[Ask Coach Wolff] TITLE IX ISSUES: 40 Years After Title IX BecameLaw, Why Are There Still So Few Female Coaches?

 

The article asks a very good question. And it can be extended even further. Why are there so few female coaches in the youth and HS ranks in the sports that they participated in?

You would think that a after a couple of generations of women athletes passing through their chosen sports would have the time and the passion for the sport enough to give something back. I would think that strictly from a potential liability standpoint the high schools and colleges would have a preference for female coaches coaching female athletes.


from askcoachwolff.com:
http://www.askcoachwolff.com/2015/10/12/title-ix-issues-40-years-after-title-ix-became-law-why-are-there-still-so-few-female-coaches/

Ask Coach Wolff has posted a new item, 'TITLE IX ISSUES: 40 Years After Title IX Became Law, Why Are There Still So Few Female Coaches?'

How Narrowing the Gender Gap in Youth League Coaching Would Serve the Players

By Doug Abrams

 Late last month, the Bergen Record and NorthJersey.com carried two articles
about the under-representation of women in youth league coaching ranks
nationwide. The University of Minnesota's Nicole LaVoi estimates that women
coach only about 10% of boys' teams, and barely a [...]

You may view the latest post at
http://www.askcoachwolff.com/2015/10/12/title-ix-issues-40-years-after-title-ix-became-law-why-are-there-still-so-few-female-coaches/

Best regards,
Ask Coach Wolff

Baseball America | Blog | Baseball America College Blog | NCAA, MLB In Serious Discussions To Fund Additional Scholarships

This is something that MLB should have been on a while ago, but better late than never. I'm all for Title IX, but 11.7 scholarship for baseball and more for college softball. And as we can see from the graphic above, some schools don't even fully fund the sport. I'm not blaming Title IX so much as the mathematical gymnastics schools are required to perform in order to remain in compliance with Title IX.

The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

If the government won't correct the error that they created, then this is a pretty good secondary solution.

Baseball America | Blog | Baseball America College Blog | NCAA, MLB In Serious Discussions To Fund Additional Scholarships:

"For years, the prospect of increasing college baseball's 11.7 scholarship limit has seemed like a pipe dream. Certainly, colleges and universities aren't going to start funding extra baseball scholarships anytime soon, but suddenly there is real momentum behind the notion that Major League Baseball might step in and pay for additional college baseball scholarships.

Dave Keilitz, executive director of the American Baseball Coaches Association, confirmed a CBSSports.com report that MLB is in discussions with the NCAA about forming a lasting financial partnership. Keilitz sits on a committee that also includes NCAA officials Dennis Poppe, the director of football and baseball operations, and Damani Leech plus former Division I baseball committee chairmen Ron Wellman, Larry Templeton and Tim Weiser. Keilitz said the college committee has been meeting with MLB and MLB Players Association officials for more than three years, but talks were slowed by the death of former NCAA president Myles Brand and the retirement of union chief Donald Fehr."

'via Blog this'

In praise of Title IX and the positive effect of sports in women's lives

I meant to post this some time ago. One of the most remarkably successful, albeit controversial pieces of legislation in recent history. Born of the Nixon Administration, of all places. I submit to you: Title IX.-

Coaches are famous for saying "I don't want to hear about the labor pains, just show me the baby".

Now -- some firty years later -- we are able to look back on both the labor pains and the growth of the the child. Much of the change, as it was occurring, was accompanied by significant episodes of grinding and gnashing of teeth and a whole lot of sound and fury, which in the end, signified nothing.

Warts and all -- on balance and in hindsight -- I believe that Title IX has had more positive effects on society in general and on the movement to assimilate and advance women from the kitchen to the workplace specifically -- with far less of the deleterious negative social side-effects -- than the advancement of the radical feminist agenda.

There, I said it. And I'm not taking it back.

Thank you Title IX.
Thank you Sports.
Thank you former President Nixon.

I guess that whole "Sports as a metaphor for Life" mantra has some practical uses after all. ;)

Making Sports a Metaphor for Life
http://www.middlebury.edu/giving/difference/impact2/impact/Foote

Often during a team practice on Kohn Field, Missy Foote, head coach of the women's lacrosse team, will stop play for what she calls a "Green Mountain moment," a brief pause in practice to appreciate the dramatic backdrop just east of their field. Now into her 32nd year at Middlebury, Coach Foote has had numerous moments like these. She has forged lifelong bonds with many of the approximately 360 student-athletes she has mentored at the College during her tenure.

"As coaches, we try to make sports a metaphor for life," she explains. "Through athletics, we grow highly functioning, committed adults. For me, this maturation process is incredibly rewarding to see and play a part in."

Over the years, Foote has witnessed significant changes in the athletics program at Middlebury. These differences are most evident in the advancements in the athletic opportunities available to female students.

When Foote came to Middlebury, Title IX was still in its infancy. As she recalls, there was only one locker room for all women-the general public, students, and visiting teams alike. The facilities have improved and "the emphasis on athletics and the role it plays in a woman's life has changed remarkably," says Coach Foote. "Now well after Title IX, there is nothing holding back our females. They can achieve anything they want, which is a great transition to have witnessed."

Coach Foote weighs her success as a coach not in the number of titles her team achieves or her overall record, but rather in the role she plays in launching players into their lives beyond Middlebury.

The deep connections that develop on the field are the bonds that unite Middlebury athletes and keep them "invested in each other's joys and sorrows years after graduation," Foote explains. She regularly attends the weddings of her athletes and christenings of their children, and provides advice to many former students who are now coaching on their own. She also participates in marathons with her former athletes. "There's nothing like helping each other come into the finish to reaffirm the strong relationships we built at the College," Coach Foote says. "These are lifelong friendships and a support group that is ever expanding...bonds that define my coaching career at Middlebury."

That's what it's all about!!

---


from Wikipedia:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law, enacted on June 23, 1972.

In 2002 it was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author Congresswoman Mink, but is most commonly known simply as Title IX.

