Announcement (http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/2011-07-13/new-di-hockey-conference-formed)
I haven't hadn't seen this posted elsewhere on elynah because I hadn't read all the threads.::worry::
What a ridiculous name. Is this the best that some marketing guy could come up with?
Actually it's a presumptuous name, IMO. They're national, everyone else is regional.
"I don't think you're going to see us stay at six [teams]," [Colorado College athletic director Ken] Ralph said. "I think you're going to see us grow to seven or to eight or maybe beyond. And we're not going to have a geographic boundary."
http://www.uscho.com/2011/07/13/new-league-national-collegiate-hockey-conference/#ixzz1S5xyfYXG
With ambiguous numbers and geography this might have been the best they could do.
USCHO also reported a rumor that BU and BC were invited but this has been denied.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Actually it's a presumptuous name, IMO. They're national, everyone else is regional.
My first thought exactly.
I guess that all makes sense. Its just a terrible sounding name but I guess that's just my opinion.
So no geographic boundaries. Hasn't travel, and more specifically air fare been a big cost for some of these schools?
Quote from: nyc94"I don't think you're going to see us stay at six [teams]," [Colorado College athletic director Ken] Ralph said. "I think you're going to see us grow to seven or to eight or maybe beyond. And we're not going to have a geographic boundary."
http://www.uscho.com/2011/07/13/new-league-national-collegiate-hockey-conference/#ixzz1S5xyfYXG
With ambiguous numbers and geography this might have been the best they could do.
USCHO also reported a rumor that BU and BC were invited but this has been denied.
I think this is the best comment following the USCHO article:
Quote from: MSU Grad97This is very similar to the Division III conference National Collegiate Hockey Association in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Funny how they tried to rob the name of a current conference that once had Mankato, Bemidji, and St. Cloud in its glory days, but they were not good enough just this year to be included in this 2010-2011 super conference. I suppose they'll get Minnesota Crookston back on its feet now so the Susies and Bullsnots can whip up on them. Good luck against St. Scholastica and that Duluth rivalry!
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2011/07/13/new-league-national-collegiate-hockey-conference/#ixzz1S7unBSjK
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Actually it's a presumptuous name, IMO. They're national, everyone else is regional.
My first thought exactly.
I'm surprised NCAA allowed the name because of the likelihood of how National Collegiate Hockey Conference Champs would be (mis)construed by non college hockey insiders.
"nancy-HC"
Quote from: judySo no geographic boundaries. Hasn't travel, and more specifically air fare been a big cost for some of these schools?
Most of the teams involved were already flying for most or their trips so this doesn't change anything. Of the six I'd say that this impacts the budget of Miami most, since they were mostly busing in the CCHA.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: judySo no geographic boundaries. Hasn't travel, and more specifically air fare been a big cost for some of these schools?
Most of the teams involved were already flying for most or their trips so this doesn't change anything. Of the six I'd say that this impacts the budget of Miami most, since they were mostly busing in the CCHA.
It's also worth noting that at 6 teams, each school only has to make 5 road trips for league games, which limits the impact of having to fly everywhere. These schools can then try to cherry pick non-conference road games and load up on home non-conference games. The bigger the league gets, the more the travel costs will become a factor.
The costs don't seem to be scaring WMU: http://whywestern.com/
What's wrong with it?
NiC HiC::drunk::
Quote from: jeff '84I'm surprised NCAA allowed the name because of the likelihood of how National Collegiate Hockey Conference Champs would be (mis)construed by non college hockey insiders.
Exactly. College conferences are evolving to alignments of the most powerful. Natural pecking order, etcetera. It will require even more NCAA ads to remind people these are student-athletes with carefully crafted messages about how 96% of NCAA tournament money is spent on the tournament (including all the NCAA travel party) and how student-athletes graduate at a higher rate (or is it have a better GPA) than students as a whole. I've never seen an ad during the NCAA basketball tournament that says the 64 chosen teams have a higher GPA or graduation rate than their student bodies. Kentucky's starting five probably brings down the other 63 teams.
So as the scholarship D1 schools spiral out of control, how big of a scandal will it take for an implosion and a return to true student sports? I'm guessing there is no scandal too big.
I confess I like the table at the end of the article showing national titles by 2013-14 conference affiliation. The ECAC would have a total of five, while the WCHA, the king of all college hockey to hear them tell it, would have three. All by Michigan Tech, which should tell you how long ago that was (1975 was their last one).
If Northern Michigan does join the re-imaged WCHA, that would boost their total to four.
Quote from: Give My RegardsI confess I like the table at the end of the article showing national titles by 2013-14 conference affiliation. The ECAC would have a total of five, while the WCHA, the king of all college hockey to hear them tell it, would have three. All by Michigan Tech, which should tell you how long ago that was (1975 was their last one).
If Northern Michigan does join the re-imaged WCHA, that would boost their total to four.
Our "WZHA" joke becomes much less ironic now. My next question is which conference assumes the "most insufferable fans" title: BTHC or the Nancies.
do all of BU's titles belong to the ECAC?
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Give My RegardsI confess I like the table at the end of the article showing national titles by 2013-14 conference affiliation. The ECAC would have a total of five, while the WCHA, the king of all college hockey to hear them tell it, would have three. All by Michigan Tech, which should tell you how long ago that was (1975 was their last one).
If Northern Michigan does join the re-imaged WCHA, that would boost their total to four.
Our "WZHA" joke becomes much less ironic now. My next question is which conference assumes the "most insufferable fans" title: BTHC or the Nancies.
The remnants of the CCHA & WCHA are suffering the same fate as the ECAC did in 1984. In the best-case scenario (i.e., no programs get eliminated), the impact on those conferences will be similar.
Quote from: cbuckserThe remnants of the CCHA & WCHA are suffering the same fate as the ECAC did in 1984.
Strongly disagree. In 1984 the ECAC lost 40% of its traditional power programs (BU, BC) but kept the rest (Cornell, Clarkson, Harvard). The CCHA and WCHA just lost
everything.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: cbuckserThe remnants of the CCHA & WCHA are suffering the same fate as the ECAC did in 1984.
Strongly disagree. In 1984 the ECAC lost 40% of its traditional power programs (BU, BC) but kept the rest (Cornell, Clarkson, Harvard). The CCHA and WCHA just lost everything.
The spiteful part of me wants to enjoy the schadenfreude watching the pompous WCHA types suffer. But this is bad for college hockey so the better part of my nature is trying to resist the temptation.
Quote from: KeithKThe spiteful part of me wants to enjoy the schadenfreude watching the pompous WCHA types suffer. But this is bad for college hockey so the better part of my nature is trying to resist the temptation.
Anyway, the most pompous WCHA types are now pompous NCHC types (NoDak) or even more pompous BTHC types (Minny).
With the formation of the National Collegiate Hockey Conference ("national"... seriously?) and the departure (return) of Northern Michigan to the WCHA, it seemed a good time to update the map of the 2013 hockey landscape. My apologies on the color for the NCHC, but, while I wanted to emphasize how it was all clearly about money, I had already used "puke" for the BTHC.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssouthar/hockey/hockey_map2.png)
[clear]
What strikes me is how North Dakota and UMD could have formed the nucleus of a "Northern" league, including Northern Michigan and LSSU, and Denver, CC, and UNO could have gone together with the remainders of the CCHA to form a "Southern" league, perhaps even including Alabama-Huntsville. But, as I said above, this was clearly about the $$$.
I fear that LSSU will be "left out in the cold."
Nice map. If the CCHA and WCHA combined, LSSU would be the "hinge" of the new conference.
So western hockey goes from two conferences of around 12 apiece to four conferences of six, thus doubling the number of automatic bids issued to western schools. Hardly seems fair. Maybe the ECAC should split into two six team leagues who just happen to play an interlocking schedule and a single tournament.
Anyone care to speculate to what degree the new alignment will impact PWR rankings? Does playing in the six team Nancy's or the six team Big-Twen significantly improve your ranking? Eliminating a bunch of lower ranked teams from the schedule should help some. But assuming they go with 20 game conference schedules there will be a lot of non conference games to fill that might end up against "lower" ranked teams. Unless the conference end up with some sort of interlocking schedule. In theory the two new conferences could have a 12 game interlocking non-conference schedule.
This all sucks, by the way.
And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Quote from: jtwcornell91perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac.
Why would that be in any way likely to happen?
Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Given Air Force's current conference affiliation, it seems like they don't really give a crap about travel expenses (insert obvious joke about airplanes here) and will land on their feet however things shake out. (Last year they made an Alaska trip and seven trips East.)
Quote from: Scersk '97With the formation of the National Collegiate Hockey Conference ("national"... seriously?) and the departure (return) of Northern Michigan to the WCHA, it seemed a good time to update the map of the 2013 hockey landscape. My apologies on the color for the NCHC, but, while I wanted to emphasize how it was all clearly about money, I had already used "puke" for the BTHC.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssouthar/hockey/hockey_map2.png)
[clear]
What strikes me is how North Dakota and UMD could have formed the nucleus of a "Northern" league, including Northern Michigan and LSSU, and Denver, CC, and UNO could have gone together with the remainders of the CCHA to form a "Southern" league, perhaps even including Alabama-Huntsville. But, as I said above, this was clearly about the $$$.
I fear that LSSU will be "left out in the cold."
If you were so inclined, you could claim that UND and UMD would rather be grouped with Denver and CC and Miami, rather than NMU and MTU and LSSU, in order to play in a stronger conference because that better prepares you to win championships, and that isn't really about the money. I'm not so inclined, personally, but I think you could at least plausibly claim that.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Given Air Force's current conference affiliation, it seems like they don't really give a crap about travel expenses (insert obvious joke about airplanes military spending here) and will land on their feet however things shake out. (Last year they made an Alaska trip and seven trips East.)
FYP
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Given Air Force's current conference affiliation, it seems like they don't really give a crap about travel expenses (insert obvious joke about airplanes here) and will land on their feet however things shake out. (Last year they made an Alaska trip and seven trips East.)
The AHA might care, especially if it gets reduced to its New England core.
In retrospect, CCHA - WMU - Notre Dame - UAF + RMU + Mercyhurst + Canisius + Niagara = 7 teams, so in this scenario RIT might end up as the 8th CCHA team, even without scholarships. The resulting league would even have reasonable travel partnerships: LS/FS, BG/RM, Mh/Ca, RT/Ni. I guess this implicitly assumes the WCHA fills itself out to 8 teams with UAF and USAFA.
Quote from: jtwcornell91LS/FS
4 hours between games is pretty tough for a travel-partner type arrangement, but *just* doable.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: jtwcornell91LS/FS
4 hours between games is pretty tough for a travel-partner type arrangement, but *just* doable.
For reference, Google Maps says it takes 2 hrs 56 mins to travel from Hamden to Princeton, and we all know that can take much longer depending on the traffic. I would say 4 hrs through, well,
no traffic to speak of is just fine.
Indeed, given the lake effect off of Erie, I find Bowling Green to Pittsburgh more suspect.
Quote from: Josh '99If you were so inclined, you could claim that UND and UMD would rather be grouped with Denver and CC and Miami, rather than NMU and MTU and LSSU, in order to play in a stronger conference because that better prepares you to win championships, and that isn't really about the money. I'm not so inclined, personally, but I think you could at least plausibly claim that.
That would be like Mike Hampton claiming that he signed with the Rockies because of the school system in Colorado.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: RobbQuote from: jtwcornell91LS/FS
4 hours between games is pretty tough for a travel-partner type arrangement, but *just* doable.
For reference, Google Maps says it takes 2 hrs 56 mins to travel from Hamden to Princeton, and we all know that can take much longer depending on the traffic. I would say 4 hrs through, well, no traffic to speak of is just fine.
Indeed, given the lake effect off of Erie, I find Bowling Green to Pittsburgh more suspect.
Don't forget the Cornell-Columbia travel partnership in Ivy basketball...
Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
This was expected. It makes some sense for the schools involved. There isn't much change to travel and at least Mercyhurst and Niagara want to go back to 8 scholarships. The domino hasn't fallen yet but I'd guess it's better than 50-50 that it does.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: RobbQuote from: jtwcornell91LS/FS
4 hours between games is pretty tough for a travel-partner type arrangement, but *just* doable.
For reference, Google Maps says it takes 2 hrs 56 mins to travel from Hamden to Princeton, and we all know that can take much longer depending on the traffic. I would say 4 hrs through, well, no traffic to speak of is just fine.
Indeed, given the lake effect off of Erie, I find Bowling Green to Pittsburgh more suspect.
OK, but what makes everybody assume they even want to set up a travel partner arrangement? Haven't the Western Conferences done more of a "weekend series" schedule anyway? The old WCHA & CCHA generally played a 2 home, 2 away in-conference schedule. We ECACHL'ers are always so obsessed in trying to fit our elegant scheduling system to other conferences and when teams change in our own conference. It really doesn't have to work for other conferences, and it doesn't given the distances you're discussing now. If I were a Western coach/fan, staying in one place for the weekend seems pretty preferable. Especially now with 6-team conferences who will have a lot more in-conference games to fill.
Quote from: RichHOK, but what makes everybody assume they even want to set up a travel partner arrangement? ... Especially now with 6-team conferences who will have a lot more in-conference games to fill.
Agreed. A travel partner setup is kind of silly in a six team league when you're probably playing four games against each opponent. Going to Ferris State one weekend and Western Michigan another weekend makes more sense than two trips that visit both. Less traveling time and less logistical effort. This may not apply for BC/BU?Northeastern, but anywhere you have to travel between partnerships you're better off staying put if you can.
