PDA

View Full Version : Union College Dutchwomen 2015-16 thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

Skate79
02-21-2016, 09:58 AM
The D3 history was not exactly stellar.

If they pull women's hockey from D1 what sport will be moved up to replace it? ie Title IX implications

Okay, I get it. But D3 has to be a better situation in terms of wins and losses than what they are currently facing in the ECAC. Not sure what Title IX has to do with it. If they offer women's hockey, what difference does it make if it is D1 or D3? They simply need to offer the women a chance to play NCAA hockey, regardless of the division.

giwan
02-21-2016, 11:46 AM
Okay, I get it. But D3 has to be a better situation in terms of wins and losses than what they are currently facing in the ECAC. Not sure what Title IX has to do with it. If they offer women's hockey, what difference does it make if it is D1 or D3? They simply need to offer the women a chance to play NCAA hockey, regardless of the division.

Curious as I don't know the history but why did they move to D1?

Skate79
02-21-2016, 02:43 PM
Curious as I don't know the history but why did they move to D1?

I'm not affiliated with the school so I can't give you a definitive answer.

hab
02-21-2016, 09:44 PM
Curious as I don't know the history but why did they move to D1?

The Union men's team has been a D1 team for about 25 years and I think that the movement towards gender equality in collegiate athletics really created an obligation to either drop the men's team down to D3 or move one of the women's sports up to D1. Union, to its credit, has always held to its principles of being against athletic scholarships, so when the women's team was elevated to D1 everyone in the college hockey world knew that it was going to be a struggle to compete with scholarship schools and with the Ivy schools, which have their own particular advantages. The amazing thing to me is not that the Union women's team has struggled, but that the men's team has enjoyed a few years of great success, despite the same disadvantages. That, IMO, can be attributed primarily to the influence of one incredible coach and recruiter, Nate Leaman, who built the men's team into a powerhouse before leaving to repeat that at Providence. It would take an equally heroic feat to lift the women's team off the floor, and I don't think that any of us see that on the horizon. A bit of background here: http://www.uscho.com/2004/01/12/scholarships-will-continue-for-diii-play-up-schools/

shelfit
02-22-2016, 12:09 AM
She needs to step up and do the right thing for that program and offer her resignation. There's really no way she should come back next season even if they drop back to D3 which most likely isn't going to happen.

giwan
02-22-2016, 12:50 PM
The Union men's team has been a D1 team for about 25 years and I think that the movement towards gender equality in collegiate athletics really created an obligation to either drop the men's team down to D3 or move one of the women's sports up to D1. Union, to its credit, has always held to its principles of being against athletic scholarships, so when the women's team was elevated to D1 everyone in the college hockey world knew that it was going to be a struggle to compete with scholarship schools and with the Ivy schools, which have their own particular advantages. The amazing thing to me is not that the Union women's team has struggled, but that the men's team has enjoyed a few years of great success, despite the same disadvantages. That, IMO, can be attributed primarily to the influence of one incredible coach and recruiter, Nate Leaman, who built the men's team into a powerhouse before leaving to repeat that at Providence. It would take an equally heroic feat to lift the women's team off the floor, and I don't think that any of us see that on the horizon. A bit of background here: http://www.uscho.com/2004/01/12/scholarships-will-continue-for-diii-play-up-schools/

Thanks for the info. I can imagine all the background talk and work on that one.

In previous reference to Title IX, it's not all about equal scholarships even in this case where there are none. It's about equal opportunity and for example if the young women at Union complained about not offering any D1 level program they could very well have a case. Of course there would still be other ways around that issue.

One solid note: MOST institutes of higher learning are NOT in compliance with Title IX. Remember it was a Yale rowing crew that started Title IX so it was not about scholarships but about equality.

HockeyEast33
02-22-2016, 05:14 PM
She needs to step up and do the right thing for that program and offer her resignation. There's really no way she should come back next season even if they drop back to D3 which most likely isn't going to happen.

Union is not going back to D3 women's hockey - isn't happening. Schools don't give up D1 status in sports once they get there - it is far too hard a path in the first place. And they won't put the existence of the successful men's program in jeopardy through a potential non-compliance issue. They will get a new coach (eventually) who can figure out how to be competitive just like on the men's side. May be a while, but it will happen.

hab
02-22-2016, 06:19 PM
Union is not going back to D3 women's hockey - isn't happening. Schools don't give up D1 status in sports once they get there - it is far too hard a path in the first place. And they won't put the existence of the successful men's program in jeopardy through a potential non-compliance issue. They will get a new coach (eventually) who can figure out how to be competitive just like on the men's side. May be a while, but it will happen.

Agree totally with this. Any talk of Union going back to D3 is misguided. They will either find a way to become more competitive at D1 or be satisfied with a doormat status. I don't think that they need to win a lot of games each year to provide their athletes with a rewarding experience at a great college, but they do need to win a few, and this year they took a big step backwards. Next year they lose their best player, so there is some urgency to deal with the situation.

jericho
02-22-2016, 09:11 PM
The Union men's team has been a D1 team for about 25 years and I think that the movement towards gender equality in collegiate athletics really created an obligation to either drop the men's team down to D3 or move one of the women's sports up to D1. Union, to its credit, has always held to its principles of being against athletic scholarships, so when the women's team was elevated to D1 everyone in the college hockey world knew that it was going to be a struggle to compete with scholarship schools and with the Ivy schools, which have their own particular advantages. The amazing thing to me is not that the Union women's team has struggled, but that the men's team has enjoyed a few years of great success, despite the same disadvantages. That, IMO, can be attributed primarily to the influence of one incredible coach and recruiter, Nate Leaman, who built the men's team into a powerhouse before leaving to repeat that at Providence. It would take an equally heroic feat to lift the women's team off the floor, and I don't think that any of us see that on the horizon. A bit of background here: http://www.uscho.com/2004/01/12/scholarships-will-continue-for-diii-play-up-schools/

And around the same time as Leaman coming in, Union relaxed its rules about giving aid to foreign students (read: Canadians) so it opened up a whole new stream of recruiting territory so Leaman had it a little easier than Sneddon ever did.

