Really? That's interesting, what are the biggest implications that need to be satisfied for Title IX if a school was to bring in men's hockey? Couldn't Arizona just do a women's hockey team even if that means paying for even more equipment?
NCAA Hockey Expansion Thread
- Thread starter S E P H
- Start date
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
I explained earlier in the thread how Title IX compliance is calculated. And no, "just 'doing' a women's hockey team" doesn't necessarily cut it, either. It has to do with providing equal opportunity to both male and female student athletes, and that means more than just roster spots.
Again, here are the prongs of the three-part 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.
Very, very few school could pass the three-part test for Title IX compliance if they were to be sued, especially any school that has a football team, as Arizona does.
First, most colleges and universities have more female students than male students. So to pass the first prong, they'd have to show that the number of roster spots and scholarships are proportional to the gender split on campus.
As to the second prong, very few schools can show that they've expanded athletic opportunities for either gender, but especially females, since the mid-1980s.
Finally, if you were to poll women on campus, especially female athletes that play club sports but can't get any traction to have a varsity program created for their sport - and yes, they are out there - you'd find that most colleges and universities can't demonstrate compliance with the third prong.
Just "'doing' a women's hockey team" doesn't necessarily mean an athletic department is Title IX compliant. Adding a women's team in such a way would only maintain the status quo of what likely is unchallenged non-compliance.
Last edited:
Very interesting about the ratio quotient that needs to be covered and yes you're right about females being more dominant in higher education than males (remember reading a statistic like that about colleges in Iran which expanded my interest for further research). So based on that, a university actually needs more female sports due to the higher number of females on campus than men.
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
In theory, yes, at least to be in compliance with Title IX.
But the government doesn't actively enforce Title IX when it comes to equity in athletics unless and until a complaint is filed with the U.S. Department of Education. Active enforcement is left to the populace via a private right of action, meaning that a person who has been affected by discrimination or inequality that is covered by Title IX can file a civil lawsuit in federal court seeking enforcement.
Yeah, but how much time and effort will somebody make on filing a complaint while also hiring lawyers, you know? As you mentioned, there is a lot of status quo out there against women's sports and you'll likely find that a lot are still unrepresented except for the major ones like softball, soccer, basketball, volleyball, tennis, etc. The majority of the top-tier schools probably already have these established. I bet there are a lot of schools which aren't really qualified for Title IX, but since nobody sues them (or dares to sue them) the sleeping dogs stay silent. Perhaps you have more info to correct me on anything I mentioned because I am naive on this subject.
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
You don't have to hire a lawyer to make a complaint to the DoE or to file a lawsuit in the United States, though having one certainly helps in both instances.
Nobody sues to challenge the schools on this because often the students are too young to know that they've been wronged, and, among other things, the group of students who are willing to go to court to fight for equal rights and the group of students who play sports seldom overlap. These cases require an attorney who is willing to take the case on a contingent fee basis AND has the knowledge and resources to prosecute the case, and a student who is willing to take some lumps on campus for however long it takes to see it through. Not only that, the time frame to prosecute such a case is limited, as when the plaintiff-student graduates, the issue becomes moot and courts will dismiss the action, so you need to have a continuing stream of plaintiffs who can be joined to the case if the original plaintiff's claim is dismissed for mootness when they finish school.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,219
- 8,830
Highly doubtful on UCLA (and USC) having D1 hockey in any foreseeable future even though the athletic department is joining the B1G. Their ACHA programs certainly capitalized on the school news via social media, but there is no official effort underway. I've made my skepticism on UNLV known on here many times, and even I'll go as far to say that at least the effort there from that program has more merit than the tweets by UCLA.Extremely soft reports about UCLA wanting to go D1 in the future with some alumni opening funding for the programme since they're joining Big 10. I think they have a better chance now than they did in PAC-12, but the article makes a good point that what sunk Illinois hockey desire is the same problems that UCLA face (aka building a brand new arena).
UCLA and USC Join The Big Ten
There was a seismic shift in the world of major college athletics on Friday, as the Big Ten announced that the conference had voted unanimously to add UCLA and USC to the conference, bringing the...www.sbncollegehockey.com
I would say if there was any official effort underway to add NCAA hockey in conjunction with a move to the B1G. We would have heard it by now. But this is a football centered move for both sides.
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
GrizzGreen
Registered User
UNLV at least having a good ACHA program automatically makes them more viable as a NCAA target. USC/UCLA are bad ACHA programs. Lots of hurdles to overcome on their potential road to D1.