Things get complicated when you get up to 10 teams in the league where you're probably playing three games against each opponent. Then you probably have both two game sets and mixed weekends. HE managed that for years with nine, albeit in a very compact league. If memory serves the CCHA did as well back in the day though I don't recall either the team count or the scheduling details offhand.
Quote from: RichHWe ECACHL'ers are always so obsessed in trying to fit our elegant scheduling system to other conferences and when teams change in our own conference. It really doesn't have to work for other conferences, and it doesn't given the distances you're discussing now. If I were a Western coach/fan, staying in one place for the weekend seems pretty preferable. Especially now with 6-team conferences who will have a lot more in-conference games to fill.
Fair point. But it is
SO elegant. :-)
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: RobbQuote from: jtwcornell91LS/FS
4 hours between games is pretty tough for a travel-partner type arrangement, but *just* doable.
For reference, Google Maps says it takes 2 hrs 56 mins to travel from Hamden to Princeton, and we all know that can take much longer depending on the traffic. I would say 4 hrs through, well, no traffic to speak of is just fine.
Indeed, given the lake effect off of Erie, I find Bowling Green to Pittsburgh more suspect.
OK, but what makes everybody assume they even want to set up a travel partner arrangement? Haven't the Western Conferences done more of a "weekend series" schedule anyway? The old WCHA & CCHA generally played a 2 home, 2 away in-conference schedule. We ECACHL'ers are always so obsessed in trying to fit our elegant scheduling system to other conferences and when teams change in our own conference. It really doesn't have to work for other conferences, and it doesn't given the distances you're discussing now. If I were a Western coach/fan, staying in one place for the weekend seems pretty preferable. Especially now with 6-team conferences who will have a lot more in-conference games to fill.
Folks, remember. These are scholarship schools. The scholarship is in the money. So they could use pairings for ease of scheduling but allow a day or two between games with the first or second partner. Instead if 4 hrs between games, it could easily be 40 hrs.
Quote from: SwampyFolks, remember. These are scholarship schools. The scholarship is in the money. So they could use pairings for ease of scheduling but allow a day or two between games with the first or second partner. Instead if 4 hrs between games, it could easily be 40 hrs.
Maximizing attendance dollars probably means scheduling games on Friday and Saturday nights. Television obviously could dictate games at other times, The new CCHA and WCHA probably will have less television coverage without the big boys but what they do get could drive them to funny hours. I could see a network scheduling a weekly BTHC or Nancy game for Saturday night and relegating CCHA/WCHA to Sunday afternoon, for instance.
Though if the trend in college hockey is toward doing everything for the money then we could see random mid week games popping up to get television coverage, the way it is in squeakball.
Oh, completely secondly agreed. Travel partnerships generally don't make sense west of Buffalo.
Quote from: The Rancordo all of BU's titles belong to the ECAC?
Not 2009!
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: KeithKThe spiteful part of me wants to enjoy the schadenfreude watching the pompous WCHA types suffer. But this is bad for college hockey so the better part of my nature is trying to resist the temptation.
Anyway, the most pompous WCHA types are now pompous NCHC types (NoDak) or even more pompous BTHC types (Minny).
Exactly and now they are a NATIONAL league.::barf::
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Given Air Force's current conference affiliation, it seems like they don't really give a crap about travel expenses (insert obvious joke about airplanes here) and will land on their feet however things shake out. (Last year they made an Alaska trip and seven trips East.)
Your tax dollars at rest.
Quote from: martyQuote from: Josh '99Quote from: jtwcornell91And now it sounds like (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/19_ccha,_atlantic_schools_to.php) the CCHA might poach RMU, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Canisius to replace its losses. Bad news for RIT if it happens, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the Ivies splitting off and the ECAC grabbing RIT and Army as travel partners for Colgate and Quinnipiac. Then Air Force may be in the same boat as Alabama-Huntsville...
Given Air Force's current conference affiliation, it seems like they don't really give a crap about travel expenses (insert obvious joke about airplanes here) and will land on their feet however things shake out. (Last year they made an Alaska trip and seven trips East.)
Your tax dollars at rest.
Jet Noise: The Sound of Freedom
Looks like the WCHA is going to absorb the remainder of the CCHA, pending each individual school's approval:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/08/25_remaining_ccha_teams_will.php
So we are now at:
WCHA:
UAA
UAF
Bemidji
BGSU *
Ferris
Lake State
Mankato
MTU
NMU
Notre Dame **
St. Cloud
WMU *
NCHC:
Denver
CC
Miami
Minn-Duluth
UNO
North Dakota
* could still move to NCHC
** could still move to NCHC or HE
Quote from: TrotskySo we are now at:
WCHA:
UAA
UAF
Bemidji
BGSU *
Ferris
Lake State
Mankato
MTU
NMU
Notre Dame **
St. Cloud
WMU *
NCHC:
Denver
CC
Miami
Minn-Duluth
UNO
North Dakota
* could still move to NCHC
** could still move to NCHC or HE
SCREWED:
Alabama-Huntsville
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskySo we are now at:
WCHA:
UAA
UAF
Bemidji
BGSU *
Ferris
Lake State
Mankato
MTU
NMU
Notre Dame **
St. Cloud
WMU *
NCHC:
Denver
CC
Miami
Minn-Duluth
UNO
North Dakota
* could still move to NCHC
** could still move to NCHC or HE
SCREWED:
Alabama-Huntsville
You know, NCAA hockey is great and all, but... eh. UAH is like 500 miles away from the closest hockey school. It makes zero geographical sense to have a program there. They have no natural rivalries, no conference that makes any sense for them to be a part of, honestly probably no other program that would bat an eye if they dropped their program. So if that happens... eh.
Quote from: Josh '99You know, NCAA hockey is great and all, but... eh. UAH is like 500 miles away from the closest hockey school. It makes zero geographical sense to have a program there. They have no natural rivalries, no conference that makes any sense for them to be a part of, honestly probably no other program that would bat an eye if they dropped their program. So if that happens... eh.
It's too bad Alabama-Birmingham could not have held on to their program. Then they would have had at least as much of a shot as the Alaska schools.
Of course, Kentucky could always go D-1...
(http://www.lailnet.com/blog/images/1030leahlail.jpg)
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskySo we are now at:
WCHA:
UAA
UAF
Bemidji
BGSU *
Ferris
Lake State
Mankato
MTU
NMU
Notre Dame **
St. Cloud
WMU *
NCHC:
Denver
CC
Miami
Minn-Duluth
UNO
North Dakota
* could still move to NCHC
** could still move to NCHC or HE
SCREWED:
Alabama-Huntsville
So, you want to save Alabama-Huntsville? (http://saveuahhockey.com/)
Quote from: Jim HylaSo, you want to save Alabama-Huntsville? (http://saveuahhockey.com/)
I almost expected that to be a Kickstarter page.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskySo we are now at:
WCHA:
UAA
UAF
Bemidji
BGSU *
Ferris
Lake State
Mankato
MTU
NMU
Notre Dame **
St. Cloud
WMU *
NCHC:
Denver
CC
Miami
Minn-Duluth
UNO
North Dakota
* could still move to NCHC
** could still move to NCHC or HE
SCREWED:
Alabama-Huntsville
So, you want to save Alabama-Huntsville? (http://saveuahhockey.com/)
http://www.change.org/petitions/uah-charger-hockey-should-soldier-on-and-thrive
CHN on WMU and St. Cloud going to NCHC. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/21_wmu,_st_cloud_to_join_nchc.php)
Via USCHO article on what Bowling Green might do, and the AHA schools as well. (http://www.sent-trib.com/bgsu-sports/deadline-extended-for-bg-hockey-decision-9-22-11)
A further iteration of the map, including the recent Western and St. Cloud announcement and showing the rump CCHA.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssouthar/hockey/hockey_map3.png)
Quote from: Scersk '97A further iteration of the map, including the recent Western and St. Cloud announcement and showing the rump CCHA.
It would be fair to say that Notre Dame and BGSU are independent now also.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Scersk '97A further iteration of the map, including the recent Western and St. Cloud announcement and showing the rump CCHA.
It would be fair to say that Notre Dame and BGSU are independent now also.
More on BGSU from CHN. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/26_bowling_green_keeps_options.php)
Discussion at CHN about RPI going to HE if ND does (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/27_notre_dame_to_hockey_east.php) and here. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/28_notre_dame_decision_not_the.php)
Quote from: Jim HylaDiscussion at CHN about RPI going to HE if ND does (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/27_notre_dame_to_hockey_east.php) and here. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/28_notre_dame_decision_not_the.php)
That would suck.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: Jim HylaDiscussion at CHN about RPI going to HE if ND does (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/27_notre_dame_to_hockey_east.php) and here. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/28_notre_dame_decision_not_the.php)
That would suck.
It certainly would.
UConn has always been the natural choice for future HEA expansion. They fit the profile and geography and already have a rival in UMass. It's a shame they've never supported the program enough in Storrs.
One good thing about HEA getting to 12 would be the increase in OOC games those schools would have to fill.
Quote from: Jim HylaDiscussion at CHN about RPI going to HE if ND does (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/27_notre_dame_to_hockey_east.php) and here. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/28_notre_dame_decision_not_the.php)
Well, the sum total of the RPI mention in the first article is this:
QuoteA popular candidate for a 12th team is RPI, which is currently in the ECAC.
In the second it's this:
QuoteOn the other hand, RPI was courted by Hockey East twice before, when it was formed in the early '80s, and again in the mid-'90s, ultimately deciding against it both times. And, most importantly, the idea is supported by its current administration, including head coach Seth Appert and athletic director Jim Knowlton (despite his lip service to the contrary, as was reported Tuesday by Ken Schott of the Schnectady Gazette).
which is admittedly worse.
According to the USCHO reporters, both Notre Dame and RPI to Hockey East looking like a real possibility, if not likelihood: USCHO Hockey East Preview (http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/03/early-exits-last-season-fuel-hockey-east-teams-for-2011-12/)
For that to occur, you'd have to think UCONN has made clear it has no intention of becoming a serious player in college hockey.
If RPI does leave -- and I'd be disappointed if they do -- RIT would seemingly be the obvious replacement.
Here's more from Schott of the Schenectady Gazette. (https://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2011/oct/02/nchc-to-stay-at-8-teams/)
QuoteThat means Notre Dame won't be joining Colorado College, Denver, Miami University, Minnesota Duluth, Nebraska Omaha, North Dakota, St. Cloud State and Western Michigan in the conference. It is looking more and more like the Fighting Irish will leave the CCHA to join Hockey East in 2013-14, and that could mean RPI may join them.
While RPI athletic director Jim Knowlton and Engineers coach Seth Appert said they were happy with being in ECAC Hockey, the lure of moving to a conference with Boston College, Boston University, Maine and New Hampshire may be enough to end RPI's time in the ECACH.
There are also rumblings that Cornell is being courted by Hockey East.
Not that I think any of these rumblings mean anything. With our Ivy restrictions how would we pull this off?
Quote from: Jim HylaHere's more from Schott of the Schenectady Gazette. (https://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2011/oct/02/nchc-to-stay-at-8-teams/)QuoteThat means Notre Dame won't be joining Colorado College, Denver, Miami University, Minnesota Duluth, Nebraska Omaha, North Dakota, St. Cloud State and Western Michigan in the conference. It is looking more and more like the Fighting Irish will leave the CCHA to join Hockey East in 2013-14, and that could mean RPI may join them.
While RPI athletic director Jim Knowlton and Engineers coach Seth Appert said they were happy with being in ECAC Hockey, the lure of moving to a conference with Boston College, Boston University, Maine and New Hampshire may be enough to end RPI's time in the ECACH.
There are also rumblings that Cornell is being courted by Hockey East.
Not that I think any of these rumblings mean anything. With our Ivy restrictions how would we pull this off?
Those seem like pretty ridiculous rumblings. Aside from the Ivy factor, we're the westernmost of the ECAC schools. Then again, if HE is taking Notre Dame, they've apparently abandoned the concept of geography...
Quote from: jtwcornell91Those seem like pretty ridiculous rumblings.
Somebody's pulling Ken Schott's leg. "Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing, Reg."
This is pretty much pissing me off. Can someone explain to me how a school with such a poor historical hockey record can manage to hold the sport hostage? Or why the powers-that-be in college hockey are allowing themselves to be held hostage by such a weak program? Am I the only person to see this as a tail-wagging-the-dog situation? A tiny, insignificant tail.
Notre Dame has a total of 15 winning seasons in the modern era. 15 out of 42 seasons at the D-1 level. Four of them came in the last 5 years. As recently as 2005, they posted a stellar 5-27-6 season, and they have 5 total NCAA tournament appearances to their name. A program with so much support, they were dropped to a club sport in the 1980s.
Why do they get to call the shots here? Because of a football team that hasn't been relevant since Lou Holtz stepped down?
I get the BTHC move. I'm not happy about it, but I get it. That forced the remaining Western schools to make the moves that subsequently happened. And now just when the dust has cleared and we have a solution that works, with two leagues that would be fine with their membership, Notre Dame...again...NOTRE DAME decides that they might want to blast a hole into the Eastern landscape as well? I'm sorry, who are you again? Where did this "Notre Dame is deciding its next conference" crap come from? Why aren't we asking UAH what conference THEY would like to join first?
