REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

[dave1381]

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.

[joecct]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I wonder if the Sioux NHLers could do something.

Some make very good money.

[Timothy A]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I wonder if the Sioux NHLers could do something.

Some make very good money.

My thoughts exactly. They are "only" 1.3 million short. Parise alone was supposed to make 98 million over 13 years starting in 2012.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

Can we even call UND a university anymore? seems clear to me there's no class

HA very good

[ne7minder]

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?

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.

[SJHovey]

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.

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.

[dave1381]

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.

[robertearle]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

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.

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/#/

[Arafel]

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

[SJHovey]

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/#/

I don't that's current info. The school cut baseball last year, and maybe men's track?

[robertearle]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I don't that's current info. The school cut baseball last year, and maybe men's track?

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)

[Blackbeard]

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.

[SJHovey]

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.

[Blackbeard]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

I suspect the North Dakota's women's hockey team isn't the only one hemmorraging large sums of cash.

Well, that's the official-school generated reason for UMD's rhubarb with Miller coming sharply into focus 2 1/2 years ago.

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

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

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.