Momentum building for adding W Ice Hockey as D1 sport at UM?
A recent tweet by Jordan Acker, one of the UM regents:
As many here already know, Michigan is one of only two schools in the Big Ten that has D1 men's hockey but not women's (msu being the other - I refuse to count ND as Big Ten, but they also lack women's hockey at this level)... despite being in one of the most fertile recruiting states for female hockey players.
A recent Daily article on the matter: https://www.michigandaily.com/sports/as-womens-hockey-grows-michigans-absence-is-glaring/
And from Hockey News: https://thehockeynews.com/womens/college/lack-of-michigan-ncaa-teams-a-loss-for-womens-hockey
osu and minn have been dominant for many of the past years in this sport, leaning heavily on players from MI (wisc does as well).
While there are some logistical challenges to making this happen, momentum *has* been building in recent years... maybe the tipping point will come soon.
January 18th, 2024 at 8:41 AM ^
Add women's ice hockey and mens volleyball please
January 18th, 2024 at 10:03 AM ^
Some other info based on a quick Google search of (nominally for 2023 but not all may be accurate as the numbers can change year-to-year, both up and down, and some sources might already be outdated):
Michigan # of varsity programs: 30
Ave Big Ten (2023 fball members): 23.8
osu: 36
Penn state: 26
msu: 23
ND: 26
Average SEC (2023 members): 19.8
Average ACC (2023 fball members): 22.6
Average Big XII (2023 members): 18.0
Average PAC (2023 fball members): 22.5
Average Ivy: 35.3
The numbers don't significantly change for conferences after the 2024 realignment (except PAC average drops to 17.0 and ACC jumps to 24.1).
January 18th, 2024 at 8:52 AM ^
Women's ice hockey would be an awesome add!
January 18th, 2024 at 8:56 AM ^
I've heard that the biggest issue is facilities. Minnesota, Wisconsin and OSU all have separate facilities for women's ice hockey and PSU built its facility with intentions to support both men's and women's ice hockey.
I assume Michigan could make this work but it would require a large financial commitment that they have not been committed to making.
I don't think there has been a lot of transparency on the issue which I presume is intentional.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:29 AM ^
There's been pushes for this for, geez, almost 25 years now, and there's always been piles of excuses. Locker room space, facilities space (particularly ice), and of course tied into all of that is money. But it needs to happen.
It's not a slam dunk to start and maintain a women's program, as hockey is one of the more cost-prohibitive sports across the board, but Michigan should be able to do it.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:01 AM ^
But the facilities question is a HUGE issue. I have no basis to evaluate the claims one way or the other, but multiple people have said over the years that it would simply not be feasible to have a women's team that plays at Yost (it sounds like it's barely even feasible for the men's team, as Yost has been jerry-rigged to its limits, and even then the away team "locker room" is essentially just a temporary area made out of a cordoned off hallway).
So what do you do? Do you demolish Yost and build a new, modern hockey area in its place? That would come at massive financial cost (Sacred Heart just built a $75M ice arena, so it's not hard to imagine that it would cost us over $100M given our needs at the top of the college hockey hierarchy), not to mention it's only been about a decade since the major renovations at Yost. Plus there would be a massive uproar about getting rid of Yost given its history and character.
Do you build a separate arena for the women? And if so, where do you put it? There's pretty much zero available land anywhere near campus, and I can't imagine a second ice area is high on the priority list with so many competing interests for so little space. So you can put it away from campus, but at that point you might as well just save the money and put the team at an existing rink like the Ice Cube. But putting them off campus pretty much dooms them to poor attendance.
It seems like the only feasible solution, if it's even possible, would be if there's some way to be able for a women's team to play at Yost (make the locker room situation work somehow) and have them train and practice off-campus. Otherwise it seems like the "solutions" are so problematic as to almost be nonstarters...
January 18th, 2024 at 10:13 AM ^
Oh, cosign to all of this for sure. Michigan is a bit more hamstrung than a lot of hockey programs in that it has a historic facility that wasn't built for hockey and that was never torn down (unlike, say, the original Mariucci), and which has been pushed to the brink in terms of space to make it usable as a modern hockey facility.