I'm sure schools like Merrimack, Lowell, Northeastern are going to love the additional budget they have to cover for travel out to freaking Chicagoland. SAY NO, HOCKEY EAST. JUST SAY NO TO THEM. They belong with the new WCHA, but if the NCHC will take them, just ducky. Or stay independent like your coach-blaming shell of a football program. Stay out of the East.
Ah, the more I think about it, the angrier I get...Go to hell, Notre Dame.
Quote from: RichHThis is pretty much pissing me off. Can someone explain to me how a school with such a poor historical hockey record can manage to hold the sport hostage? Or why the powers-that-be in college hockey are allowing themselves to be held hostage by such a weak program? Am I the only person to see this as a tail-wagging-the-dog situation? A tiny, insignificant tail.
Notre Dame has a total of 15 winning seasons in the modern era. 15 out of 42 seasons at the D-1 level. Four of them came in the last 5 years. As recently as 2005, they posted a stellar 5-27-6 season, and they have 5 total NCAA tournament appearances to their name. A program with so much support, they were dropped to a club sport in the 1980s.
Why do they get to call the shots here? Because of a football team that hasn't been relevant since Lou Holtz stepped down?
I get the BTHC move. I'm not happy about it, but I get it. That forced the remaining Western schools to make the moves that subsequently happened. And now just when the dust has cleared and we have a solution that works, with two leagues that would be fine with their membership, Notre Dame...again...NOTRE DAME decides that they might want to blast a hole into the Eastern landscape as well? I'm sorry, who are you again? Where did this "Notre Dame is deciding its next conference" crap come from? Why aren't we asking UAH what conference THEY would like to join first?
I'm sure schools like Merrimack, Lowell, Northeastern are going to love the additional budget they have to cover for travel out to freaking Chicagoland. SAY NO, HOCKEY EAST. JUST SAY NO TO THEM. They belong with the new WCHA, but if the NCHC will take them, just ducky. Or stay independent like your coach-blaming shell of a football program. Stay out of the East.
Ah, the more I think about it, the angrier I get...Go to hell, Notre Dame.
Well, I'm sure that if HE didn't want them they wouldn't be talking. So, I don't think they are being held hostage. In fact maybe NCHC got tired and said so long, but I doubt it. As much as I dislike ND, I don't think they are holding anyone hostage that doesn't want to be held. Of course they are also the no. 1 ranked preseason.
Quote from: RichHThis is pretty much pissing me off. Can someone explain to me how a school with such a poor historical hockey record can manage to hold the sport hostage? Or why the powers-that-be in college hockey are allowing themselves to be held hostage by such a weak program? Am I the only person to see this as a tail-wagging-the-dog situation? A tiny, insignificant tail.
Notre Dame has a total of 15 winning seasons in the modern era. 15 out of 42 seasons at the D-1 level. Four of them came in the last 5 years. As recently as 2005, they posted a stellar 5-27-6 season, and they have 5 total NCAA tournament appearances to their name. A program with so much support, they were dropped to a club sport in the 1980s.
Why do they get to call the shots here? Because of a football team that hasn't been relevant since Lou Holtz stepped down?
I get the BTHC move. I'm not happy about it, but I get it. That forced the remaining Western schools to make the moves that subsequently happened. And now just when the dust has cleared and we have a solution that works, with two leagues that would be fine with their membership, Notre Dame...again...NOTRE DAME decides that they might want to blast a hole into the Eastern landscape as well? I'm sorry, who are you again? Where did this "Notre Dame is deciding its next conference" crap come from? Why aren't we asking UAH what conference THEY would like to join first?
I'm sure schools like Merrimack, Lowell, Northeastern are going to love the additional budget they have to cover for travel out to freaking Chicagoland. SAY NO, HOCKEY EAST. JUST SAY NO TO THEM. They belong with the new WCHA, but if the NCHC will take them, just ducky. Or stay independent like your coach-blaming shell of a football program. Stay out of the East.
Ah, the more I think about it, the angrier I get...Go to hell, Notre Dame.
IMHO, there is a lot of short-term thinking in the realignment. UMD is the national champion, but they were at the bottom of the WCHA not so long ago and could be back at that level in another few. Miami's coach has made them one of the best teams in recent years, but will they still be there when he leaves.
This. And this^3.
When Jeff Jackson croaks, Notre Dame will become the unwanted country cousin of Hockey East.
The only way I end up happy is if this motivates a 23- (or 24-) team superleague. You know the drill: 4 divisions of Ivy, ECAC, HE1, and HE2; home-and-home intradivision, one game interdivision = 27 league games (for the Ivies and other participants in 6-team divisions) or 26 league games (for the 5-team division); 16-team megaplayoff; and Boston tournament. Long live the ECAC+!
But that's not going to happen. So when RPI leaps, I'll be pissed. "Screw BU, RPI too!"
Quote from: Scersk '97This. And this^3.
When Jeff Jackson croaks, Notre Dame will become the unwanted country cousin of Hockey East.
The only way I end up happy is if this motivates a 23- (or 24-) team superleague. You know the drill: 4 divisions of Ivy, ECAC, HE1, and HE2; home-and-home intradivision, one game interdivision = 27 league games (for the Ivies and other participants in 6-team divisions) or 26 league games (for the 5-team division); 16-team megaplayoff; and Boston tournament. Long live the ECAC+!
But that's not going to happen. So when RPI leaps, I'll be pissed. "Screw BU, RPI too!"
Thanks. :-D
BTW, Ken Schott has posted again that there are rumblings that Cornell interested in the HE http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2011/oct/04/college-hockey-notes-notre-dame-headed-to-hockey-e/.
Quote from: ursusminorBTW, Ken Schott has posted again that there are rumblings that Cornell interested in the HE http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2011/oct/04/college-hockey-notes-notre-dame-headed-to-hockey-e/.
Only way that happens is with my ridiculous Superleague or some other crazy idea, because 22 + 10 = 32 > 29.
This is not the way I wanted us to pick up RIT. I had always hoped that would come by excommunicating Quinnipiac or Union.
Quote from: ursusminorBTW, Ken Schott has posted again that there are rumblings that Cornell interested in the HE http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2011/oct/04/college-hockey-notes-notre-dame-headed-to-hockey-e/.
He said, exactly, "And there is speculation that Cornell is interested." By speculating it himself, he is reporting the truth.
An interesting thought though. We would clearly have to give up Ivy League Hockey with its schedule/practice restrictions and I don't see how we could play all the HE teams and the IVYs twice in a season. On the other hand we would have stronger competitors in BU, BC, UNH. If you value a national championship above all else (even beating Sucks) this would be a logical move.
From USCHO (http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/04/bowling-green-accepts-wchas-invitation-to-join-in-2013/)
QuoteBowling Green has accepted the WCHA's offer of membership for the 2013–14 season, the school announced Tuesday.
The school was one of five from the CCHA given an invitation in August to join the WCHA, which is set to lose eight of its current 12 teams when conferences realign in the 2013 offseason. Alaska, Ferris State and Lake Superior State also accepted; Western Michigan instead is joining the National Collegiate Hockey Conference.
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/04/bowling-green-accepts-wchas-invitation-to-join-in-2013/#ixzz1ZrkweRoO
And USCHO (http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/04/notre-dame-set-to-announce-move-to-hockey-east/)
QuoteNotre Dame has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday, at which it will announce it will join Hockey East, sources have said.
The Fighting Irish were considering Hockey East and the National Collegiate Hockey Conference for the 2013–14 season, but the NCHC issued a news release Sunday, saying it would start with the eight teams that had already committed.
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/04/notre-dame-set-to-announce-move-to-hockey-east/#ixzz1ZrlOM7td
Quote from: TowerroadAn interesting thought though. We would clearly have to give up Ivy League Hockey with its schedule/practice restrictions and I don't see how we could play all the HE teams and the IVYs twice in a season. On the other hand we would have stronger competitors in BU, BC, UNH. If you value a national championship above all else (even beating Sucks) this would be a logical move.
Since we aren't going anywhere (http://www.withoutapeer.com/), I propose we petition to join the NCHC. One or two trips to Minnesota and our fans will hate them just as much as Harvard.
Quote from: TowerroadAn interesting thought though. We would clearly have to give up Ivy League Hockey with its schedule/practice restrictions and I don't see how we could play all the HE teams and the IVYs twice in a season. On the other hand we would have stronger competitors in BU, BC, UNH. If you value a national championship above all else (even beating Sucks) this would be a logical move.
After a decade or two we could arrange to play Sucks at MSG over Thanksgiving weekend in alternate years and draw a big crowd.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: TowerroadAn interesting thought though. We would clearly have to give up Ivy League Hockey with its schedule/practice restrictions and I don't see how we could play all the HE teams and the IVYs twice in a season. On the other hand we would have stronger competitors in BU, BC, UNH. If you value a national championship above all else (even beating Sucks) this would be a logical move.
After a decade or two we could arrange to play Sucks at MSG over Thanksgiving weekend in alternate years and draw a big crowd.
Play it in Estero. More Harvard alumni nearby (http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/12/bestprisonslide_2.html?thisSpeed=30000).
Maybe it is only the SUNY-Ithaca part of Cornell that will be going to HEA. The rest will remain in the ECAC. ;-)
Quote from: RichHThis is pretty much pissing me off. Can someone explain to me how a school with such a poor historical hockey record can manage to hold the sport hostage? Or why the powers-that-be in college hockey are allowing themselves to be held hostage by such a weak program? Am I the only person to see this as a tail-wagging-the-dog situation? A tiny, insignificant tail.
Notre Dame has a total of 15 winning seasons in the modern era. 15 out of 42 seasons at the D-1 level. Four of them came in the last 5 years. As recently as 2005, they posted a stellar 5-27-6 season, and they have 5 total NCAA tournament appearances to their name. A program with so much support, they were dropped to a club sport in the 1980s.
Why do they get to call the shots here? Because of a football team that hasn't been relevant since Lou Holtz stepped down?
I get the BTHC move. I'm not happy about it, but I get it. That forced the remaining Western schools to make the moves that subsequently happened. And now just when the dust has cleared and we have a solution that works, with two leagues that would be fine with their membership, Notre Dame...again...NOTRE DAME decides that they might want to blast a hole into the Eastern landscape as well? I'm sorry, who are you again? Where did this "Notre Dame is deciding its next conference" crap come from? Why aren't we asking UAH what conference THEY would like to join first?
I'm sure schools like Merrimack, Lowell, Northeastern are going to love the additional budget they have to cover for travel out to freaking Chicagoland. SAY NO, HOCKEY EAST. JUST SAY NO TO THEM. They belong with the new WCHA, but if the NCHC will take them, just ducky. Or stay independent like your coach-blaming shell of a football program. Stay out of the East.
Ah, the more I think about it, the angrier I get...Go to hell, Notre Dame.
This is silly. Do you know why four of the winning seasons came in the last five years? I don't either but I'm going to take a wild-ass guess: the school decided to commit the resources to compete in hockey. If Notre Dame wants to spend Notre Dame money to compete at the highest level, they can. The money the football team gets selling leprechaun keychains is enough to make Notre Dame hockey competitive. To say that Notre Dame hasn't been "relevant" in football for years is to fail to see the forest for the trees. Notre Dame hasn't been a
winning football team in years but they have never stopped being relevant. They are on TV almost every week. Any bowl would love to have them because
even when they suck they are one of the biggest draws in the country. Notre Dame is a name that people with money and power like to hear attached to a sport and a conference. The way the world works, as I am sure you know, is that people with money and power are more important than people who appreciate the history of a hockey and even enjoy the game of hockey,
even to the people who are responsible for hockey.
Notre Dame gets to wag the dog because they are a college sports titan who happens to play hockey and hockey is a sport that the titans usually ignore.
CHN on ND moving to HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_hockey_east_officially_welcomes.php) Looks like NCHC didn't want to accept them with their own TV deal. Good for them. Bad on HE's part.
And now, Adam's take on ND and HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_whats_next_for_college_hockey.php)
Quote from: ugarteThis is silly.
Wait. The rambling, emotional rantings of a solitary, opinionated fan on an internet message board is silly? Alert CHN.
QuoteDo you know why four of the winning seasons came in the last five years? I don't either but I'm going to take a wild-ass guess: the school decided to commit the resources to compete in hockey.
And I'll take another wild-ass guess. Jeff Jackson. You know, the guy who took all the resources of the massive athletics budget of Lake Superior State University, and mined all that cash for not one, but THREE National Championships, and had them consistently in the top-10 for a decade. They made the tournament 9 straight years. And once he left, LSSU has not returned to the NCAA tournament. Personally, I think the coaching and recruitment contacts that coaching staff brings with it has more to do with the sudden rise of a dead-in-the-water program than any other factor. In this level of this sport, you can't spend your way from a 5-win season to National Runner-Up in 3 years. It's coaching.
Take Ohio State. Horrible, laughable hockey program for decades. They moved to an 18,000 seat state-of-the-art arena about the same time. They made the Frozen Four and had a run of several tournament appearances. "Finally, OSU is supporting their hockey program financially," was the talk. "They'll finally bring the blood-feud to the ice and challenge Michigan's dominance!" How about now? 5 of 6 losing seasons for Ohio State. Oh well, that building was really for basketball anyway.
Notre Dame would tank again if Jackson were to walk.
QuoteNotre Dame hasn't been a winning football team in years but they have never stopped being relevant.
