The College Court | Male practice players an issue on court

Emma Carmichael Columnist

Last year, the women’s basketball team at Vassar practiced regularly with a group of about four or five guys who would come to practices and join scrimmages and drills. On some days, we would finish our seemingly endless rounds of wind sprints and conditioning drills and, ready to drop to the ground, we’d be greeted by a group of fresh-legged (and usually longer-legged) males ready to play full-court basketball.

Our coach had invited the guys to our practices for a number of reasons—mainly, we just didn’t have enough healthy players to play full-court scrimmages with a handful of subs at the end of a practice. They were also used as “dummies” for the other team. We were able to try out new offenses and defenses without the opponent already knowing the plays. And finally, although it is still hard for me to admit, they naturally pushed the tempo and intensity of our play to a higher pace and a higher level. While I would never argue that men are more athletic than women, I will acknowledge that they tend to be, well, stronger. And, at times, they play with more aggression and physicality.

As one might imagine, the widespread use of male practice players in female collegiate sports has caused quite a controversy. The National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA), which has the ultimate say on official NCAA policy, strongly opposes such a practice from occurring. In a January 2007 press release, the CWA decried colleges for using male practice players, saying it “violates the spirit of gender equity” and Title IX and leaves “talented, capable female student-athletes” to “stand on the sidelines during official practice while the team’s starters practice against ‘more talented men.’” They add that it represents a “lost opportunity” for potential female student-athletes.

But the inclusion of male practice players has entirely different motives across the different college basketball divisions, the only sport for which this has become a real issue. In the Division I programs, teams rely on athletic scholarships and their own reputation to attract top players to their schools. This means, as one would expect, that the most successful programs always get the best players in the nation.

But these teams all carry an equal amount of “bench players,” most of whom either walked onto the team or were recruited but not offered scholarships from the school. When the Division I schools use male practice players, as the majority now do, these bench players are forced to watch from the sidelines. As a result, the bench players are not only denied playing time in games, but in practice as well. In this respect, there is undoubtedly evidence of a “lost opportunity.”

But Division II and Division III schools compete on an entirely different level. Division III schools don’t offer athletic scholarships, and Division II institutions are allowed only a very limited number. Thus, the task of attracting not only top-tier players, but simply enough players to their schools is a difficult one for coaches. They must depend on finding female athletes who can play at a high level without the incentive of large crowds, free shoes and gear, or potential professional basketball contracts. It is not always possible for lower-Division programs to field the amount of players necessary for a team, especially considering the risk of in-season injuries.

When Division II and III schools use male practice players, it is out of necessity. Many teams simply don’t have large enough or healthy enough rosters to scrimmage full-court and at game speed in practice. Additionally, the smaller-student bodies at many Division III institutions naturally have fewer women on campus that can play basketball at a high level, even if only for practices. Division I schools with nearly 50,000 undergrads have the option of finding female students to use as practice players within their larger student bodies.

I would also argue against the CWA’s assertion that using male practice players “violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX.” On the contrary, I believe that this practice is the embodiment of gender equity: men and women playing competitive basketball on the same court, using one another to improve as players, and treating each other with mutual respect. It has little to do with whether the men will make their female counterparts better players by nature of their masculinity. Any kind of new competition will help improve a player’s game, regardless of his or her sex. It is always refreshing to play against someone who may not know your tendencies and habits.

It seems that the real issue with male practice players lies within the Division I programs. Considering that these schools are able to attract a wide range of top-tier players, not all of whom are scholarship recipients, and usually have larger student bodies from which coaches can call capable female practice players, their use of male practice players seems somewhat superfluous and unfair. Indeed, if the CWA were to enact a policy against using male practice players, Division II and III teams would suffer the most. This setback would have nothing to do with the loss of male opponents, but with the loss of any skilled opponent, regardless of gender.

It is ludicrous that the CWA and the NCAA should try to hold all collegiate divisions to the same standards, especially in this matter. If policy must be put forth, it should target teams with full, able-bodied rosters that do not require more practice players. On the grounds of “gender equity,” this will leave lower-Division schools and less-competitive Division I schools able to find extra help, male or female. The CWA should view the use of male practice players not as a step back in the progress made by female athletes, but as a representation of the narrowing gap between male and female athletes. The very fact that men are playing with our women’s teams as a way to challenge themselves shows the higher level at which female athletes are playing with each new season, and the respect they are earning from the opposite sex. To prohibit this change would limit the progress of all of our athletes, both male and female.

Emma Carmichael ’10 is an Urban Studies major and a member of the Vassar women’s basketball team. This semester she will be editorializing on issues in all divisions of college-level athletics.