hockey fund raiser

it apparently is in full force. just received a phone call from a player and had the unpleasant task of trying to explain why i didn't feel comfortable donating at present. felt like a schmuck but would have felt worse had i not stuck to my previous decision. weirdest thing of all was that he had not heard of any such issue.

On a somewhat related note, Mark's letter made it into the latest issue of the Cornell Alumni magazine.

I got the call at work a few hours ago. Explaining my position was a little uncomfortable but, like Melissa said, I would have been worse to cave. Either he didn't care what my reason was (just marking the No box) or else he had heard the same response from others because he just blandly accepted my explanation and politely let me go.

Also in the latest Cornell Alumni Magazine is mention that "Cornell's CyberTower online program series [an Internet-based offering of Cornell's Adult University] has dropped its subscription fee."

I'm lost here (which regulars on the board can attest is not an uncommon phenom ). Is there a "hockey fund raiser" that is separate from other fund raising efforts at CU? Is it under the AD?

Thanks.

Some of us who have given specifically to hockey in the past--or who have participated in other hockey-related activities, like the summer golf outing--get solicitation calls from the players each winter.

I guess attending the after game pizza party doesn't rate!




Seriously, its nice to know that the forum members are/were so supportive.

Just got off the phone with my paisan' Sam, who really is a terrific guy. Explained the "protest" to him, and he was understanding. He did not seem to be aware that hockeycam had been cut off by "your friends at Cornell athletics" (as they referred to themselves in the recent issue of Spirit), although he did know that it had been implemented last year by Age.

Well, I sent in my donation after the Harvard game and earmarked it for the team. As much as I support the "protest," I think if you really think about it, by withholding your contribution, you are not helping the team. To me, the more effective way is to voice our individual and collective opinion against the fee-based broadcast to AD Andy Noel (and by not subscribing to the plan, and I am decidedly not). Nevertheless, our hockey team is having one of its best years in memory and they deserve our support--in spirit and financially as well. So, I urge you to give and earmark your fund for the team as you always have. Trust me, you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Tom Tseng (a fundraiser)

I've got to disagree with you here Tom. The folks at Athletics are unlikely to change anything unless it affects their bottom line. If a bunch of us refuse to sign up for the broadcasts they may well not care, because they will be getting some revenue from those who do sign up. (Who knows how many fans of other ornell sports have signed up?) But if they see that a lot of regular contriibutors to the hockey team stop donating they will be more likely to respond.

I fully support the team in spirit this year and am enjoying an excellent season. But I have to the stop the financial support for the time being.

I got my call, too, but as soon as I said "not this year," the player said "Okay thanks anyway" and hung up, so I didn't have/get to explain why....

Yup. I'm with Keith on this one. We get ignored when we speak out. In my opinion the only way to get the pt across is to withhold cash. Maybe then someone will take notice.

I received a call from Shane Palahicky last night and explained why I feel I can't give now. I followed this up by sending an e-mail to Mike, attaching my 11/8/02 e-mail to Andy Noel, which has now gone unanswered for two months.

I want to support Cornell Hockey, but I feel strongly that we deserve some answer to our pleas and expressions of outrage. I hope that citing this as a reason for withholding will help get the message understood. The decisions to go to CornellPass and to kill the HockeyCam were bad enough. The decision to ignore the pleas of the Lynah Faithful adds insult to injury.

Ken '71

=============
I received e-mail from Mike this morning expressing his understanding of my feelings, but also mentioning that the misinformation on this issue was hurting the efforts to raise funds for recruiting. He's clearly caught in the middle of this.

As my anger is with the AD and not with Mike and the team, I've decided to send a check directed specifically to the Men's Hockey program. I don't want to betray our efforts to restore free access to hockey broadcasts, but my highest priority is supporting the team the best I can...

Ken

Each year the team makes phone calls for a few hours to former players, boosters, ticket holders and past contributors. Nearly all of this money goes to recruiting efforts. Ivy League rules apparently prohibit the Athletic Department to fund recruiting - funds may only be applied to administrative costs, i.e. road trips, uniforms, equipment, etc. By donating during the player phonathon, you are directly affecting the coaching staff's ability to recruit future players. We all get several pleas a year from CU for donations, but this is one that shouldn't be ignored. Mike, and especially the players making the calls, have nothing to do with your beef with CU Athletics. Unfortunately, purchasing tickets to the games more directly supports CU Athletics than anything else.

Though it may be (and probably is) true that this $ goes to recruiting I strongly believe that the hockey coach has influence on the AD. Hockey is the most popular sport at Cornell. If the coach is unhappy (and holding back hockey donations could definitely make him this way) then I believe he will make it known to the AD. AD shouldn't want to have the coach of their fav team P.O.'d. Thus, hopefully some sort of resolution.

Yeah - I'm stretching - but a girl can dream!

R,
Your arguments are clearly well intentioned, but let's also remember that HockeyCam and free internet game broadcasts are perhaps two of the best recruiting tools out there. What a splendid way for a potential player to be introduced to the sights, sounds, and fury of Lynah (with all due respect to Mr. Faulkner).
The athletic department, in what I view as a short-sided cost cutting mistake, is neglecting the long term recruiting benefits of HockeyCam and free broadcasts. So while it's one thing to say that this boycott hurts the team directly, let's remember that bringing back these two items would only provide a net positive to the team.

