National Collegiate Hockey Conference

I think they already give women's hockey scholarships. They are HE. In regards to the Title IX, I think the point is not sports but money. You're not to give more money to men than women. You could have a men's football team of 1000, and have all get tuition free. Sorry ladies.

Jim Hyla
I think they already give women's hockey scholarships. They are HE.

They do. One article that I read mentioned that. I found that even more intriguing about UConn.

Give My Regards

jtn27
I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

Title IX says nothing directly about sports. Title IX states, "No person in the United Stated shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal assistance." It was initially created to stop things like actively discouraging women from taking higher-level math or science courses. IIRC, it was later determined, probably by the US Supreme Court, that "educational program or activity" included collegiate athletics.

Yes. The law makes general statements about discrimination. it's the court system, pushed by the federal agencies that pursue enforccement, that have created the current set of "rules". They aren't actually "rules", either. AFAIK, nowhere is it written that a school must give equal number of scholarships or what not. A school could go to court and argue that they are in compliance with the law without taking these steps. But the courts have established this as a safe haven where a school knows that if it follows these rules they don't have to worry about suits. Given the potential liability (loss of federal funds) there is great incentive for any individual school to toe the line.

Whether or not the current regime is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law is a separate question, one best debated in JSID. (Well, it is the off season...)

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

bnr24

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

I wonder why it has no men's rugby team. Or why women's track and field has 50% more opportunities for women to compete than men's track and field. Or why Women's fencing is a varsity sport while men's is a club sport. I have nothing against the intent of the law, but the implementation has come at the expense of opportunities for male athletes in fringe sports. When a school like Arizona St, which is nowhere near any body of water, offers a women's crew team just to increase it's women's scholarships, you know the writing of the law is ridiculous. Why do you think the college wrestling community has contracted so greatly? Because its a non-revenue men's sport that is seen as an easy cut in order to comply with Title IX. Furthermore, Women's Rugby here at Cornell is irrelevant for Title IX purposes because it is a club sport. Sports like Track and Field are especially difficult for AD's to justify keeping around because one cross country kid counts 3 times against them for Title IX purposes (3 seasons of sports, means 1 athlete counts for 3 athletes). That's why most Men's XC teams have about 9-10 roster spots, while most women's teams have around 27. Maryland's XC and Track program is being cut because its alumni can't raise enough to save both the Track/XC program and Women's gymnastics (though they have raised more than enough for the Track/XC program and a fair amount of Women's gymnastics). Let's face it, women have far more opportunities in fringe sports than men do, mostly because there is no female equivalent for the 80 or so spots/scholarships a football program provides. You really should only have equivalency across a sport. Offer the same amount of softball spots as baseball, etc. Demanding equivalency at least of sports across an entire program is an utterly ridiculous demand that only ends up robbing men's athletes of opportunities to compete. We're not talking revenue sports here, so it should be about giving student athletes a chance to compete, regardless of gender. The current implementation of the law doesn't do that. Reverse gender discrimination is still discrimination. I support equal opportunity, but I do not support opportunity at the expense of either gender.

bnr24

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

For several schools, the addition of women's rowing as an NCAA sport was a big help. You can put a ton of rowers on a team at relatively low cost, and it's one of the only sports where someone who's already on campus and has no experience still can have a shot at being a real contributor to a team. I once talked to a Cornell rowing coach at length about this issue.

css228
I wonder why it has no men's rugby team. Or why women's track and field has 50% more opportunities for women to compete than men's track and field. Or why Women's fencing is a varsity sport while men's is a club sport. I have nothing against the intent of the law, but the implementation has come at the expense of opportunities for male athletes in fringe sports. When a school like Arizona St, which is nowhere near any body of water, offers a women's crew team just to increase it's women's scholarships, you know the writing of the law is ridiculous. Why do you think the college wrestling community has contracted so greatly? Because its a non-revenue men's sport that is seen as an easy cut in order to comply with Title IX. Furthermore, Women's Rugby here at Cornell is irrelevant for Title IX purposes because it is a club sport. Sports like Track and Field are especially difficult for AD's to justify keeping around because one cross country kid counts 3 times against them for Title IX purposes (3 seasons of sports, means 1 athlete counts for 3 athletes). That's why most Men's XC teams have about 9-10 roster spots, while most women's teams have around 27. Maryland's XC and Track program is being cut because its alumni can't raise enough to save both the Track/XC program and Women's gymnastics (though they have raised more than enough for the Track/XC program and a fair amount of Women's gymnastics). Let's face it, women have far more opportunities in fringe sports than men do, mostly because there is no female equivalent for the 80 or so spots/scholarships a football program provides. You really should only have equivalency across a sport. Offer the same amount of softball spots as baseball, etc. Demanding equivalency at least of sports across an entire program is an utterly ridiculous demand that only ends up robbing men's athletes of opportunities to compete. We're not talking revenue sports here, so it should be about giving student athletes a chance to compete, regardless of gender. The current implementation of the law doesn't do that. Reverse gender discrimination is still discrimination. I support equal opportunity, but I do not support opportunity at the expense of either gender.

First of all, there is a men's rugby team at a club level at Cornell. Second, your idea of equality across sports (men's basketball = women's basketball, baseball = softball, etc) seems like a good idea, but what would you do about sports for which there is no female equivalent? There is no women's football or wrestling.

css228

bnr24

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

I wonder why it has no men's rugby team. Or why women's track and field has 50% more opportunities for women to compete than men's track and field. Or why Women's fencing is a varsity sport while men's is a club sport. I have nothing against the intent of the law, but the implementation has come at the expense of opportunities for male athletes in fringe sports. When a school like Arizona St, which is nowhere near any body of water, offers a women's crew team just to increase it's women's scholarships, you know the writing of the law is ridiculous. Why do you think the college wrestling community has contracted so greatly? Because its a non-revenue men's sport that is seen as an easy cut in order to comply with Title IX. Furthermore, Women's Rugby here at Cornell is irrelevant for Title IX purposes because it is a club sport. Sports like Track and Field are especially difficult for AD's to justify keeping around because one cross country kid counts 3 times against them for Title IX purposes (3 seasons of sports, means 1 athlete counts for 3 athletes). That's why most Men's XC teams have about 9-10 roster spots, while most women's teams have around 27. Maryland's XC and Track program is being cut because its alumni can't raise enough to save both the Track/XC program and Women's gymnastics (though they have raised more than enough for the Track/XC program and a fair amount of Women's gymnastics). Let's face it, women have far more opportunities in fringe sports than men do, mostly because there is no female equivalent for the 80 or so spots/scholarships a football program provides. You really should only have equivalency across a sport. Offer the same amount of softball spots as baseball, etc. Demanding equivalency at least of sports across an entire program is an utterly ridiculous demand that only ends up robbing men's athletes of opportunities to compete. We're not talking revenue sports here, so it should be about giving student athletes a chance to compete, regardless of gender. The current implementation of the law doesn't do that. Reverse gender discrimination is still discrimination. I support equal opportunity, but I do not support opportunity at the expense of either gender.

Okay, I was wrong about the rugby. I only knew anecdotally and from my experience at all four club fairs when I was on the Hill positioned directly across from the club sports and never saw men's rugby. I was not trying to point to club sports as something which actually is under title IX jurisdiction. I was trying to say that I think that the more fair thing would be to allow for equal opportunities to compete. If anyone has a better idea about how to promote equality within collegiate athletics, I'm all ears. But the point is, a lot of schools would not have women's programs at all if title IX were not in place. I don't think it is perfect by any means, but just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean that it needs to be removed entirely.

jtn27
First of all, there is a men's rugby team at a club level at Cornell. Second, your idea of equality across sports (men's basketball = women's basketball, baseball = softball, etc) seems like a good idea, but what would you do about sports for which there is no female equivalent? There is no women's football or wrestling.