The law states that

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
—United States Code Section 20, [1]

Hi Charles,

We would love to share with you an article that we just posted on our own blog! "9 Title IX Facts Every Athlete Should Know" (http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2011/08/07/9-title-ix-facts-every-athlete-should-know/) would be an interesting story for your readers to check out and discuss on your blog.

Either way, I hope you continue putting out great content through your blog. It has been a sincere pleasure to read.

Thanks

Larry Dignan  

--------

Created in 1972 as a way of providing equal opportunities for education and athletics regardless of gender, Title IX has gotten a lot of attention in recent years — both positive and negative — from teachers, students, administrators and parents. While most people probably have an opinion one way or another, many may not know the facts behind the act, nor really understand how it is applied to colleges and secondary schools. Many, even the student athletes whom it directly affects, may be quite surprised to learn more than a few of the facts we've collected here. Some may have to reconsider just how they look at what it's really doing to nurture equality in the higher education system.

1. Many schools still don't abide by the Title IX law

   While Title IX has helped women gain access to a wide range of athletic programs and scholarships, there are still many schools out there who don't abide — or try to skirt some of its policies. Perhaps more distressing is that schools violating Title IX often face little or no legal action. Investigations are often drug out over years, and rarely result in any kind of meaningful penalties. One investigation at USC has gone on for over 12 years now, with no sign of resolution in sight. Even more troubling? Investigations are often conducted by the schools themselves, giving them little to no incentive to report any problems they do find. Though to be fair, some are quite willing to fix issues if they are pointed out.

2. No school has ever lost federal funding for violating Title IX

   Since 1972, when Title IX was enacted, not a single case of discrimination against female (or male) athletes was referred to the justice department for further investigation or repercussions. Not one. That doesn't mean that there has been no discrimination — between 2002 and 2006 alone, there were 416 complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights — just that there are few (if any) cases where schools have been forced into compliance. This brings into question its effectiveness at providing equality.

3. Women are not inherently less interested in playing sports than men

   Many who argue against Title IX claim that women are simply less interested in sports than their male counterparts. Since the act went into effect in 1972, female participation in college-level sports has increased 403%. Today, 43% of college athletes are women, and many more say they would participate if their schools offered programs in their sport of choice.

4. For every new dollar going into college athletics at the Division I and II levels of college athletics, male sports receive 65 cents. Female sports receive 35 cents

   Just as women only make 77 cents for every dollar men do, their sports haven't attained equal funding, either. Women's sports programs at Division I and II schools are given almost half of what men's programs are. This means half the money for facilities, programs, recruitment and scholarships. With women making up 56% of all undergrads in college and 43% of athletes, that's a pretty startling discrepancy.

5. Title IX hasn't radically changed how college athletic programs are managed

   While 53% of the students at Division I schools are women, female athletes in Division I receive just 32% of the funds to recruit new athletes, 37% of total athletics expenditures, 45% of total athletic scholarships and 44% of the opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. While that's far better than in 1972, it still doesn't adequately support many of the athletic programs underrepresented students are interested in. Big ticket sports like basketball and football still dominate the majority of resources in nearly every college athletics department — to the detriment of both female and male sports.

6. Title IX doesn't only apply to athletics or females

   Title IX actually applies to all aspects of federally-funded education programs and activities for both men and women. It prohibits sexual harassment, discrimination in admissions and housing and helps ensure that people of both sexes have access to higher education, career services, safe learning environments and appropriate technology. Athletics is only one facet of the act, which is much broader in its scope than most people are aware.

7. Title IX doesn't force schools to cut men's athletic programs

   While some schools may choose to cut men's athletic programs to comply with Title IX, the legislation does not require this kind of action. There are actually multiple ways that schools can meet its tenets, and not all require the proportionality test (matching the percentage of male and female students to the availability of athletic programs, scholarships and funding) to be strictly enforced. They can also comply through showing a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic programs in response to the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Schools can also qualify if their present athletic programs are broad enough to meet the underrepresented sex's interests. Issues with Title IX are usually only investigated if there have been claims of denial of participation opportunities in athletics.

8. There are fewer female coaches today than there were in 1972

   Title IX hasn't spurred progress in gaining equality for every facet of athletics, as some might think. In 2008, only 43% of coaches of women's teams were women. In 1972, that number was over 90%. The problem is two-fold. On one hand, there simply aren't enough women going into coaching to fill all the available positions. On the other, those that do are often bullied and discriminated against, causing them to change careers or leave college coaching altogether. The Title IX legislation that's meant to protect them? It often doesn't do much at all. Just ask the female coaches at Ball State University.

9. The majority of Americans support Title IX

   Despite the large number of those who grumble about Title IX on the web or in the media, the majority of Americans still support this act. How many? Recent surveys put it at about 82% in favor, across all political parties, cultural and age groups. Only 14% believe that the law should be repealed. Whether or not everyone agrees that Title IX legislation is the best way to help women get into sports, it's clear that people today value female athletic participation. This makes it all the more important to help ladies get the equal opportunities they deserve to play.

----

At U of I, Title IX is toothless
BY DARREN SWAN AND EVAN SWAN
DEC 11, 2007
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=73245

Athletes feel wrath of Title IX fallout
On June 16, 2006, Fresno State University varsity wrestler Sean Carlson was living what he called the high life.

Having grown up in Fresno, he was used to the non-nirvana-like weather of central California.

Carlson was vigorously training during the unruly hot summer for his junior season on the team with a starting spot all but assured -- he had no worries.

Then, on that June day almost two years ago, just two days shy of 21st birthday, he got the call.

Carlson, who routinely puts himself through pain in a sport that requires hard work, discipline and toughness, began to cry. He was at the lowest point of his life.

His love, passion and craft were all taken away with that one phone call from a coach on the team. The Fresno State University wrestling program was cut.

“Effective immediately.”

Today, still feeling angry and depressed like many of his teammates, Carlson is able to recall exactly how he felt on that very day.

