Bryn Mawr senior Stephanie Wujcik (Mount Laurel, NJ / Lenape) was quoted recently in Athletic Management magazine about competing in Division III: the pros and cons, what changes she would like to see, and whether the division should split in two.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wujcik Speaks Out
Bryn Mawr senior Stephanie Wujcik (Mount Laurel, NJ / Lenape) was quoted recently in Athletic Management magazine about competing in Division III: the pros and cons, what changes she would like to see, and whether the division should split in two.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Haverford's Hinchcliff Featured in Chronicle of Higher Education
Haverford senior volleyball setter Emily Hinchcliff (Ithaca, NY / Ithaca) is one of the featured students in the August 17, 2007 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education article, "What Good is Undergraduate Research, Anyway"? Over the summer, the The Chronicle spoke with 30 undergraduates doing research at Haverford and the University of Pennsylvania for firsthand accounts of their experiences. Hinchcliff, a second-team All-Centennial setter in 2006, does immunology research in the laboratory of Dr. Jennifer A. Punt, professor of biology at Haverford.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
National SAAC Says Text Messaging Has No Place in Recruiting
The NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supported the Centennial Conference's proposal that would eliminate informal methods of communication between coaches and prospective student-athletes at its July 19-22 meeting.
While the SAAC was concerned about the costs incurred by prospective student-athletes related to text messaging, the committee also believes the use text messaging, instant messaging and social networking sites are invasive forms of recruiting.
“It’s impersonal and intrusive,” said committee Chair Sameer Khan, a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. “With the traditional form of recruiting, prospects weren’t bothered at all hours of the day. Text messaging makes them accessible all the time and we don’t agree with that philosophy.”
The committee also asserted that Division III shouldn’t be in the habit of recruiting in such an informal manner — institutions of higher education should be held to a higher communication standard.
Read more in the NCAA News
While the SAAC was concerned about the costs incurred by prospective student-athletes related to text messaging, the committee also believes the use text messaging, instant messaging and social networking sites are invasive forms of recruiting.
“It’s impersonal and intrusive,” said committee Chair Sameer Khan, a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. “With the traditional form of recruiting, prospects weren’t bothered at all hours of the day. Text messaging makes them accessible all the time and we don’t agree with that philosophy.”
The committee also asserted that Division III shouldn’t be in the habit of recruiting in such an informal manner — institutions of higher education should be held to a higher communication standard.
Read more in the NCAA News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Results of NCAA Male Practice Player Survey
Results of male practice players survey released
April 17, 2007
After more than two years of debate — both inside and outside the governance structure — about whether to limit or even eliminate the use of male practice players in women’s sports, the NCAA has collected data from athletics administrators and coaches in all three divisions to better assess both the extent to which male practice players are used and the effect they have on participation opportunities for female student-athletes.
Survey results show widespread use of male practice players in all three divisions — most prominently in women’s basketball and to a lesser degree in volleyball and soccer — and most respondents said male practice players don’t change how the non-starting members of a team are used in practice and don’t affect the number of grants-in-aid schools award to female student-athletes.
Specifically, survey results show:
• Two-thirds of all Division I institutions reported using male practice players in at least one women’s sport in 2005-06. Two-thirds of Division I women’s basketball teams also reported use, about one-third of which said they used male practice players almost every day.
• About 35 percent of Division II schools and 40 percent of Division III institutions reported using male practice players as well.
• About two-thirds of Division I women’s basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only two schools (one each in Divisions I and II) said they recruited fewer female players or provided fewer scholarships because of using male practice players.
• More basketball teams use male practice players in the championship segment than do volleyball and soccer teams, which concentrate use more in the nonchampionship portions of the playing and practice season.
The intent of the survey was to gain a more realistic assessment of the types of use on campus rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. Only Division III included philosophical questions about eliminating or limiting the practice, since that division is the only one to have considered legislative modifications so far. Division III delegates at the January Convention considered and subsequently deferred a proposal from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit the use of male practice players to once per week during the traditional season and to no more than half the number of players required to field a starting team.
When asked about eliminating the practice, about one-fourth of the Division III membership indicated support. However, more than 90 percent of the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 opposed a ban, and even of those schools that did not use male practice players in 2005-06, almost two-thirds said they would not want the practice eliminated.
The Division III survey did reveal interest in limitations, though, as about half overall indicated support for limiting both the frequency of use and the number of players that can be used. Even half the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 agreed with that approach.
Governance vetting
The Divisions II and III Management Councils reviewed the survey results during meetings April 16-17 in Indianapolis. The Division I Management Council, which also met April 16, has asked its Championships/Competition Cabinet to study the results and make recommendations. A subcommittee of that group was briefed on the matter during an April 19 conference call. The full cabinet expects to review the issue at its next meeting in June.
NCAA Senior Vice President for Championships Joni Comstock said the comprehensive review was appropriate, given the number of years the practice has gone relatively unregulated. The Division I survey indicated schools have been using male practice players for an average of about seven years, and fewer than 16 percent of schools that used male practice players said they had formal policies governing their use.
“The use of male practice players has gone on for many years without formal review, and it is time to consider if the practice is in the best interests of women student-athletes,” Comstock said.
With usage numbers now in hand, both the Division II and III Councils agreed to seek more feedback from their respective governance structures and coaches associations on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations. It remains to be seen whether that solicitation will lead to proposed legislation for the 2008 Convention.
