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.

REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I am sure that a few Canadian schools would welcome some talent from south of the border!
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Very, very sad, a top notch program in Women's Hockey premier league gone? I've always enjoyed the drives form Mpls to the Ralph. Last years was right into a monster blizzard, and that's what we will remember, I guess.

Interesting observation: Isn't the State of North Dakota afloat on a ocean of oil and natural gas? Aren't/haven't they been collecting lots of taxes on this natural resource? The amount of $$ to support a program that already has one of the finest arenas in the world, in a city with, sorry, not much going on, is minimal. They can afford the gals hockey, and their swim teams!! Did the legislature have a say in this decision?
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

ne7minder said:
more likely they would say no because of the girl thing. I was really disappointed when we went to games there. There is a relatively small set of pictures for their national championships & huge images of formr players hoisting the Stanley Cup. Apparently the school only wants to be a farm team for the NHL.
Click to expand...
They'd probably say no because it wouldn't solve the problem. Are they just going to write a check every year to cover the cost of the team?

It sucks the story leaked to the Herald before the team was notified. But that's not the first time something like this has happened in sports, and it won't be the last. But until that I hear it was the President or AD who leaked it, that's on the individual(s) within the University who felt selfish enough to spill the beans to the Herald without thinking about the team.

It is extremely sad that at a school with the hockey tradition of North Dakota they can't make a women's team viable. But there are also some very simple truths the University faced that probably left them with no choice.

They were compelled by the Legislature to cut $1.3 million from their athletic budget. Women's hockey cost the school more than $1.5 million to operate, but generated less than $100,000 in revenue. That's for about 25 student athletes. The choice is to cut one expensive program or a whole lot of inexpensive programs. If you take option #2, you affect a lot more student athletes.

I feel terrible for the coaching staff and team, and even for those athletes who brought the program to where it was. But I'm not exactly sure what real alternatives existed.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I bet a couple there are MIAC schools who would EAGERLY pick up those Minnesota-born No Dak players if they can't find a DI school with open roster spots. But there is a plethora of foreign imports on that roster, wonder what happens to them?
 
Last edited:
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

It wasn't just leaked to the Herald. It's been out there for a while. I heard about it from some reporters I knew when I was at the NCHC Frozen Faceoff. I tweeted about a possible bad thing happening over the weekend. It was a badly kept secret, and as such they really should have talked to the players well in advance.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

EDIT: I had no clue that North Dakota moved its whole program to D-I in 2008, so never mind.
---
Regarding Title IX, there does seem to be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. What is the women's sport that's now providing an opportunity for women at North Dakota comparable to D-I men's hockey?

So, for example, Colorado College is a D-III school that of course plays up to D-I in men's hockey with no women's team, but they do play up to D-I in women's soccer. All the D-III ECAC schools playing up have men's and women's hockey.

Yes, I know the women's championship is a national collegiate championship not a D-I championship, but most D-II schools like UND are still playing up to D-I in NCAA classification for the championship

Yes, I know Title IX law, though I'm rusty. I know the three-pronged test, and how proportionality is a safe harbor, but you cannot claim that a school with one D-I program that is men's has equal opportunity for men and women. And the law is asymmetric in terms of cutting programs vs adding them, because you can achieve compliance by arguing that you have been increasing opportunities for women over time.

So this is one reason I did a double take when I first saw the news this morning. I do not expect that the UND program is in compliance in my recollection in the latest interpretation of the law, and it seems UND was willing to take that risk.
 
Last edited:
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I wonder if the Sioux NHLers could do something.

Some make very good money.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

joecct said:
I wonder if the Sioux NHLers could do something.

Some make very good money.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. They are "only" 1.3 million short. Parise alone was supposed to make 98 million over 13 years starting in 2012.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

drewkal said:
Very, very sad, a top notch program in Women's Hockey premier league gone? I've always enjoyed the drives form Mpls to the Ralph. Last years was right into a monster blizzard, and that's what we will remember, I guess.

Interesting observation: Isn't the State of North Dakota afloat on a ocean of oil and natural gas? Aren't/haven't they been collecting lots of taxes on this natural resource? The amount of $$ to support a program that already has one of the finest arenas in the world, in a city with, sorry, not much going on, is minimal. They can afford the gals hockey, and their swim teams!! Did the legislature have a say in this decision?
Click to expand...

Well, oil & gas prices have been down the last 5-6 years (remember when Newt promised us $10 a gallon gas prices by 2016?) so there would have been less revenue even assuming they did tax the extraction (I have no idea if they do or at what rate if they do). A lot of people got laid off so that has not helped them either. I have no idea what the states financial picture looks like but it is easily understood to not be what they assumed it would be 5 years ago.
 
dave1381 said:
Regarding Title IX, there does seem to be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. What is the women's sport that's now providing an opportunity for women at North Dakota comparable to D-I men's hockey?

