RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

No More Male Practice Partners
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66948
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

harlem_basketball wrote:
Interesting how the female posters who have actually played the game see nothing wrong with male practice players.


There is nothing wrong with it from a competitive standpoint. Players rarely see beyond that.

Quote:
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.


You're getting dangerously close to the chauvanist reasoning that required the passage of Title IX in the first place. Women aren't interested in playing ball or studying chemistry or whatever, so we won't let them.

Quote:
Must be easy to live in a perfect world where the numbers and theories all add up instead of living in the real one.


That's the world of Title IX.



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 11:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RubberTroll wrote:
I feel the comittee, perhaps poorly, is trying to address in part, why there isn't enough interested women or actual players.


If that was what they were trying to address, then they addressed it poorly indeed.

Measured by the total number of players, D-I women's basketball participation has risen over 50% in the last 25 years. I hope it will continue to rise, but the numbers don't suggest that there is a huge problem drawing interested women into basketball.

And to the extent that there is a problem, I can't imagine that the use of male practice players contributes in any meaningful way.

Have we ever heard from any player who has said "I decided not to play hoops, because I didn't want to sit on the sidelines while the starters played men"? Have we ever heard from any player who has said "My college hoops experience was not good, because I spent a lot of time on the sidelines while the starters played men"?

Maybe there are hundreds or thousands of such players out there. If there were, it would certainly change my opinion. But my sense, tentatively at least, is that there are not very many players who would say that. And the committee hasn't done anything to convince me that there are.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 11:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it from a competitive standpoint. Players rarely see beyond that.


You're getting dangerously close to the paternalistic reasoning that prevented women from playing sports in the first place.

Are you saying that Timber and Ballwinner are too stupid to see anything beyond what matters "from a competitive standpoint"?


RubberTroll



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

harlem_basketball wrote:


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?


Well, back to the report, just for a moment.

Only Div III even has a proposal on the table to limit (not exclude) the use of male practice player.

So, most of the programs we follow won't have to change a thing.

I feel that having the 'best' teams is not the ultimate goal of all collegiate athletics. That is why some the best players are excluded all together (failing to make the admission standards of the university), that is why practice time is restricted, that is why game and practices are suspended during finals.

I believe that not every coach at every level runs their program with the efficiency of the elite Div I coaches like Pat Summit.

I believe that the committee had access to data that I do not. That they were diligent in their efforts and had many of the same debates that we are having here. I feel their recommendations are worthy of more consideration than
they are being given credit for. I feel, perhaps mistakely, tha they are not
some one-dimensional political puppets with no ability to follow evidence
to a carefully considered conclusion.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RubberTroll wrote:
Only Div III even has a proposal on the table to limit (not exclude) the use of male practice player.


not true.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/management_council/2006/October/S32_Male_Practice_Players.htm

RubberTroll wrote:
I believe that the committee had access to data that I do not.


perhaps they should make that data available. If there is data supporting their conclusion, I can't see much reason why they'd need to keep it private.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here is the WBCA Positioning Paper on Male Practice Players.


Below is the position paper written by WBCA Chief Operating Officer Shannon Reynolds and WBCA Committee on Basketball Issues Chair Carolyn Campbell-McGovern in an effort to educate administrators and coaches on the proper and effective use of male practice players in the sport of women’s basketball.

Male Practice Players. Where did it begin? Who was the first male to wander into the gym and post up against a women’s basketball player? The history is undocumented but the benefits are obvious. The use of male practice players in the sport of women’s basketball is common practice and has certainly benefited the growth and betterment of the sport and the female student-athletes who have participated by challenging the females to become bigger, faster and stronger; by providing formidable opposition in practice; and by bringing members of the student body who are not team members closer to the game of women’s basketball.

Recently the use of male practice players has come under scrutiny for the purpose of assuring equitable practice and competitive opportunities for female student-athletes. We believe that while review of this issue is warranted in order to answer these questions and ensure the proper role of males participating in practice with female players, the overwhelming majority of the WBCA membership strongly believes that when used properly, male practice players enhance participation opportunities for women’s basketball student-athletes. We thus offer the following suggestions as “best practices” for the use of male practice players as they apply to basketball, and might be applied to other team sports.

