National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentSeptember 29, 1997
Guest editorial -- Women's institutions lagging in athletics
BY DONNA M LEDWIN This year, the battle over the enforcement of Title IX -- the law that pried open the gymnasium doors for women to play intercollegiate sports -- completed its 25th year.
Think again. At the day-to-day administrative level, athletics directors at women's colleges are not forced to dwell on the topic of Title IX. We don't need to monitor the gender breakdown of our sports teams, ensuring that they closely mirror the statistical population of the general student body, as one prong of the Title IX guidelines dictates. There are no agonizing decisions to be made over dropping men's sports to balance disproportionately appropriated funding for the women. We don't fret about raising money to build additional facilities to house the needs of both sexes. We don't have to worry about how much money is spent on the women versus the men for equipment, travel, coaching staff and recruiting. We are family, as the song goes, I got all my sisters and me. So what's the problem? While we have been reflecting on our great good fortune at sidestepping this imbroglio, our sisters at the coed institutions have been passing us on the inside lane. You see, their institutions have been forced by law to raise the quality of their athletics programs for women to match what has long been considered a birthright of men. That means that instead of wearing hand-me-down uniforms and using men's reject equipment, women get their own. New. Every couple of years. Just like the men. The old facilities at coed schools didn't meet the legal standards to equitably accommodate both sexes, so the coed schools built new ones to serve everyone. New fields, new locker rooms, new offices. Schedules were revised to allow travel outside the immediate area, on buses and with meal money, just like the men always had. Conferences were expanded to hold championships for the women as well. Full-time coaches were hired for the women's teams to match the staff provided the men, and they were given recruiting budgets to attract the best and brightest high-school female athletes. In time, the women's teams at most coed schools were no longer competitive with most of the women's colleges teams -- they were much better. Given the tremendous boost in resources, how could they fail? It doesn't take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out why a female high-school athlete would opt for a coed school over the College of Notre Dame and their sisters. And, ironically, all because they have men, and we don't. So much for the women's college advantage. How did such smart women let this happen? A big part of the problem lies in the fact that the top administrators (primarily women) at most women's colleges have neither experienced nor valued athletics in the way that their (male) counterparts at coed institutions always have. Most female college presidents of the past 25 years did not have the opportunity to compete at the college level the way female athletes do today, so to them, athletics were truly "extracurricular," something the women did "for fun." If they played sports, they participated in "play days" with other schools and afterwards shared punch and cookies with their rivals. Different with men The male CEOs, on the other hand, played varsity football, and lacrosse, and basketball. Rivalries were intense, and alumni contributed big bucks to their alma maters to ensure the quality of the athletics program did not waver. Sports were always important to the men, so it was not hard for male college presidents to make the leap that it might also be important to the women (even though many needed the nudge of Title IX to actually follow through). What Title IX did was allow a generation of girls to grow up with athletics opportunities that made participation in sports a very important part of their lives. It was only natural for these girls to seek out a college that placed the same value on their participation. And, sadly, they still find athletics far less valued at most women's colleges. So, what do women's colleges need to do to get back in the game? Start by recognizing the tremendous asset athletics is to the admissions department of the institution. Gone are the days when teams were fielded by posting a sign on the first day of classes and inviting all comers, yet there are many women's colleges who operate under just that strategy to run their intercollegiate athletics program. Most have little or no funding allocated to allow coaches to recruit athletes outside of their immediate geographic area. There are actually some who prohibit recruitment of athletes. Recruiting is vital The fact is that while recruiting is hard work, it is the linchpin of any successful program. And the payoff is more than just a higher level of competition on the playing field; it also translates into more bodies in the classroom and the residence halls that may not have been there if it were not for the persistence of a coach. Another mistake women's colleges administrators have made is to make funding decisions based on comparisons with "like" institutions. While this may work with academics, it has failed them in the area of athletics. Since most women's colleges are behind the times in their thinking on intercollegiate athletics, administrators are automatically lowering the standards. If comparisons with women's colleges are to be made, best to emulate those who have kept up with coed competition, schools like Wellesley, Smith and William Smith Colleges that consistently