“Everyone was angry, depressed and pissed off because we didn’t get a reason of why we were cut,” said the former 125-and 133-pound wrestler. “The [athletic department] did it during the middle of summer, not considering the [incoming freshmen] or seniors who would have to go to other colleges to wrestle.”

The university promised to uphold its financial agreement with the students, with or without the program. Scholarships would be honored even if the students wrestled at a different college, Carlson said.

The Fresno State University wrestling team is just one example of the plethora of collegiate athletic programs across the country that get cut each year due to issues of compliance with Title IX, the law created to provide gender equity in education and athletics.

Nowadays the average college consists of 42 percent male and 58 percent female, the Department of Education reports.

Larry Kocher, president of the College Sports Council based in Chicago and head wrestling coach and professor at the University of Chicago, indicates much of the language in Title IX is questionable and unclear.

Title IX has three sections—known as prongs— that demonstrate how schools must comply. Universities are required to observe just one of the three prongs to be “in compliance with the law.”

Prong one mandates schools to provide athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. Prong two orders schools to demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender. And prong three requires a school to provide full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of the underrepresented gender.

Kocher says because prong two and three contain ambiguous language, many schools employ prong one not for feasibility, but more out of convenience.

Prong one specifically targets proportionality. As long as the enrollment is proportional to the number of athletes participating in a given sport, the school is in compliance with the law.

However, there’s just one problem: Experts believe prong one is being used as a loop hole, instead of its original intention—to provide gender equity in college athletics by gender.

Traccee Passeggi, a public policy officer at the Women’s Sports Foundation in New York—founded by Billy Jean King—elaborates on prong one as the most relied on form of testing for Title IX compliance.

“There has been strong criticism that the proportionality test has been used to mandate quotas in intercollegiate athletics,” she said.

Passeggi said this is “in direct violation of the true intent of Title IX.”

However, according to Kocher, the three-prong test has turned into a quota law. Other critics, like Jim McCarthy, spokesman for the College Sports Council in Chicago, said the DOE needs to provide a clearer and more provable way that school’s can comply with prong three.

But a greater problem exists, McCarthy said, “There’s no way to prove [compliance with prong three.]”

Without clear language establishing what schools need to do to be compliant with Title IX, problems will continue to arise.

Title IX does not instruct schools to cancel programs, the Department of Education states on its Web site, but it perpetuates an easy escape to compliance. If a school’s numbers are off and subtracting 30 student athletes from the participation pool will make it right, Kocher acknowledges, they cut.

More than 450 wrestling programs have been hacked since the inception of Title IX in 1972, according to USA Wrestling, the nation’s amateur wrestling governing body.

Gary Abbott, director of special projects at USA Wrestling, told the New York Times in 2003 there were 363 NCAA wrestling teams with 7,914 wrestlers in 1982. In 2001, there were only 229 teams with fewer than 6,000 wrestlers. Nonetheless, during that time period, the number of NCAA universities grew from 787 to 1,049.

On average 200 wrestlers every year since 1972 lost their program, equating to thousands of student-athletes over the last 35 years losing a chance to participate in college and, in some cases, an opportunity at higher education altogether.

Carlson is only one name among the thousands of wrestlers who lost their sport—and passion—since in the inception of Title IX, 35 years ago.

Though Carlson still lives in sunny California, where he’s currently finishing his degree at Fresno State University, only one thing crosses his mind every day.

“I just want to get the hell out of here,” he said.

However, not even success guarantees safety for a program.

In 1994, UCLA chose to drop its men’s swimming program. The program had produced more than a dozen Olympians, more than any other school, and maybe even the greatest swimmer of all-time in Mark Spitz. His seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics is still a world record.

Would the University of North Carolina ever drop its men’s basketball program, which produced possibly the greatest basketball of all-time in Michael Jordan?

Bob Groseth, Northwestern University men’s swimming coach, has seen many of his athletes crowned as NCAA champions. His program is unquestionably dominant and his student athletes have been regularly commended by the Big Ten conference for their work in the classroom.

“Swimming is vulnerable with the current interpretation of Title IX,” he said. “One, it has large numbers. Two, the facilities are expensive and if a school has to reach proportionality with Title IX – it’s easier to cut a large team like men’s swimming to do so.”

Title IX does not protect programs. It gives specific discretion to the individual schools to handle their business how they see fit. Even though the most common way for schools to reach compliance is through cutting, Jocelyn Samuels, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, said removing programs has never been the way of getting institutions to comply with the law.

In plain English, Samuels says cutting teams is the absolute wrong way to create equality in athletic programs. “The focus of the law is to ensure equal opportunities and by adding those opportunities.”

Easier said then done.

In its 55th and last year of existence, the Oregon wrestling program welcomed back 10 letter winners in 2007-08, seven of whom competed in the 2007 Pac-10 Championships.

Athletes, like Carlson, are experiencing program cuts from another Title IX factor: highly expensive revenue generating sports.

Debbie Yow, the University of Maryland's athletic director for the last 14 years and the Atlantic Coast Conference’s first ever female athletic director, offered a correlation between Title IX and the elimination of more than 400 men's college programs over the last 35 years.

“I think that there is a connection. Actually, this is -- the reason this is such a complex issue is because there is no simple answer,” said Yow in an interview with CNN, who was recently voted by the Chronicle of Higher Education as one of the 10 most powerful people in college sports. “Others will say to you that those teams could have been saved, if their -- the expenses for the revenue sports in college athletics, like football and men's basketball, were not so high.”

Athletes at James Madison University in Virginia and the University of Oregon are going through the same situation as Carlson and his teammates went through two years ago.

James Madison over the past year cut 10 programs (seven men’s and three women’s) and flatly blamed Title IX for doing so, according to an official university statement. All together 144 students and 11 coaches will not be participating in athletics for JMU this year.

The university stated at the time that adding programs was not the best course of action the university could take.

“Any solution that would require the addition of sports beyond the current 28 teams was deemed unacceptable.”

