The Glass Wall - Women Coaches

[Wbbfan1]

Good REad - Linkogram

While there does seem to be a few schools that would probably not hire a male to coach their women's basketball program, the number of schools that won't is getting smaller.

 

[Vowelguy]

Great read; thanks.


(Though not the thrust of the article, was surprised that Portland St is only the D-I coach who's "out". I thought Tara was?)

 

[LesMis89]

Great read; thanks.


(Though not the thrust of the article, was surprised that Portland St is only the D-I coach who's "out". I thought Tara was?)

Not to hijack the thread but so did I.

Sobering article.

 

[cardfan]

A very good piece. The other side of the coin in Alex's perspective for TX job.

 

[RealHusky]

That was very interesting. Thanks for posting, wbbfan. I was surprised several times while reading it and I think that I will benefit from the perspective it affords.

 

[vtcwbuff]

IIRC Runge was a successful but controversial coach at Oregon. Didn't her players mutiny and ask for her removal? If my memory is correct, she may not have been the best person to cite as an example of a glass ceiling. In her case it may have been her personality and not her gender that's keeping her away from coaching.

 

[Wonkster]

.
Well-researched food for thought.

Interestingly, Geno's not part of the problem. All his assistant coaching slots have been filled by women, so UConn's wcbb staff is well below the average of 55% male coaches overall in NCAA women's college sports.
.

 

[Vowelguy]

IIRC Runge was a successful but controversial coach at Oregon. Didn't her players mutiny and ask for her removal? If my memory is correct, she may not have been the best person to cite as an example of a glass ceiling. In her case it may have been her personality and not her gender that's keeping her away from coaching.

They address that in the article - saying that it was the AD who arranged the meeting, with the intent of drumming up discontent. And that those players support her now.

I don't know if that's correct or not.

 

[Wonkster]

That was very interesting. Thanks for posting, wbbfan. I was surprised several times while reading it and I think that I will benefit from the perspective it affords.

Same here.

The figure that I've seen most commonly referred only to the head coaching position. I remember some Summitt fan did a headcount about 10 years ago, and at that time males filled about 32% of the head coaching positions in Division I wbb. Never saw a figure for the overall coaching staff breakdown by gender, however.
.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Been tracking this for a while -- fwiw, the following was published in the Times March 17th: Number of Women Coaching in College Hockey Dwindling

Slominski’s story is becoming more and more common in women’s hockey. Longtime female coaches say that many qualified candidates, especially those who are mothers or plan to be, leave the profession rather than juggle the demands of coaching and motherhood.
Fewer, they say, are willing to uproot their families to pursue jobs, as men routinely do, or toil for 10 years at modest pay for a chance to be a head coach when so few women are hired. Most Division I assistants make $40,000 to $50,000 a year. The median salary for Division I head coaches is $125,100, according to the 2004-10 N.C.A.A. Gender Equity Report.

 

[alexrgct]

Boy was that a convoluted mess of an article. I'm not even sure where to start.

The article's primary thesis, I guess, is that a) women are basically never considered for men's jobs, whereas b) more and more men are coaching women, and c) this is problematic and unfair and...well actually, I don't know what we're supposed to conclude from that article that anyone is supposed to do about it.

The reality is this: more men like sports in the general population. More men fancy themselves coaches; the article touches on this briefly as far as the lower levels of coaching the sport. Men's jobs are limited and high paying, so many men get into coaching women because that's where the open opportunity is.

In order for women to coach men, it would, in fact, take a very qualified and accomplished female coach to take a gigantic risk. It would be a risk that could cost her her career if she failed, not to mention the career of the hiring AD. A failure would also make other ADs even more gun shy about making such a hire going forward. A men's basketball program is an extremely valuable asset, so the stakes are high when it comes to hiring the right coach. The article scoffs at the notion that only someone as accomplished as Pat Summitt should be considered for a men's job, but given the brand equity and money at stake, that's reality.

And here's another salient point that the article doesn't discuss at all: how many male coaches of women's programs go back to coaching men? Women's sports, as a professional accomplishment, is what's looked down upon, irrespective of who's coaching them.

As far as homophobia goes, it's a reality in many, many parts of the country. Why are athletic directors expected to change this? Their job is to field winning teams and drive revenue. If you live in a socially conservative area, that is going to impact your hiring decisions...or you can fall behind to prove a point. Ultimately, it wasn't social progressivism that integrated sports racially; it was minority athletes kicking ass that did. If a critical mass of gay coaches were successful, I can promise you ADs would have no qualms about hiring them.

The "no second chance" phenomenon may be real, but as it's presented in the article, it's bunk. Comparing Runge's accomplishments to, say, Bobby Knight's, is just silly. Male coaches are able to create a brand for themselves because they coach higher profile sports. They are then abe to take that brand with them if they're fired. Runge was forced into resigning because she didn't play well with others. My mother (RIP) was an ardent feminist and never picked her battles with university administrations (she was a professor). It hurt her professionally in many, many ways. I suspect Runge has the same issue. If she got fired for not winning enough, she may have gotten a second chance elsewhere. But no one likes a trouble-maker, especially one running one of their non-revenue assets.

Such is life- as the saying goes, "Well behaved women rarely make history." They may, however, get to coach a woman's basketball program.

 

[Sakibomb25]

IIRC Runge was a successful but controversial coach at Oregon. Didn't her players mutiny and ask for her removal? If my memory is correct, she may not have been the best person to cite as an example of a glass ceiling. In her case it may have been her personality and not her gender that's keeping her away from coaching.

You read here what really went down between Runge and her players. Many of them were not aware that she was fighting for equality on their behalf. Makes me sad that no one is willing to give her another shot.

Rebel with a Cause

 

[cardfan]

I agree Sakibomb. Hardly a trouble maker. We need more women like her.

Alex, since there aren't any openly gay coaches, only peeceived ones. I think you are overestimating the prejudices and fears (by parents and playes) areas single women coaches. You also can't compare the success rates of coaches based on their sexuality given the gay coaches are in the closet. So your hypothesis that a single coach without kids, is bad for TX, or any program in the south or conservative areas cannot be quantified.

You sure have a lot of excuses why men's programs don't hire women, but none why women's programs should not hire women, including single childless ones.

 

[alexrgct]

I agree Sakibomb. Hardly a trouble maker. We need more women like her.

Alex, since there aren't any openly gay coaches, only peeceived ones. I think you are overestimating the prejudices and fears (by parents and playes) areas single women coaches. You also can't compare the success rates of coaches based on their sexuality given the gay coaches are in the closet. So your hypothesis that a single coach without kids, is bad for TX, or any program in the south or conservative areas cannot be quantified.

You sure have a lot of excuses why men's programs don't hire women, but none why women's programs should not hire women, including single childless ones.

Women's programs should hire the right person for the job, regardless of gender, who is a good cultural fit for the region they will be residing in and recruiting. I understand living in or around Palo Alto for more than 20 years may make it difficult for you to comprehend the level of bias that exists in other regions of the country, but it is nevertheless the case.

There's also a significant difference between an "excuse" and a "reason". I'd suggest I've provided the latter.

 

[cardfan]

First, you don't know anthying about my background, where I grew up, played and coached. Guess what? Many include the midwest, TX and parts of N Ca. Of course, all of them, including Palo Alto, are not immune to discrimination and homophobia.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There are excuses and reasons and multitudes of semi-quantifiable facts that can be used to say why things are as they are. Fact is, in WCBB the first letter stands for something that should represent more than just the players, but rather everybody, head coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, managers, ADs, refs, journalists, Trey Wingo replacements, and all of the people who support a sport. What the best ratio of the genders for WCBB is I have no idea, and the sport can only grow if the best minds from both sexes have access to help out, but clearly the squeeze is on for women. Excuses here just roll the asphalt to hell and Bobby Knight clones (right, they win, and that's everything, except everything that's lost).

It is utter BS to put the onus on women's stronger family commitments or regional based homophobia or some lack of sports genes or some kind of jealous cat-fighting bitchiness for the movement away from women's involvement at the higher level of the sports. The self-serving and not-my-fault arguments that are being palmed off for the situation in women's coaching are the same type that have been used throughout history to justify "that's just the way it is" in all sorts of social miasmas. So, many women feel uncomfortable applying for certain positions or have certain family based constraints? Well, as Florida International did, you can take an extra step and persuade a top women's candidate to jump into the pool, just like any corporation does when they see that the easy pick may not be the best pick. ADs can all pick their excuses for taking the easy way out, but until there is a national concerted effort to provide equitable systems for boosting women coaching women, we will slide easily into the easy way out and hire some team's male manager and Jim-Bob's son-in-law. Plausibly covering your backside should not be an AD's conduit for making asinine choices.

Yeah, there are holes in the article, but when you are dealing with a system that is like torn cheesecloth, that's par for the course. Tennessee may wrap itself in a somewhat weirdly anti-homophobic (considering other related issues on the other site) worship of PHS and the sorority of female coaches, but the Vol society is at least strongly devoted to an ideal of women in the coaching role even if much of the bile over there is spent on PHS's female rivals. Most of us on the BY are far more comfortable with Geno as the godfather to a dynasty of the best and brightest women's coaches in the next generation of WCBB's leaders. Either way, we who follow the sport should keep our eyes on the prize, which is a system that opens and give encouragement for coaching opportunities for the players we cheer for and hopefully have an understanding that they too, if they so choose, have every chance to stand over a group of raw freshmen some day as a veteran head coach and tell them, "You can't guard a rocking chair."

 

[alexrgct]

There are excuses and reasons and multitudes of semi-quantifiable facts that can be used to say why things are as they are. Fact is, in WCBB the first letter stands for something that should represent more than just the players, but rather everybody, head coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, managers, ADs, refs, journalists, Trey Wingo replacements, and all of the people who support a sport. What the best ratio of the genders for WCBB is I have no idea, and the sport can only grow if the best minds from both sexes have access to help out, but clearly the squeeze is on for women. Excuses here just roll the asphalt to hell and Bobby Knight clones (right, they win, and that's everything, except everything that's lost).

It is utter BS to put the onus on women's stronger family commitments or regional based homophobia or some lack of sports genes or some kind of jealous cat-fighting bitchiness for the movement away from women's involvement at the higher level of the sports. The self-serving and not-my-fault arguments that are being palmed off for the situation in women's coaching are the same type that have been used throughout history to justify "that's just the way it is" in all sorts of social miasmas. So, many women feel uncomfortable applying for certain positions or have certain family based constraints? Well, as Florida International did, you can take an extra step and persuade a top women's candidate to jump into the pool, just like any corporation does when they see that the easy pick may not be the best pick. ADs can all pick their excuses for taking the easy way out, but until there is a national concerted effort to provide equitable systems for boosting women coaching women, we will slide easily into the easy way out and hire some team's male manager and Jim-Bob's son-in-law. Plausibly covering your backside should not be an AD's conduit for making asinine choices.

Yeah, there are holes in the article, but when you are dealing with a system that is like torn cheesecloth, that's par for the course. Tennessee may wrap itself in a somewhat weirdly anti-homophobic (considering other related issues on the other site) worship of PHS and the sorority of female coaches, but the Vol society is at least strongly devoted to an ideal of women in the coaching role even if much of the bile over there is spent on PHS's female rivals. Most of us on the BY are far more comfortable with Geno as the godfather to a dynasty of the best and brightest women's coaches in the next generation of WCBB's leaders. Either way, we who follow the sport should keep our eyes on the prize, which is a system that opens and give encouragement for coaching opportunities for the players we cheer for and hopefully have an understanding that they too, if they so choose, have every chance to stand over a group of raw freshmen some day as a veteran head coach and tell them, "You can't guard a rocking chair."

Again, an AD's job is to field winning teams and drive revenue based on the unique strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats of his/her school's situation, not save the planet. And no corporation would say, "Wow we have a bunch of qualified male applicants to run this line of business, but we're going to actively try to hire a woman who hasn't applied yet." I'm not sure where you're getting that "any company" would do as you suggest.

(What was the point of taking a parenthetical jab at Bobby Knight?)

I really couldn't care less about what Tennessee fans enshroud themselves in. I'm just happy when UConn has to hire its next coach, there won't be immense pressure to hire a woman if she's not the best candidatefor the job...like there will be in Knoxville.

When coaching WBB was a labor of love, it was mostly women who did it. As pay increased, men entered the market. The supply of men who aspire to coach exceeds that of women. I expect this to change in time, but that change will incremental and generational. I read recently that the number of women entering medical school exceeds the number of men for the first time ever. Plenty of educational literature suggests girls are excelling in school at a higher rate than are boys (who in many cases are really struggling these days). These changes represent a significant shift that will manifest itself in time in all sorts of high-powered professions, coaching probably included. In the interim, I would expect athletic departments to protect their portfolios and hire coaches that make the right strategic and business sense to hire.

 

[Vowelguy]

Women's programs should hire the right person for the job, regardless of gender, who is a good cultural fit for the region they will be residing in and recruiting. I understand living in or around Palo Alto for more than 20 years may make it difficult for you to comprehend the level of bias that exists in other regions of the country, but it is nevertheless the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying: the University of Texas shouldn't hire a lesbian.

