mksioux

It’s been terribly frustrating to be a fan of this program over the last 10 years. Always 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I think a change at the top is needed.

DJ Hagler 1990s Justin Timberlake

His response was actually very good, and refreshing, in my opinion. A typical politician would have pandered to the young woman who asked the question. It does not appear Kennedy did that. His answer will probably end up working against him in the politically correct environment of higher education, but it was the right answer.

This thing has jumped the shark. Whether he said it or not, calling it a boutique sport is simply not sexist. I am sorry to say this, but if your mind goes straight to a small women's clothing store when you hear the word boutique in any context, you simply do not have a strong vocabulary. Or you are being shamelessly opportunistic. I don't know the twins, so I will refrain from commenting on which category they fall into.

They will also have a lot of the print and TV media establishment in their pocket. That, along with a social media campaign, worked very effectively against USA Hockey. Granted, they also had a boycott at their disposal in that dispute, but they still "won" the battle by obfuscating the facts and by playing the gender-equity card. I wouldn't underestimate the situation. The propaganda needs to be countered with facts and reality.

I've been saying this since the press conference. Faison and Kennedy needed to get out front of this. They needed to be factual and present the cold-hard numbers in an articulate and persuasive manner. They needed to make the public know exactly how much money this program was losing. They needed to articulate how any other alternative would have resulted in more women losing the opportunity to compete. They needed to explain that prior to these cuts, UND was in Title IX compliance problems weighting in favor of the women. They need to explain that there is no way to reinstate women's hockey without cutting multiple other women's sports. I don't think most people even know that Title IX is a two-way street. Some said it would be impolite to talk about the specifics at the press conference, like talking bad about someone at their funeral. I say B.S. Because they didn't hit this straight on, a false narrative has now developed and it could lead to a bigger problem for the University. The Lamoureux letter is chalk-full of emotion and entitlement, and completely void of facts. They offer no viable alternative solution. They got a victory against USA Hockey by playing the gender-equity card and it's gone to their heads. They think they can do it again. And why shouldn't they be confident? USA Hockey did not fight back with facts and figures and caved because they were terrified of bad publicity. Kennedy and Faison needs to take this seriously. Start fighting back with facts and clarity. Do not let this false narrative take root.

That is absolutely true, but far too few people actually know that. We can criticize the Herald for not properly covering it. That's fair game and I've done it. But let's not forget that transparency should demand that a public institution should make this information more accessible, and to actually talk about it and explain it. Faison stumbled around the Title IX issue at the press conference, but he didn't directly address it head-on. He didn't make it known that UND had a Title IX problem from the men prior to this decision. I know it's impolite to talk about unflattering numbers when you are cutting a sport, but I always prefer clarity and facts. Explain your decision in a way that is concise and direct. You don't need to take shots at the program, but be honest and transparent about why it was cut. Don't beat around the bush. Explain that any other alternative would have resulted in more female athletes losing opportunities. Don't let false narratives take over. Faison was a little better on the radio this morning, but still fell short in my opinion.

To those people who are not following this closely, I can see why this might look like a dumb decision. The University has never really publicly admitted how much money women's hockey loses. They even went out of their way to allocate expenses to the men's team that should have been shared by both teams, all in an effort to make the women's teams numbers not look as bad as they were. Even today, they didn't talk about the numbers. And you certainly won't read about it in the Herald or other media sources. But the people who dig into this stuff and follow it closely know this was the right decision. Others may seem mystified. I personally think the University did not handle this well in the sense that they should have publicly justified their decision better with cold, hard numbers to better inform the casual observer on why this decision was the most logical one.

Not all money losers are created equal. Some lose a little bit of money, some a lot. Women's hockey hemorrhaged money.

Schlossman has shown numerous times that he is a great reporter when he wants to be. He can dig, find facts, break them down, and put together a very informative and enlightening article. Even when he's presenting an opinion piece, he has the capability to back up his opinion with a comprehensive set of facts. That is why his shoddy coverage of the US women's national team story has been so disappointing. He can have an opinion, but he omitted key basic facts and failed to give his readers a complete picture of the situation. You are absolutely correct, he played off people's emotions. He's a better journalist than that.

