Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
UND92

UND to cut women's hockey

Recommended Posts

Shawn-O   
9 minutes ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

Currently, Prong 3 is debatable at best in the facilities criteria.  However, once UND Womens Soccer moves into The Engelstad, the facilities argument is dead. There are 11 criteria in Prong 3 regarding "treatment" that are otherwise also covered by UND.

UND currently already has Prongs 1 (Participation) and 2 (Athletic Financial Assistance) lock, stock and barrel.

Furthermore, if I'm UND I would file a counter-lawsuit to recover the University's costs of counsel after the frivolous Title IX lawsuit gets thrown out by any judge with common sense.

OK, your turn for rebuttal...

Oh I'm with you on this one.  I think any Title IX suit would be a waste of everyone's time.   I found the only angle I could even fathom.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   

Since Mark Chipman has written a letter to UND about his displeasure about cutting the team. I'm sure he could spare $60 million.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJS   
16 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Since Mark Chipman has written a letter to UND about his displeasure about cutting the team. I'm sure he could spare $60 million.

Wonder what took so long on that one.

Here's the tweet:

"Mark Chipman, head of the group that owns Winnipeg Jets, sent a letter to UND expressing his displeasure in decision to cut women's hockey"

Is Schlossman lying, not at all, but what bothers me is the way he spins everything. Most people see that and thinks that one of the owners of an NHL team are upset about UND cutting women's hockey. Do they know that his daughter was on the team? I'm just guessing that if she wasn't, he wouldn't be sending the letter. He's the best at leaving out key details.

 

Edit: Reading the comments below that tweet as well as the last couple he's posted about this subject, there's a complete change in tone from what you read right after the decision. People seemed annoyed with the subject.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jdub27   
2 hours ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

On which grounds is a Title IX lawsuit against UND going to be even be considered by a judge?  Which criteria and what would their argument be?  Any law firm looking to file suit has to look at it and say "we have no chance".  It would be bad publicity for any firm to even take it up - and a complete waste of time and money.

I agree with you on all the facts.

However I think you might be underestimating the thought process of some agenda-driven lawyers who will look at facts as mere minor nuisances in their rush to go after any University that dares to cut a women's sport. Title IX has enough grey areas that would lead someone to think there is a possibility of a winning lawsuit out there. I don't agree that there is, but I don't have an agenda clouding my judgement. From what has been made public, UND obviously is prepared for it and clearly someone has been feeding the narrative, which is further fueled by people's actual lack of understanding.

Unfortunately the bad publicity and a waste of time and money would likely be an equal opportunity result, not just for whoever would file it, but also for UND.

 

3 minutes ago, AJS said:

Wonder what took so long on that one.

Here's the tweet:

"Mark Chipman, head of the group that owns Winnipeg Jets, sent a letter to UND expressing his displeasure in decision to cut women's hockey"

Is Schlossman lying, not at all, but what bothers me is the way he spins everything. Most people see that and thinks that one of the owners of an NHL team are upset about UND cutting women's hockey. Do they know that his daughter was on the team? I'm just guessing that if she wasn't, he wouldn't be sending the letter. He's the best at leaving out key details.

Chipman is also a pretty successful businessman. Being disappointed or displeased in a decision does not mean he doesn't understand the decision or even agree with it. But of course there is no context to what was said in the letter, leaving people open to spin it however they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UND1983   

Jocey just spent a good amount of time talking Title IX on Mac Talk.  She certainly thinks they are being discriminated against but once again, brought up no numbers.  She did say the soccer and softball fields are a dump, though so they cannot count for replacement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jdub27   
19 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Jocey just spent a good amount of time talking Title IX on Mac Talk.  She certainly thinks they are being discriminated against but once again, brought up no numbers.  She did say the soccer and softball fields are a dump, though so they cannot count for replacement. 

Did she mention if she has ever donated any money to UND to help pay for any upgrades?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   
18 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I agree with you on all the facts.

However I think you might be underestimating the thought process of some agenda-driven lawyers who will look at facts as mere minor nuisances in their rush to go after any University that dares to cut a women's sport. Title IX has enough grey areas that would lead someone to think there is a possibility of a winning lawsuit out there. I don't agree that there is, but I don't have an agenda clouding my judgement. From what has been made public, UND obviously is prepared for it and clearly someone has been feeding the narrative, which is further fueled by people's actual lack of understanding.

Unfortunately the bad publicity and a waste of time and money would likely be an equal opportunity result, not just for whoever would file it, but also for UND.

 

Chipman is also a pretty successful businessman. Being disappointed or displeased in a decision does not mean he doesn't understand the decision or even agree with it. But of course there is no context to what was said in the letter, leaving people open to spin it however they want.

