Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

    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.)
    Last edited by thirdtime's . . .; 05-07-2017, 10:22 AM.

  • #2
    Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

        Originally posted by Eeyore View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

          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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

            Originally posted by Eeyore View Post
            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.
            Last edited by thirdtime's . . .; 05-07-2017, 04:56 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

              Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                Originally posted by Leather helmet View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                  Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                    Originally posted by Eeyore View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                        Originally posted by Leather helmet View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by pgb-ohio; 05-08-2017, 04:30 PM. Reason: typo

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                          Originally posted by DDad16 View Post
                          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.
                          Last edited by pgb-ohio; 05-08-2017, 07:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pgb-ohio View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

                              Originally posted by Sieve1 View Post
                              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.
                              Last edited by pgb-ohio; 05-08-2017, 04:38 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X