hockey only conference

Wodon has a new article/editorial up at USCHO.com regarding whether the ECAC schools should break away from the ECAC and form a new, hockey only conference a la the other Big Four. (BTW, Adam, I thought the article was quite good.)

The ECAC commish brought the tourney from Lake Placid to Albany because they'll sell Coke in Pepsi Arena. How could you possibly bolt from the ECAC after he did that.)

Seriously though, it's a great piece on a debate that's been going on for years and I think both sides of the argument are presented fairly. I would hope the NCAA wouldn't even spend a second thinking about taking away an automatic bid from the ECAC schools if they cared enough about hockey to form their own conference devoted to the sport.

[Q]The ECAC commish brought the tourney from Lake Placid to Albany because they'll sell Coke in Pepsi Arena. How could you possibly bolt from the ECAC after he did that. [/Q]
Hey, I was shocked that they sold Budweiser at Coors Field.

After hearing Buttafuoco's side of story regarding the move to Albany, I'm more apt to believe and support the conference's decision. If ORDA was really that stubborn on what sugar-water brand could be promoted, that sucks. I'm guessing the league has trouble getting big-name sponsors for the tournament (remember the Milk/Aubachon Hardware years?), so for ORDA to say they had to dump a major one because of a Coke/Pepsi turf war...I don't blame the ECAC for assessing other options.

I'm drinking Avaya from now on.

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

[Q](remember the Milk/Aubachon Hardware years?)[/q]

Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Beer! Beer! Beer! Beer!

I'm anxious to hear from all those who bashed the decision to move, on this forum and elsewhere. IIRC, some of those people believed there could be no good reason for such a decision by the league administrators and that they had acted deceitfully in dealing with ORDA (similar to the belief that there could be no good reason for a certain other decision made by a different entity's administration, which shall remain unmentioned in this thread).

CUlater '89 wrote:

...(similar to the belief that there could be no good reason for a certain other decision made by a different entity's administration, which shall remain unmentioned in this thread).

Still haven't heard any reason that holds water for that fiasco--never mind a good one. Feel free to tell us if you ever hear of one, CUlater.

I hadn't ever thought about the autobid issue. It would seem pretty stupid to not give a bid to the ECHA though. After all, it wouldn't really be a new conference, just a new administration. Seems to me the only justification for doing this would be to support the existing ECAC structure.

Had you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.

So Adam tries to stimulate discussion on a new issue, and instead we return the Lake Placid and CornellPass... yay us - if you really feel like reliving the discussions, could you just re-read the dozen previous threads per topic?

As for the main topic, it was a very well written article, and I enjoyed it, but I'm not so sure it made a strong case for a new separate league, even though that was his conclusion. Could anyone give the details of some of these horrid ECAC administrative snafu's that a new hockey conference wouldn't make? I know they exist, I remember the sentiment, but I just can't say I can bring them to mind right now.

[Q]...it was a very well written article...[/Q]

[Q]...but I'm not so sure it made a strong case for a new separate league, even though that was his conclusion...[/Q]

Aren't those two statements contradictory? If the conclusion reached is not supported by the statements made, how can the article be considered to be well-written.

FWIW, I left the article thinking "I'm not really sure why anyone thinks breaking off to form a hockey-only conference is necessary or would achieve the desired results, whatever those are."

CUlater '89 wrote:

Had you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. Money, and increased attendance because of a central, convenient location with higher capacity. Good reasons, IMHO.

I understand what you're saying. Many of us have asked for reasons on the "other" issue, but the perps have been mute.

CUlater,

On second thought, I shoulda should "it was a very interesting article" and I do think it was well-written in an informative way and in a flow-way. I just didn't think it was particularly persuasive (sorry Adam) - does that make more sense?

Still curious if people can bring up specific, serious examples of the ECAC screwing hockey over. Adam alluded to not returning phone calls, but what are the details behind that? or other things?

I disagree. Something can be well written and well argued and still not be convincing. You can dispute the facts, disagree with the assesment of the current situation and with the expected benefits of the proposal. Just because an argument is logical and consistent doesn't make it right. The assumptions matter too.

I don't think Adam presented many arguments in this piece about why he feels the schools should break off from the ECAC. I think the point was to say that the idea is taking at some of the schools and to present his interview with Mr. Butafucco. His previous article 9which I believe he linked but I haven't read again) presents the case a little better, IIRC.

If you want a good example of something extremely well written, but ultimately unconvincing, read the Supreme Court brief submitted on behalf of Bush. If you want to read a bad (and less convincing) version of it, read the Supreme Court per curiam opinion.

And if you want to read total garbage, read the Florida Supreme Court opinion that caused the constitutional crisis in the first place.