Adam: Don't tell me that the only or main reason people here want HockeyCam and free internet broadcasts restored is to aid the recruiting efforts! All of the previous discussion on this topic has focused on selfish reasons -- alumni and parents benefitting.

In choosing to refrain from giving directly to the hockey program, and specifically in choosing to refrain from giving to support recruiting (assuming R is correct), you're essentially saying that two wrongs make a right. You're punishing the school/athletic department/team by not contributing in general or specifically for recruiting purposes and (you believe) the team's recruiting efforts are being harmed because there are no free internet broadcasts or HockeyCam for potential recruits to use. That sure seems short-sighted to me (i.e. let's hurt the team now and in the next few seasons so that eventually the AD will cave and allow HockeyCam and free broadcasts back). Short-sighted decisions have harmed the team in the past, particularly in the early 90s when the admissions offices adjusted how they looked at hockey recruits, harming the ability of the team to get certain players admitted.

Unfortunately, Melissa, I don't think this is the case. When I was a junior, I was personal friends with most of the players and I asked one of them what he thought of a certain issue that was floating around. I asked him as a friend, because I know he didn't want to get involved. While he did offer his opinion, what he told me was that the players and especially Coach try not to get involved with anything off the ice. His job is to coach the team and their job is to win games. I think Coach Schafer might be aware of some of what you guys are protesting, but if he does anything, he delegates other members of his staff to deal with it. That being said, I doubt he knows any more about it than anyone else at Cornell. I'm sure he read the emails some of you may have sent him, but as with most people, he *probably* assumes the AD will do their job and take care of the issue. It really has next to nothing to do with him. Again, these last points are conjecture. If anyone happens to be any more enlightened about this, feel free to offer your point of view. I guess that I just don't think that withholding money from the team in the hopes that it *might* affect the AD or that it *might* cause Schafer to speak up is fair to him. It's really not his job. He has enough on his plate. While I do agree that you all have been mistreated, I doubt that the DofA is doing anything intentionally to alienate its biggest fans. I just think there's more to it than we really know.

I would think that a more powerful recruiting tool is to have that prospect be at Lynah instead of watching on a Webcam. The coaching staff must foot the bill for the prospect to fly to Ithaca (not usually cheap, considering many of them are flying from a small Canadian airport to a small American airport) and stay in a hotel. Besides, using the Webcam as a recruiting tool was most certainly ancillary to the original intent to provide remote fans with a view of the game.

I happen to agree with you on the Webcam and radio webcast issues, it's petty for the AD to take those away. However, the team is at enough of a recruiting disadvantage with Ivy League rules and I don't see a reason to further hurt them because of this issue.

Of course it is more powerful of a tool to have the prospect in Lynah, but this is not always possible. In fact, it's usually only possible for a small group of highly focused individuals who are within a year or two of attending Cornell. What we need to realize is that recruiting can go way beyond the x's and o's of the campus visit. For example, a large group of kids in the midwest might grow up dreaming of wrestling for Iowa or playing basketball for Indiana. Why do you think baseball prospects all over the world want to play for the Yankees instead of other teams that offer more money? Because they've visited Yankee stadium or even been talked to by a coach? No way. Recruiting is in large part a numbers game, and it seems silly not to want to extend our reach to as big a pool of talent as possible.

And CULater, I absolutely agree that recruiting is not the primary intention of HockeyCam, free internet broadcasts, etc. However, that's not the point. Ancillary or not in terms of intent, the fact remains that this can be a long term positive for the program.

Somewhat getting away from the point of this thread...
This not allowing dept money to be spent on recruiting (assuming R is correct) by the Ivy League strikes me as a pointless restriction. What evil is being guarded against by this? By not reaching out the schools somehow end up with only the "true" student-athletes? I don't see that. I'm almost afraid to voice this next comment for fear that it will come true, but why do the Ivies compete as Div. I schools yet insist on all these self imposed handicaps? Just go Div III and be done with it (no, I don't really want them to go Div III and I'm sure there's some NCAA regulation that somehow makes that impracticable).

Sure, more access to the games is better than less access, but with respect to recruiting, I doubt any recruits become interested in Cornell because of the radio broadcasts. Video coverage, on the other hand, provides a distinct advantage over some of the other schools and allows us to compete (to some extent) with schools that have TV coverage. But the University clearly prefers that it have control over video coverage, not "a guy in a garage" who has no contractual obligation to the University and no standards to live up to (this is not to knock the HockeyCam in actual practice, but rather to describe the way the Department views this problem as a theoretical issue). IIRC, the University intends to implement video coverage in the future and in the meantime, you are advocating withholding moneys from the team and the recruiting budget. That's not helping anyone, short term or long term.

There is also a question of allocation of funds. IIRC I believe someone mentioned a few months ago that even if you specified the hockey team on the Cornell Fund pledge card the money was thrown into some Athletic pool with a pre-detemined split amongst different athletic programs. I could very easily be wrong about this - anyone know the real deal? If this is the case, what is to say that the money obtained by the hockey phone drive wouldn't be split up in the same manner? Logical resaoning would lead most to believe that this wouldn't be the case - but logic has nothing to do with Cornell politics - as we've seen in the past. Just another thought to throw out there.

