NCAA Hockey Expansion Thread

[CrazyEddie20]

No one has ever just thrown in an ice plant just because then they can add hockey. Not only is it extremely expensive, but upkeeping that ice is another monumental expense. Especially when other sports are being played on top of it.

As much as $20,000 per month, sometimes more, in energy costs in a large building. It's why large buildings often take the ice out if a team goes away for three weeks. Cheaper to take the ice out and put it back in than to keep it frozen!

 

[S E P H]

Tell a women's lacrosse player that the scholarship she receives is "wasted money." Please. Go ahead.

You're going through ten thousand different views and you can't stick to one central argument. I brought up women sports because you say that hockey isn't revenue driven. That may be the case, but why invest in women's volleyball then if it's not revenue driven (if we cancel out Title IX in this factor)?

When a school has $90M to build a new building, there's been a years-long planning, budgeting, and bidding process. Why not put in an ice plant? Because $20M isn't "nothing," it's literally a 22.2% increase in budget and $20M that needs to come from somewhere.

Can you make your argument with actual facts and without insulting women and American football? Please and thank you.

The entire point is that installing an ice plant is nothing if you're already spending 90+ million on a brand spanking new multi-purpose sporting facility. Is this that hard for you to understand? Also I am not insulting throwball, it's a billion dollar industry and has the highest income of any other sport even at the collegiate level. Also as I said above, I brought up women's sport as you keep bringing up revenue and yes a lot of women sports are actually negative for the school to run (more so than ice hockey would be). That's the truth, absolutely no sense from me insulting it by simply telling the truth, but you are called CrazyEddie for a reason and maybe you not getting my point is one of those crazy moments. I am glad that Title IX exists to expand the need for equality on the sporting spectrum though.

No one has ever just thrown in an ice plant just because then they can add hockey. Not only is it extremely expensive, but upkeeping that ice is another monumental expense. Especially when other sports are being played on top of it. Not only that, but simply building an ice plant in a basketball arena doesn't suddenly make it capable to host hockey. Barclay's Center in New York and Climate Pledge Arena/Key Arena in Seatle are proof of that.

There are 350 NCAA D1 basketball teams in the USA. In my previous posts about some of the big five universities installing hockey rinks in their new basketball stadiums, all I mentioned was that we could "fictionally" have close to 100 D1 hockey programmes now compared to 62. Thinking 30-ish new schools don't have the funds is absurd and terrible logic from you and CrazyEddie. If we were to say that 90 schools at D1 hockey of the 350 universities - which have top-tier D1 level basketball stadiums - decided to design the arena for both sports, that concludes to be 25.7% of the population. That's super low. 100 universities is 29%, which is still way under 50%. I am being quite low on my values and again I am not sure you lot are understanding is that I am talking about "what-if" scenarios of ten to twenty years ago. I highly doubt - especially with the implications of Covid19 - that my model of "design your new basketball stadium with hockey involved" will ever work nowadays (it should, but doesn't). Once again, as the reading skills on here is at minimum, I was strictly talking about the 90s-ish (with some late 80s and early 00s involved).

Not sure why you even brought up Barclay's Centre in your point, that's the most basic logic like teaching kids that you breath in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Of f***ing course basketball designed arenas simply do not work well with hockey in terms of seating and perspective. However, as you see in the NHL with more than half of the arenas are designed for multiple sports like hockey and basketball and even more on the college level.

The answer to "why not spend a little more" is "because the school doesn't have that money." Schools like Minnesota-Moorhead and URI didn't add hockey because they were $5 million short of their goal, yet you are saying "throw in an extra $20 million just for an ice plant."

The average thinking of the sports committee is that hockey is too expensive to start is already the default. That's why we only have 60-ish teams that is about to lose a handful more. You don't need to explain to me that starting a D1 hockey team is extremely hard...

I highly suggest you read the case study released of the financial requirements to start a University of Illinois NCAA team. Not everyone has Daddy Pegula to throw +$100 million. In fact, Penn State is the only one. Arizona State has had to fundraise for a long time to get where they are.

...it's extremely hard, but it's not impossible. Pegula is probably the rarest of the lot, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways. LIU, Arizona State, and now (perhaps) Lindenwood shows there are alternative methods. They're absolutely rare, but once again not impossible.

