One foot might not seem like a major difference – unless it’s on a basketball court. And unless it’s the three-point line you’re talking about.

Last year, the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided to move the traditional women’s three-point arc before the start of the season.  In a (literal) step towards gender equity, the women’s three-point line now matches the men’s line at 20’9,” a full foot farther from the basket and the old women’s line of 19’9.” (Read my October 24 post about this.)

So did it matter?

Not surprisingly, the change did have an impact on shooters.  NCAA stats, just posted  last week, show Division I players shot 30.72% this season, down from 31.74% in 2010-11. (The 2010-2011 DI ‘s top 3-pointer shooter, Drexel’s Kamile Nacickaite saw her percentage fall from 47.8 to 32.6 this season.)

Concerned? Don’t be.

When the men’s line moved to 20’9” for the 2008-2009 season, stats show the shooting percentage from beyond the arc dropped from 35.23% in 2007-08 to 34.40%.  It hasn’t risen back to its 2007-08 level yet, but has increased slightly in the last two seasons.

The new line probably also impacted offenses in more subtle ways.  The number of attempted threes per game dropped from an all-time high of 16.60 in 2010-11 to 15.84 in 2011-12.  Teams also scored 1.3 fewer points per game this season. Players may have adjusted to struggles from the three by looking to score on drives to the basket or feeds to the post.

Will the women’s shooting percentage increase?

Almost certainly. It takes time to adjust and players need practice from the farther distance. On my Wellesley College team, we spent a lot of time shooting from the new line before, during, and after practice. (Our shooting percentage from the three actually went up this season!)

As new players move up through the ranks of women’s college basketball and gain experience, I’m betting the three-point shooting percentage will only go one way: Up.

By Mariah Philips

After an hour-long 6 a.m. lift, I can feel my hands shaking, residual adrenaline pumping through my veins. Sweat trickles down the side of my temple. My muscles are limp from exhaustion.  But the most prominent thing I feel when I walk out of the weight room is pride, satisfaction in the exertion I have just put forth. It is empowering to feel strong.

Being strong – lifting in particular – has been important to my growth as a college softball player and because I’m at Wellesley College, lifting happens in an all-women’s weight room.

But elsewhere, in co-ed weight rooms, there’s an unspoken edge: As a woman, you are not free to lift without being judged. I have been the girl with the 40-pound dumbbells, standing beside the man lifting less – and feeling a wash of shame. I’m an athlete. I need to be strong. Yet, I catch the glances and the scrutiny by male and female members of the gym. What’s more, I hear the same stress expressed by other female athletes (including one who has a planned apology: “Sorry, I’m a man.”)

It may now be OK for women to be strong. But how strong? Why does it remain socially prickly for women to lift large amounts of weight? Why must women struggle to preserve socially condoned images of femininity while they try to honor an athletic identity that challenges those gender norms?

This unspoken weight room phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by sports psychologists.

“Essentially it can be felt as a threat to the male’s self-image to lift next to females,” says Dr. Amy Baltzell, Coordinator of the Sport Psychology Specialization at Boston University. “And then for some women, it can feel like a struggle between their athletic goals and how they perceive they should be compared to males.  This, too, can cause a discomfort in the weight room for the female athlete.”

Athletes need to lift, whether you are a 300-pound lineman, a 140-pound wrestler — or a 140-pound field hockey player. It ‘s time to grab the steel (or the med ball) and leave gender expectations and stereotypes out of it.

Softball player Jen Migliore lifts/photo by Alex Hatem

By Ashleigh Sargent and Mariah Philips

Notre Dame: The Fighting Irish took down perennial powerhouse UConn in overtime to advance to the National Championship for the second year in a row.  Behind the leadership of Skylar Diggins, who finished the night with 19 points, Notre Dame forced the game into overtime after falling behind the Huskies with less than ten seconds in regulation.  Natalie Novosel put back a clutch offensive board to tie the game with 4.6 seconds left and eventually finished with a team-high of 20 points.  Notre Dame dominated overtime, getting two key three-pointers from Brittany Mallory and scoring the final eight points to secure a spot in the Championship. Analysis: The combination of solid perimeter play and relentless toughness clinched the victory.

Baylor: Despite getting just 13 points total from Brittany Griner, Baylor’s strong second half secured the victory over the Stanford Cardinal.  Terran Condrey came up big off the bench for the Bears adding 13 points.  On the defensive end, Destiny Williams grabbed eight defensive boards to finish with a team-high ten rebounds.  Even though Stanford doubled down on Griner, her height and athleticism proved to be too much to handle down the stretch.  Analysis: Both teams struggled offensively, but in the end, Baylor’s defensive efforts won the game for them. Even though Nnemkadi Ogwumike scored 22 points, the Bears managed to hold the rest of the Stanford roster to single digit scoring.

 The Big Game: This Championship matchup will be an interesting one as it features strong guard play on Notre Dame’s side versus Baylor’s tough inside game anchored by Brittany Griner.  Notre Dame will be persistent and scrappy in the front court and will have to rely on the leadership of their guards to control the pace and cause havoc on defense.  Conversely, Baylor will need a big performance from their post players.  If Baylor can consistently feed the ball down low and follow up misses with put-backs, they will be hard to stop with a much smaller Notre Dame team.

 The Pick: We predict that the next National Champion will be Baylor based on their flawless record of 39-0 and an unmatchable size advantage.  Notre Dame is a small team to begin with and Brittany Griner has been virtually unstoppable, even by teams with a strong post game.  The Fighting Irish will live up to their name and hang with the Bears for at least the first half, but eventually size will win out and Notre Dame will start to fall behind.  Unless the Notre Dame guards have an outstanding shooting day from behind the arc, it will be close to impossible for them to outscore Baylor.  In this David versus Goliath-esque matchup, we have Goliath getting the victory and securing a perfect 40-0 record.

Ashleigh Sargent is a 6′ forward for Wellesley College and Mariah Philips is a Wellesley varsity softball player.

It’s only March, but I’m feeling that 2012 will be a good year for women’s squash. I’ve posted plenty about the many challenges we face, but things are looking up. Here’s what I see:

1. PEOPLE RECOGNIZE HOW GOOD THE WOMEN ARE: Suzie Pierrepont and Narelle Krizek played in the men’s draw at the 3^rd annual NYAC Invitational.  People started the weekend grumbling about why women were allowed in the men’s draw, but by the end of the weekend everyone was just talking about how darn good Krizek and Pierrepont were after they not only ousted number one seeds Tim Wyant and Julian Illingworth, but made it to the semifinals..
2. MORE WOMEN PLAYING: This weekend the US National Doubles Championships in Rye, New York feature 13 women’s teams in the open, six in the 40s, and 10 in the 50s. This will be the largest showing of women’s doubles teams in recent history. And what’s the buzz? How many 20-somethings are playing in the Open.
3. GROWTH BEYOND THE EAST COAST: I’ve gotten to know Eric Eiteljorg, who grew up playing in Philadelphia (the squash capital of America) but moved his family west to become Executive Director of Mile High Squash in Denver. If a small but tightly-knit squash community like Denver can support Eric, two full-time staff, and a burgeoning urban program, squash can flourish outside of Philly, New York and Boston. The significance of Mile High’s success isn’t limited to the victories of students, but reveals the growth opportunity for squash.  If more people like Eric drive these initiatives, squash may become not only an NCAA sport, but an Olympic one, too.
4. WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT LOOK LIKE: I spoke with Emily, a high school freshman and one of the students served by Mile High Squash. Emily came to the program as a C student, but has blossomed into an A/B student who wants to play squash in college. What’s so great about that last statement is that Emily now wants to go to college. Squash is bringing her places and changing her outlook. Programs like Mile High give young women like Emily (and young men, too) the opportunity to compete, and learn more about themselves through athletics. They win, but so does squash. Girls like Emily are the future of the game. They cross socioeconomic, racial, religious and gender boundaries. I can’t think of anything more exciting.

With women’s squash growing, not just in numbers, but geographically, I’m ready to believe one day we will see Nicol David and Nick Matthew at the Olympics. If you’d asked me last year, I could not have imagined it. But when I see young people like Emily, a guy like Eric, or Narelle playing against the US singles national champion (and making him run) I suddenly have hope.

By Katie Culver

There is not a lot of media coverage of female athletes, but when there is I like my daughter, who is five years old, to see it. I try to records as many women’s sporting events as I can for her to watch.

Recently, we were watching the U.S. vs. Canada women’s soccer game on TV. As a 5-year-old, she’s a tough media consumer — few events hold her attention for long.

But on this day, we were excitedly watching and cheering on Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, and Abby Wambach. We noticed their incredible skills and talked about the positions they play on the field. My daughter was particularly taken with Alex Morgan with her tenacious play and goal-scoring drive (and yes, her pink headband, too).

For me, watching women’s sports is really important. I want female athletes to be household names that my daughter and sons recognize, talk about, and admire.

So I have to tell you, I am incredibly disappointed in Alex Morgan.  Along with two other athletes, Morgan is featured in this year’s SI Swimsuit Issue, much like teammate, Hope Solo, who bared all for ESPN the Magazine last summer. Beyond my disappointment that she would actually pose in SI for the annual sexist, exploitation of women issue (and more 0ften now, exploitation of female athletes), Morgan is NAKED, wearing only a painted-on bikini.

Even more disturbing for me was the accompanying interview in which she justified her choice, stating that because women get paid less than men, “We do need to branch out and look at different avenues to make more for ourselves. There are some things like modeling, but other athletes can do things like coaching or broadcasting.”

Why is getting naked the opportunity successful women too often embrace?

I don’t buy the quasi-feminist argument that they are empowered in displaying their bodies, in the name of making money and more recognition. I expect more from female athletes. They need to be the ones challenging the media’s degradation of women; who are proud enough of their athletic skills as world-class soccer players and courageous enough to say “no” to Sports Illustrated and any other media stronghold that continues to publish only what sells and not what makes this world a better place for women; to work to insist that women be valued for their skills and smarts, rather than STILL, ONLY—or at least over everything else—THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THEIR BODIES!

So as a mother, what do I do now (except hope that my daughter never sees these pictures)?

The superstars — like members of the US women’s national team — are people that little girls like my daughter look up to and emulate. They need to keep the standards high, taking themselves as seriously off the field as they do on. Luckily we have Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy, Billie Jean King and many others who are committed to their responsibility as role models for young girls. Alex and Hope, maybe you can learn something from them.

What does it mean to be the best? I pondered this recently while studying the lacquered hardwood board at the Greenwich Country Club listing past winners of the North American Open Doubles Tournament. How many winners – spanning more than 50 years – were American? Most. It wasn’t until the last 10-15 years that the names of foreign players appeared on the board.

Does – or should – the nationality of American (or North American) winners matter?

This question is at the center of heated debate right now about one of two key rule changes before the U.S. Doubles Committee (I’m one of 15 members of that committee). One new rule allows professionals to compete on the men’s side (female pros could always compete). The other – more controversial change — would allow only U.S. citizens to compete for the national doubles championship.

I think barring foreign players is a problem – especially for the women’s game.

Yes, doubles squash, unlike softball singles, is a North American game. There are two doubles courts in Scotland. But all other hardball doubles courts are in the U.S. and Canada.

The U.S. Nationals Doubles Championship Committee wants to close the Nationals to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen beginning in 2013. Advocates point out a benefit: this will enable them to use the championships to determine the best American men’s and women’s teams. The rule allowing pros to play in the men’s draw, as well as the women’s draw, will let the same pool of players compete in the US National Doubles Championships as in the US Open Pro Doubles, which will happen in 2013.

The committee has already voted to open up the men’s nationals to professionals. There are, after all, American professional men, like top 10-ranked Preston Quick, who give back to the game and play numerous events. Guys like Preston have been excluded from the US Nationals in the past because of their pro status, but that made little sense to the committee. The thinking: Shouldn’t the best American men be able to play the US Nationals? Sure.

But what about the best players? Do we potentially want two Australian pros, like Damien Mudge and Ben Gould to win a US National title? This question was harder for the committee to answer.

For me, the solution has more to do with our long-range goals. I believe that closing the US Nationals to non-US citizens would be detrimental for doubles – and could even kill the women’s game, which we are trying desperately to grow.

My own player development reflects the problem. I grew up playing squash outside of Philadelphia, often considered the hub of squash in the United States. I had three key coaches between the ages of nine and 14: Wendy Berry (British), Imran Khan (Pakistani) and Dominic Hughes (British). I didn’t have an American coach until I played for Kirk Randall , at Exeter.

Ironically, it is these coaches, who work with juniors day in and day out, for months and years at a time that our governing body, US Squash, works with to promote the game. Historically, the US has not been the birthplace of great squash players. Great players have come from Commonwealth countries. But as the sport’s US profile has grown, in part because kids and parents view it as a gateway to an elite college, players from abroad have come here to coach and train.

When the women’s committee or doubles committee seeks help because women are dropping out of the game after college at alarming rates, who do we turn to for help?

The coaches. These British, Pakistani, Australian, New Zealand and South African players are US Squash’s greatest ambassadors of the game. They not only train athletes, but instill in them a lifelong love of the game. And these pros, especially the female ones, have proven to be invaluable in creating squash communities that keep the game alive once athletes have left college.

Narelle Krizek started the pro women’s doubles tour from nothing—she’s Australian. Suzie Pierrepont coaches the National Championship winning women’s team at Greenwich Academy—she’s British.  We use these women to promote the game. Are we really ready to tell them they can’t play in the premier doubles event in the US?

Pros aside, the proposed rule change will effectively kill the effort to get younger players into the game. Many recent grads from Harvard, Trinity, Princeton and Cornell, who have taken up doubles and are traveling to tournaments will now be denied the right to play and win a US National title. These women are not teaching pros, nor are they US citizens—the best players on our American teams are from other countries.

As a volunteer I’ve been working to get these players onto doubles courts and into tournaments. What message so we send in barring them from Nationals? These women don’t play pro events – they work full time. It seems contradictory to have them play other events – but not this one.

Amid this debate, as a US doubles committee member, I keep thinking about what my mentor, Morris Clothier told me to do: “Grow the game of doubles.” He never said to grow it just for women, or Americans, or young people. He just said to grow it.

Closing one of the most prestigious events on the calendar to non-Americans does the opposite, keeping the pool small,  and keeping talented (and involved) athletes out of contention. The best players should play this tournament, regardless of citizenship, because the best doubles players are the ones who show up to Apawamis at the end of March, have paid their entry fee, and play the game that will get them into the finals, and onto the plaque commemorating excellence.

SOMETIMES YOU LOSE – AND IT’S OK. The Women’s World Cup championship game between the U.S. and Japan honored the rise and intensity of women’s soccer. The back story was compelling: The U.S. Team’s dramatic run-up with Abby Wambach’s YouTube-play-it-again (and again) headers versus the determination of a team whose nation hungered for a win in the wake of the tsunami. The game was memorable for being both gritty and elegant. It reflected best things about sport: A game played hard and well – and fairly.

THERE ARE OTHER COLLEGE SPORTS BESIDES FOOTBALL AND MEN’S BASKETBALL: The sex abuse scandal at Penn State is just the latest and most troubling reminder of the power gap between big-time sports programs and other teams on campus. The power dynamic is further skewed by commercial quests of big-time teams that – as in the cast of conference realignments – change which other colleges a team will play. The Big East, for example, beginning this year will stretch from San Diego to Providence – and it’s not just football and basketball players getting on planes and missing classes. It’s field hockey players, cross-country runners facing six-hour flights to away games. Might college sports need a new structure – one that separates big-time sports-entertainment ventures from the extracurricular activities of student-athletes who fully intend to stay all four years and earn a degree?

GIRLS CAN DO WHAT BOYS CAN DO: We saw Justine Siegal become the first female to throw batting practice at MLB spring training. The Olympic Committee (finally) voted to add women’s ski jumping in the next Winter Olympics in 2014. We saw high school girls, including Monique Howard playing football – on the defensive line — and saw girls and boys in Massachusetts competing for swim titles. In New Jersey, a boy wasn’t allowed to play on a high school field hockey team, but a co-ed field hockey team in Princeton is growing and USA Field Hockey now wants boys to join the sport. Rigid gender divisions may still rule in sports, but common sense (and budget pressures) are changing the landscape and revealing that – gasp – males and females can compete with and against one another (or in the same events). We don’t, in other words, need to start with gender as a hard dividing line (most especially in school and recreational sports).

THE WOMEN’S MARATHON RECORD IS STILL 2:15:25. The IAAF’s decision to change the rules by which women runners can compete for world record times in the marathon – and the decision to revoke and then reinstate Paula Radcliffe’s 2003 London Marathon record – reveals challenges ahead. Women being paced by men can run faster. It reflects the maturation of the sport to require particular courses (only loops) and conditions (women’s race separate) for an official world record. It’s a quest for uniformity in a sport that takes place out in the natural world. But what about other factors? Rain? Temperature? Winds? Crowds? Seeking a standard may make sense for record books (though eliminating mixed-sex races narrows the acceptable pool and, in real time, sends a negative social message by exaggerating the gap in male and female performance). We are far from the days when running the distance was the simple point. But the pacing issue still lacks resolution. Men may still have rabbits, and it’s helped spur records. Women can’t have male rabbits, but they do need female ones.  We now need women who are able and willing.

The 2011-2012 NCAA basketball season has just kicked off, which means thousands of women are making their debut at the college level.

Even the most talented recruits, however, need more than raw skill to make an impact.

College presents new obstacles: increased intensity, expectations, and pace. Players must figure out how to navigate athletic and academic commitments – and find their place on a new team. It’s tough to go from being a high school star to sitting at the end of the bench.

Cindy Blodgett, assistant coach at the University of Rhode Island (which has six freshmen this year), says this can be a major issue to overcome.  “The college game is so different because you are no longer automatically the best player on the court.  You have to earn playing time from the start of pre-season and every practice is as competitive as a game.”

Some players do struggle with the pressure and the transition to college play. Some colleges are aware of this and trying to help. (At Wellesley College, first-year athletes are paired with an upperclass athlete who is a member of another team to provide support and advice).

Freshmen who go to practice with the right work ethic and attitude, however, often find their niche. After all, coaches are also trying to figure out how to get the most out of their new faces.

URI assistant Kelly Morrone works on smoothing the transition by trying to help freshmen fill roles on the team that may be lacking. “I ask [players] what they keep hearing the coaching staff say that this team needs — and to focus on one or two of those things.”  Players can use that information to work on their strengths and fill needed roles on the team – and earn minutes.

Players seeking ways to stand out must also be patient in dealing with sometimes unwanted attention from coaches.  Rather than thinking that a coach is “out to get them,” players should realize that coaches are often their biggest advocates.

Nerlande Nicolas, who sat the bench throughout high school before going on to be a four-year starter at Rutgers-Newark, credits her transformation to figuring that out.

“I matured a lot as a college player in simply understanding that I have to trust my coaches and understand that their criticisms and corrections aren’t a personal attack at me, but rather, they help me improve my game.”

Players who buy into a program of play and trust their coaches can find themselves in a position of real value. Making that leap, says Nicholas, is difficult and requires working harder than you’ve ever worked before. For players who find their way, the rewards are invaluable.

As freshmen take the floor with their teams this season, fans watch and try to pick out the talent, the personalities, and, of course, their favorites. It’s exciting to see the drama unfold, and new players begin to make their mark on the game.

The Playbook: Year 3 

An occasional series about University of Rhode Island Women’s Basketball Head Coach Cathy Inglese and her quest to turn around a program.

By Laura Pappano

The URI Women’s Basketball team opens the season Friday at the University of Delaware and enters Year Three of the Inglese Era squarely in rebuilding mode.

“We will live and die with a young team,” Head Coach Cathy Inglese said last week from her office in the Ryan Center. With last year’s seniors gone – including scoring powerhouse Captain Megan Shoniker – and senior talent Lara Gaspar out for the season with a torn ACL, five freshmen recruits, says Inglese, “will play a lot.”

(The five freshmen are: Rhode Island native Corinne Coia a 6-4 forward; guard Teneka Whittaker; guard Megan Straumann; guard Sydney Lewis; and guard Marie Byrnes.)

Injuries are a challenge in every sport and for every team (last year recruit Emilie Cloutier was out) and, some suggest, are becoming an epidemic in college sports as more players start younger and play year round. (Article here). Despite a spate of pre-season injuries — ankles, a concussion, strains — Inglese says this year’s recruits bring real potential.

“This is the best class of players we have brought in at URI,” says Inglese. Building a program, in other words, is just that — building. You don’t go from attracting fair recruits to luring superstars overnight, says Inglese. “Each year I try to bring in a class that is better.”

Young means certain things. For example, says Inglese, don’t expect lots of mid-game adjustments; the goal is to scout well and set a strong game plan in advance. In games and practice, she says, you emphasize basics – and repetition. During games, players will look to the sidelines — not, say, a senior leader on the court — for guidance.

“We as a staff can’t assume anything,” says Inglese.  “We have to be the ones directing them and reinforcing on a continual basis. We need to make sure we are communicating what our expectations are.”

In practices, assistant coach Stephanie Tobey is pressing for consistency in effort and skills. She wants them to “understand what it means to come everyday and bring a complete a focus and be in the zone.” And there are constant reminders of a basic directive: “Chin the ball” to keep it from opponents.

Who will be a scoring machine? Unclear. Who will emerge as a key player? Wait and see.

That’s part of the fun.

What is apparent is that these kids are eager. They have a strong work ethic and are pushing the whole team. “My assistants are out there everyday with kids who want to come to practice early or come in between classes. That never happened my first year or so,” says Inglese, adding that more players are also asking to watch extra film.

So what will the season look like?

“We are going to be a work in progress,” says Inglese. “That will be frustrating, and at times, exciting.”

URI staff members Chris Passmore, Cathy Inglese, Cindy Blodgett, Stephanie Tobey, Nerlande Nicholas.

By Laura Pappano

Lately, major marathons have become a showcase for record-breaking male performances and today’s New York City Marathon was no exception: Kenyan Geoffrey Mutai finished in 2:05:05, setting a new course record (all three top male finishers broke the record).

So much men’s record-breaking has been going on, in fact, that American marathoner Meb Keflezighi predicted that a two-hour marathon was not only possible, but “hopefully we can see it soon.”

This is not happening on the women’s side. But something else IS happening: We have more top women runners, more contenders, more speedy women clustered at the top of marathon finishes. Consider New York.

While Ethiopian Firehiwot Dado won New York with a 2:23:15, New Yorker Buzenesh Deba was just four seconds behind — and the top 10 female finishers were within 5:48 of Dado. Last year, the top 10 women were within 1:35 of one another.

Obviously, each year’s particular field changes, but if we go back a decade – to 2001 – top finisher Margaret Okayo’s time of 2:24:21 was 7:22 ahead of #10.

In 1991, the difference between Liz McColgan’s 2:26:32 and #10 was 14:34.

In 1981, Allison Roe’s winning time, 2:25:29 was 17:21 ahead of 10^th place.

In 1971, we didn’t even have 10 top women, but let’s just say that the gap between #1 Beth Bonner at 2:55:22 and #4 was, well, nearly two hours.

This, believe it or not, is progress. In the decade marks between 1981 and 2011, the top female finisher’s time improved by just 2:14, but the spread between #1 and #10 over that time improved by a stunning 11:33.

Yes, we need to be faster, to break records – and we can. But to have so many top women in contention is surely a start.