Male Practice Players for Women’s Sports

Thanks to Governor Tim Pawlenty’s underfunding of transit in Minnesota in an attempt to maintain his “no new taxes, and . . . um . . . fees aren’t taxes” pledge, I was feathering my clutch across town this evening listening to Bumper to Bumper with Barrerio on KFAN where I heard about a Star Tribune story abotu teh NCAA’s interest in banning male players from practicing with women’s teams:

Women’s basketball: NCAA rethinks battle of sexes

“But last month, the NCAA’s Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA) called for a ban on male practice players. It concluded the custom violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX, the 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in sports.”

Imagine if your daughter was a kick-ass basketball player. Do you think it would be easy for her to find other kick-ass women players at her level who could push her to make her the best player she could be. Now, imagine what it must be like for the women at the University of Minnesota, who are the best dozen women basketball players within hundreds of miles. Luckily for those great athletes, there are local basketball players who can push them to improve: guys. And they’ll work for free.

The NCAA doesn’t seem to realize that women’s sports have reached a point where they’re established and well beyond numbers and participation. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to that last statement, but it doesn’t change the fact that limiting the competitiveness of women’s practices actually HURTS the competitiveness of women’s sports rather than helping them.

4 thoughts on “Male Practice Players for Women’s Sports”

  1. Damn your quick on the draw. I read the same story and heard the same interview on KFAN. And then I was going to blog about the topic. I am shitting you negative the theme of my post was ifreakingdentical to yours. Anyway, ditto.

  2. Dude, time to start blogging from your phone.

    So that’s two votes by dudes for competitive ladies. One thing Danny B didn’t have on the show was an opinion supporting this move. Someone must be, right?

  3. I don’t know about that. I think he hit the nail on the head when he said it seemed to be a generational thing. I can list several professions where the women of the 60s and mostly 70s (the pioneers if you will) had to break through a lot of barriers and could only do so by being stong and uncompromising.

    Twenty years later this attitude reeks of a chip on the shoulder mentality. It sounds like the people behind this ban are the pioneers who made title IX a possibility. But we’ve evolved as a society, I hope, and have outgrown that uncompromising mentality.

    This is a long preachy comment but what else is new? Plus I just wanted to add the one tidbit I would have if I had been quick enough to post first.

  4. It seems to me to smack in the face of ‘gender equity’…what if the rule was the practice players HAD to be males, does that make it worse?

    To paraphrase Dr. King…it seems to me that a gender will never be free until they can stand up on the basis of the content of their contribution to the sport, not based on the gender they bring to the game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *