More about expansion for women's hockey

[Call It]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?

Michigan isn't really her home state. California is.

[2onice]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

You want a champion? How about Angela Ruggiero? Olympic gold medalist and four year letterwinner at Harvard. No one has as much national cache as Rugger and she grew up in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. She has been active in promoting women's hockey in California among other places. Why not her home state?

I think you may be referring to Shelly Looney as an Olympian growing up in Michigan?

[ARM]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Article by Pat Borzi on possible CWHL expansion:
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commen...-united-states

[ICEBOX]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Article by Pat Borzi on possible CWHL expansion:
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commen...-united-states

This CWHL in the US need to take a page out of the USHL and ECHL format. Put teams in areas were an audience is starving for entertainment. You will draw a lot more fans at the gate on Friday and Saturday nights to watch and become consistent fans. If you were able to draw 2000 to 2500 per night then you could start compensating these great athletes. Women's hockey is a great product and they need to ride the wave of the "spectacle" of a gold metal game that millions witnessed. I do believe there is an overload of talent for one team in the US. If you want these girls to showcase there talent over the winter then they need to get paid. Or it will be a part time thing because they will need employment elsewhere.

[aa2fan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I have been a long standing fan of Michigan, not only from an athletic standpoint, but mainly from an academic one. I have been bothered recently by U of M's motto #leadersandbest, recent donations to an already profit making self funded athletic department, and the pool of talent (in the States and abroad) that would aspire to attend such a great institution and play competitive hockey. I would go ask the board and athletic department personally, but one person would not make the difference. People of Michigan need to be asking.... "WHY NOT US?"

[KTDC]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I have been a long standing fan of Michigan, not only from an athletic standpoint, but mainly from an academic one. I have been bothered recently by U of M's motto #leadersandbest, recent donations to an already profit making self funded athletic department, and the pool of talent (in the States and abroad) that would aspire to attend such a great institution and play competitive hockey. I would go ask the board and athletic department personally, but one person would not make the difference. People of Michigan need to be asking.... "WHY NOT US?"

Yes. The fact that especially Michigan but also Michigan State do not have D1 women's hockey teams falls somewhere between scandalous and just depressing when looking at the big picture of the state of women's hockey.

But at least we get Maryanne Menefee.

[northhockey]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Yes. The fact that especially Michigan but also Michigan State do not have D1 women's hockey teams falls somewhere between scandalous and just depressing when looking at the big picture of the state of women's hockey.

But at least we get Maryanne Menefee.

Once Coach Berenson retires, the door for women's hockey in Michigan will open

[aa2fan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

"Funding" at Michigan has ALWAYS been the scapegoat answer. If you dig deep into the archives, http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=3926,3888593
you will find this to be true. Fast forward 10 years from that article, and we get this: https://michigandaily.com/content/cu...ports?page=0,1
What this article conveys that ALL "club" sports at Michigan receive some of the same perks of any varsity athlete. While this may be true of some sports, it is a gross misrepresentation of how the womens ice hockey team members are treated. They do NOT have access to training facilities! They do NOT have a trainer available at their events! They do NOT have locker room to store their equipment (yes they have to store their gear in their already dinky dorm rooms)! They do NOT even have access purchasing equipment to truly represent Michigan and their motto #leadersandbest. The board of regents may cringe if they saw these athletes representing their university winged helmet with tape!
Why doesn't anyone bring up other issues instead of "funding", which there should be no excuse for that monochromatic response anymore given recent $100 million donation courtesy of Mr. Stephen Ross.
The athletic department can't use the proper facility excuse either. Michigan does NOT need another rink to house two Varsity teams. There are plenty of very prestigious universities that have ONE rink. AND they are very competitive. ( Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Brown, to name a few).
Michigan can't use the Title IX excuse either- saying they will have to get rid of a men's sport to support another womens varsity sport. NOT TRUE! Easy fix... Don't count the female athletes that attend a one day "try-out" (with no repeat invitation- )for a varsity sport toward the rostered number of females OR don't count 25 MALEs "practice athletes" on the womens basketball team as rostered FEMALES (yes they do count as females) and whamo... You have more than enough women athlete numbers that can be filled. (The stats are out there- you just need to know where to look)
I ask again....Why is this still an issue?

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

[Cali]

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

Here's a thought. Mandate that with the coaching staff. Pretty easy to do I would think.

[brookyone]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Is it Michigan taxpayers and politicians who are averse to women's hockey and the obstacle to D-I programs for Michigan...Michigan State?

[ritBLKnORGsuit]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

maybe the reason Michigan taxpayers & politicians don't want to fund women's hockey is that they know the Universities will go out and recruit and hire a bunch of Canadians

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

hiring Canadian coaches and recruiting Canadian players doesn't really do that, does it?

This maybe true. But schools like Michigan are able to give athletic scholarships that can possibly recruit the best American girls to come play for them. I am not saying your school wouldn't seek out canadian players. Michigan would not have scholarship restrictions that schools like RIT or Clarkson have that prohibit offering athletic scholarships since they are only D1 in hockey. I know for a fact RIT has mostly a Canadian roster due to the fact we can give them scholarships that are specifically meant for non-US citizens to attend our school.

[Cali]

This maybe true. But schools like Michigan are able to give athletic scholarships that can possibly recruit the best American girls to come play for them. I am not saying your school wouldn't seek out canadian players. Michigan would not have scholarship restrictions that schools like RIT or Clarkson have that prohibit offering athletic scholarships since they are only D1 in hockey. I know for a fact RIT has mostly a Canadian roster due to the fact we can give them scholarships that are specifically meant for non-US citizens to attend our school.

You are incorrect on 2 fronts. Clarkson most definitely gives out scholarships and there are no International monies given to Canadians for hockey at RIT. All funding is Aid based at RIT based on family income. That said, I have no doubt that there is a relationship between the coaching staff and the Financial Aid office that allows for creativity to occur.

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

if you look at the debate over whether or not to pass Title IX legislation, it was to give US women equal opportunity in athletics

No, it wasn't. You are way off on this. In fact, the debate over Title IX had nothing to do with athletics at all and it didn't revolve in any way around the nationality of who was given opportunities. Title IX was about given women equal opportunities within educational institutions that received federal money. That it would lead to expanded women's athletics at all was unintended and largely unforeseen. One of the authors of what we call Title IX (which was actually Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), Patty Mink, said this about it, “When it was proposed, we had no idea that its most visible impact would be in athletics. I had been paying attention to the academic issue. I had been excluded from medical school because I was female.”

The debate over Title IX during its congressional passage focused only on those programs that directly received federal dollars, though the authors intended that it apply to entire institutions. Since athletics didn't receive much in the way of direct federal dollars it wasn't at all a focus of those debates. And in 1984 the Supreme Court (in the Oak Grove case) ruled that Title IX did, in fact, only apply to those departments that received federal money directly. From then until the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, over the veto of Ronald Reagan, Title IX didn't cover athletics at all.

You can read the text of Title IX here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

[Sean Pickett]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

No, it wasn't. You are way off on this...

You can read the text of Title IX here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Thank you.

Sean