Nearly two years after the issue first began to gain momentum, advocates and opponents of the use of male practice players with female teams both seem to be getting at least some measure of satisfaction. Those who favor the practice are relieved that nothing has changed, while challengers think change may be more achievable than once believed.

The matter has been a volatile topic for some time, one even the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics — the issue’s staunchest critic — has struggled to address.

The NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports first raised male practice players as a health and safety concern in 2004, but when discussions shifted to opportunities for female student-athletes, the CSMAS referred the matter to the CWA. That group struggled with the topic for more than a year before finally determining that the use of male practice players conflicted with the committee’s core mission of providing equitable opportunities for female student-athletes in all aspects of intercollegiate athletics.

However, the CWA also asked that the issue be studied at division and institutional levels to investigate the “right way” to use male practice players before any policy changes are suggested.

While some may have considered the matter an immovable object, it has made some progress in the governance structure, most recently at the Management Council level. At their April meetings, the Divisions I and II Councils referred the issue to other committees — the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and Championships Committee in Division II and the Championships/Competition Cabinet in Division I. Division III, meanwhile, is conducting extensive research into its membership’s knowledge about philosophical perspectives, the rules and the breadth of the practice (see accompanying story on page 7).

That means the debate should last for a while longer, even for those who wish the matter would go away. At the heart of the issue is whether the competitive edge the practice provides is worth the opportunity it takes away.

Opponents argue that having the women’s varsity starters scrimmage against a group of males equates to lost opportunities for the bench players who must watch while their more experienced or more talented teammates have the practice time.

Michael Krauss, chair of the CSMAS and former team physician at Purdue University, said that at his institution, young women came to the training room to work out after practice — simply to avoid getting out of shape.

“It bothers me not just that the opportunity is gone, but that the opportunity for development is diminished,” Krauss said. “That’s a real negative.”

For Kyle Kallander, a member of CWA, the issue is a philosophical one that should be decided in principle.

“We need to protect opportunities for women student-athletes. If we’re going to be serious about women’s opportunity and supporting those programs, then we need to keep those programs for just women. That’s my personal opinion,” he said. “Female programs should be just for females.”

Though it wasn’t a factor in forming his opinion, Kallander, commissioner of the Big South Conference, pointed out that male student-athletes do not have an equitable opportunity — they can’t bring in Olympic or professional athletes against whom to practice to gain a competitive edge.

Geraldine Knortz, CWA member and athletics director at Saint Michael’s College, said the issue is complicated because most coaches who use male practice players are doing it with the best of intentions.

“You have to recognize, honor and respect that, and at the same time be mindful that there might be another aspect to this that people aren’t thinking about. There are two good arguments,” she said.

Even some coaches grapple with the debate. While most people automatically think of women’s basketball when discussing the topic, other sports such as soccer, volleyball, softball and ice hockey are using male practice players with their female teams.

Janet Rayfield, head soccer coach at the University of Illinois, Champaign, said she is considering using male practice players with her squad starting this fall. Doing so, she said, will allow her players to see a level of athleticism they would face in a top opponent.

“We have that sort of level of athleticism, but not from top to bottom in the team, so it’s hard to get a sense of the overall athleticism you might face,” she said.

Rayfield, however, does have some reservations about using male players in practice. She cited losing the opportunity for developing her younger players as a main drawback.

“Anytime you put someone in a training environment who’s not going to compete for you, you take away repetitions that someone else on your team could be getting,” she said. “Depending on your squad size, it could really take away from some of the players that will play for you down the road.”

Student-athlete perspective

Student-athletes see both sides of the issue as well. Lauren Brown, a member of the Division II SAAC and a basketball and tennis student-athlete at Presbyterian College, said that using male practice players allows her and her teammates to practice against a type of player they might face in a top-level opponent.

“(Male practice players) are quicker, stronger and more physical than females, so they do make us better in many components of the game such as rebounding,” she said. “I believe it takes away from some of the lower players on the team, but it does make the primary players better.”

She said she recognizes that some student-athletes are then hindered in their efforts to improve because they lose significant practice time, which can upset the less experienced players.

Anna Chappell, a basketball student-athlete at the University of Arizona, said from the perspective of the Division I SAAC, male practice players often are used to replace some of the female student-athletes who are injured and can be used as a scout team, which then allows every member of the team the opportunity to study the opponent.

Brown and Chappell both mentioned that the physicality of the males playing against the females could cause injuries to the student-athletes, too.

No research has been done to indicate whether the use of male practice players does cause more injuries, though. In fact, Krauss said the primary health and safety concerns would be the insurance coverage for and general health of the male practice players themselves, as well as the increased burden placed on the sports medicine staff. Some institutions may not recognize that they are required to certify insurance coverage for regular male practice players, just as they do for student-athletes.

Resolving the debate

Whether the issue can be resolved through legislation, policy change or any other means has yet to be determined. Rosie Stallman, NCAA director of education outreach, said the “best case scenario” that includes the use of male practice players would be “male practice players pushing each and every one of the women at every level. The men are safe, the women are safe, all the issues are addressed and there are plenty of opportunities to participate. If male practice players are needed, (coaches) are given that option.”

How to get to that point is unclear.

Chappell said the debate is more complicated than whether male practice players should be permitted at all — the discussion should focus more on creating regulations regarding the number allowed in practice at one time or allowing one male practice player per injured female student-athlete. Brown suggested a time limit to ensure proper instruction of all players.

Beth Bass, executive director of the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association, said her membership was uniformly behind the use of male practice players. She said that perhaps some parameters would help make the practice more consistently applied, while still allowing women’s basketball coaches to keep the positive aspects male practice players bring to the court.

Val Cushman, athletics director at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, said three things are necessary to put the issue to rest — awareness, education, and either legislation or a philosophy statement.

“Not that we’ll necessarily go down that path, but I think there should be consideration for whether we want to take any action on the topic,” she said.

Janet Kittell, vice chair of the CWA and associate athletics director at Syracuse University, said she thinks legislation eventually will be the answer to put an “acceptable standard” in place.

“We want our coaches to have some autonomy, but we also want there to be limits. We have conflicting ideas of what success means and what it takes to get there,” she said. “It’s really a tough one.”