Minnesota built a separate arena adjacent to Mariucci. North Dakota did the same thing at the Ralph. There isn't space like that around Yost without giving up a ton of parking spots the Athletic Department can't afford to cede. And given the expansion of Athletics facilities farther south down State towards Briarwood, there doesn't seem a lot of room back there for a practice rink, either. If women's hockey had been a priority when they were doing the whole remapping/reimagining of South Campus 10+ years ago, maybe this looks different.
The basic standard of equity would seem to be that the women's team should be playing their games at Yost, too, which is doable if they alternate the schedule with the men's team. And there lies the rub, right? How fair would it be to start a D1 women's program and have them keep playing in the same places they always did?
January 18th, 2024 at 10:25 AM ^
I think preserving Yost has always been a priority and any women's team deserves to share in that history. That said, the space limitations affect the men's team as well the current and future women's team. I know parking garages aren't popular, but it seems like some use of above or below ground parking on the athletic campus could free up enough space for a hockey facility adjacent to Yost with modern locker rooms and training facilities.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:37 AM ^
Been screaming this for years. It's been clear for eons that there is a significant parking and traffic problem for all sports on South Campus, not just football. Structures would alleviate some of the issues in terms of creating more spaces. But the fact of the matter is that Ann Arbor has grown around the athletic campus in a way that isn't conducive to the kinds of crowds that Michigan wants to draw to its ever-growing facilities.
The real crux is that traffic in Ann Arbor is simply bad and getting worse. The road infrastructure was already pretty inadequate, and now efforts to do things like install bike lanes (which are good, mostly!) have further choked a lot of the major thoroughfares serve that part of town. Once the new dorm goes in on Elbel, it's going to be an even more gigantic mess.
Ann Arbor is simultaneously encouraging people to abandon the use of cars while also not doing enough to meet overwhelming housing demand. What to do when you need to drive in to a city that doesn't want you to drive, and yet where you also can't afford to live?
January 18th, 2024 at 10:25 AM ^
Here is a Google image of the location:
Seems like a possible option could be to expand the current Yost building into the parking lot area (keeping only essential parking such as handicap and equipment)... possibly add parking locally elsewhere by building above/underground structures at existing athletic campus lots? Gameday football parking revenue from the added spaces would offset a good amount of the cost.
Another option could be to move the golf course farther off campus - you really just need open fields and the majority of people going there will be driving anyway (not lugging clubs, shoes, etc. several blocks). This would free up *so much* property for expansion of athletic campus needs (and parking!) It might be less palatable for some (tailgating would be different, but also the course wouldn't get destroyed every home game in the fall), but it is do-able. Besides... the course is only *usable* for 6-8 months of the year anyway, and otherwise is just a money pit for the school considering how valuable that location is.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:32 AM ^
What's the sports coliseum doing nowadays? I always figured that building and parking lot were an obvious choice for a 2nd rink / multi-purpose arena (maybe 1-2k capacity) that could be used for practices and other things
January 18th, 2024 at 10:42 AM ^
It's used as a practice facility for (IIRC) gymnastics and diving, and I think rec sports uses it, too?
January 18th, 2024 at 11:35 AM ^
We could kill the trees behind the Ross complex as well futher down state... a couple sheets there and redo Yost as is.
North campus could work as well in multiple locations for a couple sheets of practice ice and student skating. Yost needs to stay/be redone as is. Too great to move maybe.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:48 AM ^
This is a really good and substantive conversation from everyone in this subthread.
Obviously, there needs to be facility growth for women's hockey to work, or at least a plan for it to happen in a defined time period (that is, if a plan exists to overhaul Yost or something but it will take a few years, you could start a program before the arena is finished and either squeeze into Yost or utilize the Ice Cube or something to get the program off the ground). The challenge of facility development is a big obstacle.
But then, perhaps that kick-starts a process that the men's facilities kind of need anyway.
Selfishly, I hope that women's hockey does get added sooner rather than later; it is likely that they would make regular visits to Duluth, which would be appointment attendance for me and my family.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:08 AM ^
There was a lot of history with the Chicago Stadium, but it was eventually torn down and replaced by the United Center (which now has a lot of history of its own).
Reading the notes above, tearing down Yost and building a new, first-rate, on-campus facility sounds like the practical answer. The new facility can still retain the name Yost (e.g., Yost II, Yost Center, etc.). There are certainly enough banners to hang to keep it a Michigan shrine.
If the regents get behind this, the $100 million might be doable.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:48 AM ^
Tear down Crisler and build a multiuse facility.
