|
Post by BearClause on Jan 10, 2007 20:25:48 GMT -5
Bearclause, you make the point that univeristy administrators use to wash their hands of responsibilty for not being able to hire women and minority faculty...."the applicant pool is too small to find good candidates". I recall a near riot at Duke when the administration used this line for justifying their woeful under-representation of women and minority faculty. I'd just like to state that I never said any of those things. I merely said there were a couple of successful VB coaches in the Pac-10 who happened to be women. Cindy Fredrick essentially gave up and set up shop at Iowa, and Patti Snyder-Park left for family concerns. I guess right now the Pac-10 athletic departments with means and openings (USC - Haley, Cal - Feller, OSU - Liskevych, UW - McLaughlin) hired coaches with extensive, proven track records. I don't fault any athletic departments for individually hiring the candidates they wanted. Certainly there have been successful female coaches who were hired within the past few years. UNLV is doing fairly well, as did Rice. Singling out the Pac-10 seems to be counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by Gelatinous Mass on Jan 10, 2007 20:31:40 GMT -5
Magnet, I think you bring up some interesting points but unfortunately many of them will never be seriously considered by D1 schools.
Until VB generates revenue like football does, any comparison in coaches, salaries, benefits, etc. are moot. Why would a school who depends on football revenue consider decreasing the benefits of those revenue generators so they can provide day-care for a female VB coach? Sounds good on paper but it's never going to happen. The schools you mention, Georgetown, Notre Dame, etc. aren't making it work, their programs are not winning with enough consistency to use them as models for other programs. Like all other sports, if you don't win, you don't stay. Florida is the only major college program with a female coach that is on the map because of their performance on the court...maybe Texas A&M in the past, but look at the top 30 rankings..the results just aren't there. That being said, the vast majority of coaches are male so the odds favor a higher % of good teams. Look at Women's basketball, for every Pat Summit or Jody Conrad there is a male coach who has also had success, who has won Natl championships...until that happens in VB it's going to be a tough haul. IMO one of the best coaches in the country is a women at Concordia in Irvine, CA, Paula Weishoff.
Women have to make a choice between family and career in order to commit to the energy and time required to be a coach in any sport and it's really hard... but I'm not going to say it's unfair...it is still a choice
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 10, 2007 20:53:51 GMT -5
Sorry Bearclause, I thought Bearwatch was you too. Your point about Pac 10 taking coaches with proven track records as an excuse for not taking women candidates likely is accurate but not justifiable. I disagree with you about singling out the Pac 10. The Pac 10 should be the shining example of women first.
Wayfat, your scepticism is well taken, but there are numerous business models where highly profitable units subsidize less profitable units and the organization as a whole benefits. Child care benefits are not new to the corporate scene and some companies are even offering elder care benefits; I am afraid that Universities, which are supposed to be cutting edge, are pathetically behind the times when it comes to supporting women who, more often than not, have the additional responsibilities of child rearing.
I have frequently suggested that male ADs or University presidents should personally take on "child care" for one of their faculty or coaches for one week while still conducting their duties and I think they would learn extremely quickly about the issues that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 10, 2007 21:31:17 GMT -5
Antenna,
I don't know in what role you are involved in the volleyball scene (player, coach, fan), but I'm tired of the political correctness that permeates today's society so I'm just going to speak my mind...
1. Title 9 has already ruined men's collegiate volleyball as well as other sports, why can't female activists just simply understand that men (on average) are more interested in being involved in athletics than women? I'm all for equality, in fact I am a coach and make my living and supporting my family by doing so.
2. With so many more men applying for jobs, are you saying that men should be penalized for their sex? Because that is exactly what is happening... There are kids (yes kids) coming out of college getting head coaching jobs at large colleges with no experience simply because they happen to be female. Men who apply for that job and have much more experience are being shut out in favor of this.
