National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMarch 16, 1998
Guest editorial -- SWA position needs planning and support
BY PAM GILL-FISHER I would like to cover several issues that I believe are important in promoting the role of the senior woman administrator (SWA) in intercollegiate athletics programs. These issues include defining the role of the SWA; ensuring access to key decision-making processes; commitment of resources; and valuing the SWA's contribution to achieving institutional goals and objectives.
To some, it has meant senior women's administrator -- a woman who was responsible only for women's sports administration. This interpretation, unfortunately, has limited the role of the "senior woman administrator." The intent of the NCAA and of those who assisted in creating this valued role in athletics administration was to identify the highest-ranking female administrator, who then would assist with all aspects of athletics administration. The responsibilities of the senior woman administrator should be inclusive of all aspects of athletics administration. A clear job description identifying specific responsibilities is critical for the success of the individual and for creating a sense of accountability and responsibility. Responsibilities may include -- but not be limited to -- budgets, fund-raising, facilities development, personnel evaluation and recruitment, game management, and strategic planning. Very often a senior woman administrator's responsibilities are limited to the women's program, gender equity, compliance, or academic advising, which not only isolates this person, but prohibits interaction with the entire program that can benefit men's and women's programs. When everyone is informed and on the same page, the entire management team will work better. Information is power, and too often women are left out of the information loop either by design or, more often, by default. The senior woman administrator may play the role of advocate for women athletes on issues that may affect females more often than males -- such as eating disorders or gender equity. Provide a forum for this advocacy and reward her effort. Too often, this role is identified, but then the person is penalized for advocating too strongly for the very things she has been asked to do. Personally, I experienced the isolation that sometimes occurs when the SWA is assigned responsibility for compliance with Title IX. I began to feel as if I had Title IX stamped on my forehead. In fact, Title IX compliance is an institutional responsibility and should be overseen and administered by the head of the unit or the university president. I believe that the SWA should have a role identifying areas of noncompliance but should not be held responsible for cutting men's teams when that is the method chosen for coming into compliance. Allow her to be a little ornery! The SWA also may be the best interface with other parts of the campus that can provide assistance to athletics, such as the counseling center, women's center or rape-prevention education program. Your SWA may be one of the best ambassadors athletics has to other women faculty on campus and to encouraging them to become fans. Nationally, the SWA can be the link to the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletic Administrators and other women's organizations that can be of assistance. It is critical that the athletics leadership provide the encouragement and funds necessary for participation with these groups in order to provide the best opportunity for success for the entire program. The appointment of the senior woman administrator often times is added to the other responsibilities that a woman on the athletics staff may already have. Tokenism does not help anyone and it often can lead to burnout and failure. If you are truly committed to the role of the senior woman administrator, you must provide the release time for her to do her job and not just add it on to an already full plate. When this happens, it usually follows that the SWA is not invited to attend critical meetings with the excuse that she is too busy. She is then invited to attend only at the end of the decision-making process and has not had the opportunity to have input into the decision. Be inclusive throughout the process. This is the way that she will become better informed, and she will be a more effective part of the team in selling the decision once it is made. The NCAA has determined that the SWA is one of the valued roles that must be included in the governance structure. In order for SWAs representing conferences to be best prepared, there must be a conscious effort at the local, conference and national level to educate people in this role. At the campus level, the SWA must be provided opportunities to participate in as wide a range of issues as possible. The conference level must begin to provide an official role for SWAs. As I tried to find examples of conference policies and bylaws that specifically identified the roles of the SWA, I was surprised to find only a handful. Once the role has been identified, SWAs should be encouraged and provided the time and financial resources to attend meetings. I have found that often even when the role is identified in writing, individual institutions do not provide the finances or release time to attend the meetings and do the job. In some conferences where there is a recognized role, only the athletics director receives copies of minutes or correspondence and the SWA is left out of the information loop. Nationally, the SWA should be encouraged to attend the NCAA Convention, National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention, NACWAA and any other professional meetings where her information base and education can improve her ability to do her job. For young "senior woman administrators," I would encourage institutions to send them to the NACWAA/HERS program or assist with the application for the NCAA Fellows program. There are also often many campuswide resources available for professional development that are not accessed by athletics. We have to make the effort to complete the task. In conclusion, I would like to thank the NCAA for the opportunity to share my years of experience as a "senior woman administrator." I can certainly say I am "senior" and a woman and have learned to be an administrator because of the support I have received from numerous people. I would encourage anyone in a position to enhance the position of senior woman administrator to be inclusive and not only talk the talk but to walk the walk and make it happen. Pam Gill-Fisher is associate director of athletics and senior woman administrator at the University of California, Davis, and the Northern California Athletic Conference's representative on the Division II Management Council. Comment -- Numbers game -- Analysis of basketball stats leads to a better understanding of the game