It is unfortunate you'd say that, and even more unfortunate if the University follwed that.

 

[alexrgct]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying: the University of Texas shouldn't hire a lesbian.

It is unfortunate you'd say that, and even more unfortunate if the University follwed that.

You are neither wrong nor right; it's an oversimplification of the issue. At this particular moment, hiring someone, actually lesbian or not, who will perpetuate the perception of the program around the state, will be to the detriment of getting recruits, winning basketball games, increasing attendance, driving adoption of the LHN, and running a successful business (which UT Athletics most avowedly is, and has been since it segregated itself financially from the rest of the University). Karen Aston will have to deal with this hurdle one way or the other, and I wish her the best of luck in doing so.

I agree, it is unfortunate.

 

[Vowelguy]

Again, an AD's job is to field winning teams and drive revenue based on the unique strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats of his/her school's situation, not save the planet.

Not sure about that. Most coaches are in non-revenue sports.

 

[Vowelguy]

You are neither wrong nor right; it's an oversimplification of the issue. At this particular moment, hiring someone, actually lesbian or not, who will perpetuate the perception of the program around the state, will be to the detriment of getting recruits, winning basketball games, increasing attendance, driving adoption of the LHN, and running a successful business (which UT Athletics most avowedly is, and has been since it segregated itself financially from the rest of the University). Karen Aston will have to deal with this hurdle one way or the other, and I wish her the best of luck in doing so.

Dude, you're dancing around the issue. "Perpetuate the perception of the program..." .... meaning ... that it's not anti-lesbian?
And that it would be good for the university to distance itself from this?

To me, saying that "it's unfortunate" but at the same endorsing this behavior is a distinction without a difference.

It's 2012, and UT is also attempting to be a modern, flagship university in a very progressive town. To walk back its beliefs would be running counter to the university's core values.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Again, an AD's job is to field winning teams and drive revenue based on the unique strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats of his/her school's situation, not save the planet. And no corporation would say, "Wow we have a bunch of qualified male applicants to run this line of business, but we're going to actively try to hire a woman who hasn't applied yet." I'm not sure where you're getting that "any company" would do as you suggest.

(What was the point of taking a parenthetical jab at Bobby Knight?)

I really couldn't care less about what Tennessee fans enshroud themselves in. I'm just happy when UConn has to hire its next coach, there won't be immense pressure to hire a woman if she's not the best candidatefor the job...like there will be in Knoxville.

When coaching WBB was a labor of love, it was mostly women who did it. As pay increased, men entered the market. The supply of men who aspire to coach exceeds that of women. I expect this to change in time, but that change will incremental and generational. I read recently that the number of women entering medical school exceeds the number of men for the first time ever. Plenty of educational literature suggests girls are excelling in school at a higher rate than are boys (who in many cases are really struggling these days). These changes represent a significant shift that will manifest itself in time in all sorts of high-powered professions, coaching probably included. In the interim, I would expect athletic departments to protect their portfolios and hire coaches that make the right strategic and business sense to hire.

Yeah, but again you are just giving credence to all of the AD's out there that are settling on male coaches who have tiny credentials because generally the ADs are more comfortable with the guys. Interesting that rather than say, "Wow, there's a bunch of qualified female applicants out there to run this line of business if we bothered to look," you instead fall into the old statement pointing to the supposed potency of the old boys network to solve the problem. Obviously, rigid adherence to an "old girls network" (man, does that sound crocked and addle-pated), is not good, but neither is shirking the responsibilities of Title IX's efforts for women as players and coaches. True, you should hire the best person for the job, but make damn sure your criteria are correct (and sorry, "she's not gay at least" won't cut it) and don't let your feeling for what you think is the expedient choice absolve you of the duty to provide opportunities for all in the future.

As to Bobby, since the theme here seems to be to hire a proven winner male coach because bottom line you gotta win (hello Texas Tech), I thought I could throw him in as a jab instead of hurling a whole chair. Right, we can grab the quick and "qualified" coach for a spot and wait for those significant shifts that will manifest themselves in time. Or, as an AD, we can stand up and be a man or woman about the hiring process for WCBB coaches and work for an equitable system of training and hiring coaches.