Oregon this past year chose to reinstate its baseball team, add a competitive cheerleading team and cast away its nationally-ranked wrestling team. University officials did not offer Title IX as the reason for the cut, but, in effect, keeping the wrestling team on board would have put the school not in compliance with the law.

The Oregon wrestlers have started a campaign to save their wrestling program. Donations are pouring in, but that may not even be enough, according to McCarthy, because regulations prohibit money being designated for specific teams, and any donations would have to be matched for a women’s team.

This makes it twice as hard to save a program during a time where student-athletes are fighting uphill without a paddle.


Myths and Facts
Because the written language, interpretation and implementation of Title IX is ambiguous, here are some common misnomers people and schools alike believe to be true but aren’t. The legislation’s goal was to provide gender equity for males and females in education and athletics. However, experts say, equity for men and women is collegiate athletics is still far from reality.

Myth: Title IX is only about athletics.

Fact: Although most people who know about Title IX think it only applies to sports, but Title IX applies to every aspect of federally funded education programs. In fact, athletics is only one of 10 major areas addressed by the law. These other areas are: access to higher education, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing, and technology.

Myth: Title IX applies only to females.

Fact: Both male and female students are protected by Title IX.

Myth: Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.

Fact: Title IX doesn’t require a school to cut a men's sports program. The Department of Education states clearly, “Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." All federal courts that have considered the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to comply. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than attempt to control bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72 percent of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of looking for any of the money within its $5 million football budget.

Myth: Women just aren't interested in sports.

Fact: After Title IX’s implementation, women's participation in intercollegiate sports has skyrocketed. Before Title IX, fewer than 32,000 women participated in college sports; today that number exceeds 150,000--nearly five times the pre-Title IX rate.

Myth: Title IX requires quotas against men.

Fact:Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, which means female students must have equal opportunities to participate in educational programs, including athletics. Because Title IX allows sports teams to be segregated by gender, schools themselves decide how many participation opportunities they will give female, as compared to male, students. Title IX does not in any way require quotas; it requires that schools allocate participation opportunities for both genders in nondiscriminatory ways.

A school can meet this requirement if it can demonstrate any one of the following ways:

-The percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or

-If the school has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or

-If the school’s athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

That being said, it’s probably clearer why this is such a cloudy and misunderstood piece of legislation, providing loop holes where discrimination does occur.

*Information courtesy of Title IX.info

----

FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225402/olympian-political-correctness/todd-gallagher

August 22, 2008, 0:00 p.m.

Olympian Political Correctness
In all the Olympic hype, you won't hear about performance differences between Venus and Mars.

By Todd Gallagher

‘Can Jamaica’s Sprinters Fight Crime?” That’s the tongue-in-cheek headline of a recent Time magazine article celebrating the remarkable Olympics performances of track stars from that Caribbean nation. In the space of a few days, Usain Bolt smashed world records in the men’s 100 and 200 meters, while three Jamaican sprinters swept the medals in the women’s 100 meters.

Time’s question is amusing, but for me, the incredible accomplishments of the Jamaican track team call to mind another question that isn’t so funny to a lot of people — as I learned the hard way.

You see, I wrote a book in which I worked with professional athletes and Olympic medalists to settle a series of long-running sports debates. The questions I heard most often had to do with gender: How big is the gap between the top male and female athletes?

One of my initial findings was jarring: the women’s Olympic record in the 100 meters, set in 1988 by superstar Florence Griffith-Joyner, is virtually identical to the U.S. record for 14-year-old boys — also set in 1988, by the less heralded Curtis Johnson. The winning time of 2008 women’s gold medalist Shelly-Ann Fraser? Well over a tenth of a second slower than Johnson’s.

Nor is the 100 meters an aberration. In sport after sport, evidence shows that the top female professional athletes in the world are on par with the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys. Nearly every female Olympic record in speed, strength, and endurance events falls between the records set by the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys:

Speed/Endurance Record Times:
Distance Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
100M 9.69 10.64 10.62 10.42
200M 19.30 21.49 21.34 20.97
400M 43.49 47.16 48.25 46.55
800M 1:42.58 1:55.9 1:53.43 1:51.03
1500M 3:32.07 4:04.1 3:53.96 3:51.5
5000M 13:05.59 15:46.8 14:40.79 14:32.8
10000M 27:05.10 32:48.0 30:17.49 31:43.2


Leaping Records (in meters):
Event Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
High Jump 2.39 2.04 2.06 2.18
Long Jump 8.90 7.21 7.40 7.49
Pole Vault 5.95 4.72 4.91 5.33
Triple Jump 18.09 14.74 15.33 14.98

Direct competition between women and boys tends to confirm the gap: the women’s Olympic hockey team has lost to boys’ high school junior-varsity teams; the women’s Olympic soccer team has lost to club teams of 15-year-old boys, the Colorado Silver Bullets professional baseball team has lost to American Legion squads — the list goes on and on.

I was surprised that this information had never been disseminated widely, since the data I researched and the interviews I conducted didn’t take long to put together. Obviously, I’m not suggesting that any slob off the street could outrun Shelly-Ann Fraser; but if she can’t beat the time that a 14-year-old boy set 20 years ago, surely that fact should inform a number of gender-and-sports discussions: Has Title IX done enough to level the playing field for female athletes — or has it actually penalized male athletes? Should golfers like Michelle Wie receive sponsors’ exemptions to compete against men in PGA tournaments? Should Wimbledon award men and women tennis players the same prize money?

Experts in the field of gender differences in sports emphatically argue that men’s superior performance is due primarily to societal factors — if they’re even willing to concede men’s superior performance, that is.

For example, in October 2007, Eileen McDonagh of Northeastern University and Laura Pappano of Wellesley College published Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports. “The premise of this book, and our work,” McDonagh says, “is that sex segregation does not reflect sex differences between men and women, rather it constructs them.”

