redlabel
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by redlabel
-
-
Based upon everything I've read about Title IX, I don't believe a school can be required to add any particular sport in order to comply. A school can be required to add opportunities and scholarships for women, but the manner in which the school chooses to do so is up to the individual school, so long as the sport or sports added are NCAA-sanctioned.
From the women's sports foundation web site:
Is girl's/women's hockey somehow more important than gymnastics, for example? Gymnastics has been a sport at the ND high school level far longer than girls hockey, but I've never heard any talk of Title IX lawsuits to bring it back as a sport at UND or NDSU. Or are there simply no litigious gymnasts/parents in this state?
Based upon the facilities already in place, and the general interest in hockey in this area, I think adding women's hockey was the "right" thing to so, although clearly not the most feasible from a purely financial standpoint. But it wasn't the only option IMO.
UND NOT TITLE IX COMPLIANT
Published on 05/07/2000, GRAND FORKS HERALD
TWIN CITIES ATTORNEY: UND NOT TITLE IX COMPLIANT
A Minneapolis attorney who represented two women hockey players in a Title IX lawsuit against St. Cloud State University says UND could be sued for noncompliance with gender equity laws if it does not institute a varsity women's hockey team.
I AM NOT AWARE, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN AND HEARD, THAT UND WOULD HAVE ANY DEFENSE FOR A TITLE IX ACTION, SAID CHRIS MESSERLY, AN ATTORNEY WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS FIRM ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI
My understanding was that Women's Ice Hockey proponents were having conversations with this attorney. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions aren't worth much when the law is applied.
-
No, dropping a mens sport to rebalance into Title IX compliance was an available option (as it would negate a possible suit). Not a pretty one, but an available one at the time. Title IX doesn't say you have to match sports. Dropping a mens sport would meet the "proportionality" option (one of three possible ways) of compliance to Title IX.
So yes, the options were as given.
This is still not accurate. If all you had to do was balance the numbers they would have done it with a program that wasn't going to cost up to $500,000.00 a year.
The option was to add women's ice hockey or be sued to add women's hockey. The procedure would have been the same as the lawsuit filed at St Cloud by two women.
I'll find the exact answer and post it here.
-
Please elaborate. Numbers?
Headcount looks like 18 for hockey and 12 for gymnastics.
It had something to do with the provision of Title IX.
If I remember correctly the gist was that since UND had Men's Ice Hockey, under the law they had to offer the
same opportunity (or sport) for women. Otherwise the potential is someone could try to add women's tiddlywinks teams. That was
farfetched but you get the idea.
-
It's amazing that Nebraska-Omaha has managed to avoid a Title IX lawsuit for as long as it has. I'm assuming they're one of the very few schools which has a men's hockey program but not one for women; women make up 52% of their students; and yet receive just 37% of the athletic scholarships. That info is taken directly from the OPE site.
You would think that within a few years, they'll either have to add women's hockey, or drop football.
I think if you check, you'd find there are several schools like that. Michigan and Michigan State are two that come to mind.
-
The options were:
- be sued under Title IX of US Federal law
- drop a mens sport
- add a womens sport
This is a factually incorrect statement...
The options were
add women's ice hockey
be sued to add women's ice hockey, to comply with Title IX, a law that was 28 years old.
-
You're right about this, gymnastics would have been about the only other viable option (Denver has a program, for example).
This is a factually incorrect statement. The option was not to add a women's sport, the option was to add Women's Ice Hockey.
-
When UND started women's hockey, there was a considerable amount of complaining. That it is too expensive, that it won't add anything, it's too boring, and that it will never be competitive with UMD, UM, UW etc. The other side of the argument was that women's hockey has the potential to be a national champion, with the Ralph it will be successful, that Olympic athletes would come from UND's program, and that it's needed to give UND a complete hockey package. After more than a few years of growing pains, what are your thought now?
Yes, when women's hockey started there was a lot of complaining. One side was it was too expensive, the other side was it is the "LAW".
Starting the women's hockey program was just UND complying with a law that was 28 years old.
-
I wonder why they ended up at Minnesota and didn't go Ivy League? I'm sure Harvard, Dartmouth, or Princeton would have liked them there.
-
And other than the hemorraging of money the woman's program does on the athletic department budget, I dont give one ounce about the woman's hockey program here at UND(just being honest). But it in fact has a HUGE negative effect on the athletic departments budget, which in turn affects the men's hockey program at UND. The woman's program has already had a great negative affect on the men's hockey budget and it has no signs of slowing down(many may not know,but our men's hockey program is in fact greatly underfunded when compared to all the other top programs in the country). So no matter who the coach is I wont be attending anytime soon. BUT OTHERS MAY HAVE! AND THE HIRING OF THIS COACH WONT EXCITE ANYMORE PEOPLE TO SHOW UP AT THE GAMES, WHEREAS THE OTHER CANIDATES WE HAVE MENTIONED WOULD HAVE!
Bottom line is no one knows if any of the canidates would have succeded or failed at the job, but I think we can all agree that if the HRKAC CIRCUS reunited at UND for WHATEVER REASON, it would have put more butts in the seats no matter what they did or where they did it at UND. That chance alone was worth hiring Steve Johnson!
One more thing, AS I STATED IN THE OTHER THREAD ABOUT BOB JOYCE COMMITING TO BEING AN ASSISTANT COACH, TONY HRKAC WAS IN FACT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING JOINING THEM ON THE BENCH.
AGAIN ,THAT ALONE WAS WORTH THE CHANCE OF HIRING STEVE JOHNSON!
I guess people like you are one of the reasons Title IX came into being and is a law rather than a suggestion.
Plus bringing in people to coach because they were a name locally once upon a time would be doing a great disservice to the young woman on the team when a better coach was available.
-
Wow! The new women's hockey coach hasn't even been introduced to the public yet, and everyone is screaming for Buning's head.
Give the guy some chance to prove that he can do the job before you throw him off of the bridge for cripes sake......
Last I remember the majority of you could have cared less if UND even had a women's hockey program. Put your butts in the seats and then you have a reason to complain if the coach doesn't get the job done......otherwise, shut your mouths.
HockeyMom, Thanks for having the right response.
Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....
in Men's Hockey
Posted
Making the NCAA field isn't that difficult to do. More than 1/4 of the college teams make it as there are less than 60 schools playing hockey.
The recruiting tool called Englestad Arena should get you the players to get that done. Then it is time to have a coach that wants to win games.
I get tired or hearing him say, "we learned from this", when they lose a game. Winning is important, if it wasn't why do they keep score.