Money: Cornellians lost to (and gained from) the portal

[Trotsky]

The attachment to the college, your alma mater, or some other close attachment (hello) is what makes it what it is.  Take it away, and there's nothing left.

And there is the market mitigating factor which in the end will restore a new balance.

The transition between states looks like it is going to suck, but in the end we'll reach a new equilibrium in which athletes are compensated and the sports generate revenue.  You can no more argue against what you blithely dismiss with patronizing quotes as "athletes rights" because of the dislocation after the old rancid system collapsed than you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation because it interfered with property rights.

The old system was exploitative. It needed to die.  Its comforting stability hid continuing to fuck the athletes over.  The future will take care of itself.  If the fans are turned off by churn then the pie will shrink, the athletes will lose, and the athletes themselves will unionize and collectively bargain contracts that protect the emotional connection of the teams to the fans while also fairly compensating them.

I know we were all fat and happy before, but hey we were fat and happy in 1965 with gas at $1 a barrel.  When people are getting screwed they upset the apple cart.  If you want to blame people for the dislocation now, blame the university presidents and the advertisers and the sports media who rode the horse knowing full well the bill would come due someday, but not giving a shit because they were all getting their slice.  Maybe had they been less shortsighted and permitted a gradual evolution we would have avoided the pain of a revolution.

[BigRedLaw]

my feeling about this, as always, is that i share a romantic attachment to college sports (and cornell sports in general) but that it remains improper to pretend that there is a place to regulate a maximum wage to preserve the ability to preserve the number of schools able to compete at the top level. college sports is now a multibillion dollar business. it is effectively a near-free minor league for professional sports. as such, the players should get paid a market wage. NIL is a jury-rigged solution to that conflict.

the place for romantic amateurism is in division iii, which has all of the virtues you seek but (apparently) none of the competition you want to watch.

I'm not interested in arguing about the ethics of paying or not paying athletes, but we're all Cornell fans, so obviously we aren't going to randomly start following D-III sports. I root for Cornell because I went there and loved attending the hockey games (and occasionally other sports like lacrosse).  I would not have had that experience at a D-III school. If athletes getting paid ruins Cornell's ability to compete, then I (and sounds like most others here) will quit following and just do something else with my/our time. That's one of many costs to the end of amateurism even if you happen to think it's a fairer system overall.

I dunno, man, one of my poker buddies went to Oswego and brought us to a game up there several years ago (Saturday night, following him joining us for the Friday night game at Lynah), and he and his fellow alums seemed just about as nuts for their program as we've been for ours. No scholarships, very few possibilities of going pro, but plenty of school spirit and love for the game. Maybe your experience would've been different, no idea - but there definitely isn't an inherent lack of devotion to hockey at D-III schools.

Connection to the school side, you can't seriously assert that the fan passion for d3 sports is comparable to d1. 

There are outliers, but generally d3 sports are not well attended or supported by the student body.

The 50,000 that show up every other year for Ithaca-Cortland football at Yankee Stadium would disagree.

I would say that it's well supported on a relative scale. No one is showing up for D-I Wisconsin field hockey either (sorry Jane). Most D-III schools are smaller in the first place.

What is the average regular season game attendance? 

And there are plenty of large state schools that have D3 sports, its not a bunch of small schools.

I'm not trying to crap on D3 athletics (again, I had a great time attending D3 club hockey games in undergrad), but it's absurd to pretend your typical d1 sports teams are comparable to d3 teams in the same sports.

[BigRedLaw]

The attachment to the college, your alma mater, or some other close attachment (hello) is what makes it what it is.  Take it away, and there's nothing left.

And there is the market mitigating factor which in the end will restore a new balance.

The transition between states looks like it is going to suck, but in the end we'll reach a new equilibrium in which athletes are compensated and the sports generate revenue.  You can no more argue against what you blithely dismiss with patronizing quotes as "athletes rights" because of the dislocation after the old rancid system collapsed than you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation because it interfered with property rights.

