Title IX and Women's Basketball

[oldude]

One of the truly enjoyable aspects of the BY is the frequent and detailed updates on HS players around the nation. I am amazed by the depth of knowledge demonstrated by many BY posters like Charliebball, Sluconn Husky and others concerning the recruiting pipeline. I am also struck by just how many really talented players there are around the country, and it’s not confined to traditional basketball hotbeds like CA and the Northeast. Top players like Gabby (NV), Destiny Slocum (ID) & Sam Brunelle (rural VA) are living proof that great players are everywhere.

It wasn’t always this way. When I entered HS in the early 70’s the only girl’s “sport” at my HS in CT was “cheerleading.” But on June 23 of 1972, the U.S. Congress passed Title IX legislation, which was sponsored by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Congresswoman Edith Green from Oregon. Signed into law by President Nixon, girl’s & women’s sports would never be the same.

In 1972-73, my senior year in HS, the school added two girls’ sports: soccer & softball. At that time, it never even occurred to me that some girls played basketball. Also in 1972, the AIAW was born and in the 1st women’s college championship ever, tiny Immaculata from Malvern, PA beat West Chester State 52-48 to win the 1st women’s basketball national championship.

In those early years of the AIAW championships, there was very much a “small school feel” with teams like Immaculata, West Chester State, Delta State, Queens College, ODU & Mississippi College making it to the championship game. By the late 70’s, big name universities like UCLA, MD, LSU, TN & TX were playing for the championship and after 1982, the AIAW ceased to exist and women’s sports were brought under the NCAA umbrella.

45 years after Title IX the number of girls and women playing basketball in youth leagues, grade schools, JHS, HS, AAU, college & the pros number in the millions. Over the past 20+ years skill levels have dramatically improved in WBB and there has also been an influx of talented young coaches at all levels.

What does this all mean for UConn? Well, UConn doesn’t get all the best players. If they did, the Huskies would have 50+ players on the team. An ever-growing talent pool is slowly but surely leveling the playing field in WBB. At present, Geno & his coaching staff are keeping the Huskies ahead of the pack, but the gap is closing. Eventually, I anticipate relative parity in WBB at the top. Whether this happens during Geno’s tenure or afterwards, I can’t say. But it will happen some day. Until that day, we can all enjoy the brilliance of UConn WBB, and be thankful for those who made it possible like Senator Bayh and congresswoman Green, along with many others.

 

[Sonny44]

At present, Geno & his coaching staff are keeping the Huskies ahead of the pack, but the gap is closing. Eventually, I anticipate relative parity in WBB at the top. Whether this happens during Geno’s tenure or afterwards, I can’t say.

Still, without the best coaches [whom we already have] parity of talent will not lead to parity of championships.

 

[oldude]

Excellent point. While the gap in player talent is closing rapidly, the gap in coaching proficiency between Geno and his staff and everyone else is closing much more slowly. That is partially because the UConn coaches never stop learning, trying to get better and changing the way they do things. One sure way to have someone pass you by is by standing still.

 

[huskyd]

One of the truly enjoyable aspects of the BY is the frequent and detailed updates on HS players around the nation. I am amazed by the depth of knowledge demonstrated by many BY posters like Charliebball, Sluconn Husky and others concerning the recruiting pipeline. I am also struck by just how many really talented players there are around the country, and it’s not confined to traditional basketball hotbeds like CA and the Northeast. Top players like Gabby (NV), Destiny Slocum (ID) & Sam Brunelle (rural VA) are living proof that great players are everywhere.

It wasn’t always this way. When I entered HS in the early 70’s the only girl’s “sport” at my HS in CT was “cheerleading.” But on June 23 of 1972, the U.S. Congress passed Title IX legislation, which was sponsored by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Congresswoman Edith Green from Oregon. Signed into law by President Nixon, girl’s & women’s sports would never be the same.

In 1972-73, my senior year in HS, the school added two girls’ sports: soccer & softball. At that time, it never even occurred to me that some girls played basketball. Also in 1972, the AIAW was born and in the 1st women’s college championship ever, tiny Immaculata from Malvern, PA beat West Chester State 52-48 to win the 1st women’s basketball national championship.

In those early years of the AIAW championships, there was very much a “small school feel” with teams like Immaculata, West Chester State, Delta State, Queens College, ODU & Mississippi College making it to the championship game. By the late 70’s, big name universities like UCLA, MD, LSU, TN & TX were playing for the championship and after 1982, the AIAW ceased to exist and women’s sports were brought under the NCAA umbrella.

45 years after Title IX the number of girls and women playing basketball in youth leagues, grade schools, JHS, HS, AAU, college & the pros number in the millions. Over the past 20+ years skill levels have dramatically improved in WBB and there has also been an influx of talented young coaches at all levels.

