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
- Thread starter OneTimer
- Start date
jumbodaddy77
New member
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
I completely understand that this is now a 'discussion' that goes well beyond UMich and/or MSU adding women's hockey. But, for what it's worth, here's my understanding of where things stand.
1. This is not a Title IX issue. Both are fully complaint and do do not need to add women's hockey, or any other sport for that matter. Title IX is a non-issue.
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.
3. MSU will not add a non-revenue generating women's sport like hockey unless UMich does. That said, they are currently updating Munn Arena to ensure they have the capacity to add a women's team if UMich decides to do so. Nevertheless, MSU will not be a first-mover here.
4. All the USA hockey stats indicate that Michigan is one of the top three hockey states. I can't disagree. But girls hockey in Michigan is well behind MN and MA. I'd love to see the girls stats broken-out by state. My sense is that they would tell a different story. Namely, MI girls hockey is more similar to Chicago, not MN or MA. There's definitely room for a D1 program or two in MI, but it's not a moral outrage. Look at the 18U USA camps this year--MI gets 3 spots while MN and MA get 10-15?
5. Still, the top players in MI are very, very good. The Gophers, BC, Mercyhurst, and others know that.
I completely understand that this is now a 'discussion' that goes well beyond UMich and/or MSU adding women's hockey. But, for what it's worth, here's my understanding of where things stand.
1. This is not a Title IX issue. Both are fully complaint and do do not need to add women's hockey, or any other sport for that matter. Title IX is a non-issue.
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.
3. MSU will not add a non-revenue generating women's sport like hockey unless UMich does. That said, they are currently updating Munn Arena to ensure they have the capacity to add a women's team if UMich decides to do so. Nevertheless, MSU will not be a first-mover here.
4. All the USA hockey stats indicate that Michigan is one of the top three hockey states. I can't disagree. But girls hockey in Michigan is well behind MN and MA. I'd love to see the girls stats broken-out by state. My sense is that they would tell a different story. Namely, MI girls hockey is more similar to Chicago, not MN or MA. There's definitely room for a D1 program or two in MI, but it's not a moral outrage. Look at the 18U USA camps this year--MI gets 3 spots while MN and MA get 10-15?
5. Still, the top players in MI are very, very good. The Gophers, BC, Mercyhurst, and others know that.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Great post, thank you. I'm buying everything you say.
But it seems so regressive doesn't it, no D1 in Michigan? Given the history of hockey in the state and the storied program at UMich it makes it so stark……………the previous thread about not televising the national championship game and things along those lines. Having no D1 in such a US Hockey hotbed seems to be making a major statement of just say "no" to growing women's hockey, and in turn just say "no" to growing hockey.
Although multiple posters are saying it comes down to one guy. That's fascinating.
Great post, thank you. I'm buying everything you say.
But it seems so regressive doesn't it, no D1 in Michigan? Given the history of hockey in the state and the storied program at UMich it makes it so stark……………the previous thread about not televising the national championship game and things along those lines. Having no D1 in such a US Hockey hotbed seems to be making a major statement of just say "no" to growing women's hockey, and in turn just say "no" to growing hockey.
Although multiple posters are saying it comes down to one guy. That's fascinating.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
While UMich and MSU are the two schools that get a lot of attention for not having women's hockey as a varsity sport, let's not lose sight of the following:
Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.
Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.
While UMich and MSU are the two schools that get a lot of attention for not having women's hockey as a varsity sport, let's not lose sight of the following:
Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.
Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
It's not as much a hotbed as you may think, specifically on the women's side. Very closed minded and regional at best.
It's not as much a hotbed as you may think, specifically on the women's side. Very closed minded and regional at best.
96IllinoisDad
New member
Great point.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
It's a culture and taxpayer issue. MN should not be compared to MI, hell even WI is more women's hockey program friendly than MI. Regardless, the two LARGEST Uni's in MI do not, one WSU did for a short time and I know personally one has had repeated talks about it.
Add to that, some of those D-I men's programs may not be around in a few more years. So your argument is not valid.
It's a culture and taxpayer issue. MN should not be compared to MI, hell even WI is more women's hockey program friendly than MI. Regardless, the two LARGEST Uni's in MI do not, one WSU did for a short time and I know personally one has had repeated talks about it.
Add to that, some of those D-I men's programs may not be around in a few more years. So your argument is not valid.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
So now it’s turned into an argument over what they meant by “person” eh?
ROFL
You can spin it however you want, apparently the real reason is that a Canadian male coach is depriving Canadian women the right to play hockey for the Michigan universities. Or so they say.
So now it’s turned into an argument over what they meant by “person” eh?
ROFL
You can spin it however you want, apparently the real reason is that a Canadian male coach is depriving Canadian women the right to play hockey for the Michigan universities. Or so they say.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
I think that a big difference is that in Minnesota, girls' hockey is a serious high school sport. Particularly with a sport that is in the early stages of generating participation and acceptance (and women's hockey still is) this is a big advantage relative to places where girls' high school hockey is an afterthought if it exists at all. It helps directly in that it encourages more girls to start playing the game but it's also an indirect advantage.
While we all wish that there was more interest in women's hockey even here in Minnesota, that the high school game is meaningful produces a lot more engagement from the population at large. There are more people who have spent time rooting for a girls' team and while many of them will never become serious fans of women's hockey, it's easier to get buy-in from them for the idea of having a women's team.
I think that a big difference is that in Minnesota, girls' hockey is a serious high school sport. Particularly with a sport that is in the early stages of generating participation and acceptance (and women's hockey still is) this is a big advantage relative to places where girls' high school hockey is an afterthought if it exists at all. It helps directly in that it encourages more girls to start playing the game but it's also an indirect advantage.
While we all wish that there was more interest in women's hockey even here in Minnesota, that the high school game is meaningful produces a lot more engagement from the population at large. There are more people who have spent time rooting for a girls' team and while many of them will never become serious fans of women's hockey, it's easier to get buy-in from them for the idea of having a women's team.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Yeah, it's kind of funny how, if you want to understand what a law means, you have to learn the legal definition of the words in it.
Yeah, it's kind of funny how, if you want to understand what a law means, you have to learn the legal definition of the words in it.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Fair enough. 'Hotbed' is probably overstating it although I was speaking relatively. Michigan does seem like a good hockey area compared to most states of the US. And it still seems like an area that has better potential for growth in women's hockey than most. That's what is the drag part of it for me. If they joined in with D1 programs it may help get the young girls involved and maybe turn into something.
Again, by commenting repeatedly, it starts to sound heavy like I'm trying to blame someone for something real bad. But it's more commenting on where I think the opportunities are.
Fair enough. 'Hotbed' is probably overstating it although I was speaking relatively. Michigan does seem like a good hockey area compared to most states of the US. And it still seems like an area that has better potential for growth in women's hockey than most. That's what is the drag part of it for me. If they joined in with D1 programs it may help get the young girls involved and maybe turn into something.
Again, by commenting repeatedly, it starts to sound heavy like I'm trying to blame someone for something real bad. But it's more commenting on where I think the opportunities are.
Last edited:
[SueE=northhockey;5975788]Once Coach Berenson retires, the door for women's hockey in Michigan will open[/QUOTE]
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. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.
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. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
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. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.[/QUOTE]
Mary Sue is happily gone.
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. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.[/QUOTE]
Mary Sue is happily gone.
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of women's college hockey in Michigan has not only hurt women's high school...it could well be hurting men's high school and therefore, the UMI and MSU men's programs themselves. I don't think we know the full impacts of this.
Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of women's college hockey in Michigan has not only hurt women's high school...it could well be hurting men's high school and therefore, the UMI and MSU men's programs themselves. I don't think we know the full impacts of this.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
exactly, Berenson has no legitimate power to keep out women's hockey, consequently it is political
the author, Birch Bayh, is mentioned nowhere in this thread
exactly, Berenson has no legitimate power to keep out women's hockey, consequently it is political
the author, Birch Bayh, is mentioned nowhere in this thread
Last edited:
giwan
Really??!!
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Have personally tried several times to get more HS to offer women's hockey. Stating it would be self supporting no school dollars only being recognized from the school. Though some parents were very interested, the HS AD's for the most part were not. Could not get the coaches of the few HS's that do have women's HS hockey to show support or the willingness to schedule any games if I was successful in forming a 5-6 team league.
On the men's side of HS hockey they will be going to a before and after season system.
Have personally tried several times to get more HS to offer women's hockey. Stating it would be self supporting no school dollars only being recognized from the school. Though some parents were very interested, the HS AD's for the most part were not. Could not get the coaches of the few HS's that do have women's HS hockey to show support or the willingness to schedule any games if I was successful in forming a 5-6 team league.
On the men's side of HS hockey they will be going to a before and after season system.
sbkbghockey
Registered User
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
Other than MSU and UM, the other hockey schools are NCAA DII schools with much smaller athletic budgets. They likely won't add women's hockey unless MSU and UM do. The two trend-setting programs could spark others to add the sport. Right now only MSU and UM would be in good shape to endure the extended travel being the first two teams in the region. Closest schools are OH State, Mercyhurst/RMU-PA, Wisconsin and Lindenwood.
The other thing to consider, the additions of Sparty and the Wolverines would likely shake up women's hockey similar to men's. the BIG10 would have six women's hockey teams and enough to start a women's championship. So the other MI schools wouldn't have MSU or UM as conference opponents if they did start programs.
Other than MSU and UM, the other hockey schools are NCAA DII schools with much smaller athletic budgets. They likely won't add women's hockey unless MSU and UM do. The two trend-setting programs could spark others to add the sport. Right now only MSU and UM would be in good shape to endure the extended travel being the first two teams in the region. Closest schools are OH State, Mercyhurst/RMU-PA, Wisconsin and Lindenwood.
The other thing to consider, the additions of Sparty and the Wolverines would likely shake up women's hockey similar to men's. the BIG10 would have six women's hockey teams and enough to start a women's championship. So the other MI schools wouldn't have MSU or UM as conference opponents if they did start programs.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
and long time college hockey fans will recall that UM, MSU, and Tech were in the WCHA and left because of travel, and it still hasn't settled out to this day which conference schools in the area belong to.
and long time college hockey fans will recall that UM, MSU, and Tech were in the WCHA and left because of travel, and it still hasn't settled out to this day which conference schools in the area belong to.
ritBLKnORGsuit
New member
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
That could happen but I feel the Big 10 wouldn't want to do that knowing they are less likely to get other current Big 10 schools to commit to a women's along with the a new men's hockey program. And having two really small conferences like the CHA currently is would not be good for women's hockey. It could happen later on but only once the sport grows and more programs form. 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.
That could happen but I feel the Big 10 wouldn't want to do that knowing they are less likely to get other current Big 10 schools to commit to a women's along with the a new men's hockey program. And having two really small conferences like the CHA currently is would not be good for women's hockey. It could happen later on but only once the sport grows and more programs form. 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.
HockeyEast33
New member
Re: More about expansion for women's hockey
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.
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.