Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 78

Thread: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    The Rafters of Schottenstein Center
    Posts
    5,519

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

    Quote Originally Posted by giwan View Post
    You miss the entire point of budget.
    Not at all. I realize this isn't a time of plenty for higher education budgets, and explicitly acknowledge that adding programs is a long term project.

    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?
    OSU Athletics has taken on the mission of being as comprehensive as possible. I believe that our current count is 36 varsity sports. That mission isn't for everyone. I wouldn't hold anyone else to that standard; not even Michigan.

    In OSU's case, adding Women's Hockey wasn't about addressing a large, local unmet need. While we've had Ohio kids on the team -- a player from Kent and a player from Toledo come immediately to mind -- most of the players do come from elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with that. While meeting a local need is an excellent reason for a university to sponsor a program. it's certainly not the only reason.

    You seem to think you've come up with a "gotcha" point and that I should feel badly about it. The exact opposite is true. A fair number of our "Olympic" sports are sponsored as part of an effort to grow those activities, both locally and nationally. I'm proud that OSU has been able to take a leadership role in this regard.

    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.
    Short term, perhaps that's a fair assessment. But you miss the core point of my post. The hockey community should be focused on devising strategies to grow the sport in the long run. What we shouldn't be doing is wallowing in -- or in a few cases celebrating -- short term defeats.


    Eeyore's post is worth responding to and I'll try do so tonight. Totally out of time for now...

  2. #22
    Making America Great Again
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    on the road helping brookeyone move to Canada
    Posts
    1,684

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pgb-ohio View Post
    But you miss the core point of my post. The hockey community should be focused on devising strategies to grow the sport in the long run.
    it makes about as much sense to continually add schools to the list when the schools that already have it are a total drain on the budget as it would to expand a business that doesn't have the customers to support it

    You do realize "build it and they will come " was a Hollywood movie, correct?
    you talk about strategies to expand, but where is the strategy to pay for it?
    Last edited by pokechecker; 05-09-2017 at 12:59 PM. Reason: women spend what men earn
    mansplainin' from the land of 10,000 lakes to 10,000 loons (OK, just 17)

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    The Rafters of Schottenstein Center
    Posts
    5,519

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    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.
    This is a fair point. It was also an issue in UND's situation, which most of us weren't aware of until Sicatoka took the time to lay that factor out. Yes, of course, conference obligations need to be taken into account in this conversation.

    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.
    It's a little to silly to ignore the fact that College Hockey operated outside the usual conference structure for 60+ years, until the B1G exercised the option to start a Men's hockey conference. And obviously a good percentage of hockey schools still compete in hockey-only conferences -- including the Women's WCHA. The arrangement has worked well for many years. To abruptly shift gears and claim that this is now a fatal flaw is pretty arbitrary. But to the extent you're merely pointing out a bureaucratic challenge, OK.

    In contrast, the $100 Million claim is nonsense. Penn State used that amount to build a state-of-the-art building from scratch. Remodeling current buildings to accommodate a 2nd Varsity team would cost a tiny fraction of that.

    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.
    You know a lot more about Ann Arbor than I do. And I've already acknowledged that the rest of us don't have an entitlement to demand competition from another school -- which of course includes Michigan. If Michigan concludes that unique circumstances make it simply impossible to start a WIH Varsity in Ann Arbor, UM is within its rights.

    At the same time, please know that I'm not completely out of the loop on this. I've been to Yost on a number of occasions. I played in the 2010 Posters' Game at Yost and our locker room situation was just fine. As for the Cube, I've gone there to see a family member compete in Synchronized Skating. Dozens of teams were present that day. Were the facilities strained? Yes. Did things still work out fine? Yes.

    As such, I really don't believe the claim that having a Varsity WIH team in Ann Arbor is physically impossible. Now would it cost real money to create a first class situation? Sure. But I bet the early players would be happy to accept a less than perfect situation in order to get things up and running.

    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.
    This criticism makes no sense. Advocating & strategizing are normal human activities. There's nothing "backwards" about it. Coaches believe in their players, and try to find ways to win games. Attorneys accept cases, and try to figure out ways to get a good result for the client. When a lobbyist accepts employment with an interest group, of course they'll take the position that a good deal for their employer is the "correct choice." As with all of these examples, I simply believe in my cause. The only real difference is that USCHO is an amateur hot stove league, rather than paid employment.

