Support of women's sports: "The right thing to do"

A cross-generational panel set the stage for a lively conversation on Tuesday night at the Pennsylvania State University's All-Sports Museum. Once you managed to find your way through the labyrinth of photos, videos and quotes from the school's past, you arrived to a full room to go back to another moment: The enactment of Title IX.

Martha Adams, former chair of the Penn State women's physical education committee, recalled the pre-Title IX days when women had, so called, "play days" to enhance their skill levels and, through sports, socialize with women from other institutions.

In the 1960s, a few years before Title IX was written into law, the women at Penn State began asking why they didn't have varsity programs. So the efforts began. Adams said that some of the policies that were in place at the time, "today are laughable." She was quick to credit the faculty and the administration for the support they have given to the women's sporting initiatives.

"We have come a long way of doing the right thing," Adams said. 

Representing another generation was Sue Scheetz, who moved up the ladder at Penn State from being an assistant lacrosse coach to head coach to, later Associate Athletic Director and Senior Woman Administrator.

Scheetz talked about her early involvement in sports and the efforts to push for opportunities for women in sports. "You can't get everything done at once, but you can get something done at once," Scheetz said.

She pointed out that one issue about the legislation is the myths. As a former lecturer in the Department of Kinesiology, Scheetz said she was "amazed at the number of students who didn't know what Title IX was or had misconceptions.

The third member of a panel  is a person whose mere presence at Penn State is historical. Coquese Washington became the first female African-American head coach in the school's history.

Washington said that she never would have thought she could have a career in athletics. Now, however, the young women she recruits tell her they want to be professional basketball players, or work in other sport-related fields, such as physical therapy or sports media.

The panelists agreed that the lack of women in leadership positions is still an issue in athletics.

"Young women don't see anybody who looks like them," Washington said.

She also added that women's basketball coaches are placing emphasis on creating a pool of good assistant coaches who could eventually advance in athletics.

Scheetz concurred with these initiatives.

"We need more women who are successful, who will serve as role models for young female athletes," Scheetz said.

But gender equity in sports might face some challenges in the near future. Scheetz is worried that the financial challenges will make non-revenue sports difficult to sustain. That said, the panelists are hoping for continued support of women's sports.

If for no other reason, but because it was, and still is, "the right thing to do."

-- Dunja Antunovic

Social media in college recruiting

Upon browsing through the Women Talk Sports blog network, I found this post about social media and recruiting. The blogger cites a number of coaches who talk about the issue of TMI (too much information) on recruits' Facebook and Twitter accounts.

This is, to me, quite a fascinating topic as social media sites have become an issue only in the past few years and I am not sure if institutions and coaches -- let alone the NCAA -- quite know how to deal with them.

At my undergraduate institution, we had a strict Facebook policy and at other programs coaches (or other staff) often monitor their student-athletes' Facebook pages to make sure that they are not making complete fools out of themselves or their universities.

But recruits are a completely different category. They are not under direct supervision of the school (yet) and they might not have "friends" or "followers" who would tell them "hey, don't post that." I only spent two years recruiting and even after such a short time, I can certainly say that seeing inappropriate content on Facebook definitely made me question the value system of the recruit.

For some coaches quoted in the above mentioned blog post, social media "drama" was even a deal-breaker. I completely understand that. As a coach, you have to be certain before you commit to mentoring, educating, supervising and being overall responsible for a young athlete for four years.

However, I am concerned that kids are written off based on the goofy things they post when they are 16 years old. The recruiting process starts early (seems like it's starting earlier and earlier.). And I am not quite sure if the kid's high school "mediated" self-presentation is the best predictor of their future success in college.

How about the noble idea that people -- especially college-aged people -- change?

First year students, especially student-athletes, are exposed to an overwhelming number of trainings, orientations, meetings with coaches, meetings with administrators, hours with academic advisors to ensure that they understand the university policies and the responsibilities of being a student-athlete.

It is unfortunate that coaches (or whichever staff members) have to spend time browsing their student-athletes Facebook accounts. It's a complete waste of time that could be spent on other more important aspects of team development, but it is absolutely necessary. I believed that as a student-athlete and I believed it as a coach -- and my former players would tell you that I had no issue with telling them to get the inappropriate postings off of their walls.

But the passive-aggressive approach to recruiting whereby the coach follows the prospective student-athlete's social media sites and determines, as one coach in the blog post said, that they "don't need that kind of person in [their] school" without addressing the problem might not be the way to go.

Rather, coaches need to make sure that the recruit understands that the institution disapproves of the social media "mess" and that they would have to comply with the rules if they want to play for the team.

If kids know that, they might reconsider what they advertise on their "walls." And, perhaps, they will even warn their friends about it. At least, they will still have a chance.

