southpaw Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 This is a side-bar from thoughts on the betty that came up. below are my reasons for adding whockey at UND, compared to other title 9 sports. the comparisons to gophers women's hockey are innacurate. the amount of money the umn has to pay per-game for ridder arena is a lot more than UND pays to use the ralph. during the 03-04 athletic year, the umn women's hockey team lost $413,788.* i don't know the numbers for UND's women's hockey but i'd imagine it's at the most double that. now, remember that women's hockey is still an infant sport. as the sport grows at UND more revenue will be added (wcha playoffs, ncaa frozen four, fan attendance). the attendance figures at ridder arena (umn) also cannot be compared to UND. there are a variety of factors that affect how many people go to games, but a major one is corresponding sporting events. ony any day in the cities during hockey season there is: t-wolves basketball, gopher men's hockey, gopher basketball, vikings football, gopher football, wild hockey, storm lacrosse. on any given day in grand forks there is: sioux men's hockey, sioux basketball, high school sports, sioux football. there are a lot more options for people in the cities, so i'd imagine that unless you appeal directly to the niche women's hockey crowd, you're not going to get a huge fan-base. in grand forks, you don't have to appeal just to the women's hockey, you can go after all hockey fans or all girls, and bring in an ok attendance. finally, the difference in UND whockey and umn whockey is ticket prices. gopher tickets are $162 for the season, UND tickets are $50. the low price brings in the fans for the beginning of the sioux whockey phenomenon. prices will slowly go up as the team gets better, but getting a base set of fans who love sioux whockey early on is important. as the team gets better, ticket prices goes up, fan support goes up and revenue goes up. simple math kids. people have complained as to why the UND whockey team can't be successful right away, when low and behold wsoccer is successful. lets look at the competition and be reasonable. d1 women's hockey vs d2 women's soccer. in whockey you're playing the best in the entire country, in wsoccer you're playing the ncc. look at most high schools in our region and they have wsoccer. look at most high schools in our region and they don't have whockey. recruiting is less of a burden and the level of competition is lower. Some have suggested adding other revenue-gaining sports (or at least sports that don't lose as much money as whockey). After some quick searching, i found the gophers info, i couldnt find UND's budget after a short search. but this is the amount of money that gophers women's sports LOST during the 03-04 year* volleyball ($552,346), tennis ($201,690), golf ($201,858), gymnastics ($309,254), soccer ($340,720), softball ($362,678), swimming and diving ($381,629), women's track ($514,786), hockey ($413,788) and rowing ($468,653). looking at those numbers, the only sport we could have added is gymnastics and rowing. i'll throw rowing out the window now for obvious reasons. gymnastics has a two-part problem. one is finding teams to compete against and two, is having a place to practice. you'd need an almost full-time gymnastics practice facility. i see none in sight. the costs for the startup of the sport would be much higher than for womens hockey (see rea already there). *source: http://www.startribune.com/507/story/68370.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersioux Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I really don't think that we should compare W hockey to W Soccer. They do have many or the same struggles, like there are 13 HS Soccer teams in the state of ND very similiar to W Hockey #'s. I agree that it is more difficult for a program to compete with DI competition, but they are also given more (money, staff, facilities, ect.) The major question is are we getting our money's worth? Should it take us this long to catch up to Bemedji State, St. Cloud, Mankato? I understand that being a frozen four team isn't going to happen overnight, but is there progress being to get better? Two WCHA wins says there is something wrong, what is it? Money? Coaches? The new program card can't be played forever! Afterall this is the fourth year of the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-per Fan Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I really don't think that we should compare W hockey to W Soccer. They do have many or the same struggles, like there are 13 HS Soccer teams in the state of ND very similiar to W Hockey #'s. I agree that it is more difficult for a program to compete with DI competition, but they are also given more (money, staff, facilities, ect.) The major question is are we getting our money's worth? Should it take us this long to catch up to Bemedji State, St. Cloud, Mankato? I understand that being a frozen four team isn't going to happen overnight, but is there progress being to get better? Two WCHA wins says there is something wrong, what is it? Money? Coaches? The new program card can't be played forever! Afterall this is the fourth year of the program. I agree...4 years and This year we have 9 seniors?....It wasn't like the WCHA Snuck-up on us..? The Womens Hockey Program at UND will Never make enough Money to pay for it self in My Lifetime...and I am 36.....Never will create enough revenue...Thank god for title 9...