|
|
Post by valeixo888 on Dec 31, 2006 14:49:45 GMT -5
Why are certain schools not able to have volleyball teams? Most notably Oklahoma St and Vanderbilt? They are in huge conferences...
|
|
|
|
Post by cmmhc4 on Dec 31, 2006 15:11:58 GMT -5
OK State has a really good Equestrian program instead of volleyball. Vanderbilt has bowling and lacrosse... not sure why though.
|
|
|
|
Post by deerpark12 on Dec 31, 2006 16:21:58 GMT -5
At Vandy, there was student demand for women's lacrosse and men's soccer, so they elected to add those sports. They have indicated that they have no appropriate facility for volleyball and do not intend to add it or any more sports in the next 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolohekeiki on Dec 31, 2006 20:20:15 GMT -5
At Vandy, there was student demand for women's lacrosse and men's soccer, so they elected to add those sports. They have indicated that they have no appropriate facility for volleyball and do not intend to add it or any more sports in the next 10 years. I really don't think it has to do with facilities or anything. The reason they don't have a volleyball team is because of Title IX which is a gender equality statement about having an equal number of mens and womens athletic teams on campus. And since they have those other sports mentioned they aren't allowed to field a team for volleyball due to the title IX. This is jus off the top of my head from my knowledge so don't quote me on this. Anyone else can back me up or correct me? |
|
|
|
Post by gobears on Dec 31, 2006 23:00:47 GMT -5
Title 9 does not say anything about the # of sports for m/f per se.
A university can add what they want.
When a university is being reviewed for Title 9 compliance, these areas area generally looked at:
-Comparing the % of female athletes participating in the DIA to the % of female students on campus
-Comparing the # of $$$ spent on the women's sports to the # of $$ spent on men's sports, both operating and endowment $$
I believe a school is viewed as IN compliance if the %'s are within 5% of equity.
As many schools are not in compliance, a school attempts to show that progress is being made, by adding f sport teams, increasing the # of players on the f teams, perhaps capping the # of m players on various teams to help with the #s, raising additional funds for the female sport programs, providing upgraded facilities for f sports, locker rooms being comparable, diem being equal, etc etc.
So far nobody seems to be directly talking about the # of m/f coaches and m/f staff, but that subject is part of the discussion of campus atmosphere which may be seen as favorable or unfavorable towards encouraging women to tryout for and compete in various sports.
I think I just read something the other day that the NCAA reviews schools every 10 years???
and any legal suit brought on this subject will trigger all kinds of reviews and discussions.
Each campus reports annually to the Fed Govt the #s of m/f students, $$, etc so it is a matter of public record.
Obviously a school looking to add a female or male sport to their program would be incorporating the projected new numbers into their school's overall Title 9 picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on Jan 1, 2007 3:24:36 GMT -5
Title 9 doesn't pertain to % of m\f coaches on staff. This is a common misconception that is keeping several qualified male candidates from getting opportunities. Of course having a woman on staff is a great thing dealing with females, but their male counterparts have certain skills like being able to hit harder in drills-etc to even things out. Ok girls- sock it to me for these comments- but I think that the most qualified candidate should get the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jan 1, 2007 7:30:15 GMT -5
Title 9 doesn't pertain to % of m\f coaches on staff. This is a common misconception that is keeping several qualified male candidates from getting opportunities. Of course having a woman on staff is a great thing dealing with females, but their male counterparts have certain skills like being able to hit harder in drills-etc to even things out. Ok girls- sock it to me for these comments- but I think that the most qualified candidate should get the job. I agree that the most qualified candidate should get the job. I'm just not sure that skills like "being able to hit harder in drills" is more important than "dealing with females". They are both important aspects of the over staffing requirements and could be handled in programs in different ways, whether by one of the coaches or a student manager, etc. So if you're saying that a staff that already has two male coaches might discriminate against a male for a third spot on the staff, then I'd probably agree with you. Just like I would agree that a female candidate might be discriminated against for an open position where there is already a women head and assistant coach. However, in either case, it might be possible to fill those types of needs with someone that isn't actually a coach. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 1, 2007 11:50:10 GMT -5
One of the arguments for coaches is that there are absolutely zero female coaches coaching men's sports on a Division I level. I remember the brouhaha caused by Rick Pitino when he had a female assistant on his staff at Kentucky, it fed the media's thirst for a novelty. I think the number of men coaching women's sports will always be questioned as long as there are no women coaching men, the argument is a job equity argument.
I know a number of athletes who prefer male coachines because of bad experiences with female coaches, not a generalization here. These players happen to get stuck with female coaches that are too touchy feely and tried to solve all of their problems. The athlete's said that it is easier with male coaches because they are more straightforward, no games. I have known male coaches who play mind games too.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on Jan 1, 2007 17:51:16 GMT -5
I was in a high school system for a few years that was begging females to coach men's volleyball. You would not beleive how many women felt threatened by coaching men- and felt that they wouldn't get the respect needed to do the job.
To Saltnpepper, I agree with your comments. There should be both genders on a staff for obvious reasons. My prior comments are directed toward schools hiring female players right out of college over men with alot more experience just because their female. I've seen that kind of discrimination over and over again, and it is a topic discussed everytime some male coaches get together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 1, 2007 18:24:16 GMT -5
Baldyballer, I hear ya. The pathetic part about putting these young female coaches in charge as head coaches is that it puts them into an untenable situation. Even if they had the talent to be great coaches, chances are that they won't be ready to run the show on their own yet, so they are set up for failure, get an undeserved reputation in failing to win and then leave the game embittered. There is a reason for the unofficial apprenticeship system in sports.
|
|
