Denise Ilitch was tired of being told no.

For the last few years, she had been championing the idea of varsity women’s hockey to the University of Michigan administration. Because while the school is known as a men’s hockey powerhouse — with nine national championships, the second most all-time — Michigan has never iced a women’s Division I hockey team.

Ilitch — a regent at the University and the daughter of Marian and the late Mike Ilitch, who bought the Detroit Red Wings in 1982 — had been told repeatedly that it couldn’t be done. The reason? It was too expensive, though Ilitch had never been given any specific figures to back up the rejection.

“I had not heard a good enough reason on why we couldn’t have women’s hockey DI at Michigan,” Ilitch told The Athletic.

So, during the March regents meeting, Ilitch went public with her pitch: It’s time for the University of Michigan to launch a varsity women’s hockey program.

The women’s club team will be in its 30th year when the puck drops for the 2024-25 season on Thursday. And the appetite for women’s hockey in the State was apparent when a Professional Women’s Hockey League game at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit drew a record crowd for a game back in March.

“Part of our mission statement at the University of Michigan says ‘to serve the people of Michigan.’ And right now, the people of Michigan are not being served. There is a demand for women’s hockey at (Michigan),” Ilitch said during the meeting. “Women belong on the same ice as men. The University of Michigan must show that on our ice, we support varsity women’s hockey. That’s leadership. Hockey is for everyone, and we are ‘HockeyTown.‘”

Michigan president Santa Ono said he would look into launching a feasibility study with athletic director Warde Manuel.

The athletic department launched the study in May; it is expected to be completed sometime in the fall.

The study is a significant step toward a potential future for elite women’s hockey at one of the biggest schools in college athletics. It’s the first real look at adding the sport in decades. This time, though, the push for women’s hockey comes at a historic moment for the sport, with a new professional league and more eyes on the game than ever before.

“It almost feels like we’ve got this perfect storm,” said Jenna Trubiano, the club team’s head coach. “I personally would have wished it happened many years ago. We can’t change the past but you can focus on the future.”

There’s reason to believe a women’s DI program would make sense at Michigan.

But the questions remain: Why has it never worked before? And can they make it happen now?

It’s been 26 years since women’s hockey was seriously considered for varsity appointment at Michigan.

The club team was founded in 1994 by a group of women who played hockey in the area — mostly on men’s teams or in open adult leagues — and wanted to see more opportunities exclusively for women. By the 1997-98 season, Michigan was looking to promote two teams to varsity status and women’s hockey — which was about to debut at the 1998 Nagano Olympics — appeared to be high on the shortlist.

According to archived board minutes, business plans for the addition of women’s hockey and men’s soccer began development in March 1998. That process was not unlike the current feasibility study: The athletic department dug into how it could add women’s hockey as a varsity sport, and how much it would cost.

Plans were submitted in September 1998, according to the records, but only two months later the department moved on from hockey. In the end, the school opted to elevate men’s soccer and women’s water polo.

“It was just a money decision,” said Sue McDowell, one of the co-founders of the women’s club hockey team who became a longtime assistant coach.

Water polo, McDowell was told, would cost significantly less than hockey. And the women’s team could share a facility, the Canham Natatorium, with the men. Soccer already had fields in place. For hockey, though, Yost Ice Arena — with only one ice sheet and one up-to-standard locker room — isn’t easily shared.

“That was pretty much the nail in the coffin,” McDowell said. “Whenever you brought it up, it was ‘this is too expensive,’ and ‘there’s no way we can do it.’”

While Michigan passed on women’s hockey, other varsity programs started popping up, including at Big Ten rival schools Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio State. Since the NCAA sanctioned women’s hockey in 2000-01, Minnesota (6) and Wisconsin (7) have won the most championships. Ohio State — Michigan’s biggest rival — has won two championships in the last three years, which might actually be the biggest argument in favor of women’s hockey at Michigan in most circles.

“If Ohio State wins national championships, they should have to run through Michigan,” said Michigan regent Jordan Acker, who supported Ilitch’s argument in favor of a varsity team at the March meeting. “It absolutely plays a role (in the desire for a team), there’s no question about it.”

Female hockey registration has also grown in the state of Michigan in the decades since that late ’90s decision. Last season, Michigan ranked fourth behind major hockey hotbed states Minnesota, Massachusetts and New York in female registration, per USA Hockey. And yet, save for the Wayne State program, which folded in May 2011, there have been no DI women’s hockey programs in the state of Michigan. In contrast, there are seven men’s programs that will play in 2024-25.