    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...
    I don't buy your exact phrasing. Still, I agree with the general thrust of this comment. The university in this situation is more like a ref, a judge or a congressional committee -- as opposed to being an advocate. Universities routinely make funding decisions involving competing claimants. Budgetary politics is a necessary process.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the hockey community needs to be more united and improve its skill level when it comes to budgetary politics.


    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.
    You want annoying? Most of what you're accusing me of saying in this paragraph is either comes from other posters, or is simply fabrication. I get that we're constructing the issue in different ways. But you're dead wrong to be putting words in my mouth.

    My Actual Opinion: I definitely join you in celebrating the creation of new opportunities for athletes, both male and female. The Lacrosse teams, or any of the others, are not the enemy. At the same time, they are competing claimants for limited budget dollars. When one of the other claimants does well in the budgetary process, that success should be respected, not resented. And perhaps emulated.

    When we've discussed the Michigan case in the past, I've literally gone out of my way to express some sympathy for the plight of the Michigan AD on this issue. I specifically stated that the division within the hockey community tended to push the AD in the direction of the other applications. Far from "condemning" him, I suggested that the decision was rather understandable under the circumstances.

    Or, if you're attempting to reference the North Dakota thread, I'll try to re-create my comment here. My participation on that thread was quite brief, at least by my standards. But I did say that I believed UND was making a mistake, and I stand by that. My position was that North Dakota had a greater opportunity to have a national impact in Women's Hockey than in most of the sports it decided to protect. But arguing that an institution is making an unwise or suboptimal choice stops well short of claiming a "moral failure."

    As for things I am more critical of:

    1. The individual from UND who described Women's Hockey as a "boutique sport" was well over the line. In the context of the program being cut, making such a comment actually is a bit of an ethical fail.

    2. The fact that the UND Men's Hockey community "stood by silently" while the Women's program was cut, apparently refusing to offer even moral support, is pretty ugly.

    These are the kind of things I'm referencing when I talk about "throwing our sisters under the bus."


    All that said, what really frustrates me on this occasion is the inability of some on this board to see the loss of the UND Varsity program as a setback for the hockey community as whole. Same thing with regard to the lost opportunity at UM. To me, it's obvious that both schools could have been genuine leaders in Women's Hockey. Having these schools on the sidelines is a loss. Not in the same league as what the affected players experienced, but a loss just the same. To be indifferent to these setbacks -- or in some cases even gleeful about them -- strikes me as disloyal to our sport.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,285

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pgb-ohio View Post
    It's a little to silly to ignore the fact that College Hockey operated outside the usual conference structure for 60+ years, until the B1G exercised the option to start a Men's hockey conference. . . . To abruptly shift gears and claim that this is now a fatal flaw is pretty arbitrary. But to the extent you're merely pointing out a bureaucratic challenge, OK.
    It would help if you responded to the arguments I actually make rather than exaggerating them into straw men. I never said it was a fatal flaw. I said that, institutionally, schools that are not currently hockey schools aren't going to feel much pressure to add hockey, because the conferences they belong to do not include hockey. Having hockey segregated into hockey only conferences is a source of weakness in trying to muster the political pressure to add the sport to a school's roster.

    You know a lot more about Ann Arbor than I do. And I've already acknowledged that the rest of us don't have an entitlement to demand competition from another school -- which of course includes Michigan. If Michigan concludes that unique circumstances make it simply impossible to start a WIH Varsity in Ann Arbor, UM is within its rights.
    No one said it was "simply impossible." I didn't. The Michigan athletic department didn't. What they said is that it would be sufficiently expensive to start a varsity women's hockey program that it didn't make sense to do so when they could add more athletic opportunities for less money by adding other sports.

    At the same time, please know that I'm not completely out of the loop on this. I've been to Yost on a number of occasions. I played in the 2010 Posters' Game at Yost and our locker room situation was just fine. As for the Cube, I've gone there to see a family member compete in Synchronized Skating. Dozens of teams were present that day. Were the facilities strained? Yes. Did things still work out fine? Yes.
    You skipped over a key word in my comment about the locker rooms: permanent. Yes, there are perfectly adequate locker rooms that you can use as a team visiting or renting ice time. Those have nothing to do with the sort of locker room facilities that would be needed to add a varsity women's hockey team that is a permanent tenant in the arena. Adding the facilities that such a team would need would mean tearing out the locker rooms that you are talking about. The women's team would be occupying them full time, which means that the arena would not have the facilities it would need to have any other events there.

    As for the Cube, the distance from campus alone makes it problematic for this purpose.

