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.

More about expansion for women's hockey

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

pokechecker said:
the author, Birch Bayh, is mentioned nowhere in this thread
Click to expand...

Bayh was not the sole author, just one of several. Edith Green and Bernice Sandler helped him write the original draft. Green and Patsy Mink were involved in writing the version that was introduced in the House.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

HockeyEast33 said:
A much discussed topic on other threads in the past. When 6 Big Ten schools are playing women's hockey there will be a Big Ten conference regardless of effects on other schools and conferences. It's a Big Ten conference requirement and it's all about money and power (and additional programming for the Big Ten Network). You can bet the farm.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. I have talked with someone in the Big 10 offices and it is not a rule that if there are six conference teams playing a sport then it must become a conference sport. The relevance of six teams is that if there are fewer than that, it cannot be a conference sport but there is no requirement that it become one with six.

Now, we can debate whether or not the Big 10 would make it a conference sport if two more programs started. I think that it's certainly possible but far from a certainty. There wouldn't be any pressure from the Big 10 Network; they already could show a lot more women's hockey games than they do so I think we can rule out the possibility that they are hungering for more of it. I also doubt that there's much money in it for the conference and the travel budgets would be a lot higher.

We can look at lacrosse, which will be starting as a Big 10 sport this coming year, as something of an example. With the addition of Maryland to the conference and the admission of Johns Hopkins as an affiliate member for men's lacrosse only. On the one hand, this could be seen as the Big 10 being hungry to add all sports to the conference regardless of size. On the other, while Penn State fit okay in the CAA, the ECAC was a terrible match for Michigan and Ohio State (the other teams in it being Air Force, Bellarmine, and Fairfield) so there was a lot of pressure to produce a workable situation that doesn't exist in women's hockey, where the WCHA and CHA are fairly happy groupings.

The alternative I see to a Big 10 conference if Michigan and Michigan State add women's hockey would be that they join the CHA. If that happened, I'm sure you'd see Ohio State leave the WCHA to join them, probably with Lindenwood going the other way to keep an even number in each conference. That would work out pretty well and I'm not at all sure that there would be a push to break that up.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

If two more Big Ten schools start women's hockey, there will be a conference. The coaches want it, they want the name brand. Who wants to be in the CHA when they can be in the Big Ten? With all that said, I highly doubt two more Big Ten schools will ever add the sport. There's little incentive.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

rockit said:
If two more Big Ten schools start women's hockey, there will be a conference. The coaches want it, they want the name brand. Who wants to be in the CHA when they can be in the Big Ten? With all that said, I highly doubt two more Big Ten schools will ever add the sport. There's little.
Click to expand...


incentive:

How about serving the girls in the state of Michigan who spend hundreds of hours climbing to the top of their sport and then have to move away to go to school. It’s shameful that they have a varsity women’s water polo team (no offense to those coaches or athletes, mostly from CA, that’s California not Canada) when water polo is not a HS sport in Michigan. However, they do not have a women’s hockey team, when they have one of the largest HS and Tier 1 player populations in the US. Regardless of law or some neanderthal coach's attitude serve the people in your state. It is just funny for anyone who has ever visited the school and gotten the whole "Harvard of the Midwest" we are so smart and progressive BS to know that when push comes to shove they allow somebody to hide behind trophies and discriminate against half the world’s population.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Don't be surprised if you see an effort in the next few years from the University of Maryland College Park.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Royale with Cheese said:
incentive:How about serving the girls in the state of Michigan who spend hundreds of hours climbing to the top of their sport and then have to move away to go to school. It’s shameful that they have a varsity women’s water polo team (no offense to those coaches or athletes, mostly from CA, that’s California not Canada) when water polo is not a HS sport in Michigan. However, they do not have a women’s hockey team, when they have one of the largest HS and Tier 1 player populations in the US. Regardless of law or some neanderthal coach's attitude serve the people in your state. It is just funny for anyone who has ever visited the school and gotten the whole "Harvard of the Midwest" we are so smart and progressive BS to know that when push comes to shove they allow somebody to hide behind trophies and discriminate against half the world’s population.
Click to expand...

Women's HS hockey in MI? A handful of teams. The Tier 1 programs had to combine some of the well known "brands" into one team to be able to compete at some age levels.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

LaRondelle said:
Don't be surprised if you see an effort in the next few years from the University of Maryland College Park.
Click to expand...

You're dreaming. U of M is almost 200 miles south of the southernmost Eastern D1 schools (Princeton and Penn State) in an area of the country that has little interest in ice hockey let alone women's ice hockey (and please don't talk about the Pride or Stevenson - fringe programs at best). Few schools would be interested in traveling to play them every year and every away game for them would be a 5+ hour bus-ride or plane. It would be a recruiting nightmare. U of M doesn't need visibility like Lindenwood or Robert Morris and has better ways to spend their money than women's ice hockey (for instance, they could actually spend some money to get a decent football or basketball coach so they can become relevant again in a revenue sport). Not going to happen.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

LaRondelle said:
Don't be surprised if you see an effort in the next few years from the University of Maryland College Park.
Click to expand...

