Yote 53

And, with that statement, wouldn't it also be reasonable to say that any money the BIG gets is going to stay inside the BIG to be spent on existing sports and facility upgrades rather than shipping it up to UND? The BIG could easily set up a program that incentivizes member schools to start a hockey program by offering them $3-4 million per year for the first 10 years or so to get them off the ground and make the startup costs more bearable. It could come in the form of a direct grant from the league office for the specified purpose of men's ice hockey. This money would come from the pool of money that is retained for BIG conference administration. You know, not all the money is distributed to the member schools, league office retains some of it for administration.

Everything that has been said about NDSU to the Valley also applies to USD, and USD is in a more reasonable position on the MVC map. Two airports (Sioux City and Sioux Falls) within 45 minutes. A better basketball tradition and a brand new arena. USD could leave the Summit and the tournament would still be in Sioux Falls. SDSU fans are the ones who make that tournament, just ask them. USD could also deliver that FSN contract just as hypothetically as NDSU (and probably has just as far fetched of a chance). Reality is none of the Dakota schools are going to be invited.

For the BIG it is better to buy than to rent. In the LONG TERM, they would be better off keeping that $4mill/year that they would send off to Grand Forks in-house and using it as seed money for Husker/Hawkeye/Illini/Wildcat hockey programs. A $4 million dollar/year commitment over ten years could do that. Build the programs from within the BIG membership and grow those revenues from within. Get one or two PSU's out of that bunch and it would be jackpot. Having UND as an affiliate is a rental situation. Minnesota and Wisconsin never move their programs forward. It ends up being a break-up where they see and pine for the old girlfriend every day. For Minnesota it's not just UND, it's SCSU, UMD, MSU-M that are also issues. There is a segment of the Minnesota hockey population that will never get over not being in the same conference as their in-state rivals. Even with the superiority complex they have over them, which is odd.

I can see Vermillion.

Heck no. Now that my USAH dues are going to pay these women's salaries I want goals. I want blood. It's not worth winning if you don't win big! What a joke this has become.

As to UND Football. If you are in contention for a MVFC title you are going to be an odds on favorite to win a National Championship. UND won the BSC this past year and champions from that conference have gone on to win a Natty. UND is not a longshot away from winning a NC in football. USD isn't for that matter. Because of the company we keep in conference and the level we play at in conference, once you make it to the playoffs you have a shot at winning a title. Look at Youngstown this year, finished 3rd in the conference and made it to the title game.

I don't know why people would say that. From the outside looking in, which I am on the outside so not emotionally invested in this, it was obvious this was going to be the course of action. The difference between UND and Minnesota is the percentage of the budget. The financial shortfalls are similar but UND has far less money to work with than MN. It's like in your own household budget. A $700 a month car payment is hefty, especially if you are only bringing in $3,000 per month. You can swing it but it's a burden. Now if you are bring in $15,000/month it is far easier to manage because you have more discretionary income.

For Minnesota Women's Hockey, it is hard to cut a sport, and would be a public relations disaster, when the AD is raking in $50 million+ a year from BIG TV money alone. The women's program could lose $5 million a year and they would be untouchable in the State of Hockey.

Not really. The comparison is not what the USWNT receives versus the Red Army teams. The comparison is what the USWNT receives compared to the women's national teams in other countries they compete against. Those other teams receive practically nothing. The Olympics were already considering dropping Women's Hockey because there is a lack of competition in the two team field. That gap just got bigger.

In the 60's, 70's, and 80's we complained how the USSR racked up Gold medals in hockey by sending, basically, a professional team over, the Red Army team. After yesterday, the USWNT just became the equivalent of the Red Army, paid professional women who will be taking the ice against other country's amateur women's teams.

100% agree. I pay about $100 a year in registration fees for my son's player membership and my coaching membership. Add in the cost of Level 1-4 coaching certifications, with Level 4 costing me about $300 in registration not to mention 2 nights hotel and travel expenses (probably close to another $500), and paying for coaching modules at each age level, enough is enough. I guess I just look at it as the cost of playing/coaching and am willing to bear it. You know who isn't? Mites. New families. They see a $50 registration fee to USA Hockey and they gripe. Heck, we only charge new Mite skaters $50 for the season (which our foundation picks up the tab so it is essentially $0) and $100 for returning Mite players...but USA Hockey requires $50? What the heck? Something is not right with that picture. In case you're scratching your head at the low cost of Mite hockey, fundraising picks up the difference. All included we need to generate about $500/year to put a Mite player on the ice for a season.

Ehh, probably an increase of a couple of bucks unless they get some sponsorship to cover the cost. A couple more bucks on hockey isn't that much. It's a matter of principle though. Just wrong if this is funded by the youth hockey playing membership.