I made a mistake about men's rugby. The way that title IX does it is that it has to offer another sport. Field hockey, equestrian (why there's no male equivalent is interesting to me...), volleyball. There are no men's equivalents for that. If we were to make men's equivalents for some of these sports, the same issue would happen that is happening to men's with women's sports. It is FAR from a perfect system, but until someone proposes a better solution, it is what we have in place.

bnr24

css228

bnr24

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

I wonder why it has no men's rugby team. Or why women's track and field has 50% more opportunities for women to compete than men's track and field. Or why Women's fencing is a varsity sport while men's is a club sport. I have nothing against the intent of the law, but the implementation has come at the expense of opportunities for male athletes in fringe sports. When a school like Arizona St, which is nowhere near any body of water, offers a women's crew team just to increase it's women's scholarships, you know the writing of the law is ridiculous. Why do you think the college wrestling community has contracted so greatly? Because its a non-revenue men's sport that is seen as an easy cut in order to comply with Title IX. Furthermore, Women's Rugby here at Cornell is irrelevant for Title IX purposes because it is a club sport. Sports like Track and Field are especially difficult for AD's to justify keeping around because one cross country kid counts 3 times against them for Title IX purposes (3 seasons of sports, means 1 athlete counts for 3 athletes). That's why most Men's XC teams have about 9-10 roster spots, while most women's teams have around 27. Maryland's XC and Track program is being cut because its alumni can't raise enough to save both the Track/XC program and Women's gymnastics (though they have raised more than enough for the Track/XC program and a fair amount of Women's gymnastics). Let's face it, women have far more opportunities in fringe sports than men do, mostly because there is no female equivalent for the 80 or so spots/scholarships a football program provides. You really should only have equivalency across a sport. Offer the same amount of softball spots as baseball, etc. Demanding equivalency at least of sports across an entire program is an utterly ridiculous demand that only ends up robbing men's athletes of opportunities to compete. We're not talking revenue sports here, so it should be about giving student athletes a chance to compete, regardless of gender. The current implementation of the law doesn't do that. Reverse gender discrimination is still discrimination. I support equal opportunity, but I do not support opportunity at the expense of either gender.

Okay, I was wrong about the rugby. I only knew anecdotally and from my experience at all four club fairs when I was on the Hill positioned directly across from the club sports and never saw men's rugby. I was not trying to point to club sports as something which actually is under title IX jurisdiction. I was trying to say that I think that the more fair thing would be to allow for equal opportunities to compete. If anyone has a better idea about how to promote equality within collegiate athletics, I'm all ears. But the point is, a lot of schools would not have women's programs at all if title IX were not in place. I don't think it is perfect by any means, but just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean that it needs to be removed entirely.

jtn27
First of all, there is a men's rugby team at a club level at Cornell. Second, your idea of equality across sports (men's basketball = women's basketball, baseball = softball, etc) seems like a good idea, but what would you do about sports for which there is no female equivalent? There is no women's football or wrestling.

I made a mistake about men's rugby. The way that title IX does it is that it has to offer another sport. Field hockey, equestrian (why there's no male equivalent is interesting to me...), volleyball. There are no men's equivalents for that. If we were to make men's equivalents for some of these sports, the same issue would happen that is happening to men's with women's sports. It is FAR from a perfect system, but until someone proposes a better solution, it is what we have in place.

Oh neither am I. I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

css228

bnr24

css228

bnr24

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
Via the USCHO article here's the latest Hartford Courant article on UConn and HE.

Looks like still 3 major problems.

Running a major program, with 18 scholarships and bigger recruiting and travel budgets, costs roughly $2 million a year, money that would not be made up in ticket sales alone.

There are other costs or complications. Per Title IX rules, if UConn were to add 18 men's hockey scholarships, 18 would have to be added to a women's program. The women's hockey team awards scholarships and is a member of Hockey East.

Also, while games would be played at the XL Center, the Freitas Ice Forum would need a major upgrade, if only for recruiting and practicing.

This is an interestg note; if you're adding both (that is, men's and women's hockey) and bringing both to D-I with a full complement of scholarships at the same time, you can lay out some expenditures (e.g. facilities upgrades) that would cover both programs, and you're just "on the hook", so to speak, for the 18 women's scholarships. As it is, they've already got more women's sports than men's (women's varsity programs in field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, volleyball but not men's), presumably to make up for all the scholarships needed to bring their football program up to the level it is. They have a men's golf program but no corresponding women's program, but that's only 9 athletes. So, to bring the men's program up to 18 scholarships they'd have to add a new women's varsity program (either from scratch or by turning a club team into a varsity team) in a sport where they don't have a men's program, and undertake all the required expenditures for facilities and staffing. Whether they're willing to do so will tell us a lot about their commitment to hockey.

I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level. However, here, it could potentially work to prevent male hockey players at UConn from playing at the varsity level.

If Title IX were working against its original purpose we'd be talking about a men's program being contracted, not scholarships being added to women's programs to offset the Men's additions. This is how it's supposed to work. Not like here where the Men's XC team is about half the size of the Women's roster. Either way, its ridiculous that a sport like football with no female equivalent is counted for Title IX purposes.

I respectfully disagree. There are sports for women that there are no male equivalents - field hockey being the primary example. Oftentimes women's volleyball teams are varsity level while men's are only club level. The main point is not to advantage men over women [let's not lie, that's what it was made for, even if we think ideologically it should have been made to not advantage one gender over another]. Also, women's rugby is often seen as an equivalent for football. Cornell has a women's rugby team (club level, but very good) but no men's rugby team.

I wonder why it has no men's rugby team. Or why women's track and field has 50% more opportunities for women to compete than men's track and field. Or why Women's fencing is a varsity sport while men's is a club sport. I have nothing against the intent of the law, but the implementation has come at the expense of opportunities for male athletes in fringe sports. When a school like Arizona St, which is nowhere near any body of water, offers a women's crew team just to increase it's women's scholarships, you know the writing of the law is ridiculous. Why do you think the college wrestling community has contracted so greatly? Because its a non-revenue men's sport that is seen as an easy cut in order to comply with Title IX. Furthermore, Women's Rugby here at Cornell is irrelevant for Title IX purposes because it is a club sport. Sports like Track and Field are especially difficult for AD's to justify keeping around because one cross country kid counts 3 times against them for Title IX purposes (3 seasons of sports, means 1 athlete counts for 3 athletes). That's why most Men's XC teams have about 9-10 roster spots, while most women's teams have around 27. Maryland's XC and Track program is being cut because its alumni can't raise enough to save both the Track/XC program and Women's gymnastics (though they have raised more than enough for the Track/XC program and a fair amount of Women's gymnastics). Let's face it, women have far more opportunities in fringe sports than men do, mostly because there is no female equivalent for the 80 or so spots/scholarships a football program provides. You really should only have equivalency across a sport. Offer the same amount of softball spots as baseball, etc. Demanding equivalency at least of sports across an entire program is an utterly ridiculous demand that only ends up robbing men's athletes of opportunities to compete. We're not talking revenue sports here, so it should be about giving student athletes a chance to compete, regardless of gender. The current implementation of the law doesn't do that. Reverse gender discrimination is still discrimination. I support equal opportunity, but I do not support opportunity at the expense of either gender.

Okay, I was wrong about the rugby. I only knew anecdotally and from my experience at all four club fairs when I was on the Hill positioned directly across from the club sports and never saw men's rugby. I was not trying to point to club sports as something which actually is under title IX jurisdiction. I was trying to say that I think that the more fair thing would be to allow for equal opportunities to compete. If anyone has a better idea about how to promote equality within collegiate athletics, I'm all ears. But the point is, a lot of schools would not have women's programs at all if title IX were not in place. I don't think it is perfect by any means, but just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean that it needs to be removed entirely.

jtn27
First of all, there is a men's rugby team at a club level at Cornell. Second, your idea of equality across sports (men's basketball = women's basketball, baseball = softball, etc) seems like a good idea, but what would you do about sports for which there is no female equivalent? There is no women's football or wrestling.

