the green team Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Two words: Title Nine And most collegiate athletic programs are money losers, not just women's hockey. If making money is a requirement, you wouldn't have more than two or three sponsored sports in NCAA athletics. I understand the Title 9 argument. Were we Title 9 compliant before we added women's hockey? And are there other sports that lose less money than Women's Hockey? For example, there are a lot of collegiate women's sports out there...don't see many colleges and universities running to add hockey as a women's sport. Agreed, the answer is not simple. Quote
Big Green Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 He did sweep the gophers on the road Have we ever done that? Simple question. Yes Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I understand the Title 9 argument. Were we Title 9 compliant before we added women's hockey? And are there other sports that lose less money than Women's Hockey? For example, there are a lot of collegiate women's sports out there...don't see many colleges and universities running to add hockey as a women's sport. Agreed, the answer is not simple. What women's sports are there that we could add that we don't have right now? Maybe someone can chime in on that? Quote
UNDBIZ Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Drop women's hockey and men's baseball. Title 9 crisis averted. Significant funding now available for more important sports and facility upgrades. Quote
Feff Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 For a school and fanbase that prides itself on being a "hockey school" there are a whole lot of people willing to throw this program away just to get an extra hot tub in the men's locker room. 1 Quote
UNDBIZ Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 For a school and fanbase that prides itself on being a "hockey school" there are a whole lot of people willing to throw this program away just to get an extra hot tub in the men's locker room. If only the women's hockey program cost the university that little.... And in full disclosure, I'd like UND to become much more than just a "hockey school." Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 For a school and fanbase that prides itself on being a "hockey school" there are a whole lot of people willing to throw this program away just to get an extra hot tub in the men's locker room. Hey, not all of us are "hockey-only" fans. In fact, the "hockey-only" contingent is one of the biggest problems at UND right now, amongst others. 1 Quote
jdub27 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Hey, not all of us are "hockey-only" fans. In fact, the "hockey-only" contingent is one of the biggest problems at UND right now, amongst others. Agree very much with you on this point. 1 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Agree very much with you on this point. Wow, I think that's a first! Quote
gfhockey Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I agree. Drop women's hockey drop men's baseball. He'll drop swimming and diving while wr are at it and pump money into other sports Quote
brianvf Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Scanlan for president? He did sweep the gophers on the road Have we ever done that? Simple question. A win and tie is considered a sweep? Shootout win does not equal win. 1 Quote
sioux rube Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 For a school and fanbase that prides itself on being a "hockey school" there are a whole lot of people willing to throw this program away just to get an extra hot tub in the men's locker room. I agree. Quote
gfhockey Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 But it's Bemidji st I'm not saying fire idalski (even tho I have heard it a lot at various bars (not at Gobc meetings)) Quote
Cratter Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Why does UND sponsor more than the required amount for Division 1? Seems like a waste of money that could go toward supporting the other sports like people have said. Quote
gfhockey Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Some we need for BSC ALA mens tennis but they aren't even close to funded....I bet the GF hockey teams get more money in funding then this team Quote
Shawn-O Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Fire Idalski? Simple question. Isn't it wonderful he's paid more than our men's basketball coach? What a joke. 2 Quote
Cratter Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Makes ya wonder "how good UND" could be with the "right allocation of resources." Quote
Rory Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Isn't it wonderful he's paid more than our men's basketball coach? What a joke. No kidding? That isn't right. I predict in 2 years Scanlan will be behind the bench. Quote
GDPritch Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Idalski makes more than men's bucket's coach Jones? You've got to be kidding me, never realized that. Title 9 has done some good things (really, you need 110 ftbl players on scholarship ala 1980s?) but this shows how it went to far. Quote
Cratter Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I don't believe title 9 has any affect on coaches pay. Quote
the green team Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I agree. Title 9 doesn't have any effect on the slaries of coaches. Quote
tnt Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I don't believe title 9 has any affect on coaches pay. You wouldn't think so, because how could Alabama pay anywhere in the ballpark of Nick Saban's salary, and why would another coach deserve that kind of pay. Quote
farce poobah Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Title 9 may not govern coaches' pay, but the Equal Pay Act of 1963 would. Basically says you can't pay members of one sex more (or less) for doing the same work. Since the actual work of coaching ice hockey at UND doesn't differ that much whether its the mens team or women's team (and since statistically womens' teams are more likely to be coached by women), the difference in pay is probably limited ... to other permissible factors which include the greater revenue from men's hockey and team performance factors (frozen four appearances, other championships). I have no idea how one would compare mens basketball to women's hockey. I'll stay at a Holiday Inn Express and report back. Quote
SiouxVolley Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 If you pay all the women's sports coaches less than the men's sports coaches, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen, even if the women's sports coaches are men. Title IX kicks in if there isn't some evidence of equity (i.e. two or three women's sports coaches are paid above the median for all sports at that institution). There is court cases that affirm that premise: http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/she-network/education/huge-title-ix-victory-today-in-quinnipiac-university-case The women's coaches of hockey, basketball, and volleyball are all paid above the median for all coaches at UND. I don't know their salaries, but would assume the soccer, softball, swimming, x-country, and track are paid less than the median (but some have both men's and women's responsibilities). One also has to take into account the assistants pay in all sports. Quote
sioux rube Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 http://undhockey.areavoices.com/?p=91311 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.