-- Dunja Antunovic

NCAA college tennis recommendation rationale: Lack of television coverage

In most cases NCAA decisions get attention when they pertain to football or men’s basketball or a violation of some sort that leads to punishment. So a rule change about the structure of tennis championships and the length of matches might not qualify under the criteria for “newsworthiness.” 

Yet, USA Today did run an article about the issue and the tennis blog of New York Times revealed some of the responses from players and coaches. I would contend that it is a relevant topic for this blog as the rule change does have a lot to do with media, fandom and the role of intercollegiate sports in our society. 

The NCAA Division I Tennis Committee is proposing that, at the NCAA Championships, instead of a two-out-of-three set format, singles matches would be decided in a super tiebreaker instead of a third set (super tiebreaker means playing up to 10 points). Doubles would get reduced to a six-game set instead of the eight-game set.

The NCAA is also making recommendations in terms of the post-season NCAA Championships draw sizes and locations.

Just as a side note, super tiebreakers are currently played in college tennis when the match between the teams is already decided. If you ask coaches and players alike, they will tell you that a super tiebreaker is completely useless in terms of determining who the better player is. The third set is very much a mental and physical game and a super tiebreaker is a poor “copy” of the pressure and competitiveness.

The Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) and the United States Tennis Association (USTA) don't seem to think that this is one of NCAA’s most brilliant ideas. In their response, the two organizations wrote: “It is imperative to act immediately to try to persuade the NCAA Tennis Committee to keep two out of three sets in dual meet singles play, and also, if possible, to keep the 8 game pro set for doubles.” (See response here.)

The news also got some social media attention. A Facebook group in opposition to the recommendations has 6000 members and counting, and the conversation on Twitter includes comments such as “the ncaa really wants to ruin tennis,” and “this new NCAA rule for tennis is a joke.” You can find these under hashtags #savecollegetennis and #whatajoke.

First to clarify. These changes would only affect NCAA Championships dual match competition. Not the regular season matches, nor the individual tournaments. The online discourse seems to reflect some misunderstanding about this -- and frankly, at first sight, it is easy to omit the "dual match competition during the championship" specification in the report. (See full report here.)

The rationale that NCAA is giving for the rule change is the following: “by shortening the format and bringing greater excitement to the dual match, programs will be able to attract fan support and attention to tennis.” 

I'm confused. Are we still talking about the championships or is the NCAA talking about "programs" as in institutions, referring to attracting fans to home matches?

If we are talking about institutions and attracting fans to home matches, here is the issue.

At most (all?) Division I schools, tennis is not a revenue-generating sport. The schools that do get high attendance are doing well maintaining their fan base regardless of the format. As for the rest of the schools, I am not sure if the format change would necessarily attract more people. Yes, intercollegiate tennis matches are long. They can, indeed, last more than four hours.

But low fan attendance is less likely affected by the length of matches and more likely the result of facilities with uncomfortable or non-existing seating areas, lack of marketing, lack of transportation to the tennis facility, lack of knowledge about the existence of a tennis team on campus (I’m not kidding) or lack of t-shirt give-aways. Free food also works magic for college students.

If the NCAA wants tennis to get more overall attention and to “increase the popularity of dual matches,” then the on-campus marketing for the sport needs to get better. To do that, you need resources and staff. We'll leave that conversation for some other time.

If the decision, indeed, pertains only to the championships then the question about the role of media is of utmost importance.

Besides proposing shorter matches, the NCAA also made a recommendation regarding the Championship format -- namely, to reduce the number of teams who make it to the “final site.” I won’t get technical here, but one of the reasons behind this recommendation is that “the state of intercollegiate tennis is requiring a change to ensure a relevant future for the sport. Tennis is in a fragile state as the championships recently lost ESPN coverage, attendance is decreasing and the number of institutions able to host the final site is diminishing.”

Yes, it is indeed difficult for institutions to host that many teams and the championships are way too long, so this is a point that needs to be discussed.

But let me pause for a second on the “tennis is in a fragile state as the championships recently lost ESPN coverage.” Does this mean that changes need to happen so that tennis fits into the commercial sports media complex?

I think so, as the report also says:  "The shortened format may provide exposure opportunities through television coverage, live streaming and local media coverage. It is difficult and cost prohibitive for television to air a 4.5 hour college tennis match. In addition, it is very challenging for local media (television or print) to watch and cover an entire dual match. Therefore, the sport lacks local and national coverage, which will be improved with a format that consistently finishes within a three-hour time frame."

Another challenge about broadcasting college tennis is that you have 6 matches going on at the same time. So if we are going to talk about difficulties in coverage, that would be one to consider.

