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

ManBehindTheCurtain said:
OK on Michigan, not as sure about Colorado.

As for Michigan, they truly and completely have NO EXCUSE. YES they do, they are behind in the football arms race.

And it isn't just UM and MSU. How about Western, Northern, Tech, Lake Superior and Ferris?
Click to expand...

YES they will tell you they have an excuse, they are behind in the football and bball arms race.
Really you expect those Div II schools to step up when they are trying to make their current D1 team relevant again?

At least two have club teams but it is fully pay as you go.

Are all club teams equal?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

giwan said:
YES they will tell you they have an excuse, they are behind in the football and bball arms race.
Really you expect those Div II schools to step up when they are trying to make their current D1 team relevant again?

At least two have club teams but it is fully pay as you go.

Are all club teams equal?
Click to expand...

Women's hockey at UofM and MSU will not happen anytime soon.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ey-a-DIY-sport-in-Mich.--limiting-aspirations
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Call It said:
Michigan is a (fill in the blank) state! This is sad news for the girls of MI, the good ones have to leave their home state to play D1 hockey. Sounds like a male chauvinist behavior.
Click to expand...

Where did that come from? Michigan and Michigan State need a champion to step forward....Minnesota had one, Penn State had one, youth hockey in Minnesota had one.....
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Accusing the athletic departments of male chauvinism requires a very narrow focus. That could certainly be said about certain individuals, but making the accusation about the institutions as a whole demonstrates mostly that you are refusing to look beyond the small world of women's ice hockey.

I have no idea where Call It is from but I know that, like myself, mnpokecheck is a Gopher fans. And I'm not sure that an across the board comparison of the athletic departments as wholes really provides evidence of the University of Michigan, to take one of the two possible examples, being peculiarly male chauvinist. Indeed, fans of field hockey, lacrosse, and water polo would be equally (which is to say, not very) justified in saying that Minnesota is a bastion of male chauvinism.

I'm a fan of women's ice hockey and so it disappoints me that Michigan and Michigan State don't have team. As I said above, there are a few individuals there whose motives on the issue are deplorable. However, in terms of supporting women's sports in general, it's hard to make a case that these schools aren't delivering. They're just delivering different sports and, in fact, more of them.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

You're absolutely correct, Eeyore. It would be wrong to call into question the character of an entire organization, based on the wrongdoing of a handful of individuals.;)

To explain a little further for everyone else: If the long standing rumors are even partially true, the greatest opposition to Women's D-1 Hockey in Michigan comes from within the hockey community. Now ask yourself, what kind of position does that put the Michigan AD in at budget time? No doubt every existing sport is pleading poverty, and begging for additional resources. Other groups are coming forward -- all well organized and all passionately believing in their particular sport -- hoping to be added to the varsity list. But with the Women's Hockey application, there's a catch. Key members of the hockey community are privately saying don't do this. Now add the fact hockey is a relatively expensive sport to sponsor. In a world of limited resources, guess whose proposal will be one of the first to be dropped? How can the AD really do otherwise?

Now you might imagine that an Ohio State fan would be celebrating the failings of the rival school. I most certainly am not. The lack of D-1 Women's Hockey at UM and MSU is an injustice that should have been remedied long ago. For a winter sports state of Michigan's caliber, it's just unconscionable that players have no home state option in Women's D-1. But for change to occur, I believe that the hockey community in Michigan must unite. The guilty dinosaurs may never be won over. But they must be persuaded to at least get out of the way.

Some may say that since I'm from Ohio, this is none of my business. But for me, the duty to support both equal opportunity and the growth of our sport transcends the rivalry in this case.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

What I fear is what impact the current push for paying stipends or salaries to big-time college athletes might have on "minor" sports like women's hockey down the road. If they ever do decide to take this step - and the pressure for doing so seems to be gathering momentum - those amounts would only continue to inflate in future years, leaving less "profit" for athletic departments to continue to fund programs where revenues do not cover expenses. Once that line is crossed there would be no going back, and that would almost certainly put a real damper on any expansion of women's hockey and other non-revenue producing sports. Sure hope my fears are misplaced on this...
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Is something going on with women's hockey at Navy? They have some people (coaches?) here in florida and listed as a d1 program. do they even have a team right now?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

D2D said:
What I fear is what impact the current push for paying stipends or salaries to big-time college athletes might have on "minor" sports like women's hockey down the road. If they ever do decide to take this step - and the pressure for doing so seems to be gathering momentum - those amounts would only continue to inflate in future years, leaving less "profit" for athletic departments to continue to fund programs where revenues do not cover expenses. Once that line is crossed there would be no going back, and that would almost certainly put a real damper on any expansion of women's hockey and other non-revenue producing sports. Sure hope my fears are misplaced on this...
Click to expand...