The old system was exploitative. It needed to die.  Its stable was just a smoke screen for continuing to fuck the athletes over.  The future will take care of itself.  If the fans are turned off by churn then the pie will shrink, the athletes will lose, and the athletes themselves will adopt rules that protect the emotional connection of the teams to the fans while also fairly compensating them.

I know we were all fat and happy before, but hey we were fast and happy in 1965 with gas at $1 a barrel.  When people are getting screwed they upset the apple cart.  Perhaps if you want to blame people for the dislocation now it's the university presidents and the sports enablers and the media who rode the horse knowing full well the bill would come due someday, but not giving a shit because they were all getting their slice.

The explotation was ethically dubious, but I believe it was better for everybody except the athletes.  The free market doesn't arrive at the best results.  Take a look at this country...

[stereax]

The attachment to the college, your alma mater, or some other close attachment (hello) is what makes it what it is.  Take it away, and there's nothing left.

And there is the market mitigating factor which in the end will restore a new balance.

The transition between states looks like it is going to suck, but in the end we'll reach a new equilibrium in which athletes are compensated and the sports generate revenue.  You can no more argue against what you blithely dismiss with patronizing quotes because of the dislocation than you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation because it interfered with property rights.

The old system was exploitative. It needed to die.  Its stable was just a smoke screen for continuing to fuck the athletes over.  The future will take care of itself.  If the fans are turned off by churn then the pie will shrink, the athletes will lose, and the athletes themselves will adopt rules that protect the emotional connection of the teams to the fans while also fairly compensating them.

I know we were all fat and happy before, but hey we were fast and happy in 1965 with gas at $1 a barrel.  When people are getting screwed they upset the apple cart.  Perhaps if you want to blame people for the dislocation now it's the university presidents and the sports enablers and the media who rode the horse knowing full well the bill would come due someday, but not giving a shit because they were all getting their slice.

Honestly I'm inclined to agree - I don't think athletes being compensated IN A VACUUM is the issue here and indeed I'd argue they should be, because that training, obligations, and all of it is a job in and of itself - and at the Ivies, they currently get no real compensation for doing that, not even scholarship.

I think the issue arises when you start entering the Bidding Wars, though. Because yes, you can argue for a fully free market where players are "paid what they're worth", but that will, imo, lead to a free agency system that's going to destroy the concept of a college athlete as someone who goes to school, partakes in the school community and also participates in athletics. At some point, you just have a hired gun system. But on the other hand, if a McKenna is "worth" 700k to a program, why should they be disallowed from paying him that amount?

No idea how to square the circle here. That's why I'm not in charge of doing it!

[The Rancor]

I don't think the problem will be getting the money. I think the issue will be how to distribute the money in such a way that flies by Cornell/Ivy/NCAA rules.  NIL is not a pay-for-play bucket. (and yes I know many teams get around this - but ... Ivy)

Exactly this.

I don't think I am violating any expectation of privacy by saying that at one of the Coach's Club luncheons, when Casey was talking about the concept of paid internships, he pointed out that the pay had to be commensurate with typical intern pay. So even if a rich alum were willing to pay a player $30K for a summer internship, that just can't happen.

And because of that, while I think the internship idea is nice, and could make the difference for some recruits between a program that has it and one that doesn't, it's not going to be the kind of game-changer that results in guys like Cournoyer not entering the portal.

Right - though I do think some finance summer internships can be in the range of 20-30k?

Actually I remember being surprised at how low a number Casey tossed out. If memory serves it was something like $6 or $7K. Nowhere near $20-$30, and definitely four figures.

That being said, it could be so early in the process that Casey may have just been throwing out a number that may not be accurate. It was a very informal statement.

I mean, again, I think I brought this up before - but BigLaw internships (so for graduate students in the legal profession at a soul-sucking job that I've crossed off my list on principle of survival) at market rate (Cravath scale, 10 weeks adjusted) are going for $40kish, from my understanding. Finance interning, let's say $25 an hour, 40 hours a week, 10 weeks, that's $10k. I think I brought this up before as well, but you can't pay a Cornell hockey player $100 an hour for interning and a non-hockey player $20 an hour interning at the same job.