I hold my position that they haven't been relevant on the field in well over a decade. They haven't been relevant in the polls, they haven't been relevant in any computer rankings, and nobody thinks that the road to a National Championship runs through South Bend.
QuoteThe way the world works, as I am sure you know, is that people with money and power are more important than people who appreciate the history of a hockey and even enjoy the game of hockey, even to the people who are responsible for hockey.
You're absolutely right, but that doesn't take away my right to be angry about that very fact and rant about it in silly internet posts. OCCUPY USCHO!!
QuoteNotre Dame gets to wag the dog because they are a college sports titan.
In what? Women's Soccer, Men's Fencing,and Undeserved Marketing.
The NBC hockey deal is nothing more than Notre Dame waving a freebie in NBC's face (attractive since NBC has the NHL contract), to quiet the grumblings that NBC got an exclusive football contract with a terrible product.
Quote from: Jim HylaCHN on ND moving to HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_hockey_east_officially_welcomes.php) Looks like NCHC didn't want to accept them with their own TV deal. Good for them. Bad on HE's part.
After all the eye-rolling, I give the NCHC a point for having enough sack to shoot down their demands.
And I'm no longer referring to our offshoot as "Hockey Least." It's now "Conference Notre Dame" for me.
Been nice knowing you, RPI. Sad to see such a valued conference member go. I wish it were Quinnipiac. This is going to be harder to accept than it was to accept the UVM move. I hope the RPI-Clarkson games/broadcast parties continue, even if it will be a watered-down NC situation.
I hope Shagwell has RIT on speed-dial.
ECAC: We've still got 3 National banners. *gulp*
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaCHN on ND moving to HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_hockey_east_officially_welcomes.php) Looks like NCHC didn't want to accept them with their own TV deal. Good for them. Bad on HE's part.
After all the eye-rolling, I give the NCHC a point for having enough sack to shoot down their demands.
And I'm no longer referring to our offshoot as "Hockey Least." It's now "Conference Notre Dame" for me.
Been nice knowing you, RPI. Sad to see such a valued conference member go. I wish it were Quinnipiac. This is going to be harder to accept than it was to accept the UVM move. I hope the RPI-Clarkson games/broadcast parties continue, even if it will be a watered-down NC situation.
I hope Shagwell has RIT on speed-dial.
ECAC: We've still got 3 National banners. *gulp*
I actually "like" Adam's second article better. It seems to be a lot more reasonable than all the other "Who else is there?" talk. Maybe everyone is putting too much into HE saying they'd rather be an even number. We might get some idea from the tone of Coach Appert's talk on "SlapSchott's". Info in the CU TV thread.
Quote from: Jim HylaI actually "like" Adam's second article better.
This.
Though his assertion that Holy Cross fits the HE profile better than Quinnipiac is arguable. HE has dueling profiles: middle-of-the-road New England schools and academically serious Catholic schools. QU and HC represent each, respectively. Who's a better fit depends on which value they want to stress.
RPI doesn't fit either profile, but they're a lot better at hockey than either.
Boston Globe on the move, (http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_hockey/articles/2011/10/06/notre_dame_to_move_to_hockey_east_in_2013_14/) with this quote:
QuoteThe Hockey East commitment to playing a smaller conference schedule
For CU, that maybe the most significant piece. Now if we can only get the Ivys to allow more games.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaCHN on ND moving to HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_hockey_east_officially_welcomes.php) Looks like NCHC didn't want to accept them with their own TV deal. Good for them. Bad on HE's part.
After all the eye-rolling, I give the NCHC a point for having enough sack to shoot down their demands.
And I'm no longer referring to our offshoot as "Hockey Least." It's now "Conference Notre Dame" for me.
Been nice knowing you, RPI. Sad to see such a valued conference member go. I wish it were Quinnipiac. This is going to be harder to accept than it was to accept the UVM move. I hope the RPI-Clarkson games/broadcast parties continue, even if it will be a watered-down NC situation.
I hope Shagwell has RIT on speed-dial.
ECAC: We've still got 3 National banners. *gulp*
I actually "like" Adam's second article better. It seems to be a lot more reasonable than all the other "Who else is there?" talk. Maybe everyone is putting too much into HE saying they'd rather be an even number. We might get some idea from the tone of Coach Appert's talk on "SlapSchott's". Info in the CU TV thread.
If listening on a phone one must use iheartradio app to listen. WOFX Fox Sports 980 is a Clear Channel station.
Quote from: Jim HylaAnd now, Adam's take on ND and HE. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/10/05_whats_next_for_college_hockey.php)
Sad to read Syracuse's position. I'd love for them to join the party.
Paul Kelly was interviewed during tonight's North Dakota - BC game and said he expected Hockey East to add one more (nothing new there), in addition to Notre Dame. He said he thought the ECAC and Atlantic Hockey would remain relatively unchanged (nothing shocking there). He teased that he believes a couple of new programs will begin in the next few years, one of which will be Navy.
USCHO had articles in late September about two candidates.
Buffalo: http://www.uscho.com/2011/09/26/buffalo-bringing-back-hockey-adding-to-ccha/
Moorhead State: http://www.uscho.com/2011/09/28/minnesota-state-moorhead-to-spend-1-million-a-year-if-d-i-happens/
Quote from: From Adam's article:But opinions are mixed within Hockey East — i.e. the athletic directors who make the decisions — about whether they want RPI. The school is Division III in all other sports,
I don't understand why this matters. Does anyone else?
Quotedoesn't fit as well geographically (the Notre Dame move notwithstanding),
Notwithstanding??? What??? Is South Bend That much better than Troy? Well, maybe it is, but at least Troy is just a bus trip.::wtf::
Quote from: TimVQuote from: From Adam's article:But opinions are mixed within Hockey East — i.e. the athletic directors who make the decisions — about whether they want RPI. The school is Division III in all other sports,
I don't understand why this matters. Does anyone else?
It will be a problem for Hockey East Basketball?
Quote from: TimVQuote from: From Adam's article:But opinions are mixed within Hockey East — i.e. the athletic directors who make the decisions — about whether they want RPI. The school is Division III in all other sports,
I don't understand why this matters. Does anyone else?
It's hard to really understand corruption unless you are totally corrupt.
And, with Bowling Green departing to the WCHA and Notre Dame to Hockey (L)east(!), the CCHA has ceased to exist. It is defunct. It is an ex-conference.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssouthar/hockey/hockey_map4.png)
What strikes me like a dead parrot against a shop counter is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are now very fragmented. Whereas a recruit from, say, Birmingham, Michigan could once, if unable to secure a position in Ann Arbor, head off to, say, Northern Michigan with the expectation of being in the greater Detroit area rather frequently, he can no longer do so. One hopes we can make greater inroads into the midwest recruiting scene.
Quote from: Scersk '97And, with Bowling Green departing to the WCHA and Notre Dame to Hockey (L)east(!), the CCHA has ceased to exist. It is defunct. It is an ex-conference.
What strikes me like a dead parrot against a shop counter is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are now very fragmented. Whereas a recruit from, say, Birmingham, Michigan could once, if unable to secure a position in Ann Arbor, head off to, say, Northern Michigan with the expectation of being in the greater Detroit area rather frequently, he can no longer do so. One hopes we can make greater inroads into the midwest recruiting scene.
Yes, but at least the Yoo-Pee has established itself as the epicenter of the WZHA, and those rivalries are in tact. Who would've thought the hated WCHA would be reduced to the Yoopers, Alaskas, and minor State schools? What happens to the obscenely large and overrated McNaughton Cup?
Quote from: RichHWCHA would be reduced to the Yoopers, Alaskas, and minor State schools?
Man, it does look so marginal.
I do suspect, though, that we are about to witness the resurgence of Michigan Tech, which is kind of cool. Their fans must be wetting themselves with glee at being newly "central" to anything.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Scersk '97And, with Bowling Green departing to the WCHA and Notre Dame to Hockey (L)east(!), the CCHA has ceased to exist. It is defunct. It is an ex-conference.
What strikes me like a dead parrot against a shop counter is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are now very fragmented. Whereas a recruit from, say, Birmingham, Michigan could once, if unable to secure a position in Ann Arbor, head off to, say, Northern Michigan with the expectation of being in the greater Detroit area rather frequently, he can no longer do so. One hopes we can make greater inroads into the midwest recruiting scene.
Yes, but at least the Yoo-Pee has established itself as the epicenter of the WZHA, and those rivalries are in tact. Who would've thought the hated WCHA would be reduced to the Yoopers, Alaskas, and minor State schools? What happens to the obscenely large and overrated McNaughton Cup?
AFAIC, all they done is changed names. The NCAC is the WCHA and the WCHA is the CCHA.
Marketing.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82AFAIC, all they done is changed names. The NCAC is the WCHA and the WCHA is the CCHA.
Marketing.
The NCHC is the WCHA and the
Big Ten is the CCHA. The WCHA is the CCHA without Michigan, Michigan State, Miami and Notre Dame, which means it's
Atlantic Great Lakes Hockey.
We're still the #4 conference. Now it goes:
1. NCHC
2. Big Ten
3. HE
4. ECAC
5. WCHA
6. AH
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82AFAIC, all they done is changed names. The NCAC is the WCHA and the WCHA is the CCHA.
Marketing.
The NCHC is the WCHA and the Big Ten is the CCHA. The WCHA is the CCHA without Michigan, Michigan State, Miami and Notre Dame, which means it's Atlantic Great Lakes Hockey.
We're still the #4 conference. Now it goes:
1. NCHC
2. Big Ten
3. HE
4. ECAC
5. WCHA
6. AH
So you're saying the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82AFAIC, all they done is changed names. The NCAC is the WCHA and the WCHA is the CCHA.
Marketing.
The NCHC is the WCHA and the Big Ten is the CCHA. The WCHA is the CCHA without Michigan, Michigan State, Miami and Notre Dame, which means it's Atlantic Great Lakes Hockey.
We're still the #4 conference. Now it goes:
1. NCHC
2. Big Ten
3. HE
4. ECAC
5. WCHA
6. AH
Too high for Big Ten, at least as it is now performing. HE with 3 of top 10 teams and Nos. 1 and 2, is at least second, maybe first. But with NCHC 4 out of top 7, they probably are still first. Definitely not the current Big Ten, Minny, Wisc, and MSU not yet up to par.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82AFAIC, all they done is changed names. The NCAC is the WCHA and the WCHA is the CCHA.
Marketing.
The NCHC is the WCHA and the Big Ten is the CCHA. The WCHA is the CCHA without Michigan, Michigan State, Miami and Notre Dame, which means it's Atlantic Great Lakes Hockey.
We're still the #4 conference. Now it goes:
1. NCHC
2. Big Ten
3. HE
4. ECAC
5. WCHA
6. AH
Too high for Big Ten, at least as it is now performing. HE with 3 of top 10 teams and Nos. 1 and 2, is at least second, maybe first. But with NCHC 4 out of top 7, they probably are still first. Definitely not the current Big Ten, Minny, Wisc, and MSU not yet up to par.
And it's probably safe to assume that PSU isn't going to be great when they get to D1. Which leaves OSU and Michigan performing at a high level.
Last night, RIT beat St. Lawrence 6-5 in OT in front of a homecoming sell-out of almost 11,000 at Blue Cross Arena.
According to the Rochester paper (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20111016/SPORTS09/110160349/RIT-rallies-beat-St-Lawrence-OT), their next two homecoming opponents will be Penn State in 2012 (good karma to schedule them) and Michigan in 2013 (how much money did it take to make that happen?).
Kudos to a hockey program in our backyard doing good things. Should the ECAC happen to lose RPI or (cough) Quinnipiac, I hope RIT is on the top of the replacement list.
That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Quote from: css228That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Depends how they work out the travel partners. RIT for RPI seems simpler.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: css228That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Depends how they work out the travel partners. RIT for RPI seems simpler.
RIT-Cor
Col-Uni
(everybody else the same)
vs
RIT-Cor
Col-Prn
Yal-Brn
(everybody else the same)
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: css228That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Depends how they work out the travel partners. RIT for RPI seems simpler.
RIT-Cor
Col-Uni
(everybody else the same)
vs
RIT-Cor
Col-Prn
Yal-Brn
(everybody else the same)
Just to be pedantic, that would be Yal-Brn staying the same as well. Clg-Prn is a haul, but I guess it's no worse than Cor-Clb in Ivy basketball.
Quote from: KP '06Last night, RIT beat St. Lawrence 6-5 in OT in front of a homecoming sell-out of almost 11,000 at Blue Cross Arena.
According to the Rochester paper (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20111016/SPORTS09/110160349/RIT-rallies-beat-St-Lawrence-OT), their next two homecoming opponents will be Penn State in 2012 (good karma to schedule them) and Michigan in 2013 (how much money did it take to make that happen?).
Kudos to a hockey program in our backyard doing good things. Should the ECAC happen to lose RPI or (cough) Quinnipiac, I hope RIT is on the top of the replacement list.
RIT hockey in general and that game in particular is growing in popularity at an amazing rate. I went to buy tickets at the RIT ticket office on Thursday, and it was already sold out. Sucks for me, since my house is about 1/2 mile from the Blue Cross Arena, but really impressive for the program. (Last year was not a sellout, but it was a bigger crowd than the Amerks--the local AHL team--got for their home opener.)
Quote from: jtwcornell91Just to be pedantic, that would be Yal-Brn staying the same as well.
Argh. I always forget whether Princeton's partner is Quinnipiac or Yale. My subconscious rebellion that Yale and Quinnipiac aren't a partnership.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: css228That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Depends how they work out the travel partners. RIT for RPI seems simpler.
