't varsity roster spots, so they don't affect Title IX compliance one bit. |
Are you sure? Why would the practice players require eligibility if they don't count?
| Quote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Some (perhaps most) coaches use the availability of male practice squads as an excuse to not recruit additional women. Since it isn't necessary to have sufficient players to practice internally and recruiting resources are limited, it's easier to concentrate on a smaller number of recruits and increase the likelihood of landing them. Few major conference teams are using their full allotment of scholarships for this very reason. These unused scholarships are opportunities for women beng taken by men on the practice squad. |
do you have any evidence that something like that is actually happening, or are you just speculating that it might be? What are some example schools? |
Male practice players were approved by the NCAA for the 1991-92 season. In the ten years prior to that Tennessee had fewer than 12 players on the roster only once, when they had 11 in 1990-91. Over the last 10 years, Tennessee has had fewer than 12 players 40% of the time. The trend is even worse. The Lady Vols have had 11 or fewer players in three of the last four seasons, and that's not even counting the current season (in which they have 11). Looking at other schools may or may not be as instructive, since not all of them were early adopters of the practice men and most have changed coaches since 91-92.
| Quote: |
| (And even if there are fewer basketball roster spots, does that really matter overall? If a school is complying by proportionality, that would just mean they'd have to add spots to other women's sports.) |
Most schools don't use proportionality. They should be required to, IMO, but the enforcers seem happy to let them weasel out of it.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Creating participation opportunities that are only available to men is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Title IX. |
as to the letter, where in Title IX does it say that you can't have spots just for men? |
You're suggesting that creating positions that could be filled by men or women and filling them exclusively with men doesn't violate gender discrimination law? WTF is the point of the law if it doesn't prevent that sort of thing?
| Quote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Gender equity isn't being served by having more spots that are exclusively male, and it creates a further imbalance for schools trying to use proportionality as proof of compliance. |
these aren't varsity roster spots, so they don't affect Title IX compliance one bit. |
Are you sure? Why would the practice players require eligibility if they don't count?
| Quote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Some (perhaps most) coaches use the availability of male practice squads as an excuse to not recruit additional women. Since it isn't necessary to have sufficient players to practice internally and recruiting resources are limited, it's easier to concentrate on a smaller number of recruits and increase the likelihood of landing them. Few major conference teams are using their full allotment of scholarships for this very reason. These unused scholarships are opportunities for women beng taken by men on the practice squad. |
do you have any evidence that something like that is actually happening, or are you just speculating that it might be? What are some example schools? |
Male practice players were approved by the NCAA for the 1991-92 season. In the ten years prior to that Tennessee had fewer than 12 players on the roster only once, when they had 11 in 1990-91. Over the last 10 years, Tennessee has had fewer than 12 players 40% of the time. The trend is even worse. The Lady Vols have had 11 or fewer players in three of the last four seasons, and that's not even counting the current season (in which they have 11). Looking at other schools may or may not be as instructive, since not all of them were early adopters of the practice men and most have changed coaches since 91-92.
| Quote: |
| (And even if there are fewer basketball roster spots, does that really matter overall? If a school is complying by proportionality, that would just mean they'd have to add spots to other women's sports.) |
Most schools don't use proportionality. They should be required to, IMO, but the enforcers seem happy to let them weasel out of it. |
The practice players do not count for title IX because they receive no benefits. They are required to meet NCAA eligibilty requirements so that a rich team could not go out and hire a bunch of players and baically have a semi-pro practice squad that did nothing but study and practice agains the women, basically giving them an unlimited number of paid coaching spots that could only be used in practice. The reason that these positions are only available to men is that if there was a woman on campus that could push the female players as hard as the male practice players, she would be a starter on the women's team.
Part of the reason for decreased roster numbers is that the players themselves do not want to be part of larger rosters, they want to play. There aren't the huge number of good to great players willing to sit on Pat's bench for 4 years for only a few minutes a game of PT when they could instead go to a MAC school and start. So, in order to get players happy to sit on the end of her bench and keep the numbers up wihtout transfers, Pat would have to get athletes who would not have a huge desire to play or would be so limited that they could not get more pt elsewhere. The first type is rare, and all coaches will take them, the second catagory are wastes of time and money as they won't even be good practice players.
Despite the Clinton administrations statements that proportionality is the only gauge for compliance, when title IX was passed, there were 3 ways to be in compliance and all are viewed as equal legally.
Michael
_________________
Michael
|
|
accommodatingly
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2191
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
How much force does a CWA recommendation have? Surely it doesn't become a binding rule, at least not without being voted on by other committees. Does the recommendation even require the NCAA to take any action at all, or is it simply advisory? Has the CWA made controversial recommendations in the recent past? Have they been adopted?
I bet that most of the CWA members aren't basketball people (they're ex-track and field athletes, for example, or PE experts).
