RE: We didn’t lose Capital Hoops, Feb. 11 – Feb. 24, 2016.
On Feb. 9, The Charlatan published an editorial arguing the Carleton Ravens didn’t lose the Capital Hoops Classic. The editorial urged students to celebrate the women’s basketball team’s victory at the doubleheader instead of sulking over the higher-ranked men’s team’s defeat.
I am a big supporter of women’s sport, but the editorial’s point of view was naive.
Firstly, the editorial stated the women’s team’s success is undersold. While Taffe Charles’ women’s program has won an impressive 73 per cent of its regular season games since 2009, the men’s program has won 95 per cent of its games in the same span. Factor in the men’s team’s five national titles during that time to the women’s none, and the argument that the women’s team is competitive within its league to the same degree as the men’s team is quickly thrown out the window.
This is not to take anything away from the women’s team. The accomplishments of Heather Lindsay, who averages a double-double, and head coach Taffe Charles, who turned the team around after a disappointing 2014-15 campaign, should be celebrated.
But if you asked a neutral observer to pick between a game involving the second- and third-ranked teams in Canada, or one contested by the eighth-ranked and an unranked team without disclosing the teams’ genders, which would they pick? They would choose the men’s game at Capital Hoops strictly based on competitive merit.
The editorial described the women’s basketball team as “great.” To the contrary, Carleton’s women’s basketball team is not great. At best, they could be considered a good team with an outside shot at making noise come playoff time.
Playing in the OUA North, where two members (Nipissing and Laurentian) of the four-team division have a combined record of 6-28, the team’s offence ranks just 16th in the nation. Carleton has also yet to be voted to the CIS Top 10 at any point this season.
The editorial also said the women’s team is buried by the men’s team when the two feature in doubleheaders.
In fact, women’s games were originally placed on the front-end of doubleheaders in the hope that, in arriving early to the primetime men’s game, fans would be exposed to a women’s game that they otherwise wouldn’t have.
The doubleheader is actually in place to improve attendance at women’s games, not bury them on the schedule.
The now-regular practice of putting a women’s game in an early slot in front of a men’s game must draw more fans than a 7 or 8 p.m. start on a non-men’s game day. Schools the continent over wouldn’t partake in it otherwise.
Finally, the editorial described the idea we lost Capital Hoops as “backwards.” This isn’t true.
We did lose. We lost the game that had serious CIS rankings implications. We lost the game that was played in front of more than 10,000 fans. We lost one of the few college-level games in this country that draws national headlines.
Is it right that more sponsorship dollars, media attention, and student support are directed to men’s sport? Absolutely not, but pretending that the two sports are on par and labelling fans as sexist for supporting the more-competitive men’s team does not do women’s sport any favours.
In sport, as in life, everything is tied to money, and the sad reality is women’s sport doesn’t currently have the money behind it to be considered close to on-par with men’s sport, beyond a handful of international events.
It’s a vicious cycle—the money brought in from sponsorships results in a better product, on and off court, drawing more fans. Sponsors only want to advertise for teams that have established fanbases and consumer reach—something women’s sport generally lacks.
In order to flourish, women’s sport needs monetary support to foster the creation of proper professional leagues and more interest at both the local and national levels.
Until the money and consequent sport development come to fruition, women’s sport will continue to lag behind men’s sport, in stark contrast to the positive shift in gender equality we see in today’s society.
