Cutting Sports: Round 2

[Oxbow6]

4 minutes ago, Irish said:

Notice that all of the added layer of upper level administrators seem to be safe from cuts - pathetic.

 

This......^^^

[jdub27]

On 1/31/2017 at 4:18 PM, jdub27 said:

@Goon - Can you lay out why WIH shouldn't be cut instead of just being offended that people think it is the most logical cut. The reasons why it should definitely be considered have been laid out, I'm curious why you don't think it should be on the table.

@Goon now I'm just calling you out because you're ignoring answering the question despite posting on other topics here and then continuing to comment about this on twitter and on top of it, trying to send one of the biggest Duluth trolls out there to do it for you. If you're going to be vocal in your defense, state your case instead of taking pot shots at those who have laid out legitimate arguments on a different platform.  

 

 

[Goon]

44 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

@Goon now I'm just calling you out because you're ignoring answering the question despite continuing to comment about it on twitter and in top of it, trying to send one of the biggest Duluth trolls out there to do it for you. If your going to be vocal in your defense, state your case instead of taking pot shots. 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey willy nilly.

I would suggest that these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

[AJS]

21 minutes ago, Goon said:

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey just willy nilly.

I would suggest thafinincialt these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

It's hard to comprehend this post, do you think UND is looking at cutting sports just for fun? You do realize the budget crisis that North Dakota / UND is facing, right? Sports need to be cut. Lets get back to neutral and try again with your post taking those facts in hand. 

I can accept that you covering the team and as a fan of the sport you don't want it cut, but don't act like everyone here just wants Women's hockey to be cut, just because it would be fun. That's not the case. People are brainstorming ways (like Kennedy is doing) to figure out the most logical way out of this financial situation. 

[Hardcore Hawk]

20 minutes ago, Goon said:

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

This seems like a stretch.

[Tangolou]

27 minutes ago, Goon said:

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey just willy nilly.

I would suggest that these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

I know I'm sounding a little like the "common man" but first off, national outcry? You think the entire nation cares about UND women's hockey? And second, "major women's sport?" This should be entered into the proposterus statement tournament.

Personally, I think if they can find almost as much savings cutting M/W swimming as women's hockey, as has been mentioned here, I'd cut the swimming. North Dakota is more of a hockey place than a swimming place.

Your talk of national prominence with this major woman's sport is a little over the top. The fact that no one outside the sports information director can name a freshman on the team should have been your first clue.

[jdub27]

10 hours ago, Goon said:

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey just willy nilly.

I would suggest that these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

You need to reiterate your stance because your seem absolutely bewildered that a sport that gives around 20 student athletes an opportunity at college should be allowed to lose over $2 million/year, yet it shouldn't be in the discussion for being eliminated. Many of the people who are against it have laid out the numbers on why and it isn't willy nilly. It is because the cost per participant and ROI are beyond a joke. 

I've watched games and attend since. I didn't need to spend a few bucks to do it because I got in free. It's a fun way to kill a few hours some weekend. That doesn't mean it makes sense for UND's athletic department and current budget situation. When they miss the tournament this year, that will make them 2 out of 15 in making the national tournament in a sport that takes the top 8 out of 30 (I'll will concede the rankings in women's hockey is broke). 

It isn't hard to explain that when you've already cut two men's sports recently and your athletic department is leaning so heavy against men's sports that they could have a legitimate Title IV issue, that maybe a women's sport should be cut. Since the mid-90s, UND has cut three men's sport (wrestling, baseball and golf, though currently saved by outside funding), added one men's sport (tennis) and added four women's sports (golf, tennis, soccer and hockey) for a net difference of -2 to +4 (since golf is not paid for by the university). If people want to scream about that, than they can feel free to look like idiots while the sane people look at the numbers. And if you think the would be "national" outcry then you need to step outside the REA press box and take a look at the real world. EDIT - Should add that Football did add scholarships, so on the men's side it is probably closer to even since the mid-90s, while the women's side has added 4.

Despite all this, I still think they'll be saved and continue to be a giant anchor on the athletics department budget. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

5 hours ago, Westside said:

Not lobbying for Women's Hockey in anyway (I think it should be the first to go) but.... the 3rd prong of Title IX deals with equal treatment...

It states for facilities...

Being REA provides a word-class facility for the men's program w/ state-of-the-art locker room, training rooms, team lounges, meeting rooms, weight rooms, etc. etc. Does eliminating women's hockey mean there is are no women's programs with access to "comparable facilities"??? Is that a reason that women's hockey hasn't been discussed as a possible cut at this point? 

Just asking a question... If any Title IX "experts"  can provide info on this???

 

I'm also not lobbying for WH, although it may seem to some on this board that I am, because I've been making many comments about why we will continue to have WH.  And I'll add, that I do not mind that we have WH.

UND funds both Hockey teams at the highest levels with the big schools in the NCAA, top level of Div I.  They share near the best building and facilities within. UND isn’t even close to that type of support for any other sport.