During the oil boom, higher education spending was increased to unsustainable levels. I don't think there's much debate about that. Smarter posters than me have shown that most flagships sponsored fewer sports than UND. UND was actually an outlier in Division I for how many sports it sponsored. I believe UND will now be in line with most flagships.

I agree with you.

Hopefully the right people at UND repeat this enough so that the public knows just how much money this sport loses on an annual basis. They should specifically compare the numbers of women's hockey to other sports to show the disparity. Make sure that information makes it way into the papers and on the radio. This is a time to be factual, not polite. I think many have a general idea that women's hockey might lose money, but most people don't understand just how much it loses compared to other sports.

I agree. The alternative to cutting women's hockey would have involved cutting additional women's sports that undoubtedly would have involved a greater number of female athletes. By the numbers, this was a no-brainer decision. It reached the budget goal while cutting the fewest number of athletes as possible, all while bringing the school back into Title IX compliance. Nobody has presented a coherent argument on why women's ice hockey players should have been protected more than other female athletes at UND.

Wow, that was short. Kennedy didn't even talk.

You could be right, but I would prefer it if Kennedy showed some level of command with the numbers and demonstrates that he was involved and invested in this decision. But if there is a consultant who provides some of the accounting details and Title IX concerns, that would be good as well.

I hope Kennedy is studied up on the numbers and is prepared for this press conference. The numbers, if forcefully argued, can effectively defend the decision. He needs to not only explain how this decision alleviates the budget concern, but also why it the best (if not "only) decision to make. He needs to address other options that were considered and why they would not have worked, or why they would have been detrimental to more athletes, etc. He can't take an approach of not commenting on other sports that were considered. He needs to go full frontal on accounting issues in this presser. If he's not prepared on the numbers and does not perform well in this presser, things could get a little ugly for a while.

When all the tweets and facebook posts start coming in from players, alumni, politicians, famous people, etc., we need to keep in mind that everyone who disagrees with this decision is likely to make their opinion public. However, the people that agree with it, or at least understand it why it happened, have little or no motivation to publicly express their opinion (or be called callous, or even sexist). So what we see on social media today is not at all indicative of public opinion.

Trust me, I know. I spent more money and had to spend almost as much time to become a certified mite hockey coach as I did to get licensed to practice law. It's ridiculously out of control. USA Hockey seems to go out of their way to try and make hockey as expensive as possible. Yes, some associations are able to subsidize mite players, or at least first year mites, but others aren't wealthy enough to have much of a subsidy. Either way, it eventually catches up and it gets really expensive. I don't have a problem with mite subsidies. If we're going to subsidize any group of hockey players, it should be mites. That's why on all of these issues about lack of support of the elite athletes in hockey (boys and girls, men and women), I just roll my eyes.

Don't your two paragraphs directly contradict each other? Maybe I missed your point.

It's not about whether professional athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics. It's about whether the governing body should be the employer. I have no problem with an athlete who is paid by a private company being allowed to compete. But I do have a problem with the governing body being the employer.

100% agree. The last person's opinion that matters to me on stuff like this is someone making a 7-figure income. Hakstol can play hero, tow the politically correct stand, endear himself to media and lose nothing. Same goes for the NHL players. Why do they care if USA Hockey starts paying women? They're making millions. It's the little guy with young kids in hockey that pays for it. I care about the family that chooses not put their kids in hockey because it's too damn expensive. Yes, I realize that this ONE issue is not going to make or break someone deciding whether to play hockey, but it's the mentality of spending other people's money and making the sport more expensive based on deception and obfuscation by wrongfully claiming that the women weren't being treated fairly.

I think on an even deeper level, universities know they need to keep athletics because it creates an emotional attachment to the university for a lot of alumni and the community. Without that emotional (and sometimes illogical) attachment, people would be taking a lot closer look with a critical eye at everything that universities do.

I don't know how much dues will have to be increased because of it. But if it's $1, that's $1 too much. USA Hockey should not be employing elite athletes who cannot find work as professional hockey players. That is simply absurd and a slap in the face to all of us paying real money to belong to the organization.

USA Hockey completely caved. Get ready for dues increases and the average stiff having to subsidize the lifestyles of grown women. This situation was a farce from the beginning. But our culture is a mixture of political correctness and ignorance, so this result was foreseeable.