President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[Nodak78]

1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

So is there anything to this?  Has REA suggested WIH move out?  Or just speculation?  Not attacking, actually interested.

If they suggested it would be done.

[UNDBIZ]

Just now, Nodak78 said:

If they suggested it would be done.

Not necessarily.  Irle may have replied with "WIH is very prestigious and has Olympians.  They're not going to play in a high school rink."

[Nodak78]

9 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Yup. "Talk is cheap; it takes money to buy whiskey." 

In my case beer.  I don't have deep pockets.  most of my pockets have holes.  so I guess we can just drink whiskey and beer and whine about it.

[jdub27]

Women's hockey is protected because they offset the funding of the men's hockey team. The level the men's hockey team is funded to ranks very high related to other schools that offer it. Because of the "tiering" portion of Title IX, there needs to be a women's sport that is funded at a similar level related to other institutions (see below). As bad as it is, women's hockey participation/scholarship number is very close to the men's team so the offset is just one sport instead of multiple and is unfortunately probably the least worst option. When you start looking at the funding that would be required to put other women's sports in the top tier to offset hockey, the dollar amounts become staggering when looking at what some of the P5 schools spend on women's programs. In women's hockey, there isn't a ton of huge schools that are dumping money in and it is easier for UND to be towards the top tier.

That being said, not allocating any expenses of the REA to women's hockey severely understates the funding they receive and is a complete joke. That needs to be fixed and then the budget for the program re-evaluated to see if there are room for some cost cutting because there is zero doubt in my mind that the WIH budget is too high.

Quote

The underlying concept of tiering is that it enables institutions to treat the teams within each tier on an equitable basis, but it also allows the institution to treat each tier differently. This approach is particularly helpful in an era of limited and often shrinking budgets. By approaching the institutional support of the various teams in this manner, there is a logical and justifiable basis for the differing levels of support that are provided from tier to tier. In many respects, the formalization of these types of systems and the open discussion of where the teams are placed within the respective tiers enables the team members, their supporters and the collegiate community as a whole to understand that their team support levels are neither arbitrary nor unfair.

....

In any tiering process, each tier should at least theoretically be composed of the same percentage of each gender’s student-athlete participation ratios. In other words, if 33 percent of the male student-athletes are in the top tier, then 33 percent of the female student-athletes should be there, as well.

 

[Siouxphan27]

Did any speakers last night even hint at the elephant in the room?  Or did they just stay on the topic of their own sport?

[Oxbow6]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

Part of the issue is that this situation was left behind by at least one prior administration:

When the decision was made to go DI it was clear that a 21 sport department was not sustainable. At that time a former UND Athletics administrator (during the Kupchella tenure) told an assembly of 21 coaches to look around and that in five to ten years about five of them would be gone. Nobody wanted to do what needed to be done. 

Roll it forward ten years and, well, we're in the process of taking 21 down to 16. 

Ed Schafer, unlike Kupchella or Kelley, started the process. Now Kennedy is left to deal with the rest of it. 

 

To your last sentence not sure how Kennedy can feel comfortable with the ways things have transpired especially after last night's debacle.  It is mess he needs to clean up but it is also his responsibility as to how the clean up goes...........and it has not gone well.

[Tangolou]

1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said:

I'd just like to preface this by saying the committee should not have had the coaches/athletes present like this.  This was an ego stroking measure for Kenville, plain and simple.  I don't blame Kennedy for asking the IAC to look into athletics (IT'S THEIR PURPOSE).  He had been on the job for 2 months and shouldn't have been expected to already know the IAC was lead by an idiot.  I do think Kennedy should have shown some leadership by putting a stop to it before the coaches had to beg for their sports.

With that said, it's apparent the Herald was going to pitch a fit regardless of how the process went.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4134713-tom-miller-meeting-needs-matter#.V_21lF9oMYk.twitter

Does anybody know where Tom's article appeared in the paper? Was it in the opinion section? Because that's where it belongs. I for one am getting tired of every so called news outlet giving opinions 24/7. This article is nothing more than opinions from Tom and apparently some people that Tom talked to. Why does every journalist nowadays want change the world instead of just reporting the f'n news..

