Project 70

[blockski]

Re: Project 70

That's probably a topic better suited to a political thread in the cafe, but at the risk of dabbling: it's not going to happen. Nobody in Congress wants to be the one to go on record saying he thinks we've done too much to support women and that it's time to dial back Title IX. Republicans will never touch it, since they don't have the strongest record with female voters anyway and they know it would be all too easy for Democrats to hang the misogynist label around their necks. If it were ever going to happen, it would have to be a Democratic controlled Congress, and I can't see them risking upsetting one of their key constituencies.

Unfortunately, white male sports fans aren't really anyone's key constituency, so nobody is going to help us out on this issue.

It wouldn't necessarily require a change in the law. The legal language of Title IX is quite broad, as many statutes are. The specific test comes from executive interpretation, specifically from the Department of Ed's Office of Civil Rights.

So, it doesn't have to happen via Congress. It could happen via a court challenge or via executive rule-making. And you won't see abolishment or even whole-sale changes.

The Civil Rights Commission has looked into it and has said they think the current interpretation does discriminate against men, particularly thanks to the current three-pronged test for compliance. The three prongs are:

1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.

#2 is basically only for schools in transition, and by showing improvement you can avoid losing your federal funding. Prong 1 is the only real way to meet compliance, and how most ADs do it today - scholarships and total athletes must be in rough alignment with the gender breakdown of the student body.

The key disagreement is in prong three:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-01-title-ix_N.htm

The commission also recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex," almost always women or girls.

Now, I agree, whether it's Congress or the executive, no one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

 

[joecct]

Re: Project 70

Gang

Remember the moratoriums and the proposed legislation. One of the proposals will limit D-I championships to D-I schools with the existing non D-I schools grandfathered in. I think that has a high likelihood of passage whenever it gets to the floor.

If that's the case, forget the D-II schools and look just @ the D-I's.

As to the rest, there has to be a positive (or nearly so) cash flow associated with the men's program. It's going to cost over $1M to field an NCAA D-I ice hockey team @ a state school. If you have 18 home games and a $20 avg ticket, you need almost 3,000 fannies in the seats every night to break even. Can they get that? If somebody can guarentee those numbers for 10 years and underwrite the cost of the building, then MAYBE a school would consider adding ice hockey. Outside of that, no way, Jose.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Project 70

And the proceeds would go to Project 70?

The first rule of Project 70 is "You do no talk about Project 70".

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Project 70

Gang

Remember the moratoriums and the proposed legislation. One of the proposals will limit D-I championships to D-I schools with the existing non D-I schools grandfathered in. I think that has a high likelihood of passage whenever it gets to the floor.

If that's the case, forget the D-II schools and look just @ the D-I's.

As to the rest, there has to be a positive (or nearly so) cash flow associated with the men's program. It's going to cost over $1M to field an NCAA D-I ice hockey team @ a state school. If you have 18 home games and a $20 avg ticket, you need almost 3,000 fannies in the seats every night to break even. Can they get that? If somebody can guarentee those numbers for 10 years and underwrite the cost of the building, then MAYBE a school would consider adding ice hockey. Outside of that, no way, Jose.

Yeah I think it's important to look at the DI schools, we can look at DII schools who are either in the process or have expressed interest in moving the entire ADs to DI.

I think the 3,000 fans per game is a number that these schools can achieve easy.


By comparison here's some examples:

Lake Superior- a Div II school playing in the DI CCHA averaged 2,280 last season.
Ohio State- a large Big-10 school in a HUGE football market averaged 3,312 last season.
Alabama-Huntsville- Div II school playing in CHA averaged 1865 (over 12 home games with no home games against Big name opponents).

I think the OSU average is a number that most new schools could reach. OSU is a football school and the NHL Blue Jackets are a couple miles away and even in that environment the team averages 3000+ fans. Alabama Huntsville averages close to 2,000 and that was in the CHA against opponents from litterally the other side of the country, in a small non-traditional hockey market and in direct competition with a minor league team that plays in the same off-campus arena.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Project 70

It's interesting to note that with the addition of Auburn, the entire SEC now has club hockey. There are many markets within that conference that have had success at the minor pro level with teams that have actually outdrawn many of the D-I programs. Kentucky, LSU, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Tennessee, Auburn and Alabama all would be very good draws in their markets and would garner tremendous sponsor and alumni support. No to the BTHC, Bring on the SECHC!!! Roll Tide!!!

More to that, and I apologize if it has been said already didn't read through all the posts, the Pac 10 has a Pac 8 club hockey conference. You add the two Alaska schools in there you have a 10 team western league.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Project 70

What if they got support from the local hockey teams? In the discussions about the possibility of hockey in California Paul Kelly mentioned the 3 teams in the state had expressed interest in helping to create new teams there. What if the Southern NHL teams did the same? This money would only be going toward hockey, it wouldn't be at the expense of any other program at these schools.