Flarrow
02-22-2016, 09:54 PM
I agree with Hab: "Any talk of Union going back to D3 is misguided. They will either find a way to become more competitive at D1 or be satisfied with a doormat status." I don't think the school will be satisfied with being a doormat. I think the school (administration, students, alumni, community) need to demand that the women's hockey team NOT be allowed to remain in the cellar. The coach must go. Perhaps the AD must go. Union cannot afford to lose D-1 status for the women unless its ready to go D-3 for men as well. Title IX is a big factor. On the other hand, schools have gone from D-I to D-III with success--there may be an awkward year for the program, maybe some hard choices for athletes, but it can be done. Look at SUNY Oneonta in men's soccer. But I don't think Union needs to or should go this route. Make a commitment to womens D-1 hockey. The college hasn't ever really done that. (Wo)man up, Union. Go U!

Ralph Baer
02-23-2016, 10:50 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICYMI: Would a men&#39;s hockey coach at <a href="https://twitter.com/UnionAthletics">@UnionAthletics</a> be fired with this record? (Free link.) <a href="https://t.co/imLGosIBKv">https://t.co/imLGosIBKv</a> <a href="https://t.co/dpbjSYdLaf">pic.twitter.com/dpbjSYdLaf</a></p>&mdash; Daily Gazette Sports (@dgazettesports) <a href="https://twitter.com/dgazettesports/status/702162280323088385">February 23, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

HockeyEast33
02-23-2016, 11:20 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICYMI: Would a men's hockey coach at <a href="https://twitter.com/UnionAthletics">@UnionAthletics</a> be fired with this record? (Free link.) <a href="https://t.co/imLGosIBKv">https://t.co/imLGosIBKv</a> <a href="https://t.co/dpbjSYdLaf">pic.twitter.com/dpbjSYdLaf</a></p>— Daily Gazette Sports (@dgazettesports) <a href="https://twitter.com/dgazettesports/status/702162280323088385">February 23, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

BOOM!!! Well, he is spot on of course.

joecct
02-23-2016, 02:16 PM
BOOM!!! Well, he is spot on of course.

There was a twitter exchange between Cap Carey (Clarkson) and Ken Schott (Union) about this article. If Union is making a token effort to support the women's program, the fault is with the administration and not the coach.

Skate79
02-23-2016, 04:23 PM
And around the same time as Leaman coming in, Union relaxed its rules about giving aid to foreign students (read: Canadians) so it opened up a whole new stream of recruiting territory so Leaman had it a little easier than Sneddon ever did.

But shouldn't that work in favor of the women as well?? Assuming that Asano-Barcomb has or could create a pipeline into Canada?

One other factor to consider is who would be RPI's travel partner? Union is close by so for ECAC travel budgets, it works nicely. If Union were to go back to D-3, you would need to find a school to join the ECAC that is within two hours of RPI to make it work. More travel time puts a strain on those Saturday games which normally start at 4pm.

HockeyEast33
02-23-2016, 05:08 PM
But shouldn't that work in favor of the women as well?? Assuming that Asano-Barcomb has or could create a pipeline into Canada?

One other factor to consider is who would be RPI's travel partner? Union is close by so for ECAC travel budgets, it works nicely. If Union were to go back to D-3, you would need to find a school to join the ECAC that is within two hours of RPI to make it work. More travel time puts a strain on those Saturday games which normally start at 4pm.

I doubt that is a concern for Union, but they are still not going back to D3

Ralph Baer
02-23-2016, 05:08 PM
But shouldn't that work in favor of the women as well?? Assuming that Asano-Barcomb has or could create a pipeline into Canada?

One other factor to consider is who would be RPI's travel partner? Union is close by so for ECAC travel budgets, it works nicely. If Union were to go back to D-3, you would need to find a school to join the ECAC that is within two hours of RPI to make it work. More travel time puts a strain on those Saturday games which normally start at 4pm.

I suspect that RIT would jump at the opportunity as they would on the men's side. It would probably be RPI-Colgate and RIT-Cornell. I really don't see Union leaving the ECAC unless all of the Liberty League teams leave D-I hockey entirely.

vicb
02-23-2016, 05:16 PM
I suspect that RIT would jump at the opportunity as they would on the men's side. It would probably be RPI-Colgate and RIT-Cornell. I really don't see Union leaving the ECAC unless all of the Liberty League teams leave D-I hockey entirely.

My thoughts exactly Ralph.

Ralph Baer
02-23-2016, 06:37 PM
My thoughts exactly Ralph.

I wonder what I would do with all of the time which I spend posting here if RPI were to leave D-I hockey. :) I doubt that I would follow a D-III hockey team anymore than I follow RPI's other teams.

Perhaps more importantly, what I would do with the money which I donate to the 'Tute? :D (not that it is that much money)

ARM
02-23-2016, 06:54 PM
I wonder what I would do with all of the time which I spend posting here if RPI were to leave D-I hockey. :) I doubt that I would follow a D-III hockey team anymore than I follow RPI's other teams.You mean you wouldn't become a Clarkson fan? :confused:
:D

Ralph Baer
02-23-2016, 07:04 PM
You mean you wouldn't become a Clarkson fan? :confused:
:D

Nope. :D

IMHO the thing which would most likely cause RPI to leave D-I men's and women's hockey would cause the other D-III schools to also leave -- namely play-ups not being allowed by either D-I or D-III rules.