 

[Icebear]

Women's programs should hire the right person for the job, regardless of gender, who is a good cultural fit for the region they will be residing in and recruiting. I understand living in or around Palo Alto for more than 20 years may make it difficult for you to comprehend the level of bias that exists in other regions of the country, but it is nevertheless the case.

There's also a significant difference between an "excuse" and a "reason". I'd suggest I've provided the latter.

"who is a good cultural fit for the program"

The problem is Alex is that what you are suggesting has been used to perpetuate discrimination in various ways for many years. It was used to justify segregation and then separate but equal.

 

[UcMiami]

A couple of points re Women's basketball - I really do not follow other college sports so I am going to restrict myself to that:
1. We are in the first generation of professional women basketball players retiring (or failing to make it professionally) and looking for their next career - some are choosing coaching at all different levels and this will begin to bring in new crop of qualified candidates. (There is a larger pool of men in this category and of course they have been out there for generations)
2. We are experiencing an incredible increase in the quality of coaching that women are receiving (in all sports but especially basketball.) This in turn increases the quality of the players, and the coaching skills they pick up on the court making them more viable candidates for coaching jobs. If you are coached as a 'girl' and not as a basketball player (as Geno recently mentioned) you are not really learning the skills you need. It will be interesting to see what happens with this, but I think if you look at the 'coaching trees' of the best women's coaches you can see the historical results - former players/assistants for Pat and Geno are all over the place.
3. Women stay in school and graduate. They do not put all their future dreams into sports. This gives them many more options in the professional world, and taking a crap assistant job vs. starting a career with better prospects outside of sports is more attractive to many. Not sure this is a bad thing societally, but it diminishes the quality and quantity of female coaching candidates.
4. I do not have any stats, but the number of 'failed' male high school athletes that want to stay connected to sports at a college level I suspect is significantly higher than 'failed' female athletes. This I think leads to more males taking 'sports' degrees at the college level and working as student assistants in athletic programs - a training ground for future coaching (and administrative) careers. Women tend to be more realistic and move on to other things.
5. A real concern for future women's coaches is the lack of them at the ground level - AAU and high school. I think this is probably societal and may have no solution unless there is a ground shift in our society. These jobs are 'second' jobs and not primary careers. For women generally, family and community take a higher priority than spending weekends and nights on a non-paying or barely paying gig.
6. On the lesbian issue, I think the same is true for gay male coaches. They exist, but they stay in the closet.
7. On career vs. comfort - I think you just have to look at Geno's tree to see that - Carla at Tuffs, Jen at Hartford, and CD at Uconn. I think they have all had options to move up the career path, but have prefered to stay where they are for a variety of reasons. No problem there, but much less likely to happen with men. (There are a few men coaching in the women's game that have also chosen not to pursue an upward path or have delayed that process.)
As to other sports - I did find the field hockey issue an interesting one. Field hockey is a much more serious sport in a number of other countries and is played by men and women. I am not surprised that colleges that aspire to championship caliber teams would look to overseas to find quality coaches - and this may tie back to coaching 'girls' as opposed to coaching the game. The seriousness of the international game has probably made the coaches 'better'. The same could be said for soccer, which in most of the world is the number one sport and in the US has always been a secondary sport.

 

[alexrgct]

"who is a good cultural fit for the program"

The problem is Alex is that what you are suggesting has been used to perpetuate discrimination in various ways for many years. It was used to justify segregation and then separate but equal.

What you and VowelGuy are missing with this argument is that there's a fine line between idealism and continuing to do something that's not working and expecting a different result. Jody wasn't necessarily "out," but her orientation wasn't much of a secret. Neither is Plonsky's. Over the course of Jody's tenure, the program went from powerhouse to afterthought, and she left it with the perception that Texas isn't just lesbian-friendly, but a lesbian program. GG's status was nebulous; I know next to nothing about her personal life. Aston is the same way. The perception now among some is that the program might not even be hetero-friendly. That is the elephant in the room, and this hire does nothing to dispel that. Hell, merely publicly interviewing Bollant or making a point that you at least called KBA and asked whether she had any interest, and this discussion goes away. Instead, the way CP went about things was to conduct a very quick and quiet search and come up with someone who was tight with Jody and not obviously a family woman in a state where stuff like that freaking matters. It was stupid, it was obstinate, and it meets Einstein's definition of insanity. I wish Aston the best, but she's starting with a major hurdle to overcome, one that was an issue for Coach G, someone far more experienced and with far more skins on the wall. And no amount of anti-homophobic idealism will change that.