(03-29-2018 04:24 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 03:05 PM)Luckeyone Wrote:  I feel if colleges were allowed to concentrate their resources on the big three sports, most colleges, including MAC schools, could get their athletic budgets in the black. The extra focus would also enable these schools to improve all aspects of each sport in terms of quality and promotion too. For example, if the MAC promoted the conference more, attendance would increase generating even more revenue.

For those of you who disagree with me, you're saying that even though we only like watching Football and Men's basketball, we're going to penalize our tax payers and unjustifiably burden them. Correct?

Luckeyone is convinced the track team costs 20 million dollars a year.

As for the second part - yes. I think that the tax payers should burden the non revenue sports. I also think that they should pay for unpopular academic programs. I also think they should pay for theater and arts. You see, when you're a member of a society you tend to pay for things that may not directly affect you because you realize that it enriches society as a whole. The presence of non-revenue sports enriches the campus community as a whole.

Whoa there Dan! Pretty soon you are going to start advocating for sealtbelts, highway spending, and a system to license healthcare professionals.

(03-29-2018 12:10 PM)HuronRob Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 12:01 PM)ljmhurons Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:53 AM)HuronRob Wrote:  Dude, you come up with some pretty strNge stuff sometimes. Regardless what you think, the college experience is supposed to be equal for everyone enrolled - whether acadeically or athletically. I have no issues with Title IX, edpecially being the dad of two daughters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Inequality: we have around 60%+ female students

Inequality is only an issue when men are over represented.

Prior to Title IX women’s sport were very under represented. So, what you’re telling me is the total student athlete population is still under represented by women. Because...it is unlikely that women make up 60% of the student athletes at EMU.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Equality for me but not for thee.

Title IX was written for education, not for athletics. Enrollment is a where the disparity is greatest in raw numbers. This disparity favors women so the inequality is ignored.

This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Dear dansplaining,
The problem with having a hockey team, is two fold; first as the article mentions, funding. Second, is fan base. This could be a problem with both basketball and hockey being played the same time of year. Even people on the Bronco Stampede are beginning to question splitting the fan base between the two sports.

(03-29-2018 07:42 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear dansplaining,
The problem with having a hockey team, is two fold; first as the article mentions, funding. Second, is fan base. This could be a problem with both basketball and hockey being played the same time of year. Even people on the Bronco Stampede are beginning to question splitting the fan base between the two sports.

Interesting to read how hockey is a money maker because youth teams pay premium money for ice time. With all of the youth hockey in our area, UofM can not take all of the teams leaving plenty of money making opportunities to rent out the rink when not in use.

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four?

(03-30-2018 03:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four?

True, and...a venue would have to be built...and what league would we be in/be allowed to participate in?

I would love for EMU to have a hockey team instead of a club but I imagine it would cost the same amount EMU has saved in dropping four sports. Hockey is not inexpensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(03-30-2018 03:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four?

I agree - EMU adding men's and women's hockey is a pipe dream and absolutely not something the school should do until I win the dang powerball.

(03-30-2018 03:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four? :lauramac:

We dropped four sports that no one attends and we add hockey because it's a top four sport in our beautiful country.

(03-30-2018 07:00 AM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 03:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four?

I agree - EMU adding men's and women's hockey is a pipe dream and absolutely not something the school should do until I win the dang powerball.

Did you mention the word "pipe"? I'm excepting Bob W to post any minute now.

(03-30-2018 07:33 AM)Luckeyone Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 03:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 07:07 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 05:48 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  This thread now veering off into political land, nothing worse on a sports board.

Fun Fact: OU beat us to it https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...106716122/

Might make sense at OU because they don't have football.

For EMU to add hockey it would have to add women's hockey.

If we add two sports, why did we just drop four?

We dropped four sports that no one attends and we add hockey because it's a top four sport in our beautiful country.

Baseball is a top four sport in our beautiful country and generally speaking no one cares about college baseball.

Why replace baseball with hockey? Neither are revenue makers at the college level, and hockey is much more expensive.

Preposterous hypothetical. Fair to say this idea is going nowhere-- for the many, many reasons already stated. Probably can move on now.

I am big hockey fan but the fact is there are less than 30 full d1 hockey programs there is 0 interest in college hockey outside of the northern schools

Once again, if we (or any school) adds men's hockey we'd need to add women's hockey (or equivalent) because of Title IX considerations.

(03-30-2018 09:44 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Preposterous hypothetical. Fair to say this idea is going nowhere-- for the many, many reasons already stated. Probably can move on now.

Bob, your replies to this thread were ridiculous!

I was making a statement not asking for debate. Don't you think I would know the momentum required for overturning a law wouldn't precipitate from a sports forum?....come on!!