At present I really wouldn't feel comfortable giving a "gift" unless I was ABSOLUTELY certain that the AD wouldn't touch it in ANY way. Does this make me happy? No. I felt overwheming guilt (and still do) about saying no. Yet - I felt that it was the best decision I could make to try and get my pt across. I understand that a lot of others see things differently and I really don't think that anyone has the "right" answer about how to reconcile the different parties. This is a messy situation and it'll probably never be resolved in a manner that all will be happy with. It is however very cool that we still have the forum to voice our different opinions on this and other more important issues (like the actual hockey!). Regardless of who is involved in the decision making, how funds are obtained and allocated and how various alumni feel about the AD I think it is great that we all can still bond over Cornell hockey.

awwww. anyone need some more cheese

CUlater '89 wrote:

But the University clearly prefers that it have control over video coverage, not "a guy in a garage" who has no contractual obligation to the University and no standards to live up to (this is not to knock the HockeyCam in actual practice, but rather to describe the way the Department views this problem as a theoretical issue). IIRC, the University intends to implement video coverage in the future

What in hell is "theoretical issue" supposed to mean?

Last season I could watch games from Lynah (and, by the way, with many others here I contributed to the cost of its implementation). This year there is nothing, because "our friends in athletics" pulled the plug with no replacement in sight. This move was simply stupid, CUlater, and I'm disappointed that you're parroting their tired old bullshit here. We've had enough of that from them.

CULater, you say that withholding money over the hockeycam issue is "selfish". Is it a selfish reason to want to be able to watch/listen to the games for free? Sure. But so what?

You can argue very reasonably that giving money to a University is a "noble" selfless act , which promotes educational opportunities for future students and fosters the educational community that is important to our society. I'd agree with you. But donating to the Cornell hockey team does not fit this argument. Hockey doesn't add to the education at Cornell (except in very tangential ways). Cornell hockey is basically entertainment. Yes, there's an aspect of school pride, etc. Bus basically I give to the hockey team so we can have a good team to follow and support. Because it's fun. This isn't noble and altruistic. it's basically selfish. I donate to Cornell and not the New York Yankees (who I root for just as hard in the summer months) because Big George doesn't need my help to be successful.

I'm a fan of Cornell hockey. I support the team because I'm a fan. The AD has made it harder and more expensive to be a fan this year. So I'm reacting by removing my support.

So basically you are saying we should not use the one possibly effective weapon in our arsenal because it might hurt the team in the short term. In other words, we should sit back and complain while doing nothing. Sorry, I'd rather take a stand and accept the possibility of some collateral damage.

I agree that it makes sense for the University to have control over video coverage. But it's idiotic to cancel the volunteer service before providing a replacement. Heck, if it's a contract that they need, I'm sure they could have given Age some money to do it (and for softare) in return for a "contractual obligation" (like he doesn't go to every game anyway?) And since you weren't knocking the Cam in practice, I won't even start on "standards to live up to".

I really should shut up and get back to work...

The "theoretical issue" is that, in theory, at some point HockeyCam's quality might not be up to the standard that the University would prefer and could reflect poorly on the Department and in such a situation, the Department would have no direct relationship with the operators of HockeyCam and no piece of paper through which those operators agreed to maintain certain standards. Obviously, poor quality can happen even with a business and a contract in place, but in that situation the University should be able to pursue remedies against the operators (in addition to the fact that the business should be motivated by money and reputation to avoid/fix such problems). AFAIK, we do not know whether the Department is taking advantage of those things in trying to improve the quality of the current webcasts.

Finally, didn't they pull the plug because the operator acted inappropriately in a business context? I don't think that's stupid; that's the real world.

Free video and free audio over the web is not an entitlement that once given, cannot be taken away. You're certainly within your rights to complain to the AD, but you're also behaving like children by "taking your ball (money) and going home."

Didn't Age lose the right to maintain HockeyCam because of his own actions?

Can we please not turn this into a rehashing of Age's supposed disrespectful behavior? He has done WAY more positives than negatives for the faithful (and cornell hockey in general). Getting back into a discussion on that whole aspect of the present situation will benefit no one. (not trying to be a biotch - really)

I would prefer that the coaches be able to recruit even more effectively than they do now. Recruiting (particularly in northwest Canada) is one of the hardest parts of the job (especially when you have to go plug in your car to keep it warm at night). As a budding (and blossomed) national power, we are competing for most of the top players these days and are at a financial disadvantage to many of the other schools. I think holding back money from this purpose in order to extort the AD into meeting your requests does harm to the very thing we all care about for less-than-the-best reasons.

Anyway, what magnitude of money are we talking about here? You say this is our only effective weapon, but how much less money is being contributed this year because of this issue? I suspect it is not a big enough number that it will put any more pressure on the AD the reverse its decision than would repeatedly papering the AD with petitions and letters and e-mails on the subject.

Treating your stakeholders badly is stupid. I'm disappointed you're unable to understand that.

Access to our free will financial support is not an entitlement, either. When a vendor, contractor, merchant, etc., treats me badly, I withhold my business. This is no different. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand that, either.

And I don't appreciate your snide comment about "children." Butt out.