What does this all mean for UConn? Well, UConn doesn’t get all the best players. If they did, the Huskies would have 50+ players on the team. An ever-growing talent pool is slowly but surely leveling the playing field in WBB. At present, Geno & his coaching staff are keeping the Huskies ahead of the pack, but the gap is closing. Eventually, I anticipate relative parity in WBB at the top. Whether this happens during Geno’s tenure or afterwards, I can’t say. But it will happen some day. Until that day, we can all enjoy the brilliance of UConn WBB, and be thankful for those who made it possible like Senator Bayh and congresswoman Green, along with many others.

I would add CocoHusky to the list of very knowledgeable folks about high school athletes and recruits.

 

[Magy Cannon]

Thank you God, for Title IX.

 

[Magy Cannon]

Thank you God, for Title IX.

 

[CocoHusky]

Thank you God, for Title IX.

Amen! I was very blessed with two Daughter who were able to get their college education paid for due to Title IX.

 

[meyers7]

One of the truly enjoyable aspects of the BY is the frequent and detailed updates on HS players around the nation. I am amazed by the depth of knowledge demonstrated by many BY posters like Charliebball, Sluconn Husky and others concerning the recruiting pipeline. I am also struck by just how many really talented players there are around the country, and it’s not confined to traditional basketball hotbeds like CA and the Northeast. Top players like Gabby (NV), Destiny Slocum (ID) & Sam Brunelle (rural VA) are living proof that great players are everywhere.

I would add CocoHusky to the list of very knowledgeable folks about high school athletes and recruits.

They put a lot of effort in and make some pretty good predictions. But it seems like UConnCat knows. When she says someone is coming or not coming, that's it for me.

 

[Aluminny69]

I've asked this question before, does anyone know if there were any Women's sports team at UConn before 1972? I would think there might be Women's teams for Tennis, Swimming, Track or Golf. Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[bags27]

Title IX is, of course, a great, great thing. And, I'm not trying in anyway to diminish its fairness, justice, long overdue equity. Just to reflect that in the process, a number of men's sports/activities were necessarily cut and athletic careers (and even Olympic aspirations) ended in mid-stream, and there are some pretty bitter folks out there. This is just a reminder that in a democracy when something so obvious as Title IX is so overdue and so just in the larger scheme of things, it still comes at a cost. Democracy is always a compromise.

BTW, incredible post, oldude: thanks!

 

[oldude]

Title IX is, of course, a great, great thing. And, I'm not trying in anyway to diminish its fairness, justice, long overdue equity. Just to reflect that in the process, a number of men's sports/activities were necessarily cut and athletic careers (and even Olympic aspirations) ended in mid-stream, and there are some pretty bitter folks out there. This is just a reminder that in a democracy when something so obvious as Title IX is so overdue and so just in the larger scheme of things, it still comes at a cost. Democracy is always a compromise.

BTW, incredible post, oldude: thanks!

Bags, your comments are spot on. In order to comply with Title IX, many schools had to make some difficult choices. In many instances, so-called "minor sports" were cut from men's programs in order to maintain varsity football. The minor sports that were often targeted included wrestling, crew, volleyball, etc.

 

[JRRRJ]

I've asked this question before, does anyone know if there were any Women's sports team at UConn before 1972? I would think there might be Women's teams for Tennis, Swimming, Track or Golf. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure women's interscholastic soccer was active when I first went to UConn in '68. Somewhat less sure there was also a field hockey team.

Now I'll go research it.

On edit: Nope. Soccer started in '79, Field hockey in '74.

Further edit: CIAC women's BBall had it's first tournament in '74 (CT Interscholastic Athletic Conf.)

 

[oldude]

I've asked this question before, does anyone know if there were any Women's sports team at UConn before 1972? I would think there might be Women's teams for Tennis, Swimming, Track or Golf. Inquiring minds would like to know.

WBB, field hockey and softball were all added in 1974. A number of other sports were added after 1974. I can find no information on any UConn women's varsity sport prior to 1974.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I must have grown up in a different world. I remember going to my aunt's HS basketball games in the early 50's, played full court in shorts not skirts . In the early 60's my high school had women's basketball (they too played full court in shorts), a women's golf team and a women's ski team. I think they also had a women's track team. The only teams that the men had and the women didn't was football and baseball. Nobody played soccer or lacrosse in those days.

 

[JRRRJ]

CIAC first girl's volleyball tourney was in '65.Girl's gymnastics was in '70. Outdoor track in '69

Surprisingly, UConn's first volleyball season was in '06-'07 according to the team site, but that may not be all of it's history, as the men's team shows the same on the site.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

CIAC first girl's volleyball tourney was in '65.Girl's gymnastics was in '70. Outdoor track in '69

Surprisingly, UConn's first volleyball season was in '06-'07 according to the team site, but that may not be all of it's history, as the men's team shows the same on the site.

I think some of the issues surrounding sports history is complicated by what we now would call "club" sports. Teams that compete against other colleges but are not within the NCAA context (even if the NCAA does sponsor the sport). Rutgers honored (by admitting to their sports Hall of Fame) a woman who coached a club team from RU's Douglass College against other schools in the late 50's or 60's IIRC.