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Thank god for title 9...? So are you saying that Title 9 is a waste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The principle point that needs to made is whether or not we're getting what we're paying for. Women's hockey has a budget that's on par with the other major sports teams on campus (WBB, MBB, Men's hockey, and football). With the budget they have we've seen them have two conference wins this season. For the investment we have put in the program we should expect to see some results or people need to be held accountable (i.e. coaches). For comparison sakes many are calling for Coach Glas' head in MBB for the decline in MBB program. Well guess what when you cut a programs budget 30 percent you see declines in performance. Also, football just got theirs axed 10 percent and I guarantee we'll see heads roll if that program falls off. By that same token Women's hockey has gotten more funding every year and have we seen any notable improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 The principle point that needs to made is whether or not we're getting what we're paying for. Women's hockey has a budget that's on par with the other major sports teams on campus (WBB, MBB, Men's hockey, and football). With the budget they have we've seen them have two conference wins this season. For the investment we have put in the program we should expect to see some results or people need to be held accountable (i.e. coaches). For comparison sakes many are calling for Coach Glas' head in MBB for the decline in MBB program. Well guess what when you cut a programs budget 30 percent you see declines in performance. By that same token Women's hockey has gotten more funding every year and have we seen any notable improvement. your point about men's basketball is moot, because of a certain 25-0 team right now. seems like budget cuts didn't affect the women... i'd say coaching, injuries and some players not being on the team this year is why they are underacheiving. fighting sioux hockey is in it's fourth year (second in the wcha)... despite being so young, they had the fourth highest attendance in the ncaa last year. the number of fans continues to rise as the games progress. with better results, will come more fans, which would allow the rea to up ticket prices, make more money off concessions, and the school would get money from final five appearances. it's been a year and a half of wcha hockey. before that, it was two years of taking girls off of intramural teams and whatever was left in the area. give the team some time. give the coach some time. this isn't the men's team, you can't expect them to be instantly amazing. anytime a program just starts up, it's tough for them to win a lot. (please look at nearly all professional expansion teams and their track record with the playoffs). it depends on who you ask whether we're getting what we pay for. if we're basing it off right now, then no. but if you based any sport on it's first four years in existence, then the chances are you could say no for all of them. are we providing girls across north dakota and northwest minnesota the opportunity to have someone local to look up to? yes. and that's immeasurable. how many of these high school girls who take trips to watch the team are going to commit to the school because it was so welcoming to them. give it some time before you start going off on title 9. i'm all against making up for wrongs in the past, but i'm all for equal opportunity. give them the same opportunities that this school gave the men's team back in 1947 when it started out with barely a handful of wins in its first couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersioux Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I agree that W hockey has a big potential at UND. I just think that in its 4th year the progress isn't there. The first recruited class is now graduating and it's much easier to recruit to a "new" program than one in the cellar of the WCHA, maybe the Ralph will make up for it. Its also important to note that the so called "Big Dogs" in the WCHA lost there big players to the olympic team. UMD and UM should be much more normal this year than last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 By all measures I hope women's hockey can be successful and profitable. In fact with what we now have invested in it we need it to be both. When we're running an athletic budget in the red some things need to be looked at. In my opinion some of the things that should be looked a is the tremendous amount of waste in the two hockey programs. Every athlete on UND's campus pays for their own workout gear while the two hockey teams are outfitted with four sets of workout gear. This isn't shorts and t- shirts either, but $60 a pop Under Armor gear. Also in the past women's hockey has gone on "team building" camping trips before the start of the season paid for out of athletic department pockets. It's not just the girls team either the men's teams averaging $60,000 a pop for every road trip this season. The fact that men's hockey is the breadwinner