3. Recruiting by committee... are you kidding me? I'm not even going to get started with that.
4. Everyone has to make choices in life. Coaching is a lifestyle choice. I'm tired of everyone wanting the world to change around them. If you want to be a soldier and you happen to be female, should we bring the kids over to be with mommy? No either dad steps up or they go to day care. If my wife had a great job offer, I would consider staying home with the kids if that is what had to be done. If you are not willing to do that then find a job at Sears.
Basically our nation is a bunch of oversensitive pansies!!!!
When a woman does a good job she gets promoted, simple as that. Too many are being given jobs too early and being burned out because they don't know how to coach yet.
I'll be back when I have something else to rant about...
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Jan 10, 2007 21:42:22 GMT -5
Sorry Bearclause, I thought Bearwatch was you too. Your point about Pac 10 taking coaches with proven track records as an excuse for not taking women candidates likely is accurate but not justifiable. I disagree with you about singling out the Pac 10. The Pac 10 should be the shining example of women first. Wayfat, your scepticism is well taken, but there are numerous business models where highly profitable units subsidize less profitable units and the organization as a whole benefits. Child care benefits are not new to the corporate scene and some companies are even offering elder care benefits; I am afraid that Universities, which are supposed to be cutting edge, are pathetically behind the times when it comes to supporting women who, more often than not, have the additional responsibilities of child rearing. I have frequently suggested that male ADs or University presidents should personally take on "child care" for one of their faculty or coaches for one week while still conducting their duties and I think they would learn extremely quickly about the issues that need to be addressed. So what female coaches out there do you think should be in the Pac 10 or Big Ten or Big 12 that aren't? Who is it that's being held back by this glass ceiling?
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 10, 2007 23:33:54 GMT -5
Hey, this is getting good.
OK, first, coaching is NOT comparable to being a lawyer, a doctor etc. I am not saying the job is harder, I am saying the emphasis is different. Coaches change jobs at a much higher rate than non-performing doctors or lawyers. Doctors and lawyers lives and livelihood do not depend on the whims of 18 year olds.
I believe SC has already talked about the recruiting, the training, the administration, the recruiting, the hand holding of the players etc. What you see in the Pac 10 etc are people who have gone through the gauntlet and have done well enough to survive. There is an unofficial apprenticeship going on in coaching that the laymen don't see. These coaches are the products of many years of distillation. If you want what is best for the sport, you don't want to take short cuts.
Now to the issue of promoting women, people have done that. As was mentioned, many young female ex-players have been hired to take high visibility, high pressure jobs at top programs. Many have failed, some have had middling successes. Why? Because they were given the short cut to the top, they didn't apprentice, they didn't put themselves through the years of experiencing problems and learning to deal with them out of the limelight, They were judged on results and they failed because they were set up to fail by those very people who thought they were doing them a favor by giving them a short cut. I honestly believe we have turned many capable female coaches away from the sport by trying to do them this "favor", this is where that pool of female canidates are, they are burned out and cynical about the profession because they were set up for failure at the beginning of their careers.
A young female coach that I know and respect told me that she liked where she is, head coach at a mid-major. It allows her to screw up royally and learn from her mistakes without being in the limelight, it allows her to learn and pay her dues until she is ready to take the top job. Believe it or not, many people will get to the point of being poised to take the top job and decide they didn't want it, that it wasn't worth it, that life with the family was more worthwhile. You can not have everything, you have to choose, that is true of all people not just women. Most men choose career over family and most women choose family over career, it is rare that anyone can have both in equal percentage of satisfaction.
You propose that universities give assistance for child care for the female coach. How about the same for male coaches? Or does this perk belong to just the female coach because you want the female coaches to get ahead? My friend is a head coach, he has two boys and his wife is a lawyer, they pay up the wazoo for child care, to make it worse, one of his kids has a long term illness, the school doesn't give him a break on child care. They need both incomes to sustain the medical bills and the family, it would certainly be nice to have paid childcare.
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Jan 10, 2007 23:49:17 GMT -5
Simplycurious, don't you think your commentary is a touch chauvinistic and off the mark? I'm sure there was a better way that I could have said that part, however I kept thinking of ways to say it and each one could be interpreted the way you felt the comment I chose to go with was written. Plus, as a pre-cursor, I mentioned that this remark from my original post wasn't meant as 'taking a shot at women', but just couldn't come up with another way to say it. As to your second point, no it's not off the mark. I'm not talking about what female doctors and lawyers do (I see where others have already addressed this point), we're talking about DI coaching at the highest level and the reasons I stated (even if they could have been stated better) are definitely most of the reasons that there aren't more female head coaches in those conferences! In fact, you can ask most female head coaches and they'll tell you that's why more of their colleagues aren't coaching at the higher levels. Why do you think there has been a push to control the recruiting calendar and cut back on the number of days coaches can go out and recruit? It's because the drive to get ahead or even stay competitive in the recruiting game (especially at the highest levels) is driving females out of coaching (which means fewer role models for our young players today). I also think you overstate the pressures of volleyball coaching. This point I won't agree with you on, since I know that I didn't overstate that one!
|
|
|
Post by valeixo888 on Jan 11, 2007 0:56:43 GMT -5
So who does everyone think is the top female coach in the game?
Mary Wise?!
|
|
|
Post by donneyp on Jan 11, 2007 1:59:49 GMT -5
Just for clarification, you want kids to apply to committee who will then decide what is best for the STUDENT-athlete, and assign them to a college accordingly to help women keep coaching jobs. Did I summarize that fairly?
I think they did this in the Soviet Union and China. Come to think of it, China only lets you have 1 child, which would make it much easier to be a volleyball coach...and free health care too.
Actually, since most volleyball recruits are NOT pieces of meat to be dished out like sloppy joes at lunch in the Cafeteria, I think maybe the more politically correct thing would be to let these young women exercise their brains and choose where they want to go to school....if they want to go to a school with academic standards, or a party culture...if they want to go to a team that values academics over volleyball, or vice-versa....and if they WANT TO PLAY FOR A MALE OR A FEMALE COACH!!!
See, if it were important for girls to play for women, then they'd all be going to play for Mary Wise instead of Jerrett Elliott, Mary Jo Peppler instead of John Dunning, Beth Laranega instead of Dave Shoji, Debbie Brown instead of Jim Stone and Cindy Frederick instead of Mike Hebert.
But somehow, of the 12 players on the Team USA roster at the World Championships, 10 played for men in college. 1 played for a woman, and one played for a husband and wife team at Missouri. In the 2004 Olympics, Toshi's team had 12 players and only 1 (Sykora) played for a female coach in college. So either the best young females are CHOOSING to play for male coaches, or the male coaches are just cranking out better players.
So Antenna, I ask you, which of the following is true? You are saying that we need to change the recruiting system because 1) young women are not smart enough to make good decisions for themselves? 2) you don't think women are capable of performing their jobs to the level that male coaches do, under the same conditions? 3) The top volleyball schools care more about oppressing women and denying them jobs than they do about winning championships.
And these are not mutually exclusive so please pick all that apply. Personally, I don't believe any of that.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Jan 11, 2007 4:21:07 GMT -5
There was a time, not that long ago, when 5 of the 10 coaches in the Pac-10 were women. None of the teams with female coaches ever won the Pac-10 conference championship. None of the teams with female coaches ever made it to the final four.
On the national scene, no female-coached team has won an NCAA championship. In fact, only one (Mary Wise) has even made it to the final four. This despite that fact that around 50% of the head coaches in Division I are female.
Bottom line, when female coaches start having more success, more female coaches will get hired in the prestige conferences.
|
|
|
Post by honore on Jan 11, 2007 4:58:16 GMT -5
simplycurious wrote
If your arguments hold true then why are there NINE women basketball head coaches in the PAC-10 and TEN women basketball head coaches in the BIG-10 ["big-11"]?
