Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

Thank you for including the registration data from the OWHA. I have tried multiple times to include the graph but am unable to attach to this thread.
This input really has me thinking about so many aspects of "Is it the right time for more teams?" While I agree there has been some flattening in Ontario, the overall growth from 2000 to now in both US and Canada seems significant. Your comments have made me re-think and re-analyze. I did take a peak at the 10U and 8U numbers over the past 5 years to get a long range perspective of the health of the pipeline.
Im also churning a bit as to whether the current mix of teams are the "Right" teams and is that significant in itself?
After Niagara and Wayne State folded it opened the door for new programs at Penn State and others. One might think that these have more resources and a better draw for women's hockey and education.
In Michigan there are 7 D-I men's programs and 0 women's, you could also add Miami and Bowling Green to that mix. If one of those schools were to add a women's program would they have a better chance at success because they are "hockey schools" and would that ultimately negatively impact schools with less resources or academic prowess?
In conclusion, is the overall success of a team and/or D-I women's hockey more about what seems to be a "magic 35" number or is it more about team placement in schools that have a vested interest in the sport of hockey and the resources to manage a program?

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

?

Women’s hockey is a money pit. If you don’t have a million plus lying around to throw down the toilet, you should not be in the game. And with the lawsuit(s) threatened by the bulldog, any school contemplating adding women’s hockey would be well advised to wait and see what happens.
UMD is a great example.
No competition from pro sports, hockey hotbed, great facility. What did it get them? They gained more PR from firing their coach than all the championships they won. Losing money as fast as it can be shoveled. Little interest from fans. Caused no gain in enrollment, in fact it went down.
The real question is, can the present schools maintain their programs?

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Growth comes down to money, like @ PSU and ASU. If you have a place to play, it comes down to annual operating costs. What are the yearly operating costs of OSU for instance?

Obviously women's hockey is just money sucking venture (aren't all endeavors including women money sucking ventures ;?) and in reality no university wants to shovel $100's out the window on anything unprofitable, not even the football rich B10 schools. If it was not for gender equity, women's college hockey would not exist.

The talent gap in the wcha has come way down over the last couple years, thought the national powerhouses still get the creme of the crop. The second level talent pool is just deeper. The 10-1, 6-0 series are a thing of the past in the wcha.

 

[D2D]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

The 10-1, 6-0 series are a thing of the past in the wcha.

Might be a little premature to say this with any certainty. In five games last season the Gophers outscored SCSU by a 35-1 margin. In six games vs. Minnesota State it was 38-6. Of course this coming season the scores could be a lot closer - we'll have to wait and see.

 

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

Women’s hockey is a money pit. If you don’t have a million plus lying around to throw down the toilet, you should not be in the game. And with the lawsuit(s) threatened by the bulldog, any school contemplating adding women’s hockey would be well advised to wait and see what happens.
UMD is a great example.
No competition from pro sports, hockey hotbed, great facility. What did it get them? They gained more PR from firing their coach than all the championships they won. Losing money as fast as it can be shoveled. Little interest from fans. Caused no gain in enrollment, in fact it went down.
The real question is, can the present schools maintain their programs?

Besides a handful of Women's Basketball teams, not a single female sport generates revenue above the operating expenses. Yes women's hockey is a money pit. In fact the majority of sports both men and women are money pits. Football, basketball and maybe men's hockey are typically the only sports in the black and most likely funding the other 80% of sport teams offered at most schools.
It's always about making trade-off decisions on where the revenue gets allocated.
A few years ago the University of Michigan was given $3 million from the NHL for the Winter Classic. Could Michigan have decided at that time to spend that money on a women's program? Yes. Did they instead use it for other teams like lacrosse? Yes
A wealthy donor would be easy but not necessarily the only way a team can be supported.

 

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

Might be a little premature to say this with any certainty. In five games last season the Gophers outscored SCSU by a 35-1 margin. In six games vs. Minnesota State it was 38-6. Of course this coming season the scores could be a lot closer - we'll have to wait and see.

