OT - Michigan Women's Hockey - why?

I wish I had more downvoted to give. Obligatory quit drinking and go to bed. 

So this is the hill that your MGOblog account is going to die on?

Besides it being the right thing to do, the Athletic department has the money. They are getting more and money every year from TV rights. Where is the money going besides coaches salaries and a bloated administration? It can't go directly to the players and the current facilities are already state of the art. Might as well use the money to provide more opportunities for female athletes.

I swear this is the same argument people make about every women's sport (and weirdly not about the bulk of men's sports which also run deficits) and it's tiring.  I can't find the expenses for the hockey team but this revenue number from 2018 is probably reasonably accurate for the hockey team - around $3M.  My guess is that expenses are at least that much, if not more, given the cost of travel, coaches salaries, equipment, tuition, etc.

Michigan can afford to field a women's hockey team and they should; arguing "oh it'll lose some money" isn't an argument I'm willing to entertain while they're looking at millions of more dollars coming in with their new TV deal and the various other revenue streams this team/conference enjoys.

I'm guessing the OP is not a hockey fan..... and has not watched quality women's hockey.  

Watched quite a few Mercyhurst Women's hockey games and they are a lot of fun..... There's a big difference between women's hockey and men's, but ..... that's why they have two different teams.   

do away with every other sport and use all the money on football 

The OP reminds me of something Homer Simpson said in S06E08 "Lisa on Ice".

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else-- and it hasn't-- it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such and such."

https://comb.io/4sp9Ic

I say more sports: add em all. Women's hockey, beach volleyball, skiing, rifle. I'd also like to see men's volleyball, rugby and others. 

I just wish other schools had the resources to add more sports. But if Michigan has the funds and capacity I think they should sponsor as many sports as possible. 

idk man. the womens US national team, the best in the world with back to back world cup titles and 4 olympic gold medals, got destroyed by boys team consisting of 15 year old high school kids.

does that mean the womens world cup isn't exciting as hell? not to me it doesn't. i watched all their world cup games in 2015 and 2019.

i'd like to see M have a womens hockey. always seemed odd they didn't.

"If you have tried to watch women's hockey on television it's not exactly dynamic..."

Do you watch the NHL just for the fights? Do you watch NASCAR only because you might get to see a crash? What makes a sport "dynamic" to you?

I have long wondered why U of M does not have a Women's Hockey program. Even an university to the south of us has one! As a teacher, I had numerous young ladies who busted their butts in the classroom (and on two- to three-hour bus and van rides) and on the ice in order to earn full-ride scholarships to high-level universities, and many of them did. I say the more opportunities there are for high school girls to be motivated to excel, whether it is through sports or another school-related pursuit, the better it is for all of us.

If we're going to eliminate every college sport that doesn't turn a profit, we wouldn't have college sports.

With the exception of a couple of dozen major football programs and about 100 major men's basketball programs, every college sport at every level runs at a deficit.

At some universities, like Michigan, the football and basketball programs provide the budget for the rest of the sports program. Everywhere else, it comes from the taxpayers and from student fees.

Some sports are more entertaining than others. Personally, I can't sit through more than two minutes of cross country or gymnastics. Others feel the same way about hockey or volleyball. None of those sports grab enough spectators to warrant any expense.

However...

The purpose of collegiate sports, like high school sports, is to add a dimension to the educational experience. Being part of a team has benefits in many real-life arenas later in life. This has very little to do with the audience, which is mostly parents and grandparents for many sports.

So the better question is whether the particular expense of women's hockey spreads the college sports opportunity to enough young women who otherwise wouldn't have that opportunity is a good use of whatever budget the university has for this part of the educational experience.

My guess is that it doesn't - hockey is an expensive sport and given the few number of teams around the country, travel is unusually expensive as well. Just spitballing based on the numbers, but perhaps you could spread the collegiate sports experience to 250 more women for the same cost as a 25-woman hockey team.

Regardless, maybe you add it anyway. Maybe the numbers add up better with unpleasant ice times or a more tournament-based schedule than you see with most team sports. But it's not about you, the random fan. It never has been and it really never should be.

Unless it's football or basketball, the money isn't ever a "why." In the BTN era maybe hockey brings in more revenue than it used to, but I'm guessing the national tourneys on ESPN are where most of the money is made - and that probably makes  baseball, softball, and women's gym bigger money makers overall.

So my take on the why is - if Michigan believes hockey is a culturally important thing, we should sponsor a team that lets women compete for our school. We fund a ton of money-losing sports because we like winning and we think it's important. If instead of women's hockey, we brought on women's wrestling, I'd get behind that - more chances to produce future olympians, a culturally important sport, way cheaper - but the why isn't about money. The how may be. And there may be other candidates with as many positives that win because of the money. But if this sport is important, than funding a women's team is important. The money is an excuse, not a reason.

