|
Post by doc on Jan 14, 2007 21:28:09 GMT -5
I am so very glad Title IX happened. I hope that the current players who have the personality and smarts to be coaches will consider this field and pursue all the opportunities. I would very much like to see the standard for all coaches to be constantly improving. I have seen everything get better over time, but there sure is still a long way to go. I hope our best players with the best fit will really consider volleyball as their life's work. I am also sorry men's sports had to be hurt for the women's situation to improve. Men's volleyball is especially terrific and it is really too bad they are now in such a pickle. The matching system in medicine evolved because hospitals use resident's as 24/7/365 staff. You can indicate preferences, but there are no guarantees. I guess volleyball has limited scholarships/positions per school, but the 24/7/365 difference is a killer as far as matching would go. Hospitals have to have staff, residents have to be on a fast track for training, and it would be very very hard for hospitals to do their own recruiting/staffing for all resident slots every year. As a coach, can you imagine having to find players who will be there 24/7/365? In any sport the best players usually don't make the best coaches because things came to easy for them as athletes. Where good but not great players make good coaches because they had to become students of the game.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Jan 14, 2007 21:35:25 GMT -5
If we are getting really technical, Freud would say that men would want to coach other "castrated" males, not women. This post makes me nervous, let me grab my Cup for protection.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jan 14, 2007 23:05:46 GMT -5
And who is the almighty that will do the matching? I'm sure AM would apply for the job... this whole thread has had overtones of philosopher-king mentality from the beginning. No human being(s) are smart (or wise) enough to be on that panel.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jan 15, 2007 8:39:16 GMT -5
One thing to remember about the profitability of each of the programs is that the NCAA does not take into account the institutional fees incurred by the programs, like water and electricity. They may not seem like much but try doing laundry for an entire football team daily for seven months out of the year, it adds up. This would make a hige difference in the definition of the programs that are making a profit because their profit margin is so on the razor's edge that if this was accounted for the percentage that is profitable could drop significantly. I agree phaedrus but then you could also get into the whole discussion about the value of a football teams ability to generate donations to the athletic department for things other than football and the universities as a whole. I think most people would agree that much money is given because of football. Look at OK State. The money from Boone was given because of football will benefit the whole university and especially womans sports. Two points. 1) The alums give money if you win. No where in the discussion did I say anything about doing anything to diminish the competitiveness of the football program. The things that are outrageous are the extraneous stuff, the things that don't do anything to make the team better. 2) I would be interested in seeing what the cost-benefit ratio is for the donations.
|
|
|
Post by flatlander on Jan 15, 2007 11:46:25 GMT -5
And who is the almighty that will do the matching? . . . No human being(s) are smart (or wise) enough to be on that panel. Heck, the NCAA can't be trusted to even put together a decent tournament bracket. Why would we ever think they could handle a match program?
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 16, 2007 13:30:57 GMT -5
Clearly a match system for prospective athletes would have benefits and shortcomings. On the plus side, the vast majority of girls would match with one of their top 5 college choices and athletic talent would be more broadly distributed among collegiate sports programs. On the negative side, players might not get their first choice in colleges, but then again, how many under the current system ever get their first choice ? Furthermore, if a student is really determined to go to a certain college and can get accepted, then there is nothing to prevent this person from doing so without a volleyball scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 16, 2007 13:37:58 GMT -5
What happens when every kid lists their top choices as Nebraska, Texas, UCLA, Penn State, and Stanford? Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.
You're seriously advocating a athlete to school matching system as a means of allowing more women to succeed in college coaching? Do you think before you write? Do you think at all?
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 16, 2007 14:00:16 GMT -5
It is very doubtful that the vast majority of students would list 5 volleyball powerhouses as their top choice, students have a pretty good idea of what colleges are "realistic". For example, a student with 3.0 GPA would not put Stanford as a realistic choice. Likewise, a very mediocre player would not list Penn State as a realistic choice because there would not be an athletic match. In fact, match systems usually create a self selection process by applicants who may list a few schools that are a stretch and others that they are more likely to be a successful match.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 16, 2007 14:24:49 GMT -5
It is very doubtful that the vast majority of students would list 5 volleyball powerhouses as their top choice, students have a pretty good idea of what colleges are "realistic". For example, a student with 3.0 GPA would not put Stanford as a realistic choice. Likewise, a very mediocre player would not list Penn State as a realistic choice because there would not be an athletic match. In fact, match systems usually create a self selection process by applicants who may list a few schools that are a stretch and others that they are more likely to be a successful match. Not to pick on Stanford, but certainly several graduates there and at other "elite" private institutions have told me that most classes aren't going to be pressure cookers, and that grading tends to be very lenient. A lower HS GPA doesn't necessarily mean doom for the student-athlete. Granted - a 3.0 GPA isn't going to get anyone in through the regular admissions pool, but it might for an elite athlete in a high-profile sport.