I made a mistake about men's rugby. The way that title IX does it is that it has to offer another sport. Field hockey, equestrian (why there's no male equivalent is interesting to me...), volleyball. There are no men's equivalents for that. If we were to make men's equivalents for some of these sports, the same issue would happen that is happening to men's with women's sports. It is FAR from a perfect system, but until someone proposes a better solution, it is what we have in place.

Oh neither am I. I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

It isn't equitable to ignore football though. Football and sprint football are both huge amounts of team members that women just aren't allowed to obtain. To me, making a different sport instead (a la field hockey) is fair to offset that. There are also two weights of rowing teams at Cornell for men and only one for women. Seems sort of unfair if you just ignore things like that.

Robb
Presumably they wouldn't have to add another women's team, if they had some existing women's teams that are below their scholarship limit - they could just add scholarships to those to offset the new men's hockey scholarships. I have no idea if that is the case or not, of course.

This is what UConn's intention is. They are intending to add scholarships to women's tennis and women's rowing.

bnr24

css228
I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

It isn't equitable to ignore football though. Football and sprint football are both huge amounts of team members that women just aren't allowed to obtain. To me, making a different sport instead (a la field hockey) is fair to offset that. There are also two weights of rowing teams at Cornell for men and only one for women. Seems sort of unfair if you just ignore things like that.

The fact that there's no female equivalent is not because of discrimination. (Intentional anyway; spare me the arguments about gender roles and structural sexism or whatnot.) Football is big because people like football. Football is a big spectator event in this country in a way that the fringe sports are not.

The original intent of Title IX (I think) was to eliminate discrimination and increase opportunities for women. We've seen this. But a system based on css228's concept - matching programs for a given sport - would easily preserve this and eliminate some of the gross inequitable results that the current compliance regime had created (canceling long established men's teams while keeping the corresponding women's teams.)

Take one look at college enrollment stats and you'd see plenty of evidence that we no longer need any special rules to encourage female participation in higher education. The presence of a scholarship football ream on campus with no female equivalent doesn't change the fact that women are now a substantial majority of college degrees (~60%).

KeithK

bnr24

css228
I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

It isn't equitable to ignore football though. Football and sprint football are both huge amounts of team members that women just aren't allowed to obtain. To me, making a different sport instead (a la field hockey) is fair to offset that. There are also two weights of rowing teams at Cornell for men and only one for women. Seems sort of unfair if you just ignore things like that.

The fact that there's no female equivalent is not because of discrimination. (Intentional anyway; spare me the arguments about gender roles and structural sexism or whatnot.) Football is big because people like football. Football is a big spectator event in this country in a way that the fringe sports are not.

We are not Ohio State. Have you been to a Cornell football game? A SPRINT football game? Given the size of the rosters and coaching staffs and the number of fans in the stands, I'm pretty sure that Cornell pays to play football because it can't possibly pay for itself. It doesn't matter WHY there is no equivalent for football, THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT FOR FOOTBALL. When a school chooses to have a football team they are committing at least hundreds of thousands of dollars exclusively to male students. Exempting football from Title IX calculations makes as much sense as excluding defense and entitlement spending (I mean this to be non-partisan, since everyone does it) from budget reform.

Title IX "affects" male athletes "disproportionately" because when it was passed, athletic department budgets included well below 50% for women's sports. Because many schools didn't want to substantially increase their budgets, they had to cut back on spending for men's sports. You might think that it is unfair that male athletes have to lose spots to pay for women's sports; I think that it is a shame that for decades female athletes were treated like second-class students. It is a fact of life that if rectifying past discrimination on a going-forward basis entails the removal of a preference, it will sometimes feel like a punishment to the person who considered that preference the natural order of things.

ugarte

KeithK

bnr24

css228
I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

It isn't equitable to ignore football though. Football and sprint football are both huge amounts of team members that women just aren't allowed to obtain. To me, making a different sport instead (a la field hockey) is fair to offset that. There are also two weights of rowing teams at Cornell for men and only one for women. Seems sort of unfair if you just ignore things like that.

The fact that there's no female equivalent is not because of discrimination. (Intentional anyway; spare me the arguments about gender roles and structural sexism or whatnot.) Football is big because people like football. Football is a big spectator event in this country in a way that the fringe sports are not.

We are not Ohio State. Have you been to a Cornell football game? A SPRINT football game? Given the size of the rosters and coaching staffs and the number of fans in the stands, I'm pretty sure that Cornell pays to play football because it can't possibly pay for itself. It doesn't matter WHY there is no equivalent for football, THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT FOR FOOTBALL. When a school chooses to have a football team they are committing at least hundreds of thousands of dollars exclusively to male students. Exempting football from Title IX calculations makes as much sense as excluding defense and entitlement spending (I mean this to be non-partisan, since everyone does it) from budget reform.

Title IX "affects" male athletes "disproportionately" because when it was passed, athletic department budgets included well below 50% for women's sports. Because many schools didn't want to substantially increase their budgets, they had to cut back on spending for men's sports. You might think that it is unfair that male athletes have to lose spots to pay for women's sports; I think that it is a shame that for decades female athletes were treated like second-class students. It is a fact of life that if rectifying past discrimination on a going-forward basis entails the removal of a preference, it will sometimes feel like a punishment to the person who considered that preference the natural order of things.

I only wish I could give you a dozen +1s.Do you think it's sexists to have a cheerleader smiley for this? It seemed to best summarize my feelings.

ugarte

KeithK

bnr24

css228
I'm just saying that you can use the same system and ignore football and get more equitable results.

It isn't equitable to ignore football though. Football and sprint football are both huge amounts of team members that women just aren't allowed to obtain. To me, making a different sport instead (a la field hockey) is fair to offset that. There are also two weights of rowing teams at Cornell for men and only one for women. Seems sort of unfair if you just ignore things like that.

The fact that there's no female equivalent is not because of discrimination. (Intentional anyway; spare me the arguments about gender roles and structural sexism or whatnot.) Football is big because people like football. Football is a big spectator event in this country in a way that the fringe sports are not.

We are not Ohio State. Have you been to a Cornell football game? A SPRINT football game? Given the size of the rosters and coaching staffs and the number of fans in the stands, I'm pretty sure that Cornell pays to play football because it can't possibly pay for itself. It doesn't matter WHY there is no equivalent for football, THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT FOR FOOTBALL. When a school chooses to have a football team they are committing at least hundreds of thousands of dollars exclusively to male students. Exempting football from Title IX calculations makes as much sense as excluding defense and entitlement spending (I mean this to be non-partisan, since everyone does it) from budget reform.

I wasn't restricting my argument to Cornell and I wasn't making a financial argument. I don't doubt that many football programs are a net cost to ther universities even if they probably bring in more gross revenue than any other sport. My argument is that this isn't evidence of sexism. It's evidence of the prefernces of campus and fan communities. make whatever arguments you want abou institutionalized sexism or whatever, there is nothing wrong with the fact that people generally like to watch football games more than they like watching field hockey.

ugarte
Title IX "affects" male athletes "disproportionately" because when it was passed, athletic department budgets included well below 50% for women's sports. Because many schools didn't want to substantially increase their budgets, they had to cut back on spending for men's sports. You might think that it is unfair that male athletes have to lose spots to pay for women's sports; I think that it is a shame that for decades female athletes were treated like second-class students. It is a fact of life that if rectifying past discrimination on a going-forward basis entails the removal of a preference, it will sometimes feel like a punishment to the person who considered that preference the natural order of things.

I get your point and I agree that removing preferences can easily seem like punishment. That said I don't believe that canceling a long standing, sustainable men's team while maintaining a women's team in the same sport is a fair and equitable way of removing a preference. What it does it create a different set of second class citizens (e.g baseball players, qwrestlers, men's volleyball players to cite a few examples from this thread) while creating an additional set of first class citizens (the analagous womens teams, women's crew, etc.).