January 18th, 2024 at 12:01 PM ^
I think there would be groundswell opposition against multi-use. Crisler isn't anything special but it is adequate; multi-use facilities at places like Wisconsin and Ohio State just aren't great, won't improve the basketball experience, and are likely to massively harm the hockey experience. There are some unique ways you could do it that might lessen that impact, but Michigan hockey in particular is tied to a particular experience of attending games.
Which is not to say that there's no effort to replace Yost, just that a generic multi-purpose might be a hard sell. There are some great hockey-primary college arenas that do a lot of things really well, and I think just a little HOK style ingenuity can develop a design that has a lot of charm and some physical characteristics that, if not the same as Yost, can be appreciated by people who appreciate Yost. I've always thought you could gain a lot of traction out of pulling motifs from a place like Maple Leaf Gardens for a college arena, to name one example.
But it's a big ask, and I think a question that many will want explored is whether there is a feasible option for a much more extensive structural rebuild of Yost to preserve some of the history and "feel." It would probably be just as expensive as a new arena, but if they're just expanding the current footprint anyway, maybe that's a more palatable option.
January 18th, 2024 at 8:22 PM ^
That's fair. I just wish we had a better basketball arena.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:43 AM ^
I'd think that a bigger issue right now is that we are entering an era when all the AD's profits are going to be plowed into revenue sharing with football and maybe even MBB players. Most schools are going to drop sports, not add them.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:36 AM ^
Yes, it’s expensive, and yes, they should do it anyway. Our athletic department prints money, so them pointing to the cost is a poor excuse.
Tangential fun fact: there are 20 teams in the Michigan Girls High School Hockey League, and Livonia is the only district that doesn’t give the girls a varsity letter. In case you happen to be a Livonia resident and care about equality.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:48 AM ^
I disagree on cost. Women's hockey would be a serious outlay. I agree they should do it, since sport is going this way and it is a natural Michgan experience, but we need to sacrifice other sports given the money. Expanding the B1G to the best coast isn't going to be cheap, and we are already on the hook for that.
https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/stanford-olympic-sports-acc-billions-18331488.php
"....UCLA’s new travel costs in the Big Ten ballooning from $8 million to $23.7 million, for example."
January 18th, 2024 at 12:47 PM ^
Re: varsity letters for girls hs hockey
Many of the "united" teams in the mghshl (Washtenaw, Livingston, traverse City) are dealing with the same problem with individual high schools. It's not just a Livonia problem, sadly
January 18th, 2024 at 1:10 PM ^
I also believe that some of the other girls united teams have had to go affiliate because they didn’t have the right paperwork in place. Bureaucracy is a pain. I suppose I should have said “one of the only.”
But now that Franklin and Churchill boys are united without losing their varsity status, the United approach doesn’t seem to be the limiting factor. I’m sure there’s a process to get there, but many other teams managed to get it done, while Livonia is dragging their feet.
January 19th, 2024 at 3:35 PM ^
It makes no sense that Livonia doesn't give out letters for women's hockey. FWIW their team just beat our Pioneer squad twice in the past 3 weeks!
January 18th, 2024 at 11:29 AM ^
Batsh*t crazy idea that has zero chance of happening: Do a public/private partnership with the folks that own Briarwood Mall. Take the defunct Sears/Spirit Halloween area on the West side of the mall and make it a state-of-the-art 7,000 seat co-ed hockey facility that connects to the Mall. Call it Yost 2.0. You got parking, relatively easy in-and-out access to 1-94 and State Street, and it would boost the Mall's anemic foot traffic (especially if you re-envision that portion of the Mall to be an entertainment complex with food and drink options). Open it up to townies for ice skating, especially in the summer.
Keep the og Yost and repurpose it as a indoor faclity for general sports use.
Again, zero chance of this happening.
January 18th, 2024 at 1:13 PM ^
Zero percent chance of happening mostly because there's already a development plan for the Sears location.
The development team plans to tear down the vacant Sears — one of the mall’s four anchor spaces — and replace it with new two-story commercial spaces, including a grocery store and another large retail space officials said is expected to be a sporting goods store, plus 354 apartments in a four-story building covering part of the mall parking lot.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:05 AM ^
Women's hockey and men's water polo ( both are played in Michigan by high school students).