BY KEN SWALGIN Basketball statistics give coaches, players, sportswriters, fans and tournament committees a foundation on which to base judgments concerning teams and player performance. Sportswriters use statistics to explain and support their perspectives about games, teams and players. Fans -- whether they are season ticket-holders, attend an occasional game or only read about games in the newspaper -- use statistics to identify with their favorite team player or conference. The NCAA tournament selection committee adds a high degree of objectively to its seeding and selection process with the use of statistics, making the tournament one of the great exhibitions in all of sport. For coaches, statistics provide extremely important means to judge team and individual performance, effect strategy, and motivate players. Statistics are a very important part of the game. Often, their true value is hidden due to the absence of a context in which to view them. For it is not the raw statistics that are important to the game, but it is the interpretation of the statistics that leads us to make valid judgments concerning teams, players and the game. One of the functions of the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) Research Committee is to study the statistical trends in men's Division I basketball and interpret their meaning and value to the game. I would like to share some thoughts on the statistical trends in basketball, ways to interpret their value and then demonstrate how statistics can be used to evaluate player performance. Statistical trends and value Most statistical categories in men's Division I basketball have been extremely stable over the years. The exception has been points scored per game per team. This statistic has declined from an all-time high of 77.7 points in 1971 to 69.4 in 1986. The decline in point production prompted several rule changes in an attempt to reverse the trend. In 1986, the shot-clock rule came into effect, followed by the three-point rule in 1987. The primary purpose of the shot-clock rule was to prevent the stall or slowdown game, with the rule's secondary purpose being the creation of more possessions, hopefully leading to increased scoring. The impact of the shot-clock rule was minimal in terms of increased scoring. Points per game per team stood at 69.4 in 1985 and increased to only 69.4 in 1986. The three-point rule seems to have had a much greater impact on points per game per team. In the seven years prior to the rule change, points per game per team averaged 69.4. In the seven years after the rule came into effect, the average increased to 74.5. This seems to indicate that the three-point rule initially had a positive effect on point production. Unfortunately, this trend did not continue. Eleven years after the rule was established, we find that the number of points scored per game per team has dropped to 70.6 at the end of the 1997 season, down from the 74.5 average. From the analysis of this statistical trend, we can conclude that the three-point shot has had very little impact on points scored. Despite the rule's insignificant impact on scoring, most would agree that the three-point shot has become an integral part of the game. The shot certainly adds a degree of excitement to the game and, most importantly, has had a strategic impact on the game, from both the offensive and defensive perspectives. The three-point rule can stand alone due to its strategic impact on the game and not because its perceived impact on scoring. Despite the three-point rule's positive strategic impact, the statistical trends indicate a trade-off. The trade-off can be seen in the decline of overall field-goal percentage (FG percent) and may be the cause in the decline of free-throw percentage (FT percent). As coaches began to understand the value of a three-point possession (1.15 points per possession) after the first year, the number of three-point attempts increased dramatically. A two-point possession yielded a value of only 0.95 points per possession. Points per possession are calculated by multiplying the seasonal percentage for the shot times two or three respectively. To illustrate the difference in a less abstract way, if a player shoots 10 three-point shots and makes four, his field-goal percentage is 40 percent and he produced 12 points. To produce the same number of points from two-point field goal shooting, the player would need to make six of 10 shots, or shoot 60 percent. The national average for two-point field-goal percentage (2FG percent) in 1997 was 47.9 percent, significantly less than 60 percent . This would seem to be an attractive argument to increase the use of the three-point shot. The logic is attractive, but the statistical trends may lead to a different conclusion. In 1997, the three-point field goal percentage equaled 34.1 percent, down from a high of 38.4 percent in 1987, the first year of the rule. With an increase in three-point field-goal attempts came a decline in 3FG percent and a decline in overall field-goal percentage (FG percent). This more importantly led to a decline in the value of the three-point possession. The value has fallen from 1.15 points per possession in 1987 to 1.02 points per possession in 1997. (The table on this page illustrates the decline in the value of three-point possessions.) The current value of the two-point possession is 0.96 points per possession. If the 3FG percent would continue to decline and the 2FG percent would stay the same, both situations would have equal value once the 3FG percent dropped to 32.2 percent. The current statistical trends seem to indicate that this will not occur as 3FG percent has stabilized in recent years. Interpreting the value of field-goal percentages through points per possession gives us a more valid means of looking at one of the most important statistics in the game. John Wooden once said that the most important statistical factor in the game is field-goal percentage. Could John Wooden be wrong? Let's take a look at the value of free throws. The statistical trends indicate that possessions leading to free throws are the most productive scoring situation in college basketball. The value of free-throw possessions are as follows.
