More about expansion for women's hockey

[KTDC]

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?"

Yes. The fact that especially Michigan but also Michigan State do not have D1 women's hockey teams falls somewhere between scandalous and just depressing when looking at the big picture of the state of women's hockey.

But at least we get Maryanne Menefee.

 

[northhockey]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Yes. The fact that especially Michigan but also Michigan State do not have D1 women's hockey teams falls somewhere between scandalous and just depressing when looking at the big picture of the state of women's hockey.

But at least we get Maryanne Menefee.

Once Coach Berenson retires, the door for women's hockey in Michigan will open

 

[aa2fan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

"Funding" at Michigan has ALWAYS been the scapegoat answer. If you dig deep into the archives, http://news.google.com/newspapers?n..._tJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GB4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3926,3888593
you will find this to be true. Fast forward 10 years from that article, and we get this: https://michigandaily.com/content/culture-club-sports?page=0,1
What this article conveys that ALL "club" sports at Michigan receive some of the same perks of any varsity athlete. While this may be true of some sports, it is a gross misrepresentation of how the womens ice hockey team members are treated. They do NOT have access to training facilities! They do NOT have a trainer available at their events! They do NOT have locker room to store their equipment (yes they have to store their gear in their already dinky dorm rooms)! They do NOT even have access purchasing equipment to truly represent Michigan and their motto #leadersandbest. The board of regents may cringe if they saw these athletes representing their university winged helmet with tape!
Why doesn't anyone bring up other issues instead of "funding", which there should be no excuse for that monochromatic response anymore given recent $100 million donation courtesy of Mr. Stephen Ross.
The athletic department can't use the proper facility excuse either. Michigan does NOT need another rink to house two Varsity teams. There are plenty of very prestigious universities that have ONE rink. AND they are very competitive. ( Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Brown, to name a few).
Michigan can't use the Title IX excuse either- saying they will have to get rid of a men's sport to support another womens varsity sport. NOT TRUE! Easy fix... Don't count the female athletes that attend a one day "try-out" (with no repeat invitation- )for a varsity sport toward the rostered number of females OR don't count 25 MALEs "practice athletes" on the womens basketball team as rostered FEMALES (yes they do count as females) and whamo... You have more than enough women athlete numbers that can be filled. (The stats are out there- you just need to know where to look)
I ask again....Why is this still an issue?

 

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

 

[Cali]

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

Here's a thought. Mandate that with the coaching staff. Pretty easy to do I would think.

 

[brookyone]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Is it Michigan taxpayers and politicians who are averse to women's hockey and the obstacle to D-I programs for Michigan...Michigan State?

 

[ritBLKnORGsuit]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

This maybe true. But schools like Michigan are able to give athletic scholarships that can possibly recruit the best American girls to come play for them. I am not saying your school wouldn't seek out canadian players. Michigan would not have scholarship restrictions that schools like RIT or Clarkson have that prohibit offering athletic scholarships since they are only D1 in hockey. I know for a fact RIT has mostly a Canadian roster due to the fact we can give them scholarships that are specifically meant for non-US citizens to attend our school.

 

[Cali]

This maybe true. But schools like Michigan are able to give athletic scholarships that can possibly recruit the best American girls to come play for them. I am not saying your school wouldn't seek out canadian players. Michigan would not have scholarship restrictions that schools like RIT or Clarkson have that prohibit offering athletic scholarships since they are only D1 in hockey. I know for a fact RIT has mostly a Canadian roster due to the fact we can give them scholarships that are specifically meant for non-US citizens to attend our school.

You are incorrect on 2 fronts. Clarkson most definitely gives out scholarships and there are no International monies given to Canadians for hockey at RIT. All funding is Aid based at RIT based on family income. That said, I have no doubt that there is a relationship between the coaching staff and the Financial Aid office that allows for creativity to occur.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

No, it wasn't. You are way off on this. In fact, the debate over Title IX had nothing to do with athletics at all and it didn't revolve in any way around the nationality of who was given opportunities. Title IX was about given women equal opportunities within educational institutions that received federal money. That it would lead to expanded women's athletics at all was unintended and largely unforeseen. One of the authors of what we call Title IX (which was actually Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), Patty Mink, said this about it, “When it was proposed, we had no idea that its most visible impact would be in athletics. I had been paying attention to the academic issue. I had been excluded from medical school because I was female.”

The debate over Title IX during its congressional passage focused only on those programs that directly received federal dollars, though the authors intended that it apply to entire institutions. Since athletics didn't receive much in the way of direct federal dollars it wasn't at all a focus of those debates. And in 1984 the Supreme Court (in the Oak Grove case) ruled that Title IX did, in fact, only apply to those departments that received federal money directly. From then until the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, over the veto of Ronald Reagan, Title IX didn't cover athletics at all.

You can read the text of Title IX here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

No, it wasn't. You are way off on this...

You can read the text of Title IX here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Thank you.