You make more than that as a waiter in Nantucket or The Hamptons in the summer.

[stereax]

I don't think the problem will be getting the money. I think the issue will be how to distribute the money in such a way that flies by Cornell/Ivy/NCAA rules.  NIL is not a pay-for-play bucket. (and yes I know many teams get around this - but ... Ivy)

Exactly this.

I don't think I am violating any expectation of privacy by saying that at one of the Coach's Club luncheons, when Casey was talking about the concept of paid internships, he pointed out that the pay had to be commensurate with typical intern pay. So even if a rich alum were willing to pay a player $30K for a summer internship, that just can't happen.

And because of that, while I think the internship idea is nice, and could make the difference for some recruits between a program that has it and one that doesn't, it's not going to be the kind of game-changer that results in guys like Cournoyer not entering the portal.

Right - though I do think some finance summer internships can be in the range of 20-30k?

Actually I remember being surprised at how low a number Casey tossed out. If memory serves it was something like $6 or $7K. Nowhere near $20-$30, and definitely four figures.

That being said, it could be so early in the process that Casey may have just been throwing out a number that may not be accurate. It was a very informal statement.

I mean, again, I think I brought this up before - but BigLaw internships (so for graduate students in the legal profession at a soul-sucking job that I've crossed off my list on principle of survival) at market rate (Cravath scale, 10 weeks adjusted) are going for $40kish, from my understanding. Finance interning, let's say $25 an hour, 40 hours a week, 10 weeks, that's $10k. I think I brought this up before as well, but you can't pay a Cornell hockey player $100 an hour for interning and a non-hockey player $20 an hour interning at the same job.

You make more than that as a waiter in Nantucket or The Hamptons in the summer.

do you know anyone hiring there? genuinely, summer internship searching has been destroying me

[BearLover]

The attachment to the college, your alma mater, or some other close attachment (hello) is what makes it what it is.  Take it away, and there's nothing left.

And there is the market mitigating factor which in the end will restore a new balance.

The transition between states looks like it is going to suck, but in the end we'll reach a new equilibrium in which athletes are compensated and the sports generate revenue.  You can no more argue against what you blithely dismiss with patronizing quotes as "athletes rights" because of the dislocation after the old rancid system collapsed than you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation because it interfered with property rights.

The old system was exploitative. It needed to die.  Its stable was just a smoke screen for continuing to fuck the athletes over.  The future will take care of itself.  If the fans are turned off by churn then the pie will shrink, the athletes will lose, and the athletes themselves will adopt rules that protect the emotional connection of the teams to the fans while also fairly compensating them.

I know we were all fat and happy before, but hey we were fast and happy in 1965 with gas at $1 a barrel.  When people are getting screwed they upset the apple cart.  Perhaps if you want to blame people for the dislocation now it's the university presidents and the sports enablers and the media who rode the horse knowing full well the bill would come due someday, but not giving a shit because they were all getting their slice.

The explotation was ethically dubious, but I believe it was better for everybody except the athletes.  The free market doesn't arrive at the best results.  Take a look at this country...

It's actually worse for the vast majority of athletes. It's mostly just better for the top 1% of football and men's basketball players.

[adamw]

The attachment to the college, your alma mater, or some other close attachment (hello) is what makes it what it is.  Take it away, and there's nothing left.

And there is the market mitigating factor which in the end will restore a new balance.

The transition between states looks like it is going to suck, but in the end we'll reach a new equilibrium in which athletes are compensated and the sports generate revenue.  You can no more argue against what you blithely dismiss with patronizing quotes as "athletes rights" because of the dislocation after the old rancid system collapsed than you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation because it interfered with property rights.

The old system was exploitative. It needed to die.  Its stable was just a smoke screen for continuing to fuck the athletes over.  The future will take care of itself.  If the fans are turned off by churn then the pie will shrink, the athletes will lose, and the athletes themselves will adopt rules that protect the emotional connection of the teams to the fans while also fairly compensating them.

