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.

On The Issues Magazine has just published a special edition focusing on the 40th Anniversary of Title IX. If I’ve learned one thing from FairGameNews it’s that the matter of how female athletes use and present their bodies reliably spurs heated — though circular and predictable — debate. In the special issue I offer three reasons why we’ve gotten so stuck — and how we might think fresh about this perennial lightning rod of a subject. Read it here. Also check out the other essays, including an excellent piece by Alex Channon on why Sex Segregation is Bad for Society.

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.

Have you been to recess lately?

It just so happens that I have. Recently, I volunteered for recess duty at my son’s school. (He’s in first grade.)

There is plenty to say about recess – including that at many schools there is simply not enough of it. Some low-performing schools have eliminated recess to increase time on academics in hopes of raising tests scores, despite much research which demonstrates the value of recess. But this post is not about that.

It’s about the lost opportunity of recess. As a former teacher, as a parent, and as a (former) kid myself, it’s not difficult to see that free play time tends to be very segregated by gender. To anyone who pays attention it seems clear that girls and boys have very different play time interests.

But why is this? How much is socialization and girls being quietly (almost invisibly) discouraged from playing sports in their free time?   (My dissertation on the subject here). As someone who has studied this phenomenon, I love to see girls play soccer or basketball at recess, but research shows that boys control TEN times as much space on the playground or the courts, plus much of the equipment (Thorne, 1997, p.83; see Gender Play for a full investigation of this topic).

You will see the girls shooting baskets off to the side (and with the not quite fully-inflated ball) while boys dominate the play space in a large, organized game. Furthermore, boys are more likely to interrupt all-girl games. With this domination of space and “claimed entitlement…playgrounds are basically male turf” (Thorne, 1997, p.83).

At my son’s school, he often spends recess playing a game that involves chasing the girls or them chasing him. But many days he plays basketball or soccer with a group of boys (yes, I ask him every day who he played with and if it was a sports game, it is never girls). On the day I volunteered, he was in a heated game of basketball with seven other boys. One girl sat on the curb watching. I asked her if she wanted to play. She responded, “no,” but said that she plays with her older brother at home.

Wasn’t this a lost opportunity for her (and for the boys)?

I won’t argue that recess supervisors need to insist the girls jump into the boys’ games (though that would be great!). But I will argue that teachers and school staff need to insure that girls have equal access to equipment and space — and are encouraged to use them. We may need to help girls become confident enough to play with the boys or to command their own games.

When girls and boys play together, they both benefit and learn from one another. We don’t need to have boys versus girls (though that is often the default position when teachers/supervisors lack other ways to identify opposing players). Maybe it’s time to get some pinnies, provide some support, and let boys AND girls take control of the play space at recess.

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.