1. SCOUT TEAM PLAYERS

Male practice players should be used primarily as a scout team. The male players are therefore the ones who are responsible for learning the offense and defense of the upcoming opponents to prepare the starting team for competition. This allows the women’s basketball student-athletes to concentrate on learning and executing their own team’s offense and defense at practice. It is to the team’s advantage to make sure the non-starters get experience, and to make sure that the starters are not over-used and have time to rest. The non-starters therefore also should be provided with ample opportunity to practice against the male practice players on the scout team.

2. BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER


Because males are often bigger, stronger and faster than female players, women student-athletes should practice skills against them in order to improve their skills. Drills should be constructed so that the men are used to challenge the women student-athletes, but not in such a way that results in female student-athletes waiting longer between participation opportunities. For example, in a shooting drill taller male practice players might stand in front of the shooter as the defender, requiring her to learn how to alter her shot. This results in improved skill development opportunities for the women student-athletes, as well as allowing all of the women student-athletes to participate in shooting drills as active shooters, not as static defenders.

3. SAFETY FIRST

The strength of male players’ physical abilities can also be a detriment when used incorrectly. It is important that male practice players use their strength and speed only to the extent warranted in order to avoid injuries to themselves and to the women student-athletes. Because of males’ strength and speed, they can often perform the skill faster at less than full speed than the women student-athletes can at full speed. The males thus are better able to maintain control of the level of contact making it safer for the women student-athletes to practice at top speed. In addition, there is often a wide disparity in the skill and strength levels among the women within the team, so that organizing certain drills such that the bigger players work with the men and the smaller players work with each other makes it a safer environment for the smaller players. The women’s basketball community also supports guidelines to ensure that male practice players are afforded safety precautions and opportunities for treatment of injuries.

4. TEAM BUILDING

The participation of male practice players should be competitive and challenging but the intrinsic value should be a boost in team morale and confidence. Using male practice players eliminates teammates competing against each other day in and day out, typically the same person who is also competing for the same position, and allows the team as a whole to compete against the males. In a nurtured environment, this competition promotes good team harmony and better chemistry, resulting in a positive experience for all participants.

On behalf of the overwhelmingly majority of the WBCA membership we ask the members of all NCAA athletic departments and NCAA committees, at all NCAA divisions, to evaluate the use of male practice players based on the premise that while there may be some coaches who need to be educated on the most appropriate and effective ways to use male practice players, all coaches have as their primary concern the women student-athletes’ interests and development as players.

We appreciate your support for the continued appropriate use of male practice players in women’s basketball. We ask that you allow coaches to continue to conduct their practices in a manner that is best suited for their team, and hold them accountable for ensuring that male practice players are used to enhance opportunities for women student-athletes. The WBCA also supports the surveying of student-athletes’ position on this subject matter and encourages committees to evaluate the results on a sport specific basis.
[/u]


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66948
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
pilight wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it from a competitive standpoint. Players rarely see beyond that.


You're getting dangerously close to the paternalistic reasoning that prevented women from playing sports in the first place.

Are you saying that Timber and Ballwinner are too stupid to see anything beyond what matters "from a competitive standpoint"?


Intelligence isn't really the issue. Of course playing against men will make you a better player if you're one of the ones that gets to play. The CWA is clearly more concerned about the impact on those that don't.



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
harlem_basketball



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Intelligence isn't really the issue. Of course playing against men will make you a better player if you're one of the ones that gets to play. The CWA is clearly more concerned about the impact on those that don't.


How do you think a practice is structured?
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

timber wrote:
3. We can deny it all we want, but playing against guys makes you a better player. I'm not talking about playing against the short pudgy kid...I mean real ball players.


Absolutely true. Amen, Timber.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The CWA is clearly more concerned about the impact on those that don't.


But the premise of the CWA's argument is that non-starters must simply sit on the sidelines and watch while the starters play against men. Is that really how it works in practice?

Not according to the WBCA. Note some of the key passages about the best way to use men:

1. use men against non-starters, so the non-starters get more development, and so the starters can rest.

2. use men in drills that allow all players to participate. When you do a shooting drill, use men as dummy defenders. That way, non-starters actually get to participate in the drill rather than as dummy defenders.

So we have two competing views of how male scout teams are actually used. Which do you trust more: the CWA's view, or the WBCA's view?




Last edited by womens_hoops on 12/12/06 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RubberTroll wrote:
harlem_basketball wrote:


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?


Well, back to the report, just for a moment.

Only Div III even has a proposal on the table to limit (not exclude) the use of male practice player.

