What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

How long does the WCHA have to live?

Hockeybuckeye said:
revamped and made functional again for a women's program like Ohio State did with their old barn.
Click to expand...

I don’t mean any ire at you, but if a B1G school adds D1 woho, wreaking havoc on non B1G schools in WCHA and CHA as a result, I sure as heck hope they do it right and create a first class program. Women’s athletes deserve that. Revamping a currently non functional building, just the sound of it seems kind of yuck.

im trying to think of what the real impact is of a BiG Ten women’s league. CHA would be down to 5 teams, and at risk of WCHA stealing Lindenwood, forcing CHA to 4 teams. WCHA would be left with 7 current - 3 B1G teams so 4, plus St Thomas plus Lindenwood if they could steal them, (and it would be robbery!) so back at 6.

But if it happened:
Assume some reorg within the WCHA to cut costs like crazy. Have to think it would persevere somehow. CHA has always operated on a shoestring budget I think. They too would persevere.

I hate it because of what it would do to CHA short term, but objectively would it be best for women’s hockey? Maybe, not sure. Maybe Niagara will return woho one day, and another western NY or PA team would appear. Interesting off season topic.
 
Lindsay said:
I don’t mean any ire at you, but if a B1G school adds D1 woho, wreaking havoc on non B1G schools in WCHA and CHA as a result, I sure as heck hope they do it right and create a first class program. Women’s athletes deserve that. Revamping a currently non functional building, just the sound of it seems kind of yuck.

im trying to think of what the real impact is of a BiG Ten women’s league. CHA would be down to 5 teams, and at risk of WCHA stealing Lindenwood, forcing CHA to 4 teams. WCHA would be left with 7 current - 3 B1G teams so 4, plus St Thomas plus Lindenwood if they could steal them, (and it would be robbery!) so back at 6.

But if it happened:
Assume some reorg within the WCHA to cut costs like crazy. Have to think it would persevere somehow. CHA has always operated on a shoestring budget I think. They too would persevere.

I hate it because of what it would do to CHA short term, but objectively would it be best for women’s hockey? Maybe, not sure. Maybe Niagara will return woho one day, and another western NY or PA team would appear. Interesting off season topic.
Click to expand...

I would think there would be a re-alignment of the other CHA teams into eastern conferences; maybe the two conferences and four teams turning into three realigned conferences. Geographically, if not 'historically', it makes sense.
 
Timothy A said:
No one has answered my question about how does the wwcha survive with the men's side gone.
Click to expand...
The CHA has survived w/o a men's league, having a challenge as large or greater in terms of geography. Do you think that the CHA schools have greater potential for a league than the WCHA schools do? Plus, I'm not convinced that the recent men's WCHA, with the likes of the Alaska schools until this year, Alabama Huntsville, and Michigan Tech, was that much of a financial boost to the women's WCHA.
 
robertearle said:
I would think there would be a re-alignment of the other CHA teams into eastern conferences; maybe the two conferences and four teams turning into three realigned conferences. Geographically, if not 'historically', it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn’t even think of this. Yes it makes a lot of sense. I assume folks are sentimental about league memberships, but realignments are def a possibility.
 
ARM said:
The CHA has survived w/o a men's league, having a challenge as large or greater in terms of geography. Do you think that the CHA schools have greater potential for a league than the WCHA schools do? Plus, I'm not convinced that the recent men's WCHA, with the likes of the Alaska schools until this year, Alabama Huntsville, and Michigan Tech, was that much of a financial boost to the women's WCHA.
Click to expand...
I have no inside info, but I was thinking along the same lines. Hasn't the "alliance" between the Men's & Women's WCHA been mostly about splitting administrative expenses & running the website? What's to stop the Men's CCHA & Women's WCHA from continuing that partnership?

None of the three schools that are gone had Women's D-1 teams. Other than the re-branding on the Men's side, what's different for the Women's Hockey schools?
 
Illinois is on record that they do not need to add a women’s sport to add men’s ice hockey. After conducting an analysis, they can add hockey and still be in Title IX compliance of offering proportionate opportunities for their student population.

They may add a sport for women in the future. They were looking at hockey, lacrosse, and I think one other. Unless some other school is considering women’s hockey, the big ten will remain at four teams for the near future.
 
slowe said:
Illinois is on record that they do not need to add a women’s sport to add men’s ice hockey. After conducting an analysis, they can add hockey and still be in Title IX compliance of offering proportionate opportunities for their student population.

They may add a sport for women in the future. They were looking at hockey, lacrosse, and I think one other. Unless some other school is considering women’s hockey, the big ten will remain at four teams for the near future.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that adding a women's sport was mandatory when a men's sport is added?
 
Hockeybuckeye said:
I was under the impression that adding a women's sport was mandatory when a men's sport is added?
Click to expand...

There are three or four (?) ways a school can comply with Title IX. Once a school is 'in compliance', maybe the easiest way to stay compliant when adding (or subtracting) a sport from one side is to add (or subtract) one from the other, particularly if the two have more-or-less the same (or proportional to the overall school population) number of participating athletes. But it isn't necessarily mandatory.
 
Hockeybuckeye said:
I was under the impression that adding a women's sport was mandatory when a men's sport is added?
Click to expand...

Think scholarships and not sports. Football provides soooo many opportunities for male athletes so adding a single woman’s sport to balance it wouldn’t be equitable. I’m sure it’s more complex than that. Typically schools are already balanced so sports need to be added on both sides. It doesn’t usually get that detailed so most people don’t think about it.
 
IMO it will be a decade before this is ever a consideration. I agree with other comments regarding the financial setbacks associated with C-19, with the end result being a delay in additional B10 women's teams.
 
The CHA is going to have to do something to survive with Bob Morris gone. I can see Lindenwood and Penn State trying to get into the WCHA. RIT/Syracuse/Mercyhurst would be better in an east-coast centric conference (HE or ECAC).

As far as the B1G sponsoring women's hockey, I think they would need 2 of the existing B1G members to sponsor the sport (or Notre Dame since they are B1G for hockey). I can't see the B1G adding any of non-B1G schools just for women's hockey. Don't think it is that big of a deal. Even if one of the Michigan schools steps up and sponsors it still would not get to 6. If Illinois ever does follow through with sponsoring hockey, and adds a women's program and if one of the Michigan schools / ND adds women's hockey, then yes, the WCHA is gone, but that is a lot of ifs.......
 
Fantastic work by the wcha. $50 for a whole season! Kind of would like to see the CHA join ESPN+. CHA is now the outlier at if I recall about $110 a season for their games.

Not sure what the future holds for the leagues but I hope decisions are made in terms of what’s best for womens hockey, and not whats best for any given team.

Bob Morris has lost their credibility although I still hope they come back. Would it make sense to take a couple ECAC teams and them to CHA? Union and RPI come to mind. Moving teams, realignments, there is surely emotion at play but long term you wonder what is best did the sport.
 
Lindsay said:
Fantastic work by the wcha. $50 for a whole season!
Click to expand...
I agree. I also like the option of a School Pass for another $30, so that I can watch volleyball in the fall and softball in the Spring as part of the same package. It shows that they gave some thought to serving fans, as opposed to just putting out a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it pricing model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top