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.

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.

Monique Howard, right tackle for Pershing High

By Laura Pappano

Thanksgiving football, of course, involves Detroit. And while the NFL will get plenty of attention today, there has been another Detroit football story out there this season.  Word that Monique Howard, 6-foot senior basketball player and track talent, tried out for – and made – the Pershing High School football team, was news this fall.

When Howard decided to try out for the team, her basketball coach and mentor, Shawn Hill, figured it was just Monique being Monique.

“At first I thought it was a joke,” he says, adding that, “I didn’t think she could do it.” Hill admits to being stunned when Howard not only made the team but became starting right tackle.

“It shocked me when she started. I was worried. I didn’t want her to get hurt. But I watched her play the first three games and then I thought, ‘She’s OK. She’s really holding it down.’”

Now that the season has ended, Howard talks about what the experience showed her – both about herself and about the beliefs people have about who can play football.

FGN: What made you decide to try out for the football team?

MH: My lineman coach saw me playing basketball and shot put for track and thought it would be a great idea. He said I was as tough as the boys.

FGN: Do you like playing football?

MH: I like tackling people, taking all the aggression out without getting in trouble for it!

FGN: Very few girls play football; and typically they are kickers. Reality is that you are matched up against guys who are a lot bigger. Was that scary?

MH: Before I started, everyone was saying, “You’ll get hurt!” Most teams’ players, they are bigger, but I was never nervous. My coach taught me different techniques – coming off the ball first, using my speed. As long as I come off the ball fast, it doesn’t matter how big and strong they are, football is all about timing.

FGN: You even pancaked an opposing player and they didn’t know it was by a female until you took off your helmet…

MH: They were jumping around saying, ‘That’s a girl you got pancaked by!!!!!”

FGN: Has playing football affected your hopes/plans to play basketball in college?

MH: Football helped me so much in basketball. My footwork got better. My timing has gotten better. (Shawn Hill agrees: “Now she’s used to being in a crowd. She has the patience to take her time with her layup.” )

FGN: What did you learn by playing?

MH: My whole mindset is that I can do anything I want to do if I put my mind to it. A lot of girls didn’t know that girls could play football. Really, boys and girls are basically equal when they work out and everything. Girls like a challenge. They can do what the boys can do.

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.

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 international track federation’s (IAAF) decision to nullify women’s marathon records from mixed-sex events reflects a crude double standard: Men can have rabbits; women can’t.

The use of pacesetters is common in running, from short track distances to marathons. Boston and New York no longer allow pacesetters, but many marathons do, including Chicago, London, Berlin, and Rotterdam. (New York used to, paying rabbits several thousand dollars to set the pace and then drop out at the 25K mark).

By framing the matter as a gender problem — women’s marathon records can only count in women’s-only events — the IAAF conveniently sidesteps the more controversial issue: Should rabbits be allowed?

Competitive sport has long relied on athletic challengers meant to set a pace or spur improved performance. It is part of bicycle and car racing. While use of male practice squads in women’s college basketball spurred debate several years ago, the NCAA decided to allow them. (BTW colleges, including Ohio State are looking for a players).

Does the practice provide an unfair advantage? If so, are we ready to apply the same standard to men’s records achieved with the aid of pacesetters?

That would be a blow to many, including Roger Bannister who ran his historic sub-four-minute mile in 1955 — with the help of two pacers.

Until we have female rabbits (a thought) it’s easy for the IAAF – as it was for opponents of male practice squad players – to argue that women are relying on physically large and speedy males to improve their own performance.

But then, aren’t male runners using rabbits doing the same thing? And let’s remember: Paula Radcliffe really did run a 2:15:25 marathon (and in 2003 when she did it, no British runner, female or male, ran faster).