Denise Ilitch was fed up with constantly being told no.
For years, she had been advocating for the addition of a varsity women’s hockey team at the University of Michigan. Despite the school’s strong reputation for men’s hockey, having won nine national championships, Michigan had never had a women’s Division I team.
Ilitch, a regent at the University and daughter of Marian and the late Mike Ilitch, who owned the Detroit Red Wings, had been met with resistance, claiming the endeavor was too costly. However, specific figures to justify this rejection had never been provided.
“I had not been given a satisfactory reason why we couldn’t have a women’s DI hockey team at Michigan,” Ilitch expressed to The Athletic.
During the March regents meeting, Ilitch made her case public: It was time for the University of Michigan to establish a varsity women’s hockey program.
The women’s club team will mark its 30th year when the 2024-25 season begins. The heightened interest in women’s hockey in the State was evident when a Professional Women’s Hockey League game at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit attracted a record crowd in March.
“Our mission at the University of Michigan is to ‘serve the people of Michigan,’ and currently, the people of Michigan are not being served. The demand for women’s hockey at (Michigan) is apparent,” Ilitch stated during the meeting. “Women deserve to play on the same ice as men. The University of Michigan must demonstrate its support for varsity women’s hockey on our ice. That’s leadership. Hockey is for everyone, and we are ‘HockeyTown’.”
Michigan president Santa Ono committed to exploring the feasibility of launching a study with athletic director Warde Manuel.
The athletic department initiated the study in May, expected to conclude sometime in the fall.
This study represents a significant step towards a potential future for elite women’s ice hockey at one of the most prominent schools in college athletics. It is the first real consideration of adding the sport in decades. The present climate, with a new professional league and increased interest in the game, amplifies the urgency for women’s hockey at Michigan.
“It feels like the perfect moment. I would have preferred this to happen years ago. We cannot alter the past, but we can focus on the future,” stated Jenna Trubiano, the head coach of the club team.
Moving forward, a key question prevails: Why did it fail in the past, and can it succeed now?
It has been 26 years since women’s hockey was last seriously considered for varsity placement at Michigan.
The club team was established in 1994 by a group of female hockey players in the area who sought more exclusive opportunities for women. By the 1997-98 season, Michigan was contemplating promoting two teams to varsity status, with women’s hockey a prime contender following its upcoming debut at the 1998 Nagano Olympics.
Archived board minutes reveal that business strategies for adding men’s soccer and women’s hockey commenced development in March 1998. This process mirrored the current feasibility study: the athletic department investigated the potential addition of women’s hockey as a varsity sport and the associated costs.
Plans were submitted in September 1998, as per records, but just two months later, the department decided not to pursue hockey. Ultimately, the school chose to elevate men’s soccer and women’s water polo.
“It boiled down to a financial decision,” explained Sue McDowell, a co-founder of the women’s club hockey team who later served as an assistant coach.
McDowell was informed that water polo would be significantly cheaper than hockey. Additionally, the women’s team could share a facility, the Canham Natatorium, with the men, while soccer already had existing fields. However, Yost Ice Arena, with a sole ice sheet and a locker room meeting quality standards, does not lend itself well to sharing.
The varsity men’s hockey team is the only full-time tenant at Yost Ice Arena. (Steven King / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
“That was essentially the end of the road,” McDowell lamented. “Every time the topic was raised, the response was, ‘it’s too expensive,’ and ‘there’s no way we can afford it.’”
While Michigan passed on women’s hockey, other varsity programs started emerging, including at Big Ten rival schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio State. Since women’s hockey gained NCAA recognition in 2000-01, Minnesota (6) and Wisconsin (7) have claimed the most championships. Ohio State, Michigan’s main rival, has secured two championships in the past three years—an argument advocating for women’s hockey at Michigan.
“If Ohio State is winning national championships, they should have to compete against Michigan,” noted Michigan regent Jordan Acker, who supported Ilitch’s proposal for a varsity team at the March meeting. “It plays a significant role (in the desire for a team); there’s no questioning that.”