If you read SHATTERING THE GLASS you'll remember the conflict between competitive-basketball people (men and women and girls from many background who wanted women's basketball teams to be as good and as competitive as possible) and "physical educators" (academically-trained middle- and upper-class women who thought women's athletics should be different, noncompetitive, egalitarian). The CWA is "physical educators."
Silly people.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Are you sure? |
yes.
| pilight wrote: |
| Looking at other schools may or may not be as instructive, since not all of them were early adopters of the practice men and most have changed coaches since 91-92. |
so Tennessee's roster has gotten smaller by about one. Is there really any reason to think that that change was caused by male practice players?
And regardless, it's clear from the division-wide data that there has not been any significant drop in roster sizes. Indeed, the contrary is true.
| pilight wrote: |
| Most schools don't use proportionality. |
are you sure? have a source for that?
I quoted you on that once, but after talking to some Title IX folks about it, I think that most schools actually do use proportionality.
| Michael wrote: |
| Despite the Clinton administrations statements that proportionality is the only gauge for compliance, when title IX was passed, there were 3 ways to be in compliance and all are viewed as equal legally. |
The Clinton admin never said anything of the sort. It issued one policy statement on Title IX -- the 1996 Clarification -- and it explicitly re-affirmed that all three prongs were valid methods of compliance.
Last edited by womens_hoops on 12/12/06 9:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| RubberTroll wrote: |
I thought the point of the article, which I really don't see being addressed, is that the bench players are being denied opportunities to develop because that practice time is occupied by male practice players instead of them.
In other words, remove male practice players, give more court time to the nonstarting players on your team, not replace the male practice players with female practice players.
I'm pretty sympathetic to that point of view. |
Have you ever actually watched a three-hour Div-1 practice? Anyone who thinks the female "bench players" are getting a little mini-vacation and not having time to develop is smoking something. The whole purpose of using male practice players is to make the entire team better. It allows the coach to sub in the bench players in a normal rotation, rather than having an "A" and "B" team consistently playing against each other. It also gives folks a breather during the hours, literally, of practice. And the male practice players aren't used the entire time, either.
This notion that women are being denied some sort of great opportunity because of the use of male practice players is absurd. If there are women on campus good enough to play against the starters, well, they should be on the real team!
This is such reverse sexism. Why shouldn't the very best women players have the very best opportunities to develop into champions? Why does this have to descend into a muck of political correctness?
As for the great benefits the guys supposedly get? Ha. The NCAA rules are so strict that when Coach Frese wanted to invite the scout teams guys to her annual holiday party the University had to check with the NCAA to be sure that was okay.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66951
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
are you sure? have a source for that?
I quoted you on that once, but after talking to some Title IX folks about it, I think that most schools actually do use proportionality. |
There are plenty of sources that say it. The first one that came up under google was this one:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20020618.html
| Quote: |
| More than two-thirds of the schools involved in Title IX cases before the Department of Education during a recent five-year period chose to comply with one of these alternative prongs, rather than by instituting gender proportionality. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
that's not what it says. It says that two-thirds of schools who faced challenges tried to use prongs two or three.
Schools that comply by proportionality are unlikely to face challenges. The great benefit of prong one is that it's so easy to measure. That's why most people use it -- and when they do, they don't face challenges. So that sample doesn't represent overall compliance.
The Title IX Commission report received numerous complaints from schools that the only real way to comply was Prong One.
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/athletics/title9report.pdf
Indeed, that was the very reason for the Bush admin's 2005 ruling.
People who study Title IX have been saying for years that "providing female and male students with proportional varsity athletic opportunities [i.e., Prong One] has become the dominant test of Title IX compliance." Yuracko, 97 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731, 741; accord Sigelman & Wahlbeck, The Mathematics of Title IX Compliance, 80 Soc. Sci. Q. 524.
|
|
RubberTroll
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| Have you ever actually watched a three-hour Div-1 practice? |
Yes. But enough abot me.
You're surely not suggesting that the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics has no relevant personal experience, are
you?
And NCAA doesn't equal Div-1.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
do they? how many of them have played or coached college basketball? how many of them have played or coached any team that used male scout squads?
|
|
accommodatingly
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2191
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
That's quite close to what I'm suggesting. I don't think a committee made up mostly of basketball people would make this dumb recommendation. Most of the bios available on the NCAA site for the committee members don't suggest a basketball background (though some do).
And DIII coaches have other reasons for wanting to use male practice players: some of those schools (including the one I teach at) are so small that there just aren't enough women who like playing basketball and have the free time to do it but aren't on the team. If male practice players are banned those schools can scrimmage only by overworking their players, leading to the kind of burnout and exhaustion we see and decry at elite high school levels, if not indeed to injury.
But, again, is there any chance that the CWA's recommendation will actually become an NCAA rule?