[cowboys5xsbs]

People need to realize that w Hockey is protected by title 9 and as much as it sucks we can't really cut it because we have nothing to replace it.  

[Oxbow6]

6 minutes ago, cowboys5xsbs said:

People need to realize that w Hockey is protected by title 9 and as much as it sucks we can't really cut it because we have nothing to replace it.  

Really?  Then why are women's soccer and softball on the chopping block? Essentially the same number of kids per roster.

[UNDvince97-01]

1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said:

So is there anything to this?  Has REA suggested WIH move out?  Or just speculation?  Not attacking, actually interested.

There's a lot to both.

To the first point about the potential of womens hockey:  It is my opinion that has already been proven.  We have since ceased ticketing for home games for womens hockey.  I think that speaks volumes about the general program interest and financial potential.  The peak has come and gone.

To the 2nd point:  No you will ever read or see anyone from REA publicly state that on the record.  But it's true.  Just have to take it at face value I guess.  From a business standpoint, there is no incentive for the REA to house, staff and administer that program.  It is a black hole for them - and that is fact.

Again, womens hockey expense is north of 2 million on an annual basis (everyone can just ignore the "cooked books" number of 1.4 like myself and others here have always said).

The fear-mongering fallacy of Title IX compliance being the sole purpose and reason why we cannot cut womens hockey obviously has won out.  Congrats to Daniella Irle and Sue Jeno.

It could have (fact) and should have (opinion) been cut, but it wasn't. 

[The Sicatoka]

17 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Really?  Then why are women's soccer and softball on the chopping block? Essentially the same number of kids per roster.

It's not just participants but the tiering (see jdub above). 

[UNDBIZ]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

Women's hockey is protected because they offset the funding of the men's hockey team. The level the men's hockey team is funded to ranks very high related to other schools that offer it. Because of the "tiering" portion of Title IX, there needs to be a women's sport that is funded at a similar level related to other institutions (see below). As bad as it is, women's hockey participation/scholarship number is very close to the men's team so the offset is just one sport instead of multiple and is unfortunately probably the least worst option. When you start looking at the funding that would be required to put other women's sports in the top tier to offset hockey, the dollar amounts become staggering when looking at what some of the P5 schools spend on women's programs. In women's hockey, there isn't a ton of huge schools that are dumping money in and it is easier for UND to be towards the top tier.

That being said, not allocating any expenses of the REA to women's hockey severely understates the funding they receive and is a complete joke. That needs to be fixed and then the budget for the program re-evaluated to see if there are room for some cost cutting because there is zero doubt in my mind that the WIH budget is too high.

Why do we comply with every tier of Title IX when other schools just pick one to comply with?

[Oxbow6]

8 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

It's not just participants but the tiering (see jdub above). 

Trust me I get all that but as UNDvince stated the fear-mongering of Title IX compliance has blinded those involved with what needed to be done...and as one that has been labeled a "hockey only" fan here on multiple occasions the women's program needs to go if this is truly a financially driven issue.

[The Sicatoka]

8 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Why do we comply with every tier of Title IX when other schools just pick one to comply with?

Don't confuse the three prongs (comply with one) with tiering. No matter which compliance method you choose you have to follow tiering. 

Tiering in a nutshell: Just because you have 50%M and 50%W student body and 50%M and 50%W student athletes (complying with prong one), it's not enough. If you have one sport for one sex eating filet mignon and flying first class and using always new equipment and all of the other sex's teams eating Raman and riding buses and using hand-me-downs you're violating Title IX. 

[UND-1]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

Don't confuse the three prongs (comply with one) with tiering. No matter which compliance method you choose you have to follow tiering. 

Tiering in a nutshell: Just because you have 50%M and 50%W student body and 50%M and 50%W student athletes, it's not enough. If you have one sport for one sex eating filet mignon and flying first class and using always new equipment and all of the other sex's teams eating Raman and riding buses and using hand-me-downs you're violating Title IX. 

