Unisex hockey

[Storm 0]

12th grade.

They're not kids any more.

For a coach trying to put together a competitive team it would be too much of a distraction.

Why? Because they're good looking.

It would be hard trying to build team chemistry when the guys aren't just competing to win games.

[zochi 1]

Zochi - Do you know for a fact they haven't played in two years at all - or is it they haven't played for the high school team?

Yes I know for a fact that they havent played for 2 years.

I just read it in the paper this morning.

Like not on a team at all.

[hockeytim18 0]

12th grade.

They're not kids any more.

For a coach trying to put together a competitive team it would be too much of a distraction.

Why? Because they're good looking.

It would be hard trying to build team chemistry when the guys aren't just competing to win games.

Well put.

[hockeymom 2]

12th grade.

They're not kids any more.

For a coach trying to put together a competitive team it would be too much of a distraction.

Why? Because they're good looking.

It would be hard trying to build team chemistry when the guys aren't just competing to win games.

Well put.

Oh metro, you are such a provocateur and I am (obviously) oh so weak to be rising to the bait!!

Let’s not have women in the workforce because men will find it too distracting to do their work.

The point that girls are too beautiful to be on a team with boyz because boyz won’t be able to control themselves is as fallacious as Mack’s comment a few months’ ago that all women who play hockey are dykes (or look like one).

As the Israelli and Canadian military have proven that mixed gender teams are successful in COMBAT situations. I think the boys could handle it in hockey…

[blueliner27 12]

My school team goes mixed gender, and almost half of the team are girls. That's the reason why we have big big tryouts this year (I think our coach trying to see how good they are, comparing boys). Gosh, I hope I make it.

[Project824 0]

NuggyBuggy: You raised the issue of scholarship at university level. For a variety of reasons, the money WAS disproportionately invested in men’s teams and sport… I agree with you that, while the system adjusts, there are some nutty decisions being made.

The issue here I think is development. By making more female scholarships available, there will be a higher number of female athletes in sport and, because there is now a place to take their skills, more of a reason for younger athletes to develop their skills. Between that and the introduction of women’s hockey in the Olympics, we’re already seeing the benefits of it in women’s hockey – it is getting increasingly more competitive, with a higher number of athletes with greater skill levels. The bar is getting higher every year.

Money was, and still is in many cases disproportionately invested in men's teams at major US universities - the teams that make money. For large Div I universities, major men's sports are a business, and in business you invest in what makes money.

100% of women's sports and 95% of all men's sports have money on their budget only because of men's football, men's basketball, and on occasion men's hockey. At smaller schools where the football and basketball teams don't do that well, you can see the resulting lower spending throughout the athletic department.

In major conferences like the Big Ten and the ACC, a top ranked National Championship caliber women's basketball team will be extremely lucky to even come within $100k of covering their budget, which usually comes in around $3.5 million. A mediocre to poor men's basketball team at the same institution will generally cover the womens team's slack, spending about $7-8 million on their annual budget, but making in the neighborhood of $12-16 million in TV contracts, profit sharing and merchandising.

Let's not even get into football, because nobody can touch their profits. Revenues PER GAME are measured in millions and not thousands. It's the best 85 scholarship investment any major University can make. An invitation to a Bowl game can be worth well over $10 million.

With some insight and research, NOBODY should be making an issue of investing money into football and men's basketball. They're the only reason women's sports can exist. Instead of finger pointing and saying "Why do they get this and that?", how about some appreciation - They get this and that because they've been paying your way for decades.

[Storm 0]

12th grade.

They're not kids any more.

For a coach trying to put together a competitive team it would be too much of a distraction.

Why? Because they're good looking.

It would be hard trying to build team chemistry when the guys aren't just competing to win games.

Well put.

Oh metro, you are such a provocateur and I am (obviously) oh so weak to be rising to the bait!!

Let’s not have women in the workforce because men will find it too distracting to do their work.

The point that girls are too beautiful to be on a team with boyz because boyz won’t be able to control themselves is as fallacious as Mack’s comment a few months’ ago that all women who play hockey are dykes (or look like one).

As the Israelli and Canadian military have proven that mixed gender teams are successful in COMBAT situations. I think the boys could handle it in hockey…

Hockeymom, lol.

I honestly was expecting to be put in the MSH dog house.

I agree that it is a strength/maturity question. Which I obviously lack.

(I'm watching the habs play and a female player could not hurt)

[hockeymom 2]

Project824 - thanks, you did a great outline of the "variety of reasons". I, for one, will never complain - I'm just glad that women's sport is benefiting from it.

Too bad Canadian universities can't "make sports pay" and have similar scholarship monies available... but it is a much different system in the north.

