UND to cut women's hockey

[AJS]

27 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Let's just say by some miracle that they actually win the lawsuit against the NDUS.  Does the NDUS have the authority to tell UND what programs their athletic teams can and cannot sponsor?  

I'm sure it's an easy explanation, but I'm confused by this too. Why are they suing the NDUS and not UND directly?

Women's hockey at UND went from something that was background noise to something that I actively despise. My opinion obviously doesn't matter, but as someone who feels that the UND athletic department is much stronger without Women's hockey, I'm slightly worried about this. Always am when you're dealing with activists, logic or common sense doesn't apply in some situations (like this one).

I find some parallels to the Sioux nickname, where (at least I found) it to not be worth the headache anymore and I was happy when they moved on. This is very similar, will see how this goes, but will another group sue two years from now if this one doesn't go their way?

Of course you have the vocal minority throwing a parade over this lawsuit, but I'd be interested to see how this is perceived by most North Dakota residents. I wouldn't think most are thrilled that public dollars (I'm guessing) is going to be used to fight this.

[UNDColorado]

23 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

I don't want to get rid of football. My point is that football does lose a lot of money every year for UND.

With that in mind what is the real reason that women's hockey was cut?

And yes we did tailgate and we had a great time. Although I have to admit Pokes football is lot more fun to go to now than it was that year. LOL

Yeah I imagine the WYO games are much more exciting these days!

My answer for you question is not one answer. First of all we should have never been at 21 sports. That is too many for D1 and not sustainable. Texas for example, has the largest athletics budget and have 16 sports. Then add in lack of attendance and costs it was an obvious choice. Not popular of course, but the right financial decision in my opinion.

 

[tnt]

5 minutes ago, HawksHoops said:

I would think that NDUS could certainly counter for attorney fees, which could get high if this goes to court.  I'm wondering if non-students even have standing to bring the case and maybe that's why NDUS was targeted.  Seems like this case will be tossed by a judge before it goes very far.

That is if they don't get an activist judge. 

[jdub27]

I guess if UND were to lose (they shouldn't), they should just reinstate it as a club sport and call it good. There are other schools nearby who use that reasoning to "effectively accommodate student interests and abilities" and it seems to work.

[CMSioux]

The clueless continue to suggest that football be cut, but it is s required sport in most conferences so dropping it would put all women's sports without a conference, but they seem to be stuck in anger mode.

[AJS]

I know UND hired a Title IX firm and already had to deal with the OCR (?) who found them in compliance, so I'm not sure why this lawsuit would be any different. For discussion sake though, let's say UND is found to not be compliant, even if that was the case, there isn't any circumstance that would force UND to actually add Women's hockey back, correct? Couldn't they add another Women's team (that's much cheaper) or just add more scholarships / improve financial backing to current programs?

Like I mentioned, anytime you're dealing with activists, I get nervous, but I don't see any end game where UND is forced to bring back Women's hockey.

[UNDBIZ]

21 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Kelowna, British Columbia
Brandon, Manitoba
Eden Prairie, MN
Lakeville, MN
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Orivesi, Finland
Mankato, MN
Strathmore, Alberta
Penticon, British Columbia
Excelsior, MN
St. Louis, MN

Just want to point out where the people filing the lawsuit against the NDUS (or basically the state of North Dakota) reside, trying to force them to subsidize $2 million plus dollars per year so 25 girls not from North Dakota can play hockey. Ironically enough, there was actually 1 player from ND on the team at the time and she's not listed in the lawsuit even though she was a freshman at the time the program was cut.

This, along with the fact they all transferred out of UND once the program was cut, would seem to indicate UND's student body only has students "interested and able" in women's hockey when the school funds a women's hockey team.  Weird how that works.

EDIT:  I see Schloss has updated the article again to say "nearly all of them (team members) have since transferred to other schools".  Assuming since Rice is not identified as being at another school, she's still the one hanging around.  I can't blame other schools for not taking her as she's a huge lawsuit liability everywhere she goes.  I'd assume she's also the one behind this lawsuit, as she's the only UND student interested and able to compete in D1 women's hockey.

[nd jg]

So just a thought, Since they are suing NDUS, if they win, can NDUS place a hockey team at any of the state schools?  Could they put the team at Lake Region or some other school?

[Sioux>Bison]

5 hours ago, CMSioux said:

The clueless continue to suggest that football be cut, but it is s required sport in most conferences so dropping it would put all women's sports without a conference, but they seem to be stuck in anger mode.

