The Difference Between Lightweights and Heavyweights

In honor of Sprints and Dad Vails, which for some lightweights are the only regattas at which they compete alongside their much larger sisters, I'd like to present a musical and videographic presentation of just some of the differences between heavyweights and lightweights. Actually, this is a self-portrayal by the Yale heavies, and although no lightweights appear, or are mentioned, I think you'll notice how these women differ from the lean, mean rowing machines we'll see this weekend.

Those of you at Ivy League schools have no doubt seen this video already, since it found it's way to IvyGate. Nonetheless, it's definitely worth showing here. By the way, imagine if lightweights made a video like this. The NCAA (which does/doesn't govern lightweight rowing) would be beating it's collective breast, interventions would be scheduled for the obviously sick filmakers, and the crew would no doubt be disbanded. Psychologists, sociologists, bingeologists, and perhaps some mixologists would descend upon the campus to offer counseling. Dr. Phil would have a police escort to the boathouse.

Food seems to be a fixation for heavyweight women as we often see that it plays a central role in their lives. To quote one of my all time favorite heavyweights, "I love that we’re big women and proud of it and proud that we’re strong and we love to eat." Despite this food issue, I still hope the NCAA keeps the heavyweight championship, because I'm sure with conscientious coaches and dedicated health and training staff, good heavyweight programs can ensure that their rowers aren't doomed to a life of beer and Twinkies after college athletics end. Remember lightweights, as you hear your heavyweight sisters clip-clopping around the boathouse, be considerate of their moods and feelings, because they're near the precipice, and one wrong word could push them over the edge.

Anyway, back to the video. There is only one thing to say about this thing - scary. Very, very, very SCARY. I always thought Yale was an obvious place for lightweights to take hold. Perhaps I'm wrong. (Warning: Naughty words ahead.)




How long do you think it took them to grow those mustaches?

Radcliffe Frosh Get Their Due; UCF, Not So Much

The Harvard Crimson published an article on the Radcliffe freshman light eight. It's a nice story with a couple of interesting points - the boat is comprised of all [six] recruits [a reader notes the article got this wrong], keeping the boat together is part of the Radcliffe way, and only one rower from the varsity eight graduates this year.

I think it's pretty significant that Radcliffe was able to bring in eight recruits this year. It obviously bodes well for the future of the program. When these freshmen mix in with the varsity next year, most of whom return, a pretty fast boat should result.

UCF, meanwhile, published a presser on the women's rowing team. In this case, however, it's really the heavyweight women's rowing team. It's a nice story about the recognition they're getting this year, but never mentions the lightweights. Not a problem if it wasn't for the fact that the heavies are treated as the whole team.

This story leads to the dark underside of the NCAA's involvement with rowing - the distorted boat priorities. Several of last year's fast lightweights have been brought into the heavyweight group. I haven't followed the heavies, but I believe one or two lights have been in the 1V. One might think that the others, who are spending time in the 2V or lower, would get released back to the lights to make a run at a national championship at IRAs. Thanks to the NCAA championship format, however, the program is forced to prioritize the heavy 2V above the light 1V, keeping the lightweight rowers out of the lightweight boat. Maybe you're thinking that it won't be a problem for IRAs since the heavies' season will be over by then? Sorry, if UCF heavies go to NCAAs, as it looks like they will, by NCAA rules those rowers who attend will not be allowed to race in another championship. It's sad to see a boat that had a real chance at challenging for a medal at IRAs torn apart simply to fill out a 2V so UCF can bring an entire team to NCAAs.

Just another example of how the NCAA works for the good of all female college athletes.

Coaches' Poll and cMax

I'm late on the latest rankings too, although the coaches' poll didn't show much movement. cMax is a different story however, as UCF jumped a spot to #4 and LMU jumped one to #7. My guess is that LMU brought this on with their WIRA victory. UCF moved without racing, but they beat LMU earlier in the season so no doubt benefited from the Lions' excellent WIRA performance.

It sure is interesting to see a ranking in which the Easties "don't get no respect." Unfortunately this is another argument (like the fours) that we won't see settled this year.

Another interesting observation comes from the cMax rankings. Through the top five positions, the lightweight category is the second most competitive women's category (after the heavyweight women). By tenth place, however, it's fourth out of five. This illustrates both how far you've come and how far you have to go. In all cases, however, the lights have more crews and are more competitive than a NCAA championship category - DII. So let's see, they get the most desirable thing on God's earth, a NCAA championship, while lightweights don't?

Whatever.

