Michigan Getting a Women's Team?

[Hockeybuckeye]

Well, the Wolverines are also at least two iterations removed from the Red Berenson era, who vowed there would never be women's varsity hockey in Ann Arbor as long as he was involved.

I wonder if Red's influence is waning with the new administration since he didn't come forward about Mel's firing. At least I never heard him commenting on it.

[Hockeybuckeye]

I just spoke with Ms.Tholl again to see if there were any details that didn't come out in our previous discussion but it was the same, only that discussions are taking place at the university about starting a woman's hockey program.

[pgb-ohio]

Here's a link to a extremely interested read from a year ago about Michigan women's hockey.

https://www.michigandaily.com/sports...ce-is-glaring/

Everyone who cares about Women's Hockey should read this piece. The "deal" Women's Club Hockey gets amounts to a poison pill. As a team, the players are paying $30,000 a year out of their own pockets to use their own campus arena. See the article for a full list of the issues. These "uppity women" just won't take no for an answer. Instead, they persevere. Good for them; shame on UM.

I have no doubt that you're truthfully quoting Bonnie Tholl. But on the prediction side, I have to side with the skeptics. Women's D-1 came to the West in the late 1990's. UM has had a quarter century to see the light. Why would the political winds shift at this point in time?

Nevertheless, If UM somehow finds it's way to sponsoring a D-1 team, I'd welcome the competition.

[PondHockeyGuy]

Well, the Wolverines are also at least two iterations removed from the Red Berenson era, who vowed there would never be women's varsity hockey in Ann Arbor as long as he was involved.

My understanding was that Red’s objection was with how sharing the facility would work, not with the concept of D1 women’s hockey at Michigan.

[vicb]

...........
Nevertheless, If UM somehow finds it's way to sponsoring a D-1 team, I'd welcome the competition.

And probably Mich State will see the "light" and up goes the WBIG to the detriment of the WCHA and CHA???

I'm sure this topic was discussed ad nauseam a year or so ago.

WBIG
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State

WCHA
Minnesota Duluth
St Thomas
St Cloud
Minnesota State
Bemidji State

CHA Does the CHA stay at 5 teams or disband and somehow the 5 teams get absorbed by one or two ?
Robert Morris: I forgot they are on the comeback.. Does this cause them to rethink? To Non Ivy ECAC?
Mercyhurst: To Non IVY ECAC
Syracuse: To Non Ivy ECAC
Lindenwood; What league would want to absorb Lindenwood and the extra travel costs??? To WCHA
RIT: To Non Ivy ECAC

ECAC
Already at an optimal 12 team league unless the 6 IVY's decide to break off and make the IVY League title (Autobid to the NC$$) mean something outside of the ECAC.
Take 6 Non Ivy's and combine with Syr, RIT Mercyhurst and Robert Morris from above and form a 10 team league with a scheduling tie in with the IVY's??

WHE
10 teams

NEWHA
7 Teams

[Hockeybuckeye]

My understanding was that Red’s objection was with how sharing the facility would work, not with the concept of D1 women’s hockey at Michigan.

Penn State makes the shared facility work.

[PondHockeyGuy]

Penn State makes the shared facility work.

A lot of schools do.

[bodyup88]

Most schools do.

[pgb-ohio]

And probably Mich State will see the "light" and up goes the WBIG to the detriment of the WCHA and CHA

I'm sure this topic was discussed ad nauseam a year or so ago.

Sigh. Ad nauseam, for like freaking forever.

There are some good thoughts on your list. But at this point, I'm not touching the potential realignment issue with a ten foot pole. If it's ever a live issue, Ohio State will successfully deal with it. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to fully enjoy all of the WCHA rivalries.

Do I think that the State of Michigan should have at least one D-1 Women's Hockey program? Yes, I do. Do I think that this should be the vehicle that hastens the arrival of a Women's B1G Hockey League? I didn't say that and don't believe that. Just like OSU as a whole, I'll deal with it if comes.

Remember that if six B1G teams sponsor a sport, there is an OPTION to create a league. It is not a requirement.

[Hockeybuckeye]

Remember that if six B1G teams sponsor a sport, there is an OPTION to create a league. It is not a requirement.

Now isn't it true that if there are eventually 6 B1G schools with D1 women's hockey teams and the conference decides to have B1G women's division isn't it MANDATORY under those circumstances that all the teams participate, no school can opt out?

[wiscolorado]

Penn State makes the shared facility work.

Penn State's facilities were built explicitly with the intention of housing both a men's and women's team. That is not true of Yost Arena in Ann Arbor. Now, there are definitely other schools which host both men's and women's teams in buildings which were built before the NCAA sponsored women's hockey. Mankato and St. Cloud are examples of that. So it's definitely possible, at least in some cases. That said, I don't know anything about the particulars of Yost myself, other than the fact that it's quite an old building. Maybe there would be a way to make it work with two teams there. I imagine at minimum it would require some pricey renovations to Yost to expand the facility. I take at face value UM's claims that at the very minimum it would be a logistical challenge for them.

I don't think it's shameful that the University of Michigan doesn't sponsor a varsity women's team. Hockey programs require a lot of university resources to run, and universities, even those as big as Michigan, have limited resources. Someone else mentioned above that a few years ago they decided to add men's and women's lacrosse in part because it was a much cheaper way for them to add additional athletic opportunities to their university. That seems pretty reasonable to me. It's massively disappointing that they don't have a varsity women's team in Ann Arbor; it would be a great place for it. But I'd stop well short of calling it shameful.

[Lindsay]

It's massively disappointing that they don't have a varsity women's team in Ann Arbor; it would be a great place for it. But I'd stop well short of calling it shameful.

I think charging them ice time and not providing them a trainer to keep them safe/compliant is shameful, considering the resources at the school and cultural significance of hockey in the state.

so often there is in between ground, yet those in power refuse to meet people halfway. Hopefully the new president can at least address some of the pain points, even if a D1 program is not likely. As the article shared stated, it’s not that they don’t have a D1 program, it’s that even at the club level their support from their institution is lacking.

[pgb-ohio]

Now isn't it true that if there are eventually 6 B1G schools with D1 women's hockey teams and the conference decides to have B1G women's division isn't it MANDATORY under those circumstances that all the teams participate, no school can opt out?

Yes, but's that's a subsequent stage. The question I was addressing with vicb is would the addition of the Wolverine & Spartans automatically trigger a new league. It would not.

It is true that a B1G school can't "secede" from a B1G League, then play elsewhere as a varsity team in the same sport. But it's also important to note that member schools have no obligation to sponsor hockey. Obviously 8 member schools currently opt out of the Men's Hockey B1G, simply by having no varsity team.

[Lindsay]

“Of the 12 teams in the Central Collegiate Women’s Hockey Association (CCWHA), seven receive significant university funding, while five receive none. Michigan’s team falls into the latter category.“

from the article PGB shared. I mean for people not associated with the big ten all we hear is how great it is. Muzerall just finished saying her crew gets treated like NHL players. How are people supposed to take this? I can understand why people describe it as shameful.

[NMH]

Penn State's facilities were built explicitly with the intention of housing both a men's and women's team. That is not true of Yost Arena in Ann Arbor. Now, there are definitely other schools which host both men's and women's teams in buildings which were built before the NCAA sponsored women's hockey. Mankato and St. Cloud are examples of that. So it's definitely possible, at least in some cases. That said, I don't know anything about the particulars of Yost myself, other than the fact that it's quite an old building. Maybe there would be a way to make it work with two teams there. I imagine at minimum it would require some pricey renovations to Yost to expand the facility. I take at face value UM's claims that at the very minimum it would be a logistical challenge for them.

I don't think it's shameful that the University of Michigan doesn't sponsor a varsity women's team. Hockey programs require a lot of university resources to run, and universities, even those as big as Michigan, have limited resources. Someone else mentioned above that a few years ago they decided to add men's and women's lacrosse in part because it was a much cheaper way for them to add additional athletic opportunities to their university. That seems pretty reasonable to me. It's massively disappointing that they don't have a varsity women's team in Ann Arbor; it would be a great place for it. But I'd stop well short of calling it shameful.

The shameful part comes in when you look at the things they are spending massive amounts of money on, like a recent $14 million green space on campus or $41 million for a new scoreboard at the football field. Yes, football makes money, but they're selling out with the "old" scoreboard they have.

That feels absolutely unconscionable will the women's club hockey team is PAYING the university to rent ice at Yost.