Hypothetical again:

If UND cut WH, I would think to stay compliant with Title IX, they would have to choose a women’s sport and fund it comparably with the best  in the country. That would be funding that sport at the caliber of the top funding Universities in that particular sport, including building and facilities within. We don't have the $ to make that happen. 

WH was in the plans from Day 1 with the palace and will not be chopped. It's part of the big plan for 14 more years.

[AJS]

28 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

I'm also not lobbying for WH, although it may seem to some on this board that I am, because I've been making many comments about why we will continue to have WH.  And I'll add, that I do not mind that we have WH.

UND funds both Hockey teams at the highest levels with the big schools in the NCAA, top level of Div I.  They share near the best building and facilities within. UND isn’t even close to that type of support for any other sport.

Hypothetical again:

If UND cut WH, I would think to stay compliant with Title IX, they would have to choose a women’s sport and fund it comparably with the best  in the country. That would be funding that sport at the caliber of the top funding Universities in that particular sport, including building and facilities within. We don't have the $ to make that happen. 

WH was in the plans from Day 1 with the palace and will not be chopped. It's part of the big plan for 14 more years.

Was in the plans from who? Ralph? I don't have enough information on the rest and you could be right and that's the reason it wasn't on the chopping block, but I can guarantee what I put in bold would not be the reason for keeping it.

[GDPritch]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 3:54 PM, Kab said:

Women's hockey has to go

No doubt as but doesn't title 9 prevent that although one poster said UND, in reference to it, is "over compliant" so perhaps...

[Siouhawk]

I have two intriguing questions:  1.  Who is funding men golf and why?   2.  Why is there no checking in women's hockey?  OK, technically that is three questions but who's counting?

[Siouxphan27]

Seems to be a lot of concern about having to keep women's hockey solely because of men's hockey.  How do the top notch football universities ever get in compliance with title IX?   My guess is they make sure they offer enough scholarships to offset in women's sports, and make sure their women's athletic facilities are nice.   End of story. 

Alabama for instance has a women's rowing team with 58 members on the roster.  I don't know if they're rowing for Carnival Cruise lines, but if not, 58 seems a bit excessive.  I'm thinking it's their way of offsetting football, giving equal scholarships to women.  It seems to work just fine for them. 

[GDPritch]

5 minutes ago, Siouhawk said:

I have two intriguing questions:  1.  Who is funding men golf and why?   2.  Why is there no checking in women's hockey?

#2 still greatly perplexes me.  It's women on women for crying out loud, let 'em freakin' check!  Speed/pace AND physicality is what makes hockey great in my mind! And I'm no male pig, I go to/enjoy UND women's hoops as much as men's hoops over the last 35 years.  I was raised on soccer as a young lad in Europe, coach girls youth soccer here, and go watch lady UND soccer matches cus it's the same game and I enjoy it.  But ice hockey, on the women's side, the game just ain't the same and I ain't buying it.       

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

3 hours ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

I'm also not lobbying for WH, although it may seem to some on this board that I am, because I've been making many comments about why we will continue to have WH.  And I'll add, that I do not mind that we have WH.

UND funds both Hockey teams at the highest levels with the big schools in the NCAA, top level of Div I.  They share near the best building and facilities within. UND isn’t even close to that type of support for any other sport.

Hypothetical again:

If UND cut WH, I would think to stay compliant with Title IX, they would have to choose a women’s sport and fund it comparably with the best  in the country. That would be funding that sport at the caliber of the top funding Universities in that particular sport, including building and facilities within. We don't have the $ to make that happen. 

WH was in the plans from Day 1 with the palace and will not be chopped. It's part of the big plan for 14 more years.

 

3 hours ago, AJS said:

Was in the plans from who? Ralph? I don't have enough information on the rest and you could be right and that's the reason it wasn't on the chopping block, but I can guarantee what I put in bold would not be the reason for keeping it.

The dream about the palace was all about MH and make $.. There was a group of very smart people (including Raplh) that visited the best rinks in the country and had very productive meetings. They gathered information (which included a must to start WH, cuz of Title IX & other reasons, to protect MH), and moved forward with a 30 year plan for UND Hockey, and The Raplh was built. There could be a book written about this, I'm trying to do it in a paragraph. 16 years later we have fans (not UND) talking about cutting WH.

[UND GUY]

3 hours ago, Goon said:

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey willy nilly.

I would suggest that these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

Lol once again a person in favor of women's hockey brings no substance to their pro women's hockey argument. 

They have really good FR? Going out on a limb. I bet when wrestling got cut in 97 or 98 they had a nice FR crop too. Bet a lot of people couldn't name them either. I'd guess same with baseball last year. How'd that argument work?

People don't see how awesome their FR are because they don't care. 15+ years of data proves that. Close your eyes and click your heals together all you want. Facts are facts.