Can they start serving Filet Mignon to the volleyball and basketball teams?

[The Sicatoka]

Just now, UND-1 said:

Can they start serving Filet Mignon to the volleyball and basketball teams?

Sure, but what about travel and equipment and other obvious expense equity checks for auditors (or SJWs). 

[fightingsioux4life]

42 minutes ago, cowboys5xsbs said:

People need to realize that w Hockey is protected by title 9 and as much as it sucks we can't really cut it because we have nothing to replace it.  

What about Division I Men's Hockey schools who don't sponsor Women's Hockey? Why aren't they in Title IX purgatory?

[UNDBIZ]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Sure, but what about travel and equipment and other obvious expense equity checks for auditors (or SJWs). 

Start giving WBB those perks too.....?  Seems like a winner.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Mentioned this B4. The Raplh owns the building and manages the building, not the soil. UND get's the building after the 30 years and with that the Ralph management dissloves.  The sport teams are UND's. There has to be some kind of an agreement to make all this work, which seems to be kept from the public. I've heard from the beginning that this building was built to house UND men's and women's hockey. We didn't even have women's hockey yet. Getting ride of women's hockey may not even be an option for 14+ years. It does help with Title IX.

[UND-1]

17 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Sure, but what about travel and equipment and other obvious expense equity checks for auditors (or SJWs). 

Those two don't travel to expensive locations or need more budget when it comes to recruiting, etc?

[dlsiouxfan]

7 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

Mentioned this B4. The Raplh owns the building and manages the building, not the soil. UND get's the building after the 30 years and with that the Ralph management dissloves.  The sport teams are UND's. There has to be some kind of an agreement to make all this work, which seems to be kept from the public. I've heard from the beginning that this building was built to house UND men's and women's hockey. We didn't even have women's hockey yet. Getting ride of women's hockey may not even be an option for 14+ years. It does help with Title IX.

That may be so but typically when agreements have adverse impacts to both parties they are changed or ignored.  I don't think either REA or UND would sue the other party for dropping women's hockey if ultimately it is beneficial to both parties.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Just now, dlsiouxfan said:

That may be so but typically when agreements have adverse impacts to both parties they are changed or ignored.  I don't think either REA or UND would sue the other party for dropping women's hockey if ultimately it is beneficial to both parties.

There has to be a big reason for not letting the IAC have the women's hockey coach come in and beg for his job.

[UNDBIZ]

1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

There has to be a big reason for not letting the IAC have the women's hockey coach come in and beg for his job.

I believe it rhymes with Garvin Dindows.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

6 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

I believe it rhymes with Garvin Dindows.

You get an "A" for today, that is a good one and valid.  There many be a combination of many reasons used to not let the IAC at women's hockey.

[jdub27]

40 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Start giving WBB those perks too.....?  Seems like a winner.

I thought something similar until I started looking into the numbers. Volleyball is the first one I thought of. Back of the napkin example (and again there are a lot more factors than this): Men's hockey is likely in the top 10% of funding, if not higher. That would mean VB would need to be top 30 in spending in D-1. That would require UND to spend around $1.6 million+ on volleyball, which means UND would need to add almost $1 million to its volleyball budget. The only issue is that Volleyball is 12 scholarships and MIH is 18, so you still need to find another (smaller) sport to fund at a higher level to get the proportionality down.

If you wanted to do basketball, the WBB budget would likely need to be around $3.8 million, which is an increase of over $2.5 million (and you still might be short a couple scholarships, but maybe close enough at 18 and 15).

This makes it clear that it is definitely possible to eliminate women's hockey, but it probably doesn't save the amount of money that everyone (myself included) thinks/hopes it would in the grand scheme of things. And again, this is all separate from the fact that WIH needs to a)have a budget accurately reflects what they are getting and b)looking at taking a little bit of haircut once the accurate numbers are figured.