Hockey Advisers

[Jim Hyla]

NY Times opinion piece on the NCAA and hockey advisers.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I agree with the author that the sole point of banning agents is to make the kids more tied to the NC$$.  Anything to weaken the NC$$'s greedy grip on college sports is OK by me.

[Rosey]

This immediately makes me think of the cognitive dissonance involved in the Ivy League: its main purpose was to keep collegiate athletics non-professional, which means it is probably best understood as a cartel designed to keep from having to pay big-time athletes anything at all for the work they do for their respective schools; but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages. Needless to say, I find this disingenuous, and I think the League's moral high ground illusion is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

[Trotsky]

This immediately makes me think of the cognitive dissonance involved in the Ivy League: its main purpose was to keep collegiate athletics non-professional, which means it is probably best understood as a cartel designed to keep from having to pay big-time athletes anything at all for the work they do for their respective schools; but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages. Needless to say, I find this disingenuous, and I think the League's moral high ground illusion is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

The question is are the athletes' financial packages "juiced" any more than the cellist's or the molecular biologist's?  If not, then I'd argue that the athletes are still safely being kept in a condition of servitude.  As they should be -- it's college, not cheer camp.

BTW, the one thing that jumped out at me was this quote:

A rational person might say: What a great system! It makes perfect sense to have agents advise young hockey players as they approach critical life decisions. Naturally, anything this sensible has to violate N.C.A.A. rules.

A "rational" person might say that, sure, if that person was either a shill for agents or completely ignorant of the history of abuses between agents, coaches and athletes going back the last sixty-odd years in college sports.

[Rosey]

The question is are the athletes' financial packages "juiced" any more than the cellist's or the molecular biologist's?  If not, then I'd argue that the athletes are still safely being kept in a condition of servitude.  As they should be -- it's college, not cheer camp.

Sorry, why? Why "safely"? Why "should [they] be"?

BTW, the one thing that jumped out at me was this quote:

A rational person might say: What a great system! It makes perfect sense to have agents advise young hockey players as they approach critical life decisions. Naturally, anything this sensible has to violate N.C.A.A. rules.

A "rational" person might say that, sure, if that person was either a shill for agents or completely ignorant of the history of abuses between agents, coaches and athletes going back the last sixty-odd years in college sports.

Even in the worst of worlds, surely having a choice of masters is better than forcing athletes to deal with a single cartel. Two competing parties trying to screw you—the agents vs. the NC$$—are going to give you a better deal than either in a vacuum.

[marty]

The question is are the athletes' financial packages "juiced" any more than the cellist's or the molecular biologist's?  If not, then I'd argue that the athletes are still safely being kept in a condition of servitude.  As they should be -- it's college, not cheer camp.

Sorry, why? Why "safely"? Why "should [they] be"?

BTW, the one thing that jumped out at me was this quote:

A rational person might say: What a great system! It makes perfect sense to have agents advise young hockey players as they approach critical life decisions. Naturally, anything this sensible has to violate N.C.A.A. rules.

A "rational" person might say that, sure, if that person was either a shill for agents or completely ignorant of the history of abuses between agents, coaches and athletes going back the last sixty-odd years in college sports.

Even in the worst of worlds, surely having a choice of masters is better than forcing athletes to deal with a single cartel. Two competing parties trying to screw you—the agents vs. the NC$$—are going to give you a better deal than either in a vacuum.

It's not a vacuum, it's a....

[ugarte]

This immediately makes me think of the cognitive dissonance involved in the Ivy League: its main purpose was to keep collegiate athletics non-professional, which means it is probably best understood as a cartel designed to keep from having to pay big-time athletes anything at all for the work they do for their respective schools; but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages. Needless to say, I find this disingenuous, and I think the League's moral high ground illusion is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

While the purpose of the Ivy League is a cute bit of history, the current Ivy League is hardly full of big time athletes. Awarding financial aid to athletes on the same terms that other students receive it is not particularly disingenuous. It leaves the same gap of not-rich-enough-but-not-poor-enough that the general student population has.

