Women underrepresented as head coaches in women's hockey

[uvmcats]

It always amazes me as women's collegiate coaching vacancies occur how quickly the preponderance of posters' speculation on replacements turn to assistant coaches on men's teams. A quick look at who is currently coaching shows 13 male coaches and 8 female coaches at the d1 level or 62% male. At the d3 level it is 40 male and 23 female or 64% male. I didn't look but my speculation is that in men's hockey it is 100% male.

It is different for assistant coaches in the women's game as 19 of the d1 assisants are male and 24 are female or 44% male. At the d3 level, 47 assts are male and 62 are female or 44% male. I suspect most of the assistants especially at the d3 level but probably at the d1 level to a lesser extent, are not paid or paid very little.

I would hope as coaching opportunities occur in the women's game, colleges and universities will seek out qualified women to compete for the jobs. For example, I am surprised that qualified coaches such as the coach at MIT (who did a great job with the talent in that program) are not mentioned right off for these vacancies.

[MICZamboni]

Originally posted by necdad


I would hope as coaching opportunities occur in the women's game, colleges and universities will seek out qualified women to compete for the jobs. For example, I am surprised that qualified coaches such as the coach at MIT (who did a great job with the talent in that program) are not mentioned right off for these vacancies.
No disrespect intended but...
what qualifications does this coach have other than being the coach at MIT. After looking at the bio's of the girls playing there it doesnt seem like they haveany players on their team. A few rocket scientists here and there but no hockey players. I would think it would be tough to recommend a hockey coach to the Div. 1 level who doesnt even coach hockey players. Although, if she has time spent as a coach elsewhere this may change my thinking.

[dave1381]

The coach at MIT has also been the head coach at Wisconsin and Cornell and the U.S. assistant. She WAS contacted about the Union vacancy, see http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/05/07_008503.php
She did not come for an interview, however. Look at the state of Union athletics now and its location and her location. Which do you think is more likely, Union didn't want her or vice versa? Draw your own conclusion.

[kaven]

I think all fans of Womens hockey would love to see more "qualified and experienced" female coaches in the game. I wouldn`t exactly say in my opinion, that Women are under represented- my opinion is that college administrators need to make decisions, and if it comes to a male coach with years of success and experience vs. a female with much less experience, its a no-brainer. I think, with more female coaches coming into the game, as assistants (a great place to start) you`ll see more female coaches in head coaching positions. I do, however agree, with your first thought, that a lot of times, the first look is to a Mens assistant coach, yes, thats an issue. The administrators "safety" selection for sure.

[AspenLake]

Originally posted by necdad

It is different for assistant coaches in the women's game as 19 of the d1 assisants are male and 24 are female or 44% male. At the d3 level, 47 assts are male and 62 are female or 44% male. I suspect most of the assistants especially at the d3 level but probably at the d1 level to a lesser extent, are not paid or paid very little.

I would hope as coaching opportunities occur in the women's game, colleges and universities will seek out qualified women to compete for the jobs. For example, I am surprised that qualified coaches such as the coach at MIT (who did a great job with the talent in that program) are not mentioned right off for these vacancies.

I think the previous poster hit it on the head. While I won't go so far as to say it's an 'old boy's club', AD's are looking for the ability to run a program, recruit quality talent, and drive the program forward. I think the 1st paragraph I posted above makes you feel positive that there is growth in the women's coaching ranks at the ***'t level, and especially at the D1 level. Assistants to all the leg work, and are mentored by the the head coach on how to deal with game decisions, recruiting ('closing the deal'), and the management of the game. In short they are 'apprentice' head coaches. Proving they can handle the 'management' side experience will put them in place for near future jobs.

I for one want the best candidate for the job. In the next 10 years, those asst's will graduate into head coaching positions, if they prove themselves. They will have the edge as they understand the female recruiting issues better than most men coming from men's programs.

I look at debacles such as Cheryl Littlejohn at the U of MN GBB program, and I find that just because your a woman, and have some limited success at a lower level, doesn't mean your ready for the rigors of coaching at the next level (hell look at Monson now... great coach for a small conference powerhouse at Gonzaga, but can't make a dent in Big 10 recruiting).

Give it time.

[dave1381]

If you want evidence of the folly of rushing women into positions of power when they're underqualified, look no further than the debacle of international officiating in the last Olympics and World Championships. Agreed, give it time, but I think there will be a lot of progress in the near future.

[Un_Poco_Lento]

Julie Sasner was considered for other vacancies, including the UNH position, before she took the job at MIT. The big mark against her is her recent history as a D-I coach, which involves abruptly leaving *two* programs for other opportunities. She had good reason both times, but I think that hurts her job prospects. If she sticks with MIT for a while, and wins some games, I think she'll be a prime D-I candidate.