The only reason it came up was because it seems like some people here believe the AD acted without cause in pulling HockeyCam. Age himself has admitted that this is not true, IIRC.

Cutting off the noses of scores of fans to spite one face (Age) is stupid, too. Maybe even childish. Don't you think?

So now you've given us two very different reasons for the killing of hockeycam, CUlater: control of quality and getting even with Age. Which is it? Got any others?

R wrote:

Ivy League rules apparently prohibit the Athletic Department to fund recruiting - funds may only be applied to administrative costs, i.e. road trips, uniforms, equipment, etc.

I'll believe this when I see it in an official Ivy League document. The check I sent at the end of 2001 was made out to Cornell University. So if it was being used for recruiting expenses it was coming out of Cornell's coffers. Money is fungible.

I'm only repeating what others have said here, Al. In any case, I don't think it is a question of "getting even" with Age, it is more that Age wanted the right to webcast the AD's product by implementing HockeyCam and if he couldn't act in a professional manner in doing so, the AD is within it's rights to say that that it doesn't want to deal with such a person now (thereby "getting even with Age" or in the future (thereby avoiding the quality control problem that could arise with someone like him, at least in the AD's minds).

I have to agree with R here. I got my call last night and decided to donate. Steve Bâby made sure to thank me for supporting the team financially and each and every weekend. Very classy kid! By not donating you are hurting our team and our future. These players are taking time out of their busy schedules to help out the future of Cornell hockey. Believe me they appreciate all of us in the stands each weekend, but financial support is a crucial part of our recruiting process. If you don't want to donate to the school that is fine, but this money directly effects the team.

I'm disappointed you can't seem to understand that you are hurting the very thing you care about by your actions.

I don't think anyone here has said the AD wasn't within his "rights" to discontinue hockeycam, or that we, as fans, are "entitled" to anything--and I wish you'd stop playing those tunes. They're irrelevant. I'm within my rights to withhold support for Cornell athletics--and I'd like to stop getting lectures from you about exercising that right.

What the AD did--in my view in a hissy fit--was treat badly scores of people--some of whom paid money in anticipation of a service--who were uninvolved in his little spat with Age. And, to add insult to injury, he's never bothered to communicate anything of substance to those affected by way of explanation. His attitude has been, quite simply: Let 'em eat cake. And I think that's stupid.

So, to put it simply, get off your soapbox and leave us alone. No one needs your little lectures. If you want to contribute to Cornell athletics--feel free. I don't see anyone here telling you what to do or not to do.

Yes, he had some fault in the matter, which we don't need to rehash. What I meant (and didn't say clearly) was that they could have paid him ni the first place, last year even, if they needed a contractual agreement in place.

You're not getting lectures from me, Al. I thought this thread was a discussion of the merits of contributing or not contributing money to the team/Department/University, including but not limited to the HockeyCam and free audio issues. My mistake for thinking this was a discussion; I should have posted once and then not responded to any other comments.

CUlater '89 wrote:

Finally, didn't they pull the plug because the operator acted inappropriately in a business context? I don't think that's stupid; that's the real world.

AFAIK, they never explained why they pulled the plug, which in itself is hardly appropriate behavior.

Well, to restate a point I made much earlier in this discussion, on another thread, the problem is not so much with the AD's action as with his inaction.

Yes, he had the right to ask us to pay and to pull the plug. However, he has consistently refused to discuss this or answer any of our emails. Therefore he has left us with no other option. If we want to further express our unhappiness we need to go a step further, and this is the step we have taken.

If any of you have a better sugestion, please let us know, but don't just say we are foolish for what we chose to do.

I will say again, the problem, as with Watergate, was not with the crime (turning off the internet), but it was with the coverup (the AD being unwilling to discuss this).

He could easily start to resolve this by stating: I understand you have a problem with one of my decisions, can we sit down and try and discuss it so we can resolve it to the best satisfaction of all.

If he were to do this he does not have to admit he was wrong, but just that we need to resolve the displeasure. Once we have this discussion we might say: You know, you are right. But, until then all we can do is to continue to ask for a discussion, in ever escalating tactics.

I agree with Jim that the AD's refusal to discuss the matter only compounds the problem.

However, I worry about the "ever escalating" tactics Jim mentions. While I'd love to see free access to broadcasts and online video, when Mike told me that our protest is hurting his recruiting, I started to think we've got our eyes on the wrong prize. That's why I decided to send him a check today.

Ken '71

Look, go back and read your 10:58 and 15:35 postings.

They're lectures, telling us we're committing "wrongs," calling us "children," telling us what we are or are not "entitled" to, etc. Feel free to donate whatever you'd like--and tell us why you think what you're doing is right, if you'd like. But--get off our case. We really don't need you as a conscience.

Lost in all of this is, apparently, is that free internet is a recruiting tool. We've got a number of current players who followed a teammate in junior hockey to Cornell. Perhaps they occasionally tuned in to see how their buddy was doing, and it helped them make the decision that Lynah would be a great place to call home. There are probably kids out there who might have caught part of this great season and decided to be future Cornellians. Hopefully, this will be remedied next year.
As far as webcam is concerned, there is little question but that it was a retaliatory move, which only creates a lose-lose situation for all concerned.