Rowing News Ignores Lightweights - Again

Yesterday's post put me in a belligerent mood, so before I get back to this weekend's races, I may as well air it all out. In it's latest issue, Rowing News (the establishment mouthpiece) published an article discussing the greatest eights of all time. A difficult proposition to be sure, and several eights are discussed. Several, that is, for each category - heavyweight men, heavyweight women, lightweight men, and, and, and.... Yes, that's right, it ignores lightweight women. Why cover three categories and not the fourth? Are there no great lightweight women's eights? Hard to believe given that we've seen three incredibly dominant programs - Radcliffe in the 90s (and earlier), Princeton in the early 2000s, and Wisconsin now (plus a surprising Villanova in 1998). No boat in there was great? Given that the great boats were only compared against others in their category, by definition there MUST be a great lightweight women's eight. Or, could it be that Rowing News considers the category to be so weak that there is no boat worthy? There is a promised second part, that will cover junior crews! Junior crews are worthy but collegiate lightweight women are not!? As always, Rowing News refuses to publish letters from me (sorry, I'm not going away), so if this bothers you as much as it does me, please write a letter to the editor. You can reach him at letters@rowingnews.com.

Rowing News also has a story about women's heavyweight rowing ten years after the first NCAA championship. Much time is spent on the growth in numbers and visibility of heavyweights brought on by NCAA recognition. Readers of FITD know that I appreciate this aspect of NCAA involvement and that my principle beef with the NCAA is the way it has marginalized lightweight women. Despite all of the problems and the NCAA's continuing lack of understanding of the sport, if lightweights were offered an NCAA championship I'd take it in a minute. In a world where most people are afraid to think for themselves (even athletic directors), the NCAA imprimatur would enable lightweight rowing to grow far faster than without it.

In a sidebar (of course) to the story, Chip Davis makes two points I've been making for almost two years now (could he be a secret reader?):

Highly competitive student-athletes continue to race to tight finishes each year in weight class events. But collegiate lightweight women still crown their national champions in the shadow of men's events at the IRA. Recent tragedies with wrestlers trying to cut too much weight combined with a heightened concern for eating disorders have kept lightweight events out of the NCAA. Some coaches have also bristled at the idea of splitting limited talent between two categories.

Hallelujah! Credit to Chip here for speaking the truth. I've talked to coaches, lightweight and heavyweight, as well as NCAA officials, and nearly every single one has denied that weight and eating disorder concerns play a part in the NCAA's antipathy toward lightweight women. As Chip points out, that's ridiculous, and that's why I spend time on FITD questioning the sensational eating disorder articles we see in the press and the "scientific studies" that, failing to prove a connection between today's lightweight athletes and eating disorders, go on to discuss how "common sense" tells us otherwise so we need to be careful. My point is not that uncontrolled weight loss isn't dangerous, but that today's lightweight women's programs control it and produce healthy athletes. I won't even get into the lack of studies looking at the obesity problem and heavyweights, but turnabout is fair play, isn't it? I've begged for scientific studies that produce a comparison of eating disorder prevalence among lightweight women and their college age peer group, but have yet to find any.

The negative feelings of heavyweight coaches (not all, of course) toward lightweights that Chip mentions has also been mentioned to me by lightweight coaches. This is why the CRCA does not and cannot represent the interests of lightweight women.

In the article, Jim Dietz (who was interviewed on FITD) hits upon the solution for lightweight women when he says:

Although the NCAA voted to make us a team sport, where a team consists of two eights and a four, I think the sport would be better served if we were an individual team sport, where each boat had to qualify on its own merits, its own speed.

He's talking about expanding the boat classes here, not specifically about lightweights, but allowing boats to qualify individually would open the door for lightweight boats.

Look, we all know that heavyweight women's rowing is the ethanol of college sports - unable to exist at current levels on its own, but thriving through the gift of government regulation. If you're a plug-in hybrid in an ethanol world, you've got problems. You need to get some of that regulation for yourself. You know it's not the right way to do it, but if it's there, you need it to compete. Given the inflated amount of money and attention lavished on heavyweight women, it's a testament to the strength of lightweight women's rowing that it can exist at all.

Yeah, I'm on a bitchy jag right now, but when I see the kind of interest a goofy little blog like FITD can generate; when I see how many women row lightweight or want to row lightweight; when I see incredible but normal sized athletes crank down race courses moving big boats really fast, I get a little upset when they're ignored by the rowing world. I've said many times here that we're all in it together, but sometimes it sure doesn't feel like it.

Boat Priorities - NCAA Style

Over the past several days, we've had two related discussions going on in the comments section of various posts. They tie together and I think they're important enough to bring to the front page.

The first revolves around the relative competitiveness and intensity of racing at NCAAs vs. IRAs. I (and others here) have argued that last year's IRA was as intense and competitive as last year's NCAA, if not more so. While I think the competitiveness of the two events is an important discussion, it's been discussed here quite a bit, both on the front page and in comments, and I've yet to hear a reasonable argument to support the NCAA side in 2006. I'll leave competitiveness at that. A reader commented, however, that "If any of the UCF lightweights make a boat and race at NCAA's, they will step up to a higher level of intensity than they have ever experienced."

