Wisconsin Women's Hockey 2024-2025

[ARM]

Put more simply, UW is currently better than UM.

[Timothy A]

Put more simply, UW is currently better than UM.

Well I'm trying to figure out how worried to be this weekend. I have quite a lot of PTSD in regards to the rodents, so I'm never going to write them off.

[Timothy A]

Loved most of the first period, all the second and first half of the third. Got a little lazy there at the end. The rodent 4 line was juiced up to finally get play. Mj rolled 4 lines again and it paid off

[BadgerPete]

At any rate, as happy as I am to see the 4th line roll last week, I'm not excited to see them against their #1 line this weekend. It will be interesting how much risk MJ decides to take seeing he has to change first this weekend.

The Kids Table gets more impressive every game. That drop from Halverson to McCarthy for her first was exquisite. That line is going to be a huge X factor all year because they can definitely play.

[Timothy A]

The Kids Table gets more impressive every game. That drop from Halverson to McCarthy for her first was exquisite. That line is going to be a huge X factor all year because they can definitely play.

Yeah they did it again today with Halverson's laser goal. I wish they would shoot off the pass more than they do.

[Timothy A]

It's interesting comparing the 3rd and 4th lines scoring productivity......3rd line has 7g 8a 57 sog; the 4th line has 7g 6a 43 sog. Halverson is "dragging" the sog number down with only 7 on the kids table. I'd love to know the ice time numbers to get the real picture. I suspect the kids have logging less shifts than the 3rd line season to date.

The announcers in game 2 were making a point that Ava was getting scored on to her glove side. Maybe I'll watch those lowlights and give it a closer look.

[Gargoyle]

Todd wrote an interesting article in the SJ today. I'm still not sure I understand the current college sports climate. This transition period will be interesting. (This article may be behind a paywall. I'm a subscriber, so I could open it.)
https://madison.com/sports/college/w...3ef08b8e6.html

[ARM]

The announcers in game 2 were making a point that Ava was getting scored on to her glove side.

I'm guessing that's a point of emphasis in practice this week (or maybe they fixed it during intermission). We're not used to seeing a Badger goalie with such an evident flaw. The first one (?), it looked to be a problem with her stance, as she was holding her glove so low that it would have been tough to get it up to cover the crossbar in time, and she tried to save it with her shoulder instead.

For much of their careers, all the UW goalies have to do is go behind the net to corral dump-ins, so I can see where it is hard to focus.

[robertearle]

Todd wrote an interesting article in the SJ today. I'm still not sure I understand the current college sports climate. This transition period will be interesting. (This article may be behind a paywall. I'm a subscriber, so I could open it.)
https://madison.com/sports/college/w...3ef08b8e6.html

There was an email from McIntosh yesterday? Monday? talking about it all. It was because the judge in the NCAA 'payment for athletes' case had given a 'preliminary approval' to the revised settlement agreement. (I already deleted the email). The "80 to 100 fewer athletes" may not be as drastic as it sounds. Schools are notorious for padding their rosters in some women's sports to look like they're in compliance with Title IX - the Badgers are guilty as charged here. And the roster limits that are part of the agreement make that pretty much impossible.

For example, the UW web page lists 91 names for women's rowing, with another 45 for 'lightweight rowing'. The new roster limits have a roster limit of 68 for women's rowing, with no differentiation (that I can see) for lightweight. I didn't go down the lists to see if there might be duplication between the two rosters, but assuming there isn't, that's 70 right there. One could go through team by team, count up the current roster numbers, and compare with the new roster limits to see where else there might be fewer athletes listed going forward.

Of course, if you had 70 fewer women athletes, that has an obvious effect of your Title IX compliance...

[Timothy A]

There was an email from McIntosh yesterday? Monday? talking about it all. It was because the judge in the NCAA 'payment for athletes' case had given a 'preliminary approval' to the revised settlement agreement. (I already deleted the email). The "80 to 100 fewer athletes" may not be as drastic as it sounds. Schools are notorious for padding their rosters in some women's sports to look like they're in compliance with Title IX - the Badgers are guilty as charged here. And the roster limits that are part of the agreement make that pretty much impossible.

For example, the UW web page lists 91 names for women's rowing, with another 45 for 'lightweight rowing'. The new roster limits have a roster limit of 68 for women's rowing, with no differentiation (that I can see) for lightweight. I didn't go down the lists to see if there might be duplication between the two rosters, but assuming there isn't, that's 70 right there. One could go through team by team, count up the current roster numbers, and compare with the new roster limits to see where else there might be fewer athletes listed going forward.

Of course, if you had 70 fewer women athletes, that has an obvious effect of your Title IX compliance...

The football team was 120 members on it. 120!!!!!!!!!! An nfl team has 53 on the active roster and 16 on the practice squad. They play 17 games, college teams play 12 games and they have 51 more players on the roster! Want to cut some bloat? There's plenty of room on the pigiron. I know somewhere roster limit sizes will be in play. Hopefully football is at a much more reasonable size. I doubt it. Heaven forbid we do anything to rock the football team's applecart. There are also 20 coaches and 18 support staff on the payroll. Insanity.

[robertearle]

The football team was 120 members on it. 120!!!!!!!!!! An nfl team has 53 on the active roster and 16 on the practice squad. They play 17 games, college teams play 12 games and they have 51 more players on the roster! Want to cut some bloat? There's plenty of room on the pigiron. I know somewhere roster limit sizes will be in play. Hopefully football is at a much more reasonable size. I doubt it. Heaven forbid we do anything to rock the football team's applecart. There are also 20 coaches and 18 support staff on the payroll. Insanity.

The football roster limit will 105. So that will be a sport where there will be fewer rostered athletes going forward. for UW as well as other 'big' schools.

[shelfit]

The football team was 120 members on it. 120!!!!!!!!!! An nfl team has 53 on the active roster and 16 on the practice squad. They play 17 games, college teams play 12 games and they have 51 more players on the roster! Want to cut some bloat? There's plenty of room on the pigiron. I know somewhere roster limit sizes will be in play. Hopefully football is at a much more reasonable size. I doubt it. Heaven forbid we do anything to rock the football team's applecart. There are also 20 coaches and 18 support staff on the payroll. Insanity.

I agree this is outrageous. If these football student-athletes want to get paid to play in college then I believe the rosters should be exactly the same size as the real pro rosters of the NFL. That way there would be much less wasted money on guys that are going nowhere fast on the practice squads of college teams. College hockey rosters don't include having enough players to have a practice squad to scrimmage against and practice certain set plays against. Maybe that should change to mirror college football teams. Imagine a prospect being recruited for the opportunity to be on the hockey team's practice squad. Can you hear the respsonse....."Get real coach!" LMAO

[Timothy A]

The football roster limit will 105. So that will be a sport where there will be fewer rostered athletes going forward. for UW as well as other 'big' schools.

105 is ridiculous.

[Gargoyle]

Has anyone else noticed that the videos on the Badger women's hockey official web page are from last February and March? I think the optics would be better to ditch the videos altogether. This season's highlight videos are on YouTube, but there must be some reason they can't be posted on the university site?

[Timothy A]

Has anyone else noticed that the videos on the Badger women's hockey official web page are from last February and March? I think the optics would be better to ditch the videos altogether. This season's highlight videos are on YouTube, but there must be some reason they can't be posted on the university site?

I was just trying to find Mark Johnson's press conference but maybe he didn't have one this week? The women's hockey page video content really sucks. The quality of the audio on Mark Johnson's press conferences from this year that I have seen is terrible. You can't even hear the questions. I can't believe it's getting worse instead of better.