field regionally and nationally competitive teams. Other budgetary bullets to bite: * Upgrade facilities. The 1940s were a long time ago, yet many women's colleges run intercollegiate programs out of 50-year-old gyms. * Hire full-time staff. It is extremely difficult to be a successful college coach in addition to holding a full-time job. The time demands of practices, travel and recruiting are daunting, and the best coaches will almost always go where they can coach full-time. If you can't hire full-time staff, then you must make it financially worthwhile if you want to attract well-qualified part-timers. * Expand travel. To run a truly competitive program, you must schedule a variety of schools throughout the region. By extension, that also means providing funding for hotels, buses and meals. This past May, the College of Notre Dame honored two women from two very different generations of student-athletes by inducting them into the Athletics Hall of Fame. Peggy D'Agnessa Steinbugler, class of 1943, represented the old guard: the athlete who played five different sports and excelled at all of them. Kathy Worthington, class of 1986, represented the new generation: She was a star of the hardwood, becoming the first College of Notre Dame basketball player to total 1,000 career points and rebounds. Peggy's glory came in the class-versus-class competitions, the highly competitive intramural competitions of yesteryear. In the age of Title IX, Kathy ventured off-campus with her teammates to make her name in competition against other schools. Both are equally deserving of recognition, yet Peggy would be the first to admit that times have changed and the prevailing philosophy of women's athletics in the '40s would never cut it in the '90s. If women's colleges are to receive the same level of respect and success on the playing fields as they do in the classrooms and laboratories, then it is time for the administrators of women's colleges to recognize the passing days of glorified intramurals. Wooden racquets are out, oversized graphite is in. For better or worse, Title IX is our issue, too. Donna M. Ledwin is director of athletics at the College of Notre Dame (Maryland). Comment -- Reflecting on NCAA, Division III transitionThe following commentary is excerpted from The Intercollegiate Athletic Forum, a newsletter dedicated to key issues that affect intercollegiate athletics in a non-Division I setting. BY STANLEY P. CAINE ADRIAN COLLEGE The uniqueness of Division III is expressed in the way in which it places the athlete, and athletics, within the context of academic institutions, and the larger society. Here are three examples: The Division III philosophy statement declares that its members "place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the general public and its entertainment needs." In the circus-like atmosphere that has grown up around much of intercollegiate athletics, the interests of the competitors often become less important. Increasingly, athletics figures prominently in the marketing plans of institutions. Funds are raised, students attracted, town-gown relations improved in the context of athletics contests. This fundamental tenet reminds us that Division III emphasizes the interests of student-athletes operating within the context of the educational mission of the institution and subordinates the entertainment of the public and the desires of spectators and other constituencies. As we deal with complex questions related to such things as scheduling and eligibility, it is incumbent upon us to remember this principle. One place where this principle can be easily forgotten is in the discussion concerning national championships. The Division III philosophy statement embraces the importance of supporting "student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships." The issue is one of balance and proportion. Concerned that the recent debates centered about national championships might be drawing attention away from the central experience of most Division III athletes, the Presidents Council and the Management Council recently reasserted the need for a "primary emphasis on the educational and competitive value of in-season regional play and on conference championships." We must resist the temptation to follow a troubling national trend toward big winners at the expense of emphasizing the educational value of encouraging broad-based athletics participation by men and women of varying skills and abilities. We also must reassert the overriding importance of traditional rivalries and conference competition. In doing so, we buck contemporary trends but clearly operate in the long-term interests of our student-athletes. The Division III philosophy statement also declares, "Athletics participants are not treated differently from other members of the student body." This simple statement has profound implications related to a variety of aspects of college life from living arrangements to academic advising. Its most direct, and potentially troublesome, implications, however, are in the area of financial aid. All of us, at least most of us, are dealing with the growing complexities of attracting the quantity and quality of students we desire in an atmosphere that, to a growing degree, has become a version of "let's make a deal." To remain competitive, most institutions must offer students ever growing amounts of financial assistance, packaged in a wide variety of ways. Since many of the students we seek to attract have an interest in competing in intercollegiate athletics, and we all like winning teams, the temptation is great to offer special incentives to gifted