On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Eric J. Lentz wrote:
 
> There has also been talk of UNLV and possible So. Cal. schools starting
> teams from scratch.
 
Currently, nine of the ten Pac 10 schools offer club hockey (I forget if
it is Oregon State or Washington State that doesn't have a team).
Arizona is the only school in ACHA's Div I, while the other eight schools
are ACHA Div II.  In fact, these eight teams agreed in the middle of this
past season to form a "Pac 10 Hockey Conference".  The thing to remember
is that these are club sports that aren't officially sponsored by the
intercollegiate athletic departments.
 
> Anyone care to start from scratch?  There is the need for an arena as well
> as scholarships, coaches, equipment, and hockey fans.  (Note: UW has
> *NEVER* had its own rink owned by the university, this should change by
> 2007, so don't let this stop you!)  The biggest stopper here is probably
> gender equity and Title IX requirements.  Since most schools have atheletic
> programs with proportionally more male to female atheletes than the general
> student populations they are looking to add women's sports (if the have the
> $$) or cut men's sports.  The obvious answer here on Hockey-L is just to
> add Women's hockey at the same time.  But again there is the cost of start
> up and the likelyhood that the team will have a net finacial cost for a
> much longer period of time.  There is also a much smaller pool of girls
> playing hockey in HS.  In general, I find it unlikely that more than one or
> two new Division I men's ice hockey teams will be announced by the end of
> century if there are any at all.  Our best hope for expansion of Division I
> is to rely on the upgrading of Division II/III programs.
 
You're pretty close with your assessment here.  In terms of the Pac 10
schools, I wouldn't hold your breath on seeing an NCAA Div I program get
restarted (yes, there was Division I hockey on the west coast a couple
generations ago).  Even with Disney's support, I don't see how a school
like UCLA that was forced to drop its very successful men's swimming
program to meet Title IX, can justify the expense of starting a new program.
 
Starting a women's program at the same time would not solve the problem,
as schools are working to increase the opportunities to women in
comparision to the opporuntities for men.  Starting a women's program
alone would help in terms of Title IX, but adding a men's program at the
same time contributes to the problem.  The recent ruling against Brown
has thrown more problems into the way most atheltic departments view
Title IX compliance.  Add in the recent movement by the football coaches
in Washington, DC to have football overlooked in the calculation of
opportunities, and you see that Title IX is far from being clearly defined.
 
We should only expect the growth of women's sports through the end of the
decade.  Women's soccer in the Big T1e1n and women's water polo and golf
in the Pac 10 are beginning to grow as the universities see the way to
Title IX compliance as being more opportunities for women.  Cutting men's
sports, while still being done, leads to a very uneasy feeling on campus.
 
---
Robb Dunn                                          |GO BEARS!
The University of Michigan                         [log in to unmask]
Division of Kinesiology/Department of Athletics    |W: 313-764-9429
Sport Facilities Research Laboratory               |   313-764-4597 FAX