Both swimming and diving once again received “F” grades for the number of women coaching women’s teams at the college level, per the Tucker Center.
The Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport is a branch of the University of Minnesota. It does research each year on the representation of women on NCAA coaching staffs, and releases a report with letter grades every year. Specific schools are graded based on the composition of their coaching staffs, as are individual sports as a whole.
The report focuses specifically on women coaching women’s sports – the sport-specific grades are based on the percentage of women head coaches of women’s teams nationwide, with the following scale:
- A = 70%-100%
- B = 55%-69%
- C = 40%-54%
- D = 25%-39%
- F = 0%-24%
Swimming and diving both received “F” grades at the Division I level for the 2018-2019 season – that marks at least the 7th straight year of both sports receiving “F”s. (We can only find the reports back to the 2012-2013 season. In fact, this time around, swimming actually had a lower percentage of women’s head coaches of women’s teams (16.0%) than it had last year (17.9%).
The total number of programs included was roughly the same: 195 last year, 194 this year. But the new report shows only 31 head coaches were women, compared to 35 in 2017-2018.
Diving also regressed, from 22.9% female head coaches in 2017-2018 to 21.6% in 2018-2019. Swimming & diving were among eight sports to earn “F” grades. The others were cross country, Nordic skiing, squash, track, fencing and alpine skiing, and both skiing sports and squash were noted for having a very small sample size of 20 or fewer schools offering the sport.
Here’s a look at the full grade table for 2018-2019:
| Grade | % | Sports |
| A | 100-70 | Lacrosse, Rugby, Field Hockey, Equestrian |
| B | 69-55 | Softball, Triathlon, Golf, Basketball, Gymnastics |
| C | 54-40 | Bowling, Volleyball, Rowing, Rifle, Beach Volleyball |
| D | 39-25 | Tennis, Ice Hockey, Soccer, Water Polo |
| F | 24-0 | Diving, Cross Country, Nordic Skiing, Squash, Track, Swimming, Fencing, Alpine Skiiing |
Combined teams sports (sports where men and women have the same head coach) score lower than single gender sports? That’s what it seems like to me. Idk about Squash.
May I suggest an alternative grading system. 40%-60% gets an A. Either 30%-39% or 61%-70% gets a B, etc.
That’s a good point. Why would 50% female coaches only earn a C? Maybe the only path to earn an A is to start grabbing random women off the street and forcing them to apply for swim coaching jobs.
Ugh. So stupid. Hmm… swimming AND diving?? XC AND Track? Nordic AND Alpine skiing all fall in the same category? It’s just so dumb. Look at what made the A level… lacrosse and field hockey… both are standalone women’s sports and NONE of them are ever a “combined” program. Of all NCAA sports on this list, the only ones that are ever “combined” are the ones in the F category, and quite frankly it is because of $$$. Yes, we do need more female head coaches in our sport, BUT a lot of that would come at the expense of splitting programs up and thus requiring more money and more than likely eliminating a lot of men’s teams, which I… Read more »
Swimming/Diving is highly unique in the number of combined teams (perhaps track/field is similar) — so it’s not apples/apples when comparing to almost all other sports.
The only thing this tells me, is that athletic directors may now hire candidates based on gender as opposed to experience and qualifications for fear of an “F” grade. Not just swimming but all sports in the same situation.
Call me old fashioned but I’m going to hire the best candidate regardless
So are you saying men are intrinsically better than women at coaching women? “I think you should hire the best candidate,” isn’t groundbreaking. Everyone agrees with you. But how you determine who is the best coach isn’t straightforward. In my experience hiring people, there is rarely one candidate that is well above the other candidates in every job qualification. Would you rather have a coach with head coaching experience at a much smaller less competitive school, or someone who has a shorter track record as an assistant at a major program? Someone who has a background in strength and conditioning or a masters in leadership? It’s not cut and dried, and I believe the way those calls are made may… Read more »
I’m curious what the breakdown is for teams that have only one coach for Men’s and Women’s programs versus those that run separate programs. From my simple local perspective, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has one male coach who handles both genders. As opposed to a school like Cal (Berkeley) where the programs are run with a head coach for each.
Either way, if full team sports with heavy travel schedules (like Basketball, Softball, etc) can attract female coaching talent there is no reason that swimming should not as well. I sense our sport needs to catch up to the times.
Where I’m at the combined-program HC is male but has been here 20+ years. The Associate is female, runs the women’s program, and has tenure over the other coaches. Anecdotal but not properly represented in the “survey” study.
I mean the fact that the female coach is an associate despite running an entire team kind of says all you need to there.
I’m not a sexist, who cares. The more important part of a coach is how well they coach and not what gender they are.
Still weird that there are so few female coaches. Or are you trying to say that men are intrinsically better coaches than women?
You’re reaching
Im not saying that men are better coaches. Im just saying that gender shouldnt decide who becomes a head coach. Just because swimming and diving has very little female head coaches doesnt mean that a female should get the head coach job over a male who is obviously better than the female at coaching. But if a female is the best choice for the head coach position, then by all means, she should get the job.
Next I want to see a report on the failing grade assigned to the coal industry. Fewer than 24% of coal miners are women.
fewer than 1% probably.
The fact that this report is considered “research” is an affront to academia. This is information compiled to support a specific agenda. Don’t believe me? Try reading the section on family narratives in coaching biographies and tell me with a straight face that this would get a passing grade in an entry level statistics and probability class. This is Gumby level stretching.
They didn’t really do any advanced statistics in that section. Specifically which part of their methodology are you taking issue with?
Also I think it’s pretty obviously agenda-driven, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate their findings.
For the sake of time, I will highlight one area (although there are several). Per the study, women HC’s are less likely to mention children in their biographies. This somehow illustrates that females coaches with children need more support. There are too many variables to mention here, but maybe that is due to the practice of many people leaving family info off of the internet for security reasons for one. In this day and age, I would never list my family information on the internet. There is zero validity to this information, as there is no control factor (coaches, both male and female choose what to list or not list on their biographies).Trying to glean any correlation off of this… Read more »
So your argument is just that there is no correlation between gender and children in biography?
I’m not fully brushed up on my statistics but I think you’d just do a binomial comparison here. 1078/2050 or 52% is your test (the proportion of men with children reported) and .445 (the average for the full population) is the null hypothesis.
And yes it’s a statistically significant difference. You don’t have to agree with their recommendations or suggestions but your argument that there is no difference and it is all random noise is less convincing than their analysis.