The NCAA has adopted this cartel strategy whole-hog, though, and is a grotesque parody of amateurism. The word slavery is thrown around a bit too freely, so I won't call it slavery... but the power imbalance between institution and athlete and the byzantine regulations designed to prevent market compensation is about as close as we'll get in the modern era.

I'd argue that the athletes are still safely being kept in a condition of servitude. As they should be -- it's college, not cheer camp.

As for whether the current level of "safe servitude" is fair, I'd say that in the revenue sports it is preposterously unfair. Alabama would willingly spend an order of magnitude more on their football players if they were allowed to. Instead, they have locker rooms full of mahogany, the football coach is the highest-paid state employee, and they spend the money on recruiting baubles instead of directly as salaries. The intraschool spending battle still exists but the only people who don't benefit are the ones getting concussed on a daily basis.

A "rational" person might say that, sure, if that person was either a shill for agents or completely ignorant of the history of abuses between agents, coaches and athletes going back the last sixty-odd years in college sports.

You don't have to be a shill for agents to realize that a cartel deeming "receiving help navigating our stupid rules" a violation of those rules is not acting in the interests of the athletes.

[Rosey]

This immediately makes me think of the cognitive dissonance involved in the Ivy League: its main purpose was to keep collegiate athletics non-professional, which means it is probably best understood as a cartel designed to keep from having to pay big-time athletes anything at all for the work they do for their respective schools; but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages. Needless to say, I find this disingenuous, and I think the League's moral high ground illusion is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

While the purpose of the Ivy League is a cute bit of history, the current Ivy League is hardly full of big time athletes.

The sports in which the Ivy League is nationally-competitive in a non-trivial sense absolutely are full of big-time athletes. And those are the athletes in question: I'm not talking about basketball or squash. It may be a small minority, but it exists. For example, Cornell is still able to attract top talent to its hockey program because of the recent changes to the financial aid system: Schafer himself said so.

Awarding financial aid to athletes on the same terms that other students receive it is not particularly disingenuous. It leaves the same gap of not-rich-enough-but-not-poor-enough that the general student population has.

The fact that poor non-athletes qualify for the same packages doesn't in any way negate the validity of the observation that financial aid amounts to scholarships for poor athletes in a practical sense. Recruiters just know where to concentrate their efforts.

A "rational" person might say that, sure, if that person was either a shill for agents or completely ignorant of the history of abuses between agents, coaches and athletes going back the last sixty-odd years in college sports.

You don't have to be a shill for agents to realize that a cartel deeming "receiving help navigating our stupid rules" a violation of those rules is not acting in the interests of the athletes.

Agreed.

[ugarte]

...but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages.

While the purpose of the Ivy League is a cute bit of history, the current Ivy League is hardly full of big time athletes.

The sports in which the Ivy League is nationally-competitive in a non-trivial sense absolutely are full of big-time athletes. And those are the athletes in question... Cornell is still able to attract top talent to its hockey program because of the recent changes to the financial aid system: Schafer himself said so.

If the school is "juicing" the financial aid packages for athletes, it is an issue. If athletes are subject to the same formula as any other student, I have no idea why it is problematic that it leads the coaches to focus their efforts on "athletes that can/will attend the school under its current financial aid rules." That's how a smart person allocates resources. It doesn't turn the financial aid into an "athletic scholarship" any more than a similarly situated Hotelie who doesn't play sports could be said to have received an "hotel management scholarship."

[cu722001]

I voted "no".  Without reading the article because I don't care.  And neither does anyone else, really.

PLAY BALL (or PUCK or BIRDIE or WHATEVER)!!!

[marty]

...but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages.

While the purpose of the Ivy League is a cute bit of history, the current Ivy League is hardly full of big time athletes.

The sports in which the Ivy League is nationally-competitive in a non-trivial sense absolutely are full of big-time athletes. And those are the athletes in question... Cornell is still able to attract top talent to its hockey program because of the recent changes to the financial aid system: Schafer himself said so.