Hopefully this cures your delusions. Get the Covid vaccine next.

I like the So, what I am not going to do is insult you like you did to me here fam. You've gotten a lot of things in the right and I appreciate reading your posts, [MOD]

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

There are 350 NCAA D1 basketball teams in the USA. In my previous posts about some of the big five universities installing hockey rinks in their new basketball stadiums, all I mentioned was that we could "fictionally" have close to 100 D1 hockey programmes now compared to 62. Thinking 30-ish new schools don't have the funds is absurd and terrible logic from you and CrazyEddie. If we were to say that 90 schools at D1 hockey of the 350 universities - which have top-tier D1 level basketball stadiums - decided to design the arena for both sports, that concludes to be 25.7% of the population. That's super low. 100 universities is 29%, which is still way under 50%. I am being quite low on my values and again I am not sure you lot are understanding is that I am talking about "what-if" scenarios of ten to twenty years ago. I highly doubt - especially with the implications of Covid19 - that my model of "design your new basketball stadium with hockey involved" will ever work nowadays (it should, but doesn't). Once again, as the reading skills on here is at minimum, I was strictly talking about the 90s-ish (with some late 80s and early 00s involved).

There have been plenty of schools that have the funds, but you have to realize that spending a ton of money on a sport that most of the time isn't going to bring in money is a ridiculous idea. Those "what-if" scenarios of 10-20 years ago is what I was referring to. Hence why I brought up Minnesota-Moorhead and URI.

Not sure why you even brought up Barclay's Centre in your point, that's the most basic logic like teaching kids that you breath in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Of f***ing course basketball designed arenas simply do not work well with hockey in terms of seating and perspective. However, as you see in the NHL with more than half of the arenas are designed for multiple sports like hockey and basketball and even more on the college level.

Designing them both for hockey and basketball is ridiculously expensive and unnecessary if you only want one of those sports...

The average thinking of the sports committee is that hockey is too expensive to start is already the default. That's why we only have 60-ish teams that is about to lose a handful more. You don't need to explain to me that starting a D1 hockey team is extremely hard...

Those are two sports committees that started fundraising, were extremely dedicated, and ultimately fell short of their goal. You can't spend money you don't have.

...it's extremely hard, but it's not impossible. Pegula is probably the rarest of the lot, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways. LIU, Arizona State, and now (perhaps) Lindenwood shows there are alternative methods. They're absolutely rare, but once again not impossible.

LIU plays in a community rink on the smallest budget possible and Arizona State was only started because the club goalie's dad had roughly $30 million burning a whole in his pocket.

I like the So, what I am not going to do is insult you like you did to me here fam. You've gotten a lot of things in the right and I appreciate reading your posts [MOD]

Think realistically and say accurate things and you won't hear a word from me. I work with what I am given. Claiming you understand the finances behind starting a NCAA D1 program and then claiming everything else you're saying are two contradictory things.

 

[JMCx4]

... The KFC Yum! Center in Louisville can make ice, and I've never heard anything about pro hockey coming back there, much less the Cardinals starting a program. ...

I've seen Yum! mentioned so many times in hockey fan board threads about possible minor pro expansion destinations, I have nightmares of Colonel Sanders in goal & over-grown chickens on the bench.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

I've seen Yum! mentioned so many times in hockey fan board threads about possible minor pro expansion destinations, I have nightmares of Colonel Sanders in goal & over-grown chickens on the bench.

I've never heard anything about that building from a credible source. Plenty from expansionist idiots with no idea how the business actually works.

 

[JMCx4]

I've never heard anything about that building from a credible source. Plenty from expansionist idiots with no idea how the business actually works.

That's not gonna make my nightmares go away, but thanks for trying.

 

[mk80]

Let's all go to neutral corners here. I think the discussion has devolved quickly into an unnecessary argument.

There are plenty of schools that could, should, or would add hockey at the DI level, but are held back by certain factors. Again as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's why the ACHA has grown tremendously well over the years, and especially at the ACHA DI level there are many school full or partially funded clubs that are very competitive.

