Friday Notebook 2.21.25

Diving into the varsity women's hockey feasibility study, Estapa and Edwards as four-year seniors, and Hughes' heater

The feasibility study concerning varsity women’s ice hockey at the University of Michigan—prepared by Collegiate Sports Associates—boils down to a single fundamental question: What sort of athletic department does the University want to have?

The study characterizes the question of adding varsity women’s hockey as “philosophically…simple” but financially “problematic.” From this premise, a question begs in terms of the University’s course of action: Will values or dollars drive the ultimate decision? Of course, this binary is reductive, and of course dollars are required to bring those values into the world. Nonetheless, based on CSA’s framing, Michigan’s decision on whether or not to proceed with varsity women’s hockey will provide an answer as to which the athletic department holds most dear: dollars or values.

That question exists in the wider context of a hazy future for collegiate athletics at large. The slow death of the NCAA’s amateurism model places the future of every collegiate sport beyond football and men’s basketball on uncertain ground. As the study puts it, “Rather than expanding sport opportunities for students, the national landscape has evolved to a context that incentivizes sport reductions and greater investment in the most visible, remaining teams…The question is whether the American model of integrated academic and athletic curricula, as epitomized by UM and a handful of other institutions can continue to be financially sustainable.”

Before moving any further, let’s start with a basic, bare bones look at the financial findings of the report, given that those were the primary purpose of the exercise as a whole. CSA estimates that varsity women’s hockey would carry a $4.1 million annual net expense ($4.5 million in estimated expense and $400,000 of estimated revenue). That figure does not include the primary start-up cost of women’s hockey: a rink to play in. CSA presents two avenues for solving that issue.

The first is a $50 million expansion of Yost Ice Arena, which would equip the rink to house two varsity programs. That number doesn’t include an estimated $12 million in deferred maintenance costs, nor would it pay for renovations to the existing facility. CSA names some legitimate reservations to this approach (limiting community ice time because now two varsity teams need access to it) and a thoroughly ridiculous one (less parking in the immediate vicinity of Yost and the Wilpon Baseball and Softball Complex, a cause I simply won’t be driven to care about).

The other alternative is to build a new arena, which CSA estimates would cost between $300-330 million, depending on whether it had one or two sheets. Though that initial cost is high, that new arena would potentially better equip both programs to host tournaments and events that might increase revenue once it’s built. While this is not explicitly stated in the report, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Michigan builds a brand new $300 million+ arena and doesn’t put both teams there. In other words, this route would presumably spell the end of Yost as the home of Michigan hockey (as the report points out, it could then be renovated to accommodate a different varsity sport).

CSA then lists three paths for paying for the operation. First, it could come from the athletic department itself. Second, it could come from the university itself, which, as the report notes, does not presently subsidize the athletics departed but that may well change in the future. Finally, that money could come from a “major gift,” which CSA says “provides the best path forward with the fewest risks and aligns with the Athletic Department’s core value of sponsoring a broad-based, competitive varsity sports program, the University’s values of equity and opportunity, and the state of Michigan’s task force objectives.” It’s hard to argue this point, though that attitude would also seem something of an abdication of responsibility from the first two parties.

In terms of fundraising, the study also notes potential support from the NHL and/or the Detroit Red Wings, saying: “Existing partnerships between the NHL and universities primarily involve two focal points: 1) assistance in facilitating philanthropic giving to the athletics departments to support varsity hockey; and 2) programming by sharing facilities, operations and hosting events. There is a high probability the NHL would work closely with UM Athletics in these two endeavors.”

One question the study addresses I hadn’t spent much time considering previously is that of conference affiliation. The study points out that the WCHA (conference of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio State) would provide the highest level of competition, while the AHA (home to Penn State) would offer the greatest geographic proximity. For the Big Ten to come into being as a women’s hockey conference and receive an automatic qualifier for the NCAA Tournament, it would need Michigan and then one other school to add hockey. With that in mind, it feels like the best case scenario would be for Michigan and Michigan State to do this together and inspire broader Big Ten investment in and promotion of hockey for both men and women.

In the end, CSA has done what it promised: laying out the positive case for varsity women’s hockey at Michigan and the challenges and costs to getting it done. That leaves the University with our original question left to answer: What type of an athletic program do you want to have?

In answering this question, it’s important to consider the cultural context of our moment. In June of 2022, before we were talking seriously about revenue sharing from universities to athletes, Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s Task Force on Women in Sports concluded that Title IX alone is insufficient in the state of Michigan. Now, the Trump administration threatens Title IX further, by suggesting that it should not apply to the House Settlement’s presumed introduction of that revenue sharing. That imperative from the governor’s task force and the threat from the present regime only reinforce the value of varsity women’s hockey to a state with the fourth most female USA Hockey registrations in the country.

None of the broad strokes to come from CSA are earth shattering, but now there is a (reasonably) precise number to it all. While that precise number is certainly more than can be found in the couch cushions, I for one would struggle mightily to accept it is beyond the means of a University not far removed from a $41 million project to replace the fully functional video-boards at the football stadium.

So, now there’s the question to answer. As CSA put it, “sponsoring women’s ice Hockey is consistent with the University of Michigan’s philosophy of providing equitable opportunities within intercollegiate athletics as a catalyst for holistically maximizing student-athlete growth and development.” It’s up to the school to decide whether it wants to make good on its values, when it comes to girls and women playing hockey in Michigan.