In the spirit of Al's invitation to stay within proper parameters :

While free internet COULD be a recruiting tool, I look very dubiously on the argument that it HAS BEEN a recruiting tool. I would be very surprised if the hockeycam was really known at all beyond the eLF community and the CUAD. Which is why it is the posters here who are most passionate about getting it back. I also regret what might have been, but I'm still going to give.

I've had the Cornell Fund envelope sitting on my desk for a few months and I have finally decided that I am going to give. I haven't even given in the past (I'm a lazy donor; I really need to be hit on the head to be reminded, and Hornby hasn't been around to give me the beating.) I just think it is (1) time for this '92 to start donating for real (I support the Supreme Court database) and (2) the hockeycam issue, despite the AD's utter complete and unabashed stupidity and dishonesty about it, isn't enough to convince me otherwise.

Hey, maybe that is a solution for some of you: give to the Legal Information Institute: [www.law.cornell.edu]

Reads like a good cause to me, apple. I especially like the line: "No subscription fee limits access to LII services."

This is a silly discussion.

None of this is a moral or ethical issue. Cornell is a business; a completely amoral commercial interest, no more and no less. It is hardly "selfish" to withhold donations to a large corporation.

Cornell's decisions have pissed off a lot of hockey boosters. That in itself means zippo to them -- while we are stakeholders, they really could not care less what a handful of alumni and boosters think, no matter how loyal we are, unless one of us is a Ralph Englestadt. The only possible leverage an individual has on a corporation is boycott or lawsuit. The latter is out. So, if it is sufficiently annoying to you that Cornell has behaved so abominably in this case, then your only choice is to withhold the money.

Personally, I have no illusions either about Cornell or the possibility of ever influencing their decisionmaking by appealing to ethics, so selfishly I'm paying them for an inferior level of audio service and a complete cessation of video service because I want to hear Adam's broadcasts. I'm a scab for doing so, but there is nothing else I could do about it but cut myself off, and I'm not willing to sacrifice listening. I'm screwed, and I know it. OTOH, there's no chance in hell I'd donate a penny to Cornell, but frankly after shelling out so much for the degree there was no chance before, either.

Sure, it would be nice if Cornell behaved in some other manner than MBA Scumbag Mode. But a company simply maximizes profit, that's all it is -- a profit machine. Since we can't affect profit, we can't do squat.

Let's Go Red!*

(* And Fuck Day Hall)

I disagree with so many of your premises, Greg, that I don't know where to start.

First of all, while the tone may have gotten rough, and some of the accusations shrill, it is anything but a silly discussion, and it is unfair of you to belittle it in that way. All of the people here care deeply about Cornell hockey, and have varying degrees of feeling about Cornell University. How we negotiate the complex issues in their own minds involving how to deal with an institution we care for and hope to see succeed but feel slighted by is appropriate, and this is both the time and the place to air our feelings. First, because we are responsive to each other and second because even if they aren't as responsive as we'd like (or at all), it is clear that there is someone out there listening. (Even if the only person is Adam Wodon, he strikes me as someone who passes on our concerns. And I suspect that the AD's office has skulkers about to see what we are saying.)

Second, hate the administrators of the institution all you want, but Cornell will always be more to me that a "completely amoral corporate interest." I admit and understand that you have certainly touched on an aspect of Cornell, but it isn't the part I choose to remember. (And this is from someone who thanked Cornell in his Masters thesis dedication for "ensuring that my children will pay for a Cornell education, even if they never receive one." It was 4 years of my life that I remember mostly fondly. It is associations with a time and a place and a city and an age that transcend the corporatist image of the school you are cynically invoking. It is those associations that make you care so much about Cornell hockey. I can't imagine that you could have none of those feelings and still care so deeply about a bunch of 20 year old strangers who live near where you used to live.

And I am paying for the service because I forgot to unsubscribe when the 14 days ran out, and I feel like I might as well keep it now.

I'll close by saying that I have seen no evidence that the school institution wastes the money that you think it acquires in "MBA scumbag mode" by lavishing wealth on its administrators. From what I can tell, it pours the money into luring top professors, improving the physical plant and library stock, funding a HUGE athletic program and providing an excellent education to thousands of students every year. It collects the money, sure, but it uses the money where it is supposed to be used.

I apologize for going on like this. First, because it isn't really directed at Greg - you were just the last person to post. Second, because this is just so sentimental that I am going to throw up, and I thank all of you that hung in this long.

Lastly, Lowell: you convinced me, and I earmarked part of my donation to the pep band.

bigred apple wrote:

I'll close by saying that I have seen no evidence that the school institution wastes the money that you think it acquires in "MBA scumbag mode" by lavishing wealth on its administrators. From what I can tell, it pours the money into luring top professors, improving the physical plant and library stock, funding a HUGE athletic program and providing an excellent education to thousands of students every year. It collects the money, sure, but it uses the money where it is supposed to be used.

The RealPass fiasco illustrates that this is not a zero-sum game. Given that the Athletic department has said they're not making a significant amount of money off it, that means that most of the money they're taking from hockey fans in this way is lining the pockets of an outside company, RealNetworks. Since they chose to do this rather than pursuing an avenue that could have given the fans basically what we had last year instead of charging us for this year's inferior product, it's completely reasonable for all of us to use whatever leverage we have to convince them to change their ways. (If this includes withholding donations from the University or the team, be sure to let both that entity and the athletic department why you're doing it.)

One thing that we know is a recruiting tool is the support the team gets from its fans. Hopefully the Athletic Department will eventually get it through their heads that alienating those fans is a really bad idea.

Big Red Apple, I understand your point about how hockeycam COULD be a recruiting tool and HASN'T BEEN thus far. But I respectfully submit that it's potential is more important than its current state. For example, ask any banker (the industry that I consult to) and they will tell you that opportunity diminishment is far more dangerous than simple balance diminishment. In other words, it's the promise of potential down the road of someone/something (long term) that makes it vital to foster it early on. Instead of cutting hockeycam all together, the department ought to give it support and let it live up to the future state potential as an amazing recruiting tool.

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

CUlater '89 wrote:

Finally, didn't they pull the plug because the operator acted inappropriately in a business context? I don't think that's stupid; that's the real world.

AFAIK, they never explained why they pulled the plug, which in itself is hardly appropriate behavior.

Well, maybe they never explained it to you, but I think Age has a pretty good idea why they pulled the plug, even if he doesn't agree with the decision.

In any case, a business that ends a relationship with business partner has no duty or responsibility to explain their decision to a 3rd party.

big red apple wrote:

While free internet COULD be a recruiting tool, I look very dubiously on the argument that it HAS BEEN a recruiting tool. I would be very surprised if the hockeycam was really known at all beyond the eLF community and the CUAD.

This isn't something I wanted to share with everyone, but since some parties are completely oblivious... I know for a fact that a recruit who was on the fence decided on Cornell because a current player's family showed the recruit's family HockeyCam. Believe me there are many other similar happenings that extend far, far from the confines of the eLF community and the CUAD.

I'll respond all at once:

To JTW: I agree that the OCSN decision was a mistake, but that only proves that the administration isn't wise, not that they are nefarious.

To Adam '01: I don't think I said anything that disagrees with your point. I regret the loss of hockeycam, and think it was a terrible, terrible mistake. But I had no idea that I would have to . . .

thank Age for setting me straight (even though I wish he hadn't called me "completely oblivious"; you held back the info, Age, and I can only know as much as is out there). If the hockey parents are sharing the information with potential hockey parents, then that is where we want to be, and we could have be there already (still, actually). Shame on CU for f'ing this up.

Still going to give, though.

I'm not going to run around posting everything a player or parent tells me. I didn't even feel particularly comfortable with my last post, but rest assured there are plenty more where that came from.

Although it may be true that the quality of the webcasts of men's hockey games this season has been "inferior" to last season, that is something that can and should be fixed (I hope all subscribers are complaining to the service provider as well as the AD). But the service for which we're asked to pay includes more than just play-by-play of the men's hockey games. Don't they provide more things overall than were available overall in 2001-2002? So in some respects, the service is superior (perhaps not for those of us only interested in coverage of men's hockey games, but maybe for fans of other sports or fans interested in highlights etc.) I can only assume that such superiority was a goal of the AD in choosing this path and that it assumed that technical problems, if any, could and would be easily remedied by the corporate service provider.

I doubt that one of the goals of the AD was to figure out someway to pay money to RealNetworks. And since the AD is making little money off of this, it is unlikely that lining its own pockets was a major motivation for the decision. So isn't it safe to say that at the time the AD made the decision to use this pay-service, it's goal was to benefit the Cornell sports fans overall? And, at that time, wasn't it reasonable for them to think it was in the best interests of Cornell sports fans in general to give them more things overall via one-stop shopping, while also establishing a relationship with an industry leader so as to be able to take advantage of technological advances and to upgrade coverage in future years?

Sure, in practice, there have been problems. And as Jim pointed out again, the real problem is the lack of any response (good or bad) from the AD to our complaints. But like BRA said, I don't think the problems mean the AD was acting nefariously at the time it made its decision.

That's why I have chosen not to hold back donations, but continue to request the AD to restore video coverage of the Lynah games. I sure hope that Age or someone else has informed the AD about the successful recruit.

I'm with you, BRA.

I don't believe they are offering anything other than (spotty) streaming of the radio feed. While other services were promised, none are actually available.

At this point, I don't believe it's my place to pursue this issue any further. I doubt they would listen to anything I have to say anyway. I would hope the other parties more directly involved (player parents, etc.) would take it upon themselves to bring these issues up with the administration.

I'm beginning to think you're a shill for "our friends in Athletics," CUlater. Before you write something like this: "But the service for which we're asked to pay includes more than just play-by-play of the men's hockey games. Don't they provide more things overall than were available overall in 2001-2002?", why don't you find out whether what you're writing is bullshit?

You are either extraordinarily gullible or just incapable of critical thinking. Let's hear what some of these "more things overall" are. The answer you will quickly find, is nothing Cornell-related. You should inform yourself of the facts before putting forth an argument. On the other hand, if you think it's a big deal to listen to Miami football or the like...

I just read JTW's postings, and see nothing charging Athletics with acting "nefariously," just stupidly.

