Right Call, Wrong Reasons

The call for a ban on male practice players was ineffecively framed by the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics, which seems to have another agenda.

PHOTOS BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

The NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA) has come up with a decent idea - banning the increasingly widespread use of male practice players in women's team sports - but has argued its merits so poorly that its recently issued position statement almost surely will be a lightning rod in the battle over gender equity that appears set to escalate, not just in sports, but in American society as a whole.

Frankly, the CWA's postion statement makes us nervous. HoopGurlz.com was founded to better expose and promote the growth of girl's and women's basketball, a mission sincerely and fervently pursued. But the website's publisher is male, and so is its National Director of Scouting.

The CWA's position statement is so fraught with agenda-creep, it makes us wonder if we'll be a future target.

After all, the authors of the CWA's position statement managed to prominently weave into a discussion of male practice players the issue of coaching opportunities. "Since Title IX was enacted, the coaching and administrative opportunities for females have been diminished greatly," the statement says. We'll go along with the overwhelming evidence in support of this observation, but ask how banning male practice players improves this situation?

This is why, to many, "ban male practice players" reads "ban males." It may not be universal, but there has been an underlying resentment, especially in women's basketball, over the preponderance of male coaches. It has been strong enough to make the likes of Connecticut's Geno Auriemma uncomfortable and outspoken about it.

And the issue rearing its head in a discussion of banning male practice players smacks of a fox-in-the-henhouse issue disguised as something more benevolent. It's another topic altogether, to be sure, and at the risk of further digression, we wonder why the CWA thinks banning male practice players will help increase the participation of females in coaching and administration of NCAA athletics. Why not address that issue directly and advocate, say, increased training or even quotas?

Or, instead of fighting the powers that be, win over and eventually replace them. This isn't just like civil-rights leaders furthering their cause by coopting white liberals. It should not be lost on anyone - coaches, politicians and business leaders alike - that females outnumber males in America.

The CWA appears to favor a wrong-headed, passive-aggressive approach.

To wit, its position statement engages in an attack against the percepton that males, being bigger, stronger, faster, improve the skills of females by participating in drills and scrimmages. It points out that male varsity teams don't employ bigger, stronger, faster professionals to make them better in practice. But it ignores the widespread practice of collegiate athletes working with professionals during the offseason.

It also ignores the experience of many elite female athletes. So many have told us their development was linked to "playing with the guys" that, although anecdotal, the evidence is so overwhelming as to contain more than a grain of truth.

The CWA should have been disciplined enough to stay with the persuasive core of the male practice players issue. That is, that the participation of males takes away resources from the females for whom the programs exist. Those resources would include practice time for reserve players and, less impactful, money spent on outfitting the practice players that could be spent on necessities for scholarshipped student-athletes, male or female.

We of course accept and support this premise, as well as the conclusion that females are fully capable of assisting the development and improvement of other female players, as well as the growth and development of their teams. We also accept and support the need for unique identity and inclusion in women's athletics.

However, we also believe the cause would be better served if the body touting it stayed more focused and on subject. Even the position statement's closing line betrays the not-so-hidden agendas and latent animosities. "The CWA recommends the elimination of the use of male practice players throughout the NCAA," the mostly female body says, revealing its Freudian slip. "Throughout the NCAA," taken literally, also means, in some cases, banning scout teams and red-shirt practice participation in sports such as football and men's basketball.

It's no wonder this feels like another warlock hunt to some.

---

NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics
Janet R. Kittell, Chair, Indiana University, Bloomington
Jane Meyer, University of Iowa
Katherine Street (student-athlete), Boise State University
James Zaninovich, Princeton University
Kyle B. Kallander, Big South Conference
Faith Shearer, Elon University
Patrick Nero, America East Conference
Geraldine Knortz, Saint Michael's College
Michael Thompson, Delta State University
Donna Fields, St. Mary's University (Texas)
Jennifer Churchill, Queens University of Charlotte
Val Cushman, Randolph-Macon Woman's College
Julie Davis, University of Maine, Farmington
Jenny Warmack-Chipman, Muhlenberg College
Kayla Hinkley (student-athlete rep), University of New England

Mission statement: The mission of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics is to provide leadership and assistance to the association in its efforts to provide equitable opportunities, fair treatment and respect for all women in all aspects of intercollegiate athletics. Toward these ends, the committee shall seek to expand and promote opportunities for female student-athletes, administrators and coaches. The committee shall promote governance, administration and conduct of intercollegiate athletics at the institutional, conference and national levels that are inclusive, fair and accessible to women. The committee shall develop programs and resources, which can be of practical use to the association in its effort to achieve these ends.

Click Here for Full Position Statement

---

Discuss This on Our Message Board:

Click Here

---