National Collegiate Hockey Conference

[Give My Regards]

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

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

[css228]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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, 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.

[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.

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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::

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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

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

[KeithK]

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

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

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

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

[bnr24]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[css228]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Weder]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jtn27]

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

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

[bnr24]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[css228]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bnr24]

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

Looks like still 3 major problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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