    As such, I really don't believe the claim that having a Varsity WIH team in Ann Arbor is physically impossible. Now would it cost real money to create a first class situation? Sure. But I bet the early players would be happy to accept a less than perfect situation in order to get things up and running.
    Bravo for what you think the early players would be willing to accept. Of course, you still need to come up with the funds to create that first class situation, or it will be a lot more than the early players. By the way, I wouldn't believe a claim that having a varsity women's team in Ann Arbor is physically impossible, either, so it's a good thing that such a claim exists only in your imagination.

    This criticism makes no sense. Advocating & strategizing are normal human activities. There's nothing "backwards" about it. Coaches believe in their players, and try to find ways to win games. Attorneys accept cases, and try to figure out ways to get a good result for the client.
    You're conflating your position as an advocate with how a university athletic department looks at the question. From that, your arguments assume away all of the very real obstacles in the way of a school adding women's hockey. The first of those obstacles is that none of the relevant decision makers starts from a position of thinking that adding women's hockey is the desirable outcome. Nothing that you have said addresses the question of why someone who would make the decisions would choose to add women's hockey rather than doing something else with those resources. Until the advocacy answers that question, it will never be convincing to anyone that matters. Stop assuming that creating more NCAA women's hockey programs is something that anyone who looks at it would obviously decide is a good idea. Stop thinking that everyone looks at the world the way you do.

    A good place to start would be to stop dismissing anyone who tries to point out the difficulties involved as somehow sabotaging the efforts. A second step would be to stop creating strawmen that no one argued.

    I don't buy your exact phrasing. Still, I agree with the general thrust of this comment. The university in this situation is more like a ref, a judge or a congressional committee -- as opposed to being an advocate. Universities routinely make funding decisions involving competing claimants. Budgetary politics is a necessary process.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the hockey community needs to be more united and improve its skill level when it comes to budgetary politics.
    A very large part of improving the skill level, at least as demonstrated here, is to be able to put yourself in the position of the people making those budgetary decisions rather than just saying that they could add women's hockey if only they wanted to. Try to understand why they don't have that as their top priority.

    When we've discussed the Michigan case in the past, I've literally gone out of my way to express some sympathy for the plight of the Michigan AD on this issue. I specifically stated that the division within the hockey community tended to push the AD in the direction of the other applications. Far from "condemning" him, I suggested that the decision was rather understandable under the circumstances.
    How marvelously condescending of you, imagining that the Michigan AD is facing a "plight" and that his decision is "rather understandable under the circumstances." Neither of those is true, and your belief that they are demonstrates that you assume that women's hockey has a special claim on him such that the naturally correct decision, one that he is being kept from making, is to add a women's hockey team. Far more likely, the decision makers looked at all of the information and decided that adding other sports better fit their mission.

    My position was that North Dakota had a greater opportunity to have a national impact in Women's Hockey than in most of the sports it decided to protect. But arguing that an institution is making an unwise or suboptimal choice stops well short of claiming a "moral failure."
    Again, UND is making a suboptimal choice given the assumptions that you bring to the table. However, there's no reason to think that your assumptions are shared by the people that matters. Having "a greater opportunity to have a national impact in Women's Hockey" is not self-evidently a priority that a university should have. Stop just assuming that university athletic programs are going to approach these kinds of questions in the same way you do. You'll never be persuasive if you don't try to understand what they are actually thinking.

    Your continued insistence that the correct choices are obvious, despite the fact that universities keep not making them, is implicitly an ethical criticism.

    As for things I am more critical of:

    1. The individual from UND who described Women's Hockey as a "boutique sport" was well over the line. In the context of the program being cut, making such a comment actually is a bit of an ethical fail.
    I have no intention of defending how the university went about announcing its decision. From my perspective, UND, and especially its hockey program, has been ethically compromised for decades, and this instance doesn't even make the top five examples.

    2. The fact that the UND Men's Hockey community "stood by silently" while the Women's program was cut, apparently refusing to offer even moral support, is pretty ugly.

    These are the kind of things I'm referencing when I talk about "throwing our sisters under the bus."
    In which case, the antecedent to your use of the word "our" was hopelessly opaque.

