The outspoken and oft-controversial University of Connecticut women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma made headlines again last week advocating that the NCAA should lower the rims in women’s college basketball in order to make the game more popular. Auriemma’s comments created a firestorm of responses on both sides of the issue ranging from open support to fiery opposition that went as far as to call his comments sexist.
Auriemma argued that his idea is consistent with other discrepancies in men’s and women’s sports. The net in women’s volleyball is shorter than the net in the men’s game; tee boxes in women’s golf are closer to the hole; and the women’s basketball is smaller and lighter than the men’s ball. Auriemma also cited the difference in height between the average men’s player and the average women’s player, which he estimated to be about six inches. Mustering all the political skill he could, the winningest male coach in women’s basketball suggested that the rims should be lowered 7.2 inches in honor of Title IX, which was passed in 1972 and is celebrating its 40th anniversary.
While Auriemma can use whatever rhetoric he wishes, many, including junior guard Sarah Marcus ’14, believe that lowering the rims would hurt the women’s game.
“Trying to popularize a sport to the degree of its male counterpart would perpetuate the male-dominated power structure that exists within society,” said Marcus. “By lowering the rims, the NCAA would be telling women that men are inherently better at the sport.”
“To [improve] the level of play in women’s basketball we need not further the separation that exists between the men’s and women’s game, but rather encourage a union between the two games,” she continued. “The women’s game will only get more exciting when girls become less afraid to play basketball with the guys, not when it is made more difficult.”
Perhaps it is impossible to look beyond the immediate juxtaposition between men’s and women’s basketball, but I believe that Auriemma’s suggestion has merit. Pushing aside, for a moment, the differences between women’s and men’s abilities — an argument certain to draw strong, polarized views — Auriemma’s is most convincing when you look at women’s basketball through the lens of sports in America more broadly.
Athletics, college and professional, men’s and women’s, is about making money. And in the 21st century, the demand for more scoring and greater pace of play has driven every league in the United States to change the way the game is played and officiated.
Long before player safety became one of the NFL’s top priorities, the league rewrote the rulebook limiting what is considered legal contact, thereby incentivizing more passing and ultimately creating the up-tempo, high-scoring game we watch today. In the MLB, multiple teams have opted to move their fences closer to home plate, heeding the cries of fans and players who want to see more runs scored and fewer pitching duels — once considered the pinnacle of the sport. The emphasis on allowing greater scoring is most blatant in the NBA where defenders are not allowed to spend three straight seconds in the key, traveling is like an infomercial — often seen, but rarely called — and the continuation rule allows players to make “and-one” plays seconds after the foul takes place. Even college basketball has followed suit. Last year the NCAA implemented the cylinder area underneath the basket, outlining where players are restricted from taking charges — a rule dissuading good help defense and encouraging more NBA-style finishes.
Auriemma’s idea, therefore, should not be dismissed summarily because it creates a greater distinction between the men’s and women’s game. If Auriemma’s idea is struck down, it should be on the basis that it would drastically alter the shooting mechanics of women players — something that Marcus noted as well — or because having different sized hoops for men and women is infeasible.
I cannot agree, however, that different sized hoops creates greater gender inequality.We will achieve total gender equality not when we eliminate the differences between genders, but rather when we fully understand and accept those differences. Arguing for lower rims is no more an indictment of women than calling for smaller ballpark dimensions is of men. Auriemma’s idea should be considered on its merits, not dismissed on its assumptions.
Written by DAMON HATHEWAY ’13.5, a sports editor of London, UK