I maintain that a sport by sport application of the rule would be a vastly more equitable rule. maybe the farce of having to establish women's football teams would tend to reign in the expenses of big tiem college football.

KeithK
I wasn't restricting my argument to Cornell and I wasn't making a financial argument. I don't doubt that many football programs are a net cost to ther universities even if they probably bring in more gross revenue than any other sport. My argument is that this isn't evidence of sexism. It's evidence of the prefernces of campus and fan communities. make whatever arguments you want abou institutionalized sexism or whatever, there is nothing wrong with the fact that people generally like to watch football games more than they like watching field hockey.

It doesn't matter whether it is "evidence of sexism". The motive doesn't matter. It is clearly disparate treatment of male and female student-athletes. The focus of Title IX is students not sports fans. Title IX doesn't care that you (either as an individual or as representative of the larger sporting audience) prefer football to field hockey.

KeithK
I get your point and I agree that removing preferences can easily seem like punishment. That said I don't believe that canceling a long standing, sustainable men's team while maintaining a women's team in the same sport is a fair and equitable way of removing a preference. What it does it create a different set of second class citizens (e.g baseball players, qwrestlers, men's volleyball players to cite a few examples from this thread) while creating an additional set of first class citizens (the analagous womens teams, women's crew, etc.).

I maintain that a sport by sport application of the rule would be a vastly more equitable rule. maybe the farce of having to establish women's football teams would tend to reign in the expenses of big tiem college football.

Your argument makes no sense. If the budgets from the discriminatory era aren't going to change, some men are going to get the short end of the stick in a regime that treats men and women equally. That doesn't make the wrestlers "second class citizens" to women, it makes them second class citizens to football players, because it is maintenance of the primacy of football that is driving the elimination of wrestling, not the application of non-discriminatory rules.

Assessing equity on a sport-by-sport basis denies (a) that the point of Title IX is a general equality of treatment to the two genders not equality of treatment of genders in a particular sport and (b) the reality that there are sports that only one gender plays interscholastically (football / wrestling / field hockey). You can't wish away (b) just because it would make your solution to (a) easier.

ugarte
Your argument makes no sense. If the budgets from the discriminatory era aren't going to change, some men are going to get the short end of the stick in a regime that treats men and women equally. That doesn't make the wrestlers "second class citizens" to women, it makes them second class citizens to football players, because it is maintenance of the primacy of football that is driving the elimination of wrestling, not the application of non-discriminatory rules.

Thank you; I was trying to figure out the best way to phrase what I wanted to say about this and you went and did it for me.

ugarte
Assessing equity on a sport-by-sport basis denies (a) that the point of Title IX is a general equality of treatment to the two genders not equality of treatment of genders in a particular sport and (b) the reality that there are sports that only one gender plays interscholastically (football / wrestling / field hockey). You can't wish away (b) just because it would make your solution to (a) easier.

I'm not "wishing away" (b). (b) is entirely relevant to the practical discussion. There is no discrimination involved inthe decision to have a football team that doesn't have a women's equivalent. Certainly not in this century.

Motives do matter. Maybe not in the current Title IX regime. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be relevant.

This whole discussion boils down to equality of opportunity vs. equality of results. The current regime focuses on equality of results, measured by dollars spent. I don't think that's necessarily the appropriate measure.

KeithK
This whole discussion boils down to equality of opportunity vs. equality of results. The current regime focuses on equality of results, measured by dollars spent. I don't think that's necessarily the appropriate measure.

Finally. Thank you. As I said and bowed out of this back-and-forth many posts ago:

Aaron M. Griffin

jtn27
I feel like in this case Title IX is working against it's original purpose. It was originally created to ensure that all students, namely women, have the opportunity to play collegiate sports at the varsity level.

jtn27
However, my point still stands. In this particular case, Title IX isn't providing any additional opportunities to women, only preventing them from being provided to men.

This is where this conversation devolves into one of political philosophy and debating legislative intent.

Aside from thanking ugarte profusely, I've stayed out of this debate. Both sides have good points. In a perfect world we would fund all sports to their fullest, male or female. We would have full opportunities for men and women in all sports in which they would like to participate.

So, can we agree we don't have that ideal?

Without that ideal, we have seen two sytems. There was the traditional, male driven, system which revolved around football, and gradually basketball took some of the stage, but even then football still ruled hands down. There were other sports, as there are now, but they all paled in comparison. Women were hardly thought about in that system.

Then came Title IX. Guess what, football still rules, basketball is strong, but decidedly second; and everything else still falls far behind. But women can now participate. There has been a literal explosion of girls and women in sports. No one who was alive when I was in school cannot say that the participation by the female sex is not astronomically larger. Without Title IX that never would have happened. Now you're going to say I can't prove that, and I can't, but having lived through it I can come up with no other explaination.

Now we look at what has happened to male sports because of this. I will grant you that some male minor sport opportunities have diminished. However when you compare that loss to the gains that females have made, the scale heavily tips to the help for girls and women.

Finally, we turn to why can't we go back toward, not to, but toward the way it was before. Why can't we exclude the behemoth in the room, football, and just make everything else equal. The reason why, is because even now football still rules. They still get more money for facilities, equipment, coaches, travel, accomodations; you name it they get the best. And that's under a constrained system. Can you imagine what would happen if you took them out of the equation? We were there once and it didn't work, why would you think it would be better now?

No one has been able to come up with a better solution, maybe some day, but not yet. And I don't trust the football cartel to live up to some lofty level; in the last 50 plus years they haven't shown they care, I don't think that's going to change now.

My daughter has no interest in sports, some of her friends do, but I'm glad that she, unlike my and my parents generation, had the opportunity if she wanted it.

p.s. I find it extremely interesting that this discussion comes under the NCHC Thread. In talking about what we worry about happening to the small schools playing hockey, we should realize that that is what happens to the rest of sports if you don't put some constraints on the gorilla in the room.

Jim Hyla
Aside from thanking ugarte profusely, I've stayed out of this debate. Both sides have good points. In a perfect world we would fund all sports to their fullest, male or female. We would have full opportunities for men and women in all sports in which they would like to participate.

So, can we agree we don't have that ideal?

Without that ideal, we have seen two sytems. There was the traditional, male driven, system which revolved around football, and gradually basketball took some of the stage, but even then football still ruled hands down. There were other sports, as there are now, but they all paled in comparison. Women were hardly thought about in that system.

Then came Title IX. Guess what, football still rules, basketball is strong, but decidedly second; and everything else still falls far behind. But women can now participate. There has been a literal explosion of girls and women in sports. No one who was alive when I was in school cannot say that the participation by the female sex is not astronomically larger. Without Title IX that never would have happened. Now you're going to say I can't prove that, and I can't, but having lived through it I can come up with no other explaination.

Now we look at what has happened to male sports because of this. I will grant you that some male minor sport opportunities have diminished. However when you compare that loss to the gains that females have made, the scale heavily tips to the help for girls and women.

Finally, we turn to why can't we go back toward, not to, but toward the way it was before. Why can't we exclude the behemoth in the room, football, and just make everything else equal. The reason why, is because even now football still rules. They still get more money for facilities, equipment, coaches, travel, accomodations; you name it they get the best. And that's under a constrained system. Can you imagine what would happen if you took them out of the equation? We were there once and it didn't work, why would you think it would be better now?

No one has been able to come up with a better solution, maybe some day, but not yet. And I don't trust the football cartel to live up to some lofty level; in the last 50 plus years they haven't shown they care, I don't think that's going to change now.

My daughter has no interest in sports, some of her friends do, but I'm glad that she, unlike my and my parents generation, had the opportunity if she wanted it.

p.s. I find it extremely interesting that this discussion comes under the NCHC Thread. In talking about what we worry about happening to the small schools playing hockey, we should realize that that is what happens to the rest of sports if you don't put some constraints on the gorilla in the room.