    All that said, what really frustrates me on this occasion is the inability of some on this board to see the loss of the UND Varsity program as a setback for the hockey community as whole. Same thing with regard to the lost opportunity at UM. To me, it's obvious that both schools could have been genuine leaders in Women's Hockey. Having these schools on the sidelines is a loss. Not in the same league as what the affected players experienced, but a loss just the same. To be indifferent to these setbacks -- or in some cases even gleeful about them -- strikes me as disloyal to our sport.
    I don't know of any regulars on this board who don't think that UND cutting its program is a setback for women's hockey, or who are indifferent to these setbacks. There were some interlopers who did, but I wouldn't lump them in as being a part of "some on this board." I'll admit that I probably came the closest, but I tried to differentiate the fact that this is a loss for women's hockey from the fact that I won't miss UND specifically, largely for the reasons I alluded to above in discussing UND's ethics. Then again, I don't think the concept of being "loyal" or "disloyal" to an abstract thing like a sport even makes any sense, let alone being a priority of mine.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    5,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    From my perspective, UND, and especially its hockey program, has been ethically compromised for decades, and this instance doesn't even make the top five examples.
    Care to elaborate on these "ethical" issues? If not, I'll assume this is just more of your nonsensical gibberish.

    Just a tip. Your perspective might change if you pulled your head out of your a s s.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,508

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Care to elaborate on these "ethical" issues? If not, I'll assume this is just more of your nonsensical gibberish.

    Just a tip. Your perspective might change if you pulled your head out of your a s s.
    I don't think any amount of tugging or pulling as far as Eeyore is concerned is going to change his perspective. Just like him elaborating on the ethical issues is not going to change a Whioux supporter's Sargent Shultz approach to said ethical issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
    Proud member of the "17"

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    5,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FiveHoleFrenzy View Post
    I don't think any amount of tugging or pulling as far as Eeyore is concerned is going to change his perspective. Just like him elaborating on the ethical issues is not going to change a Whioux supporter's Sargent Shultz approach to said ethical issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
    Just kind of curious about these "ethical" issues.

    I spend a fair amount of time in the Men's D-1 forums, but not so much here. UND and it's fans have been mocked pretty substantially about fighting to keep it's nickname or about some of the shenanigans of players who have consumed too much alcohol, but nothing about any "ethical" issues. It's not like we're point shaving or something. Just curious if the women's posters had inside information the rest of us were oblivious to.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    162

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

    In the majority of the states of this country, the top-paid public employee is either a football coach, or a basketball coach. The offensive coordinator at Alabama makes nearly a million dollars per year.

    Each fall, Kentucky and Duke, among others, welcomes a fresh batch of 18-year-olds who will play one season before moving on to the next level.

    Last week, a college athlete posted a rant on his social media, wondering why he was required to go to class when he was there to play football.

    D-I sports are ludicrous on their face, and have nothing to do with the mission of the schools that sponsor them. Do I participate in this sausage factory? Yes, yes I do. I spend money and time on these businesses, and I am invested in the fortunes of some of these teams. But to me, they are no different from the professional sports teams I follow, who invest their money with an eye toward maximizing their returns.

    These schools are allowed to spend their money the way they want, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But spare me the lectures about the nobility of the budget-writers. If a rich alum shows up some day with a hundred million to put up a new facility, the athletics department would send the lacrosse girls or the swimmers packing so fast we would wonder if they ever existed. And I'm OK with that, because that is how things work.

    But seventeen posters on this board lamenting the lack of women's hockey at Michigan is no more or less silly than any of the other ways UM could spend their money.

  9. #29
    Let's go RED!
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Juneau WI
    Posts
    8,768

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

    The thing that bothers me about UM is their FB team is a cash cow, certainly the cost to support women's hockey could be covered by the revenue of the FB team. The problem is the more money UM FB brings in, the more they spend it on themselves on foolish things like trips to Italy so the coach can meet his Hero on the coin of the University. At some point people have to stand up and call BS on frivolous things like that. What a joke.
    Wisconsin Hockey: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 WE WANT MORE!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
    "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
    Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,508

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leather helmet View Post
    But seventeen posters on this board lamenting the lack of women's hockey at Michigan is no more or less silly than any of the other ways UM could spend their money.
    Jeez, when you say it that way it sounds like the "seventeen" are kinda like boutique posters...
    Proud member of the "17"

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    40

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

    Some good news (hopefully)... Ohio State considering a new 4,000 seat facility to house Men's and Women's Hockey...

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    162

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FiveHoleFrenzy View Post
    Jeez, when you say it that way it sounds like the "seventeen" are kinda like boutique posters...
    We should have a Drive to Twenty in the fall.

