> Can anyone (maybe Leigh Torbin at UMass?) explain how any of these
> schools were able to add hockey in the face of Title IX?  It does seem
> unusual and certainly counters the trend.  But if we investigate these
> situations and find out how it was done, it may give an insight into
> how other schools could find a way to start programs too.
 
        UMass added it's hockey team, while also increasing women's
athletics. In the past two seasons, UMass has added women's lacrosse,
women's water polo, women's tennis, women's volleyball, and women's crew,
while only adding hockey and tennis on the men's side. The women's
basketball team has recieved a boost as well.
        When adding a program like hockey, which requires added
scholarship money, equipment expenses and travel fees, either one of two
options must be preformed by the athletic department. Either A) cut men's
sports or B) add women's sports to counteract the addition of a major
revenue sport.
        Thanks to a bill signed by Governor Weld contributing money to
UMass' athletic department for the purpose of Title IX complience, UMass
was able to go the with the addition method instead of axing sucessful
men's programs. Many of you Badger faithful out there might recall the
fight over cutting the baseball team a few years back. This isn't the way
to go. Thankfully the guys on Beacon Hill helped us out. Also the
megabucks that the basketball team rakes in sure doesn't hurt.
        The problem with a smaller college stepping up to DI, is that
without the kind of funding that UMass has, they would likely have to
deprive sports to play hockey.
        Meanwhile, more than anyother school that I know of UMass is
wholeheartedly comitted to its women's sports and non-revenue sports in
general. The women's soccer team has never lost the Atlantic-10 title and
went to the NCAA final four two years ago. The field hockey team missed
the NCAAs this year for the first time EVER, a streak that dated back to
the tournament's founding in 1981. The softball team went to the college
world series in 1993 and ended up ranked #3 in the nation. The gymnastics
team will compete in the NCAAs this weekend. Volleyball, in just its
second season, finished up at 27-8 this year. Not too shabby!
        I see no reason why a BigTen or Pac-10 school couldn't start up a
DI hockey proram. The income from football and basketball has many of
those schools comfortably in the red, with large alumni support to draw
on as well. They could start a hockey program, while maintaining solid
non-revenue teams.
        Smaller schools would likely have a problem wih this, and
although the hockey team would get noticed, the department as a whole
would suffer and be weakened.
        Title IX is THE hot subject in the realm of college athletics
these days. Especially as more court cases, like the recent Brown
decision, support the female athletes, it will be increasing thrown into
the fore front of athletic direction. Practically every single day Title
IX is brought up in my Sports Management classes. It is going o shape the
face of college athletics for the next few decades. Many schools barely
comply now, let alone with the addition of a major men's sport, with
heavy expenses and scholarship demands. It isn't feasible to add hockey at
most schools today, but as UMass showed, it is clearly possible to not
only add it, but to be competitive as well. All it takes is a little
extra money and a whole lot of commitment to BOTH your struggling new
hockey team, and women's athletics.
 
Leigh
[log in to unmask]
The above opions are not nessecarilly those of the UMass athletic department.