(06-16-2021 05:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  If they move up and the Summit lets them in, their presence would also put Summit Hockey at 5 teams, one away from potentially pulling a B1G and sending the realignment dominos falling again.

Except that I don't think the Summit schools would want to have a hockey conference of their own members. And the Summit doesn't have the same leverage as the Big Ten to force them to do it.

Remember Minnesota and Wisconsin did not want a Big Ten Hockey Conference, but the Big Ten basically said we're doing it, or you can leave and give up your share of revenues.

If the Summit said to North Dakota and Denver "hey, you have to leave Duluth and Colorado College and St. Cloud to join St. Thomas and Augustana, or else" then North Dakota and Denver would say "or else what?" and the Summit would say "or else you can't be in the Summit League" and then Denver and North Dakota would say "shucks, guess we'll go join the WAC or something."

(06-17-2021 02:24 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 05:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  If they move up and the Summit lets them in, their presence would also put Summit Hockey at 5 teams, one away from potentially pulling a B1G and sending the realignment dominos falling again.

Except that I don't think the Summit schools would want to have a hockey conference of their own members. And the Summit doesn't have the same leverage as the Big Ten to force them to do it.

Remember Minnesota and Wisconsin did not want a Big Ten Hockey Conference, but the Big Ten basically said we're doing it, or you can leave and give up your share of revenues.

If the Summit said to North Dakota and Denver "hey, you have to leave Duluth and Colorado College and St. Cloud to join St. Thomas and Augustana, or else" then North Dakota and Denver would say "or else what?" and the Summit would say "or else you can't be in the Summit League" and then Denver and North Dakota would say "shucks, guess we'll go join the WAC or something."

Exactly. I know that's what would happen, and UND would be on the first ship out of the conference the moment the Summit pushed for it. The NCHC is UND's baby, and Denver's extremely happy in the NCHC. The nature of the NCHC and how invested North Dakota is in it is why I think all of the talk of UND moving their hockey to the B1G is a load as well. Why pull the plug on their project? Still, them and Denver leaving would have a ripple effect around the Olympic sports, and I'm not sure whether UNO would side with the Summit or with the NCHC.

I doubt the Summit would pursue it, like the Ivy hasn't pursued a split from the ECAC despite having the teams to. There's no real reason to. It's still kind of a fun thought.

Yeah, there will be no Summit hockey for similar reasons why there is no such thing as Summit football. It would destroy the league.

John Buccigross is hearing that RMU may be resurrected:

https://twitter.com/Buccigross/status/14...65568?s=20

A Summit Hockey Conference of:

North Dakota
Omaha
Denver
St Thomas
Colorado College*
Minn-Duluth*
St Cloud St*
Minnesota St*

would actually be a pretty nice set up. Miami and WMU rejoin the CCHA.

Nebraska just hired away Omaha's athletic director. Cue the UNL hockey rumors.

(07-14-2021 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A Summit Hockey Conference of:

North Dakota
Omaha
Denver
St Thomas
Colorado College*
Minn-Duluth*
St Cloud St*
Minnesota St*

would actually be a pretty nice set up. Miami and WMU rejoin the CCHA.

I'd feel terrible leaving Bemidji on an island as a result. Might as well include them as well in this very hypothetical situation. Include ASU so everyone gets a nice and warm away game in the winter, and say hello-welcome back Final Five Tourney (essentially). With all of the MN teams and ND, and now St. Thomas, the exclusion of the UofMN would really annoy their fans and I think a lot of people would get a kick out of that. This league would have an awesome conference tourney.

I don't see a Summit Hockey league ever happening...

The NCHC was created precisely to get away from the cost-containment, small expenditure mentalities at schools such as Mankato, Bemidji, Michigan Tech and UAA.

Denver and North Dakota led the NCHC breakaway because they wanted to be around fellow schools that aimed high and spent big on hockey. I don't see those two schools as very interested in a Summit Hockey Conference. Miami was also a founding member of the NCHC and I don't see the the Red Hawks going anywhere. SCSU and Western Michigan were only added to the NCHC after BC, BU and Notre Dame all decided against NCHC membership. BC and BU decided early on that there were too many important regional rivalies lost with added travel, while Notre Dame coaches wanted the NCHC, but they could not work out the TV deal, as ND had a school contract with NBC and the NCHC's contract (brokered by Miami) was with CBS Sports Network.

(07-17-2021 08:51 PM)puck swami Wrote:  ... while Notre Dame coaches wanted the NCHC, but they could not work out the TV deal, as ND had a school contract with NBC and the NCHC's contract (brokered by Miami) was with CBS Sports Network.

