Thoughts on Women's Hockey program?

[redlabel]

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.

[Shawn-O]

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.

You're right about this, gymnastics would have been about the only other viable option (Denver has a program, for example).

[Irish]

The wonen's hockey program will always be a money pit. That being said, I honestly thought we'd be better this year.

[redlabel]

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.

[Shawn-O]

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.

Please elaborate. Numbers?

Headcount looks like 18 for hockey and 12 for gymnastics.

[The Sicatoka]

The options were:

- be sued under Title IX of US Federal law

- drop a mens sport

- add a womens sport

[UND92,96]

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.

[redlabel]

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.

[redlabel]

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.

[redlabel]

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.

[The Sicatoka]

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.

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.

[choyt3]

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.

Or maybe something like equestrian or bowling?

As I understood (maybe incorrectly??), Title IX professed for equal opportunities which, in this case, was determined by the # of available scholarships to men and women.

[The Sicatoka]

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.

See the link I gave previously. There are three methods to get into compliance.

The "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance (a recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs):

Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR

Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR

Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.

Based on the last information I came across, UND uses "prong one" to stay in compliance. Adding womens, or eliminating mens, opportunities would restore the proportionality.

Last I heard NDSU was using "prong three" and the following:

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.

I'm sure Hammersmith will correct me on this.

[82SiouxGuy]

Or maybe something like equestrian or bowling?

As I understood (maybe incorrectly??), Title IX professed for equal opportunities which, in this case, was determined by the # of available scholarships to men and women.

I am pretty sure that you are correct. UND could have added any women's sport to comply with Title IX. The main reasons that they chose hockey were the fact that they already had the facilities that could be used, there was a growing interest in women's hockey in the region and the thought that it might grow large enough to pay for itself or come close eventually, much like women's basketball had done. No other sport had mass appeal to female students. No other sports available had any chance of coming close to break even. Women's hockey hasn't done that yet, but with the interest that should grow over the next few years it still has a chance to get much closer to that goal than any of the other options.

[Shawn-O]

Last I heard NDSU was using "prong three":

So NCAA women's rasslin' is a go?

[82SiouxGuy]

So NCAA women's rasslin' is a go?

It works for the WWE doesn't it?

[redlabel]

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.

[UND92,96]

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.

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:

3. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: requires that women be provided an equitable opportunity to participate in sports as men (not necessarily the identical sports but an equal opportunity to play).

Scholarships: requires that female athletes receive athletic scholarship dollars proportional to their participation (e.g., if there are 100 male athletes/100 female athletes and a $200,000 scholarship budget, then the budget must be split $100,000 to men/$100,000 to women)

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.

[Matt]

I am pretty sure that you are correct. UND could have added any women's sport to comply with Title IX. The main reasons that they chose hockey were the fact that they already had the facilities that could be used, there was a growing interest in women's hockey in the region and the thought that it might grow large enough to pay for itself or come close eventually, much like women's basketball had done. No other sport had mass appeal to female students. No other sports available had any chance of coming close to break even. Women's hockey hasn't done that yet, but with the interest that should grow over the next few years it still has a chance to get much closer to that goal than any of the other options.

I wonder what the athletic department's projections are for this? I mean they must (hope?) have had a 5-10 yr plan, when they were considering adding the sport, when they felt the program would reach that goal.

[82SiouxGuy]

I wonder what the athletic department's projections are for this? I mean they must (hope?) have had a 5-10 yr plan, when they were considering adding the sport, when they felt the program would reach that goal.

I'm sure they had projections and a plan. My guess is that they didn't reach those projections. And part of the reason they probably didn't reach projections is because it took longer than expected to just be competitive. My guess is that they thought the program would be competitive after 4 or 5 years. Instead they took until last year to even become competitive. But the future is bright on the ice, so attendance should start increasing next year. They may never sell out the Ralph (maybe against Minnesota?) but they may be able to get a nice crowd in the lower bowl for a lot of games in the next few years.

[SiouxMeNow]

I'm sure they had projections and a plan. My guess is that they didn't reach those projections. And part of the reason they probably didn't reach projections is because it took longer than expected to just be competitive. My guess is that they thought the program would be competitive after 4 or 5 years. Instead they took until last year to even become competitive. But the future is bright on the ice, so attendance should start increasing next year. They may never sell out the Ralph (maybe against Minnesota?) but they may be able to get a nice crowd in the lower bowl for a lot of games in the next few years.

Oh they had a plan - the problem was the planner was Phil Harmeson and the "PROGRAM" centered around his prize hire Shantel Rivard. When that bomb finally detonated after what? 5 YEARS? UND actually had gone BACKWARD from a fledgling program to total joke. They had to start over WELL BEHIND the starting line....thankfully that idiot Harmeson was out of the picture by then and the program did have to start over. The prospects under Coach I look MUCH BETTER this time and if he gets a couple blue chips thrown his way in the Lamoureaux sisters? I say GOOD and it'll only be GOOD for the womens program - they deserve a break!

[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.

[82SiouxGuy]

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.

A person can file a lawsuit for almost any reason. That doesn't mean the lawsuit has any merit, or that they have a chance of winning. This article just proves that there was a lawyer willing to try. It doesn't prove that there was a real basis for the argument. We all know that UND needed to add a sport to achieve gender equity, but did they have to add hockey? You may be correct and there might be a clause in Title IX that says you have to provide matching opportunities, but this doesn't prove it.