Survey response rates were high in all three divisions, highlighted by the 95.4 percent response in Division I. Divisions II and III earned response rates of 86.8 percent and 77.1 percent, respectively.
“The response indicates that people have become engaged in the issue, which is a positive outcome,” said Carolyn Femovich, executive director of the Patriot League and chair of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. “The survey is intended to get people talking at the campus level about the pros and cons and the management of the issue. That clearly has been accomplished. If you don’t ask the question, you don’t know what’s actually happening on campus and why coaches believe it may or may not be an important issue.”
The issue of male practice players emerged in October 2004 when the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics, in accordance with its mission of protecting and enhancing female student-athlete participation opportunities, began questioning whether the use of male practice players reduced opportunities for women athletes. The committee urged a three-pronged review to determine whether the practice was widespread, whether the membership was adequately educated about male practice player eligibility requirements, and whether legislative modifications were necessary.
Though several constituencies have been outspoken on the issue since then — including the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association, which said it would oppose elimination of the practice — the NCAA did not take a position on the issue until research could inform a decision through the governance structure. The recently conducted survey represents the best opportunity for the NCAA membership to take that approach.
“With an issue of this nature, it is imperative to have a process in place that allows the issue to be well vetted in the membership,” Femovich said. “We now have the research necessary to inform those discussions.”
Survey highlights
Division I
• Of the 312 schools responding, 205 (65.7 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (61.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (16.4 percent) and soccer (10.3 percent).
• Usage was more frequent in basketball, as 20 teams reported daily use and 47 others reported using male practice players four to six times per week. In volleyball and soccer, most teams reported occasional use (one to three times per week or just a few times per month).
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the squad size and the number of male practice players.
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the number of grants-in-aid awarded and the number of male practice players.
• About two-thirds of women’s basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
Division II
• Of the 257 schools responding, 89 (34.6 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (24.8 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (10.4 percent) and soccer (6.8 percent).
• Frequency of use was reported primarily as occasional (one to three times per week or just a few times per month) in basketball and volleyball.
• About 75 percent of respondents reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only one institution reported an impact on financial aid decisions.
Division III
• Of the 337 schools responding, 136 (40.4 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (26.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (12.4 percent) and soccer (6.6 percent).
• Almost all respondents reported frequency of use as one to three times per week or just a few times per month.
• For the most part, the role of non-starting team members went unchanged when male practice players were used; however, there was a slight increase when compared to the starters in the number of instances of being relegated to the bench or implementing the visiting team’s offense.
April 17, 2007
After more than two years of debate — both inside and outside the governance structure — about whether to limit or even eliminate the use of male practice players in women’s sports, the NCAA has collected data from athletics administrators and coaches in all three divisions to better assess both the extent to which male practice players are used and the effect they have on participation opportunities for female student-athletes.
Survey results show widespread use of male practice players in all three divisions — most prominently in women’s basketball and to a lesser degree in volleyball and soccer — and most respondents said male practice players don’t change how the non-starting members of a team are used in practice and don’t affect the number of grants-in-aid schools award to female student-athletes.
Specifically, survey results show:
• Two-thirds of all Division I institutions reported using male practice players in at least one women’s sport in 2005-06. Two-thirds of Division I women’s basketball teams also reported use, about one-third of which said they used male practice players almost every day.
• About 35 percent of Division II schools and 40 percent of Division III institutions reported using male practice players as well.
• About two-thirds of Division I women’s basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only two schools (one each in Divisions I and II) said they recruited fewer female players or provided fewer scholarships because of using male practice players.
• More basketball teams use male practice players in the championship segment than do volleyball and soccer teams, which concentrate use more in the nonchampionship portions of the playing and practice season.
The intent of the survey was to gain a more realistic assessment of the types of use on campus rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. Only Division III included philosophical questions about eliminating or limiting the practice, since that division is the only one to have considered legislative modifications so far. Division III delegates at the January Convention considered and subsequently deferred a proposal from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit the use of male practice players to once per week during the traditional season and to no more than half the number of players required to field a starting team.
When asked about eliminating the practice, about one-fourth of the Division III membership indicated support. However, more than 90 percent of the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 opposed a ban, and even of those schools that did not use male practice players in 2005-06, almost two-thirds said they would not want the practice eliminated.
The Division III survey did reveal interest in limitations, though, as about half overall indicated support for limiting both the frequency of use and the number of players that can be used. Even half the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 agreed with that approach.
Governance vetting
The Divisions II and III Management Councils reviewed the survey results during meetings April 16-17 in Indianapolis. The Division I Management Council, which also met April 16, has asked its Championships/Competition Cabinet to study the results and make recommendations. A subcommittee of that group was briefed on the matter during an April 19 conference call. The full cabinet expects to review the issue at its next meeting in June.
NCAA Senior Vice President for Championships Joni Comstock said the comprehensive review was appropriate, given the number of years the practice has gone relatively unregulated. The Division I survey indicated schools have been using male practice players for an average of about seven years, and fewer than 16 percent of schools that used male practice players said they had formal policies governing their use.
“The use of male practice players has gone on for many years without formal review, and it is time to consider if the practice is in the best interests of women student-athletes,” Comstock said.