Al DeFlorio wrote:

CUlater '89 wrote:

Had you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. Money, and increased attendance because of a central, convenient location with higher capacity. Good reasons, IMHO.

And apparently, despite whatever we were told, not the deciding factors. I find it a little fishy that the league didn't bother to "clear this up" for about eight months.

But on the subject of splitting off to form a hockey-only conference, I'm not sure that would be a good idea given the power structure in the NCAA. Look how much clout the MAAC, who are little more than an annoyance in the context of the sport, have with the organization as a whole.

The Constitutional crisis was caused by the collision between the democratic value that all votes are equal and the Florida AG's amendment "... but some votes are more equal than others."

I wouldn't think that the ECHA teams would have to Leave Big-L the ECAC in order to leave little-L the ECAC. The bolting members of Hockey East are still ostensibly members of the ECAC -- they're in the ECAC Hockey Guide and everything. They just compete under a different administrative structure.

I don't think I said that the article was merely unconvincing, but rather that it was not "well-argued" because sufficient evidence of problems and benefits was not presented in order to back up the conclusion reached. That is a fundamental element of persuasive writing in any field. I think BRA's example meets your standard, however, as it was well-written and well-argued, but some people (but not certain justices) believe it is unconvincing.

Had Adam written it as a news article, with no position stated or suggested, it might have been OK, but even then I would have said "well, it's interesting that some schools are thinking about this, but I'm not sure why".

In any case, I am very interested in the topic and I am glad Adam took the time and considerable effort to put the piece together.

A large part of the problem is that opinion pieces are all too often excessively advocacy pieces, trivializing a strawman substitute for the opposition case while wallpapering over weaknesses in the advocate's position. This is the tradition for instance of Plato's Socratic dialogues and 100% of political writing. I've always found it insulting and ultimately suspect.

Few modern opinion writers bother to bolster their arguments by actually presenting both sides' arguments forcefully, in acknowledgement that while the writer has arrived at one conclusion intelligent people can and will sometimes disagree for valid reasons. This IMHO is far, far more convincing. Call it the John Stuart Mill tradition. I really can't think of anybody high profile who does it well these days. Safire does it when he writes about something safe and trivial that he knows about (words) but abandons it completely when writing about things he knows nothing about (foreign affairs). Naturally, legal briefs are going to be the vanguard of the "ram it through" tradition -- there's nothing your client enjoys more than having his major weaknesses exposed in his own counsel's brief.

That's one of the hardest things to get used to about legal writing. It's always been advisable to make concessions to the opposing point of view when writing an opinion piece - but in a legal brief, it's unethical and illegal not to cite binding cases that hurt your position.

Beeeej

That's adorable. I remember when I learned that. Wait until you write a brief for pay.

Well, I like Adam's idea. Anything to boost the quality of hockey (short of scholarships).

What shall we name our new conference? The Yankee conference? The Adirondack Conference? How about Cornell and Safety Schools Conference?

Maybe others can submit names and Age should have a poll ...

big red apple wrote:

That's adorable. I remember when I learned that. Wait until you write a brief for pay.

Can we conclude then that lawyers are paid to be unethical and illegal?

Is that a new conclusion?

(btw, love the new smiley - I think may even surpass in overusedness - how's that for a word?)

Overusedness?
You must be crazy!
is far from overused yet!

In science, we do that to *improve* the chance of getting a paper past peer review. Giving an acknowledgement to the contradictory work of Jones, et al. 2000 deflects and defuses the ability of a reviewer to ding your submission. Of course, in science, we can always claim Jones and coworkers were wrong because they forgot about Smith and Smith 1998.

The more I learn about the world, the more I realize that science and law are really just different sides of the same coin that merely have different writting styles and citation formats. Otherwise, all you really do is build a logical argument out of assorted vaguely relevent bits and pieces that you cull from the appropriate body of literature which you are expected to know down cold but nobody actually does.

crodge2k wrote:

Overusedness?
You must be crazy!
is far from overused yet!

The new smileys rock!

(i found 'em over at vwvortex.com)

I think Beeeej's point was that creating convoluted and contrived explanations in support of your client is viewed in law circles as expressly legal (and, less importantly, ethical), whereas trying to sort things out from both sides is potentially injurious to your client (and, more importantly, HIGHLY injurious to your legal career).

Which is fine as far as it goes and par for the course given an adversial system of justice, and probably the best way to find the truth until human nature takes a dramatic turn for the so-so.

As far as the characterization of either law or science work as the establishment of logical reasoning as opposed to engaging in political boot-licking, well, I guess it amounts to the same thing in the long run. We should rewrite Occam for the real world: all other things being equal accept the less obviously obfuscatorial hypothesis.