Estapa & Edwards: A Word on U-M’s Four-Year Seniors

At the conclusion of the University of Michigan men’s hockey team’s shootout victory over Minnesota to complete a weekend sweep Saturday evening, the Wolverines honored their seniors and graduate students. The honorees included two four-year seniors: forward Mark Estapa and defenseman Ethan Edwards. In their own ways, those four-year arcs embody what winning has to look like at the NCAA level from two players who have yet to conclude a season short of the Frozen Four.

If you look back at Estapa’s junior highlights, it’s evident he had ridiculous hands, and he was an impressive skater, particularly in the sharpness of his edges. From the moment he got to Ann Arbor, he had no compunction about throwing his weight around. However, what he lacked was a role, a job he could do well and reliably that contributed toward winning.

Four years later, Estapa has moved from the wing to center because his team needed him to. He’s remained every bit as physical as he was as a freshman, but he’s cut down the penalties significantly. As a sophomore, he had 89 PIMs in 40 games; as a senior, he’s down to 30 in 31 games played. Estapa has turned himself into arguably Michigan’s most reliable penalty killer and best left-handed faceoff man. His work on the forecheck has made him an indispensable part of the Wolverines’ field position game.

That’s development, and that is the type of player championship teams need: four-year guys with indefatigable work ethics willing to dedicate themselves to the service of winning in whatever capacity they are called upon for.

It’s hard to say more about Edwards in this moment, because I feel as though I’ve been gushing about him for four years. There are zero holes in Edwards’ game. He’s an elite skater, an elite passer and puck mover. He has a bomb of a shot, he is a relentless defender, and he is as impactful a hitter as you will find in the Big Ten. He contributes to the penalty kill and power play alike. His fitness and athleticism are off the charts. He’s gone from playing behind the likes of Owen Power, Luke Hughes, and Seamus Casey to becoming the Wolverines’ workhorse and thriving: monster minutes, all situations, and a dominant player in that role.

Michigan’s Class of ‘25 is another cannibalized by early defections to the NHL, but the two who remain are a testament to winning at the collegiate level, whether in Estapa adding whatever his team needed from him to his game or Edwards waiting his turn for stardom.

Hughes’ Heater

The sweep of Minnesota proved another productive weekend for junior forward T.J. Hughes. Friday night, he assisted on Ethan Edwards’ overtime game-winner, before scoring in regulation then adding the shootout winner Saturday. With points each night, he extended his point streak to 15 games and counting.

That is a ridiculous degree of reliability at a moment U-M clearly needs someone to step up toward carrying the offensive freight. But unsurprisingly, when asked about the streak last week, Hughes—who said he didn’t even realize it was going on until being shown an @UMichHockey Tweet on the bus to an MSU game the weekend before last—preferred to shift focus to team success.

“I just think of it as just trying to help the team win,” Hughes said. “When I’m contributing offensively, it’s a bonus, and it feels good just to help the team. I’m just trying to contribute offensively and defensively…I want to be a two-way center or just a two-way forward in general that can play hard minutes in the D zone and can be hard to play against, as well as make plays all over the ice.”

From the moment he got to Michigan, Hughes distinguished himself as a high-end power play contributor and scorer. His brain has always been his top asset: He sees a play before anyone else does, and he doesn’t need elite footspeed because of his processing speed and anticipation. However, to his own self-assessment, what he’s added to his game is a greater sense of completeness, an ability to contribute in all phases of play. “He’s just a hockey player,” head coach Brandon Naurato said of Hughes last week. “He knows what spots to get in, and he’s easy to play with because he’s predictable.”

One new responsibility for Hughes as a junior has been playing short-handed, something he’d done only sparingly in his first two seasons with the Wolverines. “Him taking faceoffs on the PK and taking some PK shifts has actually helped him manage his game as he’s grown,” Naurato said last Tuesday. “There was a time where maybe he was taking too long of shifts and just hoping for the offense.” That’s no longer part of his game; instead, he’s become a more imposing five-on-five player, working as hard without the puck as with it to take full advantage of his robust role (at an average of 18:59 a night, per College Hockey News, he leads Wolverines forwards in ice time).

Over the course of his junior season, Hughes has evolved into Michigan’s offensive focal point. No longer does he enjoy the luxury of playing beside stars like Adam Fantilli, Gavin Brindley, and Rutger McGroarty. Instead, by and large, the Wolverines attack goes as he goes. There is precedent for this development. During last spring’s postseason, Hughes was the Wolverines’ most consistent forward.

Now as Michigan marches back toward playoff hockey, Hughes has returned to that form. Between his reliability, work rate, and productivity, the Hamilton, Ontario–born forward is an ideal fulcrum for another deep run, the epitome of the ‘hard skill’ any team craves atop its lineup.

Before concluding, a word of congratulations to the Michigan women’s hockey team, which began its CCWHA playoff campaign with a bang yesterday via a 5–0 win over Aquinas. The Wolverines will take on Adrian next. Thanks to @umichwhockey for this week’s preview image. Please also check out THN.com/Detroit for daily Detroit Red Wings coverage.