Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is a completely bullshit analysis.

There are exactly zero - zip - none -nada - soccer coaches who think that the women’s game is similar to the men’s game. Heck - Dorrence made his name and money establishing that the games, and the coaching, are very very different. Apples to Horse Shoes.

If that were a valid reason then there wouldn’t be so many men coaching women’s teams. It’s a totally different game how can men coach women?

Coaching is a skill like anything else. As long as it doesn’t require more strength and physicality, there is no reason women learn to be just as good. The best players usually don’t make the best coaches. Coaching is a lot about being a good teacher and motivator.

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching the Florida State versus Stanford NCAA women's soccer championship game and noticed both schools have male head coaches. Is there a reason at this point that happens in women's soccer and not men's? I also see numerous women's pro and national team coaches who are men but can't think of any female head coaches of men's teams at the D1, pro, or top international levels. I remember a woman recently led UChicago to a men's D3 title (she has since left).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. I've been in a position where I've posted job openings for coaches, and I get 100% male response and zero females applying. Seen this many times.

So? This just means you should find ways to reach out to women, work with head hunters.

Your like a company that only recruits from Ivy and not HBCUs and wonder why you have no black applicants.

I'm not that poster, but I assume you're trolling at this point.

He (or she!) is not recruiting from anywhere. He posted a job that ANYONE could apply to, presumable online, and only male applicants applied. Assuming at least one applicant is qualified, they aren't going to waste their time going after another candidate just because they want a women, think if about it if the situation was reversed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. I've been in a position where I've posted job openings for coaches, and I get 100% male response and zero females applying. Seen this many times.

So? This just means you should find ways to reach out to women, work with head hunters.

Your like a company that only recruits from Ivy and not HBCUs and wonder why you have no black applicants.

Head hunters for soccer coaches? DCUM complains enough about pay to play…

Anonymous wrote:

That is a completely bullshit analysis.

There are exactly zero - zip - none -nada - soccer coaches who think that the women’s game is similar to the men’s game. Heck - Dorrence made his name and money establishing that the games, and the coaching, are very very different. Apples to Horse Shoes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. I've been in a position where I've posted job openings for coaches, and I get 100% male response and zero females applying. Seen this many times.

So? This just means you should find ways to reach out to women, work with head hunters.

Your like a company that only recruits from Ivy and not HBCUs and wonder why you have no black applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. I've been in a position where I've posted job openings for coaches, and I get 100% male response and zero females applying. Seen this many times.

So? This just means you should find ways to reach out to women, work with head hunters.

Your like a company that only recruits from Ivy and not HBCUs and wonder why you have no black applicants.

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. I've been in a position where I've posted job openings for coaches, and I get 100% male response and zero females applying. Seen this many times.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:Far fewer female former players are interested in getting involved in coaching soccer than males. A lot of male former players really want to stay in the sport and stay involved even if not playing competitively anymore.

Most female former players move onto other activities and other ways to spend their time when they finish playing. There are many exceptions of course, but as mentioned earlier this thins the numbers out in the entry level coaching courses by a LOT.

The C license is where things really get serious with the coaching courses. Very few females in them to begin with. Why? don't know, there are far fewer female coaches to begin with too.

Far more males participate in sports, and in soccer than females, and that trickles down to coaching. Coaching is very stressful, often a grind, at odd times of day, early weekends, holidays, when other people are taking vacations, and requires making personal sacrifices and financial sacrifices at times.

More males are willing to make these personal sacrifices than females. Why? don't know, but if more females were willing to make these sacrifices there would be more of them coaching. Every club and coaching staff out there would love to have more female coaches.