Sean

 

[KTDC]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Participation rates by state according to United States of Hockey Blog:

According to Blogger Chris Peters formerly of USA Hockey
( All statistics have been taken from USA Hockey’s annual public membership statistics. )

http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2013/09/13/hockeys-growth-in-the-united-states-2003-2013/


Massachusetts
2002-03: 44,299
2008-09: 42,115
2012-13: 46,716
Ten-Year Growth: 2,417 (5.4%)
Five-Year Growth: 4,601 (10.9%)
Notes: One of the Big Three in American hockey, Mass saw numbers continually slide until about 2009-10. Since then, hockey grew each season until reaching a record high of 46,788 in 2011-12, the year following the Bruins’ Stanley Cup win. A slight dip last season isn’t too big of a concern though. Hockey is back in a big way in the Bay State, as displayed by its rather impressive 10.9 percent increase over the last five years.

Michigan
2002-03: 56,947
2008-09: 52,022
2012-13: 51,929
Ten-Year Growth: -5,018 (-8.8%)
Five-Year Growth: -93 (-0.1%)
Notes: Believe it or not, at one point this decade, Michigan was the No. 1 state in terms of hockey participation. However, it appears Michigan’s economic crisis took a major toll on hockey. As the recession hit its worst years, Michigan’s numbers just dropped and dropped and dropped. It appeared Michigan had recovered a few years ago, when 54,251 players were registered, but its 51,929 last season is the second lowest number of registered players in the last decade. Some of that could be do to the increased prominence of AAU leagues in the state, but the recent fluctuation of membership has been rather puzzling.

Minnesota
2002-03: 44,868
2008-09: 52,333
2012-13: 53,935
Ten-Year Growth: 9,067 (20.2%)
Five-Year Growth: 1,602 (3.06%)
Notes: The self-proclaimed State of Hockey certainly has a strong case for such a title. Despite a slight drop after a record-high 54,951 registered in 2011-12, it has the highest hockey-playing population in the country. Minnesota’s raw growth over the last 10 years is rather impressive, seeing as you wouldn’t expect a well-established hockey state to continue such a dramatic rise. However, 20.2 percent growth for the country’s biggest hockey state over a 10-year span is nuts. Especially due to the fact that Minnesota’s vaunted high school league is not affiliated with USA Hockey, meaning many of its players may not be registered with the organization. So Minnesota’s numbers could be even higher. It’s quite impressive overall.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

didn't revolve in any way around the nationality of who was given opportunities.

sorry, you are wrong, Title IX came before you One World people realized giving away America could result in you having a better chance of holding power

caught me a big one, and I don't even have a fishin' license

 

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

sorry, you are wrong, Title IX came before you One World people realized giving away America could result in you having a better chance of holding power

Could you please provide quotes from the debates to support this contention?

 

[giwan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Is it Michigan taxpayers and politicians who are averse to women's hockey and the obstacle to D-I programs for Michigan...Michigan State?

UofM at least, not sure about MSU has an athletic dept fully self funded. No tax dollars are spent on athletics.

 

[brookyone]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

UofM at least, not sure about MSU has an athletic dept fully self funded. No tax dollars are spent on athletics.

I'd probably still question the onus for no NCAA D-I hockey in Michigan being on the taxpayers.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I'd probably still question the onus for no NCAA D-I hockey in Michigan being on the taxpayers.

compare with the situation in MN
taxpayers were more than happy to fund arenas, and by extension, teams, it was very popular with politicians who were more than happy to fund them because they knew it was popular
in MI, with everyone moving away to find jobs and being replaced by people moving in who don't even have an interest in baseball or football (US) let alone hockey ...

in addition, unless you are naive (and a lot of Utopians are) every decision contains a political element, especially at a large institution that is itself controlled by politics

I think I saw this poem on a statue somewhere , maybe I have the words a little wrong...

Give us your most fit, and educated
Your swiftest on skates, and highly rated
Men and women, The brightest and best
Yearning to make the NHL their nest
The rest can go play in the sand
And spend their Looney’s at Walt Disneyland

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Could you please provide quotes from the debates to support this contention?

Why bother to respond to this poster? Better to just ignore this poster's shtick and move on.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Could you please provide quotes from the debates to support this contention?

sure, right after you supply the proof that the intent of Title IX applied to everything in higher Education EXCEPT athletics.

 

[giwan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Could you please provide quotes from the debates to support this contention?

http://www.si.com/search/site/title ix

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance" - Title IX

The words "sports" or "athletics" are not even mentioned in Title IX. At a time when women earned 9 percent of all medical degrees and just 7 percent of law degrees, Bayh and the other Title IX supporters were simply hoping to provide more opportunities for women in higher education, give them a better shot at higher-paying jobs.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

sure, right after you supply the proof that the intent of Title IX applied to everything in higher Education EXCEPT athletics.

Would you like a link to the actual text of Title IX, which doesn't mention athletics? How about a quote from one of the bill's authors that athletics wasn't a consideration?

Oh, wait, I already supplied those.