Going off that as I've said in the High Point thread, I believe we're going to see the landscape of college hockey change over the next decade or so with some schools adding, dropping NCAA DI programs, and conferences shifting. But that similar to the minor league section of the forum. Just because an arena exists, or in the case of college hockey a large school is profitable from football or basketball, it doesn't mean hockey is an automatic add. It's the most expensive college sport that a university could have, and in a lot of cases schools are also held back by Title IX from adding it. Also we should keep in mind, most schools operate their athletic department in red ink, and at a lot of the Power 5 type schools football, or for some basketball provide the funds for the athletic programs.

All of this is the reason why schools like Liberty, Rhode Island, Navy, and others, that check the boxes to have an NCAA level team do not. It's also why we've seen the programs that have come and gone or get dropped to ACHA status like Ohio, Wayne State, Findlay, Kent State, St. Louis University, etc.

We all I'm sure have our wish list schools that we want to see, Lindenwood is obviously included on mine, and I think Illinois, Liberty will also come along this decade at some point. But to reiterate just because a school can, would, or should doesn't mean they will.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Quit openly calling each other out. First, and only, warning

 

[CrazyEddie20]

We all I'm sure have our wish list schools that we want to see, Lindenwood is obviously included on mine, and I think Illinois, Liberty will also come along this decade at some point. But to reiterate just because a school can, would, or should doesn't mean they will.

The problem is that smaller schools are going to be dropping out of Division I faster than new schools are going to be coming in if college athletics finances continue in the direction they've been going for years. The Division II/III "play-up" schools and lesser Division I schools, the smaller state schools and "directional" schools - they're not in good shape, even if they have sizable alumni bases who's contributions have kept the programs going for years.

There's a reason Lindenwood hasn't started a men's program. Even Liberty, which has a huge alumni base and a big following - they haven't started an NCAA program for either gender, and they are among the best positioned schools to do so.

NCAA hockey at the Division I level is not in a good place business-wise. You can't grow the game right now anymore than you can build an addition onto a house where the foundation is crumbling.

 

[mk80]

The problem is that smaller schools are going to be dropping out of Division I faster than new schools are going to be coming in if college athletics finances continue in the direction they've been going for years. The Division II/III "play-up" schools and lesser Division I schools, the smaller state schools and "directional" schools - they're not in good shape, even if they have sizable alumni bases who's contributions have kept the programs going for years.

There's a reason Lindenwood hasn't started a men's program. Even Liberty, which has a huge alumni base and a big following - they haven't started an NCAA program for either gender, and they are among the best positioned schools to do so.

NCAA hockey at the Division I level is not in a good place business-wise. You can't grow the game right now anymore than you can build an addition onto a house where the foundation is crumbling.

I agree I do think there are going to some programs that fall out, beyond the Alaska schools.

To swing the thread topic back onto the the current expansion rumor/Lindenwood discussion, here is some general history for everyone of LU and NCAA DI men's hockey:
This is Lindenwood's second (technically 3rd) try at adding men's NCAA DI hockey. Back in 04 they wanted and tried getting a waiver from the NAIA to allow them to add NCAA DI sports that were not sponsored by NAIA, men's and women's hockey was to be included in that. At the time as mentioned in this article from back then the school was considering building an arena on campus: Lindenwood Explores Move Into D-I
If they would have got the waiver they would have helped save the struggling CHA men's conference at the time. Ultimately they couldn't get the waiver, and the school bought the now former LU Ice Arena 20 minutes away (without traffic) from campus. The technicality attempt number 2 was less publicized, when the school joined the NCAA DII, they again wanted to move both men's and women's hockey to NCAA. Women's only made the jump in the end to help meet Title IX, and the fact that the NCAA said the LU Ice Arena was not suitable for DI men's hockey.

Bringing us to the current 3rd go around.

To reiterate some previous links from the High Point U thread:
Although they say in this "ACHA DII team" it would be our ACHA DI team making the jump. Lindenwood Announces Transition to Division I Hockey — Collegiate Consulting

This article from last summer has some quotes from Zombo about his desire to take the program to the NCAA:
Ex-Blue Zombo is St. Louis' other championship-winning hockey coach

LU is set to host a 2024 NCAA Men's Regional: Lindenwood Selected as Host for 2024 NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey Regional - Lindenwood University Athletics

 

[CrazyEddie20]

I agree I do think there are going to some programs that fall out, beyond the Alaska schools.

