Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Late to the party. But I'm thinking the subject of the University of Michigan and Women's Hockey is of ongoing interest...
...But the closet teams you did list mostly are CHA so if the michigan schools decide to add women's hockey they will most-likely join the CHA until the Big 10 can field more than 6 schools for women's hockey. Just my opinion.
I'm not convinced that UM would be willing to join the CHA, now or in the future. In fact, the lack of what UM would deem an acceptable conference just might be a significant hurdle here.
Prestige/Brand/Image is extremely important at Michigan. To some extent, this is an issue at every school in the Big Ten. But I honestly believe Michigan outpaces the rest of us on this factor. If you want cast this in a favorable light, call it being selective. If you want to be a bit critical, call it elitism. I'll let others choose between those two terms.
Well, if the CHA doesn't cut it, why not join the Women's WCHA? As another poster mentioned, Michigan (and 3 others) withdrew from the Men's WCHA in 1980. When Women's D-1 debuted in the West in the late 1990's, I wondered if UM would be willing to re-partner with non-BT schools from the Upper Midwest. Since over 15 years have gone by without any movement whatsoever in that direction, it seems pretty clear the answer is no.
Also as previously posted, the publicly stated reason for the split in 1980 was to reduce travel expenses. But while this recollection is accurate as far it goes, it's far from the whole story. Prior to engineering the move to the CCHA, UM proposed a two division set-up for the existing league. The "big school" division would have included Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Notre Dame and Wisconsin. The "small school" division would have consisted of CC, DU, MTU, UMD & North Dakota. Would Michigan have saved travel dollars under this set-up? Sure, at the margin. Fewer trips to the State of Colorado would have saved some cash, at the very least. But the most distant schools would still have been conference mates. Some games would still have occurred; some costs would still have been incurred. Ask yourself: If the real concern was travel expenses, why bother to propose the divisions? Why not just move to the CCHA and be done with it?
My feeling then (and it hasn't changed) was that Michigan's real desire was to minimize the number games against the smaller schools. Particularly small schools with powerful hockey programs! Hence two divisions within the WCHA was the first choice. Only when they lost that vote did they organize a secession.
Now it can be argued that the CCHA also included "small schools." But most of those schools were either MAC schools (D-1 across the board), in-state rivals, or both. It wasn't irrational for UM to see that as more attractive than the status quo. It also shows that UM is willing to partner with non-BT schools under certain circumstances. As does the current set-up in Women's Lacrosse. And yes, both of those examples involve travel savings. But you know what? If The University of Michigan actually
wants to compete in a given sport, in a given conference, I have every confidence that they can come up with the necessary travel funds. No doubt in my mind.
...2. UMich will not even consider adding women's hockey until the current men's coach retires. That's one to four years away. Even post-retirement, it will take committees and meetings and planning before anything could happen. Best case: three to four years off. Worst case: never.
I think far to much is made with the Red Berenson angle. He has his opinions but I truly don't think they carry much weight...
OK, so if Michigan hasn't gotten an attractive enough offer yet, why not just take the initiative to organize a Women's BT Hockey League? There's certainly some analogy to what UM attempted to do with Men's Hockey back in 1980, and what was recently accomplished with Men's BT Hockey. Is it really possible that one well-positioned hockey coach could veto the whole thing on the Women's side?
Maybe. Or, maybe he's just unwilling to take the lead -- and that alone is problematic. Despite hearing the endless rumors, I really don't know what to believe about the "Red Berenson angle." What I do know is that is that adding a new varsity sport is a political minefield, as jumbodaddy77 suggests. You need every advantage you can garner to win that struggle. So again, either active opposition by Red or mere unwillingness to help might be an issue. But the problems go beyond the prominent coach, and include the history described above.
.