athletes. The future of Division III depends upon the maintenance of a strong consensus among its members that athletics ability will not be a factor in offering financial assistance. The willingness of institutions to embrace this principle, and to comply with the level of reporting that is necessary to maintain an atmosphere of trust within the division, will determine the continued viability of our distinctive approach to undergraduate education and undergraduate athletics. The NCAA is a great organization that ably assists its member institutions in providing athletics opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students. Its staff is composed of some of the brightest, more dedicated men and women with whom I have ever worked. Its financial assets are extraordinary. Its future into the next century will be assured, however, only if all of its members remember its fundamental educational purpose and exercise the discipline necessary to support its principles. Stanley P. Caine is president of Adrian College and vice-chair of the Division III Management Council. The Intercollegiate Athletic Forum is published in Wooster, Ohio, by Al Van Wie, former Division III vice-president. Opinions -- Some images have value, until you try to sell them
Bob Greene, columnist "Those things that are most valuable in this world can turn immediately worthless once you try to sell them. "To comprehend the truth of this, you need only to look at two famous structures (in St. Louis): the Trans World Dome, home of the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League, and the Gateway Arch, the monument on the Mississippi River commemorating America's westward expansion. "The Trans World Dome has been in town for only a few years. To drive by it is to be taken aback by the glaring, garish advertising signs that are mounted on its exterior. NationsBank. Dodge trucks. Coca-Cola. Southwestern Bell. The Missouri Lottery. Budweiser. And, of course, Trans World Airlines. "The advertising signs are so intrusive, so blatant, that the football stadium itself seems almost an afterthought. It appears to be there only to hold up the signs. Whatever games are played inside become immediately -- before the kickoff -- secondary to the commerce that is the evident reason for all of this. "The Gateway Arch -- opened 30 years ago -- is not sponsored. Operated by the National Parks Service, the Arch is its own symbol, its own logo. It is the symbol of St. Louis -- and most likely will be long after the Trans World Dome is torn down and replaced by the next billboard-disguised-as-a-sports-arena. "It is easy to imagine corporations wanting to sponsor the Arch -- the Coca-Cola Arch, the Toyota Arch, logically the McDonald's Arch. But once you sell something that you know is valuable, you sometimes realize that it has no value left.... "The Heisman Trophy ... -- presented for the last 62 years to the U.S.' best college football player -- has represented all that is worthy about intercollegiate sports. It is what it is -- simply the Heisman Trophy, presented by the Downtown Athletic Club in New York. "But this year, it has been reported, the Downtown Athletic Club has licensed the image of the trophy to a big national beer company. What the company gets for its money is the right to run a 'Name the Heisman Trophy Winner' contest. In addition to associating itself with the Heisman Trophy, the beer company will be allowed to send eight winning contestants to the Heisman ceremony in New York. "The trophy has value beyond any dollar amount -- until you try to sell it." Turning pro early
Dwain Price, sportswriter Discussing the Continental Basketball Association's plans to identify and professionalize basketball players coming out of high school: "Any teen-ager who signs a contract with the Continental Basketball Association straight out of high school for $100,000 a year really needs to go to college and take some finance classes. "To an 18-year-old, a hundred grand sounds like a lot of cash. "Trust me. It's not. "After you buy your luxury car and sports car, and buy Mom and Dad a car and a house -- plus that large chunk the agent receives -- you'll probably wind up $100,000 in the hole. But CBA Commissioner Steve Patterson is prepared to flash that amount of dough in front of some gullible teen-agers, and the sick crime is that some of the youngsters will take the bait and hobble all the way to the bank.... "High-school students should just say no to the CBA. Yeah, CBA officials will gladly inform you that 45 players on CBA rosters last year made it to the NBA. But they won't inform you about the dozens more whose dreams turned into nightmares after they were stuck in CBA outposts such as Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Grand Rapids, Michigan."
Jerry Reynolds, general manager "I don't think there's any doubt that a system that pays college coaches $1 million a year and gives a scholarship to players in return is out of whack. If you've got enough money to pay a coach five or six times what the university president makes, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see something's out of whack there."
Billy Tubbs, men's basketball coach Fort Worth Star-Telegram "Does it hurt college athletics? Yeah. Does it hurt kids that need to be getting an education? You bet. "The CBA needs to keep it like it was when they had some standards that they stuck with, because somewhere down the line it's going to play out on them." |
For most casual observers, the Title IX skirmish has been a spectator sport for women's colleges. With only one gender to contend with, Title IX is a non-issue, right?