With usage numbers now in hand, both the Division II and III Councils agreed to seek more feedback from their respective governance structures and coaches associations on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations. It remains to be seen whether that solicitation will lead to proposed legislation for the 2008 Convention.
Survey response rates were high in all three divisions, highlighted by the 95.4 percent response in Division I. Divisions II and III earned response rates of 86.8 percent and 77.1 percent, respectively.
“The response indicates that people have become engaged in the issue, which is a positive outcome,” said Carolyn Femovich, executive director of the Patriot League and chair of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. “The survey is intended to get people talking at the campus level about the pros and cons and the management of the issue. That clearly has been accomplished. If you don’t ask the question, you don’t know what’s actually happening on campus and why coaches believe it may or may not be an important issue.”
The issue of male practice players emerged in October 2004 when the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics, in accordance with its mission of protecting and enhancing female student-athlete participation opportunities, began questioning whether the use of male practice players reduced opportunities for women athletes. The committee urged a three-pronged review to determine whether the practice was widespread, whether the membership was adequately educated about male practice player eligibility requirements, and whether legislative modifications were necessary.
Though several constituencies have been outspoken on the issue since then — including the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association, which said it would oppose elimination of the practice — the NCAA did not take a position on the issue until research could inform a decision through the governance structure. The recently conducted survey represents the best opportunity for the NCAA membership to take that approach.
“With an issue of this nature, it is imperative to have a process in place that allows the issue to be well vetted in the membership,” Femovich said. “We now have the research necessary to inform those discussions.”
Survey highlights
Division I
• Of the 312 schools responding, 205 (65.7 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (61.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (16.4 percent) and soccer (10.3 percent).
• Usage was more frequent in basketball, as 20 teams reported daily use and 47 others reported using male practice players four to six times per week. In volleyball and soccer, most teams reported occasional use (one to three times per week or just a few times per month).
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the squad size and the number of male practice players.
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the number of grants-in-aid awarded and the number of male practice players.
• About two-thirds of women’s basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
Division II
• Of the 257 schools responding, 89 (34.6 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (24.8 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (10.4 percent) and soccer (6.8 percent).
• Frequency of use was reported primarily as occasional (one to three times per week or just a few times per month) in basketball and volleyball.
• About 75 percent of respondents reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only one institution reported an impact on financial aid decisions.
Division III
• Of the 337 schools responding, 136 (40.4 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (26.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (12.4 percent) and soccer (6.6 percent).
• Almost all respondents reported frequency of use as one to three times per week or just a few times per month.
• For the most part, the role of non-starting team members went unchanged when male practice players were used; however, there was a slight increase when compared to the starters in the number of instances of being relegated to the bench or implementing the visiting team’s offense.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Division III a Good Place to Be
By Mike DiMauro, New London Day
Published on 1/24/2007 in Sports » Sports Columns
We've all seen it, the public service announcement that airs frequently during the NCAA Tournament. It's the NCAA's little reminder that as you watch this billion dollar production, we must remember that “there are more than 380,000 student-athletes at more than 1,000 member colleges and universities and most will go pro in something other than sports.”
Two things that must be established before we proceed:
• Yes, the NCAA comes off somewhere between pigheaded (no football playoff system) and detestable (allowing TV to start tournament games after 10 p.m.) in most cases. But the bit about how most student-athletes use sports as a means to a better education is no less true.
• Yes, there's an inherent allure to Division I sports, especially the ones we watch on television.
But last week, our corner of the world provided a perfect illustration about the competitiveness and the meaning of college athletics at lower levels, every bit as important to the participants as the big time is to the big timers.
There was a college basketball game at Coast Guard last Monday, Coast Guard and Connecticut College. Conn has this forward named Charles Stone, who is as good as anyone else who has ever played at Conn, members of Glen Miller's tournament teams included. Coast Guard has this little guard named Al Sowers, who looks better suited to perhaps write for the yearbook than knife through opposing defenses.
The quality of play wasn't surprising to anyone familiar with Division III basketball. But I had this thought roll through the old noggin repeatedly:
Do you know how many parents of basketball players in the Eastern Connecticut Conference think their kid is too good for Division III?
Do you know how many players around here could have honestly competed in that game?
You wouldn't need all your fingers to count them.
There was a college basketball game in Milton, Mass., last Thursday, Wentworth and Gordon. Wentworth has a pair of Fitch grads, Gil Ward and Todd Doyle, who are part of quite an impressive reclamation project. From 4-21 two years ago, Wentworth has a chance to win its regular season conference title. The Leopards hadn't beaten Gordon since what felt like the year the American League went to the designated hitter.
They finally did. It was 76-63 in an entertaining one hour, 40 minutes, not ruined by TV timeouts, intrusive background noise and cheerleaders wearing less than beach patrons.
The quality of play wasn't surprising to those of us familiar with Division III basketball. But I had this thought roll through the old noggin repeatedly:
Do you know how many parents of basketball players in the Eastern Connecticut Conference think their kid is too good for Division III?
Do you know how many players around here could have honestly competed in that game?
You wouldn't need all your fingers to count them.
Doyle and Ward, like Sowers and Stone, couldn't be happier where they are. They are playing the most competitive basketball of their lives. They all have the same dream at the moment: get hot, win the conference title and make the NCAA Tournament.