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| accommodatingly wrote: |
| But, again, is there any chance that the CWA's recommendation will actually become an NCAA rule? |
I don't know. I'm not sure whose ultimately gets to decide. Maybe it's the Council-Committee for each division.
|
|
harlem_basketball
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players. Also interesting how the anti practice player crowd has failed to address Timber and Ballwinner's posts about there not being enough interested women or actual players to make up a female practice squad. Or how playing against men improved their games. Must be easy to live in a perfect world where the numbers and theories all add up instead of living in the real one. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| harlem_basketball wrote: |
| Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players. |
false consciousness, apparently...
|
|
RubberTroll
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
do they? how many of them have played or coached college basketball? how many of them have played or coached any team that used male scout squads? |
Warmack-Chipman played her college [volley]ball at Texas from 1991-94, where she was team MVP and a second-team All-Southwest Conference selection in 1994. With Warmack-Chipman on the roster, Texas was ranked first in the nation before losing to Florida in the 1993 NCAA Regional Finals.
Three of the members are current student athletes.
Perhaps there need to be specific rules for specific sports.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| RubberTroll wrote: |
| Warmack-Chipman played her college [volley]ball at Texas from 1991-94, where she was team MVP and a second-team All-Southwest Conference selection in 1994. With Warmack-Chipman on the roster, Texas was ranked first in the nation before losing to Florida in the 1993 NCAA Regional Finals. |
It's unclear to me how her experience as a college volleyball player make her particularly qualified as an expert on the use of male scout players by college basketball teams.
It's even less clear to me how her experience makes her more of an expert than, say, Pat Summitt or Geno Auriemma or Brenda Frese or Doug Bruno or the entire WBCA.
So yes, perhaps there should be specific rules for each sport. But it's a little odd, since it seems quite clear that the "problem" the committee meant to address existly predominantly or solely in basketball.
Last edited by womens_hoops on 12/12/06 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
harlem_basketball
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| harlem_basketball wrote: |
| Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players. |
false consciousness, apparently... |
Must be. I figured the "yo go girl" crew (fem nazi's is a bit harsh, even for me, geez) would have loved Timber's story of her male practice playing boyfriend turning into a women's basketball lifer. At the very least I was hoping they'd have enough sense to listen to Timber/Accom/Ballwinner's examples of mid majors and D-III schools instead of continuously bringing up schools like Tennessee (with depth) that don't represent the majority at all. In many cases, the ones who tried out are the ones on the team, save for the water girl.
But alas, they're either still under the false impression that all male practice players are scrubs taking opportunities from women that don't exist (nevermind the fact that pro teams routinely practice against semi-pro/pro men) or are under the assumption that most teams scrimmage 5 on 5 when anyone who's played knows a coach likes to establish a rotation in practice just as they do in games. Then again, I guess if you've never actually experienced it - |
|
RubberTroll
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| harlem_basketball wrote: |
| Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players. Also interesting how the anti practice player crowd has failed to address Timber and Ballwinner's posts about there not being enough interested women or actual players to make up a female practice squad. Or how playing against men improved their games. Must be easy to live in a perfect world where the numbers and theories all add up instead of living in the real one. |
I don't see the report saying that there was no benefit associated with male practice players. Instead it was saying that there were tradeoffs, and that one
simply couldn't focus on the postitives to the exclusion of the negatives.
I feel the comittee, perhaps poorly, is trying to address in part, why there isn't enough interested women or actual players.
Lack of interested women or actual players was probably a pre Title IX arguement against funding for women's athletics programs.
|
|
harlem_basketball
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| RubberTroll wrote: |
| harlem_basketball wrote: |
| Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players. Also interesting how the anti practice player crowd has failed to address Timber and Ballwinner's posts about there not being enough interested women or actual players to make up a female practice squad. Or how playing against men improved their games. Must be easy to live in a perfect world where the numbers and theories all add up instead of living in the real one. |
I don't see the report saying that there was no benefit associated with male practice players. Instead it was saying that there were tradeoffs, and that one
simply couldn't focus on the postitives to the exclusion of the negatives.
I feel the comittee, perhaps poorly, is trying to address in part, why there isn't enough interested women or actual players.
Lack of interested women or actual players was probably a pre Title IX arguement against funding for women's athletics programs. |
So what do you suggest the schools do? Start paying women to practice against their school team? Because how many schools have 8-10 women in addition to their roster willing to fit basketball practice into their schedules? Should we stop girls from playing against boys period? If you want to play devil's advocate, doesn't that perpetuate the myth that the girls can't hang with the boys? Is it not a good thing to have men who are interested in helping out their women's teams for nothing? Are teams not directly targeting the very market that is so elusive in women's team sports - males 18-24 - who will continue to be women's basketball fans? |
|
|
|
Cheap shot? Yes, but also the reason