Never mind. That was message in Tuesday’s “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the federal Office for Civil Rights.

Never mind about that 2005 policy saying it was OK for colleges to meet a Title IX compliance prong gauging female interest in sports by sending out internet spam – er, I mean, surveys.

With the announcement staged at George Washington University’s basketball arena, VP Joe Biden gushed about all the female athletes related to him (including a granddaughter who plays on a boy’s team).

For some, this was a feel-good event. For others, it was a relief. And yep, for some cranks who feel that sports is always a zero sum game in which what’s good for women is bad for men, it was deeply disappointing. Sorry.

But before those of us committed to gender equity in sports get all celebration-y, let’s understand a few things. First, Title IX is now not now well-enforced and changing the rules doesn’t necessarily change the federal effort. Second, if this policy change does signal a shift in federal enforcement and, if as Biden suggested “Making Title IX as strong as possible is a no-brainer,” then we need to have another conversation.

That conversation – always dangerous to propose given fringe opposition to the law – must be about what Title IX does – and does not – accomplish and whether we should change it to more accurately reflect the goal of gender equity in sport.

Title IX, after all, does not demand equality. There are realities in high school and college sports today that did not exist in 1972. Some of these keep women’s teams from enjoying the same level of institutional support as men’s teams.

Is it, for example, fair to schedule women’s basketball games on, say Monday or Wednesday, and keep Friday and Saturday nights for men’s games?

Is it in the spirit of Title IX to promote men’s basketball as worthy of luxury boxes, multi-tiered seating levels, and club memberships – when the same school’s women’s team is general admission only?

(Good thing the announcement was at GW and not Georgetown, where an under-promoted women’s basketball team plays in the old gym while the men’s team is the focus of campus hoopla when the Hoyas play at the NBA-like Verizon Center; dollars spent per athlete on the men’s team is $93,737; on the women’s team, it’s $28,013).

Good move repealing that survey allowance, Obama administration. But this is just the first half.

1. Who says people don’t watch dominance? UConn’s NCAA Tournament run brought ESPN more viewers than in 2009. According to Nielsen, the final UConn-Stanford game drew 3.53 million viewers, up 32 percent from the 2009 final of UConn vs. Louisville. The Final Four averaged 3.16 viewers, up 22 percent from last year.
2. The WNBA has scheduled its second outdoor game, between the LA Sparks and the Seattle Storm for June 5 – and they should plan even more. It’s a problem that the WNBA plays in the “off” season when sports media attention is not on basketball. (In HS, this would be a Title IX problem). Bringing the game outdoors gives the WNBA a playground hoops culture vibe and a twist the NBA lacks.
3. When Doug Hastings, a writer for small Boston-area weeklies reported plans for a WNBA team, the “Tessies,” to land in sport-crazed Boston, it was – as he wrote at the end of his column – just an April Fool’s joke. “No, there will be no WNBA coming to the area, but enjoy April Fool’s Day.” Maybe Hasting’s editor can assign him a better story: Ask the Celtics why they don’t want a WNBA franchise in town?
4. Mid-way through the Masters those rooting for Tiger Woods might have asked themselves what was compelling: Was this a story about redemption? Or Excellence? By Sunday evening it turned out to be about neither. In fact, it was more about fussing and whining (and even arrogance).
5. It’s not just female athletes who sponsors love to sell as role models: Barclay’s wasted no time in taking out a full page ad in The New York Times today (page A5) to congratulate “Phil Mickelson and his family” on his Master’s win. The ad features a giant photo of Phil planting a kiss on wife Amy’s head. Copy reads: “Phil demonstrates why he is a great ambassador and role model for the game of golf. He personifies the game’s values of integrity, focus, and precision…” Message to Tiger: Character is huge.
6. There is a serious and unfortunate pay gap in purses for men’s and women’s pro golf. How big? The current top male pay leader for 2010, Ernie Ells, has earned $1,406 per stroke while the top female, Yani Tseng, has been paid $409 for every time she has hit the ball.

It’s time to think beyond the court.

Sure, there’s a lot of back-and-forth about whether UConn’s dominance – winning streak of 78 and beating almost all opponents by double-digit margins – is bad or good for women’s college basketball. The basic argument: Is it too boring to watch? Or will everyone tune in to see what the fuss is all about? (BTW lately looks like people are tuning in as Nielsen rating for UConn-Baylor was 2.6 or 2 million households on Sunday, more than Red Sox-Yankees or PGA Golf).

But the horse-race aspect of this debate misses what we have here: A genuine image of what women look like when they lead. In a sport in which players mostly stay for all four years of college with legitimate majors and career plans, watching how this team approaches their on-court work reveals far more than awesome ball-handling skills. I see young women I would hire – and vote for. Here’s why:

1. Preparation.  From the minute they step onto the court at practice, these players are full-out. They drill like they play (sometimes unfairly out-matched), and take seriously the details of their game. It doesn’t matter that opponents aren’t likely to measure up. They stride into the meeting, the contest, the debate fully ready.

2. Mental Toughness. It is not easy to win. Constantly. By wide margins – and not lose focus. Many athletes play to their opponents. Many people outside of sports lack the mental fortitude to stay on track when no one is challenging them to be great and do it right. That’s why inner city schools fail; why Toyota is spending a fortune on a recall.

3. Team Play. Yes Tina Charles is a superstar and so is Maya Moore. But this is not the Charles-Moore Show; it is UConn women’s basketball. This is how things –on court or off – really get done. In Congress, in companies, in the world.

4. Relentless Pursuit. Beyond the mental toughness to play to their own standards when others fall away, this team keeps it at a sustained high level so consistently that they have created a new reality, a new image of what (phenom Brittany Griner aside) women’s basketball looks like. Or should I say, women leaders playing basketball?

5. Self-Discipline. In 1995, after Connecticut won that critical title, Rebecca Lobo quipped on national TV that “now I can go back to being the worst post player in America.” It’s no secret that Geno Auriemma is tough. Tina Charles and teammates have heard and taken more “coaching” than most people could handle. They have kept cool and listened. They have stood up and worked harder. Who doesn’t want a leader who can take the guff and stay in control?

Go ahead, tune in, if you want to see what all the talk is about. But don’t forget to notice what’s happening on that court — besides basketball.

VS.?

By Laura Pappano

Baylor Coach Kim Mulkey has a number in mind: 47,492.

That’s how many fans went wild last Sunday in Houston for the men’s Baylor-Duke matchup. After her team upset Duke in a thrilling 51-48 win last night, Mulkey made the point: She wants the same support in San Antonio for her Baylor team as they head to the Final Four.

“It’s good to get back home,” she said in post-game interview with ESPN’s Holley Rowe. “I want everybody in the state to show us the same kind of a fan base we had in Houston for our men. We’re home. Come on, you are going to see the best team in the country in Connecticut if they win the next one – and let’s just go play.”

Mulkey is not the only one who thinks a UConn-Baylor contest is worth coming out – or tuning in – for. The ESPN desk jockeys (who made sure to mention that they don’t watch a much women’s basketball), nonetheless admitted that seeing Brittany Griner & Co. take on UConn is appointment viewing.

And why wouldn’t it be?

Well, because despite thrilling play (the second game last night, Xavier-Stanford was decided at the buzzer as Jeanette Pohlon released the game-winning layup as time expired) there remains an apologetic stance toward women’s basketball. Real sports fans, we hear ad-nauseam, don’t like it.

“Most of us don’t care about the women’s tournament,” wrote Dan Shaughnessy in Sports Illustrated. “Sorry. I know this is not the politically correct stance and I know there are young women all over the nation who rightfully look up to the Huskies as role models, but the fact remains that most red-blooded American fans don’t give a hoot about women’s basketball…”

What’s so funny about the don’t-make-me-watch-women-play stance is that same tired arguments (big one: slower play) might well be applied as an excuse to forgo men’s college play for the NBA. The bottom line is that, having watched my share of men’s and women’s games this month, it’s impossible to say that the men’s games are really more exciting to watch than the women’s.

It’s about the match-ups.

Sure, UConn has been dominant this season, but who doesn’t want to see if Brittney Griner (transformed from punch-throwing heathen to “freshman sensation”) can keep Tina Charles and Maya Moore from the hoop?

UConn will need some serious three-pointers because Griner (and her tenacious young teammates) are tough to beat inside (Griner has an NCAA tournament record 35 blocked shots in four games, 218 for the season – so far).

Don’t show up in San Antonio or tune in because you think you should. I believe women should support women’s sports. But this isn’t about that. This is about compelling play, the David and Goliath contest that doesn’t come along every day, but is – at the core — why we watch sports in the first place.

47,492 is the number to beat.

There may be other ways to judge progress, but this year’s NCAA Women’s DI Basketball Tournament offers signs worth noting:

1. PRESIDENTIAL PICKS. For the first time, President Obama filled out NCAA DI Basketball brackets — for the women’s tournament. (See image at right — or click here.)

Last year, we noticed that although he invited the UConn women to the White House and played some hoops, that he’d never filled out a bracket. Now that his top men’s pick — Kansas — is out of contention, maybe he will lean on the women to make him look good. (Wouldn’t be the first time).

2. PACKED STANDS. Another tournament positive is that — unlike some past years — the stands at first and second-round games look pretty packed. While that may be the result of TV angles or strategic seating by the hosts, it was easy in past year tournaments to see lots of open chairbacks. Some of this may be that several of the games are hosted by home teams, but not all. Consider last night’s stunning 72-71 Gonzaga win over Texas A&M in front of revved-up fans — at the University of Washington, a neutral site.

Perhaps the crowds — or the appearance of crowds — reflect a recognition about the intensity and entertainment value of the women’s game. (Should we blame amped-up intensity  for recent high-profile aggression, as a New York Times story suggests? Unclear.)

3. NO WHINING ABOUT “PARITY.” It is refreshing to see that even though coaches of top teams put Connecticut on a different level than everyone else, we aren’t hearing that annoying word — “parity” — and that the women’s side lacks it.

Connecticut is dominant this year, but unlike the old days when UConn and Tennessee plucked all the best players, there is talent all around Division I. This doesn’t mean the same old cranks won’t complain that women aren’t worth watching. It’s just that fewer people seem to believe them.

By Laura Pappano

This year we expect Connecticut to march all the way to San Antonio — and then some. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t water cooler-worthy debate to be had around match-ups all over the bracket (not to mentioned good basketball to be watched). Anyone remember last year when powerhouse Tennessee lost to Ball State? (Bet they do!)

A few hours after Selection Monday has named Connecticut, Tennessee, Nebraska, and Stanford as number one seeds in their regions, it’s time to e-mail friends, co-workers and family –  and organize a bracket contest (view bracket here).

The NCAA has made it free and easy to sign up (they walk you through the process and even score it for you!). Everyone has until games begin this weekend to register their picks.

I was reminded why this matters about 30 minutes ago while listening to local play-by-play of the Celtics-Pistons game on ESPN and the announcer bemoaned that UConn “didn’t make the tournament this year.”

What do you mean they didn’t make the tournament? Was he kidding??!!!?

Oh, the Men’s NCAA Tournament.

It’s time to disrupt the belief that March Madness is all about the men’s game, that UConn mean’s Jim Calhoun’s team — and that women (and guys, too) can’t talk up and hash over the women’s NCAA DI match ups.

It’s time to vote. Get that ballot — I mean bracket — and register your presence.

Here we go again. Baylor’s Brittney Griner’s outrageous act last Wednesday – the now-viral YouTube image of her socking Texas Tech’s Jordan Barncastle after the two jostled beneath the basket – has some wondering: What’s going on in women’s sports?

We had foul-mouthed Serena last summer, and then the pontytail pull in November. But instead of gasping and getting all whipped up over girls fighting, let’s look at what’s happening during college competition. (And why it may be a bigger problem in men’s college sports — did we already forget last year when Houston’s Aubrey Coleman foot-stomped Arizona’s Chase Budinger? video here).

Point One: Bad (and, yes, sometimes dangerous) behavior by college athletes occur at all levels of play — and starts in youth sports. (Read study abstract here or check out the story last month of the gym-clearing brawl involving 30 adults and children during a high school-level youth basketball game in Upstate NY). The NCAA Division III Annual Report for 2008-2009 records “conduct fouls,” and clearly shows this is a dramatically greater problem among male athletes.

– Average yellow cards issued to players was 18.35 per team for men compared with 3.89 for women; red cards issued to players (per team) was 0.98 for men; and 0.17 for women.

– In DIII basketball, men’s teams averaged 3.4 technical fouls per institution while women’s teams averaged less than a fifth as many at 0.64 per team.

– And in DIII ice hockey, men averaged 4.27 misconduct calls per institution, well above the women’s 0.45 misconduct calls by referees.

– Dr. Brian Crossman, ethics committee head for the National Soccer Coaches Association (representing 2,500 men’s and women’s teams in the NCAA plus NAIA, NCAA, and NJCAA) says there is a red card issued in one of every 10 soccer matches, and represents three consecutive years of increases. He sees “a growing disconnect between the severity and number of red card ejections and the standards of conduct” expected of players. Read his take here.

– NCAA data on DI women’s basketball technical and flagrant fouls shows unsportsmanlike conduct among players at its highest point in three years in 2008-2009 (306 called, up from 161 in 2006-2007, and 257 in 2007-2008). In the NJCAA, according to a recent report, last year there were 101 ejections in all of women’s sports with 37 identified as “violent” — while men’s sports tallied dramatically more with 648 ejections, 177 “violent.”

Point Two: College athlete conduct is troubling enough that some NCAA governing bodies are clamping down on bad behavior, including:

– Last month, the Men’s and Women’s Water Polo Rule Subcommittee decided to toughen penalties for rough play, increasing the length of suspensions from one to two games for those participating in a fight.

– The NCAA Football Rules Committee endorsed a proposal last month that would make unsportsmanlike behavior – including “a taunting gesture to an opponent on the way to scoring a touchdown” a live-ball foul that could nullify the TD and penalize the offenders from the spot of the foul.

– While we are on “taunting,” let’s recognize that Brittney Griner’s punch did not come out of the blue, but in an environment in which she’s been verbally and physically harangued on the court and from the stands.

Point Three: If we believe competitive sports teach lessons that matter as much off the field as on, then let’s not just sit back and hope lessons emerge. A 19-year-old freshman like Griner may not intuitively be able to handle the pressure (including expectations that she is the future of women’s basketball), without explicit support. If press reports are even half right, Griner will someday be both a superstar and a stand-up person. But players (especially those with targets on their uniforms) must be taught to shrug off trash talk and physical contact under the basket; not everyone is comes to college play with that skill.

College fight songs evoke battle. Just past the rally call of brass and bass drums, athletes push themselves to the edge of physical ability. Griner was absolutely wrong to throw the punch, but in the heat of intense competition she is not the only college athlete with troubling conduct.  She just happens to be the one we’re watching right now on YouTube.

The Rams gather before the game; freshman Anisha Wilson

The Playbook

The Playbook is an occasional series on University of Rhode Island Women’s Basketball team and head coach Cathy Inglese as she works to turn around a losing program. See most recent prior entry here.

By Laura Pappano

When Coach Cathy Inglese called a time out with 10:32 left in the second half, the Rams were down by one, trailing St. Bonaventure, 40-39. The music system at the Ryan Center pumped out up-beat lyrics, “Girls Just Wanna Have Fuh-uhnn!!” and it looked like there could be some celebrating when this was over. Celebrating because winning could let the Rams squeeze into post-season play in the Atlantic 10 tournament (only the top 12 go and they were in a three-way tie for that last spot).

Inglese, with all her intensity (it’s not clear why she has a seat in the sideline because she is pacing, calling, shouting, cajoling her players or the refs) draws plays on her clipboard, reminds them to hang tough, but warns — ineffectually, it turns out — “no more fouls!”

The fouls have been killing them. Every other minute, it seems, there is a Bonaventure player at the foul line, especially No. 5 Dana Mitchell ( she shot 12 of 13 from the free throw line). When it’s all over the stats show that the Ram got four shots (made 3) and St. Bonaventure had 30 shots (making 25) from the foul line.

For a tightly fought game that ended 63-53, that is a massive mis-match in free throws. Rhode Island fans, (including Inglese’s younger sister) let the refs hear their displeasure: “Call it at BOTH ENDS!!!” Was it unfair? Should Apolo Anton Ohno have been disqualified in the 500m short track event? Hard to know, given how aggressively both teams battled at both ends of the court.

This is DI basketball and things happen — or don’t happen. The Rams lost. Their season ended. But what was striking about the game, coming as it did slapped as the finale on a 11-game losing streak, was that if you hadn’t known of their struggles, you would never have guessed.

They played at times brilliantly — sharp, intuitive passes, steals, speedy Anisha Wilson tearing down the court or scrappy Lara Gaspar leaping up and twisting in all kinds of traffic to float the ball through the hoop (she scored 22 points).

Later, after her team slipped on warm-ups and ducked out beneath the blue and white streamers and balloons hung optimistically over the locker room entrance, Inglese would push aside her frustration — and when you are building a program there is plenty of that — to give her team credit. Yes, there were problems, including “a lack of consistency, a lack of urgency” and the need to say “the same thing four times.”

“They have battled hard,” said Inglese. “This team has learned to compete. They have lost — how many games in a row? — and every game they come out and they are here to compete.”

The year has ended with a 9-20 record, which is at the high end of what Inglese expected. “I thought we could win 0-10 games this year,” she said.

Winning DI teams aren’t built overnight, but assistant coaches Megan Lanham and Ashley Earley are already talking about next year and the four new recruits: Kerry Wallach (CT); Kiley Hackbarth (IL); Shikkirrie (RiRi for short) Turpin (FLA); and Emilie Cloutier (Quebec).

Lanham and Earley tick through each player’s qualities. Wallach is a 3-4 player who is a “workhorse,” a “competitor” who “will get the top of the rim.” Hackbarth is a point guard, a “spark plug” with great ball-handling skills and, says, Lanham, “one of the best work ethics I have ever been around.” Turpin, says Earley, “is going to rebound for us,” she is also “explosive offensively.” And Cloutier, both predict, “will be the most athletic on the team” with great vertical ability.

Why did they like so much about these four? “All of these kids are used to winning,” says Earley. “That was our deal with these kids,” says Lanham, “hard-working competitive kids that are used to winning.”

Junior captain Megan Shoniker slaps hands during pre-game introductions

Obviously, the UConn Women’s Basketball team under coach Geno Auriemma isn’t merely good. They are dominant. Of 20 games played so far, they have won 14 of by more than 30 points (including four by more than 50 points). The closest game was a 12-point win over Stanford.

So what does this mean?

For one thing, grouchy (but observant) Connecticut message-boarders are saying that the games aren’t interesting.

“The first words that come out of people’s mouths are why watch a blowout or why watch when you already know the outcome,” writes one poster, worried about UConn attendance dropping because they’re too good. People are “still UConn fans, but they want to watch a good game, not just a game with a good team anymore.”

Such whiners, however, have a point. And it’s a legitimate point that gets lost when people vehemently argue that people prefer to see guys play (pick the sport) because they may jump higher or run faster that the females who may play that same sport. Not true. People come to see competition. That is why college football has a TV following (as long as the game is tight) when the skill level in the NFL is dramatically higher.

Competition drives the thrill of sport.

A decade (or two) ago, we might have looked at UConn’s dominance as a sign that women’s basketball simply wasn’t there yet. (The old when-will-we-have-parity? prayer). But we have had some years of “parity” (remember Maryland’s 2006 win? A 3-pointer at the buzzer by Kristi Toliver to send the game against Duke into OT?) Baylor took it the year before.

This time is different. There is parity outside of UConn and plenty of fast-paced, exciting play. (Heck, there’s even dunking). But maybe Auriemma’s team could use some different competition. Maybe it’s time to play men. Which division TBD, but in a comparison that (take a breath, guys) I know is not fair, consider how the Huskies – men and women — stack up against one another in stats so far this season:

–      Total points scored: Advantage women (1516 vs. 1247)
–      Field goal percentage: Advantage women (.526 vs. .472)
–     3-point field goals made per game: Advantage women (6.1 vs. 3.9)
–     Free throws made per game: Advantage men (16.5 vs. 12.6)
–      Turnovers per game: Slight advantage men (13.6 vs. 14.9)
–     Steals per game (think drama): Advantage women (11.6 vs. 6.5)
–      Rebounds per game: Small advantage women (42.6 vs. 39.8)

Interested yet? I am (and I bet those message board posters and a whole lot of other folks would tune in, too).

Coach Cathy Inglese wants tougher defense against Holy Cross

The Playbook

The Playbook is an occasional series on University of Rhode Island Women’s Basketball team and head coach Cathy Inglese as she works to turn around a losing program. Check out previous installments here, here, here, and here.

