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 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.

Sports are political. This year’s March Madness tournament has made that point even more clearly than usual as President Barack Obama’s campaign announced the “Obama Bracket Challenge:” Out pick the President and your name appears on the campaign website.

While initial reports suggested a catch – that the contest only applied to the men’s bracket — the campaign IS hosting a women’s contest as well.

The women’s NCAA playoff may not be as big as the men’s. We know that. We have known that for years and years. We are, frankly, tired of knowing that.

But even as news outlets continue to focus on the men’s DI tournament, many have discovered that – hey – it’s not so tough to also cover the women. (Ignoring them, after all, is getting awkward). And this year promises some compelling play.

Inside Higher Ed’s annual academic performance bracket – looking at the playoff teams through graduation rates – this year for the first time includes analysis of women’s teams. The TeamRankings blog has discovered that “all of the rankings and simulations can be applied to the women’s side of things as well” and includes a table of round-by-round survival odds. And the Bleacher Report provides analysis of all the first round match-ups, pointing out that the “element of the unknown” in the men’s tourney “is ratcheted up to another level in the women’s tournament” (and yes, because many teams are never seen on national TV).

These may be small steps. But they matter. More people are filling out the women’s brackets. More outlets are considering the composition of the teams and the match-ups.

Sports is political. Whether you join the Obama Bracket Challenge or not, if you are March Madness inclined, fill out a women’s bracket because the conversation about whether Baylor will run the tables or UConn will lean on its history is talk, not just about play, but about valuing the compelling game that is Women’s NCAA DI Basketball.

Note: This story reflects a correction and update from an earlier version.

By Laura Pappano

This is a year of Title IX anniversary celebrations – it became law in 1972 – but even as conferences are convened (I was part of a terrific panel at Wellesley College on Monday), let’s not get weepy.

It was not as if a switch flipped and everything changed.

There is plenty of work to do and the law remains subject to enforcement and interpretation. We may have made great progress, but inequity exists – and it’s so embedded in the way we do business as to hardly draw notice.

Recently, I was driving and passed a high school sign trumpeting upcoming sports news and events. The sign announced the boys upcoming games – but mentioned nothing about girls sports, even leaving panels blank rather than, say, mention that the girl’s basketball team had just captured the league championship.

When we talk about equity and Title IX, the argument has been about access. About being allowed to participate. But 40 years later, that’s not enough.

Interestingly, the court is starting to agree. A U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th circuit) recently found that a case should go to trial that claims unfairness in scheduling girls vs. boy’s basketball at an Indiana high school. During the 2009-2010 season 95 percent of the games for the Franklin County High School boys’ team were in “prime time” – Friday and Saturday nights – drawing large crowds, cheerleaders (and making it easier to get homework done).

In Parker vs. Franklin County Community School, the court found that the practice of relegating the girls’ games to non prime-time slots results in “a loss of audience, conflict with homework, and foster[s] feelings of inferiority.”

“A packed gymnasium, cheer- leaders rallying the fans, the crowd on their feet sup- porting their team, and the pep band playing the school song: these are all things you might expect to see at an Indiana high school basketball game on a Friday night. The crowd becomes part of the game; they provide motivation, support, and encouragement to the players. After all, what would a spectator sport be without the specta- tors? Unfortunately, this is a question the Franklin County High School girls’ basketball teams must answer every season because half their games have been relegated to non-primetime nights (generally Monday through Thursday) to give preference to the boys’ Friday and Saturday night games.”

The frustrating reality? The Office for Civil Rights wrote a letter 14 years ago alerting Franklin to the problem. Nothing was done. Maybe…now?

By Ashleigh Sargent

In between soufflé and sauce instruction, there’s time for athletics. Yes, they do more than cook at the Culinary Institute of America. Since 2004, they’ve played intercollegiate sports (though no scholarship athletes here). And, unlike most college basketball teams, the CIA Steels are co-ed, thanks to the addition this season of Mackenzie Anderson, a freshman Culinary Arts major. Mackenzie — #23 — spoke with FGN about her co-ed sports experience and her hope that more women don’t let their sex keep them off the court or field.

FGN: The Culinary Institute of America is a cooking school that, since 2004, has had intramural sports teams, including some that are co-ed. What drew you here and why do women and men play together?

 MA: The Culinary Institute is amazing! It has been a dream of mine to come here since I was little. At the CIA, if you’re bold enough to try out, women can make the teams because they don’t offer many women’s sports yet. (They are plans to add more women’s sports).

FGN: Why did you decide to play on a men’s team?

MA: During high school I went to a local gym and worked out with personal trainers three days a week. In Fall 2009, I participated in a power lifting competition, which then lit a spark in my brain.  I realized that I was strong and decided to tryout for the football team at my high school.  I played offensive-defensive tackle, JV junior year and varsity senior year. Football was the best experience of my life. It was the most fun I have ever had in a sport, and it proved that girls can do anything guys can do.  I played simply to challenge myself, but I liked that I may have been someone to look up to. At CIA I tried out for them men’s basketball team because I love the sport. They didn’t have a owmen’s team so I just went for it. I had to try out like all the guys who came out for the team, and prove that I was just as good. I made the team knowing that I may not get much playing time, but it was worth it to me. I get to stay in shape and play a sport I love.

FGN: What is it like being the only female player?

MA: My teammates treat me like I’m one of the guys. They never go easy on me, and I have never felt excluded.  I feel I have gained respect from the team.  My coach always says, “I don’t know how you can put up with us.”  The guys always say, “Coach, she’s just one of the guys!” I love that!

FGN: Are there any particularly challenges?

MA: One challenge for me is the running. The guys are such good athletes and it’s hard for me to run as fast as them when we run sprints in practice. It’s also hard to box them out (I’m only five feet tall). Another challenge is the size of the ball.  The men’s ball is larger than the women’s ball that I have been playing with all my life, which forces me to work harder than the guys.

FGN: What do you enjoy about the team?

MA: I think the best thing about being on a team full of guys is that they always challenge you and my teammates are really fun to be around.

FGN: What have you learned from the experience?

MA:  I have learned that if you see something you want, go out and get it. Don’t let anyone stop you. I have talked to women who say, “I have always wanted to play football or I wanted to try out for basketball but didn’t want to be the only girl.” I hate hearing that! Women tell themselves they are not good enough, instead of just saying, “I am good.  I’m going to go out and show these guys what I’ve got and earn their respect.” Some days I’m proud to be the only female on the team, but I also wish more women stood up for themselves and believed in themselves.

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 Ashleigh Sargent

Think of it as one step – literally a 12” stride – toward gender equity. This year for the first time, women and men will shoot from the same 20’9” three-point line.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided to move the women’s three-point arc from 19’9” after tracking the location of shots from three-point land. The NCAA’s study showed that the majority of three pointers taken by female players last season were taken from behind the (former) men’s three-point line.

In fact, the data show women shot an impressive 33% from this further distance, which is a higher percentage than from the 19’9” arc.

I got in touch with Kamile Nacickaite, a senior guard at Drexel University, who shot a stunning 47.8 percent from the three last year, giving her the best three-point shooting percentage of any returning NCAA DI player.

She’s game for the deeper arc. “I like this change,” she says. “It challenges players to work on their shot more.”

Nacickaite, originally from Siauliai, Lithuania, grew up shooting from the further three point line. And while that gives her an edge, she also believes the change will improve play. “The offense is more spread out, so it opens lanes for players to drive,” she says.

Drexel Coach Denise Dillon has mixed feelings. While she agrees with moving the line to make it consistent with the men’s game, she thinks it could be tough for shooters.

“The shooting percentage from the three-point line will drop.  It will take time for the players to become consistent from the new line,” says Dillon, who has noticed many shots being taken from just inside or right on the line, resulting in only two points. As a result, she thinks there may be fewer attempted threes than in the past.

To prepare, Dillon has her team doing more shooting drills from the line. “During drills the team appears comfortable with the distance, but in game-like situations many struggle with the range.” We’ll soon find out how the new line shapes play: The Drexel Dragon’s season begins November 6.

Any big change requires time to adjust. Initial struggles are to be expected. But putting the women’s three-point mark in line with the men’s only makes sense.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week remained silent in the case of a Texas cheerleader, but the message was alarmingly loud: It may be 2011, but high school girls don’t have the same rights as high school guys.

The Court declined to hear an appeal from a Texas cheerleader and her family who sued the Silsbee Independent School District for violating her rights to equal protection and free speech when she remained silent during a cheer for a basketball player whom she had accused of sexually assaulting her the previous year. Cheer him or go home, she was told.  She went home.

