First, I want to give a shout out to Adam Amin, who was willing to discuss my previous post about the state of Women's Basketball on Twitter a couple of days ago. While I didn't agree with everything he said, he did undoubtedly hit on my most important point, which is that Women's Basketball desperately needs transparency in it's selection and coverage. It takes guts and integrity to read and respond to me. He doesn't know me. I could be one of these clowns who sends racial slurs and Pepe the Frog memes to Jemele Hill for all he knew. I could have been unreasonable and screaming at him. I am very glad he took time out of his busy schedule to address my critiques.

This commitment to integrity is really important to me. I got to meet a new set of USF Bulls fans this week online. So, for those of you who don't know me, I was a Nuclear Reactor Operator in the U.S. Navy, and I am now an Electrical Engineering professor (Director of the Computer Engineering emphasis) at the University of Mississippi. My students will tell you that I tell them "I will always reward integrity and effort." If they tell me the truth about why they have a late homework assignment, I will work with them. I post my teacher evaluations online without comment, even if I feel a comment was unfair. To give perspective, this is the last sentence of every syllabus of every class that I have ever taught:

"As aspiring engineering professionals, you are to approach academic integrity with the utmost sincerity. We have a responsibility to society to perform good, honest work. The public places their trust and well-being in you every time you do work. If you cheat, you have demonstrated that you are incapable and/or unwilling to meet this standard, and I will act accordingly. Your commitment to integrity is every bit as important, if not more so, than the grade you earn on your transcript."

This is why what Adam did the other day is important. Look, I go through the Peer Review process about 10 times a year with various papers and presentations. Nobody likes hearing criticism, especially if they feel a comment is unfair or unnecessarily mean. (While I won't get into it here, you can read about all the ethical issues in the peer review process here.) And some people can be insatiable in their criticism. In research, this is jokingly referred to as the Reviewer #2 phenomenon. In sports, this may be called Skip Bayless. But addressing critiques head-on is how we get better. If we don't we end up getting what happened at FIU with their collapsing bridge. More often than not, we don't give a Bravo Zulu for those who do the right thing in these cases. So BZ to Adam Amin.

I do want to touch on one point. There is a reason I knew how USF fans would respond to this seeding, and why my post would resonate so well with the fan base. I've seen this before many times. I know how to play all the notes, because I've heard them sung over and over. This is not a case of USF (as well as Dayton) being disappointed in their seeding. Those fan bases are angry. And in the case of women's sports, there aren't public pressures to stick with the sport. No Thursday parties or bracket pools. When women's basketball fans feel they are being excluded, they mentally check out. And the warning sign is when the die-hard fan bases say "if [our Head Coach] leaves, I totally understand!"

I know this because I first saw it at Virginia Tech. During the heyday, women's basketball games were selling out the stadium. Within 3 years, the fans were saying, "if Bonnie Hendrickson leaves, I totally understand." Next, it was Wendy Larry at Old Dominion, Rick Insell at Middle Tennesse State, Terry Williams-Flournoy at Georgetown, and Jim Jabir at Dayton. Listen to the Stampede podcast from the beginning until 17:06. I know that anger. I know those criticisms. I've heard them over and over and over again. I don't feel I'm exaggerating or being aggrandizing when I say that these issues have drive away hundreds of thousands of women's basketball fans. And yes, I put some of that blame on ESPN. (Though, I put MUCH more on the NCAA.)

Finally, on my post on Facebook about this, my friend Stephanie Juergens - a graduated D1 Athlete at USF - made the following comment about my previous blog (used with her permission):

"Well said. Female athletes, especially those not in a power 5 conference, have never had the support that male athletes have. Whether that is media coverage, the way they are portrayed in ads, selection shows, income. The list goes on. The only way the masses will take non-Power 5 female athletes seriously is if the media takes us seriously."

Whether or not those at ESPN feel this is a fair criticism, what is clear to me is that the overwhelming majority of women student athletes I've spoken to who play outside the Power 5 over the last 20 years feel precisely this way. I came to that conclusion having had the opportunity to speak to them in open and honest settings. Adam said, rightfully, that their commentators come from a variety of schools. But ESPN's press release on Women's Hoops inadvertently shows the problem I am trying to address. On that page, there are four paragraphs, and then 17 bullet points describing where the coverage will be and who is commentating. One of those bullet points is "Other first-and second- round teams include..." When you break down the schools attended by the people described in the four paragraphs and 16 bullet points against the people listed as "Other" in that bullet point, it is a representative sample of the "Power" problem in Women's Sports:

The critique isn't that "non Power" schools aren't included. It's that they are included, but they are just "others." They aren't part of the main team. (I can only imagine that both Brooke Weisbrod and Tamika Catchings work extremely hard at ESPN. I want them both recognized!) By the way, I don't blame ESPN too much for this. If I were running women's basketball programming, I'd call lots of champions too. My first call would also have been to Rebecca Lobo. To be clear, I am not claiming this is intentional. (Side note: Three commentators who, if they were allowed to be themselves, would be excellent as commentators when they are done with playing are Tina Charles, Candice Parker, and Diana Taurasi. They would be so goooood. Tina Charles is hysterically funny and charming. Her personality would be a great complement to Kara Lawson! And yes, I know all those players went to UConn and Tennessee. But they would be great TV. See, I could be part of the problem, too!) But the path to the sport for the fans who aren't die hard runs through the women and men at the top of the list. And if you're as angry as USF fans are, and as VT or ODU or MTSU or Dayton or Georgtown, and all you see in the main show are people from the powers that you feel are keeping you out, well I don't blame those fans for mentally checking out.

I'm not suggesting this is an easy problem to fix, nor am I saying that the solutions are inherently obvious. And, as I like to tell my students, "don't take ethical stands with other people's paychecks." I understand that any attempt ESPN makes to try to address this problem that fails affects their bottom line, not mine at all. But giving a little bit of effort can go a long way. Let me give you an example of what I do in my classes. Right before the drop deadline, I download their grade and generate an auto-email with their grade on that date. I then take about 30 minutes (for 70 students) to make a comment to each student about their effort in the class, and what they can bring their grade up to. Here is an example:

[Student's Name Removed], your HW scores are pretty good, and you are clearly working hard in class. But I am concerned if there is an issue with making it translate to the exam. Your first exam was very low, and there was some improvement on Exam 2. I believe if we can figure this out, you can bring your grade up to a C+ or even a B by the end of the semester. Respectfully, Dr. Morrison

I don't claim to know know what that small token like that would be sufficient for non Power women's athletes is. But it is possible to build a successful sport. People probably always tell ESPN that they can't build stronger women's basketball coverage. I imagine it's like how people told me there was no way I could build a diverse and strong engineering research team in Mississippi. But I did, and I did it in 3 years. I did it with my energy and I did it with my research dollars, as you can see. And I am confident ESPN can build Women's Basketball even stronger.

For 20 years, I felt neither the NCAA nor ESPN cared. For the first time, I do feel like someone out there actually does. Best of luck in the tournament, Adam. And GO BULLS!