|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Dec 21, 2019 16:38:18 GMT -5
There are likely many reasons for the genders of womens college volleyball coaches. But let me offer this:
As many have said, womens college volleyball is the top of the heap in US volleyball. There is not pro league and the womens game has a lot more money and prestige than the mens game.
Coaching all sports is a brutal business. It often requires frequent moves to often difficult locations as you climb the coaching ladder to the top. NFL coaches are lucky to get 2-3 years in a location before they have to move off to the next opportunity. Lets take Kevin Hambly as an example. Grew up in CA and went to BYU for college. Played professionally in France. Coached Club in CA and then moved to UNLV as an assistant. Moved back to CA to be an assistant on the national team. Moved to IL to be an assistant and after 5 years got the head job. Then moved back to CA for the Stanford job.
I hire senior executives all of the time in the business world. It is very very rare to find women candidates who are willing to move to a new city for an opportunity. By very very rare I would say that I have seen no more than a hand full of resumes out of literally thousands. Less than 1%. It is that rare.
My guess is that if you look at the candidate pools for top jobs they are overwhelmingly male. This is in a sport where if you include the assistants it is probably 50% male.
My guess is that this is a big driver of the disparity.
|
|
|
|
Post by browniecritic on Dec 21, 2019 16:45:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 21, 2019 16:51:32 GMT -5
That it is either not or much less true in women's basketball or softball pretty much says it all. For both, there are at least as many opportunities to coach men in the same or equivalent sports (men's basketball and baseball). That is not as true for volleyball, with many many fewer opportunities to coach men. Increasing the opportunity for men to coach men will increase the opportunity for women to coach women. This will remain essentially unchanged as long as schools are allowed to cut funding for men's sports in order to fund the same or equivalent women's sports. If not allowed, then schools would need to eliminate or reduce opportunities to play football. There is absolutely no need for football to have 85 scholarships or 100+ rosters. Return to some form of limited substitution (requiring that interior linemen play both ways, for instance) could allow significant reductions in football scholarships and roster sizes. I think I agree with you that it's largely the fact that volleyball is almost unique in that it's a sport that is far more popular on the women's side then the men's side, at least in this country. I suppose there are other examples like gymnastics, but I think volleyball has the most interest (and therefore, money and career opportunities) of any of the sports in these categories. Now that isn't to suggest that there aren't other factors going on. There probably are, as it is a complex issue. But I do think the lack of men's volleyball opportunities is a big one. Oh, and your football suggestion is just not going to happen. I agree that cutting football scholarships could theoretically alleviate some of the issues other men's sports are facing, but football is by far the most popular sport in the country. There would be an open revolt if linemen were required to play both ways, which hasn't been the norm since at least the 1960s. |
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Dec 21, 2019 17:06:50 GMT -5
Are there any female coaches of men's teams?
|
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Dec 21, 2019 17:47:46 GMT -5
A lot of the women's volleyball coaches are hired by the SWA, who are all female. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 21, 2019 17:50:29 GMT -5
Oh, and your football suggestion is just not going to happen. I agree that cutting football scholarships could alleviate some of the issues other men's sports are facing, but football is by far the most popular sport in the country. There would be an open revolt if linemen were required to play both ways, which hasn't been the norm since at least the 1960s. If the Supreme Court rules that schools can't reverse-discriminate against male athletes to meet Title-IX dictates, that will force schools to make a choice: 1) Increase their budgets to sponsor same or equivalent sports for both men and women (volleyball, beach volleyball, rowing, gymnastics, lacrosse, etc.) while still meeting Title IX requirements. OR 2) Eliminate or significantly reduce scholarships/roster spots for football. I just mentioned limiting substitutions as one way to reduce football scholarships/roster sizes. It would help to address the ethical dilemmas of 1) 385-lb+ student-athletes and 2) concussions/brain-injuries, by re-converting football from a primarily anaerobic back to an aerobic sport. The NCAA (and, by extension, all football sponsoring schools) is just a class-action suit away from being hit with gigantic damages for knowingly continuing to put the future health, well-being, and very lives of student-athletes at risk for no other reason than money, money, money. If professional athletes choose to sacrifice their future health, well-being, and lives for current glory (and piles of money), that's one thing. Proffering the same Devil's bargain to student-athletes, as the price of admission, is quite something else. |
|
|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Dec 21, 2019 18:01:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Dec 21, 2019 18:06:26 GMT -5
Tons of male coaches would love to stay in the men’s side — there just aren’t many opportunities. An indirect result of growing college men’s volleyball is more coaching opportunities for young male coaches without having to go to the women’s side for work.
OK, going to slink my way back to my volleyball home on the men’s side of the board. Only two weeks away from the start of the 2020 season!!!! Anything big happening in women’s volleyball right now?
