You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

[thirdtime's . . .]

Where else does one post a story like this? As a complement to the UND story? No, it’s time to pull the plug over there. As a foil to the 2018 Olympics story? No, too much of a buzz kill. So,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/s...ckey-club.html

(If I were the AD I would have gone with “Marco?”--- “Polo!” myself. It requires a much smaller recruiting budget, though you still have to keep your eye on the chlorine market.)

[Leather helmet]

It's a shame that TItle IX can be used as a hammer to prevent progress in women's programs, when it was designed to be hammer to force progress in women's programs. Perhaps it needs to be tweaked to allow institutions to fail the math in favor of women's programs.

As the article states, there will have to be a Pegula-type benefactor in Ann Arbor and/or East Lansing who will put up a facility that allows the women's programs to make the leap. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, that person will not be me.

[Eeyore]

It takes a striking sense of entitlement to produce the never ending stream of insinuations that, just because it doesn't sponsor the women's sport that you want to watch, the University of Michigan must not take women's athletics seriously and uses Title IX as a shield to avoid adding more teams, despite the fact that most of the people posting root for schools that sponsor fewer sports for women and have fewer women on athletic scholarship. Michigan decided that it prioritized different sports differently than you do. Grow up and deal with it.

[Leather helmet]

It takes a striking sense of entitlement to produce the never ending stream of insinuations that, just because it doesn't sponsor the women's sport that you want to watch, the University of Michigan must not take women's athletics seriously and uses Title IX as a shield to avoid adding more teams, despite the fact that most of the people posting root for schools that sponsor fewer sports for women and have fewer women on athletic scholarship. Michigan decided that it prioritized different sports differently than you do. Grow up and deal with it.

A couple of thoughts:

First of all, I do have a striking sense of entitlement, which allows me to produce streams of insinuations. It's a wonder to me.

Seriously, though, this is a board where people who are interested in women's hockey go. It's a great sport, and it is under some pressure. We want to see it succeed. The article that started this thread was all about the disparity between how male and female hockey player are treated at UM. It's a valid avenue of inquiry, and I don't think my comments, or anyone else's, suggest that we need to grow up, or that we are not dealing with it. In fact, I am fully grown, and I am dealing with Michigan's athletic choices in a very thoughtful and adult manner. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be pretty cool if they started a varsity hockey program for women.

[giwan]

I'm sorry but this is club hockey compared to varsity? Compare the club team to other club teams, be it men or other universities

[thirdtime's . . .]

It takes a striking sense of entitlement to produce the never ending stream of insinuations that, just because it doesn't sponsor the women's sport that you want to watch, the University of Michigan must not take women's athletics seriously and uses Title IX as a shield to avoid adding more teams, despite the fact that most of the people posting root for schools that sponsor fewer sports for women and have fewer women on athletic scholarship. Michigan decided that it prioritized different sports differently than you do. Grow up and deal with it.

I’m not sure what you’re targeting here, Eeyore. The administration of any educational institution that professes to value the potential benefit of athletics for their students needs to have a sense of proportion. To me it’s as simple as that. I’m more interested in their willingness and ability to educate donors in the greater good, however rich, vain or entitled they may be. This isn't an argument for varsity women’s hockey at Michigan. (A vigorous club program at many schools, in many sports, would no doubt be more conducive to pursuing one’s studies in this day and age.) It’s the glaring inequality, represented by these pleasure palaces on the one hand and the smelly hallways of the dorm on the other, that stands out here. Let Mister or Missus Big endow, lavish, bestow what they will, but show them where a bone or two thrown in the right direction could also make an outsized difference in the education of one’s students.

[Hockeydad4two]

Where else does one post a story like this? As a complement to the UND story? No, it’s time to pull the plug over there. As a foil to the 2018 Olympics story? No, too much of a buzz kill. So,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/s...ckey-club.html

(If I were the AD I would have gone with “Marco?”--- “Polo!” myself. It requires a much smaller recruiting budget, though you still have to keep your eye on the chlorine market.)

This sounds a lot like my daughter's experience when she played for Northern Michigan University's women's hockey club team.

[Eeyore]

Seriously, though, this is a board where people who are interested in women's hockey go. It's a great sport, and it is under some pressure. We want to see it succeed. The article that started this thread was all about the disparity between how male and female hockey player are treated at UM. It's a valid avenue of inquiry, and I don't think my comments, or anyone else's, suggest that we need to grow up, or that we are not dealing with it. In fact, I am fully grown, and I am dealing with Michigan's athletic choices in a very thoughtful and adult manner. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be pretty cool if they started a varsity hockey program for women.