The current value of a two-point possession is 0.96 and the value of a three-point possession is 1.03. It would seem, therefore, that the more a team gets to the line, the better opportunity it has to win. Free-throw possessions do have a greater value than field-goal possessions; however, a much greater proportion of points scored come from field-goal situations than free-throw situations. Therefore, coach Wooden was correct. Free-throw percentage decline As I alluded to earlier, the three-point shot also may have an impact on the decline in the national trend for free-throw percentage. Free-throw percentage (FT percent) up until 1987 was one of the most stable of all national statistics. In the 20 years before 1987, the average FT percent was 68.9 percent with the all-time high of 69.7 percent in 1979 and a low of 68.1 percent in 1971. From the time the three-point shot began (1987) until the present, FT percent has dropped in direct relationship to the increase in three-point field-goal attempts, from 69.1 percent in 1987 to 67.4 percent in 1997. The reason for the decline may not be a de-emphasis of the skill, as many of the national basketball commentators have suggested. Other factors may be at work here. Coaches, I can assure you, are not de-emphasizing free-throw shooting. Coaches understand the value of free-throw possessions, which are reported annually by the chair of the NABC Research Committee, Jerry Krause from the U.S. Military Academy. A more logical reason for the decline may be that "perimeter players" who take the majority of the three-point shots are not getting fouled at the same frequency as they did before the three-point rule came in. If this is the case, then "inside players" are shooting a greater proportion of the free throws, which drives down the percentage. In a study to determine national performance norms by "position of play," the author found that there is a direct relationship between "position of play" and free-throw percentage. In the study, FT percent by "position of play" was as follows:
The above chart shows nearly a 10 percent difference between point guards and centers. It is more than likely that we will see FT percent stabilize as the number of 3FG attempts stabilizes. We can see from an analysis of the statistical trends and from determining the value of possessions that the true value of basketball statistics comes from their interpretation. This can be done only by looking beyond the raw data to the hidden game in basketball. Player evaluation One of the most interesting and useful uses for statistics is in player performance evaluation. To illustrate how this can be accomplished with statistics in an objective manner, let's evaluate the 1998 finalists for the Oscar Robertson Award, a player of the year award sponsored by the U.S. Basketball Writers Association. To objectively evaluate the finalists, the Basketball Evaluation System (BES) will be used. BES is a computerized performance evaluation model that grades player performance in relationship to "position of play" and "minutes played" under game conditions. The BES software grades nine game-related performance factors on a scale ranging from 0 to 4, much like a college grade-point system. The model also produces an overall grade called the Graded Performance Score (GPS). The BES software produces scores for each game and on a season-to-date basis. For the model, nine grading criteria were established from the statistics tabulated in the official NCAA basketball box score. National performance norms were established for each performance factor at each "position of play." Performance factors are also weighted to reflect their importance to the "position of play." A group of Division I coaches was used to establish the weighting factors. Three version of the software have been developed: college men, college women and high-school boys. For the player-of-the-year finalists, seasonal statistics were used. Each player