This article previews a Sports Illustrated article.
Here are a few excerpts:
That survey of almost 20,000 college athletes reported that only 39% of women’s basketball players “strongly agreed” that “my head coach can be trusted.”
Which raises the question: What about the women’s game makes for so much turmoil and dysfunction?
Larger squad sizes are a way to offset the huge numbers of male athletes required for football and help balance the Title IX books. Is there a point at which a coach might take on more players than he or she can manage—or, to put it from the player’s perspective, at which a young woman eager for a sense of belonging will feel marginalized?
But end-of-the-benchers deserve better than to be tagged with the casually dehumanizing terms that coaches used for on-the-outs Illini, who wound up doing “dog pound” duty with extra practices, or being likened to “crabs in a bucket,” a metaphor for pulling down others who are trying to hoist themselves up.
Comments:
It's just my opinion, but here are some thoughts: girls don't like public criticism (guys don't either but it's more baked in) and correction (with another adult present) is more acceptable in a private setting. Star players aren't always informed (during recruiting) that they are being slotted for a backup or 'depth' role, which creates tension and envy. Gender and sexual identity conflicts arise more often in women's programs. What is the collaboration between straight and gay players? If the coach is gay, does that affect the status or relationships between coach and players? Some readers (not that there are that many) will say, "that's crazy." It's just my opinion, but not from a vacuum.