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 21, 2019 18:06:41 GMT -5
Oh, and your football suggestion is just not going to happen. I agree that cutting football scholarships could alleviate some of the issues other men's sports are facing, but football is by far the most popular sport in the country. There would be an open revolt if linemen were required to play both ways, which hasn't been the norm since at least the 1960s. If the Supreme Court rules that schools can't reverse-discriminate against male athletes to meet Title-IX dictates, that will force schools to make a choice: 1) Increase their budgets to sponsor same or equivalent sports for both men and women (volleyball, beach volleyball, rowing, gymnastics, lacrosse, etc.) while still meeting Title IX requirements. OR 2) Eliminate or significantly reduce scholarships/roster spots for football. I just mentioned limiting substitutions as one way to reduce football scholarships/roster sizes. It would help to address the ethical dilemma of 385-lb student-athletes and to reduce concussions/brain-injuries, by converting football from a primarily anaerobic to an aerobic sport. The NCAA (and, by extension, all football sponsoring schools) is just a class-action suit away from being hit with gigantic damages for knowingly putting the future health, well-being, and very lives of student-athletes at risk for no other reason than money, money, money. Sure, if the Supreme Court gets involved, I guess. Though I don't really follow your logic. So you're saying the Court would rule that every single sport has to have an equal number of scholarships for men and women? In that case, the easiest solution would probably just be to add women's football, at least for the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world. Schools like that are just not going to eliminate football. If it's still based on overall scholarships/opportunities, that's the system we have now, where non-revenue men's sports are either cut entirely or have significantly fewer scholarships (for the record, I have no issue with Title IX and think it's great that it provides opportunities for female student-athletes). Also, football has already been dealing with the threat of potential and real lawsuits for a while now, which is why they're a lot more cautious about, say, concussions now than they were before. I gather that you may not particularly care for football, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the economic realities of the sport and its place in athletic departments. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 21, 2019 18:07:30 GMT -5
And she must support that practice since she has stated that she’ll never hire a male assistant. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 21, 2019 18:19:04 GMT -5
Oh, and your football suggestion is just not going to happen. I agree that cutting football scholarships could alleviate some of the issues other men's sports are facing, but football is by far the most popular sport in the country. There would be an open revolt if linemen were required to play both ways, which hasn't been the norm since at least the 1960s. If the Supreme Court rules that schools can't reverse-discriminate against male athletes to meet Title-IX dictates, that will force schools to make a choice: 1) Increase their budgets to sponsor same or equivalent sports for both men and women (volleyball, beach volleyball, rowing, gymnastics, lacrosse, etc.) while still meeting Title IX requirements. OR 2) Eliminate or significantly reduce scholarships/roster spots for football. I just mentioned limiting substitutions as one way to reduce football scholarships/roster sizes. It would help to address the ethical dilemmas of 1) 385-lb+ student-athletes and 2) concussions/brain-injuries, by re-converting football from a primarily anaerobic back to an aerobic sport. The NCAA (and, by extension, all football sponsoring schools) is just a class-action suit away from being hit with gigantic damages for knowingly continuing to put the future health, well-being, and very lives of student-athletes at risk for no other reason than money, money, money. If professional athletes choose to sacrifice their future health, well-being, and lives for current glory (and piles of money), that's one thing. Proffering the same Devil's bargain to student-athletes, as the price of admission, is quite something else. Those are false choices insofar as they are not the only options available if there were to be a court decision striking down or invalidating provisions of Title IX. The first step would probably be to eliminate some sports entirely until the minimum number of sports required to be NCAA eligible is reached (that assumes that number isn't changed by the NCAA in response). That is a far more probable response than an institution adding sports to achieve equivalency. The other consequence of a court ruling might be that sports will be sponsored on the basis of demand rather than opportunity (Title IX requires that opportunities to participate in sports be proportional to the gender ratio of the institution's general student population). Depending on how that demand (or preference) is determined, the mix of sponsored sports might be entirely different (and based on conventional wisdom, much more male oriented if it turns out that men generally want to participate in sports more than women do). The likelihood that the Supreme Court will actually invalidate Title IX in that manner is still very unlikely, and for many public universities or those receiving any state aid of any type, it will have no impact at all because many states have incorporated the same Title IX restrictions in state law. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 21, 2019 19:06:34 GMT -5
Sure, if the Supreme Court gets involved, I guess. Though I don't really follow your logic. So you're saying the Court would rule that every single sport has to have an equal number of scholarships for men and women? In that case, the easiest solution would probably just be to add women's football, at least for the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world. Schools like that are just not going to eliminate football. If it's still based on overall scholarships, that's the system we have now, where non-revenue men's sports are either cut entirely or have significantly fewer scholarships (for the record, I have no issue with Title IX and think it's great that it provides opportunities for female student-athletes). Also, football has already been dealing with the threat of potential and real lawsuits for a while now, which is why they're a lot more cautious about concussions now than they were before. I gather that you may not particularly care for football, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the economic realities of the sport and its place