In fact, if UConn plays men's volleyball, it does it outside on the NCAA, there are only like 22 schools that officially sponsor DI men's volleyball, and a very odd bunch they are, FWIW.

 

[BigBird]

Bags, your comments are spot on. In order to comply with Title IX, many schools had to make some difficult choices. In many instances, so-called "minor sports" were cut from men's programs in order to maintain varsity football. The minor sports that were often targeted included wrestling, crew, volleyball, etc.

The next time someone marvels at Team USA women's soccer, and wonders why the USA men are so comparatively dreadful (usually), remember this discussion. Most colleges and universities have a soccer program for women. Comparatively few have men's teams, lest they upset the Title IX "balance" that the law requires. I'm fine with that. I support Title IX. But to suppose that it has no negative consequences is to be willfully ignorant of the bigger picture.

We now have more women and girls playing soccer than any other country. Our national team should ALWAYS be quite good.

I am amazed and disappointed that there are still athletics administrators who try to circumvent these long established legal requirements.

 

[oldude]

The next time someone marvels at Team USA women's soccer, and wonders why the USA men are so comparatively dreadful (usually), remember this discussion. Most colleges and universities have a soccer program for women. Comparatively few have men's teams, lest they upset the Title IX "balance" that the law requires. I'm fine with that. I support Title IX. But to suppose that it has no negative consequences is to be willfully ignorant of the bigger picture.

We now have more women and girls playing soccer than any other country. Our national team should ALWAYS be quite good.

I am amazed and disappointed that there are still athletics administrators who try to circumvent these long established legal requirements.

You are absolutely correct that Title IX has had a positive impact on women's soccer, and I would also add basketball, softball, crew, volleyball, swimming, track & field and a number of other women's sports. But while the corresponding decline in men's sports like soccer, wrestling, crew and others is related to Title IX, a significant factor in that decline relates to football.

Division 1 football programs may have as many as 88 athletic scholarship recipients at any one time. In order to provide equal opportunity for women, rather than adjusting the number of scholarships in a revenue generating sport like football, most schools elected to reduce the number of scholarships in non-revenue generating sports, or simply eliminate them outright.

 

[BigBird]

...In order to provide equal opportunity for women, rather than adjusting the number of scholarships in a revenue generating sport like football, most schools elected to reduce the number of scholarships in non-revenue generating sports, or simply eliminate them outright.

Very true. In a way, this is an example of circumvention of the core purpose that I mentioned. My school dropped a very successful wrestling program under such thinking.

 

[meyers7]

The next time someone marvels at Team USA women's soccer, and wonders why the USA men are so comparatively dreadful (usually), remember this discussion. Most colleges and universities have a soccer program for women. Comparatively few have men's teams, lest they upset the Title IX "balance" that the law requires. I'm fine with that. I support Title IX. But to suppose that it has no negative consequences is to be willfully ignorant of the bigger picture.

A couple things. There are 333 Div1 Women's programs vs 206 Men's programs. Don't know if I'd call that comparatively few. 2/3s isn't bad.

However having more college soccer wouldn't help our MNT. In fact college soccer is one of the scourges of men's soccer. In order to compete with the rest of the world we need many more players to go professional/clubs than go to college. While players in college are spending 4 years training a few months a year and playing a really compressed game schedule (about 3.5 months), professional players during the same period are training around 10 months a year and playing games at much more forgiving schedule.

Less and less of our MNT players have played college.

 

[BigBird]

A couple things. There are 333 Div1 Women's programs vs 206 Men's programs. Don't know if I'd call that comparatively few. 2/3s isn't bad...However having more college soccer wouldn't help our MNT....Less and less of our MNT players have played college.

Thanks, Meyers. On the first point, you are right. I may have been using errant data there. As to the second point, I think more college soccer would indeed help the MNT if it created more soccer scholarships for high school boys, and thus encouraged more young men to player soccer instead of football.

We now have a workable "farm" for the WNT. As you suggest, the model for the men's game lags - badly.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I remember reading that that first year of Title IX the female head of the Committee gave a speech to congress where she said if men's sports have to take a hit to give women's sports a shot, so be it!
As a HS Wrestling coach for 32 years many many universities sacrificed the smaller men's teams for the women's programs. When UCLA, KY, ND, USoCal, etc. gives up men's sports, something like 21 Colleges gave up Men's sports for Women's sports, somethings rotten in Denmark!
As first written Title IX had little to do with sports it was mainly to guarantee women got the same EDUCATION as men, then branched out to women's sports!
As mentioned above College FB ruined the #'s as they carried over 85 players and the law said equal # of participants per school, and no other sport carried that number so they started closing down smaller men's teams such as Wrestling, Tennis, Golf, Gymnastics,that carried 15 to 20 individuals, till they got to 85 or so students to make it even! The powers that be should never have allowed FB to be included in the formula as it's a separate animal, leave FB out and count the rest!
I'm all for Title IX, but not at the sacrifice of men's sports, that's reverse discrimination!