No, it's not an article about how men's and women's hockey is treated; the author apparently thinks that's what it's about, but it's not. As giwan says, it's about how varsity and club sports are treated differently. You could write exactly the same article about how the Michigan women's rowing team gets much better treatment than the men's rowing team. Granted, that's such non-news that it shouldn't be covered in the New York Times, but there you go.

And you also mischaracterize your own comments. You didn't just say that it would be cool if Michigan started a women's hockey program. You said it was too bad that Title IX is being used as a club to prevent the expansion of women's sports. That's an accusation for which you have zero evidence. Michigan is one of two Big 10 schools that sponsor a team in all 14 conference women's sports, plus they also have a varsity water polo team. That's two more sports than Minnesota offers. It's three more sports than Wisconsin offers.

This comes up on this board all the time. It inevitably comes with accusations, either implicit or explicit, that, because Michigan doesn't have a varsity women's hockey team, they don't operate in the spirit of Title IX. It's a bull**** argument, and it betrays the sense of entitlement that I mentioned. People seem to think that the purpose of Title IX is to promote the sport that they prefer. Yeah, I think that women's ice hockey is a great sport. I'd like to see Michigan and Michigan State start teams, but they decided to add other sports instead. That's life. It doesn't merit a thread every two months about Michigan shirking its duties by not starting a women's hockey team.

It's not just Michigan. The thread on North Dakota eliminating its program sometimes edged past disappointment and into claiming that UND had an obligation to continue its women's hockey team and eliminate other teams instead. That's entitlement.

[Eeyore]

I’m not sure what you’re targeting here, Eeyore. The administration of any educational institution that professes to value the potential benefit of athletics for their students needs to have a sense of proportion. To me it’s as simple as that. I’m more interested in their willingness and ability to educate donors in the greater good, however rich, vain or entitled they may be. This isn't an argument for varsity women’s hockey at Michigan. (A vigorous club program at many schools, in many sports, would no doubt be more conducive to pursuing one’s studies in this day and age.) It’s the glaring inequality, represented by these pleasure palaces on the one hand and the smelly hallways of the dorm on the other, that stands out here. Let Mister or Missus Big endow, lavish, bestow what they will, but show them where a bone or two thrown in the right direction could also make an outsized difference in the education of one’s students.

What makes women's hockey special? Or, are you arguing that Michigan should be doing the same thing for all of the 31 club sports? And why limit it to them? There are hundreds of other sports, and thousands of non-sports activities that would have the same benefits.

[Leather helmet]

No, it's not an article about how men's and women's hockey is treated; the author apparently thinks that's what it's about, but it's not. As giwan says, it's about how varsity and club sports are treated differently. You could write exactly the same article about how the Michigan women's rowing team gets much better treatment than the men's rowing team. Granted, that's such non-news that it shouldn't be covered in the New York Times, but there you go.

And you also mischaracterize your own comments. You didn't just say that it would be cool if Michigan started a women's hockey program. You said it was too bad that Title IX is being used as a club to prevent the expansion of women's sports. That's an accusation for which you have zero evidence. Michigan is one of two Big 10 schools that sponsor a team in all 14 conference women's sports, plus they also have a varsity water polo team. That's two more sports than Minnesota offers. It's three more sports than Wisconsin offers.

This comes up on this board all the time. It inevitably comes with accusations, either implicit or explicit, that, because Michigan doesn't have a varsity women's hockey team, they don't operate in the spirit of Title IX. It's a bull**** argument, and it betrays the sense of entitlement that I mentioned. People seem to think that the purpose of Title IX is to promote the sport that they prefer. Yeah, I think that women's ice hockey is a great sport. I'd like to see Michigan and Michigan State start teams, but they decided to add other sports instead. That's life. It doesn't merit a thread every two months about Michigan shirking its duties by not starting a women's hockey team.

It's not just Michigan. The thread on North Dakota eliminating its program sometimes edged past disappointment and into claiming that UND had an obligation to continue its women's hockey team and eliminate other teams instead. That's entitlement.

Ok, you win. To be honest, I don't give this topic any thought other than the couple times a year it pops up on this board. Sometimes I write up a response and sometimes I don't. So, I don't have a well-thought-out position on this, and I don't expect those Michigan schools to start up varsity teams anyway. I guess you could say I am dealing with it.

Now, the level of irritation that this item appears to create in you is interesting to me. Nothing that has ever been written on this board has ever led to any actual change in this sport, nor do I expect any future posts to change the world. This is a place where Gopher fans can trade good-natured insults with Badger fans, and both groups can find common ground in good-natured insulting of BC fans. I wouldn't take what is written here so seriously.

[DDad16]

Say what you want... It is an absolute shame that a state with SEVEN D1 Men's Hockey teams has ZERO D1 Women's Hockey teams. And they wonder why all, okay not all but a lot, of the best players leave the state to play youth hockey.