How dare you make any common sense in this thread! You must be a sexist!

[Sioux>Bison]

I saw in an article in the Billings Gazette (front of their webpage) that they claim women's hockey was the "most prominent and popular sport" at UND. If that isn't insulting and egotistical then I don't know what is. Basketball and Volleyball are by far more popular and I would be insulted to be an athlete on one of those teams.

its the typical hockey snob syndrome like this that I cannot stand. Hockey players think they are better than everyone else (which is true for those like Boeser because he is actually superior). Hayduke must be one of them too.

[SiouxVolley]

11 minutes ago, Sioux>Bison said:

I saw in an article in the Billings Gazette (front of their webpage) that they claim women's hockey was the "most prominent and popular sport" at UND. If that isn't insulting and egotistical then I don't know what is. Basketball and Volleyball are by far more popular and I would be insulted to be an athlete on one of those teams.

its the typical hockey snob syndrome like this that I cannot stand. Hockey players think they are better than everyone else (which is true for those like Boeser because he is actually superior). Hayduke must be one of them too.

Here’s the link:

https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/players-from-defunct-north-dakota-women-s-hockey-program-file/article_f879e58b-0dd3-5fc3-98d3-56dab1c6e96f.html

[Siouxperfan7]

30 minutes ago, Sioux>Bison said:

I saw in an article in the Billings Gazette (front of their webpage) that they claim women's hockey was the "most prominent and popular sport" at UND. If that isn't insulting and egotistical then I don't know what is. Basketball and Volleyball are by far more popular and I would be insulted to be an athlete on one of those teams.

its the typical hockey snob syndrome like this that I cannot stand. Hockey players think they are better than everyone else (which is true for those like Boeser because he is actually superior). Hayduke must be one of them too.

 

18 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

Here’s the link:

https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/players-from-defunct-north-dakota-women-s-hockey-program-file/article_f879e58b-0dd3-5fc3-98d3-56dab1c6e96f.html

The suit says the hockey program was "the most prominent and popular sport" among women's athletic programs at the Grand Forks college.

A little bit misquoted, but even claiming that it was the most prominent and popular sport among womens athletic programs is a stretch.  Womens basketball and volleyball were much more popular.  Attendance numbers don't lie.

[Siouxperfan7]

Anyone else find it odd that the neither of the Lamoureux twins have tweeted about this lawsuit?  Seems like they would be all over this story!

[darell1976]

1 minute ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Anyone else find it odd that the neither of the Lamoureux twins have tweeted about this lawsuit?  Seems like they would be all over this story!

If they win the lawsuit you will hear a lot of tweets from them. Maybe they aren’t as confident this is as winnable as the attorney filing the suit.

[darell1976]

8 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

 

The suit says the hockey program was "the most prominent and popular sport" among women's athletic programs at the Grand Forks college.

A little bit misquoted, but even claiming that it was the most prominent and popular sport among womens athletic programs is a stretch.  Womens basketball and volleyball were much more popular.  Attendance numbers don't lie.

But on social media you would think there were games sold out and thousands of people in line at games....oh wait that describes the men’s team. Lots of crickets in line to see the women’s hockey team.

[CarpeRemote]

I hated to see the program cut simply because as a grad who has lived over 1000 miles out of state for decades I know that UND’s identity is hockey. Despite attendance etc it was a big loss in the big picture. 

But, everything has to be paid for and until there is a way to do that it can’t and shouldn’t survive. (Does that apply to football? I’m not informed enough about it’s relationship to donations, ancillary income, and conference requirements to comment)

I held out hope it would find its way back via thinking outside the box to fund it, not by ex-players taking the easiest way out and hiring a self agrandizing SJW to ram it down everyone’s throat and forcing other people to pay enough to feed a third world country without making their own concerted effort. 

I really hoped it would come back, but not this way. Hopefully the suit gets tossed in a summary judgement and we start again on the right foot. 

 

[UND1983]

4 minutes ago, CarpeRemote said:

I hated to see the program cut simply because as a grad who has lived over 1000 miles out of state for decades I know that UND’s identity is hockey. Despite attendance etc it was a big loss in the big picture. 

But, everything has to be paid for and until there is a way to do that it can’t and shouldn’t survive. (Does that apply to football? I’m not informed enough about it’s relationship to donations, ancillary income, and conference requirements to comment)

I held out hope it would find its way back via thinking outside the box to fund it, not by ex-players taking the easiest way out and hiring a self agrandizing SJW to ram it down everyone’s throat and forcing other people to pay enough to feed a third world country without making their own concerted effort. 