As a sidenote, this helps explain how ND Hockey ended up as a Big Ten affiliate, since the Big Ten offered them the same deal they offered their first affiliate (ever), John Hopkins in Lacrosse: home games belong to the affiliate, the affiliate doesn't participate in BTN revenue sharing.

So the BTN can show Johns Hopkins Lacrosse and Notre Dame hockey, but only the away half of their conference schedules.

College hockey start-up rumor SZN has given way to college hockey re-start rumor SZN:

Alaska-Anchorage has a job posting for a head men's hockey coach: https://careers.alaska.edu/en-us/job/517...ens-hockey

Alaska-Anchorage update: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/sport...e=Homepage

UAA has raised $2.6M of the $3M goal, with a deadline of August 30. If that goal is met, they will have enough for a year or two of play. Without a coach or any players, not sure what 1-2 years really buys you.

Title 9 may be an issue for schools that have Mens hockey teams but not womens hockey... a circuit court just overturned a decision and said satisfying three prong approach wasn't enough, and that the lower court must also consider this 1979 title 9 interpretation:

4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports.
In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex.
a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
(1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
(2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.

Official court opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/192517P.pdf

Article: https://news.yahoo.com/und-womens-hockey...00159.html

(08-12-2021 12:01 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Title 9 may be an issue for schools that have Mens hockey teams but not womens hockey... a circuit court just overturned a decision and said satisfying three prong approach wasn't enough, and that the lower court must also consider this 1979 title 9 interpretation:

4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports.
In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex.
a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
(1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
(2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.

Official court opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/192517P.pdf

Article: https://news.yahoo.com/und-womens-hockey...00159.html

Interesting. So UND (the subject of the lawsuit) may be forced to either drop Men's Hockey or revive Women's Ice Hockey.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be women's hockey, just a women's contact sport. Rugby, for example.

(08-12-2021 01:46 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  It wouldn't necessarily have to be women's hockey, just a women's contact sport. Rugby, for example.

I suppose that argument could be made, as there isn't precedent for the interpretation of the text in this rule, but I think it would fail. I comprehend the rule differently than you, and I believe they chose the word "particular" to describe the team for a reason. If you read the court opinion, it does not come off that way either (as in "any" w contact sport). There was also no mention of UND's women's soccer team, which is a contact sport, in the entire 24 page opinion.

(08-12-2021 01:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 12:01 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Title 9 may be an issue for schools that have Mens hockey teams but not womens hockey... a circuit court just overturned a decision and said satisfying three prong approach wasn't enough, and that the lower court must also consider this 1979 title 9 interpretation:

4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports.
In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex.
a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
(1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
(2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.

Official court opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/192517P.pdf

Article: https://news.yahoo.com/und-womens-hockey...00159.html

Interesting. So UND (the subject of the lawsuit) may be forced to either drop Men's Hockey or revive Women's Ice Hockey.

It's a possible outcome, but there are a handful of different ways it could play out.. I don't think it will come to that based on the opinion from the 3rd judge, where the judge writes the following (I bolded for emphasis):

"This 1979 separate-teams mandate has largely disappeared from public view
since it was issued. No court has relied on the mandate to find liability under Title
IX. Neither the complaint nor the parties on appeal point to any instance in which the
government has enforced the separate-teams mandate. According to the University,
the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated a complaint that
discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program violated Title IX, but closed its
investigation without alleging a violation. By contrast, the Department repeatedly has
addressed how an institution may comply with obligations under Title IX by meeting
the Department’s three-part test.8"

"Nor has the University yet presented evidence about OCR’s
inquiry into the discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program. If it turns out
that the Department were to abandon the separate-teams mandate, and clarify
definitively that the “effective accommodation” inquiry is limited to the three-part test
and quality of competition, then that would change the complexion of this case. Or
if the Department retains the separate-teams mandate “on paper” in a 43-year-old
policy interpretation, but as a practical matter does not enforce the mandate, then
there may be a serious question about whether the mandate is really a valid regulatory
interpretation that provides a basis for civil liability or attorney’s fees in private
litigation brought under an implied right of action."

"Even if it ends up that the 1979 separate-teams mandate is a current and
reasonable interpretation of § 106.41©(1), there is also a question of fair notice to
the University. If the agency’s public pronouncements and enforcement activity have
muddied the waters to the point where an institution is unable to identify the rules
with “ascertainable certainty,” then the University may have a defense to liability and
attorney’s fees based on due process. See Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau
Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2013); Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53
F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (D.C. Cir. 1995). But such a defense would not establish at this
point that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim." 

I'm not sure how to interoperate the last paragraph, because the two bolded sections seem to contradict each other. Can both parts be true? Then what? Would UND not have to take action, but going forward, other teams would need to due to precedent? Would a women's team be mandated whenever a mens team is started up? The whole thing is a huge can of worms.