I am in favor of keeping either RIP or the Deer-ticks dependent on their worth as legitimate D-1 contenders. The travel partner thing is nice but should be of secondary import. Unfortunately, the fine gentlemen in charge of Hokey East are more in charge of who moves where than are those at ECACH-IJK-L-MNOP.
There is no wall (except perhaps one covered in Ivy) holding anyone in our league.
Quote from: martyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: css228That was a great game last night. Began watching it with 10 minutes left in the 3rd. Hopefully Quinnipiac decides to go (if one of them has to go wouldn't you prefer to keep RPI?) and we can bring RIT into the conference.
Depends how they work out the travel partners. RIT for RPI seems simpler.
I am in favor of keeping either RIP or the Deer-ticks dependent on their worth as legitimate D-1 contenders. The travel partner thing is nice but should be of secondary import. Unfortunately, the fine gentlemen in charge of Hokey East are more in charge of who moves where than are those at ECACH-IJK-L-MNOP.
There is no wall (except perhaps one covered in Ivy) holding anyone in our league.
Agreed, All I was saying is in terms of ECAC Hockey quality, I think RIT for Qpac is win for the ECAC.
Quote from: scoop85According to the USCHO reporters, both Notre Dame and RPI to Hockey East looking like a real possibility, if not likelihood: USCHO Hockey East Preview (http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/03/early-exits-last-season-fuel-hockey-east-teams-for-2011-12/)
For that to occur, you'd have to think UCONN has made clear it has no intention of becoming a serious player in college hockey.
If RPI does leave -- and I'd be disappointed if they do -- RIT would seemingly be the obvious replacement.
Not so fast...
UConn To Evaluate Men's Ice Hockey Program (http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/122011aaa.html)
Quote from: RichHQuote from: scoop85According to the USCHO reporters, both Notre Dame and RPI to Hockey East looking like a real possibility, if not likelihood: USCHO Hockey East Preview (http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/03/early-exits-last-season-fuel-hockey-east-teams-for-2011-12/)
For that to occur, you'd have to think UCONN has made clear it has no intention of becoming a serious player in college hockey.
If RPI does leave -- and I'd be disappointed if they do -- RIT would seemingly be the obvious replacement.
Not so fast...
UConn To Evaluate Men's Ice Hockey Program (http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/122011aaa.html)
Interesting development. Now that they've taken football from annual I-AA showdown with Yale to Fiesta Bowl over the course of a decade, time to turn the investment dollar to another potential revenue sport?
UConn was literally playing outdoors up until the late 90's if I recall correctly and still has a
long way to go in terms of facilities and campus/community interest. But if the University finally supports the program like it did with football, the program could be relevant in the not too distant future. As I said further up the thread, institutionally they are absolutely a natural HEA fit.
If you're in the area and hockey starved, the annual UConn tournament is a fun, cheap event and you'll get to see first hand just how far behind UConn is. This year RPI and UMass-Lowell are the non-conference teams joining UConn and Army from AHA. Games are next Thursday/Friday.
Well, we're not now hearing a lot about RPI, are we? So maybe HE has talked to UConn.
Step 2: Student newspaper writes op-ed which may raise campus awareness of details.
It's basic, but for the random UConn student, informative.
COLUMN: Hockey East or bust (http://www.dailycampus.com/sports/column-hockey-east-or-bust-1.2746283)
Quote from: RichHStep 2: Student newspaper writes op-ed which may raise campus awareness of details.
It's basic, but for the random UConn student, informative.
COLUMN: Hockey East or bust (http://www.dailycampus.com/sports/column-hockey-east-or-bust-1.2746283)
Whoever made one sentence paragraphs mandatory in sportswriting should be shot out of a cannon. It's all shite since
Roy Orbison Red Smith died.
http://www.denverpioneers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=18600&ATCLID=205371533
More evidence that CBS Sports and NBC Sports think that there is a market for college hockey? Seems that the ECAC is going to be left out. B1G Hockey will have BTN. NCHC will have CBS Sports. Notre Dame and HEA will have NBC Sports.
Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinhttp://www.denverpioneers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=18600&ATCLID=205371533
More evidence that CBS Sports and NBC Sports think that there is a market for college hockey? Seems that the ECAC is going to be left out. B1G Hockey will have BTN. NCHC will have CBS Sports. Notre Dame and HEA will have NBC Sports.
Time Warner Cable Sports anybody?
Quote from: css228Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinhttp://www.denverpioneers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=18600&ATCLID=205371533
More evidence that CBS Sports and NBC Sports think that there is a market for college hockey? Seems that the ECAC is going to be left out. B1G Hockey will have BTN. NCHC will have CBS Sports. Notre Dame and HEA will have NBC Sports.
Time Warner Cable Sports anybody?
I would be fine with that. Their coverage is not bad either. Our options are dwindling. On a self-interested note, Time Warner Cable Sports seems more preoccupied with 'Gate and Union.
Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinhttp://www.denverpioneers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=18600&ATCLID=205371533
More evidence that CBS Sports and NBC Sports think that there is a market for college hockey? Seems that the ECAC is going to be left out. B1G Hockey will have BTN. NCHC will have CBS Sports. Notre Dame and HEA will have NBC Sports.
Except those conferences have Michigan, Notre Dame, UND, etc. The ECAC has Clarkson and RPI. There's no sizeable TV markets besides Boston, which is already taken by HEA.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI would be fine with that. Their coverage is not bad either. Our options are dwindling. On a self-interested note, Time Warner Cable Sports seems more preoccupied with schools that pay them.
FYP
TV deals do not work on the long tail because broadcasting consumes a lot of limited resources and so relies on large-scale viewership to be profitable. Cornell hockey, and the ECAC in general, are way out on the tail. The only reason why big college football teams, for instance, get TV deals is that there are lots of people who want to watch: their viewers include lots of people who didn't go to said schools, for instance. The same isn't going to be true of ECAC hockey in any likely future.
Please, for the love of whatever god you worship, if you're going to expend any effort on this, stick to what's possible. For the foreseeable future, that is internet streaming.
Quote from: CowbellGuyQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinI would be fine with that. Their coverage is not bad either. Our options are dwindling. On a self-interested note, Time Warner Cable Sports seems more preoccupied with schools that pay them.
FYP
Still begs the question why isn't Cornell the one paying them.
Quote from: Kyle RoseTV deals do not work on the long tail because broadcasting consumes a lot of limited resources and so relies on large-scale viewership to be profitable. Cornell hockey, and the ECAC in general, are way out on the tail. The only reason why big college football teams, for instance, get TV deals is that there are lots of people who want to watch: their viewers include lots of people who didn't go to said schools, for instance. The same isn't going to be true of ECAC hockey in any likely future.
Please, for the love of whatever god you worship, if you're going to expend any effort on this, stick to what's possible. For the foreseeable future, that is internet streaming.
But doesn't winning The Battle of Roosevelt Island mean that we will be THE college sports team for New York? Right? Right?
Quote from: css228Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinhttp://www.denverpioneers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=18600&ATCLID=205371533
More evidence that CBS Sports and NBC Sports think that there is a market for college hockey? Seems that the ECAC is going to be left out. B1G Hockey will have BTN. NCHC will have CBS Sports. Notre Dame and HEA will have NBC Sports.
Time Warner Cable Sports anybody?
::yark::
There's a little less self-interest involved for me now that I'm in Rochester, and can actually get TWCS (although it's the Rochester feed that generally has RIT and Amerks games rather than Colgate/Union/ECAC), but Time Warner
Cable Sports has the huge disadvantage that it's not available on DirecTV or Dish, and is therefore useless to alumni in other parts of the country, as opposed to BTN, CBSSN, NBCSN and the regional Foxes. OTOH, video streaming would be accessable to almuni everywhere, especially if it's not blacked out by country.
Semi-OT, shouldn't cable systems pushing their own TV networks, like YNN and TWCS, be seen as some sort of anti-trust violation?
Quote from: jtwcornell91Semi-OT, shouldn't cable systems pushing their own TV networks, like YNN and TWCS, be seen as some sort of anti-trust violation?
The independent networks think so! Whether it is a violation depends on how the cable systems prioritize the proprietary stations. Cablevision gives the stations it owns better spots on the dial, but it isn't like they bump the big 4 down the dial, which isn't necessarily unreasonable. It negotiates arm's-length contracts for carriage of stations they don't own.
NFL Network charges way too much per customer and demands to be on a widely accessible tier so that the charge is passed on to more people. Not surprisingly, they don't have as much market penetration as they want. ESPN is too big for Cablevision to play the same kind of hardball with but I don't get ESPNU in Brooklyn, so there is a limit to the weight they can throw around.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Semi-OT, shouldn't cable systems pushing their own TV networks, like YNN and TWCS, be seen as some sort of anti-trust violation?
Given Comcast owns NBC Universal and pushes all of its various other channels (now including MSNBC, CNBC, USA, NBCSN, TCN, and your local CSN if there aren't more) then I think what TWCS would be a relatively mild offender.
At JTW's request, I'll repost my final map, now tucked away on eLynah's server:
(http://elf.elynah.com/file.php/1/518/hockey_map5.png)
Revised to place a dot for Maine.
Quote from: Scersk '97At JTW's request, I'll repost my final map, now tucked away on eLynah's server
Does Maine have a dot?
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Scersk '97At JTW's request, I'll repost my final map, now tucked away on eLynah's server
Does Maine have a dot?
I don't know, but they sure do build a lot of roads! [rimshot]
I might have erased it somehow, but I'm too lazy to fix it.
EDIT: There, I unlazified myself above.
UConn continues its attempt (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/03/28_uconn_to_apply_to_hockey_east.php) to gain membership in Hockey East.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsHockey East officials are taking a site visit today at the University of Connecticut, and are also expected to visit Hartford's XL Center, sources told CHN.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsUConn does not currently meet Hockey East standards in two way — its arena is too small, and it does not offer any athletic scholarships for hockey.
Sources indicate, however, that UConn officials are committed to upgrading the program, with details still to be worked out, and will soon formally apply to Hockey East. The main sticking point is over where will the Huskies play.
A new rink, scholarships, and probably an interim period of playing 26 miles off campus? UConn wants desperately to be a member of Hockey East.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinUConn continues its attempt (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/03/28_uconn_to_apply_to_hockey_east.php) to gain membership in Hockey East.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsHockey East officials are taking a site visit today at the University of Connecticut, and are also expected to visit Hartford's XL Center, sources told CHN.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsUConn does not currently meet Hockey East standards in two way — its arena is too small, and it does not offer any athletic scholarships for hockey.
Sources indicate, however, that UConn officials are committed to upgrading the program, with details still to be worked out, and will soon formally apply to Hockey East. The main sticking point is over where will the Huskies play.
A new rink, scholarships, and probably an interim period of playing 26 miles off campus? UConn wants desperately to be a member of Hockey East.
Well that pretty much ends any and all discussions of RPI or QPac leaving. I only regret that we can't gain a school with almost 15,000 students more than any of the others. RIT would have been a great fit for ECAC Hockey. Please tell me theres a way to kick out Brown.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinUConn continues its attempt (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/03/28_uconn_to_apply_to_hockey_east.php) to gain membership in Hockey East.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsHockey East officials are taking a site visit today at the University of Connecticut, and are also expected to visit Hartford's XL Center, sources told CHN.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsUConn does not currently meet Hockey East standards in two way — its arena is too small, and it does not offer any athletic scholarships for hockey.
Sources indicate, however, that UConn officials are committed to upgrading the program, with details still to be worked out, and will soon formally apply to Hockey East. The main sticking point is over where will the Huskies play.
A new rink, scholarships, and probably an interim period of playing 26 miles off campus? UConn wants desperately to be a member of Hockey East.
I'd say it goes both ways. IIRC, Hockey East instigated the strong nudging that they would want UConn to upgrade the program, given that they would complete the large New England state school set for HEA. Without that encouragement from the league, and probable spelling out of revenue considerations, I don't think there would have been any moves made by UConn's administration.
And it's not unusual for UConn teams to play home games outside of Storrs. Rentschler Field in East Hartford is home to UConn football, 22 miles from campus, and the XL Center hosts about half of both the men's and women's home basketball games. This is despite the fact that Gampel Pavilion on campus holds over 10,000.
Personally, I'd be upset if I were a UConn student interested in one of those sports and be forced to travel that far to see my teams play home games. I've been to a basketball game at the XL Center in Hartford and it was a surprisingly older demographic than I expected to see, and nothing special was afforded what little student section there was. On the other hand, maybe undergrads are excited to get out of Storrs, which consists of the campus and a small strip mall.
I can't really comment on the current atmosphere at UConn hockey games, because I've never been drawn to head there to check them out, especially when I'm often traveling in the region for Cornell games.
I believe the XL Center (nee Hartford Civic Center) was used a few years back for Quinnipiac's inaugural game for the ECAC.
Indeed, they did. Gordie Howe dropped the ceremonial puck: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/11/6/quinnipiac-takes-first-ecac-game-hartford/ 5000 showed for that.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinUConn continues its attempt (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/03/28_uconn_to_apply_to_hockey_east.php) to gain membership in Hockey East.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsHockey East officials are taking a site visit today at the University of Connecticut, and are also expected to visit Hartford's XL Center, sources told CHN.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsUConn does not currently meet Hockey East standards in two way — its arena is too small, and it does not offer any athletic scholarships for hockey.