for our athletic program makes their excess more acceptable. However, with our current budget problems I don't feel it's fair some programs are being asked to cut costs (BB, Football) while others are given a blank check. The money we're investing in the women's hockey program has to come from somewhere and taking it from other programs that have been around a lot longer and had a lot more success shouldn't be the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Every athlete on UND's campus pays for their own workout gear while the two hockey teams are outfitted with four sets of workout gear. This isn't shorts and t- shirts either, but $60 a pop Under Armor gear. Under Armor normally gives sets of workout gear to DI teams for the publicity value, but rarely do they (or Reebok, or Nike) give them to DII teams. I'd be very surprised if the Under Armor clothing was anything other than a publicity gift, considering the stature of the UND hockey programs. When NDSU moved to DI, they were able to get these type of benefits, while at the DII level these companies wouldn't talk unless NDSU was a buyer. Also in the past women's hockey has gone on "team building" camping trips before the start of the season paid for out of athletic department pockets. It's not just the girls team either the men's teams averaging $60,000 a pop for every road trip this season. The fact that men's hockey is the breadwinner for our athletic program makes their excess more acceptable. However, with our current budget problems I don't feel it's fair some programs are being asked to cut costs (BB, Football) while others are given a blank check. The money we're investing in the women's hockey program has to come from somewhere and taking it from other programs that have been around a lot longer and had a lot more success shouldn't be the answer.DI costs more money than DII. If the women's hockey team is not treated as well as other WCHA teams, recruiting would be that much more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The principle point that needs to made is whether or not we're getting what we're paying for. Women's hockey has a budget that's on par with the other major sports teams on campus (WBB, MBB, Men's hockey, and football). With the budget they have we've seen them have two conference wins this season. For the investment we have put in the program we should expect to see some results or people need to be held accountable (i.e. coaches).Totally agree with this. For comparison sakes many are calling for Coach Glas' head in MBB for the decline in MBB program. Well guess what when you cut a programs budget 30 percent you see declines in performance. Also, football just got theirs axed 10 percent and I guarantee we'll see heads roll if that program falls off. By that same token Women's hockey has gotten more funding every year and have we seen any notable improvement. In what line items did the MBB program get cut? Not in scholarships, not in salaries. I don''t have the budgets in front of me, but my bet is that game fees (expenses associated with having the games in the Ralph) and game guarantees (incentives paid to other teams to come to the Betty without a return game) are where the budget was cut. As far the the football program, they overpaid Ferris State in game guarantees for their two year contract. Now, almost all of their games are home/away series, so the budget should be down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 So are you saying that Title 9 is a waste? The concept is great but it is screwing up a lot of good things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 As a fan of the women's hockey program, I am one of the first to agree that this season has been rather disappointing. Especially considering that the team only graduated 2 seniors last year. But as people have already pointed out this is only the fourth season of the program and only it's 2nd in the WCHA. And yes, Shantel's first recruiting class is seniors this year. But you also have to consider that in that first year, Shantel only had 3 schollies to spread around that entire team. It's not like this senior class was recruited in with full scholarship rides. This season the team is still only up to 12 scholarships, I believe. If you look at the top producers for the team this year it is basically 2 sophomores and the rest freshmen. The thing that excites me the most about this team is the fact that this is the program that has the most potential to be our next program to win a National Championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 As a fan of the women's hockey program, I am one of the first to agree that this season has been rather disappointing. Especially considering that the team only graduated 2 seniors last year. But as people have already pointed out this is only the fourth season of the program and only it's 2nd in the WCHA. And yes, Shantel's first recruiting class is seniors this year. But you also have to consider that in that first year, Shantel only had 3 schollies to spread around that entire team. It's not like this senior class was recruited in with full scholarship rides. This season the team is still only up to 12 scholarships, I believe. If you look at the top producers for the team this year it is basically 2 sophomores