(08-12-2021 02:41 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 01:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 12:01 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Title 9 may be an issue for schools that have Mens hockey teams but not womens hockey... a circuit court just overturned a decision and said satisfying three prong approach wasn't enough, and that the lower court must also consider this 1979 title 9 interpretation:

4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports.
In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex.
a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
(1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
(2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.

Official court opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/192517P.pdf

Article: https://news.yahoo.com/und-womens-hockey...00159.html

Interesting. So UND (the subject of the lawsuit) may be forced to either drop Men's Hockey or revive Women's Ice Hockey.

It's a possible outcome, but there are a handful of different ways it could play out.. I don't think it will come to that based on the opinion from the 3rd judge, where the judge writes the following (I bolded for emphasis):

"This 1979 separate-teams mandate has largely disappeared from public view
since it was issued. No court has relied on the mandate to find liability under Title
IX. Neither the complaint nor the parties on appeal point to any instance in which the
government has enforced the separate-teams mandate. According to the University,
the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated a complaint that
discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program violated Title IX, but closed its
investigation without alleging a violation. By contrast, the Department repeatedly has
addressed how an institution may comply with obligations under Title IX by meeting
the Department’s three-part test.8"

"Nor has the University yet presented evidence about OCR’s
inquiry into the discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program. If it turns out
that the Department were to abandon the separate-teams mandate, and clarify
definitively that the “effective accommodation” inquiry is limited to the three-part test
and quality of competition, then that would change the complexion of this case. Or
if the Department retains the separate-teams mandate “on paper” in a 43-year-old
policy interpretation, but as a practical matter does not enforce the mandate, then
there may be a serious question about whether the mandate is really a valid regulatory
interpretation that provides a basis for civil liability or attorney’s fees in private
litigation brought under an implied right of action."

"Even if it ends up that the 1979 separate-teams mandate is a current and
reasonable interpretation of § 106.41©(1), there is also a question of fair notice to
the University. If the agency’s public pronouncements and enforcement activity have
muddied the waters to the point where an institution is unable to identify the rules
with “ascertainable certainty,” then the University may have a defense to liability and
attorney’s fees based on due process. See Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau
Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2013); Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53
F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (D.C. Cir. 1995). But such a defense would not establish at this
point that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim." 

I'm not sure how to interoperate the last paragraph, because the two bolded sections seem to contradict each other. Can both parts be true? Then what? Would UND not have to take action, but going forward, other teams would need to due to precedent? Would a women's team be mandated whenever a mens team is started up? The whole thing is a huge can of worms.

Part of where UND got into trouble was it failed this:

2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team.


UND women's hockey met both criteria there.

It would be interesting to compare how many contact sports (outside of football) have men's teams but no women's teams.

Ice Hockey
Soccer
Water Polo?
Lacrosse


Outside of Hockey, I would imagine there aren't too many that would be affected by this.

(08-12-2021 02:41 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  "Even if it ends up that the 1979 separate-teams mandate is a current and reasonable interpretation of § 106.41©(1), there is also a question of fair notice to the University. If the agency’s public pronouncements and enforcement activity have muddied the waters to the point where an institution is unable to identify the rules with “ascertainable certainty,” then the University may have a defense to liability and attorney’s fees based on due process. See Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2013); Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (D.C. Cir. 1995). But such a defense would not establish at this point that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim." 

I'm not sure how to interoperate the last paragraph, because the two bolded sections seem to contradict each other. Can both parts be true? Then what? Would UND not have to take action, but going forward, other teams would need to due to precedent? Would a women's team be mandated whenever a mens team is started up? The whole thing is a huge can of worms.

That part says that the plaintiffs main complaint may be upheld and UND has to start a women's hockey team if the interest and viability tests are met, however because of the way it has been treated as if it was not really an issue, the University might not be no the hook for damages for the lack of access provided previously nor for the plaintiff's attorney fees.

As far as what it means ... it means not starting a men's team sport where there is interest in and viability of the corresponding women's sport without starting up the corresponding women's sport. For football playing schools, it wouldn't be likely to affect much other than ice hockey ... because of the Title IX impact of football, women's volleyball is more common then men's volleyball, women's soccer more common than men's soccer, etc. But starting up men's ice hockey and women's lacrosse or something similar can be a thing, because of the greater cost of fielding a hockey team.

So 3/4 of the schools that sponsor men's hockey are f'd?

(08-13-2021 08:56 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  So 3/4 of the schools that sponsor men's hockey are f'd?

Even if that stricter interpretation of opportunity stands, only if interest can be demonstrated. Maybe only 1/4 of them will be looking at how to start a women's varsity hockey team.