UNDvince97-01 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I see our resident Title IX bully SWA and Sue Jeno are on the IAC committee... So there's that... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 6 hours ago, UNDBIZ said: Just cutting women's hockey would get us well past the $1.4 million. We'd be able to properly invest in M&W BB then. Sorry but it's not happening. People need to understand this. **Title IX** 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDvince97-01 Posted August 25, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, TRex said: Sorry but it's not happening. People need to understand this. **Title IX** People also need to understand that Title IX is not an issue when discussing dropping womens hockey. You can drop womens hockey and still be Title IX compliant. There are many ways to make that happen. That is a well-engineered fallacy that has been driven home and presented as fact by people who have an agenda. EDIT: I mentioned two of them previously in a post in this thread. Schaefer fell for it, lets see if Kennedy does again. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Just now, TRex said: Sorry but it's not happening. People need to understand this. **Title IX** What part of Title IX would prevent WIH from being cut? There are places to reallocate scholarships any cut women's scholarships to and UND is more than compliant in multiple areas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, jdub27 said: What part of Title IX would prevent WIH from being cut? There are places to reallocate scholarships any cut women's scholarships to and UND is more than compliant in multiple areas. Hide and watch. WH isn't going anywhere. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, TRex said: Hide and watch. WH isn't going anywhere. Which is the problem. There will be a hidden agenda somewhere saving certain sports that need not be saved. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 There seems to be a wide range of opinions on here from our Title IX experts. Are there any NCAA compliance officers that can clarify UND's standing on this issue? Just me speculating, but I'd think that dropping men's baseball and men's golf puts UND in a better position vis-a-vis Title IX than UND was at this time last year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, UNDvince97-01 said: People also need to understand that Title IX is not an issue when discussing dropping womens hockey. You can drop womens hockey and still be Title IX compliant. There are many ways to make that happen. That is a well-engineered fallacy that has been driven home as presented as fact by people who have an agenda. So much this ^^^^^ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, TRex said: Hide and watch. WH isn't going anywhere. Someone really needs to explain why. Based on numbers and support it can't be justified when stacked against other women's sports. Title IX excuse isn't the reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux63 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Faison met with women's soccer last night to explain that all sports were on the table. He possibly met with other sports? My understanding is that two years ago women's soccer almost got cut. The players have complained to Faison and Irle for a couple of years on some very questionable tactics by the head coach. Most schools would have fired him by now. Quite possibly soccer could get cut to eliminate a problem and future complaints. Personally I would hate to see it go. I just don't see them cutting w hockey no matter the financial strain and I'm not a women's hockey fan. I see 3-4 sports being cut and WH stays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Sioux63 said: Faison met with women's soccer last night to explain that all sports were on the table. He possibly met with other sports? My understanding is that two years ago women's soccer almost got cut. The players have complained to Faison and Irle for a couple of years on some very questionable tactics by the head coach. Most schools would have fired him by now. Quite possibly soccer could get cut to eliminate a problem and future complaints. Personally I would hate to see it go. I just don't see them cutting w hockey no matter the financial strain and I'm not a women's hockey fan. I see 3-4 sports being cut and WH stays. Oh really? That is not a good sign as Soccer is just more 'easy pickings' for him and Kennedy. If they don't address the elephant in the room we will know there are forces behind the scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 15 hours ago, TRex said: Hide and watch. WH isn't going anywhere. You could very well be right but I can't see any reason why Title IX will be the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I guess we really do not have a soccer facility as a patch of grass does not count as a facility. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Just now, UNDColorado said: I guess we really do not have a soccer facility as a patch of grass does not count as a facility. Which works against them as facilties are supposed to be somewhat equal. That field looks bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpnelson Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, jdub27 said: You could very well be right but I can't see a reason that Title IX is the reason why. To my understanding; facilities, or quality of facilities available to said sports, is apart of Title IX (it's not a great understanding). You'd have to make the Ralph's facilities open for some other women sport(s), otherwise there would be a large discrepancy in quality of facilities offered. I'm sure it's more complicated than than that, but that, along with the money thing and scholarship thing, are taken into large account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDvince97-01 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I think there's a huge misunderstanding by most people regarding Title IX because quite frankly it has been sold as such. UND does not have to meet every single prong and criteria for compliance - they have chosen to. They could easily drop womens hockey and meet 2 of the 3 prong criteria at minimum. There would be no issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiSioux Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Just a question but how much is COLA going to cost us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakhoops Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ericpnelson said: To my understanding; facilities, or quality of facilities available to said sports, is apart of Title IX (it's not a great understanding). You'd have to make the Ralph's facilities open for some other women sport(s), otherwise there would be a large discrepancy in quality of facilities offered. I'm sure it's more complicated than than that, but that, along with the money thing and scholarship thing, are taken into large account. If this is the case drop Whcky, and give WBB a fat budget with good amenities. They have had success, had seasons of drawing 3000 plus fans a game, bring in good revenue for a women's sport and have won 3 national titles and the list goes on. After seeing those numbers on women's hockey I don't see how anyone with any common sense doesn't cut that. Hopefully some on this committee do. I have confidence in Lowell Schweigert, after that we'll see. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, ericpnelson said: To my understanding; facilities, or quality of facilities available to said sports, is apart of Title IX (it's not a great understanding). You'd have to make the Ralph's facilities open for some other women sport(s), otherwise there would be a large discrepancy in quality of facilities offered. I'm sure it's more complicated than than that, but that, along with the money thing and scholarship thing, are taken into large account. Doesn't UND lease the Ralph, just like the Alerus? Regardless, if UND needs to make the Ralph available for women's sports wouldn't UND need to open the Alerus to other women's sports for the same reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, WiSioux said: Just a question but how much is COLA going to cost us? Around 700-750K I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 6 hours ago, bincitysioux said: Seems like a simple three component process to me. 1) If the Big Sky doesn't sponsor it, there is no need for North Dakota to offer it, save for mens hockey of course. Goodbye Women's hockey, and M&W Swimming & Diving. 2) If the Big Sky doesn't require it, there is no need for North Dakota to offer it. Goodbye Soccer and Softball. 3) Fully fund every scholarship in all women's sports to address Title IX concerns. If that still falls short, then you look at keeping Soccer and/or Softball. you need to be on the committee!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 3 hours ago, UNDBIZ said: There are 2 women's teams playing sports people can actually enjoy watching in a building connected to the Ralph who could be given access to the private chef and all the perks.... FYP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post geaux_sioux Posted August 25, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 25, 2016 The solution to this problem is beyond obvious. Cut womens hockey. Boost both basketballs and volleyball. Those three can actually put butts in seats and create revenue. Womens hockey is a black hole filled with empty dreams and no revenue, that sport just sucks. Grand Forks is a mens/boys hockey town, not a womens hockey town. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Was Lowell or anyone else on this committee on the nickname committee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Well, I contacted the committee member I know personally and gave them my two cents as to which sport should be cut... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.