More about expansion for women's hockey

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

While UMich and MSU are the two schools that get a lot of attention for not having women's hockey as a varsity sport, let's not lose sight of the following:

Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.

Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.

Great point.

[giwan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

While UMich and MSU are the two schools that get a lot of attention for not having women's hockey as a varsity sport, let's not lose sight of the following:Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.
Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.

It's a culture and taxpayer issue. MN should not be compared to MI, hell even WI is more women's hockey program friendly than MI. Regardless, the two LARGEST Uni's in MI do not, one WSU did for a short time and I know personally one has had repeated talks about it.

Add to that, some of those D-I men's programs may not be around in a few more years. So your argument is not valid.

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

And that's the key quote on the question of whether or not it was intended specifically for American citizens. A "person in the United States" is not limited to U.S. citizens; it is, in fact, a specific legal phrase that deliberately includes those who are here but who are not Americans.

So now it’s turned into an argument over what they meant by “person” eh?
ROFL
You can spin it however you want, apparently the real reason is that a Canadian male coach is depriving Canadian women the right to play hockey for the Michigan universities. Or so they say.

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.

Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.

I think that a big difference is that in Minnesota, girls' hockey is a serious high school sport. Particularly with a sport that is in the early stages of generating participation and acceptance (and women's hockey still is) this is a big advantage relative to places where girls' high school hockey is an afterthought if it exists at all. It helps directly in that it encourages more girls to start playing the game but it's also an indirect advantage.

While we all wish that there was more interest in women's hockey even here in Minnesota, that the high school game is meaningful produces a lot more engagement from the population at large. There are more people who have spent time rooting for a girls' team and while many of them will never become serious fans of women's hockey, it's easier to get buy-in from them for the idea of having a women's team.

[Eeyore]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

So now it’s turned into an argument over what they meant by “person” eh?

Yeah, it's kind of funny how, if you want to understand what a law means, you have to learn the legal definition of the words in it.

[KTDC]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

It's not as much a hotbed as you may think, specifically on the women's side. Very closed minded and regional at best.

Fair enough. 'Hotbed' is probably overstating it although I was speaking relatively. Michigan does seem like a good hockey area compared to most states of the US. And it still seems like an area that has better potential for growth in women's hockey than most. That's what is the drag part of it for me. If they joined in with D1 programs it may help get the young girls involved and maybe turn into something.

Again, by commenting repeatedly, it starts to sound heavy like I'm trying to blame someone for something real bad. But it's more commenting on where I think the opportunities are.

[Genbeau]

[SueE=northhockey;5975788]Once Coach Berenson retires, the door for women's hockey in Michigan will open[/QUOTE]

I think far to much is made with the Red Berenson angle. He has his opinions but I truly don't think they carry much weight. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.

[giwan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

[SueE=northhockey;5975788]Once Coach Berenson retires, the door for women's hockey in Michigan will open

I think far to much is made with the Red Berenson angle. He has his opinions but I truly don't think they carry much weight. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.[/QUOTE]

Mary Sue is happily gone.

[5mn_Major]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of women's college hockey in Michigan has not only hurt women's high school...it could well be hurting men's high school and therefore, the UMI and MSU men's programs themselves. I don't think we know the full impacts of this.

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

I think far to much is made with the Red Berenson angle. He has his opinions but I truly don't think they carry much weight. I don't think his boss, U of M president Mary Sue Coleman or her cohort over at MSU, president Lou Ann Simon would agree with him! Certainly not his buddy Mike Babcock who is a big supporter of womens hockey. It's about economics and a culture that's been a little slow to learn about another brand of hockey that doesn't involve body checking and to a lesser extent fighting.

exactly, Berenson has no legitimate power to keep out women's hockey, consequently it is political

How about a quote from one of the bill's authors that athletics wasn't a consideration?

Oh, wait, I already supplied those.

the author, Birch Bayh, is mentioned nowhere in this thread

[giwan]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if a lack of women's college hockey in Michigan has not only hurt women's high school...it could well be hurting men's high school and therefore, the UMI and MSU men's programs themselves. I don't think we know the full impacts of this.

Have personally tried several times to get more HS to offer women's hockey. Stating it would be self supporting no school dollars only being recognized from the school. Though some parents were very interested, the HS AD's for the most part were not. Could not get the coaches of the few HS's that do have women's HS hockey to show support or the willingness to schedule any games if I was successful in forming a 5-6 team league.

On the men's side of HS hockey they will be going to a before and after season system.

[sbkbghockey]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

While UMich and MSU are the two schools that get a lot of attention for not having women's hockey as a varsity sport, let's not lose sight of the following:

Minnesota: 5 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; all five have D-I women's hockey programs.

Michigan: 7 schools, all public universities, with a D-I men's hockey program; none have a D-I women's hockey program.

Other than MSU and UM, the other hockey schools are NCAA DII schools with much smaller athletic budgets. They likely won't add women's hockey unless MSU and UM do. The two trend-setting programs could spark others to add the sport. Right now only MSU and UM would be in good shape to endure the extended travel being the first two teams in the region. Closest schools are OH State, Mercyhurst/RMU-PA, Wisconsin and Lindenwood.

The other thing to consider, the additions of Sparty and the Wolverines would likely shake up women's hockey similar to men's. the BIG10 would have six women's hockey teams and enough to start a women's championship. So the other MI schools wouldn't have MSU or UM as conference opponents if they did start programs.

[pokechecker]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

So the other MI schools wouldn't have MSU or UM as conference opponents if they did start programs.

and long time college hockey fans will recall that UM, MSU, and Tech were in the WCHA and left because of travel, and it still hasn't settled out to this day which conference schools in the area belong to.

[ritBLKnORGsuit]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

The other thing to consider, the additions of Sparty and the Wolverines would likely shake up women's hockey similar to men's. the BIG10 would have six women's hockey teams and enough to start a women's championship. So the other MI schools wouldn't have MSU or UM as conference opponents if they did start programs.

That could happen but I feel the Big 10 wouldn't want to do that knowing they are less likely to get other current Big 10 schools to commit to a women's along with the a new men's hockey program. And having two really small conferences like the CHA currently is would not be good for women's hockey. It could happen later on but only once the sport grows and more programs form. But the closet teams you did list mostly are CHA so if the michigan schools decide to add women's hockey they will most-likely join the CHA until the Big 10 can field more than 6 schools for women's hockey. Just my opinion.

[HockeyEast33]

Re: More about expansion for women's hockey

That could happen but I feel the Big 10 wouldn't want to do that knowing they are less likely to get other current Big 10 schools to commit to a women's along with the a new men's hockey program. And having two really small conferences like the CHA currently is would not be good for women's hockey. It could happen later on but only once the sport grows and more programs form. But the closet teams you did list mostly are CHA so if the michigan schools decide to add women's hockey they will most-likely join the CHA until the Big 10 can field more than 6 schools for women's hockey. Just my opinion.

A much discussed topic on other threads in the past. When 6 Big Ten schools are playing women's hockey there will be a Big Ten conference regardless of effects on other schools and conferences. It's a Big Ten conference requirement and it's all about money and power (and additional programming for the Big Ten Network). You can bet the farm.