As women's hockey improves in the US, it is becoming harder for Canadian women to earn those US scholarships (and pay Canadian tax on the "free" money). Someday US women's hockey might actually be able to beat Canada! LOL

I knew I should have insisted my daughter take up golf!! There's great scholarships and the possibility of a professional career in that sport..lol

[93mom 0]

lol

I have no daughters, but always figured I'd push golf or tennis if I did, only way to make any money as a female athelete.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Good points Project824. One thing I want to add - as it is unclear whether this is included in your calculation of revenues - is that the amount a good football or basketball season can affect booster money and other donations is astounding. By contrast, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc., not to mention women's sports at most schools are largely irrelevant.

Hockeymom - you point out that the original case under discussion represents discrimination. True enough. But the truth is that there is defacto discrimination at all levels of competitive sport - and not necessarily on gender lines. Short, slow, unathletic people are probably not going to win athletic scholarships. The act of cutting a player is by definition an act of discrimination. I say this is the nature of the game.

In most sports at a given competitive level there are (lots of) men who are good enough to play on a women's team, but not good enough to play on a men's team. They are being discriminated against because they are not good enough to play on that men's team. They are usually further discriminated against because they are men and thus ineligible to play on the women's team.

My problem is that the existence of women's teams which exclude men presumes that their women deserve to play - at the exclusion of more qualified men - because of their gender first, and - as you recognize - of their merit second. This seems wrong to me. It makes me wonder why Title IX provides for equal access to women, but does not do so for Asians, Latinos, as well as short people, fat people, blind people and every other group that receives athletic scholarships at a less than proportional rate. I am not advocating any of this latter, but ask why one group should expect what others do not ?

[Chadd 916]

Title IX is the number one reason that Penn State doesn't have a varsity hockey team. Their club team is top notch, they have a potentially fantastic facility and attendance wouldn't be a problem.

[zochi 1]

I know alot of people are mad about this issue in Manitoba.

1 would be my wife, she thinks that there is a girls and boys teams for a reason and the girls should have to play on their own team not with the boys.

[hitz14 0]

id have those girls on my team any day

[hockeymom 2]

NuggyBuggy: As a Canadian, I don't have enough knowledge of Title IX to debate its merits intelligently, so I shall (I hope) back out of that one gracefully for the time being.

I hesitate to just toss off an answer to your point - if you are going to discriminate, why do it on gender lines and not ethnic or some other designation - but it truly is simply based on numbers, mass of a group - this splits it 50-50 and includes everyone... until try-outs.

At the High School level, however, all funding is from taxpayers pockets' and it seems fair to have a boys' team and a girls' team if the numbers merit it. If they can only afford one team, it is fair to have both genders try-out for it. I like this system, and I prefer it to two co-ed teams of different levels. HS sport has always had participation as part of its' mandate; it is not purely on athletic merit. HS is about growing good human beings, not winning a championship. In this case, I think discrimination to protect and develop girls' sport is justified. Even if some people, like the twins, don't think it is fair for them personally; it is for the greater good of more people.

Outside of high school, in the competitive world of hockey the situation is a bit different. Although it IS discriminatory that girls have a choice to play on either a boys' or girls' team while boys do not have the same choice. I argue that the discrimination is acceptable here because it is intended as a measure to develop girls' hockey and thus is justified. That's the theoretical part of it - it is even less of a problem when you look at the actual situation.

Although girls' hockey is the fastest growing sport - something like 400% growth in the last 10 years, while boys' hockey has been in decline - it isn't "there" yet. There are a slew of boys' teams for every one girls' team; I'd look up the numbers but I am uncharacteristically lazy tonight. And boys' teams play in much smaller loops. With boys' hockey, you can get good hockey, close to home, at whatever level you are capable of playing on.

Because boys' hockey numbers are in decline, they have been recruiting heavily within the girls' hockey ranks to have them come over to the "dark side" to play. We've heard from boys' teams for the entire 8 years she's played hockey. Until a few years ago, a girl could play on both a girls' team and a boys' team at the same time. That got closed (you now pick which team you play on) - and it was the boys' teams who wanted the door left open; they needed more players.

Meanwhile, girls hockey is bursting at the seams with their small numbers of absolute teams. From speaking with other parents, I think Toronto is a strong area for competitive girls' hockey - so let's use it as an example: In the 416 area code (the city of Toronto, excluding the suburbs) at the Bantam level - there are 3 AA teams (highest designation in girls' hockey), 4 A teams and 3 BB teams. Each team has a 2 yr age band (current Bantam is a mixed team of 13 & 14 yr old girls) and they play in a loop that extends from Barrie in the North to Coburg in the east to Hamilton to London in the west. Pretty much all of Southern Ontario! Driving my life away!