Just ask anyone on the Conn teams of the late 90s with Miller and Kevin Jaskiewicz coaching them. The best atmosphere in the history of New London sports came at Luce Field House in those days when 1,200 students painted their faces and roared and howled and chanted, just the way you see it on television.
Here's the best part: Doyle, Ward, Stone and Sowers will earn college degrees that will get them virtually any jobs they want, except playing for the Celtics. They are the NCAA commercial, among the 380,000 who will go pro in something other than sports.
This is not intended to be one of those “you don't know what you're missing” laments about why crowds for local sporting events aren't as big as they used to be. This is merely a message for all Division III athletes and especially their parents, that there is ample nobility and significance to the games.
Just because you can't see them on television doesn't mean they mean less. They still count.
This is the opinion of Day assistant sports editor Mike DiMauro. He may be reached at m.dimauro@theday.com or 701-4391.
Published on 1/24/2007 in Sports » Sports Columns
We've all seen it, the public service announcement that airs frequently during the NCAA Tournament. It's the NCAA's little reminder that as you watch this billion dollar production, we must remember that “there are more than 380,000 student-athletes at more than 1,000 member colleges and universities and most will go pro in something other than sports.”
Two things that must be established before we proceed:
• Yes, the NCAA comes off somewhere between pigheaded (no football playoff system) and detestable (allowing TV to start tournament games after 10 p.m.) in most cases. But the bit about how most student-athletes use sports as a means to a better education is no less true.
• Yes, there's an inherent allure to Division I sports, especially the ones we watch on television.
But last week, our corner of the world provided a perfect illustration about the competitiveness and the meaning of college athletics at lower levels, every bit as important to the participants as the big time is to the big timers.
There was a college basketball game at Coast Guard last Monday, Coast Guard and Connecticut College. Conn has this forward named Charles Stone, who is as good as anyone else who has ever played at Conn, members of Glen Miller's tournament teams included. Coast Guard has this little guard named Al Sowers, who looks better suited to perhaps write for the yearbook than knife through opposing defenses.
The quality of play wasn't surprising to anyone familiar with Division III basketball. But I had this thought roll through the old noggin repeatedly:
Do you know how many parents of basketball players in the Eastern Connecticut Conference think their kid is too good for Division III?
Do you know how many players around here could have honestly competed in that game?
You wouldn't need all your fingers to count them.
There was a college basketball game in Milton, Mass., last Thursday, Wentworth and Gordon. Wentworth has a pair of Fitch grads, Gil Ward and Todd Doyle, who are part of quite an impressive reclamation project. From 4-21 two years ago, Wentworth has a chance to win its regular season conference title. The Leopards hadn't beaten Gordon since what felt like the year the American League went to the designated hitter.
They finally did. It was 76-63 in an entertaining one hour, 40 minutes, not ruined by TV timeouts, intrusive background noise and cheerleaders wearing less than beach patrons.
The quality of play wasn't surprising to those of us familiar with Division III basketball. But I had this thought roll through the old noggin repeatedly:
Do you know how many parents of basketball players in the Eastern Connecticut Conference think their kid is too good for Division III?
Do you know how many players around here could have honestly competed in that game?
You wouldn't need all your fingers to count them.
Doyle and Ward, like Sowers and Stone, couldn't be happier where they are. They are playing the most competitive basketball of their lives. They all have the same dream at the moment: get hot, win the conference title and make the NCAA Tournament.
Just ask anyone on the Conn teams of the late 90s with Miller and Kevin Jaskiewicz coaching them. The best atmosphere in the history of New London sports came at Luce Field House in those days when 1,200 students painted their faces and roared and howled and chanted, just the way you see it on television.
Here's the best part: Doyle, Ward, Stone and Sowers will earn college degrees that will get them virtually any jobs they want, except playing for the Celtics. They are the NCAA commercial, among the 380,000 who will go pro in something other than sports.
This is not intended to be one of those “you don't know what you're missing” laments about why crowds for local sporting events aren't as big as they used to be. This is merely a message for all Division III athletes and especially their parents, that there is ample nobility and significance to the games.
Just because you can't see them on television doesn't mean they mean less. They still count.
This is the opinion of Day assistant sports editor Mike DiMauro. He may be reached at m.dimauro@theday.com or 701-4391.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
2007 NCAA Convention Recap
Here is a quick recap of the 2007 NCAA Convention, courtesy of the Chronicle of Higher Education. I will provide a more detailed review of our four days in Orlando in the next few days.
Steve Ulrich
Executive Director, Centennial Conference
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Controversial Division III Proposals Could Be Harbinger For Changes At All 3 NCAA Levels
By BRAD WOLVERTON
Orlando, Fla. -- Two of the biggest stories in college sports in the past year happened at universities that normally do not attract the attention that major-college programs do. During last season's NCAA men's college-basketball tournament, George Mason University made an improbable run to the Final Four. Earlier this month, Boise State University upset the University of Oklahoma, a perennial football powerhouse, in a Bowl Championship Series game.
Perhaps it was fitting, then, that on Monday, the last day of the NCAA Convention here, Division III colleges and universities -- the true little guys of college sports -- took center stage.
Division III members debated two controversial measures: one to cap membership, the other to limit the use of male practice players in women's sports.
Members voted to table both proposals, but each measure appears to have legs, both at the Division III level and beyond. Members of Division I and II are also discussing growth issues and whether women's teams should limit the use of male practice players.