and the rest freshmen. The thing that excites me the most about this team is the fact that this is the program that has the most potential to be our next program to win a National Championship. The next program to win a National Championship? How? In our lifetime? We'd settle for a winning season. I'm not against women's athletics, but the cost/benefit ratio of Women's Hockey is ridiculous. The expense of this program is a millstone around the neck of the athletic department. It is forcing us to cut into proven programs - this is no way to operate. This has to be far and away the biggest money loser we have -with little potential of making up any of it's costs. It will be a drag on athletic finances forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The next program to win a National Championship? How? In our lifetime? We'd settle for a winning season. I'm not against women's athletics, but the cost/benefit ratio of Women's Hockey is ridiculous. The expense of this program is a millstone around the neck of the athletic department. It is forcing us to cut into proven programs - this is no way to operate. This has to be far and away the biggest money loser we have -with little potential of making up any of it's costs. It will be a drag on athletic finances forever. Other than men's hockey, women's hockey is for all practical purposes the only other sport in which a DI championship for UND is attainable. The cost/benefit ratio of non-revenue sports like baseball, softball, golf, tennis, and track will become "ridiculous", relative to women's hockey, when UND goes DI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Other than men's hockey, women's hockey is for all practical purposes the only other sport in which a DI championship for UND is attainable. The cost/benefit ratio of non-revenue sports like baseball, softball, golf, tennis, and track will become "ridiculous", relative to women's hockey, when UND goes DI. Which is why some of us have started to advocate, in the event of a "DI UND", dropping baseball and golf, sure money losers, and adding mens lacrosse, something that has a possible facility, would have potential gate revenues, and better chances for titles than any of the afore mentioned. (Rather than rehashing the lacrosse conversation, start reading here if interested: http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=128601 ) If you're serious about getting "bang for the buck" (cost/benefit ratio), you have to look at everything with a truly open mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 (Rather than rehashing the lacrosse conversation, start reading here if interested: http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=128601 ) I think I could get into lacrosse pretty quick. I've watched it on TV, with similarities to soccer and hockey it's a pretty easy sport to figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I think I could get into lacrosse pretty quick. I've watched it on TV, with similarities to soccer and hockey it's a pretty easy sport to figure out. Starting here also http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=128975 and reading pages 2 and 3 of that thread give some good pro/con thoughts. The "similar to soccer" notion is new (but not a selling point to me because I'd rather watch paint dry than watch soccer ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Lacrosse is more like hockey for those who don't know how to skate, really. Yeah, I know that's used to describe basketball players, but the similarities between lacrosse and hockey are just amazing. Either way though, even if we droped DI women's hockey and added DI women's lacrosse, it wouldn't sell. Other than basketball, I don't see women's sports being that popular here. And, for what it is worth: I have mixed emotions about Title IX. I believe women deserve equal opportunities to athletics but I don't believe it should be at a cost to men's athletics. I don't know how to do it, but I do believe that both should be able to coexist without hurting each other. Right now, it's at the point where Universities have to turn down opportunities because, if they took the opportunity, they'd have to create an accompanying women's sport that will negate, if not worse than negate, any profitable venture that opportunity would give to the school. For example, if John Wayne State University (home to the Gunslingers), who already had men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball, men's football, and men's and women's track and field teams, was offerred entrance into a DI lacrosse league for men's for a substantial discount, if you will, they wouldn't be able to do it because then they'd have to add another women's sport of some kind that there is no guarantee that there is a conference for and probably isn't a market for. Therefore, whatever is gained by adding men's DI lacrosse (assuming that it is popular), is totally eliminated by Title IX and, more than likely, JWSU would have to pass up the opportunity. Maybe that sounds harsh on women's sports. However, it is what is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Lacrosse is more like hockey for those who don't know how to skate, really. Yeah, I know that's used to describe basketball players, but the similarities between lacrosse and