Why no M women's hockey?
Does anyone know why Michigan doesn't field a woman's hockey team in NCAA competition? I noticed that both Minnesota and Wisconsin do - as a traditional college hockey power, you think Michigan would as well.
Expense? Lack of interest? Lack of ice time? Any clue?
December 12th, 2008 at 5:56 PM ^
What they lack in hard-checking they make up with in good fundamentals!
Probably no one has taken interest in initiating the movement. What we really need is a varsity lacrosse team seeing that we win the CCLA every year, won the national championship after going 20-0, and got a guy drafted by the pros.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:03 PM ^
have a womens hockey team, but they are a club sport. my guess is that its due to title IX, and they need to keep the # of mens and womens varsity sports equal.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:10 PM ^
I was aware of the club team; I'm wondering why they aren't upgraded to NCAA status.
I think the operative metric is not equality in teams, its equality in opportunity/number of scholarships available to men/women.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:41 PM ^
No - it's equality in teams.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:05 PM ^
So I done educated myself on Title IX, and learned it's opportunity and dollars, not teams fielded.
1) Participation: requires that women be provided an equitable opportunity to participate in sports as men (not necessarily the identical sports but an equal opportunity to play).
2) Scholarships: requires that female athletes receive athletic scholarship dollars proportional to their participation (e.g., if there are 100 male athletes/100 female athletes and a $200,000 scholarship budget, then the budget must be split $100,000 to men/$100,000 to women)
3) The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent (proportional to participation) is “scholarships”. Otherwise, female athletes must receive equal “treatment” and “benefits”.
This is why football is a problem vis-a-vis Title IX. lots of football players on scholarship forcing schools to create opportunities for women in equal proportion, so more women's teams. The argument is that the added expense of adding scholarships adversely impacts non-revenue men's sports (wrestling, gymnastics, etc.)
None of this changes the fact that Charlie Weis is bad at the football coach.
Ripped off from: http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title%20I…
December 13th, 2008 at 12:16 AM ^
Are you saying our Title IX issues are with too MANY women participating, not too few?
I don't see how title IX participation could be an issue. Although maybe if it was a varsity support they'd have to provide good ice times and locker room space to equal the men, that I could see as being an investment they wouldn't want to make for a sport with such minimal participation.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:01 PM ^
who in the hell would want one? Unless you're a woman, and a student, and hockey player, why? The last thing we need is more title nine crap sports stealing scholarships from real sports.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:17 PM ^
I want my university to be best it can be academically and athletically - and a strong women's sports program fits that model. Our peer universities are traditionally stronger that us in women's athletics. We should aim to equal Texas, Stanford, North Carolina in the prominence of our women's teams.
Which sports other than women's hockey are not real sports?
December 12th, 2008 at 8:29 PM ^
Plus it can only upgrade the "talent pool" around campus. If you dig.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:37 PM ^
Women's hockey players would most certainly not do that.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:27 PM ^
Broads should stay in the kitchen where they belong! Make me a pie, woman!
December 12th, 2008 at 8:31 PM ^
Bumping women's hockey up to a scholarship sport would not "steal" scholarships from other sports at any school, but especially at a school with a well-funded athletic department like Michigan.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:03 PM ^
Who wouldn't enjoy a nice fight between two rugged women in hockey gear? Think Sarah Palin...
December 12th, 2008 at 6:41 PM ^
Its cuz of Title IX. They should bump that and Lacrosse up.
December 12th, 2008 at 7:04 PM ^
remember all this costs $$$ and hockey isn't exactly cheap.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:17 PM ^
I mean, I know it costs money, but, if they could find the funding to bump up Lax, then they could bump up womens hockey, and, well, do you really think a womens hockey team couldn't grab a crowd at Yost?
December 13th, 2008 at 1:37 AM ^
I remember years and years ago they were trying to hype the women's hockey program, so they had a few games directly after men's games to attract attention, similar to what they did to promote women's basketball in the early 1970's. It somewhat worked.
That being said, for as long as Men's Lacrosse has been waiting to become a varsity sport... Title IX is pretty annoying sometimes.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:53 AM ^
Because no one in their right minds would want to see it.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:20 PM ^
What gives you the impression that any sport aside from Michigan Football and Men's Hockey generate any appreciable attendance? Believe it or not - the point of NCAA athletics, with the exception of Football, Men's Basketball, and a handful of hockey teams is not to make revenue - but to provide the school's students to participate in a sport they excel in.
I played club lacrosse at Michigan, so I'm biased to support it, and even I can't envision a reality in which they'd generate any attendance beyond about 50 people a game. Schools like UNC, Duke, Syracuse, and Johns Hopkins have about 200 people coming out to game and they're the elite teams in the country.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:06 AM ^
I once asked a friend on the guy's crew team, which is club also, if his sport would ever be varsity. He said it wouldn't anytime soon because then women's hockey would also have to be promoted (Title IX). Red wouldn't stand for having a women's team eating up any more ice time at Yost, which I guess would happen if they became varsity. And I can definitely see him having that type of pull...and I'm kinda glad he feels that way.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:22 AM ^
only women H2O Polo is varsity (Olympic silver medalist goalie was UM player) - so the quotas even themselves out.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:42 AM ^
Ice time is eaten up by more than just men's hockey. If they wanted to make women's hockey a varsity sport, they could cut back on IM sports' access to Yost, public skating time, etc. etc. It could be done.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:58 PM ^
I love Red, but thankfully he's not going to be able to call those shots very much longer.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:41 PM ^
Bumping women's hockey up to a scholarship sport would not "steal" scholarships from other sports at any school, but especially at a school with a well-funded athletic department like Michigan.
Well-funded or not, it ain't cheap to field a varsity sports team. There's a reason we don't have as many varsity sports as Stanford and some other super-rich schools.