I laid out the results of my research for Pappano and asked why male athletes outpace female athletes starting at 14 and 15. She answered: “Women are told around that time that they are athletically inferior to men and that they should start acting like ladies. That’s why we see the boys making such stunning gains at that age and the girls begin to suffer.”

While no one can deny that societal factors play some role, the research makes it pretty clear that there was a simpler explanation for the gap: puberty. The Centers for Disease Control publishes growth charts for the U.S. population which reveal that boys hit their major growth spurt between the ages of 14 and 15 — precisely when the best boy athletes begin to outperform the top adult female athletes.

My interviews with female professionals and others in the world of women’s sports confirmed the importance of boys’ physical development at that age. Aaron Heifitz, the publicist for the U.S. national women’s soccer team, described how the women’s squad performs against the best youth club players in Southern California: “The boys’ 13s we can handle pretty consistently, but when the boys start really developing at 14, and especially 15, that’s when you start to see real separation and they pass even the best women’s players. They’re just bigger, stronger, and faster.”

Eileen McDonagh has suggested that gender differences don’t matter in skill-based games that don’t place a premium on size, strength, and speed — pointedly asking, during a speech at Wellesley, “Why on earth are pool and ping-pong sex segregated?” Here again, even a little research reveals that the best female performers can’t compete consistently with the best males. Ping-pong actually relies heavily on physical attributes, and the difference between male and female competitors is almost as severe as it is in tennis — where the 203rd-ranked male player soundly defeated both Serena and Venus Williams in separate exhibition sets (6-1 and 6-2, respectively). In pool, Jean Balukas — possibly the greatest female player of all time — finished in the middle of the pack in men’s events in the 1980s; and Jeanette “The Black Widow” Lee — formerly the world’s Number One female player — told me, “You would not believe the amount of men, in my world, who can wax me.”

Cathy Young, the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, suggests that that failure to discuss research findings openly and honestly reflects a larger feminist agenda of “bio-denial” to promote the idea that there are no natural differences between the genders. “There’s a whole establishment that’s invested in perpetuating the notion that there are not inborn differences between the genders athletically, and that any differences can only be attributable to sociological circumstances and societal oppression. They have a clear agenda to empower women through a distorted notion of equality but these people are saying things that are completely out of touch with biological reality.”

Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain, and Education Program at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, has seen this firsthand. “I’ve been at faculty meetings where the notion that there are differences in the genders is ridiculed,” Fischer says. He adds, “[T]he first woman dean at Harvard was my dean when she got here, and when I would try to bring up studies that showed inborn gender differences she wouldn’t even allow it.”

Anyone who saw what happened to Harvard president Lawrence Summers — for even suggesting that there could be inborn gender differences — might conclude that challenging the claims of the Laura Pappanos of the world is an unnecessary headache. “When you have a large group of people with a vested interest in maintaining an agenda,” Fischer observes, “they’re going to find ways to attack anyone or anything that threatens their existence.”

The media have also obscured the facts in this debate. Young suggests a reason for this: “At most newspapers, Title IX is gospel at this point. And anything that could be seen as an argument against it is going to be ignored, attacked, or ridiculed.”

Professor Fischer was not surprised when I told him of my difficulties getting traction with my own data. “I have a colleague here in town that has a biologically based view of gender differences. She’s done a whole lot of research that shows fairly large, important differences between boys and girls in their socio-relationships at an early age. And she was prevented from publishing that at several points from people who just didn’t want to hear that point of view, regardless of the evidence.”

We almost certainly won’t hear anyone discussing controversial gender issues in all the hype surrounding the closing days of these Olympic Games. But maybe if we keep laying out the data in a calm and rational manner, we can advance the discussion beyond the biased, politically correct, opinionated nonsense that passes for serious intellectual debate on this subject.

— Todd Gallagher is the author of Andy Roddick Beat Me with a Frying Pan: Taking the Field with Pro Athletes and Olympic Legends to Settle Sports Fans’ Greatest Debates.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET

The debate surfaces periodically and revolves around the "is today's player better than players from other eras", whether it be the 70's and 80's -- the WWI era -- or the Ruth / Cobb era.

For certain, I believe the quality of the athlete that baseball is recruiting is better now than ever before. Whether that always translates into better players centers around my belief that coaching, especially at the major league level -- but in the minors as well -- has not kept up.

Coaching may be as good or better than ever at the collegiate and HS level. The youth level, IMO still leaves something to be desired. Generally speaking the level of coaching is improving there, if only sporadically.

Putting aside for a moment the segue arguments
- "Do bigger players equal better players?"
and the pejorative fallback argument
- "How did they get bigger and stronger?"

clearly the trend toward bigger, stronger, faster equaling "more productive" players has pretty much been settled. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on many variables that can not be extracted or accounted for through statistical analysis or the dreaded "eyeball" test.

Some fans will prefer 1-0, 2-0 pitching duels and some will continue to prefer the "chicks dig the long ball" era. The pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to another and back again.

The following article touches on many of the relevant areas of discussion.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET:

"Current baseball scouts generally focus their attention on larger prospects, particularly pitchers

BABE RUTH STILL STANDS AS ONE of the legendary giants of baseball, but if he were alive today, he would stand taller than only 48 percent of the players who were on major-league 40-man rosters at the start of spring training.

The Bambino was listed at 6-2 and 195 pounds before his weight became a major problem during the second half of his career. He is remembered as a much larger man because most newsreel footage of him was taken during his last few seasons-- and because he was always much bigger than the average player of his time.

But if the young, strapping Ruth were magically transported into the 21st century, he would not stand out in the team picture of any major-league club. His wonderful baseball skills aside, he would be--in terms of vital statistics--a very average guy."

The 1927 "Murderers' Row" New York Yankees were one of the most dominating, intimidating teams in history, yet the average height and weight of a member of that storied group, even with such big bruisers as Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel at the heart of the lineup, was just 5-11 and 176 pounds.

The 1975 world champion Cincinnati Reds--immortalized as "The Big Red Machine"--illustrated what a difference a half-century can make. The players on that Reds club averaged 6-1 and 188 pounds.