Something is really wrong at SCSU if they can't recruit when the national camp is held there every year. Just saying.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Something is really wrong at SCSU if they can't recruit when the national camp is held there every year. Just saying.

That might be the problem. Not a great campus or town compared to many other places. National camp girls who make it several times get an early and repeated look and maybe are turned off by it. And its not a great town for the parents who attend the National Camp. Doesn't make them want to send their kid there and go visit. Not that the parent's desires should be a big factor but I bet that a lot of them aren't pushing hard for their girl to go there when there are some great destination schools where the parent's weekend would be a heck of a good time.

 

[Ted Knight]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

We still get 10-0. The difference is that it is increasingly more like the 10-0 scores seen in major league baseball where the score between the same teams the next day could easily be 3-2. Plus, it isn't as painful to watch the 10-0 now as it was 15 years ago. Now the difference is in a dozen or so plays. Back then, it was the entire flow of play, where one team could play at an entirely different pace that the other couldn't approach.

I remember a 10-2 score in November to which the losing team won both the Beanpot and semifinal against the team that had 10.
it still stings!!!

 

[ne7minder]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Besides a handful of Women's Basketball teams, not a single female sport generates revenue above the operating expenses. Yes women's hockey is a money pit. In fact the majority of sports both men and women are money pits. Football, basketball and maybe men's hockey are typically the only sports in the black and most likely funding the other 80% of sport teams offered at most schools.
It's always about making trade-off decisions on where the revenue gets allocated.
A few years ago the University of Michigan was given $3 million from the NHL for the Winter Classic. Could Michigan have decided at that time to spend that money on a women's program? Yes. Did they instead use it for other teams like lacrosse? Yes
A wealthy donor would be easy but not necessarily the only way a team can be supported.

Its worse than that. Most football programs do not actually turn a profit if you take into account the amount of money to universities put into them. The "profit" is on paper with some sloppy bookkeeping to make it look better. What football is good at is separating rich old rubes from their money. We could argue if that makes up for it.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

That might be the problem. Not a great campus or town compared to many other places. National camp girls who make it several times get an early and repeated look and maybe are turned off by it. And its not a great town for the parents who attend the National Camp. Doesn't make them want to send their kid there and go visit. Not that the parent's desires should be a big factor but I bet that a lot of them aren't pushing hard for their girl to go there when there are some great destination schools where the parent's weekend would be a heck of a good time.

You could not be more correct! Had the chance to go there twice during National Camps. Bedbugs in the dorms, no air conditioning in the dorms on 90 degree days (yeah, I know school isn't in session then but it leaves a bad impression), ice (prior to the overhaul - can't say now) was not very good (at the National Hockey Center!!), cafeteria where the girls ate was out of the 70's, no room to do dryland anywhere in the facility, I could go on. I actually thought St. Cloud the town itself was OK, river was pretty scenic, and the people were great. But the school was just unimpressive on many levels. You would think that SCSU would be going out of their way to provide the best facilities available to the girls during the summer camps but it sure didn't seem that way - unless those ARE the best facilities and that would be even a worse advertisement.....

In many ways, Monroe Community College in Rochester, NY where they used to hold the younger kids camps was way nicer than SCSU. The rink facilities there weren't great either though....

 

[ARM]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

… ice (prior to the overhaul - can't say now) was not very good (at the National Hockey Center!!), cafeteria where the girls ate was out of the 70's, no room to do dryland anywhere in the facility, I could go on.