+1 (or 10000000)

Jim Hyla
There has been a literal explosion of girls and women in sports.

That sounds dangerous, I'm going to take cover.

KeithK

ugarte
Assessing equity on a sport-by-sport basis denies (a) that the point of Title IX is a general equality of treatment to the two genders not equality of treatment of genders in a particular sport and (b) the reality that there are sports that only one gender plays interscholastically (football / wrestling / field hockey). You can't wish away (b) just because it would make your solution to (a) easier.

I'm not "wishing away" (b). (b) is entirely relevant to the practical discussion. There is no discrimination involved inthe decision to have a football team that doesn't have a women's equivalent. Certainly not in this century.

Of course there is no discrimination in having football be men-only. However, if an institution decides to have a football team, it will have a roster of 50+ players and the athletes that benefit will be exclusively men to say nothing of the massive peripheral spending required to support a team that large. To balance that out, across the entire athletic department, require funding sports exclusively for women, cutting different men's programs that also don't have a female equivalent (wrestling or, at some schools, hockey) or making some other allowance for the fact that THE INSTITUTION chose to have football blow a hole in the budget and throw the department-wide gender equity out of whack.

That is what equality of opportunity means in the Title IX context: not equality of opportunity to play a particular sport but equality of opportunity to play a sport at all. That's why football can't be an off-book program and why the pain always falls on sports like wrestling and squash.

Ben

Jim Hyla
There has been a literal explosion of girls and women in sports.

That sounds dangerous, I'm going to take cover.

Seriously. I'm starting to think that maybe women's sports aren't such a good idea after all.

I grew up in a family with 4 boys. We all played sports at some level but nothing real serious. I have 2 daughters and a son. I admit that early on I was baffled about girls and sports but as a dutiful dad I signed my daughters up for soccer and volunteered to coach (that is too generous a term I was really a warm willing body). Over the years I coached my daughters teams in Soccer and Basketball. I learned 2 things.

First, girls really want to play just as much as boys. They enjoy the thrill of competition and take to team work better than boys. They really want to win.

Secondly, girls are much easier to coach than boys. If you practice something during the week you will see it on the field that weekend in the game. There are far fewer ball hogs on a girls team.

I have been to a few of the women's hockey games and they are a pleasure to watch. Given time I think they will sell out as well. I used to be skeptical about Title IX but no longer. Let them play.

Towerroad
I grew up in a family with 4 boys. We all played sports at some level but nothing real serious. I have 2 daughters and a son. I admit that early on I was baffled about girls and sports but as a dutiful dad I signed my daughters up for soccer and volunteered to coach (that is too generous a term I was really a warm willing body). Over the years I coached my daughters teams in Soccer and Basketball. I learned 2 things.

First, girls really want to play just as much as boys. They enjoy the thrill of competition and take to team work better than boys. They really want to win.

Secondly, girls are much easier to coach than boys. If you practice something during the week you will see it on the field that weekend in the game. There are far fewer ball hogs on a girls team.

I have been to a few of the women's hockey games and they are a pleasure to watch. Given time I think they will sell out as well. I used to be skeptical about Title IX but no longer. Let them play.

I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

Towerroad
I grew up in a family with 4 boys. We all played sports at some level but nothing real serious. I have 2 daughters and a son. I admit that early on I was baffled about girls and sports but as a dutiful dad I signed my daughters up for soccer and volunteered to coach (that is too generous a term I was really a warm willing body). Over the years I coached my daughters teams in Soccer and Basketball. I learned 2 things.

First, girls really want to play just as much as boys. They enjoy the thrill of competition and take to team work better than boys. They really want to win.

Secondly, girls are much easier to coach than boys. If you practice something during the week you will see it on the field that weekend in the game. There are far fewer ball hogs on a girls team.

I have been to a few of the women's hockey games and they are a pleasure to watch. Given time I think they will sell out as well. I used to be skeptical about Title IX but no longer. Let them play.

I have no problem with women playing sports. I didn't ever intend to give that impression. What I have a problem with is a system that encourages things like USF's Women's Cross Country squad having 71 athletes on it when only 28 ever run a race. Meanwhile there were only 10 on the Men's squad. You can't convince me that even resembles the idea of fairness intended by Title IX. Women should compete and have opportunities, but college sports should still be a meritocracy. If you're not good enough to be a D-I athlete male or female you shouldn't be one. 71 roster spots is a joke. A Women's crew team at Arizona State, a school in the middle of a desert, is an even bigger joke, and quite frankly a waste of money. There's no chance a school like that ever recruits any serious rowers, meaning that people who may never have rowed in their life are there on scholarship? It's a clear example of team that exists only for Title IX purposes You can guarantee they spend as little as possible on that program. IT just makes absolutely no sense. And once again, I can't believe that Maryland's T&F/xC program is going to get contracted because it can't save an entirely separate program. These are non-revenue sports. Not a single dime is ever going to come from an XC program that's not named Oregon. It should be about providing students a chance to compete in these sports. Instead it becomes about finding a way to balance out Football. At the very least Track athletes should only be counted once, and things like that, that just makes those kids targets to have their programs cut, just like squash, and wrestling.

css228
Instead it becomes about finding a way to balance out Football.

You're absolutely correct. So if you are going to give all that money to football, find a way to compensate. If they decide that the best way is to flood, no pun intended, the women's crew team. Well then at least some women get scholarships.

Because some schools come up with laughable ways to try and correct the imbalance, doesn't mean the goal is wrong. No the means are wrong. SU started a women's hockey team. I'm sure that Title IX had something to do with it. It cost them money, but gave women hockey players another oportunity. It's unfortunate that they quit wrestling, but us guys can't have it all.

Come up with a better, and still equitable, system and the colleges will come running to you.

Jim Hyla
Come up with a better, and still equitable, system and the colleges will come running to you.

I highly doubt colleges and the NCAA will rapidly adopt an equitable system if it becomes available that. See: The BCS.

jtn27

Jim Hyla
Come up with a better, and still equitable, system and the colleges will come running to you.

I highly doubt colleges and the NCAA will rapidly adopt an equitable system if it becomes available that. See: The BCS.

Actually one of the reasons that we have the BCS is that many colleges feel it's equitable. What is it 40% of schools go to a bowl game. They all get money. They get the extra practice time, which is as valuable for the next season as for the bowl game. Take a good share of the bowls to work up to a championship and those other teams lose those advantages. Their season ends sooner, less practice, fewer bowls for those also-rans to go to. As I said, football rules. They don't really care about a champion, rather more for all of them.

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

If there's no promotion for any sports, then how can lack of promotion be the explanation for the difference in attendance?

Robb

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw more than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

If there's no promotion for any sports, then how can lack of promotion be the explanation for the difference in attendance?

There is certainly pormotion for the sports I stated.

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

Especially if they market it as quality hockey that you don't have to pay for. Because, as a student, you do not have to pay for any women's games before playoffs.

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport. All of the fun hits are removed from the Women's game and all that's left is the scrums on the boards, And quite frankly I think its sexist that women aren't really allowed to hit because force = mass x acceleration, both of which your typical woman would have less of. Therefore, its actually safer for women to hit than men. Though I'm open to engage in the debate that no one should be hitting at all.

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

There were 2700 people in Lynah for the ECAC title game last season -- there are fans who will come out and watch. If we can hang on to Coach Derraugh for another 10+ years and the Athletics department pushes WICE more, then we should definitely be able to get 1500 or more every game. As it is, most students don't know that we have a great Women's Hockey team.

css228
I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport.

