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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Laura Pappano

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, the Men’s NCAA Tournament.

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

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

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

So what does this mean?

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

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

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

Competition drives the thrill of sport.

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

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

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

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

It bugs me. I drive by the fields in my town – and I only see men coaching the soccer teams.  Don’t get me wrong. It’s wonderful when dads share quality time with their daughters and sons. But where are the moms?

Even in the backyard, it’s dad shooting hoops and playing catch. How can we get moms outside to play?

Our daughters now have the opportunity to play a variety of sports, but we still have too few female role models to guide them.  Showing girls that they can be strong, active, and capable women starts at home, with mothers.

Dolly Ryan (photo), did play basketball in high school and college and now coordinates the 7th and 8th grade youth basketball program in her community. She’s working to creating a co-coaching model that includes at least one female and one male coach for each team. Ryan says she “hopes that through youth basketball more mothers will see they can contribute through youth sports.” Most coaches are dads, she says.

Having moms in coaching positions, says Ryan, brings a valuable balance to a program, helping to “reflect what town sports should be about, i.e. community, having fun, living a healthy lifestyle, challenging yourself, being respectful of refs and coaches – and representing the town in a positive light both on and off the court.”

Contrary to popular belief, you can coach even if you haven’t played the sport. And – truly – your participation matters.  Just in case you need the nudge, here are six reasons why it’s beneficial for your daughters to see you coach:

1.    Doing something together other than shopping at the mall is a fun and alternative way to bond.
2.    She will see you as a whole new person (not just the one upset by the messy room) including as a skilled sportsperson, something we value in our society.
3.    You will feel important and proud of yourself – particularly if it’s a new sport for you.  (Note: When you feel good, your daughter will notice!)
4.    You can share firsthand in your daughter’s accomplishments as an athlete, plus she’ll develop her own self-confidence by wanting to show off her skills!
5.    Learning about your daughter’s sport allows you to be an educated fan and cheerleader.  Dads need not have a monopoly on sports knowledge and when you can talk about the passing game or staying goal-side when defending, she’ll notice.  It will take you from mom role to mentor role.
6.    Mothers can make great mentors, especially when daughters pursue sports.  And the benefits can go both ways. Getting involved in your daughter’s sport may inspire you to ramp up your own activity level. It can be an opportunity to get back to something you love or to redefine yourself!

Emilie Liebhoff is a former co-captain of Dartmouth College women’s ice hockey, mother of two daughters, and founder of Moms as Mentors and the Director of Strategic Initiatives at the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools.

NM soccer player Elizabeth Lambert’s hair yanking, punching, and nasty behavior have gone viral. She’s being labeled the “dirtiest player” in women’s soccer and – depending on who’s writing or talking – all of women’s sports.

What makes Lambert’s behavior so outrageous (aside from being captured on video) is that girls are supposed to play nice.

The image of female athletes as more than skilled players – as good, wholesome people – is a centerpiece of women’s sports and a staple of marketing, promotion, and ticket-selling, particularly in basketball and soccer.

This has been both a benefit and a limitation that has helped shape women’s sports as “gentler” fare.

Of course, Lambert is not the first athlete to get in trouble for hair pulling. Last month, Oakland Raider’s defensive tackle Richard Seymour was reportedly fined $7,500 for pulling Broncos tackle Ryan Clady’s hair (also caught on tape). In August, Semi Tadulala, a Fijian rugby player, faced a one match suspension after pulling the ponytail of Eorl Crabtree during play between the Bradford Bulls and Hudderfield Giants.

Hairpulling, like grabbing opponents’ privates in the football pile-up or purposely seeking to injure another player, is blatant dirty play. Unfortunately, nasty play is more common than you’d think, though less so among female athletes.

A study on sportsmanship by the Josephson Institute asked male and female high school athlete about questionable scenarios (test your own sportsmanship here). They found:

–    29 percent of males felt it was all right to “attack” a pre-existing injury of a top scorer on the opposing team (another 22 percent were unsure). Among female athletes, 66 percent knew such behavior was improper.
–  69 percent of males and 55 percent of females felt it was all right for a hockey coach to put a player on the ice specifically to intimidate opponents and protect the team’s players.
–   43 percent of males and 22 percent of females believed it was okay for a basketball coach to teach young players how to illegally push and hold in ways that were difficult for referees to detect.

A family-friendly, role-model-for-kids image hardly holds up with someone like Lambert on the field. On the other hand, this is likely the first time SportsCenter, the NFL pre-game show on Fox (from Afghanistan no less!), and thousands of sports talk radio shows across the country gave air time to women’s college soccer.

This is where men’s sports (and the broadcasters whose definition of “hockey highlights” are on-ice brawls) could use a little self-reflection. As a society and fans who value fair play, we should spend some airtime and outrage on bad on-field behavior among male athletes, too. The integrity of players — male and female — is what makes sports bigger than the game.

Is it a problem that White House b-ball games with the president are male-only affairs? Or that, according to the New York Times story yesterday that since taking office President Obama has played 23 rounds of golf – and none (based on records kept by a CBS reporter) included women? (The first female aide, Melody C. Barnes, apparently played yesterday.)

President Obama finds the whole matter annoying and White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying that the ball-playing “is just part of the culture that I am excluded from. And I don’t care.”

It’s not surprising that Dunn and other females on President Obama’s staff would downplay the exclusion. But how they feel misses a more critical point: When you are the President, there is no such thing as a meaningless basketball game.

Just as Michelle Obama cannot throw on an outfit and step into public without drawing a detailed fashion analysis (or plant an organic garden and not have it be an important initiative), everything – like it or not, fair or not – is a statement. You cannot choose, in other words, the aspects of your non-policy White House living which are meant to be symbolically meaningful and those that are not. It all counts.

Sports are a tool for relationship building for men and women. And while elite leagues and teams are all about skills, there are many more basketball leagues across the country – many co-ed – that are about getting exercise and connecting with others. There are urban professionals leagues in Manhattan, drop-in co-ed play in New Hampshire and competitive co-ed leagues in Chicago (FYI: one busy message board has female former college players looking to join teams).

It is hard to believe that the guys President Obama has invited to play are elite jocks who chose government service over NBA careers. More likely, they are – like those who join recreational leagues – just looking to sweat and bond. (In other words, it’s not about dunking…).

We know The President likes basketball. He made a photo op of filling out the NCAA March Madness playoff bracket (alas men’s side only). He invited the UConn Women’s Basketball team to the White House, but carefully described them as an inspiration to his daughters, not himself.

The male-focused message may be unintentional. But it does normalize the bias belief that men’s play is the real thing and women are wannabees.

No one wants to deny Mr. Obama the fun and fitness of hoops, but he should be astute enough to know that there is an awful lot of political capital embedded in, literally, being able to pass the ball to the POTUS.

THE PLAYBOOK

By Laura Pappano

Go ahead and debate whether or not it’s a good thing, but women’s college basketball is changing: Young women don’t just talk about D1 ball as a way to cover the cost of a college degree, but see it as a path to the pros.  Certainly, some players have always aspired to keep playing — in the WNBA, for the USA, or in Europe. But increasingly female players come to college with hoop dreams.

“It’s a change,” says University of Rhode Island head coach Cathy Inglese, noting that’s one reason she hired two assistant coaches with professional experience: Ashley Earley (Vanderbilt ’05 who made 4 NCAA tournament appearances and played in Israel) and Amber Jacobs (BC ’04 who played in the WNBA 2004-2008). Inglese says one of the point guards she recruited this spring, Anisha Wilson from New Haven, CT, has pro aspirations. “Anisha wants to play in the WNBA,” says Inglese. “It’s something she has brought up.”

Sure, there were mixed reactions when Epiphany Prince announced in June she would skip her senior year at Rutgers to play in Europe and enter the 2010 WNBA draft. The worry: Are the women headed down the road of men’s college ball, where many hardly sit through a class before making their way into the NBA? Are inner-city girls now going to think basketball — and go light on the studies?

Unlikely. The troubling example of inner-city boys who plan for NBA careers only to be lost and uneducated at 20 is more about educational guidance and engagement (or lack of) than basketball. The professional venues for women don’t — dollarwise, anyway — negate the necessity for a college degree. Even Prince promises she’ll get hers. (We’ll check). On the other hand, this development will only improve the quality and competition of D1 play.

Meanwhile, let’s talk about coaching.

During her year sabbatical Inglese visited top D1 basketball programs and sat in on practices run by the best coaches in the business —  Geno Auriemma (Connecticut), Pat Summitt (Tennessee), Tara VanDerveer (Stanford), and Gail Goestenkors (Texas), among others.

Some take-aways:

1. When you coach, says Inglese, “you’ve got to do what is your personality. You can certainly pick and choose the drills, people do different things with video. It’s nice seeing it, but you’ve got to go with what you feel and be consistent. If you are up and down that confuses the kids.”

2. “You need to have leadership, a person on the court who sets the goal and creates a standard,” says Inglese, who believes Megan Shoniker could be that person for URI. “When I met with the team in the locker room, we were talking about goals and things and Megan said, ‘I don’t want the winning to start two years from now, I want it to start doing it now. I want to win now.’ She is a gutsy kid.”

3. “Geno and others, they let their staff be involved in the teaching and breaking down at practices. I used to think I had to bring the energy all the time to practice. They have to bring that themselves,” she says.

4. Inglese says she noticed the intensity at practice.  “The top coaches are into detail and being disciplined and doing things hard and game-like. That is something I have always known, but it was good seeing that.” In other words, practice how you play.

Because we can all benefit from hearing serious young female athlete voices, we connected with three talented basketball players who just finished nine days at the summer academy run by the non-profit SportsChallenge Leadership & Education Alliance in Washington, D.C. Director Molly Hellerman (a former college athlete and pro soccer player for the Houston Tornadoes and the Chelsea Ladies FC) says the organization uses soccer and basketball to explicitly teach leadership and getting-along-with-different-people skills. “Sports offer girls the opportunity to practice being leaders,” she says.

Diamond Santana-Williams (top left, 12th grade, NYC, small forward) started playing basketball in 5th grade but “didn’t really take it seriously until I reached high school.” Now, she says, “I play with more heart than most players.” Katie Gallagher (top right, in background, 12th grade, Philadelphia, PA, guard) started playing when she was five because three older brothers played and says hard work and desire make her good. Devin Duprey (bottom, 12th grade, Middletown, DE, guard) began playing basketball in 6th grade and works to connect with teammates on and off the court.

FGN: How many of your female friends play a sport?

DS-W: A good amount play sports – but they only play at school as part of the school team and not in the neighborhood. I get frustrated when I’m in my neighborhood and none of my female friends play basketball on the local courts. I want to play basketball and I want to have girls like me playing, too.

FGN: What do you like best about playing a sport and being on a team?

DS-W: Sport is an easy place to make new friends. Also, it keeps me out of my neighborhood and out of trouble. Being part of the team, I have become a more responsible, dedicated and strong person.

KG: I love the sense of accomplishment I feel within myself when I play basketball and learn a new move. Also, I love how I have a second family of teammates who have my back.

DD: The relationships I gain from being on a team are what make sports so important to me. My teammates are my best friends and role models.

FGN: What is the connection between sports and leadership?

DS-W: In sports, there are many times when you have to “step-up” and be a leader – on and off the court. For example, in a game when a teammate or the team isn’t playing as well as they could, a leader needs to address it head-on, figure out what is wrong, try to fix it and create the intensity that is needed.

KG: Through sports I have become a much better leader because on the court I am not afraid to speak up. This has helped me become more outgoing. Through sports I have also learned to work together with all types of people.

DD: I believe that the characteristics of a great athlete directly correlate with those of a great leader. I also think that in order to have an effective team, there must be leadership in action on the court or field.

FGN: How do you think being a female athlete (and not a male athlete) shapes your experience?