Just because he's stating his opinion it doesn't mean you have to agree with him. It's no fairer to castigate him for expressing his opinion about the nature of your protest than it is for him to express disapproval with your protest. And as for telling him to butt out, that's not fair, either. It's an open forum for discussion, and if the thread were restricted only to people who agree with your point-of-view, where would the discussion be? I believe he stated his comment about what the service provides as a question, not as misinformed factual statement. And the service *is* supposed to provide coverage of other Cornell sports. Just happens that right now there is no football or lacrosse. Whether it does or not is not his fault. I'm sorry, Al, but you sound like the sore loser here. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading the American Idol discussion board....

I don't disagree with you, Al - but I think JTW's post provides analytical support for some other posts that do. We're on the same side here; I'm afraid that this is going to devolve into a linguistic analysis of prior posts.

And Age, I never said that you should post everything you here; I'm sure that the parents appreciate that you are discreet. I even thanked you for the information, which I really do appreciate. I'm just not the sort to take being called "oblivious" lying down.

big red apple wrote:

We're on the same side here...

I agree. I'm just trying to keep us there.

And I think JTW's there, too, and don't want to see him "labeled" incorrectly.

Clearly, there is value-added for alumni of more than one university (or who live with alumni from other universities) that are also members of the College SportsPass family; adding Cornell to the family makes the cost of the subscription that much less per game/event. Also, I don't think we had the "GameTracker" option last year for basketball. Also, it seems that we are getting more pre-game and post-game coverage of the hockey games this season (or is that only due to Adam's increased coverage?) And finally, there was an expectation at the time the AD made the decision (and there continues to be an expectation by subscribers) of access to video and audio highlights for some sports. Other than the technical glitches, have we lost anything that was available last year on audio?

So, if I remember correctly that I didn't have the GameTracker option for the men's hoops games last year, that's at least one thing more than last year. And the AD thought we'd be getting access to highlights, it seems. And there may be other additions of which I am unsure. So, based on the information the AD had at the time it made its decision, it seems there was a basis for thinking that, overall, listeners would be getting something more for their money (without even considering the one-stop shopping element and the expectation of technical competence). So although I would prefer to have free audio of the hockey games, I understand why the AD made the decision it made.

Yes, we are right now getting less than what was promised. And that's a problem that RealNetworks and the AD need to address, either by providing those services or giving a partial refund. But it is unfair to accuse the AD of acting stupidly when it made this decision -- unless you think it should have known that some of the promised things wouldn't be provided or that there would be technical problems from time to time (I'm assuming there are more this season than last season, but who knows for sure?).

The inferiority to which I'm referring is the complete lack of video for home games. Last year we had a video feed which was (by the end of the season) synced with the radio webcast. This year, for no good practical reason, we do not. And if we ever get it from RealNetworks, it will be RealVideo rather than QuickTime, which the last time I checked was of much worse quality. CULater, did you actually watch any of the games on the HockeyCam last year? Can you honestly say that what anyone is getting this year is better than that?

Got to disagree with you, CULater: the one thing that we clearly had last year, and clearly don't this year, is the beloved hockeycam. Whatever the reason, they gave up free streaming audio and video for pay-service streaming audio. Bad move.

And there was audio for bball, football and lacrosse last year (even though the lacrosse feed was terrible). Gametracker is nice, I guess, but a fairly silly doodad compared to video.

JTW: From what has been said here before, the lack of video coverage this year has nothing to do with the move to a pay-service (although I also understand that even if HockeyCam were permitted, it would not be linked to the audio feed). I think someone once said that OCSN would have no problem with HockeyCam being used right now. So I look at the "pay service" issue as separate from the HockeyCam issue. But, as you suggest, it only makes sense that since Cornell is now in a relationship with RealNetworks for an unknown time period that RealVideo of the hockey games (and other games) become part of the subscription package, linked with the audio coverage. I would love to see some lacrosse this spring. Why the AD hasn't availed itself (or can't avail itself) of that opportunity, I'm not sure, but all of our letters to the AD should suggest that it do so for this season or next (if it remains tied to the College Sports Pass system).

Sorry about that, Jason. Football, hockey, basketball, and lacrosse were all broadcast last year. Contrary to the bullshit from Athletics, there's nothing new under the sun this year. Sorry.

The premise of CUlater's entire first paragraph in that posting is that something's better now. Otherwise it says nothing. Fact is, there is nothing better. Why post it without finding out the facts first?

To make it clear to you, Jason, I take offense not at all with whatever CUlater wants to do or not do with his money, or why. But if he's going to take me and others to task--call us childish, tell us what we're doing is a wrong, tell us we think we're entitled to something we're not--when no one has ever claimed that--he should at least know the facts before mouthing off. He obviously doesn't. What's worse is he's parroting the PR pap that came from Athletics that has never had basis in fact--which pap, by the way, was a major contributor to the discontent of many of us.

Lastly, I suspect all of us who are withholding our support from Athletics in response don't feel especially happy about being put into that position, or about saying "no" to Mike and his players. But we believe it's the right thing to do. We are entitled to that. Go back and read Melissa's original posting. Do you really think she needs to be badgered by someone who apparently doesn't even understand the situation? Have you seen anyone here tell those who have elected to give that they were wrong, or acting stupidly, or any such thing? I haven't.

