Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!
True enough. But it also seems to be a common assumption that every school should offer the same "core sports," regardless of the differing circumstances. Somehow that's seen as the safe choice. But to me, that's a recipe for duplication of services for some, and unmet needs for others. Perhaps politically expedient, but not a desirable result.
The choice of the core sports isn't made in a vacuum. It's determined primarily by which sports are a part of the conference that a school belongs to. In the case of the Big 10, there are 14 sports each for men and women. Schools in the conference have a reasonable expectation that other members will prioritize the sports that are a part of the conference. Only four schools offer more than one women's sport that isn't a part of the conference slate, and Michigan already was a varsity women's water polo team.
Men's hockey just barely makes the cut with six teams. Men's lacrosse is the only other sport for men or women with as few participants. So, despite the fact that the Big 10 Network likes to show men's hockey games, it's hard to squint enough to see ice hockey as a core conference sport. As such, there's a pretty strong institutional bias against it being a sport that a school would add, for either gender. $100 million can overcome that bias, but that's what you're looking at.
In this case, we're talking about a group of schools that all have good rinks in place. As such, the single biggest obstacle to starting new hockey programs at most U.S. colleges isn't an insurmountable problem for these Michigan schools.
Wrong. I have no idea what the situation is in East Lansing, but as the article in the original post points out, Yost doesn't have the capacity to add a women's varsity team. There's nowhere to put another permanent locker room. There isn't even another building close enough to do what OSU does, as all of the building entrances are surrounded by parking. When Michigan was talking about adding a women's team, the plan was to use The Cube, but this isn't a great alternative, as it's several miles from campus and the facilities are reminiscent of All Seasons in Mankato. There's a reason the men's NTDP abandoned it as soon as it could.
Why shouldn't one or two of the other schools seize the opportunity to fill the void? Of course realistic expansion opportunities may be a ways off. But with a dedicated, coordinated, long term effort, why not?
A better question is, why? You're reasoning backwards. You have assumed that schools adding women's hockey is the correct choice, and are trying to construct justifications for that assumption. But the universities you're looking at don't start from your conclusion. To them, women's hockey is just one among numerous sports that they could add, with nothing a priori that makes it stand out. For most of them, the rink would have similar issues as Yost.
As just one example, why not Michigan Tech?
Because it's a small school that's already facing a financial crunch. The Michigan legislature has cut the state appropriations for the public universities deeply over the last two decades. It hasn't been as drastic at the schools other than UM (which is now, for all intents and purposes, a private university that happens to charge lower tuition if you live in the state), but it has curtailed any major expansions. Tech almost killed its football program in 2003. They've been in the situation North Dakota is now for almost 15 years. The money isn't there.
Instead, our "priority" seems to be throwing our sisters under the bus. Why waste rhetorical effort on such grim defeatism? Wouldn't all that energy be better spent on devising strategies to win, next time there's an opportunity to expand?
What I keep trying to point out is that you define "sisters" too narrowly. The University of Michigan has regularly
expanded the number of female athletes that have an opportunity to play varsity sports there. That's something that we ought to be celebrating. Instead, you prefer to condemn them for not choosing the set of female athletes that you prefer. Every single thing you say could be said equally by fans of lacrosse, or water polo, or field hockey, all of which UM has supported. Unless you are already a fan of women's hockey, there's nothing that makes it inherently a better choice. You, and others on these boards, can't seem to grasp the way that you are reasoning from your conclusion rather than towards it. It's lazy thinking, and watching it come up repeatedly is annoying. You compound it by insinuating a moral failure to fulfill an obligation by people who are, in fact, operating in perfectly good faith. They just don't share the same assumptions that you do.