[pgb-ohio]

Now, the level of irritation that this item appears to create in you is interesting to me.

No kidding. There's merit to Eeyore's argument, but good grief.

This is supposed to be a national board. Caring about the sport as a whole should be applauded, not passionately opposed.

Loyalty to one's current school is a good thing. Loyalty to one's roots is a good thing. But when defending those loyalties becomes all-important, and the effect on the larger hockey community is treated as essentially irrelevant, it's really disappointing. The stance has a NIMBY feel. We certainly saw that in the UND thread as well.

[pgb-ohio]

Say what you want... It is an absolute shame that a state with SEVEN D1 Men's Hockey teams has ZERO D1 Women's Hockey teams. And they wonder why all, okay not all but a lot, of the best players leave the state to play youth hockey.

Res ipsa. The thing speaks for itself.

Entitlement? No. But there is an unmet need.

[Sieve1]

Res ipsa. The thing speaks for itself.

Entitlement? No. But there is an unmet need.

I happen to know the family of the girl in the photo at the beginning of the article. Strong AAA player who had many opportunities to play in college but decided to go to Michigan and play club. Michigan is a great school and, of course it would be fantastic if they had D1 women's hockey. But any girl who has the opportunity to get an elite education at a school like Michigan (or Notre Dame for that matter) should take it. In the end it's about the education, and if that means forgoing D1 for club then so be it. There are male athletes in other sports who make the same decision.

[pgb-ohio]

I happen to know the family of the girl in the photo at the beginning of the article. Strong AAA player who had many opportunities to play in college but decided to go to Michigan and play club. Michigan is a great school and, of course it would be fantastic if they had D1 women's hockey. But any girl who has the opportunity to get an elite education at a school like Michigan (or Notre Dame for that matter) should take it. In the end it's about the education, and if that means forgoing D1 for club then so be it. There are male athletes in other sports who make the same decision.

I have no problem with any of that. I also agree that there's no entitlement to have a specific varsity sport at a specific university.

However: There is a shortage of D-1 WIH opportunities in our part of the U.S. Meaning, I suppose, the old CCHA footprint. Seeking to expand those opportunities is a good thing. Asking leading universities to play a leading role is sensible and appropriate. Yes, our sport is expensive. Yes, progress is likely to be slow & evolutionary. But with sustained, united effort, progress should be possible in the states where the sport is played and loved.

Instead, we're a community divided, at least when compared to other sports. It's just heartbreaking to see so much energy spent on the "no can do" attitude. Sometimes the hockey community is its own worst enemy.

[giwan]

Say what you want... It is an absolute shame that a state with SEVEN D1 Men's Hockey teams has ZERO D1 Women's Hockey teams. And they wonder why all, okay not all but a lot, of the best players leave the state to play youth hockey.

There is no way you can compare the SEVEN D1 men's teams in the same vein as say UM and MSU where the budgets are vastly different.

[DDad16]

There is no way you can compare the SEVEN D1 men's teams in the same vein as say UM and MSU where the budgets are vastly different.

I'm saying... Michigan is a destination for boys wanting to get to the next level. Girls that want to get to the next level often (very often) leave Michigan.

[pgb-ohio]

There is no way you can compare the SEVEN D1 men's teams in the same vein as say UM and MSU where the budgets are vastly different.

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.

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.

I get that, in the State of Michigan, Ann Arbor customarily takes the lead. But as has already been alluded to, Ann Arbor has no obligation to take the lead on every conceivable program. And it certainly appears that they won't be taking the lead on Women's Hockey anytime soon.

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?

As just one example, why not Michigan Tech? That school has a proud history as a hockey pioneer. OK, they'd likely have to bear the expense of flying to Columbus. Sorry. But otherwise they could bus to every other school in the Women's WCHA. Make it a priority, and it just could be doable.

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?

[giwan]

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. 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. I get that, in the State of Michigan, Ann Arbor customarily takes the lead. But as has already been alluded to, Ann Arbor has no obligation to take the lead on every conceivable program. And it certainly appears that they won't be taking the lead on Women's Hockey anytime soon. 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? As just one example, why not Michigan Tech? That school has a proud history as a hockey pioneer. OK, they'd likely have to bear the expense of flying to Columbus. Sorry. But otherwise they could bus to every other school in the Women's WCHA. Make it a priority, and it just could be doable. 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?

You miss the entire point of budget. UM is only being brought up as "claimed to lead" because their budget is almost limitless. If you wish to compare look at the other B7 teams and why they offer women's hockey. How about OSU you know that well known hockey state?

I personally know two of the ADs of those 7 and know they both have interest but it's not in the budget, though one of the two are more interested than the other. At this point it is NOT doable.

[Eeyore]

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.