This has resulted in homegrown talent from successful youth programs such as Little Caesars or HoneyBaked having to leave Michigan to pursue elite college hockey opportunities. Four players from Michigan — Kirsten Simms, Megan Keller, Abby Roque and Taylor Girard — appeared on Team USA rosters last season. All four left 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, it’s easy to feel like Michigan missed a critical window in 1997-98. “It’s always been a sore spot,” she said.

When the feasibility study is complete it will provide decision makers with a comprehensive overview of what it will actually cost to run a program. This includes everything from the cost of scholarships, salaries, and travel budgets, to Title IX implications, and an evaluation of potential venues, which could mean updating an existing facility or building an entirely new one.

Michigan has hired Collegiate Sports Associates, an executive search and consulting firm, to lead the study. College Hockey Inc. is also involved. A spokesperson from the Michigan athletic department confirmed that the study is ongoing, but did not have anything to share publicly at this time.

A feasibility study can provide a clear path toward setting up a team. That was the case for the University of Delaware when the school announced at a press conference last year that it would add women’s hockey as a varsity sport for the 2025-26 season. The athletic department had already committed to move to the Football Bowl Subdivision — the highest level of college football in the nation — and was committed to adding a women’s sport to remain Title IX compliant.

“As we considered all of the NCAA-sponsored sports, women’s ice hockey did make the most sense at the highest level,” said Chrissi Rawak, Delaware’s athletic director.

Delaware’s study laid out the finances and found that Fred Rust Ice Arena, where the team will play — one of two rinks on campus — only needed small-scale renovations, which made women’s hockey more feasible financially.

Typically, the lack of an existing facility is the biggest hurdle when it comes to adding DI hockey. For Michigan, Yost Ice Arena is going to play a central role in the study and the future of a women’s varsity program. It was built in 1923 as a field house and was turned into a hockey facility in 1973. It’s an iconic venue in college hockey, but it has only one sheet of ice and one locker room — the men’s home locker room — that would be considered quality enough.

The varsity men’s hockey team is also the only full-time tenant at Yost. The women’s and men’s club teams do not have locker room space in the arena, and usually practice during off hours because the men’s team has priority. The women’s club team is required to pay to play at Yost, at a cost of between $30,000- $40,000 — it will cost players $2,500 in dues to play hockey at Michigan this season — though President Ono has reimbursed the team for most of its rink bill the last 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 move into Yost on a full-time basis, renovations would likely be required, either to add another ice sheet or more locker rooms. But an expansion is unlikely given how old the arena is and the footprint it already has on campus — it backs up onto the baseball facility and sits between the football training facility and an academic building.

There are rinks in Ann Arbor — such as the Ann Arbor Ice Cube — that could potentially be used as practice facilities to make sharing Yost only necessary for games. The study will examine all of the possible facility options, including other sites on campus that could be renovated to accommodate hockey.

Donors will likely play an important role in women’s hockey at Michigan, especially if a new building is required.

In 2011, Michigan promoted men’s and women’s lacrosse teams to varsity; two years later the athletic department received a $100 million donation from Stephen M. Ross, the owner of the Miami Dolphins, which helped fund the new athletic campus that includes a lacrosse stadium. In hockey, Penn State men’s and women’s hockey debuted in 2012-13 after a $102 million donation from Terry and Kim Pegula, the owners of the Buffalo Bills and NHL Sabres, which funded the construction of the Pegula Ice Arena.

“I think that there’s cautious enthusiasm for this,” Ilitch said. “I’ve received numerous calls from people that want to help, that want to get involved, that want to donate. Generally you have to call donors. Donors don’t call you.”

Another major consideration for Michigan will be where the team plays. Delaware is joining Atlantic Hockey America, which already includes Lindenwood, Mercyhurst, Penn State, Rochester Institute of Technology, Robert Morris University, and Syracuse.

For Michigan, the most likely options are the AHA and the Western Collegiate Hockey Association. The Big Ten doesn’t currently sponsor women’s hockey like it does for men’s hockey, but it’s fair to wonder if that would change if Michigan entered the picture.

The WCHA makes a lot of sense with three Big Ten teams (Wisconsin, Ohio State and Minnesota) and would allow Michigan to capitalize on preexisting rivalries. But, the conference’s footprint stretches over 900 miles between Bemidji, Minn., and Columbus, Ohio, which would impact travel costs. Joining the AHA would mean more drivable trips, and would likely be easier to compete in — that’s ultimately what made it a “perfect league” for Delaware, Rawak said.

AHA commissioner Michelle Morgan said she’s had some “very preliminary” conversations with Michigan about league dues and travel. When asked if Michigan would be a fit for the WCHA, commissioner Michelle McAteer said, “Like everyone in women’s hockey, the momentum, interest and potential around Michigan elevating to DI status is very exciting. We would work with College Hockey Inc., institutional representatives and the other DI hockey conferences to help make that happen.”