I'm probably the only one (or one of few), but I like the lack of hitting in the women's game because it makes stick handling ability and speed more important.

css228

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport. All of the fun hits are removed from the Women's game and all that's left is the scrums on the boards, And quite frankly I think its sexist that women aren't really allowed to hit because force = mass x acceleration, both of which your typical woman would have less of. Therefore, its actually safer for women to hit than men. Though I'm open to engage in the debate that no one should be hitting at all.

I honestly find the lack of hitting to be refreshing and actually a lot of times show better fundamentals and plays. I went to a lot of women's games when I was there (the lack of cost was the reason my women's games outnumbered my men's games overall), and I liked that. I can understand why the hitting is an integral part of the game, but I don't think excitement is lost without it. (Side note, the little red bears who are often the team members sisters skating around durin half-time are too adorable to miss...)

Ben

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

There were 2700 people in Lynah for the ECAC title game last season -- there are fans who will come out and watch. If we can hang on to Coach Derraugh for another 10+ years and the Athletics department pushes WICE more, then we should definitely be able to get 1500 or more every game. As it is, most students don't know that we have a great Women's Hockey team.

css228
I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport.

I'm probably the only one (or one of few), but I like the lack of hitting in the women's game because it makes stick handling ability and speed more important.

I agree. I have separate issues that limit elements of my interest in women's ice hockey at Cornell that have nothing to do with the rules. I agree with css228 that it is a latent, sexist assumption that women can neither endure nor enjoy physicality in their sports. But, the rules in themselves do not limit my interest. What I find less intriguing about women's ice hockey at any level, whether it is the collegiate to the international level, is that there are only a handful of competitors who are legitimate contenders for a title each season. I love watching women's international hockey, however one knows that most commonly it is going to end with a grudge match between Canada and the United States for first and second place. Women's ice hockey games between those two teams have been among the best hockey games that I have watched. Collegiate women's ice hockey is not dissimilar. There are only a handful of teams that are legitimate contenders for a national title each year. Major upsets in the post-season are not at all common. There is very little parity. So, sustained interest throughout a season is hard to muster because it is not all too common that an upset occurs because the national contenders are on an entirely different plane than other programs. An upset like Cornell over Michigan in men's ice hockey is nearly nonexistent in women's ice hockey because of this lack of parity. Now there are rarely stories of Unions or Ferris States making the women's Frozen Four. I am very proud of our women making the Frozen Four three seasons in a row. I proudly include nearly winning a national title in women's ice hockey among the many athletic accolades of my graduating year. However, the lack of parity is why my interest does not pique until the post-season approaches in women's hockey. Yes, I will watch non-conference match-ups against burgeoning rivals like Mercyhurst or powers like BU during the regular season, but the relative predictability removes an element of interest for me and likely many other spectators. Yes, I realize that this is a catch-22. Parity will not increase until interest in more programs increases so that they receive more funds and can elevate their level of play, and such interest will not increase until the level of play of their programs and parity nationally increase.

Having said this, I love Cornell women's ice hockey. I laud their achievements as much as those from the men's ice hockey. However, my fervor is tempered by the fact that there is less competition nationally in women's ice hockey that makes it inherently less intriguing. It has nothing to do with anything on the ice and has everything to do with the national context in which each game is played.

Aaron M. Griffin
However, my fervor is tempered by the fact that there is less competition nationally in women's ice hockey that makes it inherently less intriguing.

It's at a comparable stage of development with men's hockey in the 1950's when at any given time there were only a couple very high quality teams. Look at the blowouts in the NCAA tournaments during that time.

As women's hockey matures and the pool of talented athletes and experienced coaches grows, we'll see similar development. Women's sports will probably never draw like the men (sports are a crypto-fascist metaphor for war, after all ), but they're now well beyond the "isn't that cute?" first wave and the "it's the place to be to demonstrate your hipness" second wave, and now it's finally its own, legitimate, thing.

Watching women's hockey in the 80's was just boring -- as dedicated as they were, they sucked. Even at the highest levels, in the first appearance in the Olympics, they were terrible. It was like watching high school sports. Unless a loved one was actually on the field, it was just mind-numbing to watch. Now it's often interesting and worthwhile in its own right -- the players are good enough to be entertaining. At least it is when Cornell is playing. Watching two bottom feeder programs slog around would probably still be pretty painful, but hey, it's pretty painful in the men's game too.

Ben

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

There were 2700 people in Lynah for the ECAC title game last season -- there are fans who will come out and watch. If we can hang on to Coach Derraugh for another 10+ years and the Athletics department pushes WICE more, then we should definitely be able to get 1500 or more every game. As it is, most students don't know that we have a great Women's Hockey team.

css228
I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport.

I'm probably the only one (or one of few), but I like the lack of hitting in the women's game because it makes stick handling ability and speed more important.

I think that the best hockey occurs when you have a balance of all those elements and solid physical play. My favorite line of all time was the Legion of Doom (Renberg, Lindros, LeClair), which put up ridiculous numbers because it had the size and physicality of a checking line, but the skill and speed of a first line (was really upset when Renberg couldn't come back for the alumni game at the Winter Classic, but the Lindros to LeClair saucer pass and goal brought me back to my first hockey memories). I agree the speed and creativity of the Women's game is fun, but even without hitting, its just not as fast as the Men's game. Don't get me wrong I'm still entertained by the Women's game, I was still disappointed when they lost to Minnesota, but I just don't find it as fun as the Men's games. Partially due to the lack of hits. I just feel like all of the fun hitting is taken out of the game and all you're left with is the scrums on the boards, which are entertaining but get monotonous. It sometimes just feels like an all star game. Cycling feels too easy. Puck possession feels too easy. Maybe that's the talent of our team, but I also think it has to do with the rules. Shifts like "The Shift" happen all the time in Women's hockey. It's the same reason I don't like Olympic Ice (although KHL ice is a decent compromise). I'm sure the level of competition as Aaron mentioned has something to do with it too.

bnr24

css228

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport. All of the fun hits are removed from the Women's game and all that's left is the scrums on the boards, And quite frankly I think its sexist that women aren't really allowed to hit because force = mass x acceleration, both of which your typical woman would have less of. Therefore, its actually safer for women to hit than men. Though I'm open to engage in the debate that no one should be hitting at all.

I honestly find the lack of hitting to be refreshing and actually a lot of times show better fundamentals and plays. I went to a lot of women's games when I was there (the lack of cost was the reason my women's games outnumbered my men's games overall), and I liked that. I can understand why the hitting is an integral part of the game, but I don't think excitement is lost without it. (Side note, the little red bears who are often the team members sisters skating around durin half-time are too adorable to miss...)

This entire discussion is incredibly analogous to what women's basketball has gone through. Replace "hockey" with "basketball," and "hitting" with "dunking." Everything from attendance/promotion to fundamentals/playmaking to the speed of the game and the lack of many strong programs & parity topics. You'll find excitement and entertaining play, but some people just prefer the alloy-oop showtime of mens' games.

Aaron M. Griffin
What I find less intriguing about women's ice hockey at any level, whether it is the collegiate to the international level, is that there are only a handful of competitors who are legitimate contenders for a title each season.

I totally agree. Although I find it hard to drive to Ithaca for their games, because I'm at many men's away games and it's just hard to be away from family that many times, the lack of competition makes it less interesting to watch. They had 163 g vs. 56 ga, giving an average of 4.66 vs. 1.67. When you win by an average of 3 goals, it means many games are yawners. If they were men's games would I go? Yes, but I grew up with men's hockey. If the roles were reversed, in the 60s when I was there, I'd have been a women's fan. (Actually I still am a fan of women.) But to capture my intense interest now, the games need excitement. Winning by 3 goals, on average, doesn't do it for me.

Having said that, now that my daughter is going off to college, I hope to attend more, and to see some of you there.

RichH

bnr24

css228

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport. All of the fun hits are removed from the Women's game and all that's left is the scrums on the boards, And quite frankly I think its sexist that women aren't really allowed to hit because force = mass x acceleration, both of which your typical woman would have less of. Therefore, its actually safer for women to hit than men. Though I'm open to engage in the debate that no one should be hitting at all.

