hockey fund raiser

[CUlater \'89]

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[CUlater \'89]

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

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?

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[CUlater \'89]

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).

[Ogletorp]

I have to agree with R here.   I got my call last night and decided to donate.  Steve Baby 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.

[CUlater \'89]

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

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[Keith K]

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.

[CUlater \'89]

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.

[jtwcornell91]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

[Ken71]

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

[Al DeFlorio]

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.