January 18th, 2024 at 9:11 AM ^
It's awful that we don't already have a varsity women's team and it's CRAZY that there aren't any D1 teams in the state of Michigan.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:25 AM ^
"I've come around on this"
Why on earth wouldn't you be already around on this? Just Acker being Acker.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:17 AM ^
I mean, I'd like to see it happen but it's an expensive sport that's not going to have many fans. I can see why that plus the current facilities issues at Yost resulted in it not being a high priority for the university
January 18th, 2024 at 9:32 AM ^
The links are old, but support has to come from the Athletic Department and the Regents. Ono said so much. Getting Acker on board is a big deal.
From the Daily article (they are the ones engaged here - Hockey News link leans on the Daily for the leg work) regarding last best chance...
“It was a brutal lesson in terms of bureaucracy and administration,” Sue McDowell, CCWHA commissioner and one of the original founders of the Michigan women’s club hockey team, said. “It got referred to a Financial Committee. And it never came out of the Financial Committee to the Regents for request. What came out of the Financial Committee was men’s soccer and women’s water polo.”
Cherry picking here but this is from Ono...
"...Ultimately, if the decision is made by the athletic director and the Regents of the University to move forward, then I think that there’ll be plenty of people that will want to support the team, but it will be a process."
Michigan needs Yost renovations for the Men's program to boot. Moar sheets!
January 18th, 2024 at 9:50 AM ^
I included the Hockey News link since it gives a broader perspective of D1 hockey in the entire state of MI beyond UM... and is a more recent article.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:36 AM ^
Michigan is NOT hurting for money. It's a choice not to have Women's hockey and it's a shame that Michigan has decided to be so far behind the curve.
Defector had an outstanding longform piece on the new PWHL: https://defector.com/womens-hockey-pwhl-pwhpa-labor-cba
Michigan should jump on this, better late than never.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:41 AM ^
The margins are tight as it is. There will be some bump from Football over the next years due to excellence, but you can't plan on that every year.
https://mgoblue.com/news/2023/6/15/general-athletic-department-projects-balanced-budget-in-fy-24
For the current fiscal year, the athletic department projects a slight operating surplus of $0.2 million based on operating revenues of $215.1 million and operating expenses of $214.9 million. Revenues increased notably in spectator admissions due to the number of home football games, while expenses increased significantly in certain areas due to inflation.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:47 AM ^
There's another angle in that there's a lot of donor money that 5-10 years ago would have been going directly to the Athletic Department is now going to NIL. This is a good thing, of course, but there has to be a trickle-down in terms of how much money is coming in to Athletics for things like, say, starting up a new varsity program. What's more, Michigan spent the late 2000s muddling up its donor structures and incentives right in time for all of this, too. (Ever notice how the Victors Club simply disappeared without anyone saying a word?)
One thing that could come from a visible, transparent, and seemingly competent AD would be some change/reform to all of this.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:03 AM ^
Paying the players in Football and Basketball is important. The players don't care about Title IX, at least I haven't seen any player check in on that... not a peep.
I would go a cheaper route, but it would kill athletics and wouldn't be popular. I would propose a rethink of varsity sports. If we cut non-paying sports and focus on the revenue generation and equity, there's a path for Women's hockey - which is a reflection of a paying professional league. This is never going to happen... but it is where I stand. I won't even mention the sports I'd cut, just a non-starter.
January 18th, 2024 at 9:57 AM ^
we could fund a women's hockey team by digging into the couch cushions in the football building.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:07 AM ^
I get the sentiment, but that's really underestimating how much money this is going to cost. This is not to say it shouldn't happen, but it's not exactly a trivial amount of money.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:25 AM ^
Michigan could take 10% of the interest they earned in 2023 and put $50M towards Women's hockey.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/endowment-generated-5-2-return-in-fy-23/
The article highlights disbursements of $470M out of the $529M they earned. They just have to decide to use some of their money on this.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:30 AM ^
Taking endowment money away from academic purposes for athletics is a non-starter... and unnecessary.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:40 AM ^
For the umpteenth time, academic funds (including the endowment) are an entirely different budget and bucket of money from the Athletic Department, and intentionally so. Which has been true for well over a century. Michigan is not a school which taps the endowment to pay for athletics, because it doesn't have to–and should never do so, either.