Could it be that D-I basketball coaches travel less (than volleyball)? Recruit less (than volleyball)? Fund-raise less? Are super moms when it comes to tending to the family?
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on Jan 11, 2007 8:10:27 GMT -5
I too find it curious that women's basketball has a long history of great women coaches of national champion calibre teams and Olympic teams while NCAA volleyball has almost no women coaching at the highest levels of the collegiate game, or the Olympic team (until now, of course).
Most women's sports, softball, gymnastics, soccer, swimming, track, etc. have had women coaching national champions/national teams.
Ironically, the female to male ratio of participation in volleyball far surpasses that of basketball and most other sports.
Can't help wonder if there is a glass ceiling or good 'ol boy network specific to volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by JustInCase on Jan 11, 2007 8:25:01 GMT -5
Of the arguments made on this thread, Phaedrus hits the mark. I have often said, that we need more good female coaches, but the biggest reason we don't have them is the fact that administrators in their effort to balance coaching staffs, hinder the progress of our young and talented females.
By giving the female coach their "chance" too early in the progress, we literally scare them away from the game. What was touched on before by SC and others may not be fair, but is also true. First, women are those in a relationship that give birth. Does that mean that they should be the ones solely or with the lions share of the child rearing duties? No, but whether we males want to admit or not, that's the case and to the many mothers/wives credit out there, they do so happily and thankfully do a much better job at it. This doesn't mean their partners can't take a more active role or that they can't balance coaching with parenting, but the fact remains that it is much more difficult to do so.
I would argue with one of the statements that SC made about the higher level coaches having to work harder. To be honest, any coach that wants their program to succeed has to work hard. As a DI coach, I work as hard as anyone, including the John Cook's of the world. Is there pressure on John Cook....sure. There's pressure on me. I'm not making $200k/year and my next job (assuming I need one) is not guaranteed. I'm thinking that the John Cook's of the world are going to land the next job a little easier than I will (perhaps a step down - but still have a job).
I train my kids the same number of hours, I watch hours and hours of game tape, I dare say I make more calls and send out more e-mails because not every kid in the country wants to come to my school. Oh, by the way, I'm doing without 2 assistants (have 1 thankfully), a Director of Volleyball Operations, an administrative assistant, etc. I raise scholarship money, sell concessions and basically do whatever I can to advance my program. Recruit everywhere possible even if it means sleeping on hotel floors when necessary.
So, in the end, I don't think the visibility of your program means you work harder, it just means that work is seen more publically. It's safe to assume that the Dunning's, Cook's and Wise's of the world have and continue to do the same thing, but I dare say those who aspire to make their teams be great and to move up the coaching ladder are working just as hard if not harder.
|
|
|
Post by gollum on Jan 11, 2007 10:08:24 GMT -5
I too find it curious that women's basketball has a long history of great women coaches of national champion calibre teams and Olympic teams while NCAA volleyball has almost no women coaching at the highest levels of the collegiate game, or the Olympic team (until now, of course). Most women's sports, softball, gymnastics, soccer, swimming, track, etc. have had women coaching national champions/national teams. Ironically, the female to male ratio of participation in volleyball far surpasses that of basketball and most other sports. Can't help wonder if there is a glass ceiling or good 'ol boy network specific to volleyball. Actually it is quite the opposite, there is a good ol girl network specific to women's basketball. A large percentage of SWA's (Senior women's Administrator) are former basketball coaches and will do whatever possible to protect their sport from male domination.
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Jan 11, 2007 10:34:49 GMT -5
simplycurious wrote If your arguments hold true then why are there NINE women basketball head coaches in the PAC-10 and TEN women basketball head coaches in the BIG-10 ["big-11"]? Could it be that D-I basketball coaches travel less (than volleyball)? Recruit less (than volleyball)? Fund-raise less? Are super moms when it comes to tending to the family? Simple: There are not nearly as many opportunities for men in men's volleyball, and they don't pay very much, so the men leak over to the women's side. There's a men's counterpart in most of those other sports.
|
|