A federal district court dismissed the case and a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Amazingly, the reasoning seems to be that the school’s rights overrule the individual’s right to free speech.

In supporting the ruling of a federal district court, the 5^th Circuit panel reasoned that:

“In her capacity as a cheerleader, [the student] served as a mouthpiece through which [the school] could disseminate speech—namely, support for its athletic teams….Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular student speech, [the district] had no duty to promote [her] message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit. Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.”

Remaining silent during a single cheer for one individual player is hardly non-support for a school’s athletic teams.  Papers filed with the court by the school district suggest that what really prompted the school’s extreme reaction was the disturbance the cheerleader’s silence caused in the stands. Perhaps it was support for her? Perhaps for the player? In either case, school officials surely could have handled the situation without violating individual rights.

It’s certainly true that a Texas grand jury failed to indict the basketball player or two other two alleged assailants. But failure to indict is not a statement about guilt or innocence; it is merely an opinion on available evidence.

Under Tile IX schools must address issues of sexual violence and harassment and create safe environments for all students. Vice President Biden has made addressing sexual violence in schools a major priority. Last month the Department of Education issued new guidelines for high schools and universities and their obligations under Title IX.

The Silsbee School District needs to read those guidelines carefully. Insisting that a young woman cheer loudly in support of the very young man she has publically accused of sexually assaulting her sends chilling messages to young women (and men): Do not speak out about sexual harassment and assault. Do not challenge the system. And  – echoes of another era (or so we thought) – You women, stay in your place, cheering and supporting men, no matter what you think of them!

Pretty much patriarchy at its worst, I’d say.

Susan McGee Bailey served as the Executive Director of the Wellesley Centers for Women (WCW) and a Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies and Education at Wellesley College from 1985 until January, 2011. She has conducted research on a range of gender issues in education and employment and writes and lectures on questions of women and public policy.

What a week of hoops! As a college player and fan, my observations about the tournament mixed strong emotions (one of the stars of women’s basketball ends her college career with a 72-63 loss) with excitement for the way the final game unfolded. It is meaningful to see a new team win it all.

Why did Texas A & M win? Texas was tougher down the stretch and Notre Dame didn’t have an answer for Danielle Adams, with her strong body and soft hands. Even when Notre Dame went on runs, Texas A&M never let that shake their confidence. To win close games, you have to win the battle of the intangibles. Both teams went on runs and faced lulls. It requires focus, hustle, and toughness (mental, emotional, physical) to outlast a very evenly matched opponent.

What does it mean for other college teams? Knowing that on any night that any given team can win will make teams more competitive. In the off-season, teams will work harder and look at teams like Texas A&M, which has never won the championship, and see themselves. Players can no longer settle for mediocrity thinking it doesn’t matter because UConn or Stanford will win it anyway…

Why Maya Moore is so great: Remember the streak? 90 wins. In a row. That means showing up 90 times and being the better team.  That’s 90 times teams throw everything that they have at you – but you answer. This brings me to:

— The Exposure. Maya Moore has become a name that people in the athletic world know (maybe not as well known as Kemba Walker or Jimmer Fredette), but in a tribute to her legacy on Sunday, some of the most dominant male and female athletes in sports recognized her ability as an athlete, not simply as a “female athlete.”

— Add in The Fanbase that turns out and tunes in to UConn because people love to watch Maya Moore play (and yes, she can lead SportsCenter). But the most critical to a player like me?

—  The Competition. Moore challenges her opponents in every possession of the game. Geno Auriemma challenges coaches to find a strategy to beat his team.  Teams have put their best effort on the floor for 40 minutes because UConn demands it.  Maya Moore challenges other teams to match her greatness, which means challenging women’s basketball to be better.

Maya and Me: No, I don’t know her personally, but I see a player I strive to be like. I will not reach her skill level (not many ever will), but her work ethic, attitude, leadership and character are something every player at every level can work on. She epitomizes the right way to lead and represent your team. She puts her team on her shoulders, making sure she leaves everything on the floor. I respect that and have raised the bar for myself, trying to emulate not her skills (impossible), but the way she plays the game.

Ashleigh Sargent is a sophomore at Wellesley College majoring in Psychology and minoring in Mathematics.  She is on the varsity basketball team, a member of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, and a head of the Wellesley Athlete Mentor Program.