In other action on Monday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association voted to:
• Adopt the final "historical" penalties for teams that repeatedly underperform academically. Those penalties will include practice limitations and a ban on postseason play. NCAA officials estimate that, in the spring of 2008, as many as 6 percent of programs -- including up to 20 percent of men's basketball teams -- could lose scholarships under other penalties that are already in place. Last year, just 2 percent of teams lost scholarships.
• Allow Canadian colleges and universities to be considered for NCAA membership. Two Canadian universities have inquired about joining the NCAA.
The Division III proposal to cap membership, introduced by members of the North Coast Athletic Conference, was withdrawn by conference members on Monday, in part to allow a new NCAA working group, made up of individuals from all three NCAA levels, to explore the possibility of creating a fourth NCAA division or a Division III subdivision.
The NCAA has not changed its membership structure since 1973. Many athletics officials believe the association needs to add another division to create more competitive equity across college sports.
"Division III is too large: too unwieldy to be effective, too big to be fair," Douglas C. Bennett, president of Earlham College and a North Coast conference member, told more than 400 fellow Division III members during a legislative session on Monday. He pointed out that because of the division's size, too few teams have access to postseason opportunities, and said "persistent, irresolvable disagreements about philosophy" have proven that the division has too many different kinds of institutions under one umbrella.
A change to the NCAA's structure would most likely have implications for all three divisions, Dan Dutcher, the NCAA's vice president for Division III, said in an interview on Monday.
Among the chief concerns: how to pay for a new membership level. Athletics officials are considering several ways -- raising dues for all NCAA institutions, increasing dues only for those colleges and universities that join a new division, and reallocating revenue from the existing associationwide budget.
Practice-Player Limits
Division III is the only level to have considered formal legislation limiting the use of male practice players on women's teams, but members of all three divisions have discussed the topic in the past year.
On Monday, Division III members recommended further review of the issue, and 15 minutes of lively debate suggested there is a wide spectrum of opinions on the subject.
Jennifer Warmack-Chipman, an assistant director of athletics at Muhlenberg College and a member of the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics, told attendees that the committee opposes the use of male practice players, a strategy many women's programs use to improve the skills of top female players. (Teams often bring in men who played in high school who are bigger and faster than second-string women's players.)
The committee believes that the approach impedes female participation, Ms. Warmack-Chipman said, and "reinforces the implied notion of male pre-eminence."
She urged members to ban the practice, saying, "Any action that threatens the quality of participation opportunities for women is a large step backwards."
Many athletes supported the measure, which would restrict teams to using a limited number of male practice players for no more than one practice a week in their traditional season.
"This is not only an equity issue," said Doug Tima, a senior who plays football at Otterbein College and is vice chair of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. "But we have to ask, Are we doing this for the rights of student-athletes or for competitive advantage?"
Several people, however, supported the continued use of male practice players. Timothy Shea, athletics director at Salem State College, said he was against any institutional limits.
"We oppose any intrusion into the coach's classroom," he said. If members passed this legislation, he said, "how long before we mandate playing time?"
Representatives from all three divisions plan to continue reviewing the issue in coming months.
Steve Ulrich
Executive Director, Centennial Conference
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Controversial Division III Proposals Could Be Harbinger For Changes At All 3 NCAA Levels
By BRAD WOLVERTON
Orlando, Fla. -- Two of the biggest stories in college sports in the past year happened at universities that normally do not attract the attention that major-college programs do. During last season's NCAA men's college-basketball tournament, George Mason University made an improbable run to the Final Four. Earlier this month, Boise State University upset the University of Oklahoma, a perennial football powerhouse, in a Bowl Championship Series game.
Perhaps it was fitting, then, that on Monday, the last day of the NCAA Convention here, Division III colleges and universities -- the true little guys of college sports -- took center stage.
Division III members debated two controversial measures: one to cap membership, the other to limit the use of male practice players in women's sports.
Members voted to table both proposals, but each measure appears to have legs, both at the Division III level and beyond. Members of Division I and II are also discussing growth issues and whether women's teams should limit the use of male practice players.
In other action on Monday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association voted to:
• Adopt the final "historical" penalties for teams that repeatedly underperform academically. Those penalties will include practice limitations and a ban on postseason play. NCAA officials estimate that, in the spring of 2008, as many as 6 percent of programs -- including up to 20 percent of men's basketball teams -- could lose scholarships under other penalties that are already in place. Last year, just 2 percent of teams lost scholarships.
• Allow Canadian colleges and universities to be considered for NCAA membership. Two Canadian universities have inquired about joining the NCAA.
The Division III proposal to cap membership, introduced by members of the North Coast Athletic Conference, was withdrawn by conference members on Monday, in part to allow a new NCAA working group, made up of individuals from all three NCAA levels, to explore the possibility of creating a fourth NCAA division or a Division III subdivision.
The NCAA has not changed its membership structure since 1973. Many athletics officials believe the association needs to add another division to create more competitive equity across college sports.
"Division III is too large: too unwieldy to be effective, too big to be fair," Douglas C. Bennett, president of Earlham College and a North Coast conference member, told more than 400 fellow Division III members during a legislative session on Monday. He pointed out that because of the division's size, too few teams have access to postseason opportunities, and said "persistent, irresolvable disagreements about philosophy" have proven that the division has too many different kinds of institutions under one umbrella.
