NYT article on Michigan Women's Ice Hockey

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on

Add a team! 

The next two Varsity sports at Michigan should be Women's Hockey and Men's Volleyball.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/sports/hockey/university-of-michigan…

 

But sometimes, the women said, it feels as if the university just will not give them a break. They have asked to get a display case at Yost to show off the team’s trophies, schedule and roster, but the requests have been denied.

“It would just be nice so that people know we exist,” said Mercedes Reyes, a junior forward.

A few years ago, Ned Glysson, an assistant coach, bought the team jerseys featuring the university crest on the front. But they did not conform to Michigan’s strict uniform guidelines.

“They’re beautiful jerseys, but we mothballed them,” Glysson said. “Can’t use them.”

Shortly after the Michigan women’s team started in 1995, players and coaches applied to become a varsity sport. But the athletics department instead chose women’s water polo, which the university determined would cost about half as much, said Sue McDowell, who started the hockey team and served as a coach for most of its existence.

Later efforts also failed, even as four of Michigan’s Big Ten rivals — Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Penn State — ramped up women’s Division I programs. Minnesota and Wisconsin have combined to win 10 of the 17 N.C.A.A. tournaments. Penn State rose to Division I, along with its men’s team, in 2012, with the help of a $102 million donation. Like Michigan, Michigan State has only club hockey for women.

In 2011, the Michigan women again tried for varsity status, but women’s lacrosse got the spot. Two years later, the real estate developer Stephen M. Ross, the owner of the Miami Dolphins, donated $100 million toward the new athletic complex that includes a lacrosse stadium.

“So basically, unless we get a Stephen Ross for hockey, it’s not happening,” McDowell said.

rob f

May 17th, 2017 at 9:36 PM ^

Title IV is a major factor here. Don't get me wrong, Title IX has done a lot of good for women's athletics, but isn't it about time for some modifications or a rewrite? I know the purpose is to insure gender equity so that an approximately equal # of women (as to men) can participate in varsity Athletics, but the sheer size of football rosters means that an artificial barrier is then in place that prevents others in various non-revenue sports from being able to find opportunities to play. U of M is one of a very small # of universities capable of affording to be able to financially support additional non-revenue sports. Being the case, why doesn't Title IX have some sort of "safety valve" allowing for additional sports to be added without putting our athletic program in violation?

Mitch Cumstein

May 17th, 2017 at 11:09 PM ^

Title IX as is, in combination with amateurism, for cash positive athletic departments are a terrible combination. The reality is there are more women voters than minority voters, so it will never change. In effect, the law is taking value that mostly African American men are creating and giving it to the daughter's of the country club. I realize that's a gross generalization, and I do appreciate the educational opportunities athletes are afforded, regardless of background. That said, the dollars and cents are a bit regressive.

Farnn

May 18th, 2017 at 12:33 AM ^

Good point.  Most players of non-revenue sports are from wealthy backgrounds as it's not cheap to get the coaching and facilities required to earn a scholarship.  They require travel for camps and games against other top competition, expensive equipment, and expensive coaching.  And then, no one pays any money to watch them.

NittanyFan

May 18th, 2017 at 12:33 AM ^

is that football could cut the # of scholarships they offer.  

Does football need 85 scholarships when only 22 start?  85 scholarships is nearly 4 entire starting 22s.

Does FBS football need 85 scholarships when FCS schools manage with 62?  

Go from 85 to, say, 73.  There you go, 12 additional men's scholarships.  It's now very easy for Michigan (and every other D-1 school) to add another men's sport!

I get your argument - I do support what you're saying.  But that's the argument against and why it'll never happen. 

(the real flaw, of course, in my devil's advocate argument is that with FB scholarships now at 73, what would actually happpen at most schools is they'd just cut a women's sport vs adding a men's sport.  Unfortunately, I don't think there's any real "win" available here as regards Title IX reform.)

Mitch Cumstein

May 18th, 2017 at 7:03 AM ^

If we're into mandating 'fairness', how is it fair to tell a male athlete "we'd pay for your school if we were allowed, but sorry, bc of 'competition' and the need to make sure just as many women are playing sports as men at our school (despite not contributing to the revenue pool) you'll have to pursue other opportunities. I just don't see that as a real solution to any problem. The market will pay, or give an educational opportunity, to an athlete with a unique skill, but these rules prevent it in the name of 'fairness'. And on the 'competitiveness' point, I personally think allowing HS kids to earn better educational opportunities through sport far outweighs the needs of fans to see upsets once in awhile.

