Get the Feed
|
B E A R I N G S
Glory Days In the Final Four that concluded Monday in Atlanta, the Maryland Terrapins showcased the flashy state of men’s college basketball. Compare that to the Final Four that concluded Sunday in San Antonio, where basketball with a retro look graced the hardwood court (or was it some synthetic composite?) for the first time in years. Those who watched the University of Connecticut women glide through their undefeated season and the NCAA Championship were treated to a brand of basketball emphasizing team play and sharp cuts and passes, and to a group of women who play with great intensity and joy. As I watched UConn dissect their opponents over the past few weeks, I was amazed by the precision passing and astounded by the resurrection of the bounce pass. I thought maybe it was just me, that maybe I was out of touch with the women’s game. Then Friday night I heard Nancy Lieberman commenting on the large number of bounce passes as well. For those who have not been paying attention to the changing landscape of women’s basketball — and the overall changes in women’s sport over the past 30 years since the passage of Title IX — the quality of the game will seem extraordinary. For those who have been keeping up, it seems a natural development, the result of hard work and dedication by many and the transformation of sport from something "boys" played into something enjoyed by all. The one major problem at this point is the lack of competitive balance: There simply aren’t enough good teams out there to produce the kind of excitement generated by highly competitive games. That will change with the continued development of high school sports. As someone who has paid some attention, it?s wonderful to see that participation in sport is now an accepted norm for girls and women, a development that parallels the general acceptance of the notion of competitiveness. I would suggest that this change is also part of a more relaxed set of attitudes in American life concerning sexuality. This attitudinal shift has diffused the tension over lesbianism in women’s sport although it has not totally removed it. For many men, unfortunately, lesbianism remains an issue. The success of women’s sport, and particularly intercollegiate basketball, brings with it other issues stemming from the corrupting effects of success and money. It is clear that big time basketball leads to competitive recruiting (including pressures to cut corners and standards), the influence of boosters as an independent force, and the appearance of an egomaniacal coaching community that will become a force larger than their universities. In other words, all those things that have produced problems in the men’s game are about to gain equal footing. Another issue that I have been watching for several years — and one that has received a good deal of press the past few weeks — is the nature of the coaching profession in women’s sport. In the early days, when coaching was neither popular nor lucrative, few men ventured into the women’s game. Once the money changed, so, too, did the numbers of male coaches. In 1977, women held 79 percent of the NCAA coaching positions in women’s basketball. Today that is down to 62 percent. In all NCAA sports, it is at 44 percent and declining — despite the fact that the pool of women’s coaches drawn from former players has sharply increased. Why this has happened seems relatively easy to explain in terms of established trends in the society. Historically, when jobs become more financially attractive they attract more white men. Those who previously occupied these positions — be they black men, black women or white women — are pushed to the margins. One need only look at such fields as education or the skilled trades to track this sort of thing over the past two centuries. Change may be coming in both power relations and attitudes. In the past few days, male coaches have complained to the media that they are being edged out of coaching positions and are unable to compete with women for openings in women’s sport. White men are losing the power to reserve positions for themselves, although they have been able to keep women out of coaching positions in men’s sport. Only 2 percent of all men’s teams have women coaches. Finally, as sponsorship, money and media coverage continue to increase, women’s intercollegiate athletics will continue to look more and more like the men’s spectacle — and that?s not necessarily a positive development. The women’s Final Four schools have a 66 percent graduation rate in basketball, while the men’s Final Four schools have a combined graduation rate of 32 percent. As the women’s game grows, there will be less discrepancy between these numbers, and probably not because of improvements on the men’s side. It should be remembered that the number of viewers is not what makes the game. Money is power and power corrupts, and neither money nor power (nor television ratings) is essential to sport. Bounce passes, however, are. Enter the Pop Forum Richard C. Crepeau is a professor of history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando Related Sites |