A change to the NCAA's structure would most likely have implications for all three divisions, Dan Dutcher, the NCAA's vice president for Division III, said in an interview on Monday.
Among the chief concerns: how to pay for a new membership level. Athletics officials are considering several ways -- raising dues for all NCAA institutions, increasing dues only for those colleges and universities that join a new division, and reallocating revenue from the existing associationwide budget.
Practice-Player Limits
Division III is the only level to have considered formal legislation limiting the use of male practice players on women's teams, but members of all three divisions have discussed the topic in the past year.
On Monday, Division III members recommended further review of the issue, and 15 minutes of lively debate suggested there is a wide spectrum of opinions on the subject.
Jennifer Warmack-Chipman, an assistant director of athletics at Muhlenberg College and a member of the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics, told attendees that the committee opposes the use of male practice players, a strategy many women's programs use to improve the skills of top female players. (Teams often bring in men who played in high school who are bigger and faster than second-string women's players.)
The committee believes that the approach impedes female participation, Ms. Warmack-Chipman said, and "reinforces the implied notion of male pre-eminence."
She urged members to ban the practice, saying, "Any action that threatens the quality of participation opportunities for women is a large step backwards."
Many athletes supported the measure, which would restrict teams to using a limited number of male practice players for no more than one practice a week in their traditional season.
"This is not only an equity issue," said Doug Tima, a senior who plays football at Otterbein College and is vice chair of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. "But we have to ask, Are we doing this for the rights of student-athletes or for competitive advantage?"
Several people, however, supported the continued use of male practice players. Timothy Shea, athletics director at Salem State College, said he was against any institutional limits.
"We oppose any intrusion into the coach's classroom," he said. If members passed this legislation, he said, "how long before we mandate playing time?"
Representatives from all three divisions plan to continue reviewing the issue in coming months.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Male Practice Players in Women's Sports
from the NCAA News, November 6, 2006
Better. Faster. Stronger. In athletics, we constantly try to attain these goals. Athletes spend hours in the weight room and on the track to improve their strength and speed. They stay after practice and work on their shots. Coaches scour video looking for weaknesses to exploit. All in the name of better, faster, stronger.
But sometimes our vision becomes clouded by looking only at the benefits and failing to recognize whether the end justifies the means. When it comes to the use of male practice players in NCAA women’s athletics, for example, nobody seems to have a concrete answer. Even those who support their use are beginning to wonder about the ethics behind the practice. We love the payoff, but the cost might be too much.
The main issue at hand is whether the use of male practice players takes away opportunities from female athletes who are sitting idle at their expense. True, the female athletes who are opposite the male practice players in drills enjoy being pushed to the limits of their athletic abilities, and they love the edge it provides them in the game. But is that enough? These athletes usually are the starters on a squad. Do we sacrifice the growth of a team’s depth to push its elite? Is that really what the NCAA stands for these days?
It’s a tough question and even the student-athletes can’t figure out exactly how to best serve the interests of female players. Just like coaches, we want to rack up the wins and we’re dedicated to doing what it takes to get results. At the same time, most of the membership is made up of the non-elite, as are many squads. In women’s basketball, there are five starters and 15 available scholarships. In a fully funded program, the potential is there to deny almost two-thirds of the athletes on a roster the opportunity to earn playing time by improving in practice. That opportunity is what we are here for and it’s what gives the NCAA lasting power in the college arena.
Playing an NCAA sport can be compared to living the American Dream. Every 5-year-old wants to play for their favorite college team, but not that many actually will get there. For those of us who do make it, challenges often await. Injuries, attitude, prejudice — so many things can hold an athlete back, but male practice players shouldn’t be among them.
So how do we deal with that conundrum? The growing consensus is not simply to ban the use of male practice players in NCAA women’s athletics. Coaches and student-athletes agree that these young men are performing a valuable service for women’s athletics and that their use is pushing competitive levels to never-before-seen heights — and we don’t want to give that up. However, there also is a growing recognition that lines need to be drawn.
The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee proposed limiting the use of male practice players in a way that allows teams to gain from their strengths and also gives its competing female athletes the opportunities they are seeking in college athletics. Judging from the discussions and feedback coming from the various cabinets, those limitations seem to be settling into a two-pronged set of standards involving both the number of hours that male practice players log during a practice week and the number of players used compared to the starting squad size. (The Division III membership will consider a similar set of standards proposed by the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee at the 2007 NCAA Convention.)
As the stakes get higher and the level of competition rises in women’s athletics — and as the need for that edge over an opponent intensifies — the room for exploitation grows as well. The most responsible thing that membership can do at this point is to be active and draw a line before it can be crossed. That mind-set puts the well-being of student-athletes ahead of victory — which is exactly where it should always be.
Better. Faster. Stronger. The female athletes of the NCAA are all of these things and continue to break through barriers with zeal. Let’s just make sure that as an organization, the NCAA continues to be in the business of removing barriers to opportunity, not keeping them in place.
Beth Waggoner played volleyball at Winthrop University and is a member of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
Better. Faster. Stronger. In athletics, we constantly try to attain these goals. Athletes spend hours in the weight room and on the track to improve their strength and speed. They stay after practice and work on their shots. Coaches scour video looking for weaknesses to exploit. All in the name of better, faster, stronger.
