Michigan Getting a Women's Team?

[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.

 

[wiscolorado]

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.

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.

I agree with both of you - by the sounds if it, Michigan could and should do more to support their women's club team.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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'll buy logistical challenge. But overall, the locker room argument is pretty disingenuous. Note that Yost has hosted six team Men's Hockey Regionals in the past. Quite honestly, the entire line of reasoning that "the girls can't play, there's no locker room, end of conversation" should have been dead and buried long ago. Like back in the 1970's. Dead and buried everywhere, not just Michigan.

Granted, change takes time. Expensive change can take a lot of time. But then again, twenty-five years is a lot of time.

All that said, I have some familiarity with Yost. I played in the USCHO Posters Game when it was held there. I've visited as a fan several times, including at one of the above mentioned regionals. It's a great venue, but it is a historic facility. The logistical challenges & expenses would undoubtedly be greater at Yost than at Mankato or St. Cloud. But if the will had been there to sponsor a varsity program, a solution could have been found.

I don't think it's shameful that the University of Michigan doesn't sponsor a varsity women's team.

Very slippery of you. Or maybe an honest mistake in your reading? My comment was that the way the current Club Team is being treated is shameful. I didn't apply the word shame to the failure to sponsor a varsity team. This is just a flat-out misquote.

EDIT: Just read your separate response to Lindsay & Nicole. Thank you.

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.

Again, your comment is damaged by the misquote. But setting that aside, I can entertain the rest of your argument. If one particular school simply doesn't want to sponsor Women's D-1 Hockey, maybe the rest of us ought to accept that and move on. But the demand for at least one Women's D-1 in the State of Michigan is there. Regardless of which school winds up being the solution.

 

[pgb-ohio]

“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.

The article comes from the UM Student Newspaper. Credit for finding it goes to HockeyBuckeye.

Of course I agree with and appreciate your comments.

 

[wiscolorado]

Very slippery of you. Or maybe an honest mistake in your reading? My comment was that the way the current Club Team is being treated is shameful. I didn't apply the word shame to the failure to sponsor a varsity team. This is just a flat-out misquote.

I wasn't intentionally trying to be slippery, or misquote you - you are absolutely right that I was making a distinct, albeit tangential point to yours. And I did borrow the word "shameful" from you, but I am aware I was using it to make a different point. Sorry, I see why that was misleading and I should have written more carefully. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous or twist your words.

As for the feasibility of adding a D1 women's team at Yost, I'd imagine that the issues boil down to more than just locker room access. I would guess there are multiple things that have prevented it from ever being seriously considered. But I don't know for sure, and I admit that I'm into the realm of speculation now. The only people that I would trust to know for sure what the issues are that have prevented UM from seriously considering adding a women's team for so long would be those employed by the UM athletic department.

 

[Still Eeyore]

Penn State makes the shared facility work.

Yes, because it was built with having both a men's and a women's team in mind. I will repeat: there is not enough locker room space for Michigan to have a women's play at Yost. It. Does. Not. Exist. If Michigan adds women's hockey, they will have to play at the Cube, which is suboptimal for multiple reasons, or they will have to build a new arena.

 

[Still Eeyore]

I agree with both of you - by the sounds if it, Michigan could and should do more to support their women's club team.

The University of Michigan has a policy that it does not support club sports with University funds or resources. This is not something that is limited to the women's hockey club team.

 

[Still Eeyore]

I'll buy logistical challenge. But overall, the locker room argument is pretty disingenuous. Note that Yost has hosted six team Men's Hockey Regionals in the past. Quite honestly, the entire line of reasoning that "the girls can't play, there's no locker room, end of conversation" should have been dead and buried long ago. Like back in the 1970's. Dead and buried everywhere, not just Michigan.

You do not know what you are talking about. At all. Among other things, in the twenty years since Yost last hosted an NCAA regional, they remodeled in order to add more seating. They have enlarged the existing locker rooms, which were substandard until they did.

There is not enough locker room space for a women's team. They could not add locker room space without spending millions of dollars and eliminating fan capacity.

None of the arenas people are talking about that have a men's and a women's team playing there are less than 40 years old. They were built in an era when having extra locker rooms in order to be able to have other events, including youth hockey tournaments as well as multiple varsity was a part of the plan. Yost was built exactly 100 years ago, as a basketball arena. It does not have the room or the facilities that people are imagining.

Michigan chose to add multiple sports offering more athletic opportunities instead of women's hockey. No one has yet to provide any sort of rationale, let alone a convincing one, for why this was a bad choice. Mostly, you all just seem to think that they should provide everything. You don't even bother to justify why it is morally imperative that they add women's hockey rather than any of the other, myriad sports that they could add, for less money. You just assume that it is obvious that women's hockey deserves priority.

You aren't concerned with what would be best for the university or what would offer the most opportunities. You are just arguing that your own narrow, parochial, selfish interests should take priority over those considerations. The University of Michigan does not start from the same assumptions that you do, and they, not you, are correct in the breadth of their thinking.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

The University of Michigan has a policy that it does not support club sports with University funds or resources. This is not something that is limited to the women's hockey club team.

There are a lot of schools like this. They consider club sports just that -- a club. In fact when I first heard schools did fund club sports teams (like Penn State back in the day), I was surprised.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

You do not know what you are talking about. At all. Among other things, in the twenty years since Yost last hosted an NCAA regional, they remodeled in order to add more seating. They have enlarged the existing locker rooms, which were substandard until they did.

There is not enough locker room space for a women's team. They could not add locker room space without spending millions of dollars and eliminating fan capacity.

None of the arenas people are talking about that have a men's and a women's team playing there are less than 40 years old. They were built in an era when having extra locker rooms in order to be able to have other events, including youth hockey tournaments as well as multiple varsity was a part of the plan. Yost was built exactly 100 years ago, as a basketball arena. It does not have the room or the facilities that people are imagining.

Michigan chose to add multiple sports offering more athletic opportunities instead of women's hockey. No one has yet to provide any sort of rationale, let alone a convincing one, for why this was a bad choice. Mostly, you all just seem to think that they should provide everything. You don't even bother to justify why it is morally imperative that they add women's hockey rather than any of the other, myriad sports that they could add, for less money. You just assume that it is obvious that women's hockey deserves priority.

You aren't concerned with what would be best for the university or what would offer the most opportunities. You are just arguing that your own narrow, parochial, selfish interests should take priority over those considerations. The University of Michigan does not start from the same assumptions that you do, and they, not you, are correct in the breadth of their thinking.

I started this thread by reporting the fact that DISCUSSIONS are taking place at UM for a women's hockey program. I hoped to start people to voice their own perspectives but you seem to be somewhat critical of some here freely expressing their views while having no problem expressing yours? There's nothing to get critical about.

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

I started this thread by reporting the fact that DISCUSSIONS are taking place at UM for a women's hockey program. I hoped to start people to voice their own perspectives but you seem to be somewhat critical of some here freely expressing their views while having no problem expressing yours? There's nothing to get critical about.

When is Wisconsin going to reinstate baseball?