The 2001 three-time defending world champion Yankees are not really known as one of the most physically imposing teams on the planet, but they weigh in with an average height and weight of 6-2 and 204 pounds.

Changes.....through the years. Sometimes, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees and remember how things used to be in the 'good old days'. Then you see an old ESPN classic and you realize that "Hey, Jennie Finch actually looks more athletic than some major leaguers from the 70's appeared.

BUD HARRELSON - 1969 METS 5'11", 165 POUNDS (MAYBE)

JENNIE FINCH - USA!!! USA!!! - 6'1", 170 POUNDS

Advantage Finch!!!!

My money is on Finch even if it goes this far...

Specialization and AAU-ization...always a factor. Participation in other sports, in conjunction with or to the exclusion of other sports has changed the landscape somewhat.

If it were totally a matter of evolution, the process presumably would take place at a much slower rate. It appears, in this case, that the Darwinian notion of natural selection has been replaced with just plain selection. Baseball players are taller because scouts are out looking for taller baseball players.

"In our industry, as far as evaluating talent, you're driven to larger bodies," said Cardinals director of baseball operations John Mozeliak. "When you go to the Dominican Republic, for instance, you get all these kids at the tryouts. The first thing you look at is how a guy looks in the uniform. You're very unlikely to give any money to a guy who's 5-9 and 170 pounds."

This isn't necessarily a new concept, but several other factors may contribution to the greater availability of tall athletes during the past decade or so--most notably a vast increase in the number and diversity of youth sports programs.

The average 1960s kid played Little League and maybe Pop Warner football. The 1980s kid also had soccer, basketball and other team and individual sports to keep them active year-round.

"I think one thing that's happening is that participation is at its highest level as far as youth sports, so the pool of talent to choose from has grown," said Cardinals trainer Barry Weinstein. "And you're developing a more well-rounded athlete, so a kid doesn't have to like basketball just because he's 6-9."

And the generational shift from sandlot sports to highly organized youth programs probably has the added effect of weeding out kids with less natural athletic ability much earlier--creating a better youth talent pool at the expense of some of the young people they were supposed to benefit.

You can see from the following table that HR champs have been getting bigger over the course of the last few decades. The typical HR slugger from the good old days would be average sized today.

BIG LEAGUE SLUGGERS ARE GETTING BIGGER--Despite the fact that league home run champions have had little change in size over the last 80 years, the most dramatic change has been the number of power hitters. From 1921 through 1940, hitting 40 or more homers in a season was accomplished 32 times by 12 different players. From 1941 through 1960, it was accomplished 44 times by 17 different sluggers. From 1961 through 1980, the number rose to 54 times that a player hit 40 homers in a season, reached by 30 different players. And during the last 20 years (1981-2000), the number of 40-homer hitters jumped to 98 times accomplished by 49 different players. Below is a chart of the average size of league home run champions dating back to 1921.

Total Avg. Avg. Avg.
ERA HR Champs Height Weight HR Output

1991-2000 15 6-3 218 48
1981-1990 20 6-3 208 40
1971-1980 13 6-2 201 40
1961-1970 11 6-1 202 46
1951-1960 15 6-1 194 42
1941-1950 13 6-0 195 36
1931-1940 11 6-0 194 40
1921-1930 10 6-0 187 41

Largest HR Smallest HR
ERA Champion Champion

1991-2000 Mark McGwire (6-5, 250) Howard Johnson (5-11, 178)
1981-1990 Jose Canseco (6-4, 240) Kevin Mitchell (5-11, 210)
1971-1980 Dave Kingman (6-6, 210) Dick Allen (5-11, 190)
1961-1970 Frank Howard (6-7, 255) Willie Mays (5-11, 180)
1951-1960 Hank Sauer (6-4, 200) Al Rosen (5-10, 180)
1941-1950 Hank Greenberg (6-3-210) Mel Ott (5-9, 170)
1931-1940 Hank Greenberg (6-3, 210) Ripper Collins (5-9, 165)
1921-1930 Babe Ruth (6-2, 215) Hack Wilson (5-6, 190)

COPYRIGHT 2001 Century Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

From the table in this article, the player of today has to compete against more potential players today than ever before, even with expansion. Although they do accommodate for the exclusion of black and Hispanic players in the past, the pre-war major leaguer did not see the diversity of talent culled from around the globe that today's player competes against.



Another factor, to be considered but not readily apparent from the table above is the effect of the various wars on the availability of 18 - 30 year old males, a crucial variable at times.

Think of how much that talent pool was diluted during the war years -- a time during which "One-armed" Pete Gray played.

Pete Gray, Universal Newsreels, 1945.ogv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_Gray,_Universal_Newsreels,_1945.ogv

Other current stars gave up years of their career to the war effort, as illustrated in the following two articles.

Baseball in Wartime
http://www.baseballinwartime.com/

Baseball in Wartime is dedicated to preserving the memories of all baseball players (major league, negro league, minor league, semi-pro, college, amateur and high school), who served with the military between 1940 and 1946.

World War II was a trying time for the United States and equally so for baseball. More than 4,500 professional players swapped flannels for military uniforms to serve their nation and future Hall of Famers like Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams lost vital playing time in the prime of their careers. What is far less commonly known is that at least 130 minor league players lost their lives while serving their country.

Major League Baseball's Popularity During WWII by Joey Corso
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/161265-major-league-baseballs-popularity-during-wwii

Before WWII began, Major League Baseball enjoyed record popularity. Ted Williams batted a record-setting .406, Joe DiMaggio, set a record with hits in 56 consecutive games, 41-year-old Lefty Grove won his 300th career win, and the New York Yankees collected an unprecedented ninth World Series championship.(Baseball in Wartime)

Following Pearl Harbor, overwhelming patriotism spread throughout the nation, causing many young men to enlist including future Hall of Fame players Hank Greenburg and Bob Feller who gave up the prime their careers to be a part of the war effort.