I think, at the moment, there are not as many qualified women applying for these positions. As the current assistants gain experience and move into head coaching positions, you'll see more women running D-I programs. Another problem is a lack of experienced female head coaches. I think several of the current assistants would be qualified to take over as the head coach of a D-I or D-III team, but their lack of head coaching experience has to hurt them in the job market.

Note: I am NOT suggesting a lack of qualified women, I'm just saying qualified women are not applying. Melody Davidson took over at Cornell recently, and I think she would have been qualified to take over a D-I team several years before she came to Cornell.

[Collegehockeynut]

I think the logical place to start is with the players and ask them what they want. In talking to some players on this point, the answer I get back is, " a qualified coach who will first, move the team forward and second, help me improve as a player." Very, very rarely, if at all does a player say "oh yeah, and they must be female." Also, many times in talking to players, they say they prefer a male coach.

The key I think in terms if increasing the female coaching ranks will be the current players at D1 and to some extent D3. More and more of these players, once they graduate, are looking a coaching as a career. The 30 plus D1 programs means an increasing pool of of women who want to make coaching a career. As they pay their dues a assistant coaches, in 5 to 7 years from now, I thinkyou will see an explosion of female head coaches.

[Icelady9]

Ask the hockey players, I don't think so! I suggest for colleges to hire the best availbable talent regardless of sex for the benefit of al. Yes, I would rather see female coaches and refs in womens (and men's division) play, but let's keep the reins on the PC crowd for now.

[ARM]

Originally posted by Collegehockeynut
Also, many times in talking to players, they say they prefer a male coach.
If that is true, then I think it is important to remember that the players are young, and they might not be looking at the issue from all sides. In a few years, some members of the team will want to enter the coaching ranks. My guess is that they would prefer that the generation of females that they wish to coach not have a male-rather-than-female coaching bias.

I have not seen that having a male coach produces better results on the ice, at least if measured by wins and losses. Consider the WCHA teams in order of finish, top to bottom. The head coaches were F, M, F, F, M, M, M. Dartmouth didn't show radical improvement going from a female coach to a male coach. Coaches like Sisti, Vizenor, Johnson, and Flanagan do a fine job. Are they doing a better job than the female coaches of equivalent programs? Not that I can tell when considering team performance.

All else being equal, I think it makes sense to hire the qualified female coach over the qualified male coach. They have most likely played girls'/women's hockey and understand the subtle differences between the men's and women's game. If I was to choose a male candidate, I'd prefer one who had coached female players at some point in the past.

[uvmcats]

I agree with many of the points raised here. I started with a view of a jar half empty (why not more female head coaches) but realize that it is a jar half full instead. I guess what bothered me the most was that the speculation for coaches for vacant positions did not immediately bring speculation regarding qualified females.

My daughter has expressed to me on more than one occasion that one of her dreams is to come back to her youth program and coach. I was surprised to find that she had set up coaching as a minor in her course of study. Someone mentioned that the future coaches will be coming from those assisting or playing in college now. That is true, I just hope attitudes change sufficiently enough to give them the chance to learn and to succeed or fail.

As to the MIT coach, I knew she had coached at a high level and had some issues related to, I think, the UNH job a few years ago. I saw her team a year ago and it was terrible. I saw them again this year with essentially the same talent level but they really played well together and probably cut the goals against in half from the previous year. IMHO there was excellent discipline in their systems and they performed beyond their talent. That is why I used her as an example of who I would consider a qualified female coach.

[stetem]

The best way for team and a player to improve is to have the best available coach .....male or female shouldnt matter

[waxer]

Women's coaches can't break in if they are not given the chance to develop---(i.e. Sasner) over men's coaches who may have garnished knowlege as assistants, but for whatever reason have failed to advance in men's hockey, and may not be suited to the unique aspects of the women's game that make it exceptional.

[Collegehockeynut]

Originally posted by Icelady9
Ask the hockey players, I don't think so! I suggest for colleges to hire the best availbable talent regardless of sex for the benefit of al. Yes, I would rather see female coaches and refs in womens (and men's division) play, but let's keep the reins on the PC crowd for now.

I did not express myself clearly enough. I did not mean to ask the players who the coach should be, Rather, as you point out, the players don' care if the coach is female or male. They want a coach who will improve the team and improve them as a player.

[pgb-ohio]

Originally posted by ARM
If that is true, then I think it is important to remember that the players are young, and they might not be looking at the issue from all sides. In a few years, some members of the team will want to enter the coaching ranks. My guess is that they would prefer that the generation of females that they wish to coach not have a male-rather-than-female coaching bias.
This is an important issue, to be sure. But in evaluating "the players viewpoint," several things should be kept in mind:

1. Opinions on this sort of subject will vary considerably from individual to individual. Many, if not most, take a gender-neutral stand.