To swing the thread topic back onto the the current expansion rumor/Lindenwood discussion, here is some general history for everyone of LU and NCAA DI men's hockey:
This is Lindenwood's second (technically 3rd) try at adding men's NCAA DI hockey. Back in 04 they wanted and tried getting a waiver from the NAIA to allow them to add NCAA DI sports that were not sponsored by NAIA, men's and women's hockey was to be included in that. At the time as mentioned in this article from back then the school was considering building an arena on campus: Lindenwood Explores Move Into D-I
If they would have got the waiver they would have helped save the struggling CHA men's conference at the time. Ultimately they couldn't get the waiver, and the school bought the now former LU Ice Arena 20 minutes away (without traffic) from campus. The technicality attempt number 2 was less publicized, when the school joined the NCAA DII, they again wanted to move both men's and women's hockey to NCAA. Women's only made the jump in the end to help meet Title IX, and the fact that the NCAA said the LU Ice Arena was not suitable for DI men's hockey.

Bringing us to the current 3rd go around.

To reiterate some previous links from the High Point U thread:
Although they say in this "ACHA DII team" it would be our ACHA DI team making the jump. Lindenwood Announces Transition to Division I Hockey — Collegiate Consulting

This article from last summer has some quotes from Zombo about his desire to take the program to the NCAA:
Ex-Blue Zombo is St. Louis' other championship-winning hockey coach

LU is set to host a 2024 NCAA Men's Regional: Lindenwood Selected as Host for 2024 NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey Regional - Lindenwood University Athletics

The NAIA/NCAA divide was always going to be a tough gap to bridge. Not surprised it never happened.

First of all, no ACHA team would be "making the jump" - the school would almost certainly start from scratch. MAYBE some support staff would stay. MAYBE a few players would stay. Maybe, but very unlikely, Zombo stays in some capacity. But ACHA players by and large are not going to be capable of playing at the Division I level, and they will not be making an NCAA roster save for the very, very best or those willing to work harder than they've ever worked in their lives for less playing time than they've ever gotten before.

That's great that Zombo wants to see an NCAA program at Lindenwood, but if you read the quotes in that piece, he clearly has no clue about the administrative side of college hockey nor the facilities that Division I teams have. He thinks he's in the "Taj Mahal?" Has he seen Ralph Engelstad Arena? He thinks it's "just a rubber stamp" away? Come on.

I suspect the effort to have real college hockey at LU is stuck in Title IX hell, and until there's a way to resolve that issue, nothing is going to change.

 

[S E P H]

What was Lindenwood's male sport which eventually made them make women's hockey for Title XI? If they didn't, maybe they have "one free spot" for a male sport to be created.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

What was Lindenwood's male sport which eventually made them make women's hockey for Title XI? If they didn't, maybe they have "one free spot" for a male sport to be created.

It doesn't work that way.

Title IX compliance is, at least partially, judged based on the number of athletic opportunities (essentially, unduplicated roster spots - so an XC/indoor track/outdoor track athlete counts once, not three times) per gender, not by number of teams. The U.S. Department of Education will use a three-pronged test when measuring compliance in creating equal opportunities for athletes of both genders.

An institution is in compliance with the three-part test if it meets any one of the following parts of the test:

(1) The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or
(3) The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
Source: Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test -- Part Three Q's & A's

According the the USDoE's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis website, Lindenwood has an enrollment of 2,760 males and 3,195 females, for a total of 5,955 students split 46.3%/53.7% Male/Female. Thus, in theory, approximately 46% of the schools athletic opportunities should be afforded to male students.

But guess what? Of the 1,183 athletic opportunities at Lindenwood, 697 (58.9%) of them are for men. 486 (41.1%) are for women. So Lindenwood fails prong one.

Source for all Data: Equity in Athletics (you'll need to search for Lindenwood University)

By adding women's hockey fairly recently, they can make a case that they satisfy prong two, but as the addition of women's hockey as a varsity program becomes more distant, that case becomes harder to make.

As for the third prong, if there are women's club sports that have tried to gain varsity status and been denied while the school's opportunity count is so skewed, well, LU had better hope they don't get sued.

Basically, Lindenwood needs to create whole lot more athletic opportunities (on the order of 11% more) for women before adding another men's athletic program. They could also drop men's sports to bring the numbers closer to being representative of the approximate gender split of the student body.

