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.

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 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.

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?

On the heels of a compelling World Cup and on the eve of the 2012 Olympics, Women’s Professional Soccer announced today that they are suspending the 2012 season – with plans (maybe hopes?) to return to play in 2013.

The news, for those who recall the end of WUSA in 2003 and promises of revival (remember months of static websites?), raises concerning questions about why it’s so tough to launch and sustain a women’s pro league. And whether this move is a stab at regrouping — or a last gasp for a troubled structure.

Why the suspension? The official blame is the “lengthy and expensive legal battle with a former owner” – meaning the ongoing tussle with magicJack owner Dan Borislow, whose league membership was “terminated” in October following rule-breaking and public remarks critical of the league. He, in turn, filed suit. And – yes – both sides are now battling it out in court.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, WPS CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan suggested that the problem, however, was bigger than Borislow. The league, she said, “has been faced with a series of challenges and difficulties throughout the past year” adding that “Mr. Borislow has been a lightening rod for those issues.”

O’Sullivan said Borislow had hurt the league’s relations with major sponsors, suggesting he was a factor in Puma’s decision to drop its sponsorship and that his manner had “a negative impact on other national sponsors.”

But one has only to look at WPS history to see a revolving door of teams. Weeks after the Los Angeles Sol played in the league’s first championship in 2009, the franchise folded. The Atlanta Beat and Philadelphia Independence came aboard, but the St. Louis Athletica shut down – as did the FC Gold Pride – right after winning the 2010 WPS Championship. The Chicago Red Stars bowed out of 2011 – and the Western Flash signed on.  No wonder it’s hard to build a following. (Never mind about the “reorganization” six months after the league launch in 2009).

It IS difficult work in a nation dominated by men’s sports that attract huge crowds, coverage, and sponsorship. But women’s soccer is really, really good. And the World Cup (yet again) showed how edge-of-your seat compelling it could be  – if only packaged and marketed right. Right?

Borislow is clearly being painted as the bad guy. But you have to wonder: How could the league get to the point where one recalcitrant owner could sink the whole enterprise? And are we hearing the whole story? Borislow may not be diplomatic, but magicJack player/coach Abby Wambach recently defended him to ESPN’s Julie Foudy.  The issue is clearly deeper than the financial strain caused by lawyers, pricey as that may be.

Cancelling professional soccer at this moment – necessary as it looked to the league’s governing board – is risky. If Borislow puts together compelling “friendlies” with top players (as is rumored) and/or other teams like the Boston Breakers find alternative competition for 2012, will WPS really restart in 2013?

If it does, sponsors, owners, players and fans need serious reassurance that leadership has – finally – found the secret sauce to building women’s pro soccer.

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.

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.