I really hoped it would come back, but not this way. Hopefully the suit gets tossed in a summary judgement and we start again on the right foot. 

 

That's fair.

[Rebel_Sioux]

8 minutes ago, CarpeRemote said:

I hated to see the program cut simply because as a grad who has lived over 1000 miles out of state for decades I know that UND’s identity is hockey. Despite attendance etc it was a big loss in the big picture. 

But, everything has to be paid for and until there is a way to do that it can’t and shouldn’t survive. (Does that apply to football? I’m not informed enough about it’s relationship to donations, ancillary income, and conference requirements to comment)

I held out hope it would find its way back via thinking outside the box to fund it, not by ex-players taking the easiest way out and hiring a self agrandizing SJW to ram it down everyone’s throat and forcing other people to pay enough to feed a third world country without making their own concerted effort. 

I really hoped it would come back, but not this way. Hopefully the suit gets tossed in a summary judgement and we start again on the right foot. 

 

Probably one of the most reasonable posts I've seen about women's hockey in 2 years. It never should have cost $2 million a year nor should it require a $60 million endowment. 

 

Either way, UND is a school first. Protecting academics from massive athletic loses makes sense.

[SiouxVolley]

1 hour ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

 

The suit says the hockey program was "the most prominent and popular sport" among women's athletic programs at the Grand Forks college.

A little bit misquoted, but even claiming that it was the most prominent and popular sport among womens athletic programs is a stretch.  Womens basketball and volleyball were much more popular.  Attendance numbers don't lie.

Well, it was written by an AP writer in Fargo who probably thought that UND women’s sports were as hugely unpopular as NDSU’s.  All NDSU women’s sports have been outdrawn by UND WIH.  The NDSU women’s bb program is a pathetic shell of its former DII glory.

[UNDBIZ]

9 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

Well, it was written by an AP writer in Fargo who probably thought that UND women’s sports were as hugely unpopular as NDSU’s.  All NDSU women’s sports have been outdrawn by UND WIH.  The NDSU women’s bb program is a pathetic shell of its former DII glory.

Kolpack was simply quoting from the lawsuit. It's the giant ego former hockey players who think they were so important. They still don't get it.

[The Sicatoka]

The OCR says UND did it all correctly with regard to Federal law. 

Should this suit actually win (somehow), it would bring every OCR finding into question.

The courts could be backed up for years, decades. 

[Frozen4sioux]

13 hours ago, HawksHoops said:

Hayduke, I appreciate your passion for hockey and willingness to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, but this answer has been stated several times.  I'm sure we could have a good-natured debate about some of these and which apply to football, but here is the list as I see it.

1.  Nearly $2 Million deficit per year

2.  High cost per athlete ($80,000 per year/per athlete)

3.  Extremely low attendance

4.  Minimal public interest

5.  Minimal Champion's Club related donations

6.  Minimal merchandise revenue

7.  Minimal TV exposure

8.  Average on-ice results (Poor championship level results)

9.  Limited local recruits

10.  Low future growth potential

10. Is just flat wrong information, girls hockey participation and growth is skyrocketing.

but all these are valid concerns to sponsoring a sport.

IMHO 9. Is what led to 1-7. 

 

This lawsuit will set back the potential of the real conversation about how a women’s team “could” be reserected.

Wrong fight from the wrong people at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

[MafiaMan]

6 hours ago, darell1976 said:

But on social media you would think there were games sold out and thousands of people in line at games....oh wait that describes the men’s team. Lots of crickets in line to see the women’s hockey team.

[SiouxBoys]

55 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

10. Is just flat wrong information, girls hockey participation and growth is skyrocketing.

but all these are valid concerns to sponsoring a sport.

IMHO 9. Is what led to 1-7. 

 

This lawsuit will set back the potential of the real conversation about how a women’s team “could” be reserected.

Wrong fight from the wrong people at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Number 10 on that list isn't wrong. Yes girls hockey participation has increased but the sport of hockey itself is not popular. Grand Forks is considered to be a hockey hotbed in this country yet the women's program was incredibly unpopular. If it couldn't work here, it will not work pretty much anywhere else. Has participation increased? Yes. Is the sport's popularity and growth skyrocketing? No. 

[petey23]

13 hours ago, UNDBIZ said:

Kolpack was simply quoting from the lawsuit. It's the giant ego former hockey players who think they were so important. They still don't get it.

And Dave is a UND grad.