hockey fund raiser

[Adam \'01]

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.

[CUlater \'89]

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.

[Erica]

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.

[R]

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.

[Adam \'01]

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.

[jason]

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).

[CUlater \'89]

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.

[melissa\'01]

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 ;-)

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[Keith K]

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.

[Keith K]

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.

[Keith K]

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...

[CUlater \'89]

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."

[CUlater \'89]

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

[melissa\'01]

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)