ELynah Forum

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: dbilmes

Quote from: fastforwardhttps://www.cornellsun.com/article/2025/08/why-you-should-apply-to-the-hockey-beat

Great article-fabulous opportunity
I know who I would recommend but I think her hands are full with law school
Sorry - for those not on X, Jane wrote a great article and they're looking for after she graduates

Jane has done a great job covering the hockey team the past few seasons. She's given Cornell hockey the best coverage it's had in the Sun in years. She's done so while also being a member of the Cornell field hockey team. She's been a backup goalie and has hardly played over her first three years. Kudos to her for putting in all the time even though she has mostly sat on the sidelines.

What exactly is the point of highlighting Jane's lack of playing time? She reads this forum btw

To me it meant she's not a quitter. If she's on a team she sacrifices for it regardless.

Is the time between when the seedings come out and the regionals are played sufficient for TV crews, visiting teams and fans, etc.?  Also, will local hotels and restaurants have enough time to raise their prices?

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: David Harding

Quote from: abmarks

Quote from: BearLoverDoes anybody here understand how NIL or revenue sharing gets taxed?

its compensation.   why wouldnt it be taxed like any other ordinary income?

Depending on your biases, people tend to favor taxing various kinds of income differently.  Tips.  Overtime.  Capital gains.

Not exactly "biases." Tips & Overtime because workers who are paid this way are thought to be lower paid, and therefore should not be taxed. OTOH, some people believe (and many economists claim) that "capital" (actually investment) is economically "productive"; therefore, they favor lower tax rates for gains from the sale of such "capital."

In other words, people have logical reasons for favoring certain tax policies regarding earnings. I'm not saying they're good reasons, but they're usually not arbitrary biases.

Now, what considerations would one consider to justify specific policies regarding NIL & revenue sharing? How about making tuition deductible because a college athlete must be enrolled as a "student" to be paid NIL & revenue sharing?

Some economists think labor, at least some labor, is productive too.  Yet people engage in it despite having to pay full fare on taxes.  (Some economists even feel a bit of moral squeamishness that capital should be taxed more less than labor.  Although PhD economists have usually received enough inoculatation to be immune to this humor.)

But I can definitely see tuition deductibility becoming a thing.  e.g., Cornell doesn't exempt its athletes from tuition.  If some were to get NIL,tuition could be a legitimate cost of doing business. Non-college expenses like travel, business meals,qualify.  Why not tuition?

But then, couldn't that be true for non-athletes?  Couldn't income from a summer job be offset by tuition paid for related course work?

Maybe Herman Cain was on to something.

Most of the people posting here are Cornell. A few Clarksons and RPI's.  That's a pretty smart bunch. (You're welcome.)

So, that there is such variety in the opinions expressed here on how this settlement will really work I'm sure is mirrored in the athletics offices of the effected universities. We can speculate all we want but even those whose business it is to know this stuff have different opinions.

But one thing is certain: donors will find a way to give money to athletes beyond what the settlement allows.  If you've ever had a leak in your roof, you know what I mean:  Water always wins.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Troyfan

Quote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.

Many of the athletes don't understand, either.  

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45

Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously.  Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.

I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey.  But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham?  Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations?  What about Quinnipiac?  Can they be big in hockey and basketball?  What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?

All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse.  Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success.  Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.

From our perspective, nothing is going to change as a direct result of all of this. Cornell and the Ivies are not opting into the settlement.

But athletics is a zero sum game, so the question is whether the new rules help or hurt our opponents.  
1. Who is opting into the settlement? The power 4 schools, so all of the big 10, ASU, and BC, automatically opt in. Then a smattering of other schools like Denver. I'm not aware of any ECAC schools opting in?
2. How does opting in affect their ability to compete against us for recruits/transfers? This is the big question. I mean, if a school can offer money to a recruit, that gives them an advantage over us.
3. The other effect of opting in is that schools can offer more scholarships but are also bound by roster limits. In hockey, they can now give 26 scholarships (up from 18) but cannot have more than 26 players on a roster (though current players in excess of 26 are grandfathered in). If more scholarships get offered, that hurts us, because again that's a competitive advantage other schools have against us. But the roster limits benefit us, because we will be able to carry more players than the schools limited to 26. (This year we have a huge 31-player roster.)

(2) and (3) are uncertain because they're very expensive. The vast majority oTf schools can't afford to revenue share or to give out many more scholarships (which would likely be spread across many sports and have to include an equal number of additional women's scholarships per Title IX). For those big 10 schools with tons of athletic revenue, how much will they devote to hockey?

I don't quite understand the quoted post's "All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse." Is the idea that these new rules create so much chaos at other schools, or perhaps fewer resources going towards hockey, that it on net hurts other hockey programs relative to Cornell?

Yes.  stereax got it right and you do, too.  

To take you Michigan example:  Jason Milroe (Alabama) was making $10 million.  $20.8 million is not nearly enough to run even a Wisconsin football program let alone a Michigan or Ohio State.  Unless I'm way off base, this settlement is going to force some really difficult decisions upon these schools.  

Which makes me think I probably am way off base.

Quote from: CU2007Someone needs to do a Ted Talk on what is happening in college sports. For me at least, it is close to impossible to fully understand or follow without dedicating a non-reasonable amount of time and energy.