Greenburg summed up what all players at the time were feeling, telling the Sporting News that “If there's any last message to be given to the public, let it be that I'm going to be a good soldier.”

Although a small minority of Americans expressed displeasure towards apparently fit men participating in sports and shirking military duties, Private John E Stevenson, expressed the more widely held view that, "baseball is part of the American way of life. Remove it and you remove something from the lives of American citizens, soldiers and sailors."

Along with future Hall of Famers, many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.

Using David Finoli’s highly embraced statistical formula, as seen in For the Good of the Country: World War II Baseball in the Major and Minor Leagues, a list of the top 64 ball players during the war seasons (1942-1945) was developed, headed by a Roy Sanders.

Although a fine player, it was clear a somewhat obscure player today, benefited playing against lesser competition. This can be seen by comparing his statistics during and after the war.

The list contains several other fine players, but does not include a future Hall of Fame player until the 14th player on the list, Cleveland Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Four highly productive seasons along with six to eight above average ones can usually make a player’s case for entry into the Hall of Fame.

Yet none of the top 13 players during the war made the Hall, proving that these players were unable to perform at the same level when up against the best and that statistically speaking the level of play during the time was lower.

Over time, we have seen baseball players, and the game at large, adapt to many significant changes that have collided to bring about many of the observed changes to the perceived caliber of play.

- The mound was lowered in 1969 from 15 inches to 10 inches in height after the dominance of pitching ( think Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA ). As a result, scouts and coaches preferred to select taller pitchers to make up the lost difference in leverage the lower mound provided. The short (under 6-foot) RHP became an endangered species in baseball as a result IMO.

- Free agency and guaranteed contracts resulting from the Curt Flood battle against the Reserve Clause has resulted in players beginning treated as more valuable commodities. Prior to 1969, even star players were considered expendable if productivity diminished even slightly. Players were on year to year contracts, security was day to day. Pitch Counts and increased use of bullpen specialists has been the slow, but inevitable outgrowth.

Structural changes such as Astroturf, Questec and increased use of PED's have brought about both observed and statistical changes and anomalies that can never be fully accounted for and so the debate will continue forever.

If you don't think that Questec was a huge and underrated development in the offense / defense equilibrium, take a look at the "strikes" called in some of those Braves - Twins World Series highlights or the infamous Eric Gregg / Livan Hernandez playoff game. There's a reason why Curt Schilling took a bat to an early version of Questec machinery that was in the Diamondbacks dugout. The handwriting was on the wall that a subtle but important pitching advantage was about to be lost.

It's one reason why I like to look to the Olympic sports, specifically track and field or swimming events, to observe and evaluate macro changes in athletes over different eras. The skill sports are too complex to assess causes and effects. The Olympic sports are ideal for statistical analysis because of their inherent simplicity: Running is a universal and fundamental athletic event. Distances don't change, gravity and friction are constants. Even in swimming, the resistance that water provides doesn't change materially over time.

----

In swimming, the 1924 Men's Olympic champion and symbol of virility for machismo for the era, Johnny Weismuller of Tarzan fame, swam a 59.0 sec. 100 meter freestyle.

USA'S JOHNNY WEISMULLER - 1924 PARIS OLYMPICS CHAMPION

In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Germany's Britta Steffen swam the same event in 53.12 seconds. American Natalie Coughlin swan it in 53.39 seconds for an American record. Both times would have obliterated Weismuller's time.

GERMANY'S BRITTE STEFFEN - 2008 BEJING OLYMPIC CHAMPION

In fact, Weismuller's time would have finished 47th in the world in the 2008 100 meter freestyle qualifying heats. In the women's qualifying heats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle


---

In track and field, the 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens would be challenged to beat the current women's 100 meter champion, Jamaica's Shelly-Ann Fraser. Owens won the 1936 event with a 10.3 sec. time. Fraser's 2008 100 meter time of 10.78 would have placed her sixth in the 1936 men's 100 meter championship heat and made her the fourth fastest American at the time.

Jesse Owens was 5'10" and 165. Fraser tips in at 5'3" and 115. A shorter version, pound for pound of Owens. Looking at some of these comparisons, I am with David Wells -- a Babe Ruth fan -- when he says "15-70-.270" to state what he believes Babe Ruth's stat line would be today.

No night games, no sliders, he may have been exaggerating a little bit, but not by much.

The pre-war American athlete, in many instances, can only compare favorably to female athletes today. Once again demonstrating that the Nixon-era Title IX legislation may have been one of the most underrated pieces of legislation of all time in this country.

There are simply too many factors to consider to make a definitive answer to the underlying question we started with, which is why this question will continue to be fuel for debate for many generations to come.

Smaller Towns Produce More Female Athletes: Discovery News

Interesting findings from this study that strike a similar them with the results found in the Relative Age Effect stuff. As far as athletic development, it's somewhat surprising that the attention effect may put a dent in the "big fish in a small pond" knock.

This quote speaks volumes, IMO. Apparently, results follow.

"If you have early success it changes your self-concept -- you believe you have talent."
Abernethy said this belief is nurtured because the talented regional athlete is picked in all the representative teams and gets more attention from coaches.


Smaller Towns Produce More Female Athletes: Discovery News:

Dani Cooper, ABC Science Online

Hometown: Chapel Hill, N.C. | Discovery News Video

March 5, 2009 -- When it comes to developing elite female athletes size makes a difference, a team of sports scientists has found.

Smaller towns and cities produce a disproportionate share of professional sportswomen, a recent paper published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport shows.

The Australian-Canadian study looked at the place of birth of all American-born female athletes playing in the Ladies Professional Golf Association and the Women's United Soccer Association.

Using U.S. Census and the sports association data, they found that about 57 percent of all female American adolescents were born in cities with a population less than 500,000.

However, almost 85 percent of professional female golfers and about 80 percent of professional female soccer players were born in these less-dense communities.

The discrepancy was even greater as the size of the cities and towns grew smaller."