The other problem is of course that the SEC league is ACHA D3, so moving up to full NCAA D1 status would take some time I'd imagine (though I am not too familiar with those rules).

Well not so much that but facilities. Alabama and Auburn are having to drive all the way to Huntsville to play. And There aren't any decent facilities in oxford Mississippi either.

 

[GoNU5]

Re: Project 70

Well not so much that but facilities. Alabama and Auburn are having to drive all the way to Huntsville to play. And There aren't any decent facilities in oxford Mississippi either.

That's probably one of the biggest issues with expansion in these areas. A lot of schools in the area have club teams at least, which means they have access to ice rinks. I wonder how much it would cost to pay for the major expansions that are likely needed for these teams. My thinking in that previous post was that some of the money that College Hockey Inc. would be able to dole out money to the potential D1 hockey schools would go to help with the costs of building or expanding an ice rink.

 

[Rover]

Re: Project 70

IMO, the biggest problem now, unlike in previous eras, is that there's no room for growth in existing conferences. Were it that the NCAA gave a rat's arse about hockey, maybe that could be fixed. However they don't so that's not a viable option.

What I can see is a program like Navy starting up, or a school that can play in an existing facility because as posters have said, the economics have to be there. However, the only thing that I can see in the near future that will expand hockey is the Big 10 conference. Why? Because it'll make money, and that's really the only thing that gets it done.

What I don't think is that this will be the end of college hockey. In reality it'll allow more schools to fill in the openings in the two conferences affected. Who wants to jump into those slots? Don't know, but what it does create is the opportunity for 6 schools to do so, and that would be a significant expansion of the sport.

 

[davyd83]

Re: Project 70

Well not so much that but facilities. Alabama and Auburn are having to drive all the way to Huntsville to play. And There aren't any decent facilities in oxford Mississippi either.

Alabama plays their club team games in the Pelham Civic Center outside Birmingham. The facility, though far from ideal, has hosted minor pro and junior hockey as well and has 2 sheets of ice. Also available would be the Birmingham Jefferson Civic Center arena, which is an outstanding facility for hockey, though only the lower bowl would likely be used. Auburn will play its games across the river in Columbus, GA in a very good facility which has long housed minor pro hockey. As for Oxford, no there isn't a hockey ready facility there, but the Banccorp South Center a half hour away in Tupelo is a very good hockey facility, with good ice and plenty of dressing room space and good sightlines.

 

[cycledown]

Re: Project 70

IMO, the biggest problem now, unlike in previous eras, is that there's no room for growth in existing conferences. Were it that the NCAA gave a rat's arse about hockey, maybe that could be fixed. However they don't so that's not a viable option.

What I can see is a program like Navy starting up, or a school that can play in an existing facility because as posters have said, the economics have to be there. However, the only thing that I can see in the near future that will expand hockey is the Big 10 conference. Why? Because it'll make money, and that's really the only thing that gets it done.

What I don't think is that this will be the end of college hockey. In reality it'll allow more schools to fill in the openings in the two conferences affected. Who wants to jump into those slots? Don't know, but what it does create is the opportunity for 6 schools to do so, and that would be a significant expansion of the sport.

In the Hockey club realm of the Big-Ten Penn State could be a front runner and Iowa's club team has grown significantly.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Project 70

This school.

Make it happen.

Imagine their Pep Band.

 

[komey1]

Re: Project 70

I agree with that as well, but the George Mason comparison was more in response to Gleason's assertion that RIT is now some kind of national power. I don't think even The Lerch is drinking that much koolaid. One solid run does not a national power make, especially for a team in a conference that's never even sniffed an at-large bid. But yes, I think there's no doubt that we can expect great things in Atlantic Hockey from RIT in the future.

Some bandwagoners might think that - but I don't think Lerch does. Give RIT another couple berths in the tournament and some wins to go with it, then we can talk.

Now to tie this in to Project 70 - RIT could possibly be used as a model for getting DIII teams up to DI once (if?) the moratorium on moving up is lifted for being competitive.

 

[Patman]

Re: Project 70

Some bandwagoners might think that - but I don't think Lerch does. Give RIT another couple berths in the tournament and some wins to go with it, then we can talk.

Now to tie this in to Project 70 - RIT could possibly be used as a model for getting DIII teams up to DI once (if?) the moratorium on moving up is lifted for being competitive.

I wonder if College Hockey Inc will lobby the NCAA itself on the divisional issue? Just a thought.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Project 70

I wonder if College Hockey Inc will lobby the NCAA itself on the divisional issue? Just a thought.

Thats a whole other can of worms right there.