What would it take for University of Michigan to add Women's Division I hockey?
A look at the feasibility study and what could and couldn't happen.
In many ways Michigan is one of the most prominent states for women’s and girls’ hockey.
Michigan has more than 5,000 registered female hockey players with USA Hockey, trailing only Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York when it comes to participation.
My 6-year-old daughter is one of them. At the rink where she plays twice a week there’s a banner hanging honoring Megan Keller, who won an Olympic Gold Medal with Team USA in 2018, and now plays for Boston Fleet in the PWHL.
The PWHL is bringing a neutral site game to Detroit again this season, on March 16, and when I bought tickets for it earlier this week, there were less than a 100 or so available in the upper-bowl.
But unlike other hockey-mad states, Michigan doesn’t have a single NCAA Division I woman’s hockey program.
That’s been brought more into the public spotlight recently, with University of Michigan regent Denise Ilitch calling for a Division I varsity program last March, stating it was time and the people of Michigan weren’t being properly served by the University’s offering.
Ilitch’s public statements led to a feasibility study, prepared by Collegiate Sports Associates, which examined what it would take and some of the potential shortcomings when considering adding Division I women’s hockey at Michigan.
The study is available through the Freedom of Information Act, but you can also read the full PDF right here if you’d like to avoid the wait.
I’m not an expert on women’s hockey, but I read through it and these are some of my key takeaways from the feasibility study.
The biggest question CSA poses, is what type of athletic department does Michigan want to be? And will they make the decision on adding women’s hockey based on their financial goals or moral goals.
According to the study, and Ilitch’s statements last March, it’s pretty simple from a moral value standpoint — Michigan should have woman’s Division I hockey — but from a financial standpoint it is extremely problematic and difficult to make that happen.
Adding women’s hockey would cost roughly $4.5 million per year and that doesn’t include roughly $700,000 worth of scholarships. No matter how much you slice in economically the program would not be able to make that up, especially when you consider the men’s team loses roughly $900,000 per year according to the study.
In addition to the annual cost, the University would have to considerable work to either upgrade facilities or build something completely new. Those price points, according to the study would look something like this for each of the three options.
Expanding Yost Arena: ~$50MNew Arena (Single Sheet): $300M
New Arena with a Second Sheet: $330M
This is also happening at a weird time in college sports, with expanded scholarships across all sports, Michigan is about to possibly see an increase in scholarship expenses from around $33 million to $60 million per school year.
The lack of another Big 10 school doing the same is also a concern, because as the feasibility study points out, Michigan would be best situated becoming part of a new Big 10 women’s hockey conference. In order to get an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament a conference must have six teams, which is why fellow Big 10 schools Ohio State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Penn State play in either the WCHA or CHA.
So money is the big question. How do you make it work?
For that, the feasibility study lays out three potential pathways to making the finances match the want.
The entire cost could be covered by the athletic department itself. Which the study notes would be a challenge with changing budgets and landscapes in college sports.
The University itself could help subsidize the creation of a woman’s Division I hockey team. This isn’t common according to the study, and right now the University and the athletic department operate somewhat financially separate.
A major gift, similar to what happened with Penn State and the Pegula Family.
While the feasibility study talks about all three options, it puts heavy value into a large philanthropic gift to make this all a reality.
The feasibility study also lays out some best and worst-case scenarios for a Division I women’s hockey team at the University of Michigan.
Best case:
A major donor funds a new arena or Yost expansion, covering operational costs for at least a decade.
The team competes at a high level, driving ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships.
Helps grow women’s hockey in Michigan and builds a strong pipeline of talent.
Worst-Case Scenario:
No major donor, forcing UM to cut budgets or subsidize the program, leading to financial strain.
Ticket sales and sponsorships don’t materialize, keeping the program in a perpetual financial deficit.
Facility limitations cause logistical issues for men’s hockey and community ice access.
As the study notes that throughout this whole process there was never any major pushback morally or ethically from Michigan doing this. Having a women’s Division I hockey team should fit with the ethos of the University.
But making it work financially presents the biggest challenge. So either a major donor will step up, like with what happened at Penn State, or the Michigan athletics department will have to internally weigh the financial and ethical values of the proposition, knowing that financially speaking this isn’t going to be a revenue-driving sport.