You could also take the tweet as Chipman and his group could invest in the program.

I'm waiting for the lawsuit to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Did she mention if she has ever donated any money to UND to help pay for any upgrades since they are such a dump?

 

11 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Jocey just spent a good amount of time talking Title IX on Mac Talk.  She certainly thinks they are being discriminated against but once again, brought up no numbers.  She did say the soccer and softball fields are a dump, though so they cannot count for replacement. 

did mac press her for numbers/proof of discrimination or is he on her side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Did she mention if she has ever donated any money to UND to help pay for their upgrade?

They Lammy's only know how to invest in things emotionally.  Numbers don't mean a whole lot to them!   :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

Title IX has enough grey areas that would lead someone to think there is a possibility of a winning lawsuit out there.

The Title IX "gray area" can be construed both ways and plausibly in this case, in favor of UND. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jdub27   
32 minutes ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

The Title IX "gray area" can be construed both ways and plausibly in this case, in favor of UND. 

I know that and you know that. That doesn't mean someone who has an agenda does (or cares). I think UND is more than covered if someone decides to take up the cause against them. Just pointing out that I wouldn't be floored if they found someone to take up their cause, facts be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petey23   
22 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I know that and you know that. That doesn't mean someone who has an agenda does (or cares). I think UND is more than covered if someone decides to take up the cause against them. Just pointing out that I wouldn't be floored if they found someone to take up their cause, facts be damned.

Gloria Allred specializes in crap like this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SJHovey   
52 minutes ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

The Title IX "gray area" can be construed both ways and plausibly in this case, in favor of UND. 

Not all lawsuits are generated with the idea that the plaintiff expects to go to trial and be awarded a certain amount of money.  Sometimes they are started to make a point.  Sometimes they are started to try to force the defendant to compromise, or even just force a party to the bargaining table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

Not all lawsuits are generated with the idea that the plaintiff expects to go to trial and be awarded a certain amount of money.  Sometimes they are started to make a point.  Sometimes they are started to try to force the defendant to compromise, or even just force a party to the bargaining table.

 

Agreed. For once I think UND did this the right way by bringing in the law firm that specializes in title 9. They (many of us for that matter) knew that there would be a big backlash and add in the social justice warrior complex that is plaguing this country and the obvious conclusion is that there would be a pushback of some sort. UND is prepared and I have full confidence this is nothing more than rhetoric at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   
4 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Will UND WH ever receive "adequate funding"?  Are they fucking kidding?  LOL

The future USA hockey players was a good one. UND only wants Euro Olympians. 

On a side note, I don't see Shelby making the Olympic team. They will take the World Championship goalies or Vetter some how will make the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John W.   

The vocal 'minority' of what is known as the hockey culture cannot embrace or accept the reality of the cutting of WH or the new 'nickname/logo'......or the fact that, nationally,  ice hockey is no longer in the 'Big 4' of US sports in popularity!!!! What is it now, 7,8, maybe  9?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   
6 minutes ago, John W. said:

The vocal 'minority' of what is known as the hockey culture cannot embrace or accept the reality of the cutting of WH or the new 'nickname/logo'......or the fact that, nationally,  ice hockey is no longer in the 'Big 4' of US sports in popularity!!!! What is it now, 7,8, maybe  9?

I'd say it's passed baseball, then again what would be in the top four? Football, basketball, hockey, baseball (hockey and baseball could be interchanged), soccer (only during the World Cup for men's and women's and women's during the Olympics). That's pretty much it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UND-1   
3 minutes ago, cberkas said:

I'd say it's passed baseball, then again what would be in the top four? Football, basketball, hockey, baseball (hockey and baseball could be interchanged), soccer (only during the World Cup for men's and women's and women's during the Olympics). That's pretty much it.  

Hold the phone....you think hockey is more popular than baseball or even close?

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   
2 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Hold the phone....you think hockey is more popular than baseball or even close?

 

Baseball use to be Americas "past time." It has it's popular areas in the US, but it has taken a hit in popularity over the years. When teams are bad, and there seems to be way more bad teams then good teams, no one cares about those teams. Brewers were getting all the hype when Braun was using PEDs now you don't here much about them, Pittsburgh was a joke until the last two years.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, yet it is the 5th most popular in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cberkas said:

I'd say it's passed baseball, then again what would be in the top four? Football, basketball, hockey, baseball (hockey and baseball could be interchanged), soccer (only during the World Cup for men's and women's and women's during the Olympics). That's pretty much it.  

believe it or not I think NASCAR is up there in the top 5

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cberkas   
7 minutes ago, DB Cooper said:

believe it or not I think NASCAR is up there in the top 5

 

That has to be put in it's own separate grouping then with football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×