was graded in relationship to position and time played. Only regular-season statistics were used, and position of play designations were supplied by the school's sports information office. The first line of each player's evaluation indicates the player's name, school, position, the average number of minutes played and seasonal statistics for the nine performance factors evaluated. The second line indicates the grade for each factor and the overall grade or GPS. If no grade (NG) appears in the evaluation, that indicates that the factor was not evaluated. The software gives the user the flexibility to exclude 3FG percent and BLK if the coach feels these factors are not relevant to a player's evaluation (for example, BLK for point guards or 3FG percent for centers.) When interpreting the results of each player's evaluation, it is necessary to understand that players are being compared to other players in the same position. Therefore, when looking at the player's overall grade, we cannot conclude that one player is better than another unless the athletes are playing the same position. The BES software also produces a team evaluation where each player's GPS is weighted in relationship to the number of minutes he or she plays to determine the overall team grade or GPS. Many factors influence the overall performance of a player, many of which cannot be easily measured. Hustle, court sense and the ability to perform in pressure situations are some of the intangible factors that contribute to successful play. BES makes no claim to measure the intangible aspects of the game. Those aspects will have to be left to the sportswriters' knowledge, judgment and intuition. BES does, however, establish a valid, reliable and functional tool to measure player performance based on a common set of performance criteria, a context to measure the criteria, and an accurate functional measurement system inherent to the structure of the sport. In closing, I would like to make a number of recommendations to the NCAA that I believe would give us the potential to better understand the game's statistical trends and also give credit to an overlooked statistic that has more value to the game than some of the stats currently tabulated. First, at the end of each season, include a "position of play" designation for each player. This would take very little effort but would add a great deal to our potential interpretation of the statistical trends in the game and give us a valuable means to analyze individual performance. I also would recommend that taking charges be included in the official statistics. Taking a charge is a valuable statistic because it creates a foul and a change in possession. Naturally, a change in possession takes away a scoring opportunity for one team and adds a scoring opportunity for the other. It also gives credit for good defensive positioning, which supports the adage that offense fills the stands, but defense wins the game. Ken Swalgin is assistant professor of kinesiology and men's basketball coach emeritus at Pennsylvania State University, York Campus. The research for the Basketball Evaluation System was partially sponsored by the National Association of Basketball Coaches Grant Program. For more information on the grant program, please contact the author. For more information on the Basketball Evaluation System, write, call or e-mail the author at Box 222, Pennsylvania State University, York, Pennsylvania 17403. Telephone 717/771-4037. E-mail kxs1@psu.edu. Three-Point Field Goal Value -- Year -- 3FG% -- Value -- Year -- 3FG% -- Value -- 1987 -- 38.4 -- 1.152 -- 1993 -- 35.3 -- 1.059 -- 1988 -- 38.2 -- 1.146 -- 1994 -- 34.5 -- 1.035 -- 1989 -- 37.6 -- 1.128 -- 1995 -- 34.5 -- 1.035 -- 1990 -- 36.7 -- 1.101 -- 1996 -- 34.3 -- 1.029 -- 1991 -- 36.1 -- 1.083 -- 1997 -- 34.1 -- 1.023 -- 1992 -- 35.5 -- 1.065 -- 1998 -- -- The Basketball Evaluation System Player of The Year -- Seasonal Evaluations Players Name -- -- Sch. -- Pos. -- MP -- FG% -- 3FG% -- FT% -- REB -- PF -- AST -- TO -- BLK -- STL -- GPS Mike Bibby -- -- Arz -- PG -- 31.3 -- 47.4 -- 38.4 -- 77.2 -- 2.93 -- 1.62 -- 6.14 -- 2.07 -- NG -- 2.48 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 3.00 -- 2.67 -- 2.82 -- 2.24 -- 3.35 -- 3.51 -- 3.01 -- NG -- 3.56 -- 3.422 Raef LaFrentz -- -- Kan -- PF -- 30.6 -- 57.7 -- 53.3 -- 74.1 -- 11.0 -- 2.48 -- 1.12 -- 2.60 -- 1.64 -- 0.84 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 2.98 -- 3.52 -- 3.25 -- 3.95 -- 3.38 -- 1.79 -- 1.56 -- 3.68 -- 1.71 -- 3.316 Antawn Jamison -- -- UNC -- PF -- 32.8 -- 61.3 -- 50.0 -- 68.7 -- 10.1 -- 2.55 -- 0.72 -- 1.76 -- 0.93 -- 0.79 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 3.61 -- 3.40 -- 2.84 -- 3.60 -- 3.44 -- 1.00 -- 3.06 -- 2.46 -- 1.42 -- 3.242 Vince Carter -- -- UNC -- OG -- 31.0 -- 60.0 -- 41.2 -- 67.5 -- 5.07 -- 1.57 -- 2.10 -- 1.10 -- 0.93 -- 1.27 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 3.90 -- 3.01 -- 1.92 -- 3.12 -- 3.39 -- 1.70 -- 3.48 -- 3.85 -- 2.21 -- 3.242 Richard Hamilton -- CONN -- OG -- 31.8 -- 45.9 -- 43.2 -- 87.9 -- 4.17 -- 1.87 -- 2.43 -- 2.23 -- 0.17 -- 1.57 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 2.92 -- 3.19 -- 3.52 -- 2.30 -- 2.21 -- 2.06 -- 2.49 -- 1.83 -- 2.81 -- 3.176 Players Name -- -- Sch. -- Pos. -- MP -- FG% -- 3FG% -- FT% -- REB -- PF -- AST -- TO -- BLK -- STL -- GPS Paul Pierce -- -- Kan -- SF -- 30.4 -- 51.2 -- 37.4 -- 75.0 -- 6.90 -- 2.33 -- 2.42 -- 2.91 -- 1.12 -- 1.15 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 3.02 -- 2.72 -- 2.96 -- 3.44 -- 3.06 -- 2.92 -- 1.36 -- 3.52 -- 1.90 -- 3.069 Bonzi Wells -- -- BSU -- SF -- 30.3 -- 49.0 -- 37.9 -- 69.0 -- 6.50 -- 3.15 -- 3.19 -- 3.46 -- 0.69 -- 3.85 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 2.74 -- 2.77 -- 2.40 -- 3.22 -- 2.16 -- 3.67 -- 0.70 -- 2.65 -- 3.99 -- 2.969 Ansu Sesay -- -- Miss -- PF -- 33.3 -- 47.4 -- 37.0 -- 74.0 -- 7.50 -- 2.81 -- 2.81 -- 2.50 -- 0.81 -- 1.19 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 1.94 -- 2.79 -- 3.24 -- 2.06 -- 3.30 -- 3.85 -- 2.05 -- 2.18 -- 2.49 -- 2.863 Michael Dickerson -- Arz -- SF -- 28.1 -- 52.1 -- 42.9 -- 75.0 -- 4.38 -- 2.17 -- 1.83 -- 2.28 -- 0.14 -- 1.21 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 3.13 -- 3.15 -- 2.96 -- 1.70 -- 3.04 -- 2.27 -- 2.02 -- 1.19 -- 2.16 -- 2.709 Mateen Cleaves -- -- MSU -- PG -- 33.0 -- 40.4 -- 35.0 -- 69.7 -- 2.23 -- 2.58 -- 7.62 -- 3.85 -- NG -- 2.46 Season-to-date scores -- -- -- -- 2.03 -- 2.35 -- 2.11 -- 1.00 -- 2.41 -- 3.86 -- 1.48 -- NG -- 3.41 -- 2.622 Opinions -- Men's sportsmanship judged differently from women's
David Climer, columnist "When Mickey Mantle was in his last major league season, playing on creaking knees and pharmaceuticals, Denny McLain grooved a half-speed pitch so Mantle could enjoy one last limp around the bases. Rounding third, Mantle tipped his cap to McLain, who smiled. "Remember the Florida Flop of '71? With Gators quarterback John Reaves nearing the school record for career passing yardage, Doug Dickey ordered his defense to part like the Red Sea and allow a touchdown so Florida could get the ball back and Reaves could fire away. "In 1992, Troy State players admitted they allowed DeVry's players to score uncontested layups late in the game in pursuit of the NCAA Division II record for most points by two teams. Troy State's (258-141) win is still in the books. "In general, how many times have you seen a quarterback take a knee late in the game and kill the clock rather than add insult to injury against a beaten opponent? "I see. When they do it on a football field it's called sportsmanship. When they swap harmless opening-minute layups in a women's basketball game, it's suddenly an issue of integrity and/or gender bias."
|
As I began to think about what the role of a senior woman administrator is and what one actually does, I realized that there are some misconceptions about what "senior woman administrator" means.