|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 5, 2014 9:44:59 GMT -5
That's a slightly different question than gobucky is asking as I understand it...which is more about whether women's coaching styles are crimped by expectations of behavior based on their gender. It could lead to bias in hiring/firing, but it could also just be a limitation in terms of acceptable behavior in job. I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 9:49:13 GMT -5
That's a slightly different question than gobucky is asking as I understand it...which is more about whether women's coaching styles are crimped by expectations of behavior based on their gender. It could lead to bias in hiring/firing, but it could also just be a limitation in terms of acceptable behavior in job. I don't know. Oops - I meant to quote a much earlier post where my post would have made more sense as I wasn't really answering gobucky's question.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Nov 5, 2014 9:51:04 GMT -5
So they replaced the female field hockey coach with a female. The female women's golf coach was replaced with a female coach. Rowing and Volleyball have male head coaches. Their women's basketball team has a female head coach and all female assts. I am not sure I get the point of the article. If there is gender bias, why replace with females? To make it look good?
It sounds like the previous coach was not happy with the situation at Iowa even before all of this. While it does seem that something fishy was going on and she should not have been fired so abruptly, I am wondering why she didn't leave in her previous 14 years and try to find greener pastures if it was so bad. It sounds like she had a successful program there and she could have landed somewhere with a better working environment. To hire the asst, although it was shortly before the season and may have been very difficult to find a more qualified replacement, seems like it was something a little more personal and not so much the overall handling of the program.
Has 'moody' chimed in on this one?
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Nov 5, 2014 11:33:39 GMT -5
So they replaced the female field hockey coach with a female. The female women's golf coach was replaced with a female coach. Rowing and Volleyball have male head coaches. Their women's basketball team has a female head coach and all female assts. I am not sure I get the point of the article. If there is gender bias, why replace with females? To make it look good?
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 5, 2014 12:13:07 GMT -5
Yes...I think that is the real gist of the article. Though its tagline is about the firings of 5 women in a year, and the ADs behavior in one specific case, the interesting thing is the idea that expectations for how the women will coach are different that the expectations for men. Those expectations maybe shared by the supervisors, the athletes and the parents. Does a student athlete go to a school with a woman coach because it will be more "nurturing," is the athlete and her parents more likely to complain if the woman coach then challenges or criticizes the athlete's performance, and are ADs more likely to listen to such complaints than if they related to the behavior of a male coach? I can imagine that happening, but don't know how common or problematic it is.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 5, 2014 13:42:19 GMT -5
When collegiate volleyball started in the early 70's (around Title IX passage), women coaches FAR outnumbered male coaches. In fact the AIAW was primarily a women's sports organization run by women (Shoji, Pettit, Banakowski, Erbe, Rose and Haley bucked the trend and were not real popular). It was only when volleyball became an NCAA sponsored sport (1981) and colleges began hiring full-time coaches that men became interested in pursuing women's volleyball coaching positions and even then, women far out-numbered men. Those jobs, even at what now would be considered bigtime jobs, paid peanuts and only the die-hards wanted those positions and most also involved teaching. I would suggest that these jobs that people assume are set up for success became successful due to the sacrifice, hard work and coaching skill of those first coaches who just happened to be coaching at those particular schools. They've also paved the way for the high salaries, travel, facilities, etc that you see today.
Currently, EVERY time a bigtime job opens, WOMEN are the first contacted (Wise, Lynch, Rockwell, previously Brown, Corbelli, etc). They have traditionally turned down those jobs; AD's then turn to the best possible male coaches. Young female coaches have by far greater opportunities to secure jobs and move up the ladder often without having to pay as many dues as the male coaches.
Women are given a MUCH longer leash on the mental abuse stuff that for some reason is a much more prevalent charge nowadays; male coaches literally have zero tolerance on this issue and get fired much more often.
I believe a big part of the problem specifically at Iowa is their recent change to a united athletic department ending decades of a separate male and female athletic department; lot of bitterness still around Iowa City.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Nov 5, 2014 14:03:38 GMT -5
Hopefully, when Salima takes over Penn State or Texas or another major D1 program, the trend will be reversed.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 5, 2014 15:14:40 GMT -5
So, if that's true, why are there so many successful women coaches in college basketball? www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-women/d1Strange no? Are you suggesting that somehow vball is better coached by males than females, and basketball is not? How many of these female basketball coaches are married with children ? Not any that I can think of off hand at least in the Pac-12.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 5, 2014 15:21:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 16:58:27 GMT -5
Hopefully, when Salima takes over Penn State or Texas or another major D1 program, the trend will be reversed. I agree and think she will be the one to break the trend.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Dec 17, 2014 17:44:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Dec 17, 2014 19:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 17, 2014 20:58:39 GMT -5
Simple fact is male coaches win more. A female coach has never won a D-1 NCAA Vball championship. That's 33 years. 0 for 33. www.ncaa.com/history/volleyball-women/d1If you're an AD in a big time conference and you want results, who would you hire? Not saying that there aren't great female coaches. But history says at the highest level, males win more. Wow. How many women coach teams in the top 25? Statistics are strange things. your stat leap is quite flawed. 3 of 25 by AVCA.. 5 by Pablo.... 6 by RPI (new conspiracy theory: RPI gender bias)
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 18, 2014 0:52:27 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing. Very interesting article, and discussion. I have watched this debate play out year after year, especially on the job threads and am reminded of it in this article discussion. There are two separate concepts on gender that get debated as the same thing but I see differences. Entry level vs elite level job acquisition. Women are given the advantage at entry level positions, and I do agree that it is more common for women to get out of coaching faster. This is normally played up to being for stereotypical "family reasons". I think it more often is because a lot of young women who get done with college and are unsure of what they want to do as a career, so they get into coaching until they figure out what they really want to do. Men outnumber women at the elite level because of time. Looking at the start of college volleyball it was primarily male coaches(who were teachers or basketball coaches) and as generations of former female players are getting into the college ranks (and staying) they will begin to get higher level jobs. Someone posted earlier about there never having been a female head coach to win a national championship. Well, only certain programs are set up to win from a budget/resource standpoint. Those positions take time to open. The last 5-10 years have really been the first wave of female head coaches who have built the resume to be able to get a head coaching job at a program like that. As for the female double standard in the article, women have the advantage in getting hired but are still very disadvantaged once in the position. This I believe is more what the article was talking about. People keep talking about "well they fired a female and hired another female, whats the problem?" The problem is they are held to different (perceived) standards once they hired. A woman who demanding (insert any agressive trait associated with success) is a "b"tch a man is strong. This is more the point of the article, not who gets hired. I smell a BS here.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 18, 2014 0:55:25 GMT -5
Hopefully, when Salima takes over Penn State or Texas or another major D1 program, the trend will be reversed. I agree and think she will be the one to break the trend. Who cares about the trend. Just hire a RR, whether that's a male or a female. The US was hell-bent on electing the first African American President; and now the US is the laughing stock in the world. Who cares about trends.
|
|