Being a "journalist" (if you really want to state a compelling case and prove your "fan-dom", maybe wanna spell their HC's name correctly...) I'd hope you'd be able to form a better argument than that.

This isn't candy land. It's a real life, dollars & cents issue.

[homer]

2 hours ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

 

The dream about the palace was all about MH and make $.. There was a group of very smart people (including Raplh) that visited the best rinks in the country and had very productive meetings. They gathered information (which included a must to start WH, cuz of Title IX & other reasons, to protect MH), and moved forward with a 30 year plan for UND Hockey, and The Raplh was built. There could be a book written about this, I'm trying to do it in a paragraph. 16 years later we have fans (not UND) talking about cutting WH.

Wasn't women's hockey started after local youth girls hockey club raised a stink about opportunity?  The school formed a committee (go figure) to look at the costs and knew at that time (late 90s?) it would be a challenge.  I don't recall Ralph being a part of that. 

[UND-1]

If I understand this right, Goon finds it unfathomable to suggest that WH should be dropped.  

But it is OK for us to suggest Soccer, Softball or Swimming and Diving.  

Something is getting cut.  WH should at least be in the discussion based on $.  If they can legitimize it's existence over other sports, so be it.  But they better explain it to us.

The problem I see with cutting other lower sports is the Summit sponsors all of them.  Would make a nice home for Tennis, S&D, Soccer, etc.

[UND-1]

8 hours ago, Goon said:

I am not sure why you think I need to reiterate my opinion on Women's hockey. I've covered their program for five years.  It's pretty clear where I stand. I am not sure what you're calling a pot shot? I do find it puzzling that a handful of posters on here just want to cut women's hockey willy nilly.

I would suggest that these same fans spend a few bucks and actually go see the program that you're attacking. Can you name three freshmen players from this team without looking at the roster? Since you probably haven't seen a woman's game this season's UND's freshman class is really exciting and talented. Minus the twins, probably one of Idahlski's best. 

It's not that easy. Can you imagine that national outcry if UND cut a major woman's sport? I would be seen as cutting a woman's sport to re-allocate money to a man's sport. I am dead serious. Our university doesn't need the bad publicity. 

To sum it up: you like women's hockey, people will go nuts if they cut it.  Great defense of the program right there.  Absolutely nothing about their budget and what percentage it is of our entire athletic department.

Also, your comment about not being able to cut a women's sport is horrible.  The money wouldn't be reallocated at all, it would be gone and never spent again.  Called "cutting the budget".  

[gfhockey]

What company does goon cover women's hockey for?

 

the idalski can't put a good product on ice why go???

 

cut the budget a little bi bet bemidji spends less then us and gets same results

[darell1976]

1 hour ago, UND-1 said:

If I understand this right, Goon finds it unfathomable to suggest that WH should be dropped.  

But it is OK for us to suggest Soccer, Softball or Swimming and Diving.  

Something is getting cut.  WH should at least be in the discussion based on $.  If they can legitimize it's existence over other sports, so be it.  But they better explain it to us.

The problem I see with cutting other lower sports is the Summit sponsors all of them.  Would make a nice home for Tennis, S&D, Soccer, etc.

This!!!

[sprig]

Why pile on goon? Ultimately he will not decide what gets cut,  and what doesn't.  He likes women's hockey,  as do others.  Many here do not.  

[gfhockey]

I just want their budget cut in half. We can get the same results. Look at bemidji

[UNDBIZ]

6 minutes ago, gfhockey said:

I just want their budget cut in half. We can get the same results. Look at bemidji

Seeing as it's incredibly unlikely Kennedy will cut the sport completely, this is looking like the best option.  Cut their current budget in half and then use legitimate accounting to attribute a portion of the REA costs to WIH to cut off the Title IX complaints before they start.  Cut the coaching staff budget by at least half and the recruiting budget by 75%.  Focus recruiting on North Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

[petey23]

8 hours ago, Siouxphan27 said:

Seems to be a lot of concern about having to keep women's hockey solely because of men's hockey.  How do the top notch football universities ever get in compliance with title IX?   My guess is they make sure they offer enough scholarships to offset in women's sports, and make sure their women's athletic facilities are nice.   End of story. 

Alabama for instance has a women's rowing team with 58 members on the roster.  I don't know if they're rowing for Carnival Cruise lines, but if not, 58 seems a bit excessive.  I'm thinking it's their way of offsetting football, giving equal scholarships to women.  It seems to work just fine for them. 

I said this a couple months ago. I would bet money that there are a couple ladies on the rowing teams at Minnesota and Iowa who probably are not even aware they are on the team.

[Oxbow6]

Kind of a tangent but found this interesting in the Fargo Forum this morning............NDSU's recruiting class for women's soccer consisted of 8 ladies with 5 of those were from Canada. Guess UND women's hockey recruiting from outside the US is not such a big deal after seeing this.

Now back on topic........................IMO women's hockey needs to be in the main discussion of a sport to go.