I know we were all fat and happy before, but hey we were fast and happy in 1965 with gas at $1 a barrel.  When people are getting screwed they upset the apple cart.  Perhaps if you want to blame people for the dislocation now it's the university presidents and the sports enablers and the media who rode the horse knowing full well the bill would come due someday, but not giving a shit because they were all getting their slice.

The explotation was ethically dubious, but I believe it was better for everybody except the athletes.  The free market doesn't arrive at the best results.  Take a look at this country...

It's actually worse for the vast majority of athletes. It's mostly just better for the top 1% of football and men's basketball players.

Where's the graphic for me and BL's sympatico alignment here???

Totally agree, as I said before.  I don't buy for 1 tiny second that 99.9% of athletes were being "exploited" ... You've thrown an entire system out because college hoarded football cash and used it to create shiny new buildings and pay coaches instead of players.  If they just capped coach salaries, or something - put in some guardrails - none of this would've happened.

where will quote-unquote athletes rights be when 50% of all athletic programs are gone? Will the cross-country athlete who had their scholarship revoked and program collapse believe they are now better off for this change?

Comparing it to the Emancipation Proclamation is woefully absurd.

[adamw]

my feeling about this, as always, is that i share a romantic attachment to college sports (and cornell sports in general) but that it remains improper to pretend that there is a place to regulate a maximum wage to preserve the ability to preserve the number of schools able to compete at the top level. college sports is now a multibillion dollar business. it is effectively a near-free minor league for professional sports. as such, the players should get paid a market wage. NIL is a jury-rigged solution to that conflict.

the place for romantic amateurism is in division iii, which has all of the virtues you seek but (apparently) none of the competition you want to watch.

I'm not interested in arguing about the ethics of paying or not paying athletes, but we're all Cornell fans, so obviously we aren't going to randomly start following D-III sports. I root for Cornell because I went there and loved attending the hockey games (and occasionally other sports like lacrosse).  I would not have had that experience at a D-III school. If athletes getting paid ruins Cornell's ability to compete, then I (and sounds like most others here) will quit following and just do something else with my/our time. That's one of many costs to the end of amateurism even if you happen to think it's a fairer system overall.

I dunno, man, one of my poker buddies went to Oswego and brought us to a game up there several years ago (Saturday night, following him joining us for the Friday night game at Lynah), and he and his fellow alums seemed just about as nuts for their program as we've been for ours. No scholarships, very few possibilities of going pro, but plenty of school spirit and love for the game. Maybe your experience would've been different, no idea - but there definitely isn't an inherent lack of devotion to hockey at D-III schools.

Connection to the school side, you can't seriously assert that the fan passion for d3 sports is comparable to d1. 

There are outliers, but generally d3 sports are not well attended or supported by the student body.

The 50,000 that show up every other year for Ithaca-Cortland football at Yankee Stadium would disagree.

I would say that it's well supported on a relative scale. No one is showing up for D-I Wisconsin field hockey either (sorry Jane). Most D-III schools are smaller in the first place.

What is the average regular season game attendance?

I don't know anymore - probably 3 to 4,000 when I was there. The school has 5,500 students.

[andyw2100]

https://x.com/CollegePuckNXT/status/2044544090298081737

New recruit from WHL

Does that say 49 points in 27 games???

Perhaps it got corrected, but it now says 49 points in 67 games.

[stereax]

https://x.com/CollegePuckNXT/status/2044544090298081737

New recruit from WHL

Does that say 49 points in 27 games???

Perhaps it got corrected, but it now says 49 points in 67 games.

It was corrected. 49 in 27 would be like, McKenna numbers.

[BearLover]

At this point our best bet is probably ex-Quinnipiac goalie Dylan Silverstein.

[stereax]

At this point our best bet is probably ex-Quinnipiac goalie Dylan Silverstein.

I mean, the Goalie Shuffle is still ongoing. You never know what might pop up...

[Pghas]

I'm going to choose to believe that losing Cornoyer is not going to be the disaster we are worried it could be.

