|
Post by baywatcher on Jan 27, 2007 4:31:42 GMT -5
Very interesting discussion, to which I know little of hiring of volleyball coaches. But I would make the following points;
1. Little if any discussion of relationship of AD's and coaches, at least on the later pages. AD's are going to hire who they are comfortable with. Men will hire men, on a consistent basis. As women have attained mid-management and higher power in corporate America, what we men would call "reverse" discrimination has become common; in my department, women repeatedly set other women up for promotion over men who had done demonstrably more work. The men are upset, but it does give us a feeling how competent women must have felt after joining the workforce, particularly post 50's. Personally I got run out of the department eventually; the 20 person committee set up to determine how the department should be run was all women. Don't think that cycle has entered collegiate athletics yet; or are women's sports being run by women AD's now?
2. The point was made that Pac 10 schools have hired only successful male coaches since 2002, or whenever. Assuming all the best programs continue, with the exception of Florida, how is a woman coach ever supposed to win championships? You have to have players. Don't care how many female coaches are hired in the WAC, MVC, or lower echelon teams of the WCC, SEC, Big East or even Big 12, Big 10 or Pac 10 bottom dwellers; not even the best male coaches are going to win; although McLaughlin gives the lie to that assertion, so I was a little reluctant to include the Pac 10.
3. Somebody made the point, "don't want to make sure everyone is dealt the same hand, just want to make sure the hands are dealt fairly." Well, pretty clear hands are presently not dealt fairly, favor men and will for the forseeable future. As a former lawyer, what is clear from a review of prior undiscrimination attempts in other fields is that any attempt to level the playing field is treated with howls from men stating "everyone should be treated the same" and protesting anything of direct action as reverse discrimination, when the reality is the system is set to promote men in positions, because successful coaches, who are all men, are first hired to the best positions by male ADs, who need successful coaches to keep their jobs; and on a case by case basis each hire is reasonable. Would like to see Coach Wise go to a high profile program in the Pac 10, or Big 12, and see if she could close the deal on a national championship. I know she has gotten very close, but could the prestige and schedule at a slightly higher super power get her the one or two players she needs to defeat the StanfordNebraska/USC's that have beat her in the past?
4. As I've stated elsewhere, and perhaps earlier on this thread; women and men are making compromises to facilitate women's desires at work on a regular basis in many other fields; don't think family is as big an obstacle as made out to be above.
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 27, 2007 12:36:10 GMT -5
The point about male Pac 10 coaches having stronger CVs than most women is notable, but not a good justification for an exclusive lock on Pac 10 head coaching positions. I dare say that you could put just about any coach at Stanford and come up with a perrenial top 10 team...its tradition lures the best, not the coaching CVs. In fact, I am astounded that Stanford hasn't shown more leadership with regard to women first, and I don't mean this as a disparaging comment to the current staff.
I just wonder if the NCAA championship were eliminated and the whole artificial quest for a national title taken off the table whether this would improve the reasons that coaches are hired and maybe give an advantage to women coaches who perhaps see more than the win - loss column in athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Chance on Jan 27, 2007 13:07:49 GMT -5
And yet once again AM is the one being sexist and this thread, portraying men as if they are madly obbsessed with winning at all costs, willing to cheat constantly, and simply "use" their players. Female coaches on the other hand, are compasionate. Thy are also skilled at winning, but at the same time they are able to teach their student athletes the value of working hard in school and being a good person... I just wonder if the NCAA championship were eliminated and the whole artificial quest for a national title taken off the table whether this would improve the reasons that coaches are hired and maybe give an advantage to women coaches who perhaps see more than the win - loss column in athletics. I have a better idea... Let's get rid of this "Win Loss" thing entirely. Let's not even keep score!!! It can be like rec soccer. They two teams can just rally back in forth for about an hour, with all the players rotating equally, and then they can shake hands and go out to dinner together. Or lets just not even play volleyball at all. We can just have all the players go to extra study hall and then do some charity work! As for Baywatchers post, Tennessee runs contrary to several of those points. We have split men and women's athletic departments (rare). Our women's AD is a woman. She chose to hire rob patrick, a male coach. He was hired to take over a "lower echelon SEC team." He took them to a final 4. Obviously that doesn't prove any general points, but im just relating the experience at my school. I'm curious to know what you (baywatcher) thinks should be done. Your post seems to say that discrimination is almost inevitable, that men will favor men, and women will favor women.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 27, 2007 13:31:45 GMT -5
As for Baywatchers post, Tennessee runs contrary to several of those points. We have split men and women's athletic departments (rare). Our women's AD is a woman. She chose to hire rob patrick, a male coach. He was hired to take over a "lower echelon SEC team." He took them to a final 4. Obviously that doesn't prove any general points, but im just relating the experience at my school. I don't necessarily buy that women as athletic directors are more likely to hire women either. Arizona State has Lisa Love as AD, who had the opportunity to can Brad Saindon after a disappointing 2005 season and possibly bring in a woman. Washington AD Barbara Hedges hired Jim McLaughlin.