While 26 percent of females were born in cities of less than 50,000 population, these same centers accounted for 38 percent of all professional female golfers and 40 percent of all professional female soccer players.

Co-author Bruce Abernethy, of the Institute of Human Performance at the University of Hong Kong, said the findings support their earlier work that found elite male athletes are also more likely to come from smaller towns and cities.

Abernethy, who is also attached to the University of Queensland's School of Human Movement Studies, said however place of birth is unlikely to be the critical factor in developing sports expertise.

Rather it is "a proxy for describing different types of developmental environments, experiences and opportunities."

Abernethy points to the virtuous circle created for talented sports people growing up in a small town.

"It is much easier to be the best 13-year-old hockey player if you are living in a town with a population in the thousands, then it is in Sydney or New York," he said.

"If you have early success it changes your self-concept -- you believe you have talent."
Abernethy said this belief is nurtured because the talented regional athlete is picked in all the representative teams and gets more attention from coaches.

Their success also encourages them to practice more, which enhances their skills.

He said an equally talented child in the city will be in the middle ranks of their sport so will not get the same attention or develop the same self-concept.

Abernethy said other environmental factors also play a role.

"Smaller communities provide an environment that allows children a greater amount of independent mobility and physical safety," he and his colleagues write.

"When coupled with an abundance of space to play, these factors may facilitate diverse types of sport participation, a characteristic associated with the acquisition of sport expertise."

Abernethy said young athletes in country areas, because of less safety concerns, are not dependent on parental supervision to practice. This allows them to undertake what he calls "deliberate play," which is unstructured play that develops innovative skills they then use in their sports.

He said in country areas young players are also more likely to play against adults at an earlier age.

As a result they have to enhance their strategic thinking as they cannot rely on physical size to help them win, he said.

Abernethy said city-based sports administrators need to think how they can "create the environments that happen more naturally in towns." This could include rethinking the age-based structure of most junior sports.

The flaw in this system is that the physically bigger players are often picked as being talented, when it is only their size that allows them to dominate.

Once they hit grade sport and play against adults, they no longer have the size advantage and have not developed the strategic skills to go on.

For the times they are a-changin'

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
- Bob Dylan

Times change; nothing stays the same. That's a given. Sometimes thing change with the passage of time that make you stand up, look back and wonder; "How in the heck did we get here?"




Johnny Weissmuller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnny Weissmuller (June 2, 1904 – January 20, 1984) was an American swimmer and actor who was one of the world's best swimmers in the 1920s, winning five Olympic gold medals and one bronze medal. He won fifty-two US National Championships and set sixty-seven world records. After his swimming career, he became the sixth actor to portray Tarzan in films, a role he played in twelve motion pictures. Other actors also played Tarzan, but Weissmuller was the best-known. His character's distinctive, ululating Tarzan yell is still often used in films.

On July 9, 1922, Weissmuller broke Duke Kahanamoku's world record on the 100-meters freestyle, swimming it in 58.6 seconds.

Today, according to USA Swimming:
3 girls in the 11-12 year old category swam better times.
88 girls in the 13-14 year old category swam better times.
over 100 girls in the 15-16 year old category swam better times.
over 100 girls in the 17-18 year old category swam better times.

Now, Weismuller along with maybe Jim Thorpe, was considered to be one of the top athletes of the 1920's and 30's. He was Tarzan, the King of the Jungle. The embodiment of masculinity at the time. Babe Ruth's time. Lou Gehrig's time.

And now his times would not impress many high school womens swim coaches.

And yet the composition of water hasn't changed since the 20's such that athletes of today would have any material advantage. And the distance, 100 meters, has not changed from the 1920's to today, such that the comparison would be materially different.

In fact, it hasn't changed at all. So this would appear to be as much an apples to apples comparison of the athletes of one era when compared to another. So as much as we may want to remain romantically attached to the idea that what was great when we were young will continue to be great generations down the road, I would just respectfully say, I certainly hope not!!

I would hope that cars of today are better and safer and more efficient today then those made back in the days of the Model T. Even though it is still fascinating to look at the models of yesteryear and recognize that in their day, they reigned supreme.

It's called progress, or evolution if you will. Things change, times change. Not always for the better, but in most cases we advance forward.



Mark Spitz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Andrew Spitz (born February 10, 1950, in Modesto, California) is an American swimmer.

He holds the record for most gold medals won in a single Olympic Games (seven), which he set at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany.

Between 1965 and 1972, Spitz won 9 Olympic gold medals, 1 silver, and 1 bronze; 5 Pan American golds; 31 National U.S. Amateur Athletic Union titles; and 8 U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Championships. During those years, he set 33 world records.

At the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany Spitz swam the 100 meter freestyle in 51.22 seconds:

The current records are:

World: 47.84 Pieter van den Hoogenband, NED Sydney, AUS 09-19-00
American: 48.17 Jason Lezak, Irvine Long Beach, Calif. 07-10-04

So, even a more modern "Superman", which Spitz was when he won the seven gold medals in Munich, is forced to endure seeing his world records, not only broken but shattered over the years. Does it detract from the magnificence of what he accomplished? I don't think so, not in any way at all.

It's just the nature of things.

That's the way it's always been is sports, and it's even more pronounced now in baseball since the demise of the Reserve Clause and the explosive escalation of salaries.

This take on the situation from Johnny Bench illustrates the point very clearly:

Bench elaborates on what many vintage MLB players
think: their achievements are clearly undermined by
many factors in favor of younger hitters.

"We're second-class citizens now, our era. Our
records are bygone", he said.

"They're making $15 million or $20 million a year.
I made $11,000 my first year. I was rookie of the year
and made $20,000, was MVP and made $40,000, was MVP
again and made $80,000. So I'm only like $19,920,000
behind."

"There are guys out there who make two All-Star
games and they've got their own planes flying back
East. I'm trying to drive to Reno to get the 6:45 a.m.
Delta so I can change planes and go to Orlando", he
said.

The old-timers feel disrespected and unappreciated compared to the modern ballplayers. That, I guess, may never change.