UND92

UND to cut women's hockey

1,586 posts in this topic

Quote

I want women to have the same opportunities as men! Women's hockey brought in more than football. Why was a men's sport not on the chopping block?

More what than football? ... Scandinavians? 

And about men's sports on the block ... wrestling, baseball, swimming, golf's on life support ... 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the professional level, as far as taking the family to a game, MLB and MLS are the best value out there.  NFL, NBA, and NHL prices have spiraled out of control.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Title IX, you only have to meet one of the three prongs. 

UND appears to be going for pure equity (prong 1)*.
You can try to prove (sue) UND is failing another prong; however, by meeting one of the three you've met all of Title IX. 

 

*NDSU appears to use prong 3 - opportunities and interests. 

0

Share this post


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

Regarding Title IX, you only have to meet one of the three prongs. 

UND appears to be going for pure equity (prong 1)*.
You can try to prove (sue) UND is failing another prong; however, by meeting one of the three you've met all of Title IX. 

 

*NDSU appears to use prong 3 - opportunities and interests. 

It's my understanding there are 3 "components" to Title IX that must be met for compliance. The "3 prong test" only applies to the 1st "component" for Title IX compliance - "Participation".  You need to comply with only 1 of 3 prongs to satisfy the 1st component. The 3 prongs of the 1stParticipation "component" are:

1.  Proportionality
2.  History and Continuing Practice
3.  Accommodate Interests and Abilities

After that...

The 2nd "component" (proportional financial assistance) must also be met.

And then...

The 3rd "component" (benefit and opportunity equivalence) must also be met.  There are 11 criteria here. This is where facilities requirements are met.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Most Title IX suits go after the Participation angle. Why? It's the "squishiest". The other two (financials, opportunity) are pretty objective. 

But there is more to comply with for Title IX than just 1 prong of the 1st component is my point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schloss the crusader is up to his old tricks again and spewing rumors 

0

Share this post


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

But there is more to comply with for Title IX than just 1 prong of the 1st component is my point.

And mine is that the other aspects are so objective that either you meet it or don't.

The fuzzy, open to litigation angle, is always "equity" so that's where the challenges come. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SWSiouxMN said:

First: Mankato is a DII (Northern Sun bus league) playing just DI hockey. It's much easier to manage costs. 

Next: 

Quote

Efforts to try to salvage the program after the announcement, including letters from prominent alumni and a social media campaign were non-starters, and when Fighting Hawks coach Brian Idalski told his team last week that, “the fight is over,” according to Kolstad, players began looking for new places to play.

Folks should take heed. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women's team should have understood that results drive attendance.  Just because UND supports the men's program does not mean they were entitled to anything.  Still don't understand how this caught anyone off guard.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, homer said:

The women's team should have understood that results drive attendance.  Just because UND supports the men's program does not mean they were entitled to anything.  Still don't understand how this caught anyone off guard.  

Because Idalski seemed to think that the amount of required cuts announced and the number of what he thought his hockey budget was being nearly identical was nothing more than a coincidence.

I do agree though, seems like a lot of entitlement on their part.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, homer said:

The women's team should have understood that results drive attendance.  Just because UND supports the men's program does not mean they were entitled to anything.  Still don't understand how this caught anyone off guard.  

So many forget the days when the 6000 seat Ralph had maybe 3000 in it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidebar: 

Quote

... Brian Idalski told his team last week that, “the fight is over,” according to Kolstad, ...

This is how reporting is done.
The MFP guy is reporting something coming to him second hand; but, he still gives attribution to legitimize the claimed statement. 

The MFP must be a "boutique" paper. ;) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

(I also put this into Schlossman's blog post from today.) 

A simple $60 million donation to seed a women's hockey endowment and the problem is solved. 

I'm surprised Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany aren't lining up to do that. They've said their Olympic programs would benefit. 

Call it the NEWTDP: Northern Europe Women's Teams Development Program. 

Problem solved. 

What? No calls from Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, or Berlin asking where to send the check? Strange. 

I find it hard to believe that UND would turn down someone willing to give them $60 million like Brad said or made it seem that Chipman was going to do for the women's team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gfhockey said:

Schloss the crusader is up to his old tricks again and spewing rumors 

?

0

Share this post


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

I find it hard to believe that UND would turn down someone willing to give them $60 million like Brad said or made it seem that Chipman was going to do for the women's team.

If you had $60 million, would you make this investment?
Even if you had a kid on the team? 

From TheSchlossBlog:

Quote

3. Yes, the players did ask if they could raise money. They were told, “no.” Among those who inquired about how they could help save the team was Mark Chipman, who is the head of the group that owns the Winnipeg Jets. Chipman is a UND alum and one of his daughters plays on the team. He wrote a letter the day after the announcement and had phone conversations with those at UND, but there doesn’t appear to be a lot of movement there.

So, Mr. Chipman, a businessman, called.
I have nothing but supposition here, but I suspect the conversation went something like ...

MC: I heard you cut women's hockey. That doesn't make my daughter or me happy. Why'd you do it?
MK: The State is cutting our funding 20%. Women's hockey lost $2 million last year. We have to balance all the department budgets. 
MC: How much? 
MK: About $2 million of loss. 
MC: So is there anything that can be done?
MK: Well, if we had a $60 million endowment the program could self-sustain and be ...
MC: How much? 
MK: $60 million. Just make the check out to the UND Foundation Women's Hockey endowment. 
< dial tone > 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

If you had $60 million, would you make this investment?
Even if you had a kid on the team? 

Maybe, there are things I'd like UND to have to make the fan experience better and get recruits (the on-ice projection system, the same system for basketball and football). There are sports I'd like UND to have (lacrosse), but there will be an outcry for cut sports to be added first.

If he was willing to write a check to UND to fund the team and what else goes with it for title IX, why wouldn't they take the offer. Chipman could be someone who could help finish the HPC.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was told that as now Chipman doesn't donate to UND.  Doesn't mean he wouldn't in the future but he does not currently.

0

Share this post


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

If he was willing to write a check to UND to fund the team ...

You assume that's how the conversation went. 
I assume otherwise. 

0

Share this post


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

Was told that as now Chipman doesn't donate to UND.  Doesn't mean he wouldn't in the future but he does not currently.

He's made donations in the past. Five-figure range. 

There's beaucoup difference between five-figures and seven- or eight-figures. 

0

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