The current push for women’s hockey at Michigan appears to have all the right pieces assembled: the support of the regents — including the power and influence of Denise Ilitch — and President Ono, potential donors, and the desire to beat Ohio State in every sporting arena.

Two years ago, those ingredients might have led to an easy yes. But now?

“It might be the worst time to add a varsity sport to an athletic program,” said Greg Dooley, a professor at Michigan who teaches courses about the history of college athletics.

College athletics are on the cusp of unprecedented change. The explosion in NIL compensation for athletes has already changed the landscape. And now — after the NCAA and the nation’s five biggest conferences have agreed to pay nearly $2.8 billion to settle several antitrust claims — the stage is set for millions of dollars to go directly to student athletes.

A groundbreaking revenue-sharing model outlined in the March settlement proposal would have schools each provide up to $21 million annually to student athletes. That has already led to budget cuts across the NCAA, with more difficult decisions — particularly when it comes to Olympic or “non-revenue sports” — sure to come.

“Most athletic departments right now are going to be making decisions about which programs to support and possibly cut,” Dooley said. “Who is going to add a hockey program right now?”

In June, the Michigan athletic department projected total operating revenues for 2024-25 to be $255.7 million — a $25 million increase from the 2024 fiscal year — with projected operating expenses of $253.4 million. Michigan athletics financially benefits from its football program — the defending national champions — and the Big Ten’s $8 billion media rights deal that began last season. But even Michigan, with its large revenues, is going to face major challenges in the new landscape of college athletics.

GO DEEPER

Big Ten signs TV rights deals worth over $8 billion

“It has to make sense financially for the athletic department to support all the teams in this new world, which we’re not quite clear on yet,” Dooley said. “If you’re running a business, you probably wait to make any significant changes until you understand the real impact.”

When Delaware decided to move forward with women’s hockey, the athletic department had no sense of what was to come. Rawak said the looming changes wouldn’t have altered their decision, given the increased exposure and national visibility that comes with a move to FBS football. But she did admit this is a much more complicated time to add significant expenses to an athletic department.

And while Dooley has many reservations about the changes to come, if there’s a school that can pull this off at this time in collegiate athletics, it’s Michigan.

“I think it’s the right thing to do at the right time,” he said. “I think people in this town will support it, and frankly most people wished they had this team 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)

In late 2020, Henrik Lundqvist had some gas left in the tank and was all set to put on an unfamiliar hockey sweater to extend his career just a bit longer.

After spending 15 seasons with the New York Rangers, “King Hank” signed a one-year deal with the Washington Capitals ahead of the 2020-2021 season.

But with a month left until the season began, Lundqvist had open-heart surgery in January 2021 due to a leaky aortic valve.

Lundqvist returned to practice a month later, but the surgery did not cure his heart issues. While getting ready for his on-ice return with the Caps, Lundqvist had “flare-ups” in his heart. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with recurrent pericarditis, which left him in “a lot of pain” that was “affecting my everyday life.”

Knowing the risks, he decided to call it a career.

“It definitely didn’t end the way I planned it to. … It’s a big day when you make that decision,” Lundqvist told Fox News Digital in a recent interview about his decision to hang up the pads.

Sure, Lundqvist was certainly on the last leg of his career, but he didn’t exactly end it on his own terms. As he puts it, “That first year of retirement was hard.”

But nearly four years since his surgery, Lundqvist, in some ways, sees the diagnosis as a blessing in disguise.

Looking back, Lundqvist knows he was only meant to wear Ranger blue.

“It was not meant to be for me to continue playing. My last game was as a Ranger, that was the meaning of it all,” said Lundqvist, who does analyst work on MSG Network and TNT.

While it was hard to end his career somewhat involuntarily, the 42-year-old told Fox News Digital he is “at peace” with his decision.

“Instead of wishing for more, I turned around and was extremely grateful for everything I experienced on the ice and how much the game of hockey, what it gave me: memories, friendships and just such a big passion. It really guided me through life. I felt this massive amount of gratitude toward my career and the things I got to do; it was just a reset in life,” he said.

New York Rangers goaltender Henrik Lundqvist waves to the fans after defeating the Colorado Avalanche at Madison Square Garden on Feb. 11, 2017. The win was Lundqvist’s 400th NHL win. (Andy Marlin/USA TODAY Sports)

FLYERS COACH JOHN TORTORELLA INVITES FATHER OF JOHNNY GAUDREAU TO TEAM’S PRACTICE: ‘THERAPEUTIC FOR HIM’

Hindsight is also 20/20, considering he is still dealing with scary moments, which would be a nightmare to have while on the ice. 