Now, I don't think that this intensity discussion is particularly important or fruitful because intensity is a function of many things, not simply the importance of the race. Unlike "spectacle sport" athletes, rowers derive intensity from the competition against themselves as well as their opponent; from the the battle for perfection. I've experienced practice pieces as intense as championship races. Intensity of any race or regatta will vary from year to year and from event to event.

I understand why the reader who posted the comment above wants to hold that view. I understand that we've been conditioned to believe that something about the NCAA legitimizes a championship that mere mortals can't handle for themselves. Nonetheless, I completely reject the notion that in any given year the NCAA championship is more intense than the IRA championship. That position is unsupportable by any objective means. (By the way, the opposite proposition is also unsupportable.) Let's go back to 2006. I was at both the NCAA championships and the IRA championships. The surprises and back and forth nature of the IRAs have been discussed many times here and I assume are familiar to the reader. The NCAA championship was over within 20 strokes. That's right, 20 strokes, and by 500 meters Princeton had open water on the field and for 1500 meters simply countered any boat silly enough to attempt a move. I can't imagine a less competitive race. Oh, wait, I forgot that the slower boats frothing in Princeton's wake were in a battle too, for the team trophy (aka the "national championship"). And that brings me to the next point of discussion.

For many years, when you raced a dual or a regatta, there were only two questions to answer - Did you win? and Did you sweep? While there were point trophies, no one really cared about them because if your boat didn't win, they were simply self esteem trophies. It wasn't until the NCAA got hold of rowing and deemed it a "team sport" that we were told we need to care about point trophies (this is a different discussion if we're talking international rowing). We need to care because now, the point trophy is really the "national championship." Well, let me tell you a secret about point trophies - no one cares. Let me say that again - NO ONE CARES. Well, except the winners who see it as the next best thing to a sweep (maybe it is) if they won the V8, or see it as a self esteem trophy if they lost the V8. Whenever I read about the "national champion" Cal women, I laugh.

Look at the men, however. We all know who won the V8 at IRAs - Cal. Cal is the National Champion. Do you know who won the point trophy? Is there a point trophy? Give truth serum to a member of the Cal women's V8 last year and ask her if she'd rather be a "national champion" or winner of the V8. What do you think she'd say? I know what she'd say. The NCAA has distorted rowing's priorities.

It is this distortion that has had a deleterious effect on lightweight women. In another comment, when discussing lightweights rowing with heavyweights, a reader noted that " the point is that maybe it ought to be about the fastest BOAT, regardless of class year OR size of the rower." I agree with this point completely. This is why heavyweights will always take precedence and always be more glamorous. It's when we get beyond that fastest boat that things get dicey.

To me, there is a natural priority of boats when the sport is unencumbered by outside influences. That priority is:

1. Heavyweight 1V
2. Lightweight 1V
3. Heavyweight 2V
4. Lightweight 2V
5. Heavyweight 3V4
6. Lightweight 3V4

This priority assumes all six boats can be equally competitive in their categories (an unlikely assumption). After the heavy 1V, the light 1V is comprised of the best rowers in that class. If we bother to create the class, it's best rowers get priority over the second best rowers in another class. Priorities adjust when certain boats are not competitive (I'll come back to this).

Under the NCAA regime, the priorities are as follows:

1. Heavyweight 1V
2. Heavyweight 2V
3. Heavyweight 3V4
4. Lightweight 1V

This is a complete distortion of the sport's historical and natural priorities. Under the guise of a "national championship" the lightweight category has been relegated to rowing's backwater, ignored by the NCAA, the CRCA, and athletic directors. As one poster said:

There should be lightweight V8 and V4 events at NCAAs, not as part of the heavyweight team event, but as an entirely other category, they same way DII and DIII programs have their own championship. From what I can tell, there are far more competitive Lightweight programs than there are DII programs.

Unfortunately, as long as rowing is a team sport, this can't happen. Lightweights can only be added as another event in the "national championship" which would mean that all contenders would need to boat a lightweight crew. Let's all hold our breath for the CRCA vote on that, shall we?

Sorry for the length here, but one last point. If the heavy 1V looks like it will be cannon fodder, but the light 1V could be competitive, a coach has a strategic decision to make. With the NCAA involved, every coach will still go with the cannon fodder heavyweights, when perhaps it would be best for the program to go with a nationally contending light 1V. Same for a light 1V - this was the point of the Line of Hope. If the lights are cannon fodder, they go back to a heavy 2V or 3V4. This happens all the time.

There's the straw man, set a match to it if you will. Of course you'd like a shot at the heavy 1V over the lightweight boat, but please skip the "NCAA think" and be honest with yourself before you tell me how you'd rather be wallowing around in a heavyweight JayVee than contending for the national championship in a lightweight Varsity.

Male Practice Players

Double-A Zone notes that the "NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics has issued a position statement calling for a ban on the use of male practice players in women’s sports." Also, the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has recommended legislation to the Division III Management Council to restrict the use of male practice players.

