Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel the number of women college soccer coaches are too many, not enough, or just right? Should anything be done to change it or just let things happen on their own?

See this is an actual question with the purpose of getting an answer to expand the conversation. I don’t have enough information to answer that question intelligently. Can I acknowledge there is a disparity, yes? However, If we knew how many women were applying vs male counterparts and what percentage of candidates met the qualifications etc. I think people could have an intelligent conversation. Do I think a lot of women apply for coaching jobs in male sports? I think there are probably very few. Do I think more males apply for jobs in women’s athletics vs women applying for male jobs? Yes. Do I think from a pure numbers perspective that is a major factor in that disparity? Yes. You cannot argue that.

There are no numbers that I am aware of with that type of data, but would love to see something like that.

What if there are job openings and no women apply? Is that a possible scenario in a percentage of cases? That makes hiring a woman impossible. I would love to see stats on who applies so you can know.

What I do not like is people saying 97% men <——- not true and stupid statement. Or FSU should be ashamed of all male staff on the national championship team. Think that is irresponsible. Or posting sarcastic childish statement like we should not change norms or that men are better. This a a complex topic that cannot be boiled down to one thing like gender. That is low hanging fruit and people expressing outrage without a deep understanding of the landscape.

Nobody “applies “ for these jobs. They are recruited. So the question is do coaches recruit women as much as they do men? Do they mentor women as much as they do men? Are women assistant coaches given as much opportunity?

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Men are disadvantaged in coaching womens basketball because the ball is smaller? Women can't coach men in tennis because they play more sets? What point are you even trying to make?

It's simple: There are more men coaches because men are better at and like sports more than women. It has always been that way, it should always be that way, and nothing ever needs to change or be done differently than how it's done today. Sure, in the past not everything was perfect, but as of today we've got everything fixed and never need to improve or help anyone or anything.

It’s not that simple.

Someone once said, it’s simple, we don’t televise women’s sports because nobody cares to watch it and it’s cost prohibitive.

So a study was done. If the NCAA did televise softball and they put money towards advertising would it make money? The study was done and now women’s softball makes more money that every other sport except basketball. Football and baseball.

So no it’s not that simple.

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel the number of women college soccer coaches are too many, not enough, or just right? Should anything be done to change it or just let things happen on their own?

See this is an actual question with the purpose of getting an answer to expand the conversation. I don’t have enough information to answer that question intelligently. Can I acknowledge there is a disparity, yes? However, If we knew how many women were applying vs male counterparts and what percentage of candidates met the qualifications etc. I think people could have an intelligent conversation. Do I think a lot of women apply for coaching jobs in male sports? I think there are probably very few. Do I think more males apply for jobs in women’s athletics vs women applying for male jobs? Yes. Do I think from a pure numbers perspective that is a major factor in that disparity? Yes. You cannot argue that.

There are no numbers that I am aware of with that type of data, but would love to see something like that.

What if there are job openings and no women apply? Is that a possible scenario in a percentage of cases? That makes hiring a woman impossible. I would love to see stats on who applies so you can know.

What I do not like is people saying 97% men <——- not true and stupid statement. Or FSU should be ashamed of all male staff on the national championship team. Think that is irresponsible. Or posting sarcastic childish statement like we should not change norms or that men are better. This a a complex topic that cannot be boiled down to one thing like gender. That is low hanging fruit and people expressing outrage without a deep understanding of the landscape.

Again don’t change the conversation or Points I argued. Because I made valid points you take it to the extreme and post nonsense.

someone posted 97% all men. I said not true posted numbers.

Also I took issue with outrage of winning program being coached by all men. Admin hire so the program can win. Seems like the people hired were merit based hires and have done well. Expressing outrage because you saw men in charge is dumb. If someone posted last year because the winning team UCLA had a female coach and said I cannot believe that a man is not coaching I could not even imagine the backlash to that statement.

My point in referencing the differences in sports rules is not to say one group is necessarily disadvantaged. However playing women’s lacrosse is completely different then the men’s game. That point is to express why more men may prefer to coach women’s soccer vs women’s lacrosse. Soccer is the only major team sport where all things are equal, therefore experience playing as a male or female does not mean playing under different rules. Again if you have no knowledge of sports and it appears you have very little so you struggle to grasp the nuances.