Add into that mix, the usual political considerations with a twist - a '92 coach will try to hold onto his '92 girls so he can build a team over time - and what you have is extraordinary competition absolutely unheard of in boys' hockey. When they "blend" every year, which coach is going to hold onto a team from year to year? My daughter has had a new team and new coach virtually every year.

There is a high level of discrimination within the ranks of girls' hockey - is it fair that a '93 coach doesn't take a '92 player because of her age rather than merit - no, but that IS one way to protect and develop a team.

I can get that level of discrimination - even though my daughter has been on the wrong side of it every year in hockey. If I hadn't "blown it" by giving birth in the "wrong year", her hockey experience would have been different!

[Muzza_77 0]

I played with girls on my team for the state champs this year, it was great, they where both really good D's.

[icefish 0]

Hockey is a contact sport, would it be a concern of how hard a giant guy hits a girl? I'm sure he'd be less inclined to smash a small girl then say.. me. But then again it gets so competitive sometimes that you never know. I play in a no checking learn-to-play hockey clinic and I wind up on the floor sometimes.

[blueliner27 12]

Hockey is a contact sport, would it be a concern of how hard a giant guy hits a girl?

haha, but I don't think it couldn't be an issue. I saw a girl who gave a big check(hit) to a guy, and that guy went to the hospital. Some of girls are tough.

[All Torhs Team 0]

Ive had one girl be on my team before. It was a bit annoying because she was the worst player and she kind of dragged the team down out on the ice. But she had her own lockerroom and we didnt treat her any different then the guys.

As for what I think on girls playing with guys. If she is good enough, then let it happen. I have honestly only seen one girl in my life that was good enough to play on my team. She was at statewars (which is the highest level of girls hockey I have ever seen) and she was dominating the girls division. She could have easily walked onto my team above about three players.

Plus she was hot as hell.

[hockeymom 2]

Hockey is a contact sport, would it be a concern of how hard a giant guy hits a girl? I'm sure he'd be less inclined to smash a small girl then say.. me. But then again it gets so competitive sometimes that you never know. I play in a no checking learn-to-play hockey clinic and I wind up on the floor sometimes.

It really depends on the age. Before puberty, girls are just as strong as guys, in general. Obviously when you get into specifics it is a different story.

Girls' hockey is non-checking, but it certainly hasn't been non-contact (until the new enforcement, perhaps, we'll see where that goes). You battle on the boards and in front of the net just the same.

I sent my kid to a boys' checking camp a couple of years ago... not because she would ever play a checking game, but for safety - if you know how to take and receive a hit, you will be safer and stronger in contact - or accidental contact situations. To their intense mortification, she dumped the boys' butts all week. They came at her harder and harder all week long and she stood toe-to-toe against them.

Now they are hitting puberty and the outcome wouldn't be the same.

[Storm 0]

Not a distraction hey. Funny how often the word hot comes up. Edit: :)

[KYHockey3 0]

i have bee3n to boys checking camps and they really have been useful, considering i play boys high school and girls non checking league.

i havent ever played non-checking with boys, so i havent really got to contrast the 2 leagues. girls is definately non check, but we def. have contact. my team got in soo many fights this season

[hockeymom 2]

puberty... but I believe your point earlier was they were ADULTS...lol

[hhojman 0]

Funny I was thinking something along these lines today. I have a little boy and I was wondering about him playing hockey with girls and why I think it is a bad idea...

But let's go to the topic in question: To say that the girls were discriminated is, in my humble opinion, crazy. You go to a restaurant and you have restrooms for men and women. A woman (theoretically) is not allowed into the men's restroom and vice-versa. Is this discrimination? Of course not.

In a hospital room, patients are "segregated" by gender. Nobody will expect to have a room mate of the other gender. It doesn't matter, as it was argued here, if she is hot :-)

(And trust me, if you are in the hospital and need an enema, or a dressing change in your hernia surgery, or your prostate checked, you don't want a woman in the room. No matter how hot she is) :-)

We can continue with examples, but I think this is pretty obvious. Nobody will call this cases "discrimination". It is just common sense.

Nobody is better than the other. Men (or women for that matter) don't get better restrooms at the restaurant or better rooms at the hospitals. Probably the infamous phrase "separated but equals" really applies here. Of course if, let's say men have a nice bathroom and women were forced to go "into the bushes" is a different story. But let's be serious for a second. This is usually not the case.

So, let's go to hockey. Or any sport for that matter. You have men and women leagues, divisions, etc. Can a man play tennis, soccer, hockey on a women's league?

Most likely not.

Why not?

Because it would give him, provided that he is a decent athlete, an unfair advantage. Can you imagine the men from, let's say, the US olympic team trying for the female olympic team? If they would, most likely they would make the team. Can you imagine the US female olympic team, composed only by males, playing against the Russian olympic team composed only by females (Europeans are, in general, more rational on these distinctions between male and female). Would it make sense?

