National Collegiate Hockey Conference

[RichH]

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feE1G2sJty0

[Jim Hyla]

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

I totally agree. Although I find it hard to drive to Ithaca for their games, because I'm at many men's away games and it's just hard to be away from family that many times, the lack of competition makes it less interesting to watch. They had 163 g vs. 56 ga, giving an average of 4.66 vs. 1.67. When you win by an average of 3 goals, it means many games are yawners. If they were men's games would I go? Yes, but I grew up with men's hockey. If the roles were reversed, in the 60s when I was there, I'd have been a women's fan. (Actually I still am a fan of women.::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

[css228]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bnr24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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

[ugarte]

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

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

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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

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

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

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

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBc7_BIHvA&list=PLEC13D2B2EA4E5A41&index=16&feature=plpp_video[/video]

[Jim Hyla]

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

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

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

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

[video]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.

"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.

[KeithK]

"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?

[Aaron M. Griffin]

"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.

[billhoward]

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

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

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

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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

[css228]

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

Denver has a deficit of exactly one dollar.

[jtn27]

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

Denver has a deficit of exactly one dollar.

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

[Jim Hyla]

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