So, most of the programs we follow won't have to change a thing.

I feel that having the 'best' teams is not the ultimate goal of all collegiate athletics. That is why some the best players are excluded all together (failing to make the admission standards of the university), that is why practice time is restricted, that is why game and practices are suspended during finals.

I believe that not every coach at every level runs their program with the efficiency of the elite Div I coaches like Pat Summit.

I believe that the committee had access to data that I do not. That they were diligent in their efforts and had many of the same debates that we are having here. I feel their recommendations are worthy of more consideration than
they are being given credit for. I feel, perhaps mistakely, tha they are not
some one-dimensional political puppets with no ability to follow evidence
to a carefully considered conclusion.


Then why are they putting out reasons that are patently untrue? Remember, a camel is a horse put together by a committee. This committee has had an agenda regarding men's practice players for quite a while, so taking anything they say at face value is a little naive IMHO.

Michael



_________________
Michael
Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
womens_hoops wrote:
pilight wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it from a competitive standpoint. Players rarely see beyond that.


You're getting dangerously close to the paternalistic reasoning that prevented women from playing sports in the first place.

Are you saying that Timber and Ballwinner are too stupid to see anything beyond what matters "from a competitive standpoint"?


Intelligence isn't really the issue. Of course playing against men will make you a better player if you're one of the ones that gets to play. The CWA is clearly more concerned about the impact on those that don't.


Which according to people that have reported here from watchign different teams practice is really not even an issue. It gives the players the same amount of time practicing either way, as what the men generally do is not the focus of the practice. They are the scout team, while the girls rotate against them and all get to practice what the focus is instead of spending half their time playing scout team then turn right around and play on the active focus team, leading to more injuries from overuse and fatigue and less time spent one on one with the coaches.

Michael



_________________
Michael
harlem_basketball



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
timber wrote:
3. We can deny it all we want, but playing against guys makes you a better player. I'm not talking about playing against the short pudgy kid...I mean real ball players.


Absolutely true. Amen, Timber.


Back to things I find funny - she mentioned specific ways in which male practice players are used and ways in which men make female players better - to crickets from the peanut gallery. Not to blow up any spots, but I'd take her word (and the word of a couple others on this board) as a player, coach and administrator at and beyond face value over people who really don't know the politics and inner workings of the NCAA and sports in general. WH posted coaches takes on it - to crickets. Michael's been educating people all over this thread - to crickets.
RubberTroll



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[quote="womens_hoops"]
RubberTroll wrote:
Only Div III even has a proposal on the table to limit (not exclude) the use of male practice player.


not true.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/management_council/2006/October/S32_Male_Practice_Players.htm

Thanks. Perhaps you should drop a note to the Comittee too.

The source of my misinformation.

Quote:
The matter has been surveyed and debated in each division, but Division III is the only one to have legislation on the table at this year’s Convention. The proposal being considered does not eliminate the practice, but limits it to the traditional season and in only one practice per week. The proposal also would limit the number of male practice players in team sports to no more than half of the number required to field a starting women’s team (for example, only two male practice players would be permitted in a sport with five starting players).

The other two divisions are still gathering information and feedback on the matter.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RubberTroll wrote:
Thanks. Perhaps you should drop a note to the Comittee too.


I'm not convinced that factual accuracy is their greatest concern.


Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 12:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:
RubberTroll wrote:
Thanks. Perhaps you should drop a note to the Comittee too.


I'm not convinced that factual accuracy is their greatest concern.


They sure haven't shown much interest in it in their releases so far.

"The heart has reasons that reason cannot see."

Michael



_________________
Michael
sbjules



Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 3476



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


The team I follow has male practice players and a short bench. Believe me, everyone gets practice time, walk-ons, etc. I can't imagine what a practice would be like without the men. It is not a matter of "instead," and I don't think it is in other programs either.


RubberTroll



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

womens_hoops wrote:

RubberTroll wrote:
Only Div III even has a proposal on the table to limit (not exclude) the use of male practice player.


not true.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/management_council/2006/October/S32_Male_Practice_Players.htm


I've had some time to read it carefully.

What is specifically is 'not true'?

The supporting link shows no proposal on the table from either Div II, or Div I.

Both say the idea is out gathering feedback in those divisions. The closest I
see is
"The Cabinet agreed to develop a resolution indicating that the Cabinet intends to sponsor legislation related to the use of male practice players in all women's sports".