My first thought upon reading this was to wonder what effect it would have on those lightweight women who often practice with men. In some programs this is unheard of while in others it is relatively common. Given the right length of piece, a good heavyweight men's four can provide a great sparring partner for a light eight and a men's eight running up your rudder can provide good motivation in a head piece. In addition, we've all seen occasions when men fill in for missing rowers in women's boats so that the boat can get on the water. We've also seen men race in mixed boats with women.

After reading the NCAA committee position statement, however, it's pretty clear that this rule is not aimed at these kinds of practices. It discusses "recruiting male undergraduate students, not to participate on men’s varsity teams, but solely for the purpose of participating in practice with female athletic teams." The men women row against in my examples are on the men's varsity team. Nonetheless, well intentioned NCAA initiatives have run into trouble when applied to rowing in the past, and some diligence will be needed here to make sure any future rule has the proper language defining a "male practice player."


Technorati Tags: rowing

Regatta Race Order

The recent news that the NCAA is considering moving the women's basketball championship back one week to avoid conflicting with the men's championship made me think about the order of finals at major regattas. Somewhere along the line many regattas decided to move the women's final after the men's final. The prime example of this is IRAs where last spring the order was men's heavy eight, women's light eight, and men's light eight.



I would guess that this was originally done as a show of support for the women, giving their final a better (later) spot on the program than the heavy men. The reality, unfortunately, is a bit different. Those who attended the IRA finals saw the stands and shoreline near the finish tower fill to capacity in anticipation of the heavyweight men's championship. Once that race finished spectators moved in to see the medal presentations and then promptly began to wander off. As the light women came across the line, only those specifically interested in that race seemed to be watching. That was a decent enough crowd, but no heavyweight men fans lingered to see what the lightweight women were all about.



I assume this ordering of the races was well intentioned, but it doesn't work. The order should be light men, light women, heavy men. It would be nice if the heavyweight men's fans stayed to watch the lightweight championships, but they don't. At least not yet. We should take advantage of the forming crowd and run the light women just before the heavy men. With the increasing quality of the lightweight women's field, I have no doubt it would be a show worth watching.





Technorati Tags: rowing

An Idea for the National Championship

With the announcement of the BCS match-ups come the annual calls for a I-A college football playoff system. Although this world of big-time sports seems far removed from lightweight rowing, it reminded me of a rowing championship format espoused by Mike Teti. Before I go farther, let me say that this idea comes from Mike, but I will no doubt not explain it quite the way he would and may get some key elements wrong. So, the idea is not mine, but any differences from the originator's actual concept are the result of my own faulty memory or misunderstanding.



In essence, the plan would work like this:





- The championship would include men's and women's heavyweights and lightweights, varsity eights only.



1) For each category there would be 12 entrants who would race in two qualifying heats (two 6 boat races)



2) Three top boats from each qualifier would move on to a quarterfinal (6 boat race)



3) The top three boats in the quarterfinal would race again in the semi-final (3 boat race)



4) The top two boats in the semi would race again in a match race to decide the national championship (2 boat race)





So, we have a tournament format, for V8s only, and all four collegiate rowing categories would have a NCAA championship. The idea is that the tournament format would create increasing excitement, building toward the last match race for the national championship (I may have added an extra race in there). By only allowing V8s we cut to the heart of the matter, avoid those silly team championships, and avoid the embarrassment of listening to the "national champion" 2V pair tell an interviewer how they just started rowing together last week. To make it a true championship event, all categories would need to be present and racing for a national championship.



That's the idea and, again, my apologies for any deviation from the original scheme. What do you think? Could this work? How would you improve it? Other ideas?







Technorati Tags: rowing

NCAA Bylaw 13.11.1.2.

Boy, that sounds exciting, doesn't it? Oh well, that's life as a NCAA sport. Wait! Lightweight women aren't a NCAA sport, so I guess this isn't something you need to worry about, right?

If you're racing this fall, you may know what this bylaw addresses. For those of you who don't, it proscribes a college team from competing against a high school or prep school team, or a club team that contains "prospects." It seems that not too long ago, women's volleyball and softball teams used to set up tournaments against club teams full of high school prospects so the college coach could get a closer look. Rules were made to prohibit this in those sports, and finally, in March of this year, all teams were prohibited from competing against high school students.

Fall head races have long mixed high school and college crews together in certain events, resulting in fuller fields and better racing. No more. (This doesn't seem to affect men's races.) At least one reader of FITD has commented on how this rule has created some headaches for her crew, as some events are scrapped and others start two divisions. A look at the rules for the HOCR show that some events do not allow high school rowers while others will start those rowers separately, after the colleges.

While this rule is mostly just annoying and a nuisance, it serves to highlight, once again, the NCAA's complete lack of understanding of the history and traditions of rowing. It also highlights one of the NCAA's guiding sports principles - segregation. We are well aware of how the NCAA has required that rowing be segregated by sex, and now it demands that it be segregated by age. The practical result seems to be some shuffling of crews, but they will still race and college coaches can still watch them come down the course. This is true red tape - it inconveniences many but in the end fails utterly at its mission.