But sometimes our vision becomes clouded by looking only at the benefits and failing to recognize whether the end justifies the means. When it comes to the use of male practice players in NCAA women’s athletics, for example, nobody seems to have a concrete answer. Even those who support their use are beginning to wonder about the ethics behind the practice. We love the payoff, but the cost might be too much.
The main issue at hand is whether the use of male practice players takes away opportunities from female athletes who are sitting idle at their expense. True, the female athletes who are opposite the male practice players in drills enjoy being pushed to the limits of their athletic abilities, and they love the edge it provides them in the game. But is that enough? These athletes usually are the starters on a squad. Do we sacrifice the growth of a team’s depth to push its elite? Is that really what the NCAA stands for these days?
It’s a tough question and even the student-athletes can’t figure out exactly how to best serve the interests of female players. Just like coaches, we want to rack up the wins and we’re dedicated to doing what it takes to get results. At the same time, most of the membership is made up of the non-elite, as are many squads. In women’s basketball, there are five starters and 15 available scholarships. In a fully funded program, the potential is there to deny almost two-thirds of the athletes on a roster the opportunity to earn playing time by improving in practice. That opportunity is what we are here for and it’s what gives the NCAA lasting power in the college arena.
Playing an NCAA sport can be compared to living the American Dream. Every 5-year-old wants to play for their favorite college team, but not that many actually will get there. For those of us who do make it, challenges often await. Injuries, attitude, prejudice — so many things can hold an athlete back, but male practice players shouldn’t be among them.
So how do we deal with that conundrum? The growing consensus is not simply to ban the use of male practice players in NCAA women’s athletics. Coaches and student-athletes agree that these young men are performing a valuable service for women’s athletics and that their use is pushing competitive levels to never-before-seen heights — and we don’t want to give that up. However, there also is a growing recognition that lines need to be drawn.
The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee proposed limiting the use of male practice players in a way that allows teams to gain from their strengths and also gives its competing female athletes the opportunities they are seeking in college athletics. Judging from the discussions and feedback coming from the various cabinets, those limitations seem to be settling into a two-pronged set of standards involving both the number of hours that male practice players log during a practice week and the number of players used compared to the starting squad size. (The Division III membership will consider a similar set of standards proposed by the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee at the 2007 NCAA Convention.)
As the stakes get higher and the level of competition rises in women’s athletics — and as the need for that edge over an opponent intensifies — the room for exploitation grows as well. The most responsible thing that membership can do at this point is to be active and draw a line before it can be crossed. That mind-set puts the well-being of student-athletes ahead of victory — which is exactly where it should always be.
Better. Faster. Stronger. The female athletes of the NCAA are all of these things and continue to break through barriers with zeal. Let’s just make sure that as an organization, the NCAA continues to be in the business of removing barriers to opportunity, not keeping them in place.
Beth Waggoner played volleyball at Winthrop University and is a member of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
New Year Brings Hope for BMC Athletic Association
courtesy of The Bi-Co News
“One person cannot do everything, but every person can do something.” This seems to be the mantra of the Athletic Association this year, which has returned re-energized and re-focused over the summer, led by newly elected president, Stephanie Wujcik ’08.
Wujcik and the Athletic Association Board have clearly done a tremendous amount of work this summer, meditating upon the ever-present dilemma facing Bryn Mawr athletics.
As Wujcik said in her remarks at the first full meeting of the Association last week, the Athletic Association is technically the largest student group on campus, and yet athletics remain underrepresented in Bryn Mawr culture and consciousness.
The Athletic Association has clearly made it their mission this year to remedy this paradox, by making the Athletic Association a more visible and active force on campus.
This is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Luckily, the board has come up with several innovative ideas to achieve this presence.
The first is Wujcik’s proposal of “Gold Games.” In this program, each athletic team is paired with another team on campus that plays in a different season. Each team picks a game that is especially significant and the other team will come out to support their sister team at that event.
The idea is to get all athletes talking to one another, creating a firm athletic kinship, and ensuring that every team feels supported by the larger community.
Read more
“One person cannot do everything, but every person can do something.” This seems to be the mantra of the Athletic Association this year, which has returned re-energized and re-focused over the summer, led by newly elected president, Stephanie Wujcik ’08.
Wujcik and the Athletic Association Board have clearly done a tremendous amount of work this summer, meditating upon the ever-present dilemma facing Bryn Mawr athletics.
As Wujcik said in her remarks at the first full meeting of the Association last week, the Athletic Association is technically the largest student group on campus, and yet athletics remain underrepresented in Bryn Mawr culture and consciousness.
The Athletic Association has clearly made it their mission this year to remedy this paradox, by making the Athletic Association a more visible and active force on campus.
This is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Luckily, the board has come up with several innovative ideas to achieve this presence.
The first is Wujcik’s proposal of “Gold Games.” In this program, each athletic team is paired with another team on campus that plays in a different season. Each team picks a game that is especially significant and the other team will come out to support their sister team at that event.
The idea is to get all athletes talking to one another, creating a firm athletic kinship, and ensuring that every team feels supported by the larger community.