If LU were to just "rubber stamp it," as Zombo said, they'd be inviting a lawsuit that won't end well for them.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Now, to expound on that a bit - Lindenwood has a football program, which, according the equity in Athletics data, constitutes 160 of the male athletic opportunities at LU. That has to be balanced out with women's athletic opportunities. Without women's ice hockey (24 opportunities) the female opportunity deficit at LU would be 235. It's 211 with women's hockey.

Even if LU dropped football tomorrow, that still wouldn't be enough for compliance, though it would certainly bring the numbers closer.

If female athletes were to sue Lindenwood (and there is a private right of action under Title IX), the onus would be on the school to prove that they are in fact in compliance with the law according to the three-pronged test referenced above. The school probably cannot.

And I know there's a whole section on the Lindenwood athletics website for "student life sports," which are club sports. They don't count for purposes of Title IX compliance.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

My last note on this:

Some of the numbers on the Equity in Athletics data for Lindenwood appear, for lack of a better word, absurd. The numbers are supposed to be the "Number of participants as of the day of the first scheduled contest," but there's no way some of these numbers are right. For example, there's no chance the school had 63 men's basketball players or 56 women's basketball players on the day of the first game in 2018-19, which is the last year for which the data is available.

BUT, the data is self-reported by the school, so... basically, they're reporting numbers that indicate they are in violation of Title IX. So take it for what you will.

 

[mk80]

The NAIA/NCAA divide was always going to be a tough gap to bridge. Not surprised it never happened.

First of all, no ACHA team would be "making the jump" - the school would almost certainly start from scratch. MAYBE some support staff would stay. MAYBE a few players would stay. Maybe, but very unlikely, Zombo stays in some capacity. But ACHA players by and large are not going to be capable of playing at the Division I level, and they will not be making an NCAA roster save for the very, very best or those willing to work harder than they've ever worked in their lives for less playing time than they've ever gotten before.

That's great that Zombo wants to see an NCAA program at Lindenwood, but if you read the quotes in that piece, he clearly has no clue about the administrative side of college hockey nor the facilities that Division I teams have. He thinks he's in the "Taj Mahal?" Has he seen Ralph Engelstad Arena? He thinks it's "just a rubber stamp" away? Come on.

I suspect the effort to have real college hockey at LU is stuck in Title IX hell, and until there's a way to resolve that issue, nothing is going to change.

When I say "Make the jump" that's what I mean. Different level so it would be a new team. Zombo and his staff, with some possible additions would be the first coaching staff, with the plan being to announce, a year before and start bringing players for a hybrid year, any players brought in for the NCAA level would "make the jump", etc. I don't mean it would literally be the exact same ACHA team we're icing right now.

Zombo's comments in the article are pretty typical coaching speak, absolutely Ralph > Centene, but what college coach when talking about their facilities doesn't rave about them and say they're the best? As for the rubber stamp comment, all I'll say* that's a fair assessment by him.


*because my position prevents me from further details.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Lindenwood could become the next CCHA member

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Lindenwood could become the next CCHA member

Not until they solve their Title IX problem.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

When I say "Make the jump" that's what I mean. Different level so it would be a new team. Zombo and his staff, with some possible additions would be the first coaching staff, with the plan being to announce, a year before and start bringing players for a hybrid year, any players brought in for the NCAA level would "make the jump", etc. I don't mean it would literally be the exact same ACHA team we're icing right now.

Zombo's comments in the article are pretty typical coaching speak, absolutely Ralph > Centene, but what college coach when talking about their facilities doesn't rave about them and say they're the best? As for the rubber stamp comment, all I'll say* that's a fair assessment by him.


*because my position prevents me from further details.

So they'll just keep the club staff for the first few years? How did that work out when they kept the club staff to run a Division I women's team? (Look it up.)

To say that it's "just a rubber stamp" that is needed is to deny the financial and legal realities of the situation.

 

[S E P H]

It doesn't work that way.

Title IX compliance is, at least partially, judged based on the number of athletic opportunities (essentially, unduplicated roster spots - so an XC/indoor track/outdoor track athlete counts once, not three times) per gender, not by number of teams. The U.S. Department of Education will use a three-pronged test when measuring compliance in creating equal opportunities for athletes of both genders.