ThadMattasagoblin

May 17th, 2017 at 9:56 PM ^

I feel like it would be possible with no facility improvements needed. Now that we have a new men's coach maybe that hurdle is gone to moving to d1. Michigan would kick ass at it with no instate competition. Men's volleyball would be fun with no facility improvements needed either.

NittanyFan

May 17th, 2017 at 11:11 PM ^

Of the 351 D-1 schools out there - only 22 of them sponsor Men's Volleyball.  (a whopping 332 sponsor Women's Volleyball).  

Only 11 of those 22 schools are east of the Rocky Mountains.  

Those 11 schools are a rather hodge-podge and sort of random bunch.  A couple B1G schools (OSU, PSU), a couple Ivy League schools (Harvard, Princeton), a few smaller-tier publics (Ball State, George Mason, IPFW, NJIT), and a few smaller-tier privates (Loyola-ILL, Sacred Heart, St Francis PA).

There are about a dozen D-2 schools that play up at the D-1 level.  I've found the sport entertaining when I've watched - the athletes who play the sport deserve more opportunities at the collegiate level.  Those opportunities are honestly rather limited now, especially compared to the women's game.

ATC

May 18th, 2017 at 2:32 PM ^

Put people in the seats.... what's current attendance? Average 2,000 like Wisconsin or Minnesota and mission accomplished. Re: women's sports, add Trap and Skeet team..... my cousin got a scholarship for it, she was a junior Olympic gold champ.

Esterhaus

May 17th, 2017 at 10:57 PM ^

 

Michigan Mens Rugby, of potentially championship caliber back when I played, is underfunded. And with the growth of mens rugby, there you have a revenue stream which could be captured except ... well why not? Why are we not funding mens rugby?

Alton

May 17th, 2017 at 11:16 PM ^

At Michigan, it appears they don't promote a sport to varsity unless it is an NCAA sport or at least a Big Ten sport.  The same issue seems to be preventing men's rowing from being varsity:  no NCAA or B1G trophies to win, no reason to fund them at the varsity level.

Now if you are just asking about why the club team doesn't get more money, that's a separate issue, and one I can't answer.  Are they under-funded compared to other men's club sports?

 

Lee Everett

May 18th, 2017 at 2:13 AM ^

It looks like there are 14 varsity sports for women and 13 for men? http://www.mgoblue.com/school-bio/mich-varsity-sports.html

Women's----------Men's
Softball------------Baseball
              Basketball
           Cross Country
Ice Hockey------Field Hockey
                Lacrosse
                   Golf
-----------------------Football
             Gymnastics
Rowing------------------------
                  Soccer
          Swimming/Diving
                  Tennis
             Track&Field
Volleyball-----------------------
Water Polo----------------------
-------------------------Wrestling

The club teams that aren't also represented by a varsity sport:
Men's water polo
Men's volleyball
Ultimate frisbee for both sexes
Rugby for both sexes
Men's rowing
Women's ice hockey
Wrestling club team that I believe is co-ed.

Maybe I'm mistaken in considering women's field hockey a homolog to men's ice hockey.*

I think it's bizarre that there's a women's rowing team but not men's, and that seems to be NCAA-wide?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/rowing/d1

I thought that football would create a permanent imbalance (what do you do, create a women's rugby team but not men's?), but it seems like men are missing out on volleyball and water polo, both sports that are NCAA D1.  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/waterpolo-men  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/volleyball-men/nc

So I have no idea.  

UnkleBuck

May 18th, 2017 at 6:37 AM ^

I would support adding women's hockey.  U-M should be leading for things like this, not fast followers (if followers at all).  If OSU and PSU can add the program, surely U-M can.  

maiznblue

May 18th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^

I played on this team while at UM. I think most of us would've be ecstatic for it to be varsity, but would have settled for at least some respect and more financial help. It was a ridiculous amount of money and all they gave us were road blocks. I get that it's all about money but there are many sports that don't fill seats and women's hockey had the potential to do it. There are so many young women that are interested and it's a growing sport.