In the years following the late ’90s decision, female hockey participation in Michigan has surged. Last season, Michigan ranked fourth in female registration behind top hockey states like Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New York, per USA Hockey. Nonetheless, apart from the now-defunct Wayne State program, no DI women’s hockey programs have been established in Michigan. Conversely, seven men’s programs are set to compete in 2024-25.
This scenario has led to talented players from successful youth programs like Little Caesars or HoneyBaked leaving Michigan to pursue elite college hockey opportunities. Four Michigan players—Kirsten Simms, Megan Keller, Abby Roque, and Taylor Girard—featured on Team USA rosters last season. All four opted to leave the state for college hockey; Simms, who grew up in Plymouth, Mich., and is a junior at Wisconsin, led all NCAA players in scoring last season.
For McDowell, the missed opportunity in 1997-98 continues to sting. “It has always been a sore spot,” she remarked.
Upon the completion of the feasibility study, decision-makers will gain a detailed understanding of the costs associated with establishing a program. This encompasses expenses such as scholarships, salaries, travel budgets, Title IX implications, and venue assessments, inclusive of upgrading existing facilities or constructing new ones.
Michigan has engaged Collegiate Sports Associates, an executive search and consulting firm, to lead the study, with College Hockey Inc. supporting the effort. As confirmed by a spokesperson from the Michigan athletic department, the study is ongoing, although no public details are available at this time.
A feasibility study can provide a clear roadmap for establishing a team, as exemplified by the University of Delaware. When the school announced the addition of women’s hockey as a varsity sport for the 2025-26 season, the athletic department had already committed to transitioning to the Football Bowl Subdivision to meet Title IX requirements.
“Considering all the NCAA-sponsored sports, women’s ice hockey was deemed the best fit at the highest level,” explained Chrissi Rawak, Delaware’s athletic director.
Delaware’s study outlined the financial aspects and revealed that the planned venue, Fred Rust Ice Arena, required only minor renovations, making women’s hockey financially viable.
Typically, the lack of a suitable facility poses a significant obstacle when introducing DI hockey programs. For Michigan, Yost Ice Arena will play a pivotal role in the study and future of a women’s varsity program. Originally constructed in 1923 as a field house, Yost was repurposed as a hockey facility in 1973. While an iconic venue in college hockey, it features only one ice sheet and one locker room—specifically, the men’s primary locker room—meeting quality standards.
The varsity men’s hockey team exclusively occupies Yost; the women’s and men’s club teams lack locker room space in the arena and usually practice during off-peak times due to the men’s team having priority. The women’s club team incurs costs of $30,000 to $40,000 to play at Yost—the players will each pay $2,500 in dues to play hockey at Michigan this season—although President Ono has reimbursed the team for most of its rink expenses over the past few years.
“We can’t change the past but you can focus on the future,” said Jenna Trubiano, coach of the women’s club team. (Courtesy of Jaime Crawford)
If a second team were to occupy Yost full-time, likely renovations would be necessary, potentially involving adding another ice sheet or more locker rooms. However, expanding the arena is improbable given its age and current footprint on campus—it adjoins the baseball facility and is situated between the football training facility and an academic building.
Alternate rinks in Ann Arbor, like the Ann Arbor Ice Cube, could serve as practice facilities to reduce the need for frequent use of Yost, reserving it primarily for games. The study will explore all possible facility options, including other campus sites that could be redeveloped for hockey accommodations.
Donors are anticipated to play a key role in the future of women’s hockey at Michigan, particularly if the need for a new facility emerges.
In 2011, Michigan introduced men’s and women’s lacrosse teams as varsity sports; two years later, the athletic department benefited from a $100 million donation from Stephen M. Ross, owner of the Miami Dolphins. This substantial donation contributed to the construction of a new athletic campus featuring a lacrosse stadium. In the realm of hockey, Penn State unveiled men’s and women’s hockey programs in 2012-13 after receiving a $102 million donation from Terry and Kim Pegula, owners of the Buffalo Bills and NHL Sabres, leading to the construction of the Pegula Ice Arena.