So here we are again, receiving none of the benefits of the NCAA, but suffering all of the pain. In this case it seems to have a relatively minor effect on college lightweight crews, but the question is, Why does it have any?

A Suggestion

In championship regattas, team points trophies are a desirable piece of hardware. Although I'm not a big fan, coaches want them, athletic directors want them, and the NCAA's rule over women's heavyweight rowing as a "team sport" has made them more important than ever. The only championship regatta I'm aware of, however, in which the results of the light eight counts toward such a trophy is the A10's. It seems to me then, that one way to grow lightweight rowing would be to make it count toward a major championship team trophy. I suggest we start with the Willing Trophy at EAWRC Sprints.

There are probably easier championships with which to start, but none with more tradition or prestige. Sprints are the place to have the biggest impact. If the Sprints schools began to develop lightweight programs, that would represent some real progress in growing the sport. Of the 16 schools entered in the V8 competition last season, 10 have lightweight men's programs so they are no strangers to lightweight rowing. The points at stake for the LV8 event need to be substantial as well. They need to reflect the fact that the light eight is a varsity eight race. One point down from the V8 points seems about right (actually that would be similar to the 2V8 and N8). If there were 17 or 18 points at stake in the LV8 race it might make some schools think about a program.

Of course, if this were implemented there would be a hue and cry from those schools without women's lightweights. No problem, announce it two or three years in advance. Give each school a chance to develop a lightweight program before the points count.

Clearly this is no panacea, but it can't hurt. It would give the heavyweight coaches in the CRCA an opportunity to truly represent lightweights to the ECAC when they support this move. It would broaden the growth of women's rowing. The major heavyweight programs have more scholarships than they can possibly give to big high school girls with rowing experience, yet many high school rowers don't row in college but would like to. They are lightweights. This is how the women's side of the sport will continue to grow and a role in the Willing Trophy is a place to start.

Lightweights and the CRCA - Comments

The most obvious point to make about Coach Teitelbaum's answer is that he does not say that the CRCA supports the continued growth of women's lightweight rowing. This was my first question and it goes unanswered. I find that curious because that question was clearly a softball, an icebreaker meant to get us both on the same page so we could ease into more difficult areas.

In fact, none of my questions were answered as the coach simply said that the CRCA considers only those issues raised by the lightweight committee. This suggests that he is unfamiliar with the lightweight issues I raised and is reluctant to say that the organization supports the category. By comparison, I would ask if the Executive Director of USRowing would be able to answer questions about lightweights in the Olympics and state USRowing's position on the growth of lightweight events. I'm quite sure he would. (Coach Teitelbaum implied he was reluctant to answer my questions because he couldn't possibly know what all heavyweight coaches think. I replied that I was looking for an organizational response and that I was writing to him as the head of the organization.)

As Coach Teitelbaum himself implies, the fact that the head of an organization of heavyweight coaches is unfamiliar with lightweight issues is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that the organization purports to represent lightweights to USRowing, the NCAA, and other legislative arenas.

Although I asked, Coach Teitelbaum did not name any specific measures the CRCA has taken to support lightweight rowing. Again, for a heavyweight organization this would be perfectly understandable, but that is not what the CRCA claims to be.

Finally, for all of the reliance Coach Teitelbaum puts on the lightweight committee, until this past year it was headed by a heavyweight coach who happens to have lightweights racing in his program.

Coach Teitelbaum's comments make me continue to believe that the CRCA sees lightweights and the lightweight committee as an unwanted step-child for whom they've been forced to care. With new leadership I think the committee will play a larger role in CRCA activities. This committee structure may actually prove to be useful for lightweights, but it's impossible to tell until it raises some difficult issues to the full membership. Until it becomes an unruly step-child.

There is a problem, however, with the unruly step-child model. The lightweight coaches on the committee will have to be unruly to their bosses and future bosses. In many cases, but not all, lightweight coaches report to the women's heavyweight coach (see the recent Wisconsin coaching announcement). In many more cases, for reasons of pay and authority, those lightweight coaches someday hope to be heavyweight coaches (men's or women's) at the more prominent heavyweight powerhouses. All that makes it awfully tough to be unruly.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the current committee, building on the momentum of the best lightweight season ever, will be able to make some major inroads in the CRCA. It will require a deft political hand and an ability to uncover latent lightweight support. There are many heavyweight coaches who support lightweight rowing, and the lightweight committee needs to mobilize that support.

The obvious question, of course, is mobilize that support to what end? I'm not privy to the committee's agenda and I'm sure it doesn't need my help to set it, but...
I have a suggestion that would help grow lightweight rowing, but would be perceived to cause some pain for heavyweights. A suggestion that could only become reality with the support of the heavyweight coaches. A suggestion that would probably be dismissed out of hand but shouldn't be. I'll explain it in a coming post.