They are still reeling from cutting track and swimming. The reason they joined the Big Ten was so they could make up the deficit Yow left behind and reinstate those cut sports. No way they add hockey (men's or women's). Even with the influx of money they'll get from the Big Ten, they have a massive lawsuit hanging over their head and won't get a full cut of the Big Ten TV money for another 6 years.

There will be a lot of wait & see with the Big Ten men's hockey league. Maybe another donor will step up at a place like Illinois or Nebraska or somehow the Michigans find it in their heart to do it, but it won't be for several years, if ever. Also, with Michigan State, there's a strong push to add both lacrosse teams (they used to have a decent men's team), which would be less cost-prohibitive than women's hockey (less games, less equipment, no need to build/expand a current hockey facility).
 
  • Like
Reactions: D2D
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

aa2fan said:
http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/womens-hockey-persists-club-sport
Click to expand...

I like this quote: "There’s also no guarantee that the program will be successful. Ohio State, for instance, has cracked the 20-win plateau only once in its history. To be nationally competitive, it has to grow to the levels of programs like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mankato State, Minnesota State and Minnesota-Duluth."

Glad someone knows that OSU isn't as competitive as Mankato State and Minnesota State. :p
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

HockeyEast33 said:
A really well-written and insightful article. Nevertheless, makes you feel bad for the girls playing there - but they did know that it wasn't a varsity sport when they made the decision and put the desire to attend UofM over their desire to play varsity hockey. One of the tough choices folks make in selecting a college.
Click to expand...

The 2nd sheet of ice issue is a crock, they act as if Yost is the only rink in AA. Somehow, I believe the basketball teams co-exist, both use the same venue. How many DI and DIII schools have two rinks?

A little surprised by the costs. I know a couple of club teams that the school covers the costs, and two others that the cost is approx $1200 per player.

I believe they have some wording issues incorrect in the article. ie Saying there is a lack of a female hockey players in the State of Michigan just like Ohio.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

giwan said:
The 2nd sheet of ice issue is a crock, they act as if Yost is the only rink in AA. Somehow, I believe the basketball teams co-exist, both use the same venue. How many DI and DIII schools have two rinks?

A little surprised by the costs. I know a couple of club teams that the school covers the costs, and two others that the cost is approx $1200 per player.

I believe they have some wording issues incorrect in the article. ie Saying there is a lack of a female hockey players in the State of Michigan just like Ohio.
Click to expand...

What I think they are really saying is that the revenue from renting the ice time is more important to them than having a varsity women's ice hockey team. The appalling piece to me is that it appears that the UofM, which owns and operates Yost, is charging the women's club team for ice time ... did I misread that? Could that possibly be correct?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

It's also a crock they have to add another team sport. They only need to offer more scholly opportunities.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

giwan said:
The 2nd sheet of ice issue is a crock, they act as if Yost is the only rink in AA. Somehow, I believe the basketball teams co-exist, both use the same venue. How many DI and DIII schools have two rinks?
Click to expand...

RIT now has two rinks but both teams will play in the new one.

I'm not aware of any other D-III schools with two rinks. Ohio State obviously (from the article) has two rinks. Looks like Minnesota State, Minnesota, and Wisconsin also have two; the latter two had arenas purpose-built for women's hockey. Kohl Center in Madison and Value City Arena in Columbus, however, also house basketball, making the second rink necessary for scheduling purposes. Yost, Mariucci, and the Verizon Center in Mankato don't have that excuse; they only do hockey.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

HockeyEast33 said:
The appalling piece to me is that it appears that the UofM, which owns and operates Yost, is charging the women's club team for ice time ... did I misread that? Could that possibly be correct?
Click to expand...
I have no evidence to support (or deny) this, but it wouldn't surprise me. I have found that institutions of higher education are greedy; I get calls all the time from my alma mater -- particularly the athletics department -- asking for me to donate more money.

giwan said:
It's also a crock they have to add another team sport. They only need to offer more scholly opportunities.
Click to expand...
Please explain how you can add scholarships for existing varsity sports when all the teams are already providing the maximum allowed under NCAA regulations.

I'm not trying to be a downer here. I would love to see Michigan schools add women's hockey as a varsity sport. But I'm also not as naive as I sometimes appear to be.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I'll all for the growth of the sport, but play a little "What If" game with me here -- let's say the BTWHC ends up somehow starting up with, I don't know, Michigan and Michigan State adding women's teams. What kind of conference realignment would we see out west? Do the remaining 5 WCHA teams just band together? What about the 5 remaining teams in CHA?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

HockeyEast33 said:
What I think they are really saying is that the revenue from renting the ice time is more important to them than having a varsity women's ice hockey team. The appalling piece to me is that it appears that the UofM, which owns and operates Yost, is charging the women's club team for ice time ... did I misread that? Could that possibly be correct?
Click to expand...

Standard practice. Everything gets billed one way or another. The problem with the argument is that practice time is generally during the day, which is not the prime billing hours. Very rarely is ice used during the morning or early afternoon hours, so losing revenue is not likely for practice ice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top