
Originally Posted by
pgb-ohio
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?