Growth

Now that the summer club season is here, it's a good time to think about growing women's lightweight rowing, probably the single most pressing issue in the sport today. We've just finished possibly the most competitive season ever, yet women's lightweight rowing remains the smallest of the four categories in the sport. Total participation is good, and may actually show the women to be close to men's lightweights. When I looked back at the 2004 and 2005 seasons, I found that around 90 schools boated lightweight eights or fours over the two years. Seventy did in each year alone and, of those, 50 were consistent between the two years. The problem, however, is that the dedicated programs are growing realatively slowly (although I think at an accelerating rate). Most of those 50 programs raced fours, as in any one year there were about 20 to 25 schools racing eights. Dedicated programs race eights.

The combination of Title IX and a NCAA championship has resulted in explosive growth for women's heavyweights, and logic would suggest that a NCAA championship for lightweights would do the same. While the desirability of such a championship for any category is far from settled, a major hurdle exists for a lightweight championship - the NCAA considers rowing to be a team sport. The most obvious manifestation of this is the emphasis on team championships. The latest issue of Rowing News announced Cal's team championship in the headline of it's NCAA championship article. A reader had to get into the text to read about Princeton's V8 which won it's championship after one of the most dominating seasons in history. Did any rowers care about the team championship other than Cal? I ask the question again, Would you rather win the V8 or the team championship? A newspaper reporter had an apt description for the team championship - it's like winning the Home Run Derby.

More important to us, however, is the fact that since rowing is a team championship, if lightweights were to be added they would have to be added as an event in that championship. In other words, those teams receiving team bids would need to have lightweights. No teams would receive bids for just a lightweight boat (which would be similar to a team receiving a bid for a V4). Since almost none of the programs sending teams to the NCAAs have lightweights, it's hard to imagine a lightweight event ever making it into the championship. In addition, some of the better lightweight programs are DII or DIII schools, which would not be allowed to mix with DI schools. Perhaps the structure could be changed to allow lightweights in separately, but it's not clear how.

Interestingly enough, if lightweights were simply another event, like a 2-, it wouldn't be so difficult to add them. The problems arise because lightweight rowing is more similar to another sport, not another event. A lightweight program requires different athletes, different coaches, different equipment, and different schedules. The NCAA tells lightweights they're simply another event, while the rowing world says it can't add that event because it would be like adding another sport. Perhaps this is another sign of how the NCAA misunderstands rowing, or perhaps a sign of how the NCAA would like to see lightweights go away.

While saying it wants to grow women's rowing at all levels, the NCAA has also said that it has no plans to add lightweights to its championship, a decision it leaves up to its membership. As best I can tell that membership has a voice through an advisory committee. It would be interesting to know if that committee has ever discussed lightweight rowing and what its attitude is toward the category. Perhaps we can find out.

Wanted: Opposing Views

Over the past year, I’ve written frequently about the NCAA and somewhat less frequently about the Collegiate Rowing Coaches Association. My last post on the CRCA was a tongue-in-cheek criticism of the organization for excluding lightweight coaches from the voting for Coach of the Year and Assistant Coach of the Year. A reader took me to task for this post saying “the baseless claims about the CRCA, NCAA, and any woman who rows and isn't under 130 lbs are getting to be a little too much.” Of course, I would argue with the term “baseless” and I really don’t think I knock heavyweights very much at all (except for my refusal to use the weenie term “openweight”). I would imagine, however, that because I am the only one posting here, reading what I think of the NCAA and the CRCA can get pretty tiresome. So, in the interest of community, dialog, etc., etc., I’d like to post an opposing view (or views). If you think the NCAA, with its current involvement, has been good for the sport of rowing in general, and more specifically has been good for women’s lightweight rowing, tell me why. If you think the CRCA has supported and advocated for women’s lightweight rowing, let me know how.

Before anyone writes to me, however, take a look at what I’ve written about the NCAA. You can start with an email interview I conducted with a NCAA representative here, and my comments here. Read some thoughts on a women's lightweight championship here, and here is a coach who confirms the NCAA's worry about the "eating disorder" canard among lightweights. (Honestly, I think the NCAA is hostile to lightweights.) Finally, most of what I've written about the NCAA has been related to the Pac 10 proposal for a men's heavyweight NCAA championship. Frankly, if all categories of rowing, or no categories of rowing, had NCAA championships, I’d worry a lot less about the NCAA. As long as certain categories do and certain categories don’t, I’ll hammer them every opportunity I get.

I’ve written less about the CRCA so let me just say that I consider the CRCA to simply be an NCAA advisory body with little interest in, or concern with, women’s lightweight rowing. Yes, there is a lightweight committee which I suspect does some good work, but I don’t consider the existence of that committee dependent on the CRCA. It seems to me that the work done by the committee is a result of the interest and dedication of the members of that committee, and is done in the face of total indifference from the rest of the CRCA. I can’t recall ever seeing a lightweight issue addressed in CRCA board minutes. My questions for the CRCA would be (maybe I’ll ask them one of these days): Do you advocate the growth of women’s lightweight rowing? What are you doing to support that position? Do you advocate a NCAA championship for lightweight women? What are you doing to support that position?

