At 9-26-2007 06:32 PM, Todd Nielson wrote:
>Even more curious, I see from WSU's press release that they are 
>keeping women's hockey.  This is said to be a financial decision, 
>but doesn't keeping the women's team diminish the cost savings significantly?

It probably has to do with Title 9.  Hockey being an expensive sport, 
the AD can say, 'look at all the resources we devote to women's 
hockey.'  I checked their website 
(http://wsuathletics.cstv.com/).  Dropping men's hockey evens out the 
number of sports (which, AIUI, is not necessarily a Title 9 
criterion).  It could be part of the dance to justify the expense of 
a football program.  As it stands (men/women):

(Baseball/Softball) comparable
(Basketball/Basketball) comparable
(Cross Country/Cross Country) comparable
(Fencing/Fencing) comparable
(Football/     ) $$$$$
(Golf/Volleyball) comparable? probably
(Ice Hockey/Ice Hockey) comparable
(Swimming/Swimming) comparable
(Tennis/Tennis) comparable

Remove men's hockey, compare women's ice hockey against football, and 
you're closer  to even.

Note: I have no access to WSU's budget docs, so I have no idea 
whether the amounts that they spend are comparable; I just observe 
that they could/should be.

Joe
-- 
Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
http://makowiec.org/