I honestly find the lack of hitting to be refreshing and actually a lot of times show better fundamentals and plays. I went to a lot of women's games when I was there (the lack of cost was the reason my women's games outnumbered my men's games overall), and I liked that. I can understand why the hitting is an integral part of the game, but I don't think excitement is lost without it. (Side note, the little red bears who are often the team members sisters skating around durin half-time are too adorable to miss...)

This entire discussion is incredibly analogous to what women's basketball has gone through. Replace "hockey" with "basketball," and "hitting" with "dunking." Everything from attendance/promotion to fundamentals/playmaking to the speed of the game and the lack of many strong programs & parity topics. You'll find excitement and entertaining play, but some people just prefer the alloy-oop showtime of mens' games.

I'd agree with you, but I don't think that hitting is poor fundamentals or showtime. Certainly some hits are flashier than others, but solid hit to separate someone from the puck is a fundamental part of the game. The player is less likely to get by if you stand him up at the blue line instead of poke check. As I said puck possession feels too easy because its hard to separate the puck from people. Think more of an analogy with the differences between Men's and Women's lacrosse. It's really a different game, unlike basketball where its pretty much the same game and same rules with less razzle dazzle. Doesn't mean they're not still incredible athletes, just means you giv me a choice between the two and I know what I'm watching.

css228

RichH

bnr24

css228

MattS

jtn27
I seriously doubt the women's team will ever sell out. They had a decent showing this year for the playoffs, but I went to a few regular season games too and Lynah was mostly empty and almost completely devoid of students. I can't see the women's team getting many more fans than it did for the playoffs this year.

While I too doubt that the women could consistantly or even frequently sellout games, they should draw mroe than they do. I firmly believe that the reason for that is the lack of promotion. It certainly isn't for the lack of a quality game to watch and Ithaca certianly has a passion for hockey. So I conclude that either there is a lot of sexist hockey fans in Ithaca or that people simple are not aware of the excellent entertainment they could have by attending the games. Since I tend to be an optimist I feel that it is the pathetic (non-existant) promotion of any sport that is not football, men's basketball, or men's lacrosse. Heck even those sports are not promoted well they just happen to be more popular.

I go to women's games but I'm going to be completely honest, the rules of Women's games (aka the lack of hitting) make the game less entertaining to watch. Part of the reason I watch hockey is for the physicality of the sport. All of the fun hits are removed from the Women's game and all that's left is the scrums on the boards, And quite frankly I think its sexist that women aren't really allowed to hit because force = mass x acceleration, both of which your typical woman would have less of. Therefore, its actually safer for women to hit than men. Though I'm open to engage in the debate that no one should be hitting at all.

I honestly find the lack of hitting to be refreshing and actually a lot of times show better fundamentals and plays. I went to a lot of women's games when I was there (the lack of cost was the reason my women's games outnumbered my men's games overall), and I liked that. I can understand why the hitting is an integral part of the game, but I don't think excitement is lost without it. (Side note, the little red bears who are often the team members sisters skating around durin half-time are too adorable to miss...)

This entire discussion is incredibly analogous to what women's basketball has gone through. Replace "hockey" with "basketball," and "hitting" with "dunking." Everything from attendance/promotion to fundamentals/playmaking to the speed of the game and the lack of many strong programs & parity topics. You'll find excitement and entertaining play, but some people just prefer the alloy-oop showtime of mens' games.

I'd agree with you, but I don't think that hitting is poor fundamentals or showtime. Certainly some hits are flashier than others, but solid hit to separate someone from the puck is a fundamental part of the game. The player is less likely to get by if you stand him up at the blue line instead of poke check. As I said puck possession feels too easy because its hard to separate the puck from people. Think more of an analogy with the differences between Men's and Women's lacrosse. It's really a different game, unlike basketball where its pretty much the same game and same rules with less razzle dazzle. Doesn't mean they're not still incredible athletes, just means you giv me a choice between the two and I know what I'm watching.

I personally didn't mean to imply that hitting is pure fundamentals. I just think that the women are far more incentivized to have excellent fundamentals because of the fact that they cannot hit (not that I haven't seen Johnston hardcore body check girls several times). I just think their other fundamentals (passing, puck handling, puck placement) are better than they would be were there no hits because of the fact that they cannot do that.

We discussed the effects that Title IX might have on UConn's requirement to add scholarships for men's ice hockey to join Hockey East. I figured that I would post a link to the article in today's The Daily Collegian that discusses what Penn State will have to do to be in compliance with Title IX (along with which members of the Penn State ACHA Division I club team made the jump to the team that will play at the NCAA Division I level next season).

Aaron M. Griffin
We discussed the effects that Title IX might have on UConn's requirement to add scholarships for men's ice hockey to join Hockey East. I figured that I would post a link to the article in today's The Daily Collegian that discusses what Penn State will have to do to be in compliance with Title IX (along with which members of the Penn State ACHA Division I club team made the jump to the team that will play at the NCAA Division I level next season).

I'm unclear what they are doing. All I can gather is that they are making sure that the women's club is roughly the same size as the men's team and that they are otherwise in compliance.

ugarte

Aaron M. Griffin
We discussed the effects that Title IX might have on UConn's requirement to add scholarships for men's ice hockey to join Hockey East. I figured that I would post a link to the article in today's The Daily Collegian that discusses what Penn State will have to do to be in compliance with Title IX (along with which members of the Penn State ACHA Division I club team made the jump to the team that will play at the NCAA Division I level next season).

I'm unclear what they are doing. All I can gather is that they are making sure that the women's club is roughly the same size as the men's team and that they are otherwise in compliance.

It seems like the compliance office at Penn State give the enforcement of Title IX its broadest possible definition and assume that there must be near equality in number of players per male and female roster of equivalent teams and, impliedly, equality in the number of scholarships offered when there exists a direct equivalent for a sport (ie men's and women's ice hockey).

More on Title IX with this video from the Title IX Trailblazers series with Cornell's Digit Murphy.

video: [www.youtube.com]

Aaron M. Griffin

ugarte

Aaron M. Griffin
We discussed the effects that Title IX might have on UConn's requirement to add scholarships for men's ice hockey to join Hockey East. I figured that I would post a link to the article in today's The Daily Collegian that discusses what Penn State will have to do to be in compliance with Title IX (along with which members of the Penn State ACHA Division I club team made the jump to the team that will play at the NCAA Division I level next season).

I'm unclear what they are doing. All I can gather is that they are making sure that the women's club is roughly the same size as the men's team and that they are otherwise in compliance.

It seems like the compliance office at Penn State give the enforcement of Title IX its broadest possible definition and assume that there must be near equality in number of players per male and female roster of equivalent teams and, impliedly, equality in the number of scholarships offered when there exists a direct equivalent for a sport (ie men's and women's ice hockey).

More on Title IX with this video from the Title IX Trailblazers series with Cornell's Digit Murphy.

video: [www.youtube.com]

No, I don't think he means all sports with men's and women's teams need to be about the same. Look at this quote.

“We are in balance [with Title IX] now,” Lehrman said. “So we reasoned that if we’re going to add 26 more participants on the male [hockey] side, we have to get to approximately 26 [women’s players]. Maybe we can get by with 25 and it wouldn’t throw us out of whack, but something very, very close to that.”

He says that they are currently in compliance, so if they are going to add 25-27 men's scholarship positions, they need to add a similar number of women's spots. He mentions women's hockey, however, it doesn't state that the women's spots couldn't be in another sport.

Jim Hyla

“We are in balance [with Title IX] now,” Lehrman said. “So we reasoned that if we’re going to add 26 more participants on the male [hockey] side, we have to get to approximately 26 [women’s players]. Maybe we can get by with 25 and it wouldn’t throw us out of whack, but something very, very close to that.”