Let me know your thoughts because, I am coachable.

They'll Never Get an NCAA Championship That Way

This story about the Harvard - Yale race on saturday mentions that the men's heavyweight V8 coxswain "dropped nearly 30 pounds in one month last fall to return to race shape." Yikes! And some people worry about lightweights.

It Keeps Going...

There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Stanford's claim of East Coast bias at IRAs. I think Stanford has some legitimate compliants, but wow, do they not understand how to go about getting them addressed! Part of this is a CYA exercise by the coach. He was the one who apparently went merrily through the season never bothering to check on an issue that was plain for the rest of the world to see - his freshman sophomore. It was his responsibility to make sure the rower was eligible and if not, that he had enough time to work a replacement into the lineup. If he truly thought there would be no problem, that's a serious error in judgment for a head coach to make.

The real problem here is that these claims of bias are the type of issues the NCAA loves to "solve." I think the "federal case" strategy has a good chance of succeeding if there is no public counter to these claims. Whether he understands it himself or not, Craig Amerkhanian is quickly making it his mission in life to destroy lightweight rowing.

Freudian Slip

It really is all about an NCAA championship for heavy men. A Stanford Daily article titled "MURPHY’S LAW: CREW OUT OF NCAAs" discusses Stanford's decision to not race the number 4 heavy men's V8 in the country at IRAs because they have a freshman in the boat. I feel bad for the freshman, and I tend to think the rule is ill advised, but I do know it exists and everyone knew it in March. How could it have been a surprise to Stanford now? In fact, some have suggested the rule was originally put in place to help the West Coast crews who were less likely to have freshman with prior rowing experience. This is all about making a statement to further the NCAA cause. Maybe Stanford should work through the ECAC rather than trying to make a federal issue out of everything. The Stanford coach also takes a swipe at Harvard, suggesting that without Stanford racing, the Crimson might have a shot at a medal. Big talk when it's shouted from a four. I guess now we know why Stanford dropped the Indian as their mascot - Indians aren't crybabies.

(By the way, the Blogger spell checker flags NCAAs, and suggests Nazis as a replacement.)

IRA Heats

IRA heats are now listed on row2k. (Thanks to a reader for the notification.)

By the way, when looking at the heat sheets, one thing that jumps out is that the #4 men's heavyweight boat is not listed. That's right, Stanford is continuing it's NCAA temper tantrum by allegedly splitting its fourth ranked eight into fours for the IRA. I raise it here because it's more evidence that this push to make men's heavyweights an NCAA championship sport, and sending a death notice to lightweight rowing, will not die. What apparently prompted this act was the IRA rule barring freshmen from racing in varsity men's events. Stanford has a freshman in it's V8. While this looks like Stanford is cutting off its nose to spite its face, it must not be a big deal to the Cardinal because they don't consider the IRA to be a "legitimate national championship." It's also not a big deal to Stanford because this move shows they obviously had no thoughts of winning the eight. Like a zombie, the heavy men's NCAA championship proposal will continue to rise from the dead.

Novice Rowing and the NCAA

You may recall that a few weeks ago a reader wrote with the suggestion that freshmen lightweight boats be all novices and that recruits or otherwise experienced rowers row with the varsity. This would hopefully have the effect of providing a much-needed 2V and keep more walk-ons rowing. This reader also contended that by racing only two eights and a four at its championship, the NCAA is killing off novice racing, and to prove that sent some statistics from Eastern Sprints.

The charts below (click for a larger size) show the average number of women per team, for both heavyweights and lightweights, competing at the Eastern Sprints. The first chart is heavyweight women. You'll notice that with the exception of a slight upward blip in 2001 and 2002 novice participation has fallen steadily since the NCAA championship began (1997).



Conversely, the next chart shows that with the exception of a downward blip in 2003 lightweight novice participation has grown steadily.

Because novices aren't raced at NCAAs there is less incentive for heavyweight coaches to develop and race novice boats. In a sport like rowing, where many (most, really) athletes learn the sport in college, novice competitions are particularly important. Over time, we can expect more emphasis on recruits who can impact the varsity immediately, and less on walk-ons.

Once again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and traditions of rowing by the NCAA. Much of the odd writing about rowing we see coming out of school athletic sites is rooted in the NCAA's belief that rowing is a "team" (meaning all boats, all levels) sport. For example, the headlines that proclaim Slide U. beats Oar College 3 - 2. The notion that you total up races won and races lost to get a regatta winner is just silly, but that's NCAA style thinking.

By the way, when you look at the lightweight chart, it's great to see how lightweight rowing at Sprints has grown. While it might not be dramatic, it is a steady climb, even as the heavyweights have been steady or shown a slight decline.