2. Some players who "prefer" male coaches do so based on their assessment of the current talent pool, not a belief that female coaches are inherently inferior. The players who take this position usually cite different levels of experience as the reason they make the distinction.

3. The large majority of players will only be directly involved in college hockey for 4-5 years. As such, it matters to them that the best possible coaching be provided immediately, so that they're able to personally benefit -- both individually and as members of the team. Arguably this is a failure to see the issue "from all sides," but I think it's understandable.

4. If the players accept that a female coach is fully qualified, they will be extremely supportive of that coach.

Just my two cents.

[pal7]

After watching women's hockey for over 12 years I haven't seen one women's coach yet that has impressed me with her ability and knowledge of the game...may take a few years yet..they need alot more time being assistants to learn how to handle themselves, the team and learn the game.

But I do have to say that I have seen some very bad men coaches as well..so I don't think that it is gender related as to stupidity and bad coaching.

Giving women head coaching positions is not helping women's hockey at all...I just don't think they have the credentials yet..

[Angus]

Originally posted by Collegehockeynut
The key I think in terms if increasing the female coaching ranks will be the current players at D1 and to some extent D3. More and more of these players, once they graduate, are looking a coaching as a career. The 30 plus D1 programs means an increasing pool of of women who want to make coaching a career. As they pay their dues a assistant coaches, in 5 to 7 years from now, I thinkyou will see an explosion of female head coaches.

I think the above quote says it best. In a few years there will be so many qualified women out there that even interviewing a man for a coaching vacancy on a women's team will be considered a token gesture.

I was going to wait to watch the tapes of the WWC's before wondering this out loud in an internet forum, but would somebody explain to me exactly what is so great about Ben Smith? Nagano was six years ago, and the Salt Lake City loss in particular should have meant the end of his career with the US women's team, but apparently his coaching tenure is slated to continue indefinately, and for no good reason other than...no other coach in hockey is better at motivating a team into believing that...the barn door is open!...or closed!...or WHATEVER is was he he told them (not that it ever made any sense)

There has GOT to be at least ONE female coach somewhere in the U.S. qualified to coach the women's national team.

[dave1381]

Talk about opposite extremes here...
Originally posted by pal7
After watching women's hockey for over 12 years I haven't seen one women's coach yet that has impressed me with her ability and knowledge of the game.
What teams have you been watching? Pretty cold there... so do you believe all the "impressive" coaches in women's college hockey are men right now, or that none of the coaches in women's hockey are impressive?
Originally posted by Angus
I think the above quote says it best. In a few years there will be so many qualified women out there that even interviewing a man for a coaching vacancy on a women's team will be considered a token gesture.

I don't believe that for a second. In women's soccer and women's basketball, which have had far more time and opportunity to develop than women's hockey, you still have a good number of men's coaches. I expect men will be able to compete for women's coaching positions well into the future.

[Un_Poco_Lento]

Dave's right on the money with both of his comments.

Re: women coaches

I have a hard time believing anyone who has watched women's hockey for 12 years has NEVER seen a good female coach.

A few examples: Digit Murphy, Julie Sasner, and Mel Davidson are all knowledgable and capable coaches, at least in terms of player development and establishing a system. Murphy and Sasner have both shown they can win at the D-I level. Davidson has done a nice job, but she hasn't won anything yet, so the jury's still out on her.

There are plenty of other examples. Niagara has a great female coach, as do UMD and Minnesota (I haven't seen the WCHA teams in action, but they've been playing for titles every year lately, so they must be doing something right). Notice, with the exception of Davidson, all of these coaches have had success at the D-I level. Also notice all of these women have done a fine job recruiting and developing their players.

I haven't even mentioned Harvard yet. Say what you will about Stone (I think she's one of the best recruiters in the game, but not one of the best game coaches), but she's had a ton of success over the last 5 years. Edit - I also think she does a pretty good job of developing her players, despite the claims of many people on this board. -End edit. To suggest that a coach with her success rate isn't knowledgable or capable is absurd.

Maybe all of these successful coaches are living off of their recruits, or maybe they just have great assistants, but aren't recruiting and hiring assistants part of what it takes to be a good head coach?

And in response to waxer's post below:

Unless you're talking about her career prior to 1993, Sasner is a terrible example of a woman not being allowed to develop and break into the D-I coaching ranks. She's already held two D-I head coaching jobs, and she started the program at Wisconsin before leaving for the US National Team.

[spectator]

pal7,

What games have you been watching over 12 years? Each of the seven D-I national championship teams has been coached by a woman. In the seven years of the AHCA national coach of the year, six of the D-I winners have been women.