News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Dec. 18, 2006
Walk into just about any gym where a college women’s basketball team is practicing this winter, and chances are you’ll see men running up and down the court and battling for rebounds alongside the female players.
The squads aren’t co-ed, at least formally so. But the vast majority of college women’s teams practice against a regular cadre of male volunteers – usually students who competed in high school but couldn’t cut it at the men’s collegiate level — in the belief that going up against bigger, stronger, faster men will sharpen the female players’ skills and toughen them up for games against their peers.
Now the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Committee on Women’s Athletics wants the practice stopped, arguing that it undermines the spirit of Title IX and gender equity. Not only does the approach reduce the time that female players themselves get to work on their skills, the panel argued, but it “implies an archaic notion of male preeminence that continues to impede progress toward gender equity and inclusion.”
“The CWA feels that the trend of the use of male practice players does much more harm than good in the long run and discriminates against some of our female athletes,” the NCAA committee wrote in its statement this month calling for the association to ban the practice. (NOTE: The NCAA’s Web site is down for maintenance, so this link and others from the NCAA site are not working right now.)
The topic is being hotly debated within the NCAA, and opinion is divided within the association and the world of women’s sports broadly. The NCAA’s Division III colleges will consider restricting the practice at the association’s annual convention next month, and Divisions I and II are studying the issue.
It is not at all clear that the stance of the Committee on Women’s Athletics represents the views of other advocates for women’s sports. Among the members of the NCAA’s women’s basketball committee, “there are varying ways we feel about this,” says Judy Southard, Title IX coordinator at Louisiana State University, who heads that panel.
Women’s basketball coaches overwhelmingly support the use of male players, according to a survey by the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association. “With all the issues we could be rallying around for women’s athletics, to make sure we’re being truly integrated, it’s mind boggling that this is what’s getting all the focus,” said Beth Bass, who heads the basketball coaches’ group. “Most of us grew up playing with and against the guys, and it’s how a lot of us improved. That’s what we’re looking at here: ‘Let me have the opportunity to improve.’”
Bass’s group produced a position paper this fall that cited several reasons why the use of male practice players is a plus. Most college teams (especially in basketball, but the practice extends to sports such as volleyball, soccer and even hockey) use men’s teams to mimic the styles and schemes of their opponents, so that players on the women’s team can concentrate on learning their own plays. Second, “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…. 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.”
The Committee on Women’s Athletics sought to rebut those positions in its own statement last week. “Studying your opponent is a major part of game preparation,” the panel said. The main effect of having male players stand in for opponents is that “each week hours of practice/scrimmage time usually given to female non-starters in game preparation will now be assumed by male, non-student-athletes. The CWA sees this as a significant lost opportunity for female student-athletes.”
Women can find other methods of improving than playing against men, the panel suggests. “There are many ways (training, nutrition, etc.) that female student-athletes can work on getting faster and stronger,” the panel argues. “Athletes at every level have continued to evolve through drills and practice without including bigger, stronger and faster opponents in these drills.” Including male players in these drills also results in female athletes “standing by as males take positions the women have earned through years of dedication to their sport and missing their own chance to improve their skills.”
Although the committee’s statement focuses on the practical implications of using male practice players — in the form of diminished practice time for women — philosophical objections seem to underlie the panel’s passionate view. “The message to female student-athletes seems to be, `you are not good enough to make our starters better, so we need to use men instead.’ This approach implies an archaic notion of male preeminence that continues to impede progress toward gender equity and inclusion. Without the use of male practice players, does women’s athletics not inherently retain its own unique quality of competition and skill?”
In their responses to the panel’s call for banning male participation in women’s practices, many female athletes and coaches seem mystified that the committee appears reluctant to accept that physical differences remain between men and women. “Men are so much more athletic than females,” Renee Montgomery, a junior guard at the University of Connecticut, told the New Haven Register. “When you are playing against guys who can do what you can do and better every day, it is going to make you better.”
“This is the politically correct gone awry,” Joanne P. McCallie, Michigan State University’s women’s basketball coach, told USA Today. “It’s absolutely absurd. It’s short-sighted. It’s got nothing to do with equity and everything to do with politics.”
Members of the NCAA’s Division III will have the first crack at deciding whether the crackdown on men’s players has traction. They will weigh a proposal at the association’s meeting in Orlando next month that would allow women’s teams to continue to practice against men, but in severely limited ways: They could do so only once a week during the traditional season, and the number of male players they could use would would be limited to fewer than half of the number of players required to field a starting team in their sport (for example, a basketball team with five starting players could use only two male practice players).
The Women’s Basketball Coaches Association has put forward an alternative proposal that would restrict the use of male players to three practices a week, and limit their number to the number of players in a starting lineup (so a basketball team could use a full squad of five male players.)
Bass, of the basketball coaches’ group, said she hopes NCAA officials will recognize that if individual colleges or coaches have abused the use of male practice players in ways that really limit opportunity for women, those abuses are best dealt with by administrators at those colleges, rather than through sweeping rule changes that “throw the baby out with the bath water.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Oh cry me a river won’t you.... what’s next? If the trend to workout with guys works, then why mess up a good thing? The way I see it, the NCAA wants to regulate EVERYTHING. Like I said, Cry me a RIVER...