Robbing the Cradle

A recent article in the Harvard Crimson noted the rise of freshmen on Radcliffe varsity crews and sees this as reflective of a national trend. This trend fits in well with my reader’s suggestion (discussed in an earlier post) for how to increase participation in women’s lightweight rowing. Moving recruits into the varsity as freshmen forces programs to rely on walk-ons for their novice boats, giving more women a chance to row and experience good racing. There is more than this going on in the heavyweight ranks, however, because the NCAA discourages novice events by not including them in its championship. As a result, although heavy crews still race novice boats, the results have no bearing on NCAA bids or championships so they dismantle them for NCAAs. It’s easy to see a time when you’ll be as likely to see a heavyweight women’s novice race as you would be to see a freshmen college football game. Whether you think this is good or bad, it’s more evidence of the NCAA’s effect on women’s rowing.

As a reader pointed out, the freshmen in the varsity trend has hit the top lightweight teams as well - every V8 at sprints had at least one freshman in it, with freshman strokes in the top two boats.

It’s obvious that currently the NCAA is lightweight women’s rowing’s Darth Vader, but the more I see of its influence, the more I wonder if it isn’t simply the source of all rowing evil. On the plus side, it has clearly increased the number of heavyweight women, but that often has embarrassing results and it tends to leave wreckage from the other categories in its single-minded wake.

By the way, did you catch the shot at the Princeton frosh near the end of the Crimson article?

Meeeoooow.

Whew, it’s getting rough out there!

Beating a Dead (For Now) Horse

I think I've already spent too much time on the Pac-10's defeated proposal to create a men's NCAA rowing championship, but last week the Harvard Crimson published an article on it that's worth reading. A Harvard heavyweight speculates that the proposal is all about the location of IRAs, and the scholarship limit is never mentioned. I have some sympathy for the West Coast crews that have to travel across the country every year, but it seems to me that creating a NCAA championship is a rather drastic solution. Just the opposite of the Pac-10 coaches who love to talk about the Ivies' alleged under the table athletic scholarships, the Harvard rowers see NCAA sanctioned scholarships at non-Ivy rowing schools as a threat, not as equality. The article also quotes a male lightweight as worrying about the loss of the ability to bet shirts. Hopefully that's taken a bit out of context since he had much bigger things to worry about.

One thing overlooked in a NCAA takeover, is what it does to the composition of crews. Heavyweight women have no incentive to develop a strong freshman boat. Sure, it can win Sprints, but there is no freshman race at NCAAs. Take what is probably the fastest heavyweight freshmen boat in the country this year - Princeton. What will they be doing on NCAA championship weekend? (Of course, the lightweight freshmen suffer the same fate at IRAs.) Although the big T9 schools still race novice boats, good incoming freshmen are immediately moved to the varsity. For heavyweight programs, only three boats matter - 1V8, 2V8, and V4 - and other boats are afterthoughts.

It's interesting that the article misses the 5 scholarship limit included in the proposal. As I've said before, that is a self imposed limit in the Pac-10 and coaches there saw this proposal as a way to limit their competition too. Here is an article on the USC web site discussing that limit. I have to admit that I don't understand why Stanford and Oregon State wanted it, although the USC coach seems to believe it's to make sure no one offers more scholarships than they.

Wisconsin's men's head coach Chris Clark also weighed in on the proposal at a recent press conference. Clark believed that if the proposal passed it would be "the greatest thing that could ever happen in the history of the sport." He then rambles on about a New York Times article on the NCAA tennis tournament and how rowing has the same sort of problems. (He never tells us what those problems are.) The problem is, tennis IS an NCAA sport, so that obviously didn't help. He also laments the fact that rowing is being "outsourced." This story hit the big time when Dowling beat Temple at Dad Vails several years ago with a boatload of Eastern Europeans. This definitely happens, but I hardly think that makes rowing lawless. He also says that unlike tennis, "you're not dealing with people who've won prize money just because that'’s few and far between in our sport, but it's very similar." Huh? What in rowing is similar to prize money? The only thing I can think of are scholarships, which the NCAA sanctions. Of course, he really laments the unlimited scholarships he imagines his competition offers. He doesn't mention the Ivies, but he doesn't have to. I wonder if he offered his sympathies to the club teams he beat up on at the Midwest Rowing Championships and earlier at the Head of the Iowa.

The real problem here is that Clark coaches at a school with a varsity lightweight women's crew program. One of the best in the country. What he calls "the greatest thing that could ever happen in the history of the sport," would be a giant step toward putting a Wisconsin crew, that is far more successful than his own crews, out of business. Another big supporter is Stanford. Don't these coaches care about their own programs? Maybe they should care about something in the sport other than themselves.

Anyway, you can read the rest yourself; I'm getting tired of it all. Unfortunately, we'll see this proposal on a regular basis and it will need to be beaten back on a regular basis.