National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentNovember 23, 1998
Guest editorial -- No athlete benefits from roster capping
BY Seth Septer and Robert Sistek The interpretation and enforcement of Title IX has been a hot topic of discussion on many college campuses. As members of the Student Athletic Advisory Committee at the University of Northern Colorado, we became interested and concerned about some aspects of Title IX compliance. In composing a position paper for our council, we became aware of some critical and potentially damaging facets of the rules. We believe that interpretations of Title IX affect all student-athletes and that this is an issue that needs to be discussed.
One result of compliance with these benchmarks is the possible elimination of men's nonrevenue sports. This creates hard decisions that can cause hardships for many student-athletes. As members of the wrestling team at the University of Northern Colorado, we have seen firsthand the possible consequences of interpretations of Title IX. In an attempt to reach proportionality in university athletics programs, caps were put on some male athletics teams. This led to the cutting of 10 wrestlers from our team, all of whom were walk-ons. Walk-on athletes pay their own tuition, room and board, and fees. Universities' costs for walk-ons are minimal. Getting rid of these athletes creates virtually no revenue for female athletes. Also, walk-ons play a critical role on many teams, while receiving many life-long benefits. At this time there are more men interested in participating in sports at the college level than women. It would seem that encouraging and
One reason the proportionality benchmark is so heavily relied upon is the difficulty in proving a history and continuation of expansion. Universities are able to prove the ratio of participation with numbers from their athletics department, which dissolves the ambiguity of the other two benchmarks and is easier to prove quantitatively. However, it seems to us that demonstrating the accommodation of the interests and abilities of females or showing continuing expansion of female opportunity by adding women's sports would be more in the spirit of Title IX than enforcing quotas. There is a vast difference between males and females in the desire to participate in college athletics. Since more males than females want to participate, enforcing ratios seems unfair. We do understand that everything in college athletics is affected by financial considerations. Many schools may argue that they don't have the money to add women's sports. Their solution to complying with Title IX is, therefore, to cut men's nonrevenue sports. In the sport of wrestling alone, more than 250 programs have been eliminated since the implementation of Title IX in 1972, many of which were a result of these rules. Elimination of men's programs is the main problem we see with the way Title IX affects athletes. It is hard to see how cutting men's sports increases opportunities for female athletes. The Student-athlete Advisory Council at our university suggests that we continue adding women's sports and scholarships where female interest and ability exists, and to refrain from mandating squad limits (team caps) or the elimination of any men's sports. In response to the financial implications of gender equity, we recommended attempting to find creative and improved ways of fund-raising, as well as meaningful ways to cut costs. While these ideas may be of some help in increasing opportunity and fairness to all athletes, new interpretations and ways of complying with Title IX need to be explored before more athletes lose their chance. We support gender equity and all of the female teams at our university. Females deserve every possible opportunity to participate and succeed in collegiate athletes. We support all possible means of increasing women's opportunities in sports. Cutting men's sports to comply with Title IX just does not appear to have any benefits for female athletes. It only causes resentment and eliminates opportunities for many male athletes. Seth Septer and Robert Sistek are members of the Student-Athlete Advisory Council at the University of Northern Colorado. Letter to the Editor -- Sports should demand skill, not foul playIt is with interest that I read your "Ready to Rumble" story (October 26), which addressed increasingly rough play in women's soccer. A contributing factor to the increased contact in women's soccer -- and women's athletics on the whole -- is the athleticism of the American athlete. American athletics and college athletics are based on the strength, speed and skills of a sport's combatants. American sport demands stronger, faster and more agile competitors. Regarding women's soccer in America, the success of its champions is based on pure athleticism, determination and courage. The U.S. women's national team players are some of the greatest athletes in the game today. The dominance of North Carolina and Notre Dame in this decade is primarily based on athleticism. They have the best athletes, both mentally and physically. This does not mean that aggressive play has to undermine the beauty of the women's game. This is the false assumption that is too easily accepted by players, coaches, parents, officials, administrators and supporters. "Only the strong survive" is an underlying battle cry of the premier women's programs in college soccer. There is evidence that the champion is crowned based on more physical play. Finals involving North Carolina and Notre Dame or other programs match evenly player for player, skill for skill. This does not speak to lesser talented teams, however, especially when the Davids are battling the Goliaths. What sets the champion apart from the second-place finisher is pure athleticism, mental preparation, courage and determination. Once beyond the top 30 or so programs, the competitiveness of lesser programs is clear. This is where the more physical play is evident. Soccer is unique in that it does not track each player's fouls. However, there is a specific clause in the rules that allows the referee to punish a player who is guilty of "persistent infringement" or repeat fouling with a yellow card. Therefore, players do not go unidentified and unpenalized. A referee may stop play, award a free kick and show a yellow card. Although the offense itself may not have been overly vicious, the repeated fouling of a player was noted and dealt with. Many coaches would challenge the caution for the offense, not understanding or accepting the breach of the "persistent infringement rule." The notion of the lack of calls being made by the officials is dependent upon the conference, the teams, the coaches and the official. It should be dependent upon the proper interpretation on the rules of play. All too often in the college game, coaches feel compelled to attempt to influence the game by influencing the referees -- often to the point where an official may stifle the whistle to the dismay of both competing teams and thus losing the "flavor" of the game. This allows for more play to continue, more aggressive play to soil the match, and ultimately, for a graceful, flowing game to become a tug-of-war. It does not have to be this way. There are three ways to minimize the ugliness of overly aggressive styles of play. (1) Coaches must focus on their roles as educators and role models. Instead of attempting to influence the referee and to gain some measure of perceived advantage over their opponents, concentrate on what they are paid to do -- coach. Train their athletes and allow the referee to officiate. (2) It is the coaches who develop and evaluate the rules of play in college athletics. Rules often are adopted due to some misfortune of some team in a game, or an attempt to circumvent another rule to benefit a program. Think clearly and definitively as to how the rules changes will affect the game itself and not just a few programs. (3) Allow referees to perform their duties without interference from coaches. All too often, coaches are verbally critical of referee decisions, which sends a wrong message to players and undermines the official's role, which is to be impartial and objective. Let the referees enforce the rules as written. If there are problems with the rules, the coaches themselves should attempt to correct the mistake. And when the referee properly, objectively and courageously enforces the rules of play, accept the decision as fair, accurate and impartial.
Ultimately, the beauty of the game and the responsibility to play the game fairly lies in the hands of the coaches. Proper teaching methods, fair playing practices and proper conduct will allow the game to develop in its own way, as it should, by the player and for the player. Then, games will be settled the way all soccer contests should be settled -- on the field -- with poise, grace, beauty, style, courage, skill, talent and determination.
Kelly Ross
Opinions -- Changing times may require new approach for coachesDiscussing what constitutes inappropriate behavior for male coaches of women's athletics teams:
Donna Lopiano, executive director "In athletics, there's an emotionally charged and stress-charged relationship where there's a tendency to support each other more so than in a classroom setting, where you're one in a hundred and don't know if the professor knows your name. It's a very intense, emotional environment, where there's a much larger place for emotional dependence of a student on a coach .... (It is a conflict of interest) to play psychologist or counselor (to an athlete)."
Christine Grant, director of athletics "When an athlete makes a mistake, you often see a coach put an arm around the athlete's shoulder. They're not doing it in a devious way. It's almost second nature for a coach to pat someone on the back. Coaches right now are struggling with how to behave, when the behavior is decent and well-meaning. They're having to unlearn gestures that could be misinterpreted."
Bob Bertucci, women's volleyball coach "A football or basketball coach of guys can sometimes lay into them and the language might be a bit colorful. A female coach of women might be able to get away with the same thing. But don't be a male coach doing that with female players. "Is that fair? Probably not. But society finds some things acceptable and other things not acceptable."
William "Speedy" Morris, men's basketball coach "When I took the (women's) job at La Salle (for two seasons in the mid 1980s), I was a much more demonstrable coach than I am now. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to coach women that way. "About two weeks in, the players came to me and said, 'We know what kind of coach you were at Roman Catholic (High School) and we're insulted that you aren't coaching us the same way you coach guys. We can take it. We want you to coach us the best way you can to help us win.' "After that I never worried about it any more. I would yell at them or scold them. I patted them on the back and on the backside. I never thought anything of it and neither did they. It was just the way I coached. "Today, with all the awareness of sexual harassment, I don't know if I could coach women like that. "Is getting in a player's face or yelling at her sexual harassment? I don't think so, but maybe it is. Most players can handle having a coach in their face when they mess up, as long as you pat them on the back later. That's old-school coaching. Today a parent calls an administrator and the coach is pulled into an office. "It's a lot harder to be a coach today."
Facilities
Chris Plonsky, associate director of athletics "We went from a 3,300-square-foot weight room to a 16,000- square-foot weight room. We put brand new football coaches' offices over there. Brand new locker room. Brand new players' lounge. Brand new video team rooms. A sports medicine area that is state-of-the-art. We have corridors which show our NFL player history and our academic all-Americans. A lot of this is about presentation. Recruiting is nothing more than selling. We're appealing to a young group of people who can look around and say: Who has it better than this?"
Shelley Payne, professor of microbiology "For the most part, the faculty is not anti-athletics. People do recognize (a premier athletics facility) serves an important function in terms of building community, of bringing people back to the university. But it does sort of leave a bad taste in people's mouths when the library is not able to renew a journal they need for their research .... I'm in a building that was built in 1950 and is terribly antiquated for the type of molecular biology we do today. We need $66 million to renovate this building. We just got the estimate on that. So people just throw up their hands and say, 'We're sorry -- you're going to have to deal with the conditions you're in because that type of money is not available.' Having one of these highly visible, very public, elaborate stadiums does give the impression that the university has plenty of money that perhaps the school isn't in need of funding."
|
Title IX was created in 1972 in an attempt to eliminate discrimination, based upon gender, in all educational programs, including intercollegiate athletics. The 1979 Policy Interpretation of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Office of Civil Rights requires a university to meet one of three benchmarks: Demonstrating the accommodation of the interests and abilities of females, a "history and continuing practice of program expansion," or participation ratios that are substantially equal to enrollment.
recruiting female athletes to participate would increase female opportunities more than by cutting male athletes to reach a quota. Cutting male athletes to reach these proportionality quotas eliminates many of the positive and educational opportunities that collegiate athletics is based upon.