Martin, at 9:50 am EST on December 18, 2006
The Globe Trotters used to play against the hapless Washington Generals and no one was upset.Nonetheless, it’s one thing for Chris Evert to hit tennis balls with Jimmy Connors to get better when returning Martina’s shots or for some coed to shoot hoops with her boyfriend; it’s another for Div. I women’s basketball teams essentially to hire young men to practice every day against the woman team members. What’s next? College baseball teams scrimmaging against major league teams? Football teams with several professional weight trainers? Oh, wait, they are already doing that...
Bottom line is that none of the professionalism and commercialization in what we call big-time college athletics makes any sense on a university. So to worry about NCAA guidelines and Title IX seems to me a tad late and several billion dollars short. Make them all pros and let them do what they want, including going to class.
ap, at 10:50 am EST on December 18, 2006
If NCAA and the colleges/universities would only stop wasting thousands upon thousands of dollars of taxpayers hard earned money for a few athletes to play a sport and entertain alumni, which most likely these few athletes will never make a career from anyway, and put the money towards hiring more academic professors,
Athletics has become a business like most of higher education. Maybe we should take the example of some colleges and ban all varsity sports and go back to intramurals, this way everyone has a cance of playing. If a college wants a varsity team, their alumni can foot the bill instead of the taxpayers.
As it is many colleges give their athletes academic credit for entertaining the masses each week during sports season on tax payers dollars.
I can see the legislators down the road requiring gender specific Physical Education Classes. What is next????
prof. tellitlikeitis, at 11:25 am EST on December 18, 2006
The CWA has no idea how women’s teams use scrub players. A college coach who doesn’t give all the players the opportunity to practice against scrub players, or uses scrub players exclusively in scrimmage practices, is mortgaging the future of the program. I challenge the CWA to find one women’s college team who runs every scrimmage with scrub players, and only the starting five is allowed to participate. That just doesn’t happen. The CWA is creating an issue where none exists, and obviously they have no support from actual college coaches or players.
Tom McCool, at 12:10 pm EST on December 18, 2006
Just asking.
This hair-splitting over equality does seem absurd, at times. Example: can’t wait for the article on whether TGs w/ or w/o sex changes can use which bathroom. (There is a future for the unisex/family bathroom, apparently.)
L.H.H., at 3:20 pm EST on December 18, 2006
Dear Dr. Brand, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act clearly states that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. Banning the use of male practice players for female teams is a prima facia case of discrimination on the basis of sex. Why should these males have this athletic opportunity denied them? The argument that the use of male practice opponents prohibits practice time for second stringers is nonsense. On the contrary, this practice would give the second string women the same opportunity to face taller, quicker practice opponents themselves, as they also could go five on five against male competition. It is no wonder that Congress wonders why the NCAA enjoys tax exempt status. The NCAA feels it can re-write the laws to fit their own political agendas, force rules upon member schools that severely limit the opportunities for student athletes, and yet bask in billions of dollars of TV revenue without ever having to pay a nickel of it in taxes.
Michael, at 4:05 pm EST on December 18, 2006
Michael is correct. Not only would that proposed change violate state and federal statutes, if it is implemented by any state schools it may well be a violation of state and federal constitutional rights. Leaving aside the legal blunder, it reinforces the worst kind of sexist thinking.
Bernardo O’Boyle, at 5:10 pm EST on December 18, 2006
Perhaps I’m being an apologist, but to me it seems more about the men being bigger and taller (and more of a challenge) rather than being men per se. I’m sure if there were bigger, taller women to play against they would be considered as ‘practice’ too. However, they’d likely be on the team at that point....
Shelley Batts, Scholarships Around the US, at 5:35 am EST on December 19, 2006
To use a track & field analogy, a runner becomes better, faster, more confident (grows) by running in fast heats and finishing last moreso than “winning” slow heats. “A clay pot sitting in the sun will always be a clay pot. It has to go through the white hot heat of the furnace to become a piece of porcelain.”
Ed, at 3:35 pm EST on December 19, 2006
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Position Summary: A postdoctoral position in spectroscopy is available starting Jan. 1st 2009 at the ... see job
The Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, anticipates a tenured or tenure-track faculty ... see job
American University is an independent liberal-arts university located in Washington, DC with 12,000 students. The faculty are ... see job
The position specialization is in Public Policy and Community Development. This position is complex work involving delivery ... see job
Serve as Aquatics Director; teach 3 aquatics classes each semester; supervise indoor and outdoor swimming pools; supervise ... see job
General Purpose
Reporting to the Director for Information Technology, and with considerable latitude for ... see job
Are you seeking a challenging and rewarding position? Look no further than UMUC... see job
The Department of Orthopedics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is recruiting for a full time Assistant ... see job
I Forgot the NCAA Was Taking that Course ...
So now it’s ...
NCAA (gender diversity) = B
NCAA (racial diversity) = B-
NCAA (generation of income) = A+
NCAA (contribution to education) = D
NCAA (decisions about non-money-making issues) = F
So let’s see, that’s a GPA of 2.0 (out of 4.0)
If I’m not mistaken, the NCAA is barely maintaining its eligibility. Ohhh ... please tell me March Madne$$ is just around the corner.
RWH, at 8:35 am EST on December 18, 2006