UND to cut women's hockey

[nodakvindy]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm no attorney, but in my fast read it felt like the appeals court brought into question much of the "three prong" approach used for Title IX compliance, and I don't mean just here, but in general as they kept going past that to prior documents and guidance and rulings. 

If this ends up putting "three prong" in question, this could rock college athletics nearly as hard as OU/UT to the SEC. 

And there you have it.

 

[SWSiouxMN]

So basically don't expect an answer to this problem until 20-whatever. 

[Oxbow6]

Can I still buy Lammy twins Olympic fundraising t-shirts??

[cberkas]

Sounds like this will find its way the the SCOTUS. 

[UNDColorado]

On 8/13/2019 at 2:05 PM, UNDColorado said:

This thread is like herpes...every so often, out of nowhere, it pops up to say hello.

Bump.

[The Sicatoka]

On 8/13/2019 at 3:05 PM, UNDColorado said:

This thread is like herpes...every so often, out of nowhere, it pops up to say hello.

And how are you familiar with this?

No.

Wait.

Don't answer.

Don't wanna know. 

[SWSiouxMN]

16 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Sounds like this will find its way the the SCOTUS. 

So then who blinks first?  It can’t go on for that long, it has been a 4 year lawsuit (I think) so far 
 

[The Sicatoka]

Over on USCHO the speculation is the worst party in this is US DoEd (and the OCR in DoEd). The Eighth, in this ruling, called them out by asking "is three prong" really all there is or is the prior (1979) guidance still in effect. 

That answer could really cause more ripples in college athletics than there are already. 

This latest conversation starts here: 
https://fanforum.uscho.com/forum/college-hockey/women-s-college-hockey/3668518-title-ix-is-49-today?p=3676118#post3676118

[The Sicatoka]

25 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

So then who blinks first?  It can’t go on for that long, it has been a 4 year lawsuit (I think) so far 
 

Good question.

Better question? --> Who's funding this appeal? 

[cberkas]

44 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Good question.

Better question? --> Who's funding this appeal? 

The players is what I’m guessing

[Hawkster]

4 hours ago, cberkas said:

The players is what I’m guessing

That would be a pretty good guess.  I can't imagine any lawyer taking the case on a contingency.   This case is going to drag on for years yet before (assuming the girls win) anyone sees a dollar.

[nodak651]

12 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Over on USCHO the speculation is the worst party in this is US DoEd (and the OCR in DoEd). The Eighth, in this ruling, called them out by asking "is three prong" really all there is or is the prior (1979) guidance still in effect. 

That answer could really cause more ripples in college athletics than there are already. 

This latest conversation starts here: 
https://fanforum.uscho.com/forum/college-hockey/women-s-college-hockey/3668518-title-ix-is-49-today?p=3676118#post3676118

Thanks for the link.  The person who wrote the post that you linked to makes a lot of sense, but I'm pretty sure he is wrong about the former players making any argument, thus far, in regard to the 1979 interpretation.  Whether or not that matters, I don't know, but I just want to make sure the facts are correct.  I do agree with his opinion of the possible outcomes.

On a separate note, UND seems to have already been cleared by the Department of Education's OCR in an investigation about this, which implies that the 1979 interpretation in regard to the separate teams rule is no longer relevant, imo.  Or at the very least, it will make this very difficult for the plaintiffs to successfully argue.

I found the text below, from the third opinion, to be very interesting:

"This 1979 separate-teams mandate has largely disappeared from public view
since it was issued. No court has relied on the mandate to find liability under Title
IX. Neither the complaint nor the parties on appeal point to any instance in which the
government has enforced the separate-teams mandate. According to the University,
the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated a complaint that
discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program violated Title IX, but closed its
investigation without alleging a violation. By contrast, the Department repeatedly has
addressed how an institution may comply with obligations under Title IX by meeting
the Department’s three-part test.8"

"Nor has the University yet presented evidence about OCR’s
inquiry into the discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program. If it turns out
that the Department were to abandon the separate-teams mandate, and clarify
definitively that the “effective accommodation” inquiry is limited to the three-part test
and quality of competition, then that would change the complexion of this case. Or
if the Department retains the separate-teams mandate “on paper” in a 43-year-old
policy interpretation, but as a practical matter does not enforce the mandate, then
there may be a serious question about whether the mandate is really a valid regulatory
interpretation that provides a basis for civil liability or attorney’s fees in private
litigation brought under an implied right of action."

"Even if it ends up that the 1979 separate-teams mandate is a current and
reasonable interpretation of § 106.41(c)(1), there is also a question of fair notice to
the University. If the agency’s public pronouncements and enforcement activity have
muddied the waters to the point where an institution is unable to identify the rules
with “ascertainable certainty,” then the University may have a defense to liability and
attorney’s fees based on due process. See Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau
Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2013); Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53
F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (D.C. Cir. 1995). But such a defense would not establish at this
point that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim." 

[nodak651]

This is the 1979 interpretation that is now relevant in this case:

4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports.
In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex.
a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
(1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
(2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.