An institution is in compliance with the three-part test if it meets any one of the following parts of the test:

(1) The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
(2) The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or
(3) The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
Source: Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test -- Part Three Q's & A's

According the the USDoE's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis website, Lindenwood has an enrollment of 2,760 males and 3,195 females, for a total of 5,955 students split 46.3%/53.7% Male/Female. Thus, in theory, approximately 46% of the schools athletic opportunities should be afforded to male students.

But guess what? Of the 1,183 athletic opportunities at Lindenwood, 697 (58.9%) of them are for men. 486 (41.1%) are for women. So Lindenwood fails prong one.

Source for all Data: Equity in Athletics (you'll need to search for Lindenwood University)

By adding women's hockey fairly recently, they can make a case that they satisfy prong two, but as the addition of women's hockey as a varsity program becomes more distant, that case becomes harder to make.

As for the third prong, if there are women's club sports that have tried to gain varsity status and been denied while the school's opportunity count is so skewed, well, LU had better hope they don't get sued.

Basically, Lindenwood needs to create whole lot more athletic opportunities (on the order of 11% more) for women before adding another men's athletic program. They could also drop men's sports to bring the numbers closer to being representative of the approximate gender split of the student body.

If LU were to just "rubber stamp it," as Zombo said, they'd be inviting a lawsuit that won't end well for them.

Interesting, didn't realise it was based on numbers. I am not surprised to see more men's sports in front, I would expect that for at least like 98%+ of universities since men's sports got more funding earlier on and is the money makers. I think it's relative easy to make a women's sport to satisfy the title XI ratio, but it goes back to that the most costly for the school isn't necessarily creating a D1 hockey team (if you don't need a new arena), it's the scholarships which takes a lot. Having to give a hockey team like 24 scholarships and then a women's sport 15-ish scholarships could really hurt the school financially.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Interesting, didn't realise it was based on numbers. I am not surprised to see more men's sports in front, I would expect that for at least like 98%+ of universities since men's sports got more funding earlier on and is the money makers. I think it's relative easy to make a women's sport to satisfy the title XI ratio, but it goes back to that the most costly for the school isn't necessarily creating a D1 hockey team (if you don't need a new arena), it's the scholarships which takes a lot. Having to give a hockey team like 24 scholarships and then a women's sport 15-ish scholarships could really hurt the school financially.

The numbers are lopsided in favor of males at nearly every school, especially if the school has a football team, regardless of NCAA Division. And don't fool yourself into thinking Division III sports programs have money makers, they just have sports that lose less. At those schools, and other schools where a revenue sport like men's basketball doesn't basically generate sales and support to float the entire athletic department, student fees are a huge part of the athletic budget. Basically, the student non-athletes support the athletic pursuits of the student-athletes.

Scholarships for Division I ice hockey teams are limited to 18. They can be split up amongst players - so you can give Goalie A 1/2 and Goalie B 1/2 and they have to come up with the rest of the cost of attendance. You can't have a disparity between the number of scholarships for the men's team and the number for the women's team - that's a Title IX violation, as would be having fewer total athletic scholarships at the school for one gender than the other. At most schools, generally, scholarships are endowed by alumni, and the interest on the endowment provides the funds for the student-athlete's scholarship.

The biggest cost is staff, travel, and arena. If you have an arena, you have the high energy costs of maintaining ice and the building and the associated staffing costs of that. If you don't, you have to pay a pile of money for ice in two-hour blocks, plus get the students there, plus buy ice in four-hour blocks for games. Then you have travel, not just for your team, but for your assistant coaches to go recruiting (wherever that may take them). And on top of that, staff salaries.

It's not just a matter of "build an ice plant."

 

[mk80]

So they'll just keep the club staff for the first few years? How did that work out when they kept the club staff to run a Division I women's team? (Look it up.)

Don't have to look it up. I know what happened with that. And 2 coaching staffs later the team is still in the same position it was then.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Don't have to look it up. I know what happened with that. And 2 coaching staffs later the team is still in the same position it was then.

Which makes you wonder if they actually care about being successful or just creating 20 roster spots for female athletes in hopes they don't get sued.

 

[JMCx4]

Which makes you wonder if they actually care about being successful or just creating 20 roster spots for female athletes in hopes they don't get sued.

Well, I reckon they did it so me 'n' Mrs. JMC could have free hockey to watch near home. And we appreciate the kind gesture.

 

[mk80]

Interesting tweet from the NAHL today