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Jan 16, 2007 15:23:54 GMT -5
It is very doubtful that the vast majority of students would list 5 volleyball powerhouses as their top choice, students have a pretty good idea of what colleges are "realistic". For example, a student with 3.0 GPA would not put Stanford as a realistic choice. Likewise, a very mediocre player would not list Penn State as a realistic choice because there would not be an athletic match. In fact, match systems usually create a self selection process by applicants who may list a few schools that are a stretch and others that they are more likely to be a successful match. You may be correct about the top 5 or 10 schools but you would have hundreds of athletes choosing PAC 10 or Big 10, etc... schools even if they were not one of the top schools in the country. There are only so many open spots every year. Another question regarding your suggestion for a matching program: How does a coach build a team when they do not get to choose who they recruit? How do they determine team chemistry if they cannot recruit and get someone? What if only middles choose your school in their top 5? etc... Please elaborate....
|
|
|
Post by flatlander on Jan 16, 2007 15:45:00 GMT -5
It is very doubtful that the vast majority of students would list 5 volleyball powerhouses as their top choice, students have a pretty good idea of what colleges are "realistic". For example, a student with 3.0 GPA would not put Stanford as a realistic choice. Likewise, a very mediocre player would not list Penn State as a realistic choice because there would not be an athletic match. In fact, match systems usually create a self selection process by applicants who may list a few schools that are a stretch and others that they are more likely to be a successful match. Although I have a number of issues with this idea generally (e.g., anti-competitive, personal choice, etc.), my specific issues are these: 1. There is already plenty of self-selection (by athletes) that occurs when choosing their "prom dates" (in no particular order): will I get along with the coach; is the head coach/asst #1 known for a specialty skill that I want to develop (e.g., Craig Skinner - blocking, Dave Shoji - setting); do the academic offerings meet my needs; what are the team's chances of success; is the program a traditional powerhouse/exciting up-and-comer; will I like/not hate my teammates; can I live with the school's location; is the school far enough/too far away from home; will there be fan support (do I care?), etc. ad nauseum. So using self-selection as a justification for a match program really doesn't hold water. 2. Again, who in the name of all that is holy could be trusted to administer this program?? Self-interest disqualifies coaches, AD's women's administrators ... pretty much everyone associated with an individual institution. Incompetence disqualifies AD's, women's administrators, and the NCAA. Finally, I'm just not seeing the connection between a match program and increased opportunities for women coaches. I agree with others who have discussed the "apprenticeship" process as to why there have been some notable failures recently. Frankly, I think some of the problem is generational. We're just starting to reach critical mass -- i.e., greater numbers of women/former players are choosing to coach (I, for one, would like to see the numbers on assistants who are women). If the apprentice process is done correctly and these women are being properly groomed, I would expect to see an increase in the number of women as head coaches in DII, NAIA, and NJCAA. The next step will be an increase in female head coaches at non-BCS schools. The next step will be success at the non-BCS schools. The final step will come based on 2 main factors: (1) the retirement/resignation of some of the current male head coaches at top programs; and (2) the BCS schools' recruitment of successful female coaches non-BCS schools. If these steps do not happen with increasing regularity over the next 5-10 years, then I think it becomes hard to deny that there's a real problem.
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 16, 2007 16:42:36 GMT -5
Implementation of a match system probably would have to be done by an independent agency or committee. I agree the devil is in the details, and maybe the match would need to look more like a draft system. Either way, some mechanism is needed to get more parity into the sport and to improve the reasons for pursuing a particular college other than a winning VB tradition. I believe too many young women and parents are awestruck when the Cooks and Waites of the VB kingdom recruit them and elevate their sense of importance to the point where visions of a championship ring overwhelm prudent thoughts about academics.
I agree that changes in recruitment formats are not the sole avenue to improving the numbers of female head coaches, however, one benefit of creating parity among programs might include more opportunities for women to coach talented players while debunking the mystique of several male head coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Jan 16, 2007 16:46:10 GMT -5
(snip)...For example, a student with 3.0 GPA would not put Stanford as a realistic choice. Likewise, a very mediocre player would not list Penn State as a realistic choice because there would not be an athletic match...(snip) So under this system the schools currently in the NCAA VB top 10 will continue to get the best players because they are an "athletic match." The "haves" get better, and the "have not's" contine to get their "athletic match." Nice system! edit: AM posted the post above as I was writing this. It makes my post somewhat obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Jan 16, 2007 19:00:25 GMT -5
Implementation of a match system probably would have to be done by an independent agency or committee. I agree the devil is in the details, and maybe the match would need to look more like a draft system. Either way, some mechanism is needed to get more parity into the sport and to improve the reasons for pursuing a particular college other than a winning VB tradition. I believe too many young women and parents are awestruck when the Cooks and Waites of the VB kingdom recruit them and elevate their sense of importance to the point where visions of a championship ring overwhelm prudent thoughts about academics. I agree that changes in recruitment formats are not the sole avenue to improving the numbers of female head coaches, however, one benefit of creating parity among programs might include more opportunities for women to coach talented players while debunking the mystique of several male head coaches. Yeah...no thanks. There's enough parity for me without implementing some socialistic system that will be bogged down in bureaucracy and bugs and remove freewill from the equation.
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Jan 16, 2007 20:02:24 GMT -5
I don't know about the free will issue....some might argue that high school girls are being brain washed by different coaching recruitment techniques and ego boosting comments like, "I will build the team around you" "you'll definitely be a starter" "you'll be an all american in our program, "you should only play with proven programs." I think recruitment can reduce highly impressionable girls' freedom of choice.
|
|