of fairly equal competitiveness is fun to watch but I'm not much of a fan of watching women's ice hockey. As the sport was gaining traction I thought I would grow to like it for a couple of reasons. No hitting and smaller bodies leaving a lot more room on the ice to play the game as (I believe) it was meant to be played. I've never been a fan of hitting for hitting's sake (which is what 90% of the contact in the sport is now) and the women's game has none of that. But for some reason I have just never grown to like it much.

I have watched a good amount of women's hockey at different levels and I can think of no reason why ND should have a team. I am a big hockey fan. Three things that most fans love about hockey are its speed, strength (power) and physicality. The women's game has none of those elements. Watching a game is like watching a JV high school boys game, of course without the checking. Some women have great skills but a blistering slap shot is not one of them.

I also note that ND already has 20 varsity sports and that about 10% of the student body are varsity athletes. I don't think we need more. We are doing fine with male-female balance for Title IX purposes so that is a non-issue. I don't know of a compelling case to add it as a sport.

Twelve drunk guys trying to figure skate.

1.) There may be women at ND who would like to play hockey - or come to ND to play hockey
2.) If you add women's scholarships, you could bring back Wrestling
3.) We have the facilities
4.) We have the money (it doesn't need to be a revenue generating sport)
5.) People had the same criticisms of Women's Basketball - now it is our best sport
6.) Hockey is a growing sport for men and women (Olympic hockey has helped the women - I know that is the highest level, but I thoroughly enjoyed women's hockey in the Olympics)

out some reasons in favor of adding women's hockey. I said there were no compelling reasons and the response listed some reasons, but the only one that I consider "compelling" is the first, that women at ND may want to play hockey. Those women have that opportunity to play for ND with the club team, and many do so. A vibrant club team satisfies the women who want to play and lets potential students know that there is that opportunity. Women students can satisfy their desire to play hockey on an organized team without the burdens of being a varsity athlete. It uses the facilities that we have without the needless expansion of varsity sports that is already too big for the size of the university undergraduate population.

That is your opinion - not a fact.

As I posted above, Stanford (Jenkin's aspirational peer) has 36 varsity sports to our 26. They have a smaller undergraduate population. They not only have an abundance of varsity sports, they play most of them very well.

As someone who played a club sport before it became varsity, they are not equal. I'm sure the women who play club hockey and those who would be recruited to play varsity hockey would agree

I certainly agree that a club sport is not equal to a varsity sport. Each has advantages over the other. I just don't see a reason why ND should recruit women and pay them (scholarships) to play hockey. There are plenty of women already at ND who play hockey for the school's club team.

I believe it was Monk who used the term aspirational peer to describe Stanford and other schools. I have not heard Fr. Jenkins use that term although he may have too.

They both have pissed me off (spoiled by Hesburgh & Joyce)

My opinion on ND sports is swayed by seeing many sports emerge from club status to varsity during my time at ND (most notably women's basketball, soccer and lacrosse). And formed by sports lost primarily by Title IX - wrestling (brother was on wrestling team). Not arguing against Title IX, just advocating for couple more sports. Some school's sports programs are constrained by budget - ours aren't.