in athletic departments. No. As long as a school is meeting the proportionate interest in participating in those sports - that is already baked into Title IX law as one of the compliance "prongs", but which no school utilizes because they are afraid of being sued. Cutting both women's and men's sports (women's and men's track & field, or cross country) would bring many (primarily football) schools out of compliance by failing to continue to make progress in increasing opportunities for female student-athletes. Many fewer males than females play high school volleyball, but they still represent a substantial number. Currently, men's volleyball can have as many as 5 scholarships, while women get up to 12. That wouldn't necessarily change - schools just wouldn't be able to reverse-discriminate against men by not offering the sport at all. Similarly, the proportional interest among women in playing football is virtually zero. The same with men and field hockey. I don't believe that football (peewee, high school, collegiate, or professional) is adequately addressing the brain-injury issue. The medical evidence is mounting that mere protocols or technological fixes (better helmuts) are entirely inadequate to significantly reduce the risks of long-term impairment and early death. I believe the only choice will be to radically transform the sport or ban it. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 21, 2019 19:09:53 GMT -5
Sure, if the Supreme Court gets involved, I guess. Though I don't really follow your logic. So you're saying the Court would rule that every single sport has to have an equal number of scholarships for men and women? In that case, the easiest solution would probably just be to add women's football, at least for the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world. Schools like that are just not going to eliminate football. If it's still based on overall scholarships, that's the system we have now, where non-revenue men's sports are either cut entirely or have significantly fewer scholarships (for the record, I have no issue with Title IX and think it's great that it provides opportunities for female student-athletes). Also, football has already been dealing with the threat of potential and real lawsuits for a while now, which is why they're a lot more cautious about concussions now than they were before. I gather that you may not particularly care for football, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the economic realities of the sport and its place in athletic departments. No. As long as a school is meeting the proportionate interest in participating in those sports - that is already baked into Title IX law as one of the compliance "prongs", but which no school utilizes because they are afraid of being sued. Cutting both women's and men's sports (women's and men's track & field, or cross country) would bring many (primarily football) schools out of compliance by failing to continue to make progress in increasing opportunities for female student-athletes. Many fewer males than females play high school volleyball, but they still represent a substantial number. Currently, men's volleyball can have as many as 5 scholarships, while women get up to 12. That wouldn't necessarily change - schools just wouldn't be able to reverse-discriminate against men by not offering the sport at all. Similarly, the proportional interest among women in playing football is virtually zero. The same with men and field hockey. I don't believe that football (peewee, high school, collegiate, or professional) is adequately addressing the brain-injury issue. The medical evidence is mounting that mere protocols or technological fixes (better helmuts) are entirely inadequate to significantly reduce the risks of long-term impairment and early death. I believe the only choice will be to radically transform the sport or ban it. Yeah, that's all fine. But it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court gets involved to that degree. And banning football is even less likely. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 21, 2019 19:32:45 GMT -5
Those are false choices insofar as they are not the only options available if there were to be a court decision striking down or invalidating provisions of Title IX. The first step would probably be to eliminate some sports entirely until the minimum number of sports required to be NCAA eligible is reached (that assumes that number isn't changed by the NCAA in response). That is a far more probable response than an institution adding sports to achieve equivalency. Which would run directly into the continuing progress prong that most football schools opt for to remain in compliance while remaining otherwise out of compliance. That is the third compliance prong, but no school has availed themselves of it, because they know they'd immediately be sued. I don't know how likely or unlikely that would be. If it does happen I suspect it would be a narrow decision, disallowing reverse discrimination, while leaving Title IX, itself, intact. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 21, 2019 19:42:12 GMT -5
No. As long as a school is meeting the proportionate interest in participating in those sports - that is already baked into Title IX law as one of the compliance "prongs", but which no school utilizes because they are afraid of being sued. Cutting both women's and men's sports (women's and men's track & field, or cross country) would bring many (primarily football) schools out of compliance by failing to continue to make progress in increasing opportunities for female student-athletes. Many fewer males than females play high school volleyball, but they still represent a substantial number. Currently, men's volleyball can have as many as 5 scholarships, while women get up to 12. That wouldn't necessarily change - schools just wouldn't be able to reverse-discriminate against men by not offering the sport at all. Similarly, the proportional interest among women in playing football is virtually zero. The same with men and field hockey. I don't believe that football (peewee, high school, collegiate, or professional) is adequately addressing the brain-injury issue. The medical evidence is mounting that mere protocols or technological fixes (better helmuts) are entirely inadequate to significantly reduce the risks of long-term impairment and early death. I believe the only choice will be to radically transform the sport or ban it. Yeah, that's all fine. But it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court gets involved to that degree. And banning football is even less likely. I'm speaking of a fairly narrow decision - disallowing reverse-discrimination in college sports. I think that is more likely than you think, especially with an increasingly conservative court (something I'm not in favor of). |
|