Which division is all of them in at the ACHA level? Being bad in ACHA D1 isn't necessarily worse than being amazing in ACHA D2/D3. It shows that the school has some value in the programme, even if it's at the club level.
GrizzGreen
Registered User
UNLV is ACHA D1, UCLA/USC ACHA D2
Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah (I suppose ASU can fit here too since they also have ACHA 1) are head and shoulders above the other PAC 12 programs (all ACHA D1)
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Doesn't necessarily matter the quality of the team considering, if in the hypothetical scenario a top ACHA D1 team goes NCAA D1, maybe 2 players would transfer over. Good program doesn't mean anything when considering NCAA expansion via the ACHA.
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
See, that's what the club clowns often don't understand. When the school decides it's time to add a real college hockey program, they all think they're good enough to play in NCAA Division I. Years of Tier II and Tier III travel hockey, pay-to-play junior programs, and "showcases" have created this illusion. The reality is that the very best club players are, at best, fourth liners, and more often practice players and extreme depth guys at the NCAA Division I level.
GrizzGreen
Registered User
Agree with the carryover completely as someone who spent time in NCAA D1 and D3.
However, from a recruiting/school support/momentum standpoint, it's much harder to turn a club program that isn't even good at being a club program, that isn't taken seriously by the club ranks/athletic department/the student body isn't even aware it exists to a varsity sport that is meant to be run professionally and supported by the school than it is to do the same from a program that already has good attendance and a structure that leads to positive results.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Not really.
From a recruiting standpoint, they're not even recruiting similar kids or using similar avenues.
From a school support standpoint, most ACHA teams who would hypothetically could go NCAA D1 get minimal support. The ones which do get good support can't because of mostly of a wide variety of issues.
Momentum standpoint? Look at the last five teams to join NCAA D1.
Penn State - ACHA teams was pretty decent, had a national championship to their name, but had minimal support and minimal school interest. Daddy Pegula is the only reason they have NCAA hockey. He didn't even realize they had a rec rink on campus or had a ACHA team. No ACHA to NCAA links at all.
Arizona State - the only one to have some sort of a link in that they had some school support and a pretty good ACHA team. Their funding came almost exclusively from a parent of a former player. The school wasn't stepping in and adding hockey because of anything the ACHA team did, but still an exceptionally minor link.
University of St. Thomas - were kicked out of their NCAA D3 conference and the school decided to go D1 in everything. No links.
Post University - no team to adding NCAA D1 hockey. President wanted to add more sports.
Augustana University - Pappa Sanford, who is the school's primary backer, fell in line with the school's AD and his plan to make hockey the school's flagship sport. No ACHA links.
The ACHA has been around a long time and has been a very serious, high level of hockey for a long time. But no NCAA D1 team has been added because of the school/community/momentum/interest generated by the ACHA team. A handful of NCAA D3 programs have been added because of the school/community/momentum/interest generated by the ACHA team. Lebanon Valley, Bryn Athyn College, and Alvernia come to mind.
Considering this, there is absolutely no evidence to support you point.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,219
- 8,830
Since I don't want to create a separate thread, on the flip side of expansion talk the NCAA D3 level is losing Finlandia University in Michigan as they close up shop completely after this school year
www.mlive.com
126-year-old U.P. university announces it’s closing, won’t enroll students next year
In a letter to Finlandia’s students, faculty and staff, Finlandia President Timothy Pinnow said the decision comes after months of “herculean efforts and constant and repeated attempts” to fix Finlandia’s finances and enrollment struggles.
www.mlive.com
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
I forgot Lindenwood. Lindenwood might support your point although @mk80 can speak more to their NCAA D1 hockey addition process. I believe it had been in the works for a while but the ACHA team was not the focal point behind it, but he is probably the most knowledgeable person around for it.
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
We call them games in the United States.
Minot State is a good club program, but they have no chance against those two teams.
JMCx4
#HopeForHUTCH
You never know with Colorado College. They've been known to doze off against their NCHC opponents on occasion. Doesn't mean an unexpected CC loss to Minot would trigger an automatic swap of the two teams' affiliations, though.
They're my team in the NCAA and haven't been the same since Scott Owens resigned. But that's what you get for being a smaller school compared to the likes of DU, ND, or Minny.
Minot State getting exhibitions games reminds me a lot of Lindenwood, but without all the "we're going D1 sometimes, but we don't know when" for the past five years lol. NCHC team accepting them is a good sign in terms of the relevance of the school.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,219
- 8,830
As far as ACHA support for LU, fan support was definitely lacking. it wasn't promoted much and for most of the program's existence they played far off campus (20 minutes without traffic). But the ACHA team was part of the athletic department by way of the Student Life Sports office so there was no hockey related costs for the players, equipment provided, meals and travel paid for on the road, athletic training.