This rule, obviously, benefits the women, who can go on and compete among their peers to the best of their abilities. I would assume that nobody in his right mind would say that this is unfair. Not allowing the men to try and compete in women sports seems to me something sensible and rational and would not call it discriminatory at all. The same way I do not call it discriminatory to have separate bathrooms and separate rooms in the previous paragraph.

So, why not allowing the girls to participate on the boys team is discriminatory? Particularly when there is a girls team?

Why girls (or women for the matter) have "more rights" than men? Separated but equals. Nobody has more rights than the other nor is above the other.

But what will happen if we decide to call this discrimination? We would have to call discrimination to the fact that boys are not allowed on a girls team. The argument was brought that it is acceptable for girls to play on boys teams but not for boy to play on girls teams as this serves to develop girl's hockey and thus is justified. I find this argument flawed (sorry HockeyMom. I usually like what you write :-) )

Discrimination is discrimination. Period. It is not OK. It is not justified. It is not good. It is not reasonable.

This is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all cost because we can always find some crazy justification or (in)noble idea to justify things like discrimination. I believe that the same way that it is wrong to pay a man more than a woman for the same job, I believe it is wrong to give girls, who happen to play hockey, more rights than boys.

(Again HockeyMom, I know that you were not even remotely suggesting something like this. I'm just trying to say that sometimes what appear to be good ideas have unexpected consequences)

The girls team sucks? I would answer "tough luck".

Life some time is not fair. A blind person, no matter how talented he (or she) is as skater, cannot play hockey. A less talented skater will make the team instead.

Is this fair? Of course not.

Is this discrimination? I think nobody in his/her right mind would say it is (unless you don't mind getting into a plane with a pilot who is blind or have surgery by a surgeon who has Parkinson's).

My boy playing hockey with girls...?

Well, that's for another posting :-)

[hockeymom 2]

Yee-HAA, someone else who posts in full sentences with multiple paragraphs... I may not be the longest poster on MSH for much longer :D

hhojman, let's not confuse my personal opinion with the law.

The law says... if the only thing that blocks them from trying out is gender based (or disability or sexuality...etc) it is discrimination based on gender. And, remember, that's trying out - obviously a blind person wouldn't MAKE the team. Some girl went to court about 20 ? years ago to get the right to try out for a boys' baseball team, and won that one. There wasn't an equivilent girls' team at that time. So now they have extended it to this. Sometimes the law is an ass.

My opinion... the school had a girls' team, the twins should have played on that team. I don't like that they won their case, because it opens the door to the possibility of elimination of girls' hockey. And one of the reasons girls hockey has grown so significantly over the last 10 years is the existance of girls' teams.

I like girls' hockey. I like that my daughter gets to play the game she loves AND have the full social experience in the dressing room. The coaching has been equivilent - afterall, it is hockeydads for both genders.

But now that the courts have agreed it is discriminatory, well any boy can make the case that he should be allowed to try out for a girls team because it is equally discriminatory for him to be blocked - because of gender - from playing on a girls team.

'course it would depend on how hot your son is. :P

[hockeymom 2]

hhojman: I realized I didn't address one of your points: It isn't fair that girls have the choice to play on either a boys' team or a girls' team... while boys can only play on a boys' team.

I've touched on this earlier, but maybe it is worth making the distinction between high school and competitive teams. They serve different purposes and are funded differently.

At the high school level: I strongly agree it isn't fair and hope this right does not spread beyond the Manitoba border. (and that they will win an exception on appeal). If there is a girls' team... all girls should play on that team regardless of their talent level.

At the competitve level: I think it should continue the way it currently is: where girls have the choice to try-out for any team. Why the difference? You are still right, it still isn't fair. Yes, we are giving "more rights" to one gender, but arguably, at the competitive level, it isn't coming at the expense of the other gender.

Which is why no one has complained about it before. Further, as it does not affect a boy's ability to play on a team and it does provide a "greenhouse" to grow the female sport, I think the benefit of it outweighs the "unfairness" of it.

I just checked the GTHL website (I was too lazy to do this last night) they have over 70 boys' hockey leagues listed in Toronto. The number of girls' leagues in Toronto is 5.

Considering there is more travel in girls' hockey (have to drive further to play against another girls' team), a two year age band (no minor/major system yet) and fewer games in the regular season schedule (20-22) ... why would anyone in their right mind want to play girls' hockey? Unless they were a girl?

This is why, of course, many girls opt to play on boys' teams. Except my kid, she gets enough of changing alone in the first aid room at hockey camps...

** Edit to change # of girls' leagues - I forgot one, but they always lose anyway...lol