An NCAA committee issued a position statement calling for a ban on the use of male practice players in women’s intercollegiate athletics and Division III is voting to severly restrict it at the upcoming NCAA convention. The proposal being considered does not eliminate the practice, but limits it to 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).
Vassar coach Barb Bausch, who is in her 11th season as a Division III women’s basketball head coach, wrote the following opinion piece:
Citing the spirit of Title IX as their reasoning, an NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics recently criticized a little known, but common practice in women’s sports — using male players during practice sessions to emulate larger opponents.
With all due respect, I must disagree with the committee.
I know from personal experience, as a former player and someone who has coached females in basketball for 20 years now, that practicing against stronger and bigger players, whether they’re men or women, is an effective tool for getting better.
As a coach, I always try to make practice more competitive than what the opponent can give. At the high school level, I encouraged my teams to seek out the best competition they could find for pickup games, male or female. When we had to compete against two 6-foot-6 female athletes on the same team, we found a guy that tall so we could have a sense of what 6-6 was like. It makes sense to use the overload principle to prepare a team for all possibilities. That is what good coaches do.
As a college coach, I seek out anyone who is quicker, stronger and faster to practice against before we face our opponents. Generally, these tend to be male undergraduates. When a player learns that she can make a move against that type of speed or strength, she never forgets it. It’s not only the starters who practice against the guys — the whole team does. What this does is help the level of play within the team become more equal.
As an educated professional who has dedicated her career to the advancement of women’s opportunities in life through sport, I find it hard to accept a committee telling me what is best for the women I coach. I, as well as many others in this profession, have worked hard and sought out education and experiences from so many points of view to give our best to the student-athletes we have the good fortune to coach. It would be their loss and the loss of all those in which they come in contact if they could not benefit from our knowledge and well thought out choices that we make for the women we coach. It would be beneficial, however, if there was more help in finding solutions to raise the percentage of women coaching women and men in sport and in securing women in administrative positions.
I would have hoped that this committee would have surveyed women’s basketball coaches for their opinions on this matter but I can’t find anything that suggests they did. I hope this brings enlightenment to the issue, especially for those who will be voting on it in Orlando.
What, you want “enlightened” from Indianapolis? 🙂
Coach Bausch’s comments are so well-written that it’s difficult to imagine what the NCAA’s objections are.
Smart people apparently both attend AND coach at Vassar.
Coach bausch is dead on in her logic and her arguement.
The NCAA’s Title IX logic doesn’t hold water. If the women cant play with the men, What is equality worth? The Supreme Court and the court of basic decency ruled on the “seperate but equal” doctrine over a generation ago.
C
This proposal comes from the Presidents’ Council, not “The NCAA.” Coach Bausch’s comments are not only well written but also fit well into Division III philosophy. The idea of being in college athletics, and in college in general, is to get better. To be smarter, more mature, more ready for life, and practicing a sport of all things should be done in such a way that improves the student-athlete. I don’t agree with the rationale for this regarding reducing opportunities for women. It seems to me that if a coach is doing it the right way, that it enhances those opportunities.
The Division III-specific proposal comes from the presidents council, sure, but the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics is what is pushing the issue.
My intramural squad and I used to practice with the women’s basketball team about once a week my senior year. We’ve had long arms and a tight zone, which helped the ladies get ready for opponents with the same attributes. Their improvement over the course of the year was very evident, not to mention it was really rewarding to see things we worked on with them in practice come to fruition in games.
Maybe that’s the better solution, limiting male practice players to a certain number of practices per week or per season.
That should make the sponsors of this thing happy, even if their logic boggles my mind.
Our head coach, Tammy Metcalf-Filzen, wrote an opinion piece for the NCAA’s blog, the Double-A zone
We did this in college too. It was fun for us to see a strong ladies D3 team in action after we played very tight practice games with them. A group of our guys were on the track team, so we had decent speed and endurance, but lower basketball skills.
Plus we had a bunch of new friends on the women’s team which was a nice added benefit.
Coach Bausch certainly summed up my initial thoughts on this subject.
Speaking as one guy who actually practiced for a number of years with the women’s basketball team… this certainly seems ridiculous. Even a restriction to a certain number of weeks is a bit nuts, since you don’t get ready against two to three opponents a week. (By the way, if you want to restrict the number of guys, I might understand that… but still pushing it.)
I know why the women’s basketball coaches I worked with had me at practice. Simply, to provide a bigger presense for both the inside players to deal with while posting up… and even for the guards to play against defensively. I certainly thought the team got better because of the presense of me and sometimes others (even I became a better player and student of the game).
To then say women’s teams shouldn’t practice with men seems more like a step BACK from Title IX… then a step forward.
What are they going to tell us next, women aren’t allowed to play on intra-mural teams because they are playing with the guys?!
I hope this ends up the same way the plan to force Division III programs with Division I teams to chose divisions… voted down.
I also agree with Coach Bausch and others who indicated this decision basically tells coaches and athletic departments they don’t know how to coach and do what is best for their programs.
Uhh, yeah, sticking to the realms of reality, where the NCAA has no say in intramurals. 🙂
Yes… intramurals are not in the NCAA’s juristdiction… but I wouldn’t doubt their thoughts on “expanding” their horizons :).
I thought the “spirit of title IX” was to privately socialize athletics so we could better compete with the Europeans and Chinese in womens international amatuer competitions. Not many would ever admit to that but that was the thinking behind it.
Ultimately it seems to me that Title IX has defined for the colleges and universities of this country what an allowable sport is. Now the NCAA is prepared to take it one step further. What’s next……………
I don’t have any kids but lets say one day I have a daughter that plays basketball. Can I, or can I not, shoot hoops with her in the driveway ??
My point is that Title IX was never intended to have any bearing on D3.
Carletonsid, your link doesn’t seem to be active. I’m not quite sure how to do it, either, but here’s my attempt to link to the blog:
The Double-A zone
I hope it works, as Coach Metcalf-Filzen’s comments are interesting and enlightening.
Ditto, Carleton Coach Metcalf-Filzen’s remarks.
She makes very good points about multi-sport athletes and the development about younger players.
With male practice players and an extra assistant coach, you can almost provide simultaneous “reps” for both 1st and second teamers.
Let’s hope this gets voted down. I wish this topic/debate could get real airtime on a national sports news show before the convention!
Roop:
The NCAA is extremely concerned as the NRO stretches its sphere of influence throughout the vastness that is the MWC basketball world. They likely are watching your driveway from heretofor.
T2K
I have been reading my fair share of information on this topic and even chatted with a few coaches. I hope to even have a segment on Hoopsville dedicated to this.
But before that, I did find this article on ESPN… written by two coaches with some interesting points.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=lieberman_nancy&id=2701428
Before the vote today on this issue… I talked to several coaches and one person on the CWA committee last night on Hoopsville. You can hear the interview by just clicking here.
Just for the record, I talked to at least a dozen coaches over the past three or so days… and have yet to find anyone who is in support of this legislation, even in its ammended form. And the comments from Val Cushman, AD at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, who is on the CWA committee were interesting in how they came up with a reason to address the issue.
Ok… so the link doesn’t seem to want to work… so here is the direct link:
http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/07/malepracticing10707.mp3