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.

Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

PrezdeJohnson09 said:
While not the national one, I do keep tabs on the SUNYAC comissioner's cup standings and get depressed that Oswego is so far behind the rest of the conference in almost every sport except for hockey.

I understand Geneseo and Cortland...but there is no excuse for Oswego to not be able to compete for the third spot yet they are never anywhere close.

This is the exact reason why I vehmitently oppose a move to Division I for Oswego because the rest of the athletic program would suffer even more.
Click to expand...
How do you think I feel about Clarkson?? All the money goes to the hockey teams (not a bad thing), but the rest of the sports are mediocre at best and need to catch lightening in a bottle to make the NCAA's.

I can understand how you can designate sport A has your major sport, but to let the rest become the ugly stepsisters does not seem to be in keeping with what D-III is all about. At the same token, you don't want all the sports to be at .500 either. It's a tough balance, but I think Clarkson could do better (but then again Potsdam is not exactly the garden spot of NYS).
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

kylemiller said:
does anybody know when the season tickets for the upcoming season will be announced?
Click to expand...

No offense, but let's let the School year (and spring athletics season) END before we expect the college to take time to discuss business matters for the next season... :rolleyes:
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Here is tidbit from the new website :cool: :o

On the women's side, the Cardinals set a Division III regular-season attendance record with 1,736 in a 4-1 win over two-time defending national champion Middlebury on Feb. 8, 2006; and the 2007 NCAA championship game outdrew its male counterpart by 300.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Not exactly a surprise considering where the men's and women's championships were. The men still outdrew the women if you count all 3 games.

Then you have years like this one, where the announced attendence for the men's title game outdrew the entire women's NCAA tournament handily.

But more importantly, what's your point norm?
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Matthew Webb said:
A home team drew a big crowd in the NCAA tournament. Stunner. Again...what's the point?
Click to expand...

The Women's Division III NCAA tournaments are always held in front of a home team, yet they don't always draw a big crowd, let alone outdraw the men's tournament, so I am left still trying to figure out your point.

Also, without Title IX, would a public school have fielded a women's hockey team?
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
The Women's Division III NCAA tournaments are always held in front of a home team, yet they don't always draw a big crowd, let alone outdraw the men's tournament, so I am left still trying to figure out your point.

Also, without Title IX, would a public school have fielded a women's hockey team?
Click to expand...
Again, a fair comparison woud be this year's lake placid men's championship vs. a western women's final. It's embarassingly not even close.

And in 2007 the men's frozen four still badly outdrew the women.

And yes, there were women's hockey teams before title IX was in existence. I know the NCAA has only sanctioned DI women's hockey for the past 10 years, not sure if DIII is the same story or not.

Again, what's your point? In an absolute best case scenario for the comparison, the women outdrew the men for one game. This year the men's title game alone outdrew the women's entire tournament. Badly.

I doubt either the men or women's tournament made money or came close to breaking even in 2007. I hope you're not using that as some kind of moral victory for women's hockey or title IX, because going "for one year we lost money, but we outdrew the men for one game!" is kind of sad to look at as an achievement.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
The Women's Division III NCAA tournaments are always held in front of a home team, yet they don't always draw a big crowd, let alone outdraw the men's tournament, so I am left still trying to figure out your point.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out why it's notable at all. With the locations and participants as they were, there's no way the women shouldn't have outdrawn the men.

It's a pointless comparison, so I'm still trying to figure out why the factoid is significant. If anything actually, the fact it is "notable" to some speaks only to how pathetic attendance is for women's hockey, and that's not a good thing. It's almost like a "hey look! we actually drew fans for a change!" sort of thing. CongraDulations?

Aside from that, what the hell does Title IX have to do with anything?
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

one_to7 said:
Again, a fair comparison woud be this year's lake placid men's championship vs. a western women's final. It's embarassingly not even close.

And in 2007 the men's frozen four still badly outdrew the women.

And yes, there were women's hockey teams before title IX was in existence. I know the NCAA has only sanctioned DI women's hockey for the past 10 years, not sure if DIII is the same story or not.

Again, what's your point? In an absolute best case scenario for the comparison, the women outdrew the men for one game. This year the men's title game alone outdrew the women's entire tournament. Badly.

I doubt either the men or women's tournament made money or came close to breaking even in 2007. I hope you're not using that as some kind of moral victory for women's hockey or title IX, because going "for one year we lost money, but we outdrew the men for one game!" is kind of sad to look at as an achievement.
Click to expand...

The NCAA just awarded its 9th Division III women's title this past year to Amherst.

Elmira won the first two, then Middlebury took three, Plattsburgh won two, and now Amherst has taken the last two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top