“I sense a cautious optimism for this,” Ilitch mentioned. “I have received multiple inquiries from individuals eager to assist, get involved, and donate. Typically, you need to reach out to donors. Donors rarely initiate contact.”
Another critical consideration for Michigan is the team’s playing venue. Delaware is joining Atlantic Hockey America, featuring Lindenwood, Mercyhurst, Penn State, Rochester Institute of Technology, Robert Morris University, and Syracuse.
For Michigan, potential options include the AHA and the Western Collegiate Hockey Association. Unlike men’s hockey, the Big Ten currently does not sponsor women’s hockey, but the introduction of Michigan into the landscape might prompt a shift.
The WCHA presents a logical choice with three Big Ten teams (Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Minnesota), enabling Michigan to capitalize on established rivalries. However, the conference’s geographical span of over 900 miles—from Bemidji, Minn., to Columbus, Ohio—will impact travel expenses. Joining the AHA would entail shorter commutes and presumably less strenuous competition—an ideal scenario that prompted Delaware’s decision, as noted by Rawak.
AHA commissioner Michelle Morgan confirmed preliminary discussions on league dues and travel with Michigan. Touching on the prospect of Michigan joining the WCHA, commissioner Michelle McAteer stated, “The momentum, interest, and potential around Michigan transitioning to DI status are very exciting for everyone in women’s hockey. We will collaborate with College Hockey Inc., institutional representatives, and other DI hockey conferences to facilitate this transition.”
The present drive for women’s hockey at Michigan is uniquely positioned, with support from the regents—including the influential Denise Ilitch—President Ono, potential donors, and the desire to outcompete Ohio State across all athletic endeavors.
Two years ago, this combination might have easily resulted in a positive outcome. But today?
“It may be the most challenging period to introduce a varsity sport to any athletic program,” remarked Greg Dooley, a Michigan professor specializing in the history of college athletics.
College athletics are on the brink of unprecedented transformation, with the recent surge in NIL compensation reshaping the landscape. Following the settlement between the NCAA and major conferences, which will contribute nearly $2.8 billion to resolve antitrust claims, millions of dollars are poised to flow directly to student athletes.
The settlement proposal unveiled a groundbreaking revenue-sharing model, with schools expected to allocate up to $21 million annually to student athletes. This has already prompted budget cuts across the NCAA, with more difficult decisions looming, especially concerning Olympic or “non-revenue sports.”
“Most athletic departments will soon have to determine which programs to support and potentially discontinue,” Dooley highlighted. “Given the current climate, why would any institution decide to add a hockey program now?”
In June, the Michigan athletic department projected total operating revenues for 2024-25 to reach $255.7 million—a $25 million rise from the previous fiscal year—with projected operating expenses of $253.4 million. Michigan athletics derive significant financial gains from the football program—the reigning national champions—and the Big Ten’s $8 billion media rights deal launched last season. Despite these substantial revenues, Michigan faces significant challenges amidst the evolving landscape of college athletics.
GO DEEPER
Big Ten signs TV rights deals worth over $8 billion
“For any athletic department to effectively support all teams within this new environment, sustaining financial viability is essential, although the full extent of the impact remains unclear,” Dooley stated. “If you’re running a business, deliberating significant changes should be postponed until the true consequences are understood.”
When Delaware opted to proceed with women’s ice hockey, the athletic department lacked foresight into the forthcoming changes. Rawak noted that the imminent alterations wouldn’t have altered their decision, considering the heightened exposure and national recognition accompanying the transition to FBS football. Nonetheless, she acknowledged the complexities of introducing substantial expenses to an athletic department during this period.
While Dooley harbors reservations about the impending changes, if there’s a school equipped to navigate this terrain in collegiate athletics, it’s Michigan.
“I believe it’s the right decision at the appropriate time,” he remarked. “I have confidence that individuals in this community will offer their support, and most individuals wish this team had been established 20 years ago.”
(Illustration: Meech Robinson / The Athletic. Photos of Denise Ilitch, Michigan hockey and Yost Ice Arena: AP; Scott W. Grau / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)