I disagree that it's not fun to watch. My local high school girls' hockey team has won two state championships, and I have enjoyed watching them play. They aren't as fast or as skilled as the boys, but the boys haven't won any championships either. Also, watch a women's game between Canada and the USA and tell me that it isn't entertaining. 

How would Michigan pull this off, even if they wanted to?

They would need more than one sheet on campus to make this realistically happen, so that's more than a $3 million start-up cost.  Doubtful that Yost could be added on to make a sufficient locker room space.  You can't have the men's team based at Yost and then the women's team based at say the Ann Arbor Ice Cube or some other off-campus rink, and then how would you sort out game times?

Even OSU has a separate sheet (the lousy OSU Ice Rink) so its programs get enough practice/game ice when they really need it.

To honestly pull this off, you would need well north of $100 million, a new 2- or 3-sheet arena complex somewhere down at the south athletic campus by the new track with a main arena seating 5,000-8,000, and universal support from the Univ. admins, and the coaches/players/parents of SE Michigan.

Perhaps I think of this analytically - what’s the capital and operating expense structure.

Mr Ross’ donation to the university has provided for very good - perhaps, state of the art - facilities for both men’s and women’s sports.  As far as I can tell - identical facilities - both practice and game for both men and women.

From a capital expense standpoint, I do not envision a second rink being built.  Both men and women could use Yost, possibly with the addition of a women’s locker room.  The two squads could schedule their rink / practice time - and manage it.

It’s a great opportunity - supports Title IX - and definitely merits consideration / addition.

i believe there may be three sports at Michigan which “pay for themselves” - men’s football, basketball, and hockey.  Every other sport relies on the revenue generated by those three.

 Women’s sports at Michigan have performed well on the national stage.  Gymnastics, IIRC, won an NC recently.  Softball, basketball, and Field Hockey have been successful.  Swimming / Diving have All American athletes.  Etc…

The operating expenses - and any deficit associated with ongoing women’s hickey, could be managed.

Ok, 3 reasons why: 1) There's a lot of state/local talent that currently has to play elsewhere, 2) winning Olympic Gold (especially by beating Canada) is fun, 3) adding another legitimate women's sport could put an end to the disingenuous game-playing the ADept currently does to meet Title 9 requirements (like counting male basketball players who scrimmage vs the WBB team as "female participants"), it might even prevent a T9 lawsuit or 3.

.....and 3 reasons why not: 1) big long-term money loser, 2) would probably require building a 2nd facility, 3) clunky play compared to other sports won't draw crowds

The team the team the team. Team Michigan

This OP:  Tell me you're sexist without saying "I'm sexist."

Buckeye coaches don’t follow the rules.  What rules?  There aren’t any that I’m aware of.  The non revenue sports are more fun to watch when you can, given TV’s disinterest.  The athletes are playing because they love their sport.  They aren’t panting at the Portals gates to transfer schools.  Nor are they expecting a huge professional contract.  I admit that after 75 years of fandom I’ve lost a lot of my rah, rah because money from TV now controls all aspects of college football and basketball.

Dude, have you seen the numbers on the new B1G TV deal? The AD can pay for women's hockey and have plenty more money than before.

Plus, there is all that Title 9, equal opportunities for women in varsity sports thing. Last I checked, men's and women's sports haven't yet achieved full equity at Michigan, so it would seem that now is a good time to make some more progress.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

The fact that everyone here is so triggered by OP is hilarious. And sad.

Do you know that virtually no women's sports existed before Title IX?  That's how women's sports get visibility at a place like M.  Once a sport gets recognized at the varsity level, it will be developed and become popular to those who follow it.  Why not give ladies a chance? 

They also play most all sports differently than men.  So, if you are used to a men's sport you must get used to somewhat different strategy and different style with women.  What's not to like about "vive la difference"?  Especially if you are a woman!

The daughter of my neighbor plays club hockey at MSU; you wouldn't believe the time required for fund-raising, not to mention practice and playing -- just like they were varsity status except for the Athletic Dept funding.  Varsity status also improves play via better-paid coaches and higher level recruits who receive scholarships.

Go Blue Women's Hockey!

We need Womens’ Hockey so we can take National Championships from OSU!

Some hockey fans like watching hockey regardless of gender

i'm going to guess you've never actually been on michigan's campus, the athletic campus does not count.

U of M is (still) a non profit

they take in boatloads of cash and provide students with great experiences in return

not every sport gets treated like a commercial enterprise

value creation is independent of commercialization and financial measurement

yada yada yada…

figure it out!

This seems to really bother you for some reason

These people eviscerated you and your clumsy, ill-prepared arguments. Next time polish up a little more first?