REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

[D2D]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I guess 2 league regular season and 2 league tourney titles in the last 2 years isn't much to show for.

Then again it's been 7 years since your last NCAA title. Since then the Gophers have 4.

[Russell Jaslow]

You should also point out that most of the "cost" of a scholarship is just funny money - an accounting entry passing money among the various parts of the university with no real outlay.

This is something that has always grated at me -- schools crying that scholarships cost them money.

Unless the athletes are actually taking a spot of a paying student, outside of room and board (since there are costs attached to that), it doesn't cost the school any money to allow an additional student to attend for free.

Let's say a school wants to add a sports program which requires a 20-person roster. If they simply add an additional 20 students to their total student body, it's not costing them anything to allow those 20 students to attend for free. It's only if they keep their student body exactly the same, and thus are now taking away tuition revenue and replacing it with a free student.

Again, room and board does have a cost associated with it when giving it away for free. But the cost of a complete scholarship is not the actual cost of tuition and room and board.

As you say, it's "funny" money.

[vicb]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Then again it's been 7 years since your last NCAA title. Since then the Gophers have 4.

And a little school from the east has kept the Gophers from 6 in a row.

[Eeyore]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

This is something that has always grated at me -- schools crying that scholarships cost them money.

Unless the athletes are actually taking a spot of a paying student, outside of room and board (since there are costs attached to that), it doesn't cost the school any money to allow an additional student to attend for free.

Let's say a school wants to add a sports program which requires a 20-person roster. If they simply add an additional 20 students to their total student body, it's not costing them anything to allow those 20 students to attend for free. It's only if they keep their student body exactly the same, and thus are now taking away tuition revenue and replacing it with a free student.

Again, room and board does have a cost associated with it when giving it away for free. But the cost of a complete scholarship is not the actual cost of tuition and room and board.

As you say, it's "funny" money.

No, it isn't. There is a marginal cost to provide an education to each additional student at the university. Classes are capped at a given size, as are sections of larger lecture classes. Add students, and you have to add instructors, who cost money. Add students, and you add administrative costs. Add students, and you need to add classrooms, and buildings that house them. The fact that adding a single additional student to an entire university adds only a fraction of each of these specific costs doesn't mean that it is free, and I've never seen a hockey team operate with only a single student-athlete.

[joecct]

Yes. Minnesota and Wisconsin give reciprocity to each other. Residents of those two states pay resident tuition fees whether they attend school in Minnesota or Wisconsin.

My niece, living in the Twin Cities, attended school at UW-Stevens Point, and paid the resident costs.

IIRC, MN also gives reciprocity to ND, SD, IA in addition to WI. And maybe Manitoba.

[Leather helmet]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

IIRC, MN also gives reciprocity to ND, SD, IA in addition to WI. And maybe Manitoba.

Based on recent recruiting successes, I would favor MN giving reciprocity to British Columbia as well.

[Russell Jaslow]

No, it isn't. There is a marginal cost to provide an education to each additional student at the university. Classes are capped at a given size, as are sections of larger lecture classes. Add students, and you have to add instructors, who cost money. Add students, and you add administrative costs. Add students, and you need to add classrooms, and buildings that house them. The fact that adding a single additional student to an entire university adds only a fraction of each of these specific costs doesn't mean that it is free, and I've never seen a hockey team operate with only a single student-athlete.

True. And I was being over simplistic. But the cost of a scholarship is not a direct dollar for dollar ratio. Yet, that is how the schools will list it.

[Blackbeard]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

And maybe Manitoba.

Yes.

[Eeyore]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

True. And I was being over simplistic. But the cost of a scholarship is not a direct dollar for dollar ratio. Yet, that is how the schools will list it.

I'm not sure why you assume that the tuition that a student would have paid without a scholarship isn't a pretty good estimate for the cost of an education.

[Russell Jaslow]

I'm not sure why you assume that the tuition that a student would have paid without a scholarship isn't a pretty good estimate for the cost of an education.

There is a difference between cost of an education and what it actually costs a school to let a student go for free.

Marry a Cost Accountant, and you'll understand. LOL

[Eeyore]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

There is a difference between cost of an education and what it actually costs a school to let a student go for free.

Marry a Cost Accountant, and you'll understand. LOL

I have a masters of accountancy, and I repeat that I don't understand what your assumption is based upon. Rather than playing silly semantic games over the phrase "cost of an education" and whether I meant the price a student pays or, as should have been pretty obvious from the context, what it costs the school to provide it, why don't you lay them out?

[Russell Jaslow]

I have a masters of accountancy, and I repeat that I don't understand what your assumption is based upon. Rather than playing silly semantic games over the phrase "cost of an education" and whether I meant the price a student pays or, as should have been pretty obvious from the context, what it costs the school to provide it, why don't you lay them out?

I already agreed with you that it still costs the school some money to allow a student to attend for free.

However, it doesn't cost the school the same amount of money that the student would have had to pay. Of course, the school does lose the potential revenue, but it doesn't cost the school in direct costs on a dollar by dollar ratio.

That's all I'm saying. Plus, a Cost Accountant will tell you that those costs associated with lost revenue will be built into the amount they charge other students to attend the school. Ergo, it doesn't cost the school the exact amount of the scholarship they are giving away. Most of it, they get back anyway by charging other students more.

It's like if a car company gives away a car for free for marketing purposes. If the car sells for $20,000 at the dealership, it doesn't mean the company lost $20,000 for giving that car away. The car may have cost $10,000 in real costs (design, labor, parts). The rest of the amount for the car comes in marketing, profits, sales commissions and the like. Sure, the company is going to write off $20,000 for giving that car away, but they did not lose $20,000 in real money.

[icehawk]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Good article on the life and death of UND women's hockey.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/spor...-womens-hockey

[pgb-ohio]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Good article on the life and death of UND women's hockey.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/spor...-womens-hockey

Well written and informative. And more than a little heartbreaking. Definitely some things to reflect on. Thanks for posting.

On the heartbreaking side, the article reports that all of the Women's Hockey artifacts were removed from the Ralph with ruthless efficiency. In fairness, Schlossman also mentions that some of the items may reappear later in a concourse display. Even so, this action added insult to the injury experienced by the outgoing athletes, coaches and staff.

Was it really necessary to "cleanse" the arena of Women's Hockey history on an ASAP basis? Doesn't this strongly suggest that there was more involved here than mere cost-cutting? Maybe the only ulterior motive was embarrassment/regret. Maybe. But to me this action was quite disrespectful to all of those associated with the lost program. I can understand the need for some remodeling to reflect the new reality. But why the rush? Why not create the historical concourse exhibit at the same time as removing the old display? And wouldn't it have been better to complete this work in an unrushed manner, perhaps over the summer?

That said, the details of the transition will fade over time. Ultimately the more important facts to keep alive are the program's accomplishments -- and Schlossman recounts them well.

[Russell Jaslow]

On the heartbreaking side, the article reports that all of the Women's Hockey artifacts were removed from the Ralph with ruthless efficiency.

Wow. Niagara kept a display for women's hockey in their arena even after dropping the sport.