Sources indicate, however, that UConn officials are committed to upgrading the program, with details still to be worked out, and will soon formally apply to Hockey East. The main sticking point is over where will the Huskies play.
A new rink, scholarships, and probably an interim period of playing 26 miles off campus? UConn wants desperately to be a member of Hockey East.
I'd say it goes both ways. IIRC, Hockey East instigated the strong nudging that they would want UConn to upgrade the program, given that they would complete the large New England state school set for HEA. Without that encouragement from the league, and probable spelling out of revenue considerations, I don't think there would have been any moves made by UConn's administration.
And it's not unusual for UConn teams to play home games outside of Storrs. Rentschler Field in East Hartford is home to UConn football, 22 miles from campus, and the XL Center hosts about half of both the men's and women's home basketball games. This is despite the fact that Gampel Pavilion on campus holds over 10,000.
Personally, I'd be upset if I were a UConn student interested in one of those sports and be forced to travel that far to see my teams play home games. I've been to a basketball game at the XL Center in Hartford and it was a surprisingly older demographic than I expected to see, and nothing special was afforded what little student section there was. On the other hand, maybe undergrads are excited to get out of Storrs, which consists of the campus and a small strip mall.
I can't really comment on the current atmosphere at UConn hockey games, because I've never been drawn to head there to check them out, especially when I'm often traveling in the region for Cornell games.
I believe the XL Center (nee Hartford Civic Center) was used a few years back for Quinnipiac's inaugural game for the ECAC. Indeed, they did. Gordie Howe dropped the ceremonial puck: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/11/6/quinnipiac-takes-first-ecac-game-hartford/ 5000 showed for that.
Wow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
I have done the walk a few times, but it's not all that common anymore thanks to buses that run every 15 minutes. Also, there is now only 1 real movie theater in Ithaca at the mall. The Commons has some sort of theater which I've never been to, but as far as I can tell they don't show new movies.
Quote from: css228Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
When did they close the gorge trail? Is it permanent?
Unrelated to the current discussion but sort of relevant to the thread topic. Is anyone else a little tickled by the fact that of the five teams making the tournament from the CCHA only the one team that isn't jumping to a super conference managed to win a tournament game?
(Admittedly, I was a little more pleased by this fact Saturday afternoon than I am now.)
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: css228Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
When did they close the gorge trail? Is it permanent?
A few years back. I think they're trying to get it reopened this summer.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: KeithKQuote from: css228Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
When did they close the gorge trail? Is it permanent?
A few years back. I think they're trying to get it reopened this summer.
Yeah but I thought I heard they ran out of money for that.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Yeah, you're kind of missing the point Jim was trying to make. Cornell is in Ithaca, which is a small city with a downtown business district. When you leave campus, you're among residential or commerical things in Ithaca. UConn is in Storrs. There's no "there" there. If you leave campus, you're on a highway. No semblance of an organized town. The campus is Storrs. There's a small strip of businesses along the main drag with a Subway and a couple take-out restaurants and a traffic light, besides the university buildings. That's it. The nearest thing that is town-like is Willimantic, 8 miles away, or Manchester, 16 miles away.
I didn't believe that 130 year-old university wouldn't have at least a collegetown type of settlement either, until I drove through it.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
Yes, but as a sophomore, did you find "The Clover Club"?
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
I have done the walk a few times, but it's not all that common anymore thanks to buses that run every 15 minutes. Also, there is now only 1 real movie theater in Ithaca at the mall. The Commons has some sort of theater which I've never been to, but as far as I can tell they don't show new movies.
Cinemopolis on the Commons, and Fall Creek Pictures in the Fall Creek neighborhood a mile north of the Commons, are both independent theaters. They show some 2nd run, but mostly indie & art house movies. The State Theater rarely shows movies, as it's more of a live performance venue now. The theaters up by the mall are your only cookie-cutter 14-screen cineplex experience nearby, yes.
Oh boy - you are bringing back memories of places long gone to someone who has essentially never left Ithaca:
- Movie Theaters. All the "old" downtown movie theaters are gone: Near Near (Strand) was torn down. Far near (Temple) is a bank drive-thru. Near Far (State Theater) still exists but rarely shows movies. It has been greatly rehabbed and does many stage, music, and other productions. The Far Far (Ithaca) is a warehouse. The only movie theater now in downtown is Cinemapolis which is a non-profit and primarily shows art and foreign films with a smattering of current and old movies. The local Regal 14 screen "multiplex" is out by the Shops at Ithaca Mall. And Cornell Cinema is still going strong.
- The Clover Club is LONG LONG GONE - don't remember when it went away. That kind of "entertainment" is still available locally, primarily at a place called Kumas. Google it if you must!
- If you've been keeping up with Collegetown news lately, virtually all the old bars except the Chapter House have closed. The Royal Palm closed at the end of February. Dunbars is still around - it's at the corner of Eddy St and Dryden Rd - right where "People's Park" used to be. The Chanticleer downtown is still around and from what I recall hasn't changed much at all. Pretty much all the other old downtown bars have closed, been torn down, or have turned into restaurants. A lot of the changes began happening when the drinking age went from 18 to 21.
- If you haven't been to downtown Ithaca in the last 40 years, there is a pedestrian mall called the Ithaca Commons that runs along what was E. State Street (Martin Luther King Jr. St.) from Cayuga to Aurora Streets. The area around State and Aurora Streets is now a kind of neat restaurant row that attract lots of college students both from Cornell and IC.
- The gorge trail is being reworked and I believe is supposed to be re-opened this year sometime.
Our friend, Mark Andbinder has a website (http://dining.14850.com/dining) that tries to keep up with many of the restaurants in the area. It is said that Ithaca and Tompkins County have more restaurants per capita than NYC. There are gastronomy experiences available for nearly every palate and wallet.
Quote from: RichHI can't really comment on the current atmosphere at UConn hockey games, because I've never been drawn to head there to check them out, especially when I'm often traveling in the region for Cornell games.
When I lived in the Hartford metroplex I attended a handful of UConn games ($3 tickets? yes, please).
The facility could best be described as a newer, slightly larger, Northford Ice Pavilion, where Q played games back in the day.
It's an airplane hangar with sheet metal walls, maybe 7 rows of generic metal bleachers on four sides, and nothing else. I think it seats about 2k. The temperature is roughly that of the ice surface and the fan base is mostly townies, local kids, and player girlfriends. Attendance of 1k is a big draw. IIRC they played games outdoors until 2000 or so....
The UConn pep band plays for bigger games but there is otherwise no real atmosphere to speak of.
But give UConn credit. When they decide to go for it with a sport, they go all in. In ten years, they went from competitive football games with Yale to a BCS bowl. I've been wondering for some time when they'd finally turn their eyes to hockey. I'm sure the HEA tv deal didn't hurt their assessment of a major hockey initiative...
Quote from: RichHQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
I have done the walk a few times, but it's not all that common anymore thanks to buses that run every 15 minutes. Also, there is now only 1 real movie theater in Ithaca at the mall. The Commons has some sort of theater which I've never been to, but as far as I can tell they don't show new movies.
Cinemopolis on the Commons, and Fall Creek Pictures in the Fall Creek neighborhood a mile north of the Commons, are both independent theaters. They show some 2nd run, but mostly indie & art house movies. The State Theater rarely shows movies, as it's more of a live performance venue now. The theaters up by the mall are your only cookie-cutter 14-screen cineplex experience nearby, yes.
Not to be a brat, but Cinemopolis did often show movies that were new that you couldn't really see anywhere else. (See: Jane Eyre.) I know I was more than happy to be able to watch independent movies at Cinemopolis (which I've only ever been to after its renovation but it is absolutely adorable), movies at Cornell Cinema (which is underrated and if you're a student, GO!), and movies down at the mall. Also, after missing a bus once after a late showing of Harry Potter, a friend and I walked from the movies/mall to West and it really wasn't that bad a walk. Actually kind of wonderful. If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
Jim, I don't think I've ever asked you this: what year did you graduate? My grandma talks about the movie theaters based on those names, plus another called the armpit since it always smelled bad. My grandparents graduated in '52 and '53.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Yeah, you're kind of missing the point Jim was trying to make. Cornell is in Ithaca, which is a small city with a downtown business district. When you leave campus, you're among residential or commerical things in Ithaca. UConn is in Storrs. There's no "there" there. If you leave campus, you're on a highway. No semblance of an organized town. The campus is Storrs. There's a small strip of businesses along the main drag with a Subway and a couple take-out restaurants and a traffic light, besides the university buildings. That's it. The nearest thing that is town-like is Willimantic, 8 miles away, or Manchester, 16 miles away.
I didn't believe that 130 year-old university wouldn't have at least a collegetown type of settlement either, until I drove through it.
Are you saying that there are no stores in Storrs? Now *that's* ironic.
Quote from: munchkinQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaWow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
Probably the same thing that happens if you don't have a car at Cornell. You're stuck on campus unless you're willing to take a bus downtown or to New York.
Wait, wait, wait. When I was a freshman, with the emphasis on when, we walked downtown. There were 4 movie theatres. They were the near-near, the far-near, the near-far, and the far-far. We walked to all, weather permitting. I don't know what's happening to the younger generation.::panic::
Jim, I don't think I've ever asked you this: what year did you graduate? My grandma talks about the movie theaters based on those names, plus another called the armpit since it always smelled bad. My grandparents graduated in '52 and '53.
Gee, thanks, but I am younger than your grandparents. '67::demented::::twak::I didn't know which was more appropriate, so I put both. Remember, I graduated with the first NCAA championship. In my home town, to beat. We had quite a crowd at my parents house that weekend.
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: KeithKQuote from: css228Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
When did they close the gorge trail? Is it permanent?
A few years back. I think they're trying to get it reopened this summer.
Yeah but I thought I heard they ran out of money for that.
No. In fact, I'm in the process of writing an article about this for tomorrow's Sun right now (I'm procrastinating).
Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Quote from: Jim HylaRemember, I graduated with the first NCAA championship. In my home town, to beat. We had quite a crowd at my parents house that weekend.
You're an Upstate New Yorker? (Well, Central New Yorker to be more specific).
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: KeithKQuote from: css228Well the gorge trail to the commons which makes it enjoyable to do that walk is closed so that might have something to do with it.
When did they close the gorge trail? Is it permanent?
A few years back. I think they're trying to get it reopened this summer.
Yeah but I thought I heard they ran out of money for that.
No. In fact, I'm in the process of writing an article about this for tomorrow's Sun write now (I'm procrastinating).
As of March 20, the Cascadilla Gorge trail is open from downtown as far as Stewart Avenue (http://www.cornell.edu/cuinfo/specialconditions/). The section between Stewart Avenue and Collegetown is still under repair.
And Fall Creek Pictures merged with Cinemapolis several years ago, and is now closed.
Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Yeah, I really shouldn't complain as I'm in Center City (literally a block or two from City Hall), but if I ever want to walk at night, I can't go alone (not an issue I had at Cornell...). And given that the closest movie theatre to me is a good 40 minute walk away either way (it was around that long, wasn't it Aaron??), I am paranoid about getting shot whenever I walk after dark, especially getting the wonderful "shooting and robbery on this street. avoid" texts.
Ooooh, where's Hobey Baker's house???
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Yeah, I really shouldn't complain as I'm in Center City (literally a block or two from City Hall), but if I ever want to walk at night, I can't go alone (not an issue I had at Cornell...). And given that the closest movie theatre to me is a good 40 minute walk away either way (it was around that long, wasn't it Aaron??), I am paranoid about getting shot whenever I walk after dark, especially getting the wonderful "shooting and robbery on this street. avoid" texts.
Ooooh, where's Hobey Baker's house???
Bala Cynwyd, but its a law office now. Also technically its just the facade, they knocked down the back part before local officials made them stop. Still pretty cool though.
Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Yeah, I really shouldn't complain as I'm in Center City (literally a block or two from City Hall), but if I ever want to walk at night, I can't go alone (not an issue I had at Cornell...). And given that the closest movie theatre to me is a good 40 minute walk away either way (it was around that long, wasn't it Aaron??), I am paranoid about getting shot whenever I walk after dark, especially getting the wonderful "shooting and robbery on this street. avoid" texts.
Ooooh, where's Hobey Baker's house???
Bala Cynwyd, but its a law office now. Also technically its just the facade, they knocked down the back part before local officials made them stop. Still pretty cool though.
Hmmmmm. Perhaps if I ever make someone go get an excellent cheesesteak with me in Bala Cynwyd (my favorite is there.), I'll drag him to see it as well.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinQuote from: Jim HylaRemember, I graduated with the first NCAA championship. In my home town, to beat. We had quite a crowd at my parents house that weekend.
You're an Upstate New Yorker? (Well, Central New Yorker to be more specific).
Sure, Syracuse. Still am.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinQuote from: Jim HylaRemember, I graduated with the first NCAA championship. In my home town, to beat. We had quite a crowd at my parents house that weekend.
You're an Upstate New Yorker? (Well, Central New Yorker to be more specific).
Sure, Syracuse. Still am.
There were far too few of us on the Hill during my time there. I'm from the Southern Tier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornell,_NY). Even though ~1/3 of the students on campus are New Yorkers, only a small percentage were from the Upstate region(s).
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Yeah, I really shouldn't complain as I'm in Center City (literally a block or two from City Hall), but if I ever want to walk at night, I can't go alone (not an issue I had at Cornell...). And given that the closest movie theatre to me is a good 40 minute walk away either way (it was around that long, wasn't it Aaron??), I am paranoid about getting shot whenever I walk after dark, especially getting the wonderful "shooting and robbery on this street. avoid" texts.
Ooooh, where's Hobey Baker's house???
Bah, don't be a ninny. Take a look at the interactive homicide maps (http://www.philly.com/homicidemap) put out by the Inquirer. Center City and University City are laughably safe... for a large city. And never forget that Philly is a large city, heavily built up, where conditions change block-to-block. In West Philly, there are some unfortunate areas just north of Drexel between it and Powellton Village, and I wouldn't hang out between Market and Lancaster or south of Baltimore much after dark, but generally you're fine all the way out to 50th or so.
We lived in East Falls (northeast, toward Manayunk) for a year and a half, on the edge of a not-so-nice area (Swampoodle, if you must know), but the neighborhood was quiet as a church mouse. As with any large city, Philly has nice neighborhoods and dangerous neighborhoods. Take off your flak jacket and walk around a bit.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
I was going to object to this, but its probably true for any of the universities in Philly given how all five of them are located in or on the edge of bad neighborhoods. I mean from St. Joe's (school that Harvard rented a pep band from) I guess you can basically walk into the suburbs but in general your rule holds. Speaking of long walks, the house where Hobey Baker grew up is in the general neighborhood.
Yeah, I really shouldn't complain as I'm in Center City (literally a block or two from City Hall), but if I ever want to walk at night, I can't go alone (not an issue I had at Cornell...). And given that the closest movie theatre to me is a good 40 minute walk away either way (it was around that long, wasn't it Aaron??), I am paranoid about getting shot whenever I walk after dark, especially getting the wonderful "shooting and robbery on this street. avoid" texts.
Ooooh, where's Hobey Baker's house???
Bah, don't be a ninny. Take a look at the interactive homicide maps (http://www.philly.com/homicidemap) put out by the Inquirer. Center City and University City are laughably safe... for a large city. And never forget that Philly is a large city, heavily built up, where conditions change block-to-block. In West Philly, there are some unfortunate areas just north of Drexel between it and Powellton Village, and I wouldn't hang out between Market and Lancaster or south of Baltimore much after dark, but generally you're fine all the way out to 50th or so.
We lived in East Falls (northeast, toward Manayunk) for a year and a half, on the edge of a not-so-nice area (Swampoodle, if you must know), but the neighborhood was quiet as a church mouse. As with any large city, Philly has nice neighborhoods and dangerous neighborhoods. Take off your flak jacket and walk around a bit.
Those were the areas (Mantua, etc.) that I was referring to. Center City is actually quite safe. I had no clue where he lived when he made that comment, and thus assumed he might be somewhere up around Temple or La Salle.Also I thought the general rule was around 45th you should probably start heading back to Penn.
Quote from: css228Those were the areas (Mantua, etc.) that I was referring to. Center City is actually quite safe. I had no clue where he lived when he made that comment, and thus assumed he might be somewhere up around Temple or La Salle.Also I thought the general rule was around 45th you should probably start heading back to Penn.
Well, Mantua is actually a bit to the north of Powelton Village, which is the neighborhood directly north of Drexel, but I can understand the confusion because I was confused about it at one point or another. The area around Temple, particularly to the east and north, is indeed a bit dicey but getting better by the day. And the area around La Salle is also a bit of a conundrum, but then all of Germantown and why it
is the way it
is is a conundrum.
45th is fine, 46th and Pine is in fact one of our "dream corners" for owning half of a twin, and 47th is fine. 48th is where it maybe starts to change, but I truly think you're safe to 50th, at least north of Baltimore. 52nd is definitely a problem area, and will be for some time, I reckon.
All that being said, my general rule was (is?) to go to Local 44 (http://local44beerbar.com/), sit down, and not even think about moving for at least a couple of hours. The only turning around I ever did there was to stare at the chalked beer list.
And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
I grew up on Eddy Street and graduated from Ithaca High with Larry. Our family was buying shoes from Fontana's well before the current generation was born. It was about 5th or 6th grade that I started walking downtown to the movies or shopping at Rothschild's Department Store. Junior High School was in what is now the DeWitt Mall, so that was daily trip down and up Seneca Street. Moosewood now occupies the wood shop and a small gym space. Ithaca High School, at the foot of Ithaca Falls, was a longer walk every day (with portions uphill both ways). No big deal.
Quote from: Scersk '97all of Germantown and why it is the way it is is a conundrum.
This - let's just say it's a dramatically safer city than it was when I was just entering high school.
Quote from: Scersk '97And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
Watch out for those Princeton gangstas. They might scoff at you for not being in an exclusive eating club.
Quote from: David HardingI grew up on Eddy Street and graduated from Ithaca High with Larry. Our family was buying shoes from Fontana's well before the current generation was born. It was about 5th or 6th grade that I started walking downtown to the movies or shopping at Rothschild's Department Store. Junior High School was in what is now the DeWitt Mall, so that was daily trip down and up Seneca Street. Moosewood now occupies the wood shop and a small gym space. Ithaca High School, at the foot of Ithaca Falls, was a longer walk every day (with portions uphill both ways). No big deal.
My grandmother grew up just on the campus side of the Beebe Lake bridge (near the Plantations and Forest Home). When she was in middle school (early 1930s), she walked downtown and back every day carrying her violin. No big deal. :)
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Scersk '97And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
Watch out for those Princeton gangstas. They might scoff at you for not being an exclusive eating club.
This thread has drifted further from its starting point than Pangea.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThere were far too few of us on the Hill during my time there. I'm from the Southern Tier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornell,_NY). Even though ~1/3 of the students on campus are New Yorkers, only a small percentage were from the Upstate region(s).
Heh. Even fewer had even heard of the Maple City, you know. "No, no. With an 'H'...'"
To continue the theme of talking about our upbringings...
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Scersk '97And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
Watch out for those Princeton gangstas. They might scoff at you for not being an exclusive eating club.
This thread has drifted further from its starting point than Pangea.
I think it must be the off-season. :-/
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RichHQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinUConn continues its attempt (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/03/28_uconn_to_apply_to_hockey_east.php) to gain membership in Hockey East.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsHockey East officials are taking a site visit today at the University of Connecticut, and are also expected to visit Hartford's XL Center, sources told CHN.
Quote from: College Hockey NewsUConn does not currently meet Hockey East standards in two way — its arena is too small, and it does not offer any athletic scholarships for hockey.
Sources indicate, however, that UConn officials are committed to upgrading the program, with details still to be worked out, and will soon formally apply to Hockey East. The main sticking point is over where will the Huskies play.
A new rink, scholarships, and probably an interim period of playing 26 miles off campus? UConn wants desperately to be a member of Hockey East.
I'd say it goes both ways. IIRC, Hockey East instigated the strong nudging that they would want UConn to upgrade the program, given that they would complete the large New England state school set for HEA. Without that encouragement from the league, and probable spelling out of revenue considerations, I don't think there would have been any moves made by UConn's administration.
And it's not unusual for UConn teams to play home games outside of Storrs. Rentschler Field in East Hartford is home to UConn football, 22 miles from campus, and the XL Center hosts about half of both the men's and women's home basketball games. This is despite the fact that Gampel Pavilion on campus holds over 10,000.
Personally, I'd be upset if I were a UConn student interested in one of those sports and be forced to travel that far to see my teams play home games. I've been to a basketball game at the XL Center in Hartford and it was a surprisingly older demographic than I expected to see, and nothing special was afforded what little student section there was. On the other hand, maybe undergrads are excited to get out of Storrs, which consists of the campus and a small strip mall.
I can't really comment on the current atmosphere at UConn hockey games, because I've never been drawn to head there to check them out, especially when I'm often traveling in the region for Cornell games.
I believe the XL Center (nee Hartford Civic Center) was used a few years back for Quinnipiac's inaugural game for the ECAC. Indeed, they did. Gordie Howe dropped the ceremonial puck: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/11/6/quinnipiac-takes-first-ecac-game-hartford/ 5000 showed for that.
Wow, I've never been to UConn, it really is in nowhere land. As a student I don't think I'd like it there. What happens if you don't have a car?
You're the guy without the DUI.
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Scersk '97And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
Watch out for those Princeton gangstas. They might scoff at you for not being an exclusive eating club.
This thread has drifted further from its starting point than Pangea.
I loved that place, although that had a lot to do with the company I was keeping the first time I ate there. The BBQ joint that replaced it was disappointing.
I think this brings us back to an earlier point in the thread drift. . .
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinThere were far too few of us on the Hill during my time there. I'm from the Southern Tier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornell,_NY). Even though ~1/3 of the students on campus are New Yorkers, only a small percentage were from the Upstate region(s).
Heh. Even fewer had even heard of the Maple City, you know. "No, no. With an 'H'...'"
To continue the theme of talking about our upbringings...
Oh, I'm very familiar. I went to a leadership conference/summit my junior year of high school. They had to put our hometowns on our name tags. My supervisor said that when they made my name tag they thought I had made an error in the spelling. Then, they thought, no, that cannot be right, Cornell is in Ithaca, NY not Cornell, NY. It was very fun in foreign language courses on The Hill too.
My high school history teacher explains it as a combination of the company who makes SPAM and the university.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: RichHCinemopolis on the Commons, and Fall Creek Pictures in the Fall Creek neighborhood a mile north of the Commons, are both independent theaters. They show some 2nd run, but mostly indie & art house movies. The State Theater rarely shows movies, as it's more of a live performance venue now. The theaters up by the mall are your only cookie-cutter 14-screen cineplex experience nearby, yes.
Not to be a brat, but Cinemopolis did often show movies that were new that you couldn't really see anywhere else. (See: Jane Eyre.) I know I was more than happy to be able to watch independent movies at Cinemopolis (which I've only ever been to after its renovation but it is absolutely adorable), movies at Cornell Cinema (which is underrated and if you're a student, GO!), and movies down at the mall. Also, after missing a bus once after a late showing of Harry Potter, a friend and I walked from the movies/mall to West and it really wasn't that bad a walk. Actually kind of wonderful. If you were to walk that distance in Philly, you'd be shot.
Oh, in no way was I trying to besmirch the good name of Cinemopolis, nor did I intend to imply that it was a 2nd-run theater. My wording was poor. I mostly go for indie & small-release films rather than the latest Michael Bay 3D explod-a-thon. Looks like Cinemopolis has had even more renovations & upgrades in recent years, but I am a little sad to hear that Fall Creek is gone.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: RichHI can't really comment on the current atmosphere at UConn hockey games, because I've never been drawn to head there to check them out, especially when I'm often traveling in the region for Cornell games.
When I lived in the Hartford metroplex I attended a handful of UConn games ($3 tickets? yes, please).
The facility could best be described as a newer, slightly larger, Northford Ice Pavilion, where Q played games back in the day.
It's an airplane hangar with sheet metal walls, maybe 7 rows of generic metal bleachers on four sides, and nothing else. I think it seats about 2k. The temperature is roughly that of the ice surface and the fan base is mostly townies, local kids, and player girlfriends. Attendance of 1k is a big draw. IIRC they played games outdoors until 2000 or so....
The UConn pep band plays for bigger games but there is otherwise no real atmosphere to speak of.
But give UConn credit. When they decide to go for it with a sport, they go all in. In ten years, they went from competitive football games with Yale to a BCS bowl. I've been wondering for some time when they'd finally turn their eyes to hockey. I'm sure the HEA tv deal didn't hurt their assessment of a major hockey initiative...
Back on topic, (I know, I know...) the write-up in the Hartford Courant (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-28/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0329-20120328_1_uconn-officials-consulting-firm-hockey-program) didn't add a whole lot we didn't already know, but I took notice of the last sentence:
QuoteUConn is in the middle of a major fundraising program, with a new basketball facility a top priority.
That got me thinking that if that's true and there are plans in the works for a new basketball palace, there's probably a way to do exactly what Ohio State did when they decided to better support their hockey program: make it muti-purpose to house both the basketball and hockey teams like the Schottenstein Center. Before moving into the Schott (capacity: 17,500) they played at the OSU Ice Rink (capacity: 1500). While at the 2005 Frozen Four in Columbus, I walked over to the old place, and it made the Northford Ice Pavilion look like the Taj Mahal. I can't believe they put up with that until the late-90s. It made it clear why tOSU teams were never successful until 1998...no big recruits would have wanted to play there, and not many good OOC teams would have wanted to make that trip, financially. Same probably goes for UConn.
Quote from: Larry72Our friend, Mark Andbinder
*wince*
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Larry72Our friend, Mark Andbinder
*wince*
That's even worse than
Beeej!
Quote from: RichHThat got me thinking that if that's true and there are plans in the works for a new basketball palace, there's probably a way to do exactly what Ohio State did when they decided to better support their hockey program: make it muti-purpose to house both the basketball and hockey teams like the Schottenstein Center. Before moving into the Schott (capacity: 17,500) they played at the OSU Ice Rink (capacity: 1500). While at the 2005 Frozen Four in Columbus, I walked over to the old place, and it made the Northford Ice Pavilion look like the Taj Mahal. I can't believe they put up with that until the late-90s. It made it clear why tOSU teams were never successful until 1998...no big recruits would have wanted to play there, and not many good OOC teams would have wanted to make that trip, financially. Same probably goes for UConn.
They also ran the risk of missing the NCAAs because beating such a bad team would lower their RPI (this more or less actually happened to Bowling Green once).
Quote from: Scersk '97And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
Try the eggnog at Halo Farms.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: css228Those were the areas (Mantua, etc.) that I was referring to. Center City is actually quite safe. I had no clue where he lived when he made that comment, and thus assumed he might be somewhere up around Temple or La Salle.Also I thought the general rule was around 45th you should probably start heading back to Penn.
Well, Mantua is actually a bit to the north of Powelton Village, which is the neighborhood directly north of Drexel, but I can understand the confusion because I was confused about it at one point or another. The area around Temple, particularly to the east and north, is indeed a bit dicey but getting better by the day. And the area around La Salle is also a bit of a conundrum, but then all of Germantown and why it is the way it is is a conundrum.
45th is fine, 46th and Pine is in fact one of our "dream corners" for owning half of a twin, and 47th is fine. 48th is where it maybe starts to change, but I truly think you're safe to 50th, at least north of Baltimore. 52nd is definitely a problem area, and will be for some time, I reckon.
All that being said, my general rule was (is?) to go to Local 44 (http://local44beerbar.com/), sit down, and not even think about moving for at least a couple of hours. The only turning around I ever did there was to stare at the chalked beer list.
And now I live in Princeton... don't get me started.
She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
I was calling myself heteronormative for saying it's less safe for a girl to walk outside alone at night than a guy. :-)
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
I was calling myself heteronormative for saying it's less safe for a girl to walk outside alone at night than a guy. :-)
How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: bnr24Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
I was calling myself heteronormative for saying it's less safe for a girl to walk outside alone at night than a guy. :-)
How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: bnr24Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
I was calling myself heteronormative for saying it's less safe for a girl to walk outside alone at night than a guy. :-)
How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
Well. Basically, it is heteronormative to think that women can't defend themselves or are specifically more likely to be attacked. Even if the generic facts show that women are less safe to walk alone at night in a city, it might not specifically be true. But mainly, it is not incredibly safe for anyone to walk alone at night. I also know two girls in my class one of which lives in my building, one a block over, who were robbed walking home alone which makes me even less likely to go out at night alone. Daytime wandering I'm down for...night time wandering alone? Not so much.
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: bnr24Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: bnr24She for the record. Which not to be heteronormative, kind of makes the walking alone thing a bit different at night. East Falls is GORGEOUS. I wandered over there for a visit to Drexel Med's campus and it is beautiful.
As far as Center City goes, it's safe except if I want to walk THROUGH the sketchy areas to get somewhere.
Having grown up 25 minutes from Philly, I'm mostly familiar with safe areas (one of the reasons my parents didn't have a heart attack when I decided to live in Center City for classes).
Who you calling heteronormative? ::cuss::
I was calling myself heteronormative for saying it's less safe for a girl to walk outside alone at night than a guy. :-)
How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
I never assumed it was safe for a guy, just safer.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
Well. Basically, it is heteronormative to think that women can't defend themselves or are specifically more likely to be attacked. Even if the generic facts show that women are less safe to walk alone at night in a city, it might not specifically be true. But mainly, it is not incredibly safe for anyone to walk alone at night. I also know two girls in my class one of which lives in my building, one a block over, who were robbed walking home alone which makes me even less likely to go out at night alone. Daytime wandering I'm down for...night time wandering alone? Not so much.
Near as I can tell you're using the term incorrectly. One might claim it's sexist to say that a woman can't defend herself as well as a man but that has nothing to do with heterosexual roles and orientations.
Whather the claim is "Heteronormative" or "sexist", it's a silly caveat because it's simply an empirical fact that woman are in more danger in these situatns than men. Noting that this may not hold for specific individuals does not change this fact. Similarly t's not sexist to state that men are stronger than women even if there exist numerous women who are much stronger than me.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
Well. Basically, it is heteronormative to think that women can't defend themselves or are specifically more likely to be attacked. Even if the generic facts show that women are less safe to walk alone at night in a city, it might not specifically be true. But mainly, it is not incredibly safe for anyone to walk alone at night. I also know two girls in my class one of which lives in my building, one a block over, who were robbed walking home alone which makes me even less likely to go out at night alone. Daytime wandering I'm down for...night time wandering alone? Not so much.
Near as I can tell you're using the term incorrectly. One might claim it's sexist to say that a woman can't defend herself as well as a man but that has nothing to do with heterosexual roles and orientations.
Whather the claim is "Heteronormative" or "sexist", it's a silly caveat because it's simply an empirical fact that woman are in more danger in these situatns than men. Noting that this may not hold for specific individuals does not change this fact. Similarly t's not sexist to state that men are stronger than women even if there exist numerous women who are much stronger than me.
The statement that a woman can't defend herself as well as a man does have to do with gender roles in that the woman is normatively not the one in the "defender" position and "needs to be protected."
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: KeithKQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27How is that heteronormative? Isn't that a fact?
It;s heteronormative to assume it is a great idea that a guy walk in a big city alone at night. Surely its safer, but that's a relative term.
Well. Basically, it is heteronormative to think that women can't defend themselves or are specifically more likely to be attacked. Even if the generic facts show that women are less safe to walk alone at night in a city, it might not specifically be true. But mainly, it is not incredibly safe for anyone to walk alone at night. I also know two girls in my class one of which lives in my building, one a block over, who were robbed walking home alone which makes me even less likely to go out at night alone. Daytime wandering I'm down for...night time wandering alone? Not so much.
Near as I can tell you're using the term incorrectly. One might claim it's sexist to say that a woman can't defend herself as well as a man but that has nothing to do with heterosexual roles and orientations.
Whather the claim is "Heteronormative" or "sexist", it's a silly caveat because it's simply an empirical fact that woman are in more danger in these situatns than men. Noting that this may not hold for specific individuals does not change this fact. Similarly t's not sexist to state that men are stronger than women even if there exist numerous women who are much stronger than me.
The statement that a woman can't defend herself as well as a man does have to do with gender roles in that the woman is normatively not the one in the "defender" position and "needs to be protected."
Yeah I'm going to say that all I was saying is its probably not a good idea for anyone to walk alone in a big city late at night and stay out of it from there.
Oh, you should! Cinempolis (http://www.cinemapolis.org/) is great. They've currently got the Iron Lady showing, which was pretty good.
Via the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.
QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
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.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Ummmm...Aren't male hockey players at UConn already playing at the varsity level (snarky comments about the quality of AHA aside...)?
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Jeez a varsity college hockey program
without scholarships. That would be atrocious!!! ;-)
I think it is how Title IX is supposed to work. It ensures that universities do not undertake to add new scholarship-endowed programs for men and not add anything to afford women an equal opportunity to compete and represent their university at the same level. This is a common effect of the Title IX. A handful of other B1G universities would have added NCAA Division I hockey already were it not for having to establish a women's program. Nebraska is the example cited most (http://www.cornnation.com/2012/2/21/2814494/minnesotas-lucia-calls-husker-hockey-a-natural). Illinois has an interesting facility (http://thankyouterry.blogspot.com/2011/10/illi-bye.html) and has the popular, but not financial, backing to go from ACHA DI to NCAA DI.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
In fact, Title IX has been acting to prevent mens' opportunities since its inception. There have been several schools which cut their wrestling programs among others rather than add women's sports. See this (http://www.academia.org/wrestling-with-title-ix/).
Quote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Ummmm...Aren't male hockey players at UConn already playing at the varsity level (snarky comments about the quality of AHA aside...)?
My mistake. I got confused as to what league/level of hockey UConn already had and was too lazy to look it up. 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.
Quote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: jtn27However, 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.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
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.
Fair point; I didn't consider that possibility.
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.::crazy::
Quote from: Jim HylaI 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.
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: jtn27I 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...)
Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: css228I 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 (http://www.cornellrugby.com/) 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.
Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: jtn27First 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.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: jtn27First 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.
Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jim HylaVia the USCHO article (http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/30/report-hockey-east-looking-to-add-connecticut/) here's the latest Hartford Courant article (http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-29/sports/hc-uconn-hockey-0330-20120329_1_freitas-ice-forum-awards-scholarships-uconn) on UConn and HE.
Looks like still 3 major problems.QuoteRunning 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.
Quote from: jtn27First 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.
Quote from: RobbPresumably 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.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228I'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%).
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228I'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.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: KeithKQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228I'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.::cheer::Do you think it's sexists to have a cheerleader smiley for this? It seemed to best summarize my feelings.:-}
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: KeithKQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228I'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.
Quote from: ugarteTitle 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.
Quote from: KeithKI 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.
Quote from: KeithKI 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.
Quote from: ugarteYour 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.
Quote from: ugarteAssessing 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.
Quote from: KeithKThis 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:
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: jtn27However, 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.
Quote from: Jim HylaAside 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)
Quote from: Jim HylaThere has been a literal explosion of girls and women in sports.
That sounds dangerous, I'm going to take cover.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: ugarteAssessing 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.
Quote from: BenQuote from: Jim HylaThere 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.
Quote from: TowerroadI 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.
Quote from: TowerroadI 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.
Quote from: css228Instead 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.
Quote from: Jim HylaCome 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.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: Jim HylaCome 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.
Quote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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? ::screwy::
Quote from: RobbQuote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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? ::screwy::
There is certainly pormotion for the sports I stated.
Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: css228I 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.
Quote from: css228Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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...)
Quote from: BenQuote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: css228I 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.
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinHowever, 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 (http://www.tbrw.info/ncaa_Tournament/ncaa_Tournament_frame.html).
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.
Quote from: BenQuote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: css228I 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.
Quote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feE1G2sJty0
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWhat 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.::banana::) 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.:-D
Quote from: RichHQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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.
Quote from: css228Quote from: RichHQuote from: bnr24Quote from: css228Quote from: MattSQuote from: jtn27I 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 (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/04/09/icers.aspx) 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).
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWe 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 (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/04/09/icers.aspx) 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.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinWe 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 (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/04/09/icers.aspx) 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]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBc7_BIHvA&list=PLEC13D2B2EA4E5A41&index=16&feature=plpp_video[/video]
Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Aaron M. GriffinWe 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 (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/04/09/icers.aspx) 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]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBc7_BIHvA&list=PLEC13D2B2EA4E5A41&index=16&feature=plpp_video[/video]
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.
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.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote"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?
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote"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.
Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin18 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 (http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205) 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.
Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinjavascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis (http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205) 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.
Quote from: css228Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinjavascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis (http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205) 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 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191778/1/index.htm) 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. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/members/clarkson/20121104_Rosen_Helmet_Design)
Via CHN article, by a player, about why Holy Cross is a better choice than UConn for HE. (http://www.hockeyjournal.com/news/colleges/atlantic_hockey/2011-12/Op-ed-_Holy_Cross_makes_more_sense_for_Hockey_East) Interesting quote.
QuoteOther 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.
Quote from: Jim HylaThis 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. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/members/clarkson/20121104_Rosen_Helmet_Design)
(http://ngfl.northumberland.gov.uk/clipart/Food/images/sieve_jpg.jpg)
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaThis 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. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/members/clarkson/20121104_Rosen_Helmet_Design)
(http://ngfl.northumberland.gov.uk/clipart/Food/images/sieve_jpg.jpg)
**]
(http://bruceleeeowe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lhc-black-hole.jpg?w=630)
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
[color=#FF0000]1. Union[/color]
2. Cornell
3. Harvard
4. Colgate
5. Quinnipiac
6. Yale
7. St. Lawrence
8. Clarkson
9. Dartmouth
10. Princeton
11. RPI
12. Brown
[color=#FF0000]1. BC
2. Maine
3. BU
4. Lowell
5. Notre Dame[/color]
6. Merrimack
7. Northeastern
8. UNH
9. Umass
10. Providence
11. Vermont
[color=#FF0000]1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota-Duluth
3. Miami
4. Western Michigan
5. Denver[/color]
6. St. Cloud State
7. Colorado College
[color=#FF0000]1. Michigan
2. Minnesota
3. Michigan State[/color]
4. Ohio State
5. Wisconsin
6. Penn State
[color=#FF0000]1. Ferris State
2. Northern Michigan[/color]
3. Lake Superior State
4. Bemidji
5. Michigan Tech
6. Alaska Fairbanks
7. UNO
8. Bowling Green
9. Minnesota-Mankato
10. Alaska Anchorage
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: css228Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinjavascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
Interesting analysis (http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205) 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 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191778/1/index.htm) 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.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaThis 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. (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/members/clarkson/20121104_Rosen_Helmet_Design)
(http://ngfl.northumberland.gov.uk/clipart/Food/images/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. (http://www.uscho.com/2012/08/22/ccha-looking-to-track-down-past-mason-cup-winners/)
Via CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series? (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=chockey/news/news.aspx?id=4526980)
Quote from: Jim HylaVia CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series? (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=chockey/news/news.aspx?id=4526980)
They should show proper respect and refer to the school by its correct moniker: tSFU.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: Jim HylaVia CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series? (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=chockey/news/news.aspx?id=4526980)
They should show proper respect and refer to the school by its correct moniker: tSFU.
StFU? :-D
Canadian members of the NCAA is as perennial as the BTHC.
Then again...
Quote from: TrotskyCanadian members of the NCAA is as perennial as the BTHC.
Then again...
Harvard to Hockey East.
Quote from: Jim HylaVia CHN. So, how soon before we can get a Home and Home series? (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=chockey/news/news.aspx?id=4526980)
Well, it's not Vladivostok, but it's a third of the way there at least.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: TrotskyCanadian 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.