During the last week, there have been more than a dozen new articles on the male practice player issue. Most cover the same ground: the CWA has expressed its concerns, but coaches and players (including reserves) overwhelmingly disagree.

The CWA has begun to adopt a new line of argument: it suggests that many coaches and players oppose male practice players but are simply afraid to say so outloud. That is what is known as a self-sealing argument.

Former CWA chair Darlene Bailey also proffers two other reasons: the guys aren't being treated fairly, and coaches weren't using them to skew the roster numbers. The former is empirically doubtful and absurdly paternalistic. I'm not even sure what the latter means.

Current chair Janet Kittell now says:

Our goal was to start a discussion. On that I think we can say we're a resounding success.

That's funny... I thought their goal was to ban male practice players. That's what they said, isn't it? But it's becoming increasingly apparent that the ban proposal was just an opening offer in negotiations. That way the NCAA can implement some restriction and call it a "compromise."

It remains to be seen what restriction will get put forward. Some of the proposals -- such as tying a limit to the number of injuries -- make even less sense than an outright ban. (More on that later.)

Finally, Julie Hermann, an administrator at Louisville, makes one of those arguments that you didn't really think anyone would make out loud:

Those male practice players often become the student assistants who often become the assistant coaches. We're generating a pool of male coaches by creating male practice opportunities which really should go to women.

The lack of coaching opportunities for women in women's basketball is indeed troubling. The CWA and others should explore ways to address the problem. But banning male practice players would be one of the least effective means imaginable.