I heard this news and these songs went through my head. Just Got Paid Today...got me a pocket full of change You Know I Gotsa Get Paid

No idea who a WNTDP would even play. I mean there is no USHL for women for the U18s or U17s to play in, they go right out of high school or AAA to college. I don't think combining those leagues is the answer. If there was a market and money to be made somebody would have started a pro women's hockey league already. The NBA subsidizes the WNBA. I remember a while back the WNBA players complaining about their lack of pay, the lack of "fairness" in pay. Don't know how it turned out but I think somebody reminded them their league makes no money and that the NBA actually props it up, why I don't know. I'm sure it's a long term play by the NBA to create more women NBA fans. Not sure if the NHL wants to or is in position to do the same. They have their own problems, like franchises in Arizona and Carolina and Florida to worry about, amongst other things.

Wasn't an attack towards you, sorry if it came off that way. This story has really ruffled my feathers for some reason. Could USA Hockey have handled it better? Sure. They were dealing with a hot button issue in this social justice warrior world we live in. Everybody looking for something to get offended by, facts thrown out the window under the guise of "fairness". I'm sure USAH had an "oh sh**" moment when they realized the storm this created. Why is this bothering me? Because it is so wrong. It is being reported and presented in such a one-sided manner. USAH is being portrayed as this old boys club that just sits back and counted their millions while these girls toil in poverty. It's just not true. USAH is non-profit and does the best with the resources it has. It is not a professional sports franchise. The boys NTDP, funded by a direct grant from the NHL. USAH could not use that money in other areas even if they wanted to as that money was specifically granted for its intended purpose. Yet that is being thrown at USAH as an example that they care more about boys hockey than girls. Has anybody looked at the recruiting materials from USAH for youth hockey lately? Huge emphasis on girls hockey and its growth. Affiliates have special committees that deal solely with the growth of the girls game. What USAH has been portrayed as is wrong and what the women's team is doing perpetuating this image is wrong. I have a daughter who I hope plays hockey someday. I realize that the farthest she could probably hope to go in the sport, if she is talented, is to get some schooling paid for. Beyond that, well, such is life. If she wants to rake in the big bucks as a professional maybe she should go to the pageant circuit and work towards becoming an international supermodel. Gisele makes far more money than Tom Brady, after all.

Really? I am not on board for them getting paid anything. You see, the men don't get paid anything either. Being chosen for the National Team is an honor. You go to serve voluntarily. Now, any benefits that come with being on the team, hotel, travel arrangements, training stipend, etc. should be exactly equal to what the men's team receives, beyond that, like the salary requested that was part of their demands, no way. USA Hockey is not a professional hockey organization. It does not employ hockey players for its teams. It does not, or should not, keep a standing National Team roster. If it decides to do this for the WH program then they have to do it for the men, and pay the men equally, even though they already make millions paying professional hockey, though not all do, some toil in the AHL and other professional leagues and are not living large either. I am sorry there is not enough money in women's professional hockey for these ladies to make a full-time living playing hockey. There just isn't a market to support a league. But that is not USA Hockey's issue, it is far beyond their scope or responsibility. The ladies on the team will have to do what every other Olympic athlete from an obscure sport does to support themselves while training for a sport, either that or decide to move on and start the next stage of their life post-hockey. All former players have had to do that at one point or another, when they meet the end of the road. I'd love to make money playing hockey but nobody is going to show up on Tuesday nights to watch my beer league games. I'm keeping my day job.

That's the way I understand it.

Agree with this post. This is no longer about facts, it is about feelings. Like a previous poster said, the argument has been shaped that if you are against paying these players you are against women. USA Hockey will just increase our registrations to offset the increased cost. The money has to come from somewhere.

Because like everything Title 9, the way to balance things out is not to add a woman's program, it's to shut down a men's program. See men's wrestling, gymnastics, swimming & diving, etc. Heck, Title 9 is a major factor in limiting the growth of NCAA hockey. Costs too much to add a corresponding women's program that is a financial black hole. For that reason, men's opportunities get limited.

You could run a USNTDP for women's hockey, but who would they play? Who would pay for it? I suppose add another $5 to the USA Hockey registration fee. It made me sick last night reading the ESPN Bottom Line with the ladies claiming that USA Hockey doesn't support women's hockey, etc. It really makes USA Hockey look bad to the entire sporting public in this country who know nothing more than what they read in the headlines. There is a push at all levels of USA Hockey for girls hockey because USAH rightly sees it as an untapped market with potential to grow the game. At our most recent youth hockey association board meeting we discussed and are laying the groundwork to start up a girls program. We need to have the interest first because, as of right now, we have 4 girls in our entire program. That's not enough for a line much less a team. Nevertheless, we are pushing forward with getting a program off the ground because that is the directive from the top, USAH, down through our affiliate, on down to the association level. The women at the National Team level need to understand that these things take time. I hope they realize they've turned some people against them with this. Personally, they've put me off and I'm a bit disgusted by their actions.

Has anybody here read an issue of USA Hockey magazine recently? Or received emails and other information coming out of USA Hockey? I find it hard to believe USA Hockey can be accused of not promoting girls hockey/women's hockey/or disabled hockey. They have been pushing these programs hard for several years.

Spuds are young. Lot of juniors and sophomores out there. They got a good shot next year.

Game over. What a tournament this has been.

Wished that wasn't a quick whistle on that one earlier. We could have a one goal game here.

Crud! Big hill for the Spuds to climb here.