If the school is "juicing" the financial aid packages for athletes, it is an issue. If athletes are subject to the same formula as any other student, I have no idea why it is problematic that it leads the coaches to focus their efforts on "athletes that can/will attend the school under its current financial aid rules." That's how a smart person allocates resources. It doesn't turn the financial aid into an "athletic scholarship" any more than a similarly situated Hotelie who doesn't play sports could be said to have received an "hotel management scholarship."

The implication that Schafer makes is that he can get money that matches the packages offered by Princeton, Yale and Harvard.  I am not sure of the current dollar amount but in the news for the 2006-2007 academic year was a household income below $180,000 being the break point for essentially free tuition.

Unless Cornell has matched that for all students then it is juicing the packages.

Under HFAI, families that earn less than $60,000 per year pay no tuition to send students to Harvard. Students whose families earn up to $180,000 are typically asked to pay no more than 10 percent of the family's income.

2011 historical sucks

[Beeeej]

The implication that Schafer makes is that he can get money that matches the packages offered by Princeton, Yale and Harvard.  I am not sure of the current dollar amount but in the news for the 2006-2007 academic year was a household income below $180,000 being the break point for essentially free tuition.

Unless Cornell has matched that for all students then it is juicing the packages.

Under HFAI, families that earn less than $60,000 per year pay no tuition to send students to Harvard. Students whose families earn up to $180,000 are typically asked to pay no more than 10 percent of the family's income.

I find it difficult to characterize $18,000/year, even for a family with a $180,000 annual income, as "essentially free tuition."

[ugarte]

Under HFAI, families that earn less than $60,000 per year pay no tuition to send students to Harvard. Students whose families earn up to $180,000 are typically asked to pay no more than 10 percent of the family's income.

If you thought the TUC cliff was steep, try to imagine being the parent of a Harvard admittee earning $180,001.*[/size]

* This joke probably only works with the imperfect information I have to go on. Don't correct it.

[Beeeej]

Under HFAI, families that earn less than $60,000 per year pay no tuition to send students to Harvard. Students whose families earn up to $180,000 are typically asked to pay no more than 10 percent of the family's income.

If you thought the TUC cliff was steep, try to imagine being the parent of a Harvard admittee earning $180,001.*[/size]

* This joke probably only works with the imperfect information I have to go on. Don't correct it.

I promise, I'm not going to correct anything... but I do suspect that parents are asked to pay a higher percentage of the portion of their income that's over $180,000, rather than a higher percentage of their income in general, once they're earning over $180,000.  Just like marginal tax rates.  Unfortunately, then you probably run into people like the idiots who try not to earn more than $174,400 because they think that suddenly their entire income will be taxed at 33% instead of 28%, rather than just that portion of their income that's over $174,400, or that they'll lose money by getting a raise.

[Jim Hyla]

...but now they basically do pay their athletes, which they accomplish by recruiting less-wealthy kids and juicing their financial aid packages.

While the purpose of the Ivy League is a cute bit of history, the current Ivy League is hardly full of big time athletes.

The sports in which the Ivy League is nationally-competitive in a non-trivial sense absolutely are full of big-time athletes. And those are the athletes in question... Cornell is still able to attract top talent to its hockey program because of the recent changes to the financial aid system: Schafer himself said so.

If the school is "juicing" the financial aid packages for athletes, it is an issue. If athletes are subject to the same formula as any other student, I have no idea why it is problematic that it leads the coaches to focus their efforts on "athletes that can/will attend the school under its current financial aid rules." That's how a smart person allocates resources. It doesn't turn the financial aid into an "athletic scholarship" any more than a similarly situated Hotelie who doesn't play sports could be said to have received an "hotel management scholarship."

The implication that Schafer makes is that he can get money that matches the packages offered by Princeton, Yale and Harvard.  I am not sure of the current dollar amount but in the news for the 2006-2007 academic year was a household income below $180,000 being the break point for essentially free tuition.

Unless Cornell has matched that for all students then it is juicing the packages.

Under HFAI, families that earn less than $60,000 per year pay no tuition to send students to Harvard. Students whose families earn up to $180,000 are typically asked to pay no more than 10 percent of the family's income.

2011 historical sucks

I thought that Cornell did match the other schools packages, for all students. Correct, anyone?