|
|
|
Post by stillcrazy on Jan 27, 2007 13:36:58 GMT -5
AM states that "you could put just about any coach at Stanford and come up with a perennial top 10 team..." I agree. However just as "its tradition lures the best", the opening created when Shaw left for the men, also lured the very best. The Stanford AD, Ted Leland at the time, hired the most qualified coach that applied. He had worked with John at UOP and John had won National Championships at a school that cannot be easy to recruit to. The AD's job is to do what she/he can to insure the success of the athletic programs. Leland did that. Chris Voelz, former women's AD at Minnesota, was a strong proponent of hiring women to coach women. See www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/ Title_IX_Opening_doors_for_female_athletes.html. She did that at Oregon, at Minnesota, and last I knew was working for the Women's Sports Foundation. But, when it came time to hire a volleyball coach, she hired the best candidate that applied, Mike Hebert. Not hiring the most qualified coach in any sport, puts the AD's job in peril.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jan 27, 2007 19:57:36 GMT -5
I dare say that you could put just about any coach at Stanford and come up with a perrenial top 10 team...its tradition lures the best, not the coaching CVs. I strongly disagree with this statement. I think you vastly underestimate the value of a very good coach. John Dunning had proven he's was one of the top coaches in the country at Pacific with NC's where he didn't have this "Stanford Advantage". So if it were that easy now that he's at Stanford, he should be winning the NC every single year. And he isn't. I agree that Stanford has some advantages in attracting top players that want to go to that University, but the reality is, that not everyone wants to go there (or to any other one particular school). Plus, with Stanford's admission standards, not everyone that they may wish to recruit will be necessarily accepted. Not everyone wants to go to school in California if they want family in Florida to watch a lot of their matches. So, like every school, they have hurdles to overcome in the recruiting process. And that's assuming that the coaching staff is smart enough to figure out who the best athletes are/will be two or three years before they even show up on their campus. And that the personalities of those recruits will match the players already on the teams. And will be a good enough coach to help those recruits fully develop their talents. And on and on. If John Dunning left Stanford and they replaced him with a "mediocre" coach (male or female); within 4 to 6 years, Stanford would have a mediocre vollyball program.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jan 27, 2007 21:32:13 GMT -5
Someone asked above what I think should be done. Not sure at all if having Women's sports ADs and Mens Sports AD's is a good idea. Could be, but obvious difficulties in turf wars and appropriations could arise. I think a practical solution is to have the Pac 10, Big 12, and Big 10, at the very least, institute a rule that the AD's interview at least one female candidate before making a new hire, much like the NFL does for head coaches. That way likely candidates at least get a chance a the job and can brush up big time interview skills. Seems to be working slowly but surely in the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Jan 27, 2007 23:06:58 GMT -5
The AD's job is to do what she/he can to insure the success of the athletic programs. No, no, no. You just don't get it. The AD's job should be to follow AntennaMagnet's agenda, which is to get rid of all the males and hire only women ("it's a sport for women....men need to butt out").
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Jan 27, 2007 23:14:04 GMT -5
The point about male Pac 10 coaches having stronger CVs than most women is notable, but not a good justification for an exclusive lock on Pac 10 head coaching positions. It's not?! Have a resume that reflects more experience, more succes, is not reason enough to hire someone? Yes, that win-loss column is pesky, isn't it? And why would players want to play for these women coaches who aren't interested in winning?
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 28, 2007 10:56:12 GMT -5
Splitting the athletic department with a female AD for women's sports and a male AD for men's sports would be an interesting idea, especially if both received the identical budget. That way, women wouldn't get blamed for loss of certain men's sports because the male AD decided to disproportionately support his revenue generating programs.
The point about ADs being on the chopping block for losing seasons which forces them to hire proven male entities is a good description of how institutional prejudices perpetuate.
The fact of the matter is that universities are a heck of a lot more insular and therefore they can promote higher ideals than other large institutions. Sadly, NCAA championships and the Sears Cup are the overwhelming guiding goals of large university athletic programs that will sacrifice overall university principles for a "winning season." By removing NCAA championships I believe the spirit and purpose of athletics in college will be better served. And for those who crave collegiate championships, why not turn collegiate athletic clubs into professional enterprises with corporate sponsorship and let the revenues pay the athletes and coaches what the market will bear.
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jan 28, 2007 12:05:43 GMT -5
Well, since the thread title is "female coaches", what I'd really like to see is a female head football coach the NCAA level take a major D1-A football program to national prominence.
After all, in the spectrum of NCAA sports, there's college football (and maybe basketball) and then there's everything else.
|
|
|
Post by gollum on Jan 29, 2007 12:23:51 GMT -5
Sadly, NCAA championships and the Sears Cup are the overwhelming guiding goals of large university athletic programs Wrong $$$$ is the guiding force... My father was working post-retirement in a major athletic department on a consultant basis. There had been many calls for the head of the basketball coach who had not been able to deliver a NC (he since has) My father who got quite close to the AD asked him if he had ever considered making a change. The answer, as long as he is putting fannies in the seats, getting us on TV and making this school money hand over fist he stays.
|
|