I would guess that one of the things upgraded during the renovations would be the off-ice facilities. There has to at least be more space, and if that was a problem on the women's side, it had to be an even bigger issue for the men, where the competition often plays in better facilities. SCSU recruits fine on the men's side, so it would figure to be a hurdle that can be overcome. That didn't happen during Giesen's era, but we'll have to wait and see how Rud does with his recruiting classes. If nothing else, the curb appeal has to be better after the upgrade. I know it is just cosmetic, but if they bring recruits and families in through the front door and lobby, it makes a lot better first impression than it did a few years ago.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Most football programs do not actually turn a profit if you take into account the amount of money to universities put into them. The "profit" is on paper with some sloppy bookkeeping to make it look better. What football is good at is separating rich old rubes from their money. We could argue if that makes up for it.

don't forget the $10 sweatshirts they sell for $40, and all the rest of the crap
but you are right, college sports exists to separate old phartz from their money
this is old, yet sheds some light on the subject

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue

 

[D2D]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

don't forget the $10 sweatshirts they sell for $40, and all the rest of the crap
but you are right, college sports exists to separate old phartz from their money

We just need to keep in mind that supporting your school, whether it's by buying an overpriced sweatshirt or making a donation, is purely voluntary. And if it's mostly "old phartz" who choose to lend their support, it's likely because they have more of the means to do so. Chances are they are choosing to donate to other favorite causes or charities also.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Well sure, it’s their money so they can do with it what they want, but you are off topic, the point somebody made is that college athletics is not profitable.
Really?
It is a shell game, do you include or not profits from selling over priced trinkets?
are you trying to say all those sweatshirts and hats are bought out of loyalty to thr math & geography department?
do you include donations?
again, do people donate because of the football/hoops or the physics department?
Do you include in expenses, full tuition to the athlete which doesn’t cost the school anything (especially considering many athletes don’t even occupy a seat in the classroom) and media revenue is only increasing as schools figure out how to maximize their return?
people aren't paying to have the Big10 network to watch students in the chemistry lab

 

[ARM]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

people aren't paying to have the Big10 network to watch students in the chemistry lab

I'm surprised that day hasn't come, though. Maybe if they blew things up? We've often discussed the lack of TV coverage for the women's hockey NCAA Tournament, which is made more painful by some of the other "sports" that find their way onto the tube. The latest one I saw on ESPN was rival colleges with teams playing some video game. The map they were competing on was usually displayed, but the cameras would occasionally cut away to the humans sitting behind their computers/playstations. I think I'd have rather watched the students in chem lab. I imagine that ESPN got financial incentive from the creator of the game software to televise this. Money still talks. If a manufacturer of test tubes or beakers would cough up some dough, I'm sure ESPN could find an open time slot for "Lab Wars".

 

[driventoit]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I'm surprised that day hasn't come, though. Maybe if they blew things up? We've often discussed the lack of TV coverage for the women's hockey NCAA Tournament, which is made more painful by some of the other "sports" that find their way onto the tube. The latest one I saw on ESPN was rival colleges with teams playing some video game. The map they were competing on was usually displayed, but the cameras would occasionally cut away to the humans sitting behind their computers/playstations. I think I'd have rather watched the students in chem lab. I imagine that ESPN got financial incentive from the creator of the game software to televise this. Money still talks. If a manufacturer of test tubes or beakers would cough up some dough, I'm sure ESPN could find an open time slot for "Lab Wars".

Chem lab beats a lot of things (including lacrosse!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSw7cHfxbu8

The take-away for women's hockey? "Chance favors only the prepared mind."

 

[LtPowers]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Oh, and isn't the fact that schools can no longer go D1 in just one sport another obstacle to more schools adding a D1 team?

Only for Division III schools. Division II schools can keep their women's hockey teams at D2 and still compete for a National Collegiate championship.


Powers &8^]

 

[KTDC]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

According to today's StarTribune, this year Minnesota had 3,901 U8 girls hockey players, the most ever. Trending in right direction in this case at least.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I'm surprised that day hasn't come, though....If a manufacturer of test tubes or beakers would cough up some dough, I'm sure ESPN could find an open time slot for "Lab Wars".

there are a lot of cool things going on at colleges that people would enjoy TV coverage of, solar car racing for example
but you are probably right, things like Lacrosse, bowling, and badmitton probably get coverage because some sporting goods manufacturer is coughing up money while the hockey sporting goods expect coverage of the men's game which draws more viewers rather the women.