Would people be opposed to Div I legislations that codified the "best practices"
put forth in the WCBA statement?

Are people oppessed to the specifics of the Div III regulation, the political nature
of the rational, or both?

I realize the topic title suggest a ban, but I've not seen that proposed anywhere.


harlem_basketball



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Question

harlem_basketball wrote:
pilight wrote:
Intelligence isn't really the issue. Of course playing against men will make you a better player if you're one of the ones that gets to play. The CWA is clearly more concerned about the impact on those that don't.


How do you think a practice is structured?
womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RubberTroll wrote:
What is specifically is 'not true'?


I'm not trying to play gotcha -- it just sounded to me like your earlier post was trying to minimize the importance of the issue by saying that no one outside of D-III was doing anything to limit the practice anyway. That none of the teams we follow will really be affected anyway.

The D-I Championships/Competition Cabinet has already stated that it "opposes the use of male practice players," that it intends to sponsor legislation on the matter, and that it will take it up next at the Feb. 2007 meeting.

D-II is still researching the issue and trying to figure out what to do.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
opposes the use of male practice players


Why? I never oppose using men. It is one of my strengths. And one of my hobbies on my resume.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 2:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rubbertroll and Accommodatingly are unflappably on point: This is merely a partisan recommendation of one of the NCAA's innumerable bureaucratic committees--and just a policy committee, at that.

To become NCAA "law", the recommendation would have to be embodied in proposed legislation, pass through other committees, get voted on by all the appropriate committees and members, and pass the vote.

That will never happen. Virtually all D1 coaches who have been quoted in googleable news articles (with the unsourced exception of Jim Foster, in the
2/23/05 Womenshoopsblog) are strongly in favor of male practice players. Here is a preemptive salvo fired by Doug Bruno a few weeks ago in anticipation of the committee's recommendation:

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17385729&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=576789&rfi=6&xb=penis

I personally have some sympathy for the "participation is more important than competitive success" philosophy of the committee, but not so much because of gender equity concerns. I just have an anachronistic apathy towards “winning is the only thing” in college sports, a strong antipathy towards the influence of money in WCBB and all college sports, and empathy for student participation as a primary educational goal of college athletics.


womens_hoops



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 3:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Rubbertroll and Accommodatingly are unflappably on point: This is merely a partisan recommendation of one of the NCAA's innumerable bureaucratic committees--and just a policy committee, at that.


I hope you're right, but I'm afraid it's a little more than that. D-III has already taken action. The lead D-I committee has said that it intends to. I'm not sure which of the blizzard of committees has the final say, however...

GlennMacGrady wrote:
the unsourced exception of Jim Foster, in the
2/23/05 Womenshoopsblog


that quote was from the BoilerStation.com article, which was linked in the post. The link is just dead.


eyevolley4



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 4638



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 3:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Perhaps since I am a male practice player, I am biased, well of course I am, but I would love to see a survey of the girls I played with, especially the subs, and find out what their opinion is on what impact I had on the team.

I can tell you that the subs loved having me on the court with them because I created a more competitive team on the "sub" side. My ability to imitate various players and show a diversified array of skills helped the "starting side" understand what they would be facing.

Two years ago, because of inuries, the girls could not scrimmage unless I was there due to numbers. I doubt anyone would have been too thrilled about that - starters, backups, or coaches. This wasn't due to lack of recruiting, but lack of physically capable players.

I don't know, there is really so much I could say on this topic I don't really know where to begin or end. Essentially, if this passes, I know that many programs would suffer in multiple sports.



_________________
Some days are meant to be remembered.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/12/06 4:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Re D3, the recommendation may be embodied in proposed legislation. But in my experience, the vast majority of legislative proposals in all governmental organizations wither, die, or get pruned or compromised away. Plus, who knows the strength of the opposition in D3. Maybe they, like me, are not so Lombardi-centric.

Surely many operational committees would have to approve such a sweeping proposal ... it applies to all women's sports ... and it may have to be voted on in the end by the member schools. Most business and governmental organizations require direct voting on important matters. I just envision a huge majority of opposition by the coaches and AD's of D1 schools.

I'm not sure anyone has commented on what I think the silliest argument of the committee is. As evidence that women's teams don't need male practice players to improve, they cite the fact that men's teams don't use male practice players other than the males already on the team. They blink not only at logic, but at evolutionary biology. Of course, that's nothing new.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin