This thinking has a fundamental error in it. Men's soccer and women's soccer are different sports, just as men's tennis and women's tennis are different sports. What you say of the U15 DA boys would be the same for tennis players. In tennis, that wouldn't mean that a the coach of a 15-year old who beats a top women's player is a better coach than the woman's coach. In fact, some of the top women players have male coaches that are considered among the best in the world, they've coached both men and women at the highest level (which reminds me of Clive Charles at the University of Portland). So, notwithstanding your credentials, your thinking gets a grade of D.
It is funny seeing stereotypes used to put someone down for using stereotypes. Ironically proving your own point, I guess.
A bit of generalization in those statements. Not all white males have lived with advantages. Not all are great coaches either. Along that lines, great players don’t always make the best coaches either, so that point is somewhat irrelevant. Here’s a thought. The best candidate should be the one who has success relative to what they have to work with and relative to the needs of a particular program. Male or female should have nothing to do with it. The issue is that it is difficult to define success. Wins? Strong academic team? Positive experience? Will they work cheaper than someone else? Do they understand the area and can they recruit? Very difficult indeed to come up with a set criteria and what works for one school might not for another. Maybe one school wants to go to the Final 4 while another values a strong female mentor. Not saying a female couldn’t be both of those things. Simply saying in the case of the first one, the choice might be a more experienced and successful coach (male or female). In the case of the second, experience might not matter as much and in fact youth might be an advantage. If the hire doesn’t work out, hopefully the AD learns from it, but it is their choice to make.
Yes they have. Unless they've never applied for a job, a loan, an apartment, a mortgage, been pulled over by the police, walked into a store with a security officer, etc etc etc.
Silly comment. Plenty of white males have been denied jobs, loans and apartments. They’ve also been pulled over by the police. Have they been treated the exact same as a minority? Probably not, but spare the lectures. Unfairness isn’t simply a race issue. It’s an economic one.
Um, right. That's my point. I wasn't implying *only* POC of color get pulled over, get denied jobs or loans etc. I was saying they have a harder time in these situations *based on their race*, which you yourself just acknowledged. And yes, I get and agree with your economic point. Low income white males are unfairly disadvantaged in many circumstances too, such as college admissions.
And yet that extrapolation goes on throughout the College season. Its foolish to compare the Mens and Womens games, they are fundamentally different.
Here's your gender and coaching thread. Some of you raging on the hotseat thread commented here. Read, reply, enjoy. I think we can do without the sexual innuendos however.
Had to jump in here. Plenty of anger and frustration to the point where people are missing the reality. Having worked as an administrator and a coach at club, high school and college, I can tell you from experience that two things happen with regards to hiring practices. The first is that AD’s want a hire that if it goes wrong, no one will question it. That means a hire that looks good on paper regardless of how the person interviews or other factors. The second is that they usually try to hire someone they either know, have worked with or are referred by someone they respect. It is always easier to have someone you know will support you in the room. That isn’t just in athletics. That frequently happens in the business world. I’m not arguing whether that is correct or not, but I do understand the thinking. With regards to minorities or gender based hiring, Title IX has absolutely made it a priority to hire candidates of color or gender. They usually won’t make that public, but they have to look at their staff as a whole, the breakdown of coaches, and the number of sports offered and make sure it is balanced. So yes, sometimes underqualified people are hired based on those factors because they were the best people that met what they needed. It is also very easy to be critical of hires when you don’t know who else applied. As someone posted, there are quite a few more male coaches in D1 women’s soccer than females. The question people should be asking is “How many females coaches were interested in those jobs?” There was an article I had read (I’ll try to dig it out), that said there were far fewer females than males to choose from in coaching. Obviously if you have a smaller pool to choose from, you will have fewer coaches overall. Does that mean that every female that applies for a job should get it? Absolutely not. The problem is when an underqualified female is hired for a variety of reasons (see above), the males complain. And when an underqualified male is hired for a variety of reasons (also see above), females complain. Reality is that there does not appear to be as many females interested in coaching. Could be a variety of reasons. Pay. Opportunities in other fields. Travel away from their families or significant others. This could discourage males too. Whatever the reasons, the numbers aren’t there. Would be great to encourage more people to go into it, but in this climate, I’m not sure it will happen. It would need to start at the grass roots level, with club soccer, in order to build up experience, but that certainly does appear to be a “good ol boys club” (sorry for the generalization but that seems to be the case). Again, that could be a lack of females applying for those positions possibly because they have better opportunities elsewhere. It’s all tied together. At any rate, good discussion thread. Wanted to provide some behind the scenes clarity. I just wish people could limit the attacks and try to find some solutions rather than attacking and accusing.
Great insight. The good ol’ boys phrase is really just used by a few posters who seem to hate men for some reason. I think you are correct that athletic departments sometimes look at the gender of all their coaches and weigh that factor into hires if the department is male heavy. However sometimes this can hamper the program because they decide to go with a person of a specific gender at all costs regardless of if they are ready for the position. I would argue northern Illinois is a case of this happening as I know there were some successful coaches applying for that position, but they went with someone because of their gender who was maybe at that moment not yet ready for the position. Creighton also did their women’s soccer no favors by hiring someone who had no college coaching experience just because he was a well known alum and that has turned out poorly as well.
The good 'ol boy network has existed from the beginning of time. It is not a few posters. It is the reality in every profession. Do as many women not apply for this positions because they do not think they will get the opportunity? Our country has been run by white men from the start. If all women's sports teams were coached by women only, don't you think more would apply? Why do you think they do not bother to apply for men's professional or collegiate jobs? Because their chances of being hired are slim and none. You have to change the tide by giving opportunities, just like all of the white men received them regardless of experience in years past.
As I mentioned before, I think there are a host of reasons why more women don’t apply for these jobs. Pay isn’t great. Travel extensive. Locations might not fit where they want to live. Don’t forget while there are tons of banks and businesses in every city in America, there are a limited number of colleges. It’s taking the east way out to blame white men. To your point of whether they’d apply if they thought they would get the jobs, they should definitely apply. Most schools are looking for qualified females. You might be surprised at how few actually apply and also what the ratio is of women that apply compared to women that get the jobs. It is a far greater percentage than males believe it or not. It isn’t as simple as you are trying to paint it.
White men have had the advantage forever. And, if you white men on here are not man enough to acknowledge that then you are helpless. What is shocking to me is the anti-female coach sentiment from a few of you when this is about WOMEN'S Soccer. Female athletes. If I was an administrator I would prefer to hire a woman to lead our women's team. What better than to have a leader and role model that looks like them. Some of you need to go coach the men's game. Your misogny has no place in the women's game.
More anti-under qualified coaches than anything that end up not giving the athletes a good experience because they’re not ready and are hired based on their gender. Hire the person most qualified for a job not because they are a specific gender.
Whispers, I am a white male. I generally agree that the best qualified person should be hired regardless of gender. That said, if there are two equally qualified applicants to coach a woman’s team, one is a woman and the other a man, which candidate do you think should get the job? I have daughters that have played many different sports. Sometimes (usually) they’ve had male coaches. Sometimes they’ve had female coaches. They’ve had excellent coaches of both genders and they’ve had coaches of both genders that haven’t been the best. IMHO, though, the women coaches generally related to them better overall. My kids are not unique in this regard. Most females will state that they relate better to a female coach. That’s just the way it is. A man is never going to understand what some female athletes go through and what some of their issues might be. Many men just don’t understand how to coach women. The problem is that there are not enough women coaches. I really wish that there were more of them. As an aside, one of my kids played basketball. I did notice that there are a lot more women that coach girls’ and women’s basketball, percentage-wise, vs soccer. Why is that? Also, someone mentioned licensing of coaches. Is there any sport that is as expensive as soccer is to attain a license? This isn’t necessarily a gender issue. Coaching licenses are too expensive.
There can be legitimate questions, however, about what being qualified means and the process of making that kind of evaluation is an area where gender bias can show up. For example, in a field where the number of male head coaches exceeds the number of female head coaches by a ratio greater than 2 to 1, just because an evaluator believes a person has "paid their dues" does not mean that person is qualified and likewise just because they have not "paid their dues" does not mean they are not qualified. As an example, here is a quote from an earlier Hot Seat discussion when LSU hired Sian Hudson: "The cackling I am hearing is from all the SEC coaches. A coach with three years at the Division II level just got the head job at LSU. This program that went to the second round of the NCAA Tournament just two years ago hired someone with no DI head experience for a Power 5 job. .... Lots of programs hungry to add LSU to their schedule now." When you consider that this poster appears to take the position that being qualified meant having already been a DI head coach and that the number of male DI coaches exceeds the number of females by more than 2 to 1, it is easy to see why there are charges of being anti-female whether the charges are correct or not. As it has turned out, LSU seems to have made a pretty astute decision with their hire. And, this poster has looked foolish (which probably is a generous characterization). So I think one must be careful about deciding who is and is not "qualified" and be aware that is an area where gender bias can show up.
Is it possible for people to evaluate a social issue and disagree without one of them falling into a specific category that dismisses or devalues their position? Is it possible that someone can disagree with a position on the gender issue and coaching without automatically being labeled a misogynist (Webster - "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women")? Certainly misogyny exists, but simply because a person disagrees does it automatically qualify them as a misogynist? Females don't apply...why? Chicken or the egg......because they don't see a fair opportunity, don't see role models or there aren't opportunities because they don't apply. All of the above. I've hired assistants where out of 100 resumes, there were 3.....yes 3 applicants from females, with only 1 being moderately qualified. All I know is I have a responsibility to the players first, and to moving the social pendulum second - and when I can satisfy both, I will.
Totally get your point of view. The LSU coach had been a successful head coach though. The northern Illinois coach did not have much coaching experience and has struggled having been put in a situation where she may not have been ready for. Could make the same argument about the Arizona coach too. Or perhaps meritocracy isn’t a thing anymore.
I think what you should do is encourage more females to apply. Any reasonably qualified female in the college game right now has a leg up on just about anyone else. I’m going to say that based on my experience, there is a higher percentage of female head coaches compared to female coaches overall than male head coaches compared to the number of male coaches overall. The issue remains getting people to apply. Veering off the path for a second to talk about evaluating hires, there is something no one has mentioned yet. How did the coach do at their previous school compared to what they had to work with? If someone came from a great school with great facilities and great funding and did well, that doesn’t mean they will have success going to somewhere without those advantages. The reverse can also be true. Someone might not look like a great hire on paper, but a closer look reveals someone who overachieved with what they had to work with. Give them a fully funded program at a great school and watch them thrive. Sharp ADs recognize these hidden gems by doing their homework. Unfortunately, many go into CYA mode and make the “safe” hire that they can justify based on a paper resume. These hires are far more complicated than some people would like to believe.
Exactly. Coaches who look like the female players, who have played the women's college game, are usually more qualified. You just have your own made up definition of what makes good qualifications.
Give her time. The players love the foundation she laid this year. Positive vibe and completely different playing style than previous staff (let's not forget about the five transfers BEFORE she was hired). Changing playing styles will lead to some bumps in the road. Short term pain for a long term plan. She has been on the job for four months! We get it CW. She got the job ahead of you!