DS-W: I feel like I always have to prove myself. Many guys my age will challenge me or think they can challenge me on the courts. Being a female athlete drives me to do better and I love it when they are surprised to see me compete just as hard and play just as smart as they do. They often underestimate our abilities.

DD: Being a female athlete makes me stronger. Female athletes are not recognized at the same rate that men are recognized. We have to have inner confidence in all that we do.

FGN: How has playing a sport helped you grow?

KG: Basketball has made me a much more accepting person. I have met many different people through basketball and at a young age I learned that things like ethnicity do not matter on the court.

DD: My freshman year of high school my sister was my volleyball coach. Later that year she passed away from complications after a car accident. From having her as a coach and sharing a love and passion for volleyball (and basketball) sports have become a way to connect with her.

FGN: What are your future plans?

DS-W: I want to go to a good college, play on the basketball team and get my degree. I want to become an athlete that other girls and boys look up to. I want to become a social worker and open up my own center for kids to help them deal with relationship abuse. I want to be successful. But above all, I want to have my mom with me to share my blessings.

KG: As an athlete, I would love to continue playing in college, either intramural, club or varsity.  Sports however are not the most important thing. I hope to become a nurse.

DD: In college I want to study education and Chinese. I also know how big basketball has become in China and I hope because I know the game I will be able to teach English as a second language, share my love of basketball, and teach young children in China the game.

By Laura Pappano

School districts are sweating. Budgets are tight and they are cutting in the same old places, including middle and high school sports. (A recent American Association of School Administrators survey shows the proportion of school districts cutting extracurricular activities, including sports, will triple from 10 to 28 percent from this academic year to next.)

There is also recycled talk about “pay to play” – not in the political-access- Rod-Blagojevich sense of the phrase, of course – but in the fee to participate. The downside: If the fee is too high some kids get left out. It does cost money to play sports and there may be a place for a nominal charge (say you buy your own uniform…or provide your own equipment). But one budget balancing option to consider: Pay to watch. And not just football.

Of course folks are used to paying $8 or $10 to attend high school football and, as a result, there is obvious focus these days on those revenues. The question is: Why do we pay this and what does it mean now, when budgets are tight – and later when this fiscal calamity has passed?

There is obvious attention these days on high school football revenues. The Tennessee Secondary School Association is fretting because dollars from post-season football play have been falling steadily since 2005, from $830,667 to $610,090 this past season. The Board of Control’s solution? They raised ticket prices for next year’s playoffs from $10 to $12.

They are leaning on the fact that people are used to paying to see high school football. At Gainesville High School in Florida, for example, the football team brought in $83,589 of the school’s $132,667 in sports ticket sales – plus about $105,000 through a booster’s club (including $60,000 for ads in the football program).

The high school’s athletic director, Wayne Vickery, told the Gainesville Times that football money is key: “Other coaches don’t want to hear it, but I’m sorry, football is a driving force,” Vickery said. “But that’s the way it is in the South. … Whether people like it or not, football pays the bills.”

The problem with this reality is the underlying presumption: Football (and maybe men’s basketball) are the only sports “worth” paying to see (or buy programs for, or support through booster fundraising).  It’s part of a familiar hierarchy in which football games are scheduled as Friday night community entertainment (or say Thanksgiving).

This budget crisis is an opportunity to insert some equity into the revenue-respect equation. It’s time to re-evaluate the paternalistic attention-sucking power structure that is high school football and share some of the wealth – and responsibility – with other athletic teams. Yes, I said, “responsibility.” It’s time for supporters of other teams to realize that athletics cost money and that it’s also worth dollars to watch soccer, cross country, gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball, swimming…

What would happen if a school district took turns featuring key athletic match-ups on Friday nights (and promoting and charging for them)? Track under the lights? Field hockey? Softball? Lacrosse? In the process, maybe school districts could expand their base of support beyond the football boosters to an audience (and pool of funders) that is largely untapped.

Sure, officials in Tennessee attributed their falling football playoff revenues on things beyond their control: poor weather and unexciting match-ups. But maybe we’re giving too much to and expecting too much from high school football.