On the Basis of Sex

Let’s dive right back in to the bizarro situation with tUMD women’s hockey. (Other stuff of mine on this subject.)

I don’t know if tUMD and the athletic department anticipated the level of backlash they’d receive for firing not renewing the contract of Coach Miller. I’m sure they anticipated she’d be furious and raise hell, and that boosters and donors to the program would be upset, but I doubt the anticipated a New York Times story and a heck of a lot of other media coverage that makes tUMD look absolutely terrible (other than a whiny rant from Schlossman about how Miller is a big cheating cheater who is mean, and how 6th place UND has left tUMD in the dust). tUMD has lost control of the narrative at this point, and I’m not sure what they can do to try to repair the PR damage they’ve suffered. Folks are quick to tell me “If you only knew X” or “When people find out Z, they’ll feel foolish,” but it’s too late for tUMD to go on the offensive. Folks are also assuming Miller’s supporters don’t know X or Z, and while many of them don’t, some of them do.

I’m not going to spend much time on the recent op-ed post from Butch Williams about how tUMD should focus solely on recruiting local players, even at the expense of winning. It’s a ridiculous argument, but it’s one that’s been made about both the men’s and the women’s teams. tUMD hockey is not here as a charity for Arrowhead hockey players.

I do want to talk about salaries. I find it interesting that so many people rush to say Coach Miller was overpaid. It’s somehow a tragedy that she at one time made more money than Sandy, and currently makes more than Brad Frost.

Why doesn’t anyone ask if most women’s hockey coaches are underpaid?

I’m sure that’s a preposterous statement to most people. Non-revenue sport! No one cares! They all suck anyway! Yes, yes, I’ve heard all of that. I also understand that coaches aren’t there to market their team. They are there to create the most marketable product possible, of course, by recruiting excellent players and by winning games.

Folks are also scratching their heads over whether or not this is a Title IX issue. Of course, many of those people are the same people who argue that Title IX is unnecessary and *gasp* harms the much more important men’s sports, and women have equality anyway and should just shut up. (These same people probably think that #BlackLivesMatter is racist against whites, too.) Others, of course, argue that Title IX applies to student-athletes, not to coaches.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Is paying women’s coaches less than men’s coaches a Title IX violation? It might be. I do know that if tUMD goes from a woman who has spent 16 years with the program and has 5 national titles, but makes $200k, to a coach with a lesser resume who makes $90k (since they’ll be looking at “recent WCHA hires” to determine salary), tUMD women’s hockey student athletes won’t be getting the best coaching out there. Prioritizing savings over success for the women’s team while prioritizing success for the men’s team is denying women’s players the benefits of playing college hockey.

I don’t like to drag Sandy into this conversation because I like him and have no problem with how much he is paid. In fact, I wrote a letter to the Chancellor encouraging him to pay Sandy and his assistants more money because I was led to believe that Sandy wasn’t going to stay at tUMD because the university wouldn’t pay the assistant coaches enough. I’m not advocating cutting his pay as some kind of tit-for-tat measure. I don’t like that Sandy is set up as some kind of foil or nemesis of Miller’s (sometimes by her).

However, I do agree with Coach Miller when she says Sandelin is her peer. He is. They are the two D-1 coaches at tUMD. Sandy is Miller’s peer, just like Johnson is Eaves’s, Frost is Lucia’s, and Idalski is Hakstol’s. Is it discriminatory that Hakstol makes more than Idalski? Yes and no. Idalski is newer to the program and hasn’t had the level of success Hakstol has (but the same number of national titles!!!), so he should make less. However, if Idalski had Hak’s credentials and Hak had Idalski’s, Hak would still be making more.  When If Eaves gets fired, Mark Johnson will be the longer-tenured coach at UW with four national titles (maybe 5 by then, who knows?) Ol’ Barry will hire an excellent coach, certainly, but he won’t be hiring someone with 4 national titles and an 0.814 winning percentage. (Unless he hires Mark Johnson, but I believe that ship has sailed.) Of the potential vultures candidates circling considering that job, only Gwoz (!!! Gwoz!!!!) is even close to that level of success. But the new men’s coach will probably make double what Johnson makes, despite Johnson’s impressive level of success and length of tenure with the university. The Title IX issue here, you see, isn’t about paying female coaches less than male coaches (it’s an issue, yes, but beyond the scope of this post.) It’s about paying coaches of women’s teams less than coaches of men’s teams, to do the exact same job.