This is the case for a lot of the top ACHA D1 and some of the top D2 level teams where they are treated as a varsity sport, think your teams like Liberty, Maryville, UMary, Navy, Minot State, Indiana Tech, Concordia Ann Arbor, ETBU, etc. Then there are others who operate like much like junior teams where players pay to play and it's funded through boosters, tickets, sponsors, etc. examples of which include UNLV, Illinois State, MO State, Ohio, Iowa State.
Getting back on track the addition of NCAA D1 men's hockey at LU was the result of a combination of 4 factors:
1. The Centene Community Ice Center originally was designed with a USHL team in mind, when that fell through, the Blues and LU partnered, and an $85 million dollar arena got dropped on Lindenwood's doorstep just a few miles from campus.
2. Lindenwood has flirted with it in the past multiple times since 2005, so there's been a desire to do it.
3. Title IX numbers supported the addition.
3. The school president to use a famous term of this thread rubber stamped it.
Obviously the success on ice in the ACHA was good with the 4 National Championships since 2010, numerous nationals runs (we had some good battles with Minot State), consistent top 5 ranking, and if you look around rosters for AHL, ECHL, SPHL FPHL (maybe not one to brag about), and leagues across Europe you'll see LU had a good track record of moving guys onto to minor pro hockey at a similar success rate of some small NCAA D1 programs already. While all that is good to have when establishing NCAA hockey at an institution, giving recruits some sort of history to show them, it's not really a necessary requirement for a school to add a team. If the right boxes are checked, a suitable arena, funding, Title IX, etc. your team could be 0-100 in the ACHA and it wouldn't matter. I do personally think having the ACHA success provides value by allowing for a better jumping off point for recruiting.
All the recent ACHA to NCAA programs, Penn State, ASU, and LU have replaced most of their rosters quickly upon entering the NCAA. Penn State and LU both brought in NCAA level freshmen the year before their transition, and only a handful of seniors and upper classmen carried into the first NCAA seasons for each. In the case of Penn State they even replaced their coach the year before NCAA, hiring Guy Gadowsky to coach their final year of ACHA and take the team into their NCAA era.
Last edited:
Bonk
Registered User
If you STL guys didn't see, Lindenwood and Miami recently agreed to play a pair of series. I'm looking forward to seeing your rink. [/threadjack]
JMCx4
#HopeForHUTCH
You could have beaten the crowd from Ohio & come to our rink the first weekend in February of this year ... Men’s ACHA D2 Hockey Sweeps Miami (Ohio)
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,219
- 8,830
Some things for everyone to chew on regarding any expansion of DI hockey, my thoughts included on each:
This consulting firm that has done a few studies for schools in the past, has been known to jump the gun on announcing things, including announcing their studies before the schools themselves. Rumors have swirled about Summit League hockey since Josh Fenton took the job, so no real shock here if indeed this is the case.
If it does happen, it's likely to think the affiliate schools would be current non Summit League members of the current NCHC.
The following quotes from College Hockey Inc. Executive Director Mike Snee at the Frozen Four
We can put a number on the amount of schools looking into adding DI hockey. As we've seen so far not much has come from exploratory studies from most schools that have completed them. But we will see if anything more concrete comes from this batch.
Both have been discussed here before, and have work to do in a couple of areas to check off the whole list of things needed to ice a team. My thought continues to be that Utica is the most likely of the two since they would be a DIII to DI move with the entire university athletic department.
Finally we come to TSU, I have my doubts about them coming to fruition. But this the first we've heard since the initial study was announced so, it's still a work in progress I guess.
This consulting firm that has done a few studies for schools in the past, has been known to jump the gun on announcing things, including announcing their studies before the schools themselves. Rumors have swirled about Summit League hockey since Josh Fenton took the job, so no real shock here if indeed this is the case.
If it does happen, it's likely to think the affiliate schools would be current non Summit League members of the current NCHC.
The following quotes from College Hockey Inc. Executive Director Mike Snee at the Frozen Four
We can put a number on the amount of schools looking into adding DI hockey. As we've seen so far not much has come from exploratory studies from most schools that have completed them. But we will see if anything more concrete comes from this batch.
Both have been discussed here before, and have work to do in a couple of areas to check off the whole list of things needed to ice a team. My thought continues to be that Utica is the most likely of the two since they would be a DIII to DI move with the entire university athletic department.
Finally we come to TSU, I have my doubts about them coming to fruition. But this the first we've heard since the initial study was announced so, it's still a work in progress I guess.
