Siouxphan27

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you comparing Apples to Olympians?

Sometimes when I'm typing, my phone autocorrects the word boring, to boutique.

Never thought I'd learn so much geography by being a college sports fan.

The summit has been a revolving door for 30 years. Look on Wikipedia, it gives a summary of the 30 or so schools who have been members. Everyone leaves it at the first opportunity.

This was reason #1 many were not in favor of moving to the unstable summit, and mvfc. We're not even in the conferences yet and already need to be concerned about major changes as the ever revolving door keeps turning.

Finally, someone smart enough to explain all of this has come along. Whew!

Only thing I could "blame" on UND is Faison keeping Idalski on this long. Idalski did nothing to engage the public and clearly is not a good coach with all the alleged talent the team had year after year. Despite being sort of boring, if they would have been successful and hung some conference banners and a national title or two, fan interest would have been better and the decision to cut the sport would've been a little tougher in the public eye. Unfortunately, we're now getting to hear wildly inaccurate tales of how great and successful this storied program has been, and what a tremendous influence it has had on the world of women's hockey.

UND or the hired law firm needed to get all the accurate info out there before a Sports Illustrated or ESPN came along and interviewed feminazis looking for 'equality' came along and muddied the waters further with their lies. That woman's comment comparing a 'winning' UND women's hockey program to football is so inaccurate it just pisses me off! And we're reading this garbage in sports illustrated for chrissakes!!! serenity now! Pass the Tylenol.

That's a lot of bake sales and car washes.

yeah but, espn has a spelling bee to cover this time of year.... because that's sports, and stuff.

Now, when you say number.... you're talking about number of Olympians....right?

lol

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Using my Women's Hockey Business Economics degree and all....

did you forward it to Schloss?

I'm not sure. At the current rate of 8 Women's Hockey Olympians and $1.9million in program losses this year, each Olympian is costing UND $237,500 per year. I'm sure glad we didn't have any more Women's Hockey Olympians!....

I've recently learned women's hockey is sort of like Fight Club. The first rule of Women's Hockey is, you don't talk about the cost of women's hockey.

Need to get Trump involved. Rebuild the team and have Finland, Germany, Canada, and the IOC pay for it. #MakeAmericaSkateAgain

Where do you mean?

42-120

Ndsu offers the bare minimum opportunities for women, and was offering several fewer sports than UND.

NCAA women's hockey held its first national championship in 2001, so everybody 'just started.' also, 1.4 million > 209. And lastly, none of the competitiveness numbers, or attendance numbers, are as important as the dollar figures.

You mean 209 my friend.

I don't have the links, but people have been posting the budgets for all the sports on this website over the last several months. It is no secret Women's Hockey is far and away the loss leader. It seems the only ones outraged are the people who haven't been paying attention.

it was roughly 30 seconds. and possession changed, but UND got the puck back again.