More men play lacrosse but because the game is so different in the women’s game. I don’t think a man who has never played under women’s rules has all the knowledge and experience that a female player does. Is that a hurdle impossible to overcome, no, but do I think a woman has a leg up there 100%. I also feel that a male might not have the same interest in coaching the game because of the differences. I also think that is a major reason why women held 90% of head coaching jobs in the women’s lacrosse game. Think male interest is probably a lot lower and women have better experience and knowledge compared to male counterparts because of those differences.

Again you would have to acknowledge that these differences say in lacrosse or in soccers case the fact that there are no changes to the game are major factors into why certain genders may or may not want to coach a sport. Again, nobody can acknowledge these factors as valid points. Instead they make blanket statements and make sarcastic posts like one above. At no point did I say more women should not coach or that men are better, but I know the things I mentioned are major factors in the total coaching pool and applicants available to hire from.

My point referencing tennis is men have to play longer and win more points to win a match, so essentially professional tennis male players work more for the same pay as their female counterparts. Do you want to touch on that or do we just wash over that because it does not fit your narrative?

Again you try to boil everything down to gender and that is lazy.

Huh? Men are disadvantaged in coaching womens basketball because the ball is smaller? Women can't coach men in tennis because they play more sets? What point are you even trying to make?

It's simple: There are more men coaches because men are better at and like sports more than women. It has always been that way, it should always be that way, and nothing ever needs to change or be done differently than how it's done today. Sure, in the past not everything was perfect, but as of today we've got everything fixed and never need to improve or help anyone or anything.

Anonymous wrote:Basketball? Tennis? Again you are not that sharp! I said major sports sorry was not referencing track or swimming but since you brought it up even in track rules are changed. Lower hurdles etc. If someone offers some actual nuance your brain cannot handle it. And I provided you a complete break down of all women’s D1 coaches from recent past. Much higher than 3% female coaches. You cannot argue that.

Basketball woman use a smaller ball and the three point line is closer. Tennis last time I checked women have to win 2 sets and the men 3. Also in professional women’s tennis they make the same amount of money even though the men have to win 50% more sets to win a match. So I guess we should rally about the men making less at Wimbledon because they have to win 50% more sets to win the tournament than the female champion. Sure you did not think of that!!

Again lacrosse not same game dominated by female coaches, not a lot of youth boys softball again dominated by female coaches or boys field hockey again mostly female coaches.

However, soccer only major team sport where women’s game is exactly the same. Basketball, American football, baseball, lacrosse all different rules, different games or don’t exist for women. Again probably why a lot more men are interested in coaching in the women’s game. Again probably something you never thought about.

Someone could go oh wow I never thought about it like that, great point or continue attacking my post as if I was somehow arguing against women coaching which is not what I was saying.

However, being distraught because the NCAA championship team has as an all male staff is ridiculous reaction. Seemed like a happy and successful group of players. I guess you want 100% women coaches in women’s sports and women involved in men’s sports so no point in trying to have an actual conversation.

You know we don't like facts and truths that go against our biased narrative

Do you feel the number of women college soccer coaches are too many, not enough, or just right? Should anything be done to change it or just let things happen on their own?

Basketball? Tennis? Again you are not that sharp! I said major sports sorry was not referencing track or swimming but since you brought it up even in track rules are changed. Lower hurdles etc. If someone offers some actual nuance your brain cannot handle it. And I provided you a complete break down of all women’s D1 coaches from recent past. Much higher than 3% female coaches. You cannot argue that.

Basketball woman use a smaller ball and the three point line is closer. Tennis last time I checked women have to win 2 sets and the men 3. Also in professional women’s tennis they make the same amount of money even though the men have to win 50% more sets to win a match. So I guess we should rally about the men making less at Wimbledon because they have to win 50% more sets to win the tournament than the female champion. Sure you did not think of that!!

Again lacrosse not same game dominated by female coaches, not a lot of youth boys softball again dominated by female coaches or boys field hockey again mostly female coaches.

However, soccer only major team sport where women’s game is exactly the same. Basketball, American football, baseball, lacrosse all different rules, different games or don’t exist for women. Again probably why a lot more men are interested in coaching in the women’s game. Again probably something you never thought about.

Someone could go oh wow I never thought about it like that, great point or continue attacking my post as if I was somehow arguing against women coaching which is not what I was saying.

However, being distraught because the NCAA championship team has as an all male staff is ridiculous reaction. Seemed like a happy and successful group of players. I guess you want 100% women coaches in women’s sports and women involved in men’s sports so no point in trying to have an actual conversation.