He says that they are currently in compliance, so if they are going to add 25-27 men's scholarship positions, they need to add a similar number of women's spots. He mentions women's hockey, however, it doesn't state that the women's spots couldn't be in another sport.

Since when does hockey have 25-27 scholarships? Last I heard it was 18. Even allowing for partial sholarships, wouldn't it be the total number of full scholarship equivalents that matters?

KeithK

Jim Hyla

“We are in balance [with Title IX] now,” Lehrman said. “So we reasoned that if we’re going to add 26 more participants on the male [hockey] side, we have to get to approximately 26 [women’s players]. Maybe we can get by with 25 and it wouldn’t throw us out of whack, but something very, very close to that.”

He says that they are currently in compliance, so if they are going to add 25-27 men's scholarship positions, they need to add a similar number of women's spots. He mentions women's hockey, however, it doesn't state that the women's spots couldn't be in another sport.

Since when does hockey have 25-27 scholarships? Last I heard it was 18. Even allowing for partial sholarships, wouldn't it be the total number of full scholarship equivalents that matters?

18 full scholarships is what Penn State is doing. Supposedly, there is leeway to distribute the funds across more players than 18 so long as one does not get more than a full scholarship.

Aaron M. Griffin
18 full scholarships is what Penn State is doing. Supposedly, there is leeway to distribute the funds across more players than 18 so long as one does not get more than a full scholarship.

Bad. You're giving big time college sports too many ideas.

But it is common to give partial scholarships in minor sports. Parents spend $50,000 in training, motels for tournaments, uniforms, gear, and then beg the college coach for a quarter scholarship just so they can say their son or daughter got a sports scholarship.

Interesting analysis of what would have been the revenues of each conference had realignment occurred prior to the 2009-10 season. Cornell nets the seventh best total of all NCAA Division I programs with $585,585.00. Unsurprisingly, B1G Hockey, without the addition of Penn State hockey revenues, was the greatest with a net total of $3.6 million. NCHC would have netted $3.2 million. The ECAC would have netted $1.3 million.

Aaron M. Griffin
javascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis of what would have been the revenues of each conference had realignment occurred prior to the 2009-10 season. Cornell nets the seventh best total of all NCAA Division I programs with $585,585.00. Unsurprisingly, B1G Hockey, without the addition of Penn State hockey revenues, was the greatest with a net total of $3.6 million. NCHC would have netted $3.2 million. The ECAC would have netted $1.3 million.

Denver has a deficit of exactly one dollar.

css228

Aaron M. Griffin
javascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis of what would have been the revenues of each conference had realignment occurred prior to the 2009-10 season. Cornell nets the seventh best total of all NCAA Division I programs with $585,585.00. Unsurprisingly, B1G Hockey, without the addition of Penn State hockey revenues, was the greatest with a net total of $3.6 million. NCHC would have netted $3.2 million. The ECAC would have netted $1.3 million.

Denver has a deficit of exactly one dollar.

That $1 deficit doesn't mean anything. It's probably not accurate. College athletic departments have some pretty clever ways of moving around revenue for scholarship and tax purposes (they want to maintain their tax-free non-profit status). There was an interesting Sports Illustrated article about it a few months ago. The article is actually about the possibility of pay for play in college sports, but in order to explain how it might work they need to explain how athletic departments cook their books. (Also, I apologize in advance for the pay for play debate that me linking to this article will inevitably spark.)

This doesn't belong here, but doesn't deserve its own post, IMO. Clarkson goalie Rosen is sponsoring a charity contest to design his helmet artwork.

Via CHN article, by a player, about why Holy Cross is a better choice than UConn for HE. Interesting quote.

Other local Division 1 conferences pale in comparison to Hockey East’s nightly attendance numbers, NHL players, national champions and emotion-fueled rivalries.

He couldn't be refering to Harvard, could he? Yeah I know Brown is about the same distance away, but that just doesn't have the same flair.

Jim Hyla
This doesn't belong here, but doesn't deserve its own post, IMO. Clarkson goalie Rosen is sponsoring a charity contest to design his helmet artwork.

RichH

Jim Hyla
This doesn't belong here, but doesn't deserve its own post, IMO. Clarkson goalie Rosen is sponsoring a charity contest to design his helmet artwork.

sieve_jpg.jpg

A first look at the 2013 conferences, with members ranked by this year's final KRACH (top 16 in red; we were 20th):

1. 	Air Force
2. 	RIT
3. 	Niagara
4. 	Mercyhurst
5. 	Holy Cross
6. 	Robert Morris
7. 	Bentley
8. 	Uconn
9. 	Canisius
10. 	AIC
11. 	Army
12. 	Sacred Heart

1. 	Union
2. 	Cornell
3. 	Harvard
4. 	Colgate
5. 	Quinnipiac
6. 	Yale
7. 	St. Lawrence
8. 	Clarkson
9. 	Dartmouth
10. 	Princeton
11. 	RPI
12. 	Brown

1. 	BC
2. 	Maine
3. 	BU
4. 	Lowell
5. 	Notre Dame
6. 	Merrimack
7. 	Northeastern
8. 	UNH
9. 	Umass
10. 	Providence
11. 	Vermont

1. 	North Dakota
2. 	Minnesota-Duluth
3. 	Miami
4. 	Western Michigan
5. 	Denver
6. 	St. Cloud State
7. 	Colorado College

1. 	Michigan
2. 	Minnesota
3. 	Michigan State
4. 	Ohio State
5. 	Wisconsin
6. 	Penn State

1. 	Ferris State
2. 	Northern Michigan
3. 	Lake Superior State
4. 	Bemidji
5. 	Michigan Tech
6. 	Alaska Fairbanks
7. 	UNO
8. 	Bowling Green
9. 	Minnesota-Mankato
10. 	Alaska Anchorage

jtn27

css228

Aaron M. Griffin
javascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis of what would have been the revenues of each conference had realignment occurred prior to the 2009-10 season. Cornell nets the seventh best total of all NCAA Division I programs with $585,585.00. Unsurprisingly, B1G Hockey, without the addition of Penn State hockey revenues, was the greatest with a net total of $3.6 million. NCHC would have netted $3.2 million. The ECAC would have netted $1.3 million.

Denver has a deficit of exactly one dollar.

That $1 deficit doesn't mean anything. It's probably not accurate. College athletic departments have some pretty clever ways of moving around revenue for scholarship and tax purposes (they want to maintain their tax-free non-profit status). There was an interesting Sports Illustrated article about it a few months ago. The article is actually about the possibility of pay for play in college sports, but in order to explain how it might work they need to explain how athletic departments cook their books. (Also, I apologize in advance for the pay for play debate that me linking to this article will inevitably spark.)

There must be a lot of fudging going on, given that 24 of the schols (counting Denver) broke exactly even.

RichH

Jim Hyla
This doesn't belong here, but doesn't deserve its own post, IMO. Clarkson goalie Rosen is sponsoring a charity contest to design his helmet artwork.

sieve_jpg.jpg

I was about to suggest that we submit pro-Cornell artwork or something that says Sieve. If it goes to a fan vote there's a very small possibility we could get it on his helmet.

CCHA trying to go out with a bang.

Via CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series?

Jim Hyla
Via CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series?

They should show proper respect and refer to the school by its correct moniker: tSFU.

Robb

Jim Hyla
Via CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series?

They should show proper respect and refer to the school by its correct moniker: tSFU.

StFU?

Canadian members of the NCAA is as perennial as the BTHC.

Then again...

Trotsky
Canadian members of the NCAA is as perennial as the BTHC.

Then again...

Harvard to Hockey East.

Jim Hyla
Via CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series?

Well, it's not Vladivostok, but it's a third of the way there at least.

Chris '03

Trotsky
Canadian members of the NCAA is as perennial as the BTHC.

Then again...

Harvard to Hockey East.

I'm old. I can remember when it was UVM to Hockey East.