Read more
Thursday, July 20, 2006
National SAAC Discusses Male Practice Players, Online Social Networks
July 19, 2006
The NCAA News
The NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committees met in Dallas July 13-17 to discuss student-athlete issues, including the use of male practice players and the risks involved with posting personal information on online social networks. The committees also participated in a community-service project at the Boys and Girls Club in West Dallas.
During the joint meeting, committee members from all three divisions acknowledged that the use of sites like Facebook has proliferated and become a part of the culture on the majority of college campuses. While many SAAC members acknowledged the risk associated with posting personal information and pictures online, they appreciate the ability to communicate and stay in touch with friends through that medium. The SAACs agreed that all student-athletes need to be aware of the risks.
All three committees also discussed their positions on the use of male practice players in women’s sports. The Division I SAAC does not support eliminating the use of male practice players, but members did agree that the practice should be limited. The committee felt that there should be a limit to the number of times male practice players can be used each week or that they should only be used when a team doesn’t have enough players for a full scrimmage due to injuries.
The Division III committee supported the use of male practice players with similar conditions, and also addressed the question of whether a male practice player should be considered a student-athlete.
A more complete summary of the SAAC meetings will be published in the July 31 NCAA News.
The NCAA News
The NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committees met in Dallas July 13-17 to discuss student-athlete issues, including the use of male practice players and the risks involved with posting personal information on online social networks. The committees also participated in a community-service project at the Boys and Girls Club in West Dallas.
During the joint meeting, committee members from all three divisions acknowledged that the use of sites like Facebook has proliferated and become a part of the culture on the majority of college campuses. While many SAAC members acknowledged the risk associated with posting personal information and pictures online, they appreciate the ability to communicate and stay in touch with friends through that medium. The SAACs agreed that all student-athletes need to be aware of the risks.
All three committees also discussed their positions on the use of male practice players in women’s sports. The Division I SAAC does not support eliminating the use of male practice players, but members did agree that the practice should be limited. The committee felt that there should be a limit to the number of times male practice players can be used each week or that they should only be used when a team doesn’t have enough players for a full scrimmage due to injuries.
The Division III committee supported the use of male practice players with similar conditions, and also addressed the question of whether a male practice player should be considered a student-athlete.
A more complete summary of the SAAC meetings will be published in the July 31 NCAA News.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
McDaniel Hockey Player Studies Influence of Turf
courtesy of McDaniel College
When you’re playing field hockey, like Laura Baggaley does, the team you're playing against matters just as much as what you’re playing on. The Physics major says balls go faster and farther on AstroTurf than they do on grass, and it can affect the outcome of the game.
“I can feel a difference on turf, you’re moving faster and the ball goes faster,” Baggaley says.
For her Physics Capstone project (the culminating experience with a major of a liberal arts education at McDaniel), Baggaley is analyzing grass and turf surfaces in order to calculate the difference between them. She will perform experiments tossing the ball and rolling it over the two surfaces, with the help of a softball machine to control how fast the ball goes and at what angle. Baggaley will analyze the different ground surfaces and take into consideration the forces of friction. Based on velocity and bounce, she’ll estimate how far the ball will go.
“I really wanted to do something with Physics that applied it to my life. Our faculty presents it in a way that’s real life, so we can use it,” says the veteran of four years as a Green Terror field hockey team member. The team finished the 2005 season with an 11-8 record playing on both artificial turf and grass. About two-thirds of the team’s opponents’ fields are made of artificial turf, according to McDaniel field hockey and women’s lacrosse coach Muffie Bliss.
Baggaley’s experiments could add to the heated debate about how the official team sport of Maryland is played.
“In the sports world, it’s a hot topic, especially in field hockey,” Baggaley says. “I wouldn’t be surprised if one or the other was mandated in the coming years.”
Baggaley plans to attend graduate school in the field of medical physics. She wants to work in diagnostic therapy helping plan radiation for cancer patients. And, she also hopes to teach.
When you’re playing field hockey, like Laura Baggaley does, the team you're playing against matters just as much as what you’re playing on. The Physics major says balls go faster and farther on AstroTurf than they do on grass, and it can affect the outcome of the game.
“I can feel a difference on turf, you’re moving faster and the ball goes faster,” Baggaley says.
For her Physics Capstone project (the culminating experience with a major of a liberal arts education at McDaniel), Baggaley is analyzing grass and turf surfaces in order to calculate the difference between them. She will perform experiments tossing the ball and rolling it over the two surfaces, with the help of a softball machine to control how fast the ball goes and at what angle. Baggaley will analyze the different ground surfaces and take into consideration the forces of friction. Based on velocity and bounce, she’ll estimate how far the ball will go.
“I really wanted to do something with Physics that applied it to my life. Our faculty presents it in a way that’s real life, so we can use it,” says the veteran of four years as a Green Terror field hockey team member. The team finished the 2005 season with an 11-8 record playing on both artificial turf and grass. About two-thirds of the team’s opponents’ fields are made of artificial turf, according to McDaniel field hockey and women’s lacrosse coach Muffie Bliss.
Baggaley’s experiments could add to the heated debate about how the official team sport of Maryland is played.
“In the sports world, it’s a hot topic, especially in field hockey,” Baggaley says. “I wouldn’t be surprised if one or the other was mandated in the coming years.”
Baggaley plans to attend graduate school in the field of medical physics. She wants to work in diagnostic therapy helping plan radiation for cancer patients. And, she also hopes to teach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)