Anonymous wrote:97% men?. Fact, more males play sports and more males pursue coaching as a profession. Use google and you can see that it’s a significant gap, given that fact the number of qualified candidates will always be larger given that difference. Also, you reference the two teams playing in the finals have mostly male staffs. So what? Seems like they are great coaches to get their teams to that point. Why does it matter if they were hired based on merit?

Below are numbers from the university of Minnesota from a 2019-2020 study on coaches of all women’s D1 athletics . A lot more than 3% of jobs in college athletics are given to female coaches.

10697 total coaches of that 10697 employed coaches there were 3555 head coaching positions. 1501 were held by women 42%

That means there were 7142 other coaches (assistants, graduate assistants, etc) 3948 of those positions were held by women. That is 55%

Also women’s soccer is the only major sport that does not change the rules because girls play the game. Same game, same rules. Which in my opinion makes it more attractive to be coached by males. Not a lot of men coaching field hockey and women’s lacrosse or softball. All three of those sports are dominated by female head coaches. Women’s lacrosse 91% of head coaches were women in 2020. Why don’t you think or do some actual research before posting you ridiculous claims?

Stop boiling everything down to sex, skin color, orientation and religion. It’s tedious and lazy.

Ah yes, the use my facts or you are lazy response. Typical.

There are plenty of other facts out there that paint a more complete picture https://usafacts.org/articles/men-far-outnumber-women-on-coaching-staffs-in-college-sports/

Plenty of other sports, not just soccer, use the same rules for men and women. Basketball, tennis, track, swimming.

The fact is the number of women coaches is growing but slowly. Change is always happening too slowly for some and too fast for others.

The same dynamic is happening across many areas of sports. Referees, commentators, trainers are all seeing more women. To say that all men in these positions in sports were hired based on merit, but women are only there for representation, is - to use your language - lazy. We can and should do better.

97% men?. Fact, more males play sports and more males pursue coaching as a profession. Use google and you can see that it’s a significant gap, given that fact the number of qualified candidates will always be larger given that difference. Also, you reference the two teams playing in the finals have mostly male staffs. So what? Seems like they are great coaches to get their teams to that point. Why does it matter if they were hired based on merit?

Below are numbers from the university of Minnesota from a 2019-2020 study on coaches of all women’s D1 athletics . A lot more than 3% of jobs in college athletics are given to female coaches.

10697 total coaches of that 10697 employed coaches there were 3555 head coaching positions. 1501 were held by women 42%

That means there were 7142 other coaches (assistants, graduate assistants, etc) 3948 of those positions were held by women. That is 55%

Also women’s soccer is the only major sport that does not change the rules because girls play the game. Same game, same rules. Which in my opinion makes it more attractive to be coached by males. Not a lot of men coaching field hockey and women’s lacrosse or softball. All three of those sports are dominated by female head coaches. Women’s lacrosse 91% of head coaches were women in 2020. Why don’t you think or do some actual research before posting you ridiculous claims?

Stop boiling everything down to sex, skin color, orientation and religion. It’s tedious and lazy.

Stanford's coach has at least been a decent mentor. UCLA's female head coach (who won a title in her first year) was a Stanford assistant.

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at the roster too! Florida’s entire coaching staff is men. And Stanford has one woman.

It’s going to be a long time.

I would say 97% of colleges have all male soccer coaching staff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hhhhmmmmm.... I wonder if half the best qualified coaches are men and the other half women.

Best qualified is different than capable. If your criteria for best qualified is having lots of prior coaching experience, then it kinda makes it hard for any under represented group to ever catch up. Are you suggesting that men are somehow naturally better at coaching than women?

Best Qualified means best knowledge, skills, experience, resume, peer reviews combined

If you never hire, mentor, etc women then they will never be qualified.

Also studies show men are hired based on potential and women are hired based on experience.

So “best qualified “ is not a same measurement for all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hhhhmmmmm.... I wonder if half the best qualified coaches are men and the other half women.

Best qualified is different than capable. If your criteria for best qualified is having lots of prior coaching experience, then it kinda makes it hard for any under represented group to ever catch up. Are you suggesting that men are somehow naturally better at coaching than women?

Best Qualified means best knowledge, skills, experience, resume, peer reviews combined

Anonymous wrote:hhhhmmmmm.... I wonder if half the best qualified coaches are men and the other half women.

Best qualified is different than capable. If your criteria for best qualified is having lots of prior coaching experience, then it kinda makes it hard for any under represented group to ever catch up. Are you suggesting that men are somehow naturally better at coaching than women?