If CUlater wants to put forth a case here as to why we all should start writing checks to Athletics, he's welcome to. But he'd better not tell me I'm acting like a child, that what I'm doing is "wrong," or that I think I'm "entitled" to something when I have no such misconception. And he'd be wise not to insult me by trying to convince me with inaccurate assertions and false promises gleaned from Athletics department press releases.

Gametracker was available for home football games last year. I don't know about basketball. I can't stand the punishment involved in listening to Cornell basketball, so I wouldn't know.

Gametracker was free last year. It's free this year--as is LiveStats for home hockey games. The highlight of this year's Gametracker season was the Towson game, when Gametracker declared the game over after Cornell scored on its first OT possession and proceeded to go home.

To be fair, the primary source of last year's free audio feeds (as opposed to the CHA's backup server and Age's audio on the HockeyCam) was not available this year. Athletics apparently concluded it was impossible to find an alternative source of free broadcasts. The fact that they came to this conclusion without asking the guy who was actually providing free A/V webcasts is one of many reasons we feel they screwed up. Of course it's not Athletics that has to pay for their screwup, it's the fans.

Again, I'm sorry that I thought this was a discussion of the relative merits of giving or not giving, rather than a board in which we all must state our position and then post no further. I believe we should continue to contribute and, as a result, I am trying to convince others to do so.

Part of my argument for why I think we should all continue to contribute to the team is that it seems to me that when one withholds funds that might otherwise go to assist the team, one is harming the very thing one cares about, just because one didn't get one's way. That is how some children act when they take their balls home, denying themselves and their friends the opportunity to have fun, merely because they didn't get their way.

I believe that underlying some people's arguments here is that, subconsciously, they believe they are entitled to free audio coverage just because we had it before. My apologies to those of you withholding contributions because the quality of the pay-service is not up to snuff; but if one is withholding contributions (and in the past withheld contributions) merely because one now must pay to hear Cornell audio on the web, then you are in effect saying that you believe you are entitled to free access to the audio feed.

And I think I've already made it clear that I believe you can't condemn the AD for its choice on the basis of the results, unless the AD knew or should have known what those results would be at the time it made its decision. We should challenge the AD (and RealNetworks) because of the results.

"but if one is withholding contributions (and in the past withheld contributions) merely because one now must pay to hear Cornell audio on the web, then you are in effect saying that you believe you are entitled to free access to the audio feed."

You are simply hopeless, I regret to say. Age, can we have an "ignore" function?

I don't think I'm "entitled" to have a free audio feed in the sense of it being a god given right. But I do think that the Atheltic Department should provide a free feed as a service to students and alums who want to follow the team from afar. IMNSHO it's a good business decision since it allows alums to more readily follow the team from afar. Those who follow more closely are more likely to support the team financially. Also, we've shown a willingness in the past to provide support (voluntary support, not fees) to maintain such a service.

So I disagree with both the decision to use OCSN and the way things have been handled by the AD. And I'm withholding money for both reasons. I don't see that as "taking my ball home". I see it as a logical economic decision.

CULater- Don't want to get into a whole argument - that isn't my idea of a fun friday - but just wanted to point out that your posts are doing a lot of assuming about the thoughts and beliefs of others ... and we all know what is said of people who assume ....

to restate what many others have said - it isn't about the $. it is about a lack of respect on the part of the AD. 7$/ month is chump change for people who spend hundreds to thousands of dollars per year to see the team play all over the northeast.

melissa'01 wrote:

to restate what many others have said - it isn't about the $. it is about a lack of respect on the part of the AD. 7$/ month is chump change for people who spend hundreds to thousands of dollars per year to see the team play all over the northeast.

And in some cases the Midwest and Southeast as well.

I'd like to present this thread with the following:

I understand your point that you believe it is a logical economic decision to withhold money, and I agree but only to the extent you have decided to not pay for the service. Not paying for the service harms RealNetworks and the AD (in a limited sense), the parties "at fault" for both the decision and the results. Withholding other funds that you would ordinarily have contributed extends the "harm" to others (the team, other AD teams, the University as a whole) which I believe is unfair and out of proportion.

This is what we're really talking about here. We don't wield power directly over the Athletic Department, so we try to influence them by the means at our disposal.

(and yes, I'm glad team orders this year mean that the McRaes and Sammy P won't see this awful, insensitive post....)

Oh man, I peed my pants! (No, really... that's embarrassing....) Thanks, John.

BRA, I loved my four years at Cornell and get weepy at the Alma Mater & etc just as much as you. Cornell The Platonic Ideal I Loved and Loathed I'd give my right arm for. Cornell The Corporation is just another shell game. But hey, I'm just another retard (see above)...

Ogletorp, don't think that the players voluntarily take time out of their busy schedules to help the future of Cornell Hockey. As a varsity athlete, Cornell "forces" (no, not physically, but don't get picky with me) you to participate in the telethons. And if you make the mistake of doing it too well, they make you come back the following week for the follow-up session to call people that weren't home the week before. Been there, done that. And my understanding while we were doing it was that all the $$$ went into the general athletic dept budget, not to my specific team. That may have changed, though, what with all the recent emphasis on teams being self-funded. Yes, you could truthfully tell the folks on the phone that they were helping your team, in the general sense that it gave the AD more money to divvy up, but I'm pretty sure that our team's budget was fixed and independent of telethon results.