Denver was a great team playing well for sure.  But let's be honest- Denver was totally overmatched in the frozen four.  Hicks won that Natty for them. Cornoyer was great, would love to have him back.  But Cornell split with Colgate, Princeton, Quinnipiac and Dartmouth.  Lost one to Harvard in the quarters, lost to Princeton in ECAC semis.  Blown out by Denver in NCAAs. He didn't steal a single game for us.  He made saves and was very solid.  A team like Wisconsin will look at him and say well if he'd been in goal maybe he's good enough to get us over the Natty line.  But he is not a Hicks.  Honestly Cornoyer stock goes up much more if he has faith in himself, stays at Cornell, and this year does steal a few games and we ride him to an ECAC title or frozen four berth.  Playing behind a strong annual contender and being good enough doesn't get you to the next level.

Now I have no idea what else is it play. For all I know, he doesn't like Cornell, or the academics are too hard for him, which he discovered after a truncated recruitment process, or perhaps the locker room, environmental coaching environment is toxic to him or not great. And those are all reasons to leave that I totally understand. But the truth is the transfer portal was really set up so the kids who were recruited and signed in attending university and then don't get the kind of ice opportunity that they want can seek that opportunity, not for people to seek upward mobility within the system, which theoretically really shouldn't work. But Browne is losing one of their best players to Dartmouth. That's kind of a shitty thing. It makes you wonder if people's commitment needs to be longer than it is unless they're not given an opportunity or ice time.

Maybe they come up with a system where the coach submits a list of 10 or 15 names, probably closer to 10, of kids who are protected and can't enter the transfer portal. That way the top players on every team can't be poached away by other top teams. Otherwise what you're gonna have is a real imbalance of power in the system is really gonna fall apart. And that is not the way this is supposed to work. Coaches are supposed to recruit before kids start college, not during college be able to fill them away. If we're gonna run it like pro sports, then let's run it like pro sports. No fair everybody being a hired gun year to year.

[scoop85]

I'm going to choose to believe that losing Cornoyer is not going to be the disaster we are worried it could be.

Denver was a great team playing well for sure.  But let's be honest- Denver was totally overmatched in the frozen four.  Hicks won that Natty for them. Cornoyer was great, would love to have him back.  But Cornell split with Colgate, Princeton, Quinnipiac and Dartmouth.  Lost one to Harvard in the quarters, lost to Princeton in ECAC semis.  Blown out by Denver in NCAAs. He didn't steal a single game for us.  He made saves and was very solid.  A team like Wisconsin will look at him and say well if he'd been in goal maybe he's good enough to get us over the Natty line.  But he is not a Hicks.  Honestly Cornoyer stock goes up much more if he has faith in himself, stays at Cornell, and this year does steal a few games and we ride him to an ECAC title or frozen four berth.  Playing behind a strong annual contender and being good enough doesn't get you to the next level.

Now I have no idea what else is it play. For all I know, he doesn't like Cornell, or the academics are too hard for him, which he discovered after a truncated recruitment process, or perhaps the locker room, environmental coaching environment is toxic to him or not great. And those are all reasons to leave that I totally understand. But the truth is the transfer portal was really set up so the kids who were recruited and signed in attending university and then don't get the kind of ice opportunity that they want can seek that opportunity, not for people to seek upward mobility within the system, which theoretically really shouldn't work. But Browne is losing one of their best players to Dartmouth. That's kind of a shitty thing. It makes you wonder if people's commitment needs to be longer than it is unless they're not given an opportunity or ice time.

Maybe they come up with a system where the coach submits a list of 10 or 15 names, probably closer to 10, of kids who are protected and can't enter the transfer portal. That way the top players on every team can't be poached away by other top teams. Otherwise what you're gonna have is a real imbalance of power in the system is really gonna fall apart. And that is not the way this is supposed to work. Coaches are supposed to recruit before kids start college, not during college be able to fill them away. If we're gonna run it like pro sports, then let's run it like pro sports. No fair everybody being a hired gun year to year.

A "restricted list" in the current environment? Never going to fly.