 

What is the ratio of D1 mens and womens hockey players to youth hockey players of each respective sex?  Assuming there is a higher % of D1 womens hockey players (compared to men), relative to youth participation, could UND successfully make the argument that opportunities have not been limited for women in D1 hockey?

[Goon]

Chuck Haga penned this editorial in today's paper. 

 

Quote

 

A day or two after UND announced in March 2017 that it was eliminating the women’s hockey team, Charly Dahlquist was in her usual spot in my classroom in Merrifield Hall.

She was the latest in a long string of women hockey players to come through that class, and like those who had preceded her she was a good student: bright, attentive, curious. She and the others had made me a fan on the ice, too, with their strength, agility, talent and grit.

As that class ended, I asked Charly to stay for a moment, and I asked her, “How are you doing?”

She burst into tears.

The decision, and the sloppy, clumsy way it was announced – with the team on the ice, practicing, and a recruit standing by – was devastating.

And it was wrong.

The university pleaded economic necessity. Travel and equipment costs for a hockey team are high. Ticket sales for the women’s games had always lagged far behind revenue generated by the men’s team.

All true.

But UND … UND hockey … tradition …

And equity.

 

 

[jdub27]

Not a single comment about baeball or swimming & diving? Programs that actually had a history and tradition? 

And glad to hear Chuck is hoping UND is anchored with a huge financial burden. 

[Sioux>Bison]

12 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Not a single comment about baeball or swimming & diving? Programs that actually had a history and tradition? 

And glad to hear Chuck is hoping UND is anchored with a huge financial burden. 

Kennedy did the right thing for the university. Cuts to academics should always come after all available cuts to athletics. Academics should be the focus and priority 

[bison73]

4 hours ago, Goon said:

Chuck Haga penned this editorial in today's paper. 

 

 

Did Biden have anything to do with it?????

[Rebel_Sioux]

3 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Not a single comment about baeball or swimming & diving? Programs that actually had a history and tradition? 

And glad to hear Chuck is hoping UND is anchored with a huge financial burden. 

I agree that this often gets neglected and like women's hockey, the argument that native North Dakotans don't have an opportunity to compete within the state anymore. However like women's hockey, it was a very expensive sport to maintain. 

Long term, the squeaky wheel gets the wheel. I suspect sometime in the future (I have no idea or guess as to win), UND will bring Women's hockey back. I'd be surprised if the same is true of swimming and diving. 

[SWSiouxMN]

9 minutes ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

I agree that this often gets neglected and like women's hockey, the argument that native North Dakotans don't have an opportunity to compete within the state anymore. However like women's hockey, it was a very expensive sport to maintain. 

Long term, the squeaky wheel gets the wheel. I suspect sometime in the future (I have no idea or guess as to win), UND will bring Women's hockey back. I'd be surprised if the same is true of swimming and diving. 

I just have a hard time believing, with all the bad blood spilled, that the University is going to give in and say:  okay, we will bring back the team.

 

[cberkas]

17 hours ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

I agree that this often gets neglected and like women's hockey, the argument that native North Dakotans don't have an opportunity to compete within the state anymore. However like women's hockey, it was a very expensive sport to maintain. 

Long term, the squeaky wheel gets the wheel. I suspect sometime in the future (I have no idea or guess as to win), UND will bring Women's hockey back. I'd be surprised if the same is true of swimming and diving. 

Wasn't happening when the school has a "tone-deaf" coach that wouldn't recruit local player unless they moved away.

[sioux rube]

10 hours ago, cberkas said:

Wasn't happening when the school has a "tone-deaf" coach that would recruit local player unless they moved away.

Bingo 

[jdub27]

14 hours ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

Long term, the squeaky wheel gets the wheel. I suspect sometime in the future (I have no idea or guess as to win), UND will bring Women's hockey back.

Well, the good news is there is a D1 university in the state who bases their athletic offerings on what students would like to participate in. Seems like a much easier route than a pointless lawsuit. 

[Benny Baker]

22 hours ago, Goon said:

Chuck Haga penned this editorial in today's paper. 

 

 

Really hate the "sloppy, clumsy way it was announced - with the team on the ice, practicing" narrative.  NCAA allowed one hour of organized practice time per week.  Everyone saw the writing on the wall and knew the date and time the announcement was going to be made.  Idalski knowingly scheduled that one hour practice at the exact same time the announcement was going to be made. He did it for optics and to throw egg on his employer's face.  Shame on him.

And yeah, UND (men's) hockey has a great tradition, which makes it all the more embarrassing that despite that tradition, the hockey facilities, the heralded Lammy twins, and a parade of European Olympians, UND women's hockey never managed to win a single NCAA playoff game.  Ever.  EVER.

[ChesterFritz90]

2 hours ago, Benny Baker said:

...Idalski knowingly scheduled that one hour practice at the exact same time the announcement was going to be made. He did it for optics and to throw egg on his employer's face...

They also brought a recruit on campus knowing the announcement was getting made.

It wasn't coincidence, it was all very much on purpose.

Even if women's hockey did come back, the old coaching staff wouldn't be.

 

[90siouxfan]

Idalski ruined the program....   change my mind.