hockey are just amazing. Either way though, even if we droped DI women's hockey and added DI women's lacrosse, it wouldn't sell. Other than basketball, I don't see women's sports being that popular here. And, for what it is worth: I have mixed emotions about Title IX. I believe women deserve equal opportunities to athletics but I don't believe it should be at a cost to men's athletics. I don't know how to do it, but I do believe that both should be able to coexist without hurting each other. Right now, it's at the point where Universities have to turn down opportunities because, if they took the opportunity, they'd have to create an accompanying women's sport that will negate, if not worse than negate, any profitable venture that opportunity would give to the school. For example, if John Wayne State University (home to the Gunslingers), who already had men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball, men's football, and men's and women's track and field teams, was offerred entrance into a DI lacrosse league for men's for a substantial discount, if you will, they wouldn't be able to do it because then they'd have to add another women's sport of some kind that there is no guarantee that there is a conference for and probably isn't a market for. Therefore, whatever is gained by adding men's DI lacrosse (assuming that it is popular), is totally eliminated by Title IX and, more than likely, JWSU would have to pass up the opportunity. Maybe that sounds harsh on women's sports. However, it is what is happening. Title 9 wouldn't have had to happen if things were fair to begin with. I would have loved if that's the way that it was, but obviously that's not what was happening. And yes, it does suck for programs that people were part of, like wrestling at UND. But like I said, if things were fair to begin with, would Title 9 be an issue? No. And, if men's lacrosse was added at UND, another men's sport would lose out. The unfair thing about Title 9 is that it's tough to match the number of athletes when one of the men's sports is football. I'm babbling, gotta take the kiddies to hockey practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Read the notions in the thread that brings up lacrosse. Quick summary: - if go DI, drop baseball, softball, and golf (M/W) and add M/W lax. - it'd be a Title IX "wash" - M lax would (hopefully) draw better than what we have now Read the thread that was linked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce poobah Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think the issue this year is that UND women's hockey is NOT at competitive parity. (I believe) most of their top competitors - UMD, MN, WI - are funding 18 scholarships for W hockey. UND at 12 has been at a serious disadvantage in attracting top talent, and that may be one factor in the on-ice results. In other words, we've underfunded women's hockey. Getting up to funding parity - those last 6 scholarships - may have been paid for with only another 300-400 fans per game ... ===================================================== Also, the tired old implicit assumption that women's sports will never draw and will never be revenue generators is patently ridiculous. Walk over to the Betty and see who draws fans this year. It will take a while, probably 4 more years based on the funding plan and the talent-recruiting cycle, for UND women's hockey to be competitive with the best in the west. Then we'll get a much better read on the revenue potential for women's hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakvindy Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 While lacrosse would be an interesting addition, it would be an almost sure money loser. Take a look at Michigan's budget for it's club program, $200,000 and that's with no scholarships. We would have a huge travel budget, and there is virtually no local fan interest or history here. And bringing in opponents would be very difficult with no other schools nearby. That and it overlaps with half of the seasons of basketball and hockey. And most importantly, about the best UND could hope for would to be in a situation like Bemidji State for hockey. In a league with an autobid, but no hope of winning a title. A very small number of schools are really competitive in lacrosse and they are all in the hotbeds of the mid-Atlantic and upstate New York. Bowling would be a good addition, as its an emerging sport where larger schools have no built-in advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersioux Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Read the notions in the thread that brings up lacrosse. Quick summary: - if go DI, drop baseball, softball, and golf (M/W) and add M/W lax. - it'd be a Title IX "wash" - M lax would (hopefully) draw better than what we have now Read the thread that was linked to. In those sports you wouldn't be able to fund M Lax with scholarships. M golf has what 2 and Baseball 2.5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 In those sports you wouldn't be able to fund M Lax with scholarships. M golf has what 2 and Baseball 2.5? Not fully funded there; not fully funded here. I believe you'll have better "gate" with lax (compared to those two) which could solve some of the problem. 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.