Just to be clear (because sometimes lawyers do want to be clear), Beeeej's description may be misleading for some. The typical standard in filing a brief (among other acts) is that the lawyer is only required to disclose controlling legal authority known to him or her that is directly adverse to the position of the client and which is not disclosed by opposing counsel. See, e.g. DR 7-106 (in NY, 22 NYCRR Sec. 1200.37).

Thus comes BRA's amusement, as the phrase "directly adverse to the position of the client" can be interpreted to give one some wiggle room, should the need arise.

Dance party???

LOL. This is going to get out of hand in a hurry.

Actually, since we are now speaking for Beeeej, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all.

I think he was pointing out that within the canons of legal ethics, a litigant (and more importantly, for contempt purposes, counsel) can not hide directly contrary authority. I suspect many would not have realized that, given the low esteem in which the profession is often held.

As I was alluding to, and CULater elaborated, very little is "directly contrary." To the extent that the facts of the case at hand can not be used to finesse the contrary authority to a point that it is distinguishable, you just aren't trying hard enough (or you should start thinking very hard about settlement.) And maybe that explains a lot of the low esteem (but wary respect/fear).

Exactly. In fact, I've learned very quickly that the most important skill in legal writing is known as "distinguishing" - the art of saying "that case doesn't apply to this one" and getting the judges to believe it. I handed in my first moot court brief this morning, and I'm actually quite proud of how well I distinguished some pretty heavy hitter precedents.

Beeeej

[q]Actually, since we are now speaking for Beeeej, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all.

I think he was pointing out that within the canons of legal ethics, a litigant (and more importantly, for contempt purposes, counsel) can not hide directly contrary authority. I suspect many would not have realized that, given the low esteem in which the profession is often held.[/q]

Exactly. Sorry, Greg, but you were interpreting what I'd said almost exactly opposite to the point. Consider my slightly earlier post, on "distinguishing," a de facto reply to this most recent post of BRA's.

Beeeej

> And maybe that explains a lot of the low esteem (but wary respect/fear).

If you're talking about public perception, lawyers are in this regard perceived as being roughly comparable to muggers. The wary respect/fear is comparable to crossing the street when you see somebody potentially dangerous approaching. The wariness is the strong intution that whether or not you will be sandbagged in a case has nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with how much you can afford to spend in your defense. To what degree a highly-compensated profession has in fact deliberately fostered this attitude in order to drive up fees is, shall we say, an interesting idea.

Not saying that public perception is justified one bit. But let's be serious -- this is an ill-respected profession not because of a lack of appreciation of clever legal strategies, but rather because people have little faith that justice is served, and therefore recognize themselves to be potential vicitms even when they do nothing wrong.

Greg wrote:

The wariness is the strong intution that whether or not you will be sandbagged in a case has nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with how much you can afford to spend in your defense. . . Not saying that public perception is justified one bit.

Yeah, no kidding. Except that it is clear that you do think the public perception is at least somewhat justified, but in a some-of-my-best-friends-are-lawyers sort of way. That's OK. So do I.

[q]To what degree a highly-compensated profession has in fact deliberately fostered this attitude in order to drive up fees is, shall we say, an interesting idea.[/q]
Sorry, Greg. This is just nonsense. People believe that you can buy justice because history has taught us you can buy justice. When a litigant pays for enough lawyering to overwhelm the opposition, that proves that doing so works, not that lawyers are fostering a false illusion to fatten their own wallets.

No, lawyers are manipulating a flawed system to fatten their own wallets. It ain't better, but it is different.

So, apparently 1000 years of the development of legal theory has taken us all the way from "might equals right" to "money equals right."

Some of my best friends are, indeed, lawyers, and their stories of the utter lack of ethics within firms are in part what my cynicism about motives is based on. If it makes you feel any better, I do not think the people who start out on the long road to becoming lawyers are in any way more ethically impaired than the rest of us. I do think that circumstances create realities, and a few decades' of the sort of rationalizations that appear earlier in this thread would wear down a saint, let alone an average Joe or Jane with feet of clay.

Oh, and all professions manipulate their clientele to max our profits, so yeah I guess I refuse to believe that lawyers are in some way exempt. There are plenty of ways to prime a market, and instilling a climate of fear of random consequences is a time-honored one. It is hardly just lawyers who do so. The stock response is "the only thing more unpleasant than having one is not having one." We are, in essence, hostages.

Not sure what any of the above has to do with hockey, though.

So now you are complaining about thread drift? (That's why I changed the subject line for my last entry.)

LOL. Believe me, I wouldn't dare.

I had the feeling you were somewhere nearby Ithaca, bra. How come you aren't at the game?