So, for example, Colorado College is a D-III school that of course plays up to D-I in men's hockey with no women's team, but they do play up to D-I in women's soccer. All the D-III ECAC schools playing up have men's and women's hockey.

Yes, I know the women's championship is a national collegiate championship not a D-I championship, but most D-II schools like UND are still playing up to D-I in NCAA classification for the championship

Yes, I know Title IX law, though I'm rusty. I know the three-pronged test, and how proportionality is a safe harbor, but you cannot claim that a school with one D-I program that is men's has equal opportunity for men and women. And the law is asymmetric in terms of cutting programs vs adding them, because you can achieve compliance by arguing that you have been increasing opportunities for women over time.

So this is one reason I did a double take when I first saw the news this morning. I do not expect that the UND program is in compliance in my recollection in the latest interpretation of the law, and it seems UND was willing to take that risk.

EDIT: Right, the first prong is "Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the undergraduate enrollment" so while that could be interpreted as strict proportionality for a purely D-I school, a D-II school with one D-I sport is not in compliance with the first prong. And the school clearly is not in compliance with the second and third prong.
Click to expand...
North Dakota is D-1 in all sports.

I don't know the details, but according to the school UND was actually disproportionate in favor of women's spots before this cut. Cutting women's hockey brings it back to balanced.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Ok, D-I since 2008, I see. Yeah, I knew that cut baseball last year so overall they are proportionate.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

SJHovey said:
North Dakota is D-1 in all sports.

I don't know the details, but according to the school UND was actually disproportionate in favor of women's spots before this cut. Cutting women's hockey brings it back to balanced.
Click to expand...

I posted this link earlier, but I guess I'll repeat it.

I'm not sure what year their most recent info is for, but it shows that UND was spending significantly more on men's sports than on women's, upwards on 50% more (with the fifference coming almost entirely from football), and that the number of participants was 245 men and 212 women. With an overall student population of 52% men to 48% women, I guess that might be just barely compliant.

But they have discontinued *significantly* more sports with women participants than men. I have a hard time believing they will end up anywhere close to compliant after today, and I would fully expect a lawsuit will be forthcoming. I wonder about the chances of a court ordered a TRO stopping today's decision from going into effect. Calling 'time out' to prevent damage in advance of a lawsuit is exactly what TROs are supposed to do.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

The recruit who was there tweeted about it. Lauren Hennessey from Boston. Left Boston at 5 a.m. this morning and flew to the school on a recruiting visit. For crying out loud
 
robertearle said:
I posted this link earlier, but I guess I'll repeat it.

I'm not sure what year their most recent info is for, but it shows that UND was spending significantly more on men's sports than on women's, upwards on 50% more (with the fifference coming almost entirely from football), and that the number of participants was 245 men and 212 women. With an overall student population of 52% men to 48% women, I guess that might be just barely compliant.

But they have discontinued *significantly* more sports with women participants than men. I have a hard time believing they will end up anywhere close to compliant after today, and I would fully expect a lawsuit will be forthcoming. I wonder about the chances of a court ordered a TRO stopping today's decision from going into effect. Calling 'time out' to prevent damage in advance of a lawsuit is exactly what TROs are supposed to do.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/
Click to expand...
I don't that's current info. The school cut baseball last year, and maybe men's track?
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

SJHovey said:
I don't that's current info. The school cut baseball last year, and maybe men's track?
Click to expand...

Whether it took them one year or two to go from 'barely compliant' to 'not even close' is, I don't think, all that important.

(There's a facility on that site where you can download data, and select the years you want to download. For UND, they offer 2015 as the most recent for download, so I assume that's the year the other part of the site shows)
 
Last edited:
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Just heard from someone connected.

The scholarships will be honoured but...no hockey, (as we already know).

Lots of tears flowing.

So, do other coaches start chasing the ambulance here?

And what, THE RALPH gets mothballed or is the men's team still intact?...I suppose they turn a profit.
 
Last edited:
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

People can pile on UND. That's fine. Not the first time. But if I'm a fan of women's college hockey, my concern would be that this incident is a "canary in the coal mine". I suspect the North Dakota's women's hockey team isn't the only one hemmorraging large sums of cash.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

SJHovey said:
I suspect the North Dakota's women's hockey team isn't the only one hemmorraging large sums of cash.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the official-school generated reason for UMD's rhubarb with Miller coming sharply into focus 2 1/2 years ago.
 
Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Blackbeard said:
The scholarships will be honoured but...no hockey, (as we already know).
Click to expand...

Aren't most teams already stacked to their limit for next season by now? Surely the scholarships are gone, so these North Dakota players will have a hard time finding spots elsewhere, unless they plan to stay at North Dakota and just be students on their North Dakota scholarships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top