In the proposals the NCAA suggests that the “estimated budget impact” for both of these recommendations would be “none.” Perhaps for tennis not to be “in a fragile state,” the focus should be on how cut unnecessary costs rather than how to make the sport marketable to ESPN.

And while these decisions are collaboratively discussed among coaches, administrators, university leaders and the NCAA, who will ultimately decide about the future and the purpose of a (non-revenue) intercollegiate sport, I cannot help but conclude:

This recommendation is not about tennis, nor about participation opportunities, nor about student-athlete welfare and even less about higher education. This is about the sports media complex.

-- Dunja Antunovic

A day to remember women in sports

Happy National Girls and Women in Sports Day!

Today serves as a reminder of the accomplishments, contributions, and struggles of girls and women in their journey through sports and will be celebrated nationwide throughout the week. This year, the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport chose a theme that marks the anniversary of Title IX, a legislation crucial to opening doors for girls and women at educational institution: "Title IX at 40: In it for the Long Run."

For those of us who have enjoyed the privilege of participating in athletics, particularly in intercollegiate athletics, today also serves as an opportunity to reflect on the state of intercollegiate athletics and on our own experiences.

Let’s start with intercollegiate athletics.

In the thorough report issued by Vivian Acosta and Linda Jean Carpenter, we find out that the numbers of women in athletics in many areas have reached the highest ever in 2012. The “Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National Study” indicates that the number of female professionals in intercollegiate athletics is up to 13,792, the number of women’s teams is up to 9,274, the number of female head coaches is up to 3,974 and these are only the highlights.

These are good news. The troubling findings, which really are “old news” at this point, are the low percentages of female athletic directors. In Division I, merely 10.6%, a total of 36, of all athletic directors were women (p. 33 of the report).

For years now I have been following this annually updated report. Every time I access it, besides going through a roller-coaster of emotions as I see the numbers in various categories, a feeling of appreciation overwhelms me.

As an athlete and a graduate assistant coach, I had one of the 36 female athletic directors. My institution was also among the 4.10% that had a female athletic director, one female associate AD and one male associate AD in the administrative structure (p. 35 of the report). I spent six years at an institution where it was “normal” to have a female director of sports medicine, a female director of athletic academic advising and a female director of marketing.

Unlike the earlier generations of women, who are now in leadership positions and from whom I learned so much, I had female role models in athletics. I did not question if women should be there. In that environment, I also did not question if I, as a woman, belonged to the sports arena.

Unlike the young women who grew up and continued to be in an environment where "male" equaled "leader," I saw women who were breaking down social stereotypes about gender roles which, as much as we have progressed, still exist and are particularly prominent in athletics.

I went through my undergraduate and early graduate years without constraints on my potential career path not only in athletics, but in my academic life. My athletic director was a woman; I saw no ceiling.

Moreover, these women made a conscious effort to mentor and educate student-athletes in a way that often went beyond their job description. They sent me articles about Title IX, they encouraged me to read about issues of discrimination, and they generously shared their wisdom.

The National Girls and Women in Sports Day is an opportunity to remember the multiple contentions in sports. But, most importantly, it is an opportunity to express our gratitude to the women who through their activism, coaching, pedagogy and mentoring have enhanced the quality of our lives.

--Dunja Antunovic

Conversation About Covering Controversy: Recap

Penn State students, community members, and journalists met last night in a public forum to debrief and discuss the story around Penn State in recent weeks. The discussion took place as “A Conversation About Covering Controversy," hosted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism.

The event, a panel/Q&A session, took place in the Schwab Auditorium on the PSU campus.

On the panel were: moderator Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center; Christine Brennan, sports columnist for USA Today and national sports commentator; Jeremy Schaap, reporter for ESPN; Mark Viera, New York Times reporter and PSU alumnus; Jerry Micco, assistant managing editor for sports for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and PSU alumnus; and Sara Ganim, PSU alumna who first brought the story to light in March as crime reporter for The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News.

The goal of the conversation was to provide context for this story and to provide professional guidance for the many journalism students who attended. While there were plenty of questions about the controversy itself and how Penn State should move forward as a community, the focus of the panel was clearly on how journalists should cover and report on such stories.

The panelists fielded questions about identifying victims’ names in news stories, using anonymous sources, and reporting on stories in close-knit communities for which the reporter is an outsider.

More general questions about how this controversy has or will affect the PSU community were also presented to the panelists. The most ardently critical voice in these discussions was Brennan, who referred to the Penn State scandal as the worst controversy in college sports and perhaps in all of sports -- and wondered whether Penn State and other universities have lost touch with their priorities. She defended a recent column she wrote in which she encouraged Penn State to take itself out of bowl contention.

The event was streamed live on the web and an archived version is available (see below).

-Brett Sherrick