Why no women's hockey at M?
While watching olympic women's hockey, my wife asked me why Michigan doesn't have a women's hockey team. I did not have an answer. All of the olympians came from Minnesota, BC, North Dakota, etc. (i.e. traditional hockey powers). I'm skeptical it's money because we know the athletic department prints money and they could find a donor if needed. It would be a Title IX bonus, allowing an additional men's program if needed?
Women's rowing offsets football. Football has a very large roster and a ton of scholarships, so the AD needs a similarly large women's program.
But the trade being suggested is swap Women's Rowing for Women's Hockey. Sorry to the rowers, but I'd actually watch women's hockey. I never in my life will watch rowing, women's or men's.
Our local alumni club used to sponsor the M Club rings for the women's crew team. They're a pretty great bunch. But nice attempt at a men's rights hot take.
Don't complain about other women's sports not being represented if you can afford the luxury of sinking a six figure sum every year into a sport no-one cares about outside the country club scene.
1. Michigan does have a women's hockey team, but it's field hockey. Not the same? Of course not, but the male/female scholarship situation is balanced, and there doesn't seem to be a huge push for more sports for their own sake.
2. Women's hockey would not draw well. I attend women's hockey here in Duluth on occasion. UMD has multiple national titles and a strong history; its goalie just won the gold medal. Few people show up, certainly 1000 or less for the games I have attended. The nice thing about it is that if I can get cheap or free tickets (free ones this year) I can sit literally anywhere I want, which is nice for kids because I can put them right next to the glass and young kids can get that.
Michigan women's hockey might get some initial buzz, but as far as I can tell the only women's team that has reached critical mass is softball, which has the advantage of having litltle competition in the spring, and is a perennial national title contender. Women's hockey does not currently have a serious fanbase.
3. Women's hockey would create logistical issues. One might think they can be papered over, but the issues (particularly those outlined in Alton's rather jarring post) are real and can't be ignored. And if you don't believe me, keep in mind that this very week UMD is defending itself in a lawsuit against its former women's hockey coach and one of the big sticking points is "equal treatment" for a team that has some of the nicest facilities in women's hockey.
4. I hope it happens. Hockey is the only sport in which UMD and Michigan play on the same footing, and if Michigan were to start women's hockey and join the WCHA, they would travel to Duluth periodically, and that would be a highlight weekend of the year for us.
Of course, my dream is for the NCAA to go to home sites for the NCAA tournament, for the men's team to travel here, and for them to win with me cheering them on in person. But women's hockey is more likely.
Do you have the money to pay for it? Because it isn't making money, and the cost of running the program will never be justified. Ever wonder why there aren't even that many men's teams? M fans have a skewed perspective--it's one of the few programs in D1 that breaks even. Almost all of them are loss leaders.
As it is, Michigan tried in the late 90s-early 00s to make women's hockey a thing. They had a couple games after men's games at Yost, publicized the hell out of them, acted like it was the next one up for varsity, and interest was minimal. As in, very minimal. Like it or not, men's hockey is a niche sport--and women's hockey is a really niche sport. And comes with a pretty hefty price tag. Ergo, 0% chance.
Which is like saying to an EMU football fan "You should come to a game in Ann Arbor, it sells out every game."
Wisconsin has been dominant in the sport for how long? NoDak just flat-out axed their women's program. That's far closer to the median than the Badgers.
The whole premise that sports are "good for the university" is one that could be argued about at length i.e. the answer is far from obvious.
Whether it is good for the 'student athlete' should be a non-factor because geeze yeah I can imagine the person getting the scholarship would likely believe it's good for *them*. The question to ask is whether it is good for the students at-large, with an emphasis on the plural there.
College sports should be self-financing or else they're not good for the other students or faculty unless there's also great pride and joy that these sports bring to students and faculty. But if you're going with that argument the sport you pay for better be one that people actually follow and pay attention to..?
March 10th, 2018 at 12:13 PM ^
A state with the second most youth hockey players in the country, fourth most girls participation, where hockey is among the most popular in the country and it's premiere university with a top 5 grossing athletic department nationally doesn't have a women's varsity team. Which 35 other universities manage to do. The state of it is pretty pathetic.
But then in this thread you have an alumni base and people who associate with the university which prides itself on providing opportunities and learning experiences for it's students say that it shouldn't exist because it wouldn't be profitible. Somehow ignoring the fact that almost none of the programs are profitable. That's not the point of college athletics!!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/sports/hockey/university-of-michigan-womens-hockey-club.html
For the Michigan women’s club ice hockey team, it’s a different story. There is no varsity option for players. The team gets no support from the athletic department’s $160 million annual budget. The players each pay $1,600 a year to play, and scramble to round up donations and sell T-shirts to buy jerseys, sticks and other equipment.The biggest bill of all is from the university itself: The team pays more than $20,000 to rent time at Yost Ice Arena.