WBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletics Association

Started by MJA, February 24, 2005, 06:38:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

oldknight

#660
This morning's edition of the Holland Sentinel had an article on the NCAA proposal to ban the use of male practice players at women's practices. The NCAA believes that the use of men at practice is not in the spirit of Title IX and the stated reason for that belief is that using male practice players reduces opportunities for women. Can anyone explain how women's opportunities are reduced by using men at practice? Is the NCAA saying that using men reduces the practice time that would go to women and, therefore, this constitutes invidious discrimination? ??? Couldn't women argue that the use of men at women's practices improves the skill level of women and banning such use discriminates  by failing to give women the opportunity to utilize all possible tools for such improvement?

Dark Knight

#661
Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
Couldn't women argue that the use of men at women's practices improves the skill level of women and banning such use discriminates  by failing to give women the opportunity to utilize all possible tools for such improvement?

NO!

At least not in the NCAA's world. That would give tacit assent to the proposition that men tend to be taller and faster than women. :o A college president could get fired for suggesting such a thing. ;)

Pat Coleman

Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
This morning's edition of the Holland Sentinel had an article on the NCAA proposal to ban the use of male practice players at women's practices. The NCAA believes that the use of men at practice is not in the spirit of Title IX and the stated reason for that belief is that using male practice players reduces opportunities for women.

No, a select committee of NCAA members feels this is the case. Let's not paint the NCAA office with this broad brush unfairly on this one.

Back on Jan. 7, Hoopsville did an on-air discussion of this topic with women's basketball coaches and administrators. It might be worth listening to:

http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/07/malepracticing10707.mp3
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

oldknight

Quote from: Dark Knight on February 24, 2007, 08:25:59 AM
Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
Couldn't women argue that the use of men at women's practices improves the skill level of women and banning such use discriminates  by failing to give women the opportunity to utilize all possible tools for such improvement?

NO!

At least not in the NCAA's world. That would give tacit assent to the proposition that men tend to be taller and faster than women. :o A college president could get fired for suggesting such a thing. ;)


Being the gender sensitive guy that I am ( ;)) you'll note that I began asking the question with the words "Couldn't women argue . . . ?" I really don't want to be Larry Summers--although I wouldn't mind having his severance package. 8)

oldknight

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
This morning's edition of the Holland Sentinel had an article on the NCAA proposal to ban the use of male practice players at women's practices. The NCAA believes that the use of men at practice is not in the spirit of Title IX and the stated reason for that belief is that using male practice players reduces opportunities for women.

No, a select committee of NCAA members feels this is the case. Let's not paint the NCAA office with this broad brush unfairly on this one.

Back on Jan. 7, Hoopsville did an on-air discussion of this topic with women's basketball coaches and administrators. It might be worth listening to:

http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/07/malepracticing10707.mp3

Pat:

Thanks for the link and the discussion d3hoops did on this issue. Val Cushman, Randolph-Macon Womens' AD basically answered my question (the one I asked with respect to reduction of women's practice opportunities) in the affimative. That is, she said those who want the issue addressed are concerned that women's opportunities are negatively affected by male practice players at womens' practices because if a man is on the floor practicing, that necessarily means that a woman is not. I couldn't tell from the discussion whether Cushman has a strong belief one way or the other on this issue.

I don't think my comments could be construed as painting the NCAA with a broad brush but if there is a select committee operating under the authority of the NCAA then doesn't any of the committee's recommendations necessarily include the NCAA itself? I didn't think my comments were unfair to the organization although I do recognize the entire organization has not yet made a final decision.

sac

Here's the article

http://hollandsentinel.com/stories/022407/local_20070224003.shtml


Really I don't know the rule on this at all, but the thing that stuck out to me was Hope's women's AD made a good point about St. Mary's College and their problem with having no male students.

Definately doesn't sound like coaches want it to change.

Preto

Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
Can anyone explain how women's opportunities are reduced by using men at practice? Is the NCAA saying that using men reduces the practice time that would go to women and, therefore, this constitutes invidious discrimination?

Do any coaches (men's team) bring in five or six post-collegiate basketball players to practice against their varsity while the other 7-8 team members shoot free throws or just watch?

oldknight

Quote from: Preto on February 24, 2007, 12:19:38 PM
Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
Can anyone explain how women's opportunities are reduced by using men at practice? Is the NCAA saying that using men reduces the practice time that would go to women and, therefore, this constitutes invidious discrimination?

Do any coaches (men's team) bring in five or six post-collegiate basketball players to practice against their varsity while the other 7-8 team members shoot free throws or just watch?

There would be if any of them thought it would help get their team better prepared to play.

sac

I think that would be considered a scrimmage actually.........aren't schools restricted in the number of scrimmages they can hold?

David Collinge

The issue of women's teams using male practice players was also brought up in the Daily Dose in January.  Here's a link to that discussion, which also includes a well-reasoned and well-written take by Vassar's head women's coach Barb Bausch.

HopeConvert

#670
Quote from: oldknight on February 24, 2007, 07:59:10 AM
This morning's edition of the Holland Sentinel had an article on the NCAA proposal to ban the use of male practice players at women's practices. The NCAA believes that the use of men at practice is not in the spirit of Title IX and the stated reason for that belief is that using male practice players reduces opportunities for women. Can anyone explain how women's opportunities are reduced by using men at practice? Is the NCAA saying that using men reduces the practice time that would go to women and, therefore, this constitutes invidious discrimination? ??? Couldn't women argue that the use of men at women's practices improves the skill level of women and banning such use discriminates  by failing to give women the opportunity to utilize all possible tools for such improvement?
There was an article on this in the most recent "Chronicle of Higher Education" about the use of this practice at the DI level. Two interesting quotes in the story (and I'm going from memory here, so I can't vouch for the accuracy). The first came from the coach of the University of Maryland's team, who places certain restrictions on how the male players can play, but argued they were invaluable because they were "quicker, stronger, faster, and more physical" and thus really elevate the women's level of play. The second quote came from the person who was bringing the action against the NCAA (can't remember the name) who argued that "such practices rely on archaic notions of male pre-eminence." A sociologist, no doubt, and the coaches seem to know something this person doesn't.

The action was initiated by some female players who argued they were being deprived of practice time as a result. They quickly solicited the help of ideological equity proponents who saw here an opportunity to grind a political axe.
One Mississippi, Two Mississippi...

Grutte Dirk

Quote from: sac on February 24, 2007, 01:13:33 PM
I think that would be considered a scrimmage actually.

Very good point.
Bûter, brea en griene tsiis; wa't dat net sizze kin, is gjin oprjochte Fries.

ChicagoHopeNut

Hope women are off to a nice start this afternoon. Up 27-16 10 minutes into the game.
Tribes of primitve hunters, with rhinestone codpieces rampant, should build pyramids of Chevy engines covered in butterscotch syrup to exalt the diastolic, ineffable, scintillated and cacophonous salamander of truth which slimes and distracts from each and every orifice of your holy refrigerator.

ChicagoHopeNut

Hope  41
Calvin 31
Half

Solid half by the Hope women. Brian Morehouse is being described as at his "most intense ever," which wouldn't surprise me. Hope has been so close to beating Calvin twice and although I think both of these teams will be playing in the NCAA tourney (I would be shocked if the loser doesn't get a Pool C bid, I'd say Calvin is guaranteed a Pool C and Hope all but assured one) it'd be great to see Hope win this game.

I hope the NCAA doesn't put these two teams in the same bracket for the first weekend. Shoot, you know they will too. Stupid NCAA >:(
Tribes of primitve hunters, with rhinestone codpieces rampant, should build pyramids of Chevy engines covered in butterscotch syrup to exalt the diastolic, ineffable, scintillated and cacophonous salamander of truth which slimes and distracts from each and every orifice of your holy refrigerator.

ChicagoHopeNut

Hope seems to be running into trouble as Calvin has gone on a nice little run to bring the game to 58-56 with 9 minutes left.
Tribes of primitve hunters, with rhinestone codpieces rampant, should build pyramids of Chevy engines covered in butterscotch syrup to exalt the diastolic, ineffable, scintillated and cacophonous salamander of truth which slimes and distracts from each and every orifice of your holy refrigerator.