ELynah Forum

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: CUontheslopes"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

Based upon the quote:

Quotediscovery of material on its electronic mailing list that was "vulgar and offensive as well as misogynistic and racist,"

 I suspect the material was more than "She's a 10."

Just because things have happened for "millennia" doesn't make it right. Our civil war was, at least partially, fought over something that went on forever. Why don't we wait and see if more facts come out. Yes, even though some say we're in a post-factual time, I still believe in them. I guess, in today's climate, that makes me a liberal.:-D

There's already a value judgment applied to defining something as "vulgar", "offensive" or "misogynistic" or "racist." Particularly the first two (vulgar and offensive) by definition involve subjective standards. Let's not forget that a good chunk of the classics of Western literature was similarly branded. The books didn't change, just our tastes.

So perhaps "gone on for millennia" might be better expressed as "is a hardwired piece of our evolutionary nature." Men are going to look at women sexually and women are going to look at men sexually. That's not misogyny - it's evolution. Punishing students for "vulgar" words seems laughable when viewed within the context of the types of behavior the university condones or sanctions. To one, The Vagina Monologues might be a great piece of feminist stagecraft, but to another "vulgar" or "offensive.

All universities are doing is codifying as part of their code of conduct a type of secular morality. I venture to guess that if Cornell decided to codify/punish similarly premarital sex, we might a different kind of outcry about legislating morality. Perhaps it's the libertarian in me talking, but I'd prefer universities stay out of both arenas. If the conduct doesn't cross the line into unlawful then it shouldn't be grounds for punishment.

I'm reminded of an alum I met at a reunion a number of years ago from a class in the 1940's. He had a friend who was expelled for publishing a cartoon on the cover of a student-published magazine that had a picture of a bride and groom with the caption "Going home to put their things together." Punishing students for lawful, but distasteful speech opens a door that, in my personal and professional (as a proud Cornell lawyer) judgment is so highly subjective that it is better left closed. Hence my main objection to the "to have to suspend" language in the original post.

"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

When considering making a change any top leadership position, it's important not only to look at the body of work, but the trend. For all the flack he gets, Noel took Cornell athletics to some pretty exciting places. However, the trend recently has been absolutely awful. We're starting to see sports where we have been traditionally a power become weaker and weaker - Lax and Hockey. We're also seeing that in the sports where we had success under Noel's leadership, that success has been fleeting. Time to make a change.

I'm an '07 and '10 Law School grad and at the ripe old age of 30 it cracks me up to hear people talk about what is and what is not expensive for a student. $200 isn't that much to me at 30, but it was a lot to me at 19 or 20. Make people go through the line process again, but then give the tickets away for free (or nearly free, e.g. $50 for a season) and you'll get the attendance to rise. There's no question that in my 7 years on the hill the greek system's attendance fell off considerably. Get the fraternities and sororities involved again and you'll get the attendance and the energy back up.

Wait. This is a real thread? You have to be kidding me. After reading through this, I feel like anyone who wants to have Lynah torn down should have their logins deleted. I haven't posted in this forum for 7 years, but read it to see what's going on with the program. The nonsense spouted above made me go back and find my password.

Seriously? We think Lynah is the problem? Arguably the greatest rink in college hockey, one of the biggest home ice advantages in college hockey, and what has been for a generation our biggest recruiting tool? Get real.

Three reasons attendance, and most importantly the atmosphere-building student attendance is down, all three noted above: (1) the team has been downright mediocre, (2) the crackdown on student cheering and (3) student ticket prices.

To whomever said that "new rinks are like office buildings" is a garbage generalization, simply put - you're wrong. But no amount of arguing about it will convince you, so keep your hands off our rink. Go tear down the Big House, Notre Dame Stadium, and Cameron instead. Re Lynah, fix the atmosphere and you fix the problem. How? Simple - Dip into that endowment a little and make student ticket prices $5/game and tell some of the overbearing ushers to take a xanax. You'll get the students and energy back. As for winning on the ice, well that's a discussion for a different thread.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: billhowardThere's the ribbon twirling gymnastics event that remains. The sport that will live forever is women's beach volleyball.

Rythmic gymnastics is part of the larger umbrella of "gymnastics" - it isn't up for debate. And, honestly, it is impressive as shit to watch but for the fact that the girls are so young that it feels creepy.

It's boring as hell to watch and a joke. Frankly I think all gymnastics is questionable as a "sport". Anything that is 100% judged should not be in the Olympics. The Olympics should not be open to subjectivity. The 100m dash? Javelin? Any judges there?

Cressler seems to be that Whittman-like pure shooter that the team has been missing since Ryan left. Courtney was quoted as saying that earlier in the week in practice he went 11-12.

Just voted 10x for him.

Win and in. Agreed, but to be even talking about possibly not making the tournament when the team has only one loss, in OT to UVA I think is the frustrating part of the conversation. The same is often true for Cornell hockey - if you look, this year we may not have had a ton of wins, but we sure didn't have too many losses either.

The knock for years on NCAA lacrosse seeding is that it's too heavily influenced by "quality losses" as reflected in SOS. What's really hurt Cornell this year more than any other factor is how badly other Ivies have done out of conference. Pair that with some surprising teams ending up in the top 10 and you've got a recipe for disaster. Who would have thought Lehigh was a quality win and Syracuse is not?

From here on out, I'll be rooting for those upstarts to lose and (I cannot believe I'm saying this) for Syracuse to win out.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Jim HylaHere's the NCAA letter to UND spelling out it's punishment.

I love the reference to hostile or abusive racial/ethnic/national original references".  There's no way that the Sioux name and logo can be reasonably construed as "hostile or abusive".  At least in a world where Florida State's logo is acceptable.

Here's what I would dearly lvoe to see: NoDak makes it the hockey tournament and advances to the finals.  They then skate out in their full logo gear. The NC$$ is faced with the choice of letting them play or cancelling a nationally televised event with at least medium profile.

Couldn't agree more. I'd love to see it happen, so long as Cornell's the opponent. I'd have no problem taking a national title by forfeit though haha. I'll wait for the NCAA to go after Union for being the Dutchmen next!

Also here:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/52184/difference-makers-kevin-boothe

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. If so, my apologies.

Conte's - best pizza around, just get there early since it's very popular on basketball and hockey game nights. Even if there's a long line though, they take your pizza order while you're waiting so when you sit down you eat. The beer's cold while you wait.

This logo looks like Notre Dame and San Diego State's logos had a love child.

SDSU Logo:

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/34/826/full/pep2fucfegmv5ngort1u.gif

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: CUontheslopesThe coaches actually think he's quite a good NFL lineman. He's incredibly valuable because he can play all 5 positions. He has done so this year with little to no notice and done fairly well. Watching the game last night it was a bit painful to see him at center, though. As others have mentioned, his best fit is at guard.

So he's essentially a utility guy.  Not someone you ideally want as a starter but a valuable piece who can fill in wherever needed. He's not going to make the Pro-Bowl in that role but it's a pretty good way to make a living.

No that's not what I said at all. He's smart enough and physically talented enough to play all 5 spots without notice. He would have started at G, except the Giants' O-line was ravaged by injury and they needed him to move around to different spots to fill in. No one else could do it, so he was too valuable to just start at G because he was a better back up at the other 4 line spots that than were the second string guys on the depth chart. That's pretty impressive. Pro Bowler, no, but he'd start on most teams.

The coaches actually think he's quite a good NFL lineman. He's incredibly valuable because he can play all 5 positions. He has done so this year with little to no notice and done fairly well. Watching the game last night it was a bit painful to see him at center, though. As others have mentioned, his best fit is at guard.