  13. #33
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,093

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leather helmet View Post
    But seventeen posters on this board lamenting the lack of women's hockey at Michigan is no more or less silly than any of the other ways UM could spend their money.
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveHoleFrenzy View Post
    Jeez, when you say it that way it sounds like the "seventeen" are kinda like boutique posters...
    Quote Originally Posted by Leather helmet View Post
    We should have a Drive to Twenty in the fall.
    Can whoever started "the seventeen" please list them all?

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    Watch BU Hockey highlights

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canada EH!
    Posts
    95

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    Can whoever started "the seventeen" please list them all?

    Sean
    Are we like the dirty dozen??????

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    162

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    Can whoever started "the seventeen" please list them all?

    Sean
    The origins of the '17 posters' goes all the way back to 4/25/17 on the thread relating to North Dakota's decision to cut their women's program. It was intended as a term of derision, but we have proudly adopted it.

    We may only number 17, but we speak with the voice of 19 or so.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Leather helmet View Post
    In the majority of the states of this country, the top-paid public employee is either a football coach, or a basketball coach. The offensive coordinator at Alabama makes nearly a million dollars per year.
    Heck, the outside linebacker coach (not even the top defensive guy!) at Michigan is making $950,000.

    Saying it's getting out of hand is a complete understatement. :-(

  17. #37
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,093

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leather helmet View Post
    The origins of the '17 posters' goes all the way back to 4/25/17 on the thread relating to North Dakota's decision to cut their women's program. It was intended as a term of derision, but we have proudly adopted it.

    We may only number 17, but we speak with the voice of 19 or so.
    Yes, I have read and posted in that thread and I recall the original use of the "seventeen posters." I just want to know who they are as, unlike SJHovey, I:
    1) don't know who they are and I would like to; and
    2) I have never felt unwelcome here by anyone (except maybe Grant )

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    Watch BU Hockey highlights

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    5,611

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    Yes, I have read and posted in that thread and I recall the original use of the "seventeen posters." I just want to know who they are as, unlike SJHovey, I:
    1) don't know who they are and I would like to; and
    2) I have never felt unwelcome here by anyone (except maybe Grant )

    Sean


    If this turns out to be my legacy here at USCHO forums, it'll give me a pretty good chuckle.

    I really wish I could go back in time and recall my state of mind as I typed that post. I remember the reaction I felt when I read the post telling me to basically blow because I wasn't a regular poster in the women's forums, which was basically, "Really?" Why the random number 17 popped into my head will be forever a mystery. But I like it.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,285

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Care to elaborate on these "ethical" issues? If not, I'll assume this is just more of your nonsensical gibberish.
    Sure. They should never, ever have accepted the donations from Ralph Engelstad, let alone gone along with naming a building after him, under the circumstances he was facing, nor with the conditions he insisted upon. You're talking about someone who ran a casino in Las Vegas in the days when you had to have mob connections to run a casino in Vegas. His first donation to renovate the old hockey arena was timed so as to bail Engelstad out of a PR nightmare, with the Nevada State Gaming Commission debating whether to suspend his gaming license for celebrating Hitler's birthday and making bumper stickers saying "Hitler Was Right." They accepted the $100 million donation in 1998 despite conditions that meant that Engelstad retained control of the public image of the arena and the university.

    When you're fund raising, you have to be willing to walk away from a donation, no matter how large, under conditions like that. If you don't, you assume all of the baggage of the person making the donation. That's what happens when you sell your name. UND wasn't prepared to do that, so they own the ethical quagmire that was Ralph Engelstad.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,196

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    Sure. They should never, ever have accepted the donations from Ralph Engelstad, let alone gone along with naming a building after him, under the circumstances he was facing, nor with the conditions he insisted upon. You're talking about someone who ran a casino in Las Vegas in the days when you had to have mob connections to run a casino in Vegas. His first donation to renovate the old hockey arena was timed so as to bail Engelstad out of a PR nightmare, with the Nevada State Gaming Commission debating whether to suspend his gaming license for celebrating Hitler's birthday and making bumper stickers saying "Hitler Was Right." They accepted the $100 million donation in 1998 despite conditions that meant that Engelstad retained control of the public image of the arena and the university.

    When you're fund raising, you have to be willing to walk away from a donation, no matter how large, under conditions like that. If you don't, you assume all of the baggage of the person making the donation. That's what happens when you sell your name. UND wasn't prepared to do that, so they own the ethical quagmire that was Ralph Engelstad.
    I've read that his fortune was made in Las Vegas/Nevada real estate. Are you saying that that is not correct? Or that one (the cash flow from the casino) was the facilitator of the other?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •