National Collegiate Hockey Conference

[jtn27]

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).

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?

[css228]

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).

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.

[bnr24]

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).

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.

[jtn27]

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).

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.

[KeithK]

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.

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.

[bnr24]

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.

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."

[css228]

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.

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.

[BMac]

Oh, you should! Cinempolis is great. They've currently got the Iron Lady showing, which was pretty good.

[Jim Hyla]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

[Josh '99]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

[Robb]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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.

[jtn27]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

[Robb]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

Ummmm...Aren't male hockey players at UConn already playing at the varsity level (snarky comments about the quality of AHA aside...)?

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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. Illinois has an interesting facility and has the popular, but not financial, backing to go from ACHA DI to NCAA DI.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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.