The idea of paying college athletes - if it really does come to fruition - will only address football and basketball according to most reliable news sources. They may replace scholarships for those institutions and it is only plausible right now at private colleges. Public colleges and universities have this thing called Title IX which will be a BIG problem if a public institution tries to go the salary-way.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

pgb-ohio said:
You're absolutely correct, Eeyore. It would be wrong to call into question the character of an entire organization, based on the wrongdoing of a handful of individuals.;)

To explain a little further for everyone else: If the long standing rumors are even partially true, the greatest opposition to Women's D-1 Hockey in Michigan comes from within the hockey community. Now ask yourself, what kind of position does that put the Michigan AD in at budget time? No doubt every existing sport is pleading poverty, and begging for additional resources. Other groups are coming forward -- all well organized and all passionately believing in their particular sport -- hoping to be added to the varsity list. But with the Women's Hockey application, there's a catch. Key members of the hockey community are privately saying don't do this. Now add the fact hockey is a relatively expensive sport to sponsor. In a world of limited resources, guess whose proposal will be one of the first to be dropped? How can the AD really do otherwise?

Now you might imagine that an Ohio State fan would be celebrating the failings of the rival school. I most certainly am not. The lack of D-1 Women's Hockey at UM and MSU is an injustice that should have been remedied long ago. For a winter sports state of Michigan's caliber, it's just unconscionable that players have no home state option in Women's D-1. But for change to occur, I believe that the hockey community in Michigan must unite. The guilty dinosaurs may never be won over. But they must be persuaded to at least get out of the way.

Some may say that since I'm from Ohio, this is none of my business. But for me, the duty to support both equal opportunity and the growth of our sport transcends the rivalry in this case.
Click to expand...

My question here is WHO is saying WHAT? A credible AD is considering the source of the discussion and the content of it; need to remove the prejudice from the discussion.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

ExHockeyguy said:
The idea of paying college athletes - if it really does come to fruition - will only address football and basketball according to most reliable news sources. They may replace scholarships for those institutions and it is only plausible right now at private colleges. Public colleges and universities have this thing called Title IX which will be a BIG problem if a public institution tries to go the salary-way.
Click to expand...

Actually, if it reaches this point, Title IX likely won't be an issue. Further, Title IX applies to all educational institutions that receive federal dollars in grants or financial aid. All NCAA schools are subject to it.

The reason Title IX likely wouldn't be an issue if salaries are paid to football and basketball players is that it only applies to educational functions of a university. The reason it applies to sports is because the NCAA and its member schools claim that sports is entirely an educational activity and that revenue generation is not in any way a consideration of athletic departments. That claim is ridiculous, but the court system has accepted it every time the NCAA has made it; they make it anytime there is a lawsuit that claims that athletes are employees of the universities.

If the NCAA dropped that claim, they would likely have to recognize that athletes in revenue sports are employees. They are loathe to do this, but if it reaches the point of paying actual salaries, they'll likely have been backed into conceding that anyway. (This is why schools are speaking in terms of expanding stipends rather than salaries at this point; they're trying to maintain the fiction.) However, if they start paying salaries and then admit that revenue generation is, in fact, one of the purposes of football and basketball programs, that would likely exempt them from Title IX considerations.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

ExHockeyguy said:
My question here is WHO is saying WHAT? A credible AD is considering the source of the discussion and the content of it; need to remove the prejudice from the discussion.
Click to expand...
If the "lobbyist" is of sufficient stature, the AD may not have the option of simply removing him from the discussion.

I'm not close enough to the situation to sort out what precisely is true or what isn't; or if there's been any softening of views over time. Someone from Michigan can comment on the rumors if they wish. I'll only say that my perception, as an outsider, is that the rumor of "elite opposition" has been extensively circulated and is widely believed. Again, my point is that IF it's true, it puts the AD in a rough spot.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

mnpokecheck said:
Where did that come from? Michigan and Michigan State need a champion to step forward....Minnesota had one, Penn State had one, youth hockey in Minnesota had one.....
Click to expand...

You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Skate79 said:
You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?
Click to expand...

I think the implication was that someone with millions of dollars to give away is going to have to step forward.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Skate79 said:
You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?
Click to expand...

Michigan isn't really her home state. California is.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Skate79 said:
You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?
Click to expand...

I think you may be referring to Shelly Looney as an Olympian growing up in Michigan?
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

ARM said:
Article by Pat Borzi on possible CWHL expansion:
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-comme...e-planning-add-second-franchise-united-states
Click to expand...

This CWHL in the US need to take a page out of the USHL and ECHL format. Put teams in areas were an audience is starving for entertainment. You will draw a lot more fans at the gate on Friday and Saturday nights to watch and become consistent fans. If you were able to draw 2000 to 2500 per night then you could start compensating these great athletes. Women's hockey is a great product and they need to ride the wave of the "spectacle" of a gold metal game that millions witnessed. I do believe there is an overload of talent for one team in the US. If you want these girls to showcase there talent over the winter then they need to get paid. Or it will be a part time thing because they will need employment elsewhere.
 
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I have been a long standing fan of Michigan, not only from an athletic standpoint, but mainly from an academic one. I have been bothered recently by U of M's motto #leadersandbest, recent donations to an already profit making self funded athletic department, and the pool of talent (in the States and abroad) that would aspire to attend such a great institution and play competitive hockey. I would go ask the board and athletic department personally, but one person would not make the difference. People of Michigan need to be asking.... "WHY NOT US?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top