The Hockey Hall of Famer said he has “restrictions” when it comes to physical activity and that he’s had “four or five flare-ups” since his open-heart surgery, including as recently as this summer. His pericarditis isn’t going away anytime soon.

“In that moment, I was not sure if it was the right decision. But looking back, with the amount of flare-ups I’ve had and how it’s been affecting my life, I know it was the right decision, so that feels good,” Lundqvist said.

More than four years since his last NHL game, Lundqvist is taking advantage of the opportunity to tell his story. The Rangers legend, whose No. 30 hangs in the Madison Square Garden rafters, has partnered with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals to be a part of its latest “Life DisRPted” campaign to raise awareness for pericarditis.

“Pericarditis has really affected my life. I had to retire. But also, since I retired, it has an effect on my life in terms of how active I can be and the setbacks I’ve had, the flare-ups. So, through this campaign, I saw a great opportunity to spread awareness,” Lundqvist said.

Former New York Rangers goalie Henrik Lundqvist speaks to the crowd during a ceremony to retire his number before a game at Madison Square Garden. (Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports)

“I’ve had a lot of great conversations with their team, how to reach people. A lot of people live with it, but maybe they don’t have a good plan. That’s our goal with this campaign, to really educate people and make sure they get the type of support they need to bring to their doctors. There are a lot of people who maybe don’t know they have RP. For me, when I was diagnosed, I wasn’t sure what was going on. I was just in a lot of pain, it was affecting me in everyday life. So, that’s step one, to get the diagnosis, but from there, you want to have a good game plan.”

“It just resonates with me,” he added. “Athlete or not, your life can be turned upside down no matter who you are. But how do you find happiness and strength in that moment? We all go through things. I think the key is how we respond, how we deal with it. I don’t know if I feel a responsibility, but it’s an opportunity to help people.”

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Taylor Swift has drawn tons of commentary from NFL fans — including both praise and ire — since she began dating Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce last year and became a fixture in the stands. But fans aren’t the only ones with opinions on Swift’s presence at games.

The vast majority of players included in The Athletic’s 2024 anonymous NFL player poll — 72.5 percent to be exact — said they viewed the pop star’s interest in the game (and the coverage that stemmed from it) as positive for the league. Only 4.9 percent of players polled viewed it as a negative, and 22.5 percent viewed it as neither negative nor positive.

The Swift-NFL partnership was one of the many subjects The Athletic’s beat writers surveyed players about to include in this year’s poll, with 102 votes cast on the topic. Players were granted anonymity to speak freely about matters impacting the league.

“I think it’s been positive for the league,” one player said. “I think that at the end of the day, it’s a business and you need to get as many eyes on it as possible. And she brings a lot of eyes, so, you know, if that increases the salary cap, I don’t think anybody’s gonna be too mad about that one.”

Another player who voted “positive” noted that “a lot of Swifties who don’t watch football are now watching it.”

“Bringing more people to the game of football is always good,” that player said.

Scoop City Newsletter

Free, daily NFL updates direct to your inbox.

Free, daily NFL updates direct to your inbox.

Advertisement

Sign Up

“More fans, broader horizon,” said another player in the “positive” vote camp. “She has a worldwide fan base. Non-football fans will become fans or at least viewers in the United States.”

Conversely, players who highlighted the “negative” elements suggested it distracted viewers from the sport.

“I feel like she is getting unnecessary coverage,” said one player who voted for the “negative” side. “There was the whole NFL opening season video on Twitter and she was featured five times and our quarterback was featured none. That’s not even right. She is not the NFL.”

FOOTBALL IS BACK THIS WEEK 🏈 🚨 pic.twitter.com/YVR8kbZnfm

— NFL (@NFL) September 2, 2024

Another player who voted “negative” said it was because he felt like “a lot of people are talking more about that than the football game going on.”

Others viewed Swift’s presence at the games as both positive and negative.

“It’s bringing more attention to the game,” one player said, “but I feel like they’ve been using her face. If she’s at a game, they probably show her like six, seven times. People get … sick of it if they keep doing it over and over again. So I think they’ve got to find a balance.”

“It’s a positive and negative,” said another player. “The reason I say that is it’s great the impact she’s making on the younger female generation and getting them to learn about the sport. … The negative is all the true football fans who are tired of seeing it. We’re glad it’s raising engagement, but if I’m a Chiefs fan, I’m not trying to see Taylor Swift every commercial break or every timeout. We know she’s there.”

Like some fans, other players didn’t care, with one saying, “I’ll jam to some Taylor Swift, but I don’t give a s— if she’s at the game or not.”

Required reading

(Photo: Jamie Squire / Getty Images)