Its kind of nice to see a women's hockey discussion pop up.  Since it happens to be one of my favorite topics, let me share my views.
 
I have no specific knowledge of RPI's plans regarding women's hockey, but some of the issues Ralph brings up are very common to most women's college hockey programs.
 
Specifically I am referring to points #3 and #4.  In #3 Ralph notes that attendence has been virtually non-existent.  Unfortunately, that is the nature of the game at many Division I women's ice hockey games.  Even some of your most successful teams (such as UNH) draw in the 200-person range.  I'm sure the games vs. the better teams draw better and I must admit I don't check attendence figures all the time, but I'm sure that's not far off.
 
This has been an issue for us at Maine.  Last season was Maine's first as a Division I women's ice hockey team and I've been involved with them from the start of this, so I have an understanding of what goes on when you move from D-III to D-I.  During last season's first Division I campaign the athletic department allowed fans to come to games free of charge.  This was probably due in large part to the fact that women's ice hockey is certainly nowhere near being a revenue producing sport.  Attendence was usually around that 200 person number, with a lot of families and small children making the trip.
 
This season, Maine has moved to charging a $5/person fee and attendence has dropped off.  It was a mistake IMHO for the administration to do this, but they are offering concessions etc. so there is probably a need to pay those bills.  It has however hurt fan attendence, but to what degree we cannot really quantify since Maine is still growing and improving, but not registering that in the win column very often.
 
In reference to point #4, there is simply no comparison between the skill level in D-III and D-I in women's ice hockey.  It is far worse than in men's hockey.
 
When Maine went D-I it came about in part because of a push by the team at that point in time.  Maine was playing D-III and had a decent team, making the playoffs and losing to powerhouse Middlebury in the second-round I believe.  When it comes to moving up to D-I in women's ice hockey be careful what you wish for because it might come true!  All but a few of the D-III players did not make the D-I team and even the lower D-I teams (like Maine) can easily beat the D-III teams with minimal effort.
 
So my point here is that it doesn't really matter how RPI has performed at D-III or where their growth at D-III stands right now because if they choose to go D-I they will have 95% new players and perhaps even a new coach.
 
The real question for RPI and women's ice hockey is whether or not they plan to give scholarships and how many.  There was a time when only a few D-I schools gave scholarships and they always got the good players, but now more and more schools are not only giving scholarships, but they are actually giving out the NCAA maximum of 18 (Maine is working up to this number).  This has begun to level the playing field so-to-speak in women's hockey, but those schools that do not give out scholarships may struggle to compete long-term.
 
I'm sorry for going on here, but we are very excited by our women's program here and I'm thrilled to be involved in it, so obviously I love discussing it.  I hope RPI considers their options and decides to make the jump.  They'd be a natural partner with Niagara in the ECAC.
 
---
Deron Treadwell - [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
>That's great to hear, but it surprises me all the same.  I had hoped for
>many years that RPI would go this way, as fellow D-III school SLU has many
>years ago, but there are several things that made it seem unlikely.  1) RPI
>has not seemed to be increasing its percentage of games vs D-I schools over
>the last few years.  2) Other women's sports at RPI seem to be more advanced
>and perform better.  3) Attendence has been virtually non-existent.  4) The
>performance of the team at the D-III level has plateaued.
>
>> As for the collapse, injuries haven't helped, but can't explain the whole
>> thing.  Against St. Lawrence, there was (my opinion) individual hard play,
>> but more like a pick-up team, with lack of  discipline and an air of
>> desperation. Actually, this is just an extreme, and disasterously ill-
>> timed, version of the slumps that they have gone through most seasons over
>> the past few years.
>
>Just a few years??  It seems like almost every year since I started paying
>attention in 64-65.
>
>Ralph Baer
>RPI '68, '70, '74
>
>HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
>[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.