Many of the athletes don't understand, either.  

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-7aab7a3f3ee0a045b1cf1ce69e029b45

Football and basketball are the drivers of the whole thing, obviously.  Everything else and all of women's sports is up for grabs.

I don't expect colleges like Michigan to cut back on men's hockey.  But what about Alaska-Anchorage, Alabama-Birmingham?  Or even BC, which has big football and basketball aspirations?  What about Quinnipiac?  Can they be big in hockey and basketball?  What about lacrosse at Duke or Maryland or, more uncertainly, Penn St.?

All the edges I see look like they're cutting in Cornell's favor with regard to men's hockey and maybe lacrosse.  Football and basketball should maintain their current level of lack of success.  Cornell is committed to women's sports and will find a way.

"A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals..."

AP article:

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-aa3169056e8194aeebf34495641bce0b

Sounds like NIL, but being funneled directly through the schools.  There is still a limit, $20.8 million in the first year, so the cheating will continue unabated. (How this can be reconciled with Ohio State's $100 million OL is unexplained.)  ILR students take note:  the lawyers will be getting $475 to $725 mil.  Say an even billion when all the money finds its final destination.

On a darker note, if that is possible:

"But some schools are increasing costs to fans through "talent fees," concession price hikes and "athletic fees" added to tuition costs."

I don't think so. I mean, if he wins he wins. But I think he's just jerking their chain.  Maybe because his dad wasn't a big enough shot to get him in there. The Harvard worm produces different symptoms in different people.

So where will the hockey diaspora land?  Yale?  Michigan?  Any chance Cornell might land a couple?

Things looked pretty good for Cornell a year ago but most of the season was disappointing. I think hockey is harder to predict than football and basketball because it isn't as well studied.  The certainty attached to prospect evaluations isn't as great so the grain of salt attaching to predictions is bigger.

Of all the things there are to predict the future is the last one I'd choose.

I thought that was BC?  Carlo was a member of that great freshman team of 1969.  They were as much fun to watch as the varsity. And no line to get in.  That would have been Ned Harkness's last class of recruits. But the ice was already shifting. A Ned-less Cornell and a BU with scholarships and it's been uphill ever since.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TroyfanLeaving Mike and Casey aside for the moment, all I can say is it's straight out of Bizzaro World that Clarkson and RPI admit well over half of their applicants.  Things have obviously progressed much worse than I ever could have imagined!

One issue at RPI is that like many financially successful schools -including Cornell- class size increased over the past 30 years to boost revenue. I guess that the number of applicants hasn't increased in proportion to the incoming class size.

I don't know if Clarkson bulked up their incoming class size.

In an attempt to drift this thread even further I'll note there was a recent article in the Albany Times Union regarding Union College.  Their finances have been recognized as negative because the financial aid doled out to support their students has caused years of deficit spending.  The school has stated they aren't the next Wells College yet are going to attempt to improve finances by changing the mix of students.  If successful the change will decrease the percentage of financial support across the tuition budget. One aim is to keep total faculty size at the current level. For this their legacy might better be served by Houdini than Edison.

Times Union on UC - hopefully with no paywall

Funny how they never mention cutting administrators to save money even though almost every college has more of them than of faculty.  Some in CA have more admins than students.  In my 4 years before the mast you could go a whole year without seeing an admin.

That's my last puff in thread drift's sails.

Leaving Mike and Casey aside for the moment, all I can say is it's straight out of Bizzaro World that Clarkson and RPI admit well over half of their applicants.  Things have obviously progressed much worse than I ever could have imagined!

Quote from: marty

Quote from: TroyfanClarkson academics are up there with RPI.  

This is almost as silly a what used to be thrown about in Troy. "RPI is right up there with MIT."

I don't buy Clarkson being overall near RPI academically - even after Shirley Jackson jacked off and pissed off the majority of the RPI faculty.

I can't say there aren't excellent programs at Clarkson and there are some clinkers at RPI.  I could be wrong.   Yet I think they aren't really close in academic stature.

My comments are based on a small sample:  my own work experience, which doesn't include any lawyering or doctoring.  But the Clarkson engineers were as good as any, Which included RPI and Cornell products. Included is experience before Shirley wrought her woe.

Anyway, the point is that Casey has dealt with academic constraints of the most stringent kind successfully.  Constraints not only on recruiting, but on hockey budgets and the conflict for time between school work and athletics.  He is much better prepared for Cornell than a candidate from one of hockey factory schools.

Quote from: DafatoneCasey's done a lot with a team that I can't imagine is easy to recruit for.

And good for Coach Schafer.

When Jones went to Clarkson some kids he had recruited for Cornell must have gone with him.  The following year, maybe 2, must have Mike's worst.  I saw them play RIT, I believe, in a Christmas tournament in Albany and get shut out, 4-0.  They were awful.

Clarkson's had good players.  I think Jones is a good recruiter,too.  Clarkson academics are up there with RPI.  Hockey there fights the same academic headwinds Cornell does, if not stronger ones.

Some words from Mike on the situation. I don't know another like it in all the college hockey coaching changes I've ever heard about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1gNWMzLsE