January 18th, 2024 at 1:17 PM ^
Being in this space, I get bewildered every time someone looks at the billions of dollars in the endowment and says to take money from it to spend.
There is a planned distribution every year, $470M in this case, and it was spent for academic purposes and for Michigan Medicine.
We already fund 30 teams, more than most schools do, so if we want to add another sport, get someone to fund it vs breaking into the piggy bank.
January 18th, 2024 at 10:18 AM ^
Michigan has long used expenses to hide how profitable the organization is. We're not just barely breaking even here - we're spending everything we make on purpose
January 18th, 2024 at 10:33 AM ^
I’m not trying to be snarky, but how do you know what’s definitively “hiding money” versus required spending to be compliant with Title IX?
January 18th, 2024 at 10:47 AM ^
I am sure expenses have risen over the years, but ever since I saw the chart below, I've thought it seemed fairly apparent that the university intentionally spends what it makes. Looks like in 2023 it was $215.1M revenue vs. $214.9M expenses. I find it hard to believe it is truly $137 million dollars more expensive per year to run the athletic department since when Rich Rod was hired.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:04 AM ^
Not too far off.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:10 AM ^
I find it hard to believe it is truly $137 million dollars more expensive per year to run the athletic department since when Rich Rod was hired.
a THOUSAND TIMES this. yes, revenues have also ballooned, and it would be impossible to run a department this size with the same staffing level. stipulated.
that said - how much did we spend on, say, the new michigan stadium scoreboards? did those scoreboards do anything to either increase athletic department revenue, or to increase the opportunities for student-athletes? no, dear reader, they did not. please note that i'm NOT suggesting that we shouldn't have done the upgrades. i'm suggesting that funding a women's hockey - or literally any other athletic department expenditure - is, by definition a choice.
i'd like us to make those choices based on the stated goal of the athletic department, specifically:
Michigan Athletics’ primary goal is to provide the best student-athlete experience in the nation. Each of our priorities are strategically aligned to create a world-class experience for over 900 student-athletes representing 29 sport programs.
i won't address my misgivings with the misalignment of big-time football with the purpose of a University as a concept. however, in my humble opinion, the creation of a women's hockey program (or men's water polo, or men's volleyball, for that matter) fit entirely within the stated purpose of the very existence of the athletic department.
January 18th, 2024 at 11:21 AM ^
Football makes money. Hockey doesn't - at the college level. Comparing scoreboards to Women's hockey doesn't work.
I want to do this as much as anyone, but it is going to suck money from the bottom line. We can't use Championship goggles.
100% your post and the primary goal statement, but supporting 900 students vs. the other 50,000... I question that goal as a driving force at Michigan, especially as the primary focus, in my mind if no other, is aligning with professional sports, Michigan sports culture (hockey is a Michigan/Minnesota ideal) and above all equity.
January 18th, 2024 at 12:09 PM ^
Football makes money. Hockey doesn't - at the college level. Comparing scoreboards to Women's hockey doesn't work.
it absolutely does. they're both expenses, both choices at the department level as to how to spend the athletic department budget.
you can spend money on women's hockey (or any other sports that are being suggested), which actually, by definition, increases the opportunities for athletes on campus - or on a scoreboard that doesn't.
i get it - football is king, and it probably should be - but that doesn't mean they should get every spare dollar, regardless of tangible benefits to the players or increased revenue to the department.
again - if the very purpose of the athletic department, as stated, is to provide the best experience for student-athletes, a scoreboard ain't it.
EDIT to add - i actually have no problem with the scoreboards...it was just the most-recent big(ish) expense that popped into my head. the point is that every budget, in every organization, is a direct expression of values and priorities. i'd like to think we prioritize the support and advancement of the athletes, both existing and prospective.
January 18th, 2024 at 3:11 PM ^
This is fair but just for conversation... the Scoreboards are not even state of the art and were in serious need of updates. One of the key income generators is the Big House take/fan experience which needs more than just scoreboards if we are going to keep that going through the next downturn (and it will come eventually - no BPONE there.) Any improvement in football is looking after the players in the long run. It is where the money comes from.
The Hockey team absolutely doesn't pay it's way. Someone else shared 3 million cost / 1 million income earlier. This graphic is old but relatively accurate as well. Only Football and Basketball pay their way.
I would appreciate a correction if anyone can link to it...