By Laura Pappano

With 3:31 to go, it is a six point game, 65-59, Cathy Inglese’s URI Rams trailing Holy Cross at the Hart Center in Worcester.

Three good things have just happened: 1) Lindsay Harris sunk two foul shots, 2) the Rams flat out rejected a Holy Cross shot, sending it skittering away from the basket at a downward angle, and 3) a few seconds later URI freshman Anisha Wilson, a 5’6” bundle of speed and intensity, leapt up, Randy Moss-like, and stole a Holy Cross pass out of the air.

Time out called. Rolling Stones come on mid-song at full volume. URI fans rumble the wooden bleachers with their feet. Could this be it? Could this be the momentum-shift URI needs?

Coach Inglese, clipboard in hand, kneels on the wood floor in her pinstripe slacks. “Listen up here,” she says, and starts drawing and shouting over the music with an intensity that has every player focused on her black magic marker and the message that comes with it: “We are playing reactive!” We need to push them on defense. Don’t just stand there! Don’t just be a body! Emanate energy! Challenge them physically!  “We are GIVING them OPEN THREES!!”

When it is over, 80-71, Holy Cross players are whooping it up in celebration, banging their fists against metal AC venting in the hallway leading into the locker room.  And why not? It’s their first home win and the end of an 8-game losing streak.

For URI, which entered this game 7-7, the loss came down to defense – and three-pointers. Holy Cross was a stunning 13 for 22 (59.1%) from 3-point land. (Game stats here.)

Put another way, they scored 39 of their 80 points on threes. If those shots had been two’s the score would have been 67, not 80.  How do you defend against that kind of shooting?

Before she steps into the locker room – as she does before halftime and (though more briefly) during time-outs – Coach Inglese gathers her coaching staff to hash over what they see, what stats show, and proposed adjustments.

There is always a message, but part of building a team, Coach Inglese will say later, is that she needs to give the same message many times, that some players “get it” and some still don’t. That like someone learning new dance steps who is suddenly lost when the full-tempo music comes on, DI basketball is a detailed, skilled business that runs at warp speed. It takes time to master.

At halftime, she let them know that they had dug a hole, but warned, “I’m not asking anyone to play extra ordinary.” Her message then was about defense and team play. “Everyone is out there doing their own thing. That was 10 games ago. The games we’ve won, we’ve played as a team,” she says. “They are jacked up. We let them get hot. It’s all about you. It’s not about them.”

Despite the message that if they played their game (instead of just responding) that they could win, it happens some — but not enough. In the locker room afterwards,  there is the smell of sweat and the sound of silence. The players sit on wooden benches, shoulders slumped, knowing what’s coming. Coach Inglese, intense, but purposeful, fires. “What lost us this game?”

After a very long quiet, a voice offers, “Defense.”

“Our transition defense was God awful!” she says. “This team is not that good! We made them look good!”

She is concerned that players aren’t making the adjustments she’s asking them to make. “What are you guys afraid of?” she asks.

Her point is this: if opponents keep beating you on drives to the basket, if they keep beating you on three-pointers, then know they will do those things and step up your defense against those tendencies. “You’ve got to make them beat you on something else!! Make them beat you another way!!!”

Her messages to players during time-outs (plus halftime) have been the same messages — and that’s the well of her frustration. As she wraps up, she gives them the positives – they outscored their opponent in the second half (four players scored double digits), they out-rebounded Holy Cross (34-30) and killed them on the offensive boards (17-7). Later, when they are showering and heading to the bus, she gathers some perspective. They are good kids, no attitude, no eye-rolls — nothing — when they are yelled at or yanked for messing up. They listen. They are trying.

At 1:42 a.m. Coach Inglese e-mails. She has gone over the film and she wants to point out that there are some small, but worthy developments. Players are talking and interacting more, showing more emotion.  When one player was knocked down on defense, another jogged over and helped her up.  “Believe me,” she writes, “this was big. Small signs that mean a big thing.”

And, she acknowledges, Holy Cross was hot.  “I wish the outcome could have been a little better,” she writes, “but after watching the game tape I have to say that Holy Cross hit a lot of big 3’s…we were on them for many and they still put them in.” (Video post-game interview with Coach Inglese here).