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

[BearLover]

Yes, a restricted list would be struck down by courts in 5 seconds

[Will]

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

I doubt anyone here actually knows the answer to this, but is Silverstein academically qualified for Cornell?  Attending Q makes me question this, even with some of the breaks given to athletes here sometimes.

[BearLover]

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

I doubt anyone here actually knows the answer to this, but is Silverstein academically qualified for Cornell?  Attending Q makes me question this, even with some of the breaks given to athletes here sometimes.

Most schools in this country that play D-1 hockey are the same academic caliber as Quinnipiac.

[Will]

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

I doubt anyone here actually knows the answer to this, but is Silverstein academically qualified for Cornell?  Attending Q makes me question this, even with some of the breaks given to athletes here sometimes.

Most schools in this country that play D-1 hockey are the same academic caliber as Quinnipiac.

Cornell is not most schools.

[BearLover]

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

I doubt anyone here actually knows the answer to this, but is Silverstein academically qualified for Cornell?  Attending Q makes me question this, even with some of the breaks given to athletes here sometimes.

Most schools in this country that play D-1 hockey are the same academic caliber as Quinnipiac.

Cornell is not most schools.

Sure, but if we can't take a transfer from Q then we can't take a transfer from almost anywhere. We took Ashton from Minnesota State Mankato last season, we took Cournoyer from the CHL. (Ashton seems like a smart kid actually, but I don't think there is any legitimate academic distinction between Mankato and Q.) I doubt there are any issues with Silverstein's academic qualifications, to answer you question more directly.

[The Rancor]

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.

This, 100% agree. You get it.

We'll find our new Mr. Goaltender, and Courns aint it. Perhaps he goes on to a great career. He's probably a good kid. I wish him luck, but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I will pop a bottle of champagne when his team is eliminated next season, and it will be something good when Cornell is still alive.
He should, IMO, stay here. But he's not, so Bon Voyage, Peewee. Everyone on this board was stoked (and speculating) to see what Roest was going to bring to the table 3 seasons ago. I feel a little bad for Keopple. That's sports, though.
And FWIW- Courns isn't even in the top 40 of Cornell Goaltenders for single season shutouts. Except that one came against Harvard, so kudos for that.  He never took over a game. He never stood solid while I cringed and gasped and clenched my toes only to see the puck swallowed by his mitt. He played well enough. Looking forward to who's next.

[BearLover]

I thought we'd be in the running for Brown's top scorer Ivan Zadvernyuk who still hasn't committed anywhere, but now that we've brought in yet another forward recruit for next season I assume that's not happening.

[BearLover]

Zero players transferring out of HYP. Zero transferring out of Dartmouth and even one transferring in. Three non-graduates transferring out of Brown, though they had a coaching change. Cournoyer stands alone as an Ivy player to transfer out without a coaching change.

[stereax]

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.

This, 100% agree. You get it.

We'll find our new Mr. Goaltender, and Courns aint it. Perhaps he goes on to a great career. He's probably a good kid. I wish him luck, but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I will pop a bottle of champagne when his team is eliminated next season, and it will be something good when Cornell is still alive.
He should, IMO, stay here. But he's not, so Bon Voyage, Peewee. Everyone on this board was stoked (and speculating) to see what Roest was going to bring to the table 3 seasons ago. I feel a little bad for Keopple. That's sports, though.
And FWIW- Courns isn't even in the top 40 of Cornell Goaltenders for single season shutouts. Except that one came against Harvard, so kudos for that.  He never took over a game. He never stood solid while I cringed and gasped and clenched my toes only to see the puck swallowed by his mitt. He played well enough. Looking forward to who's next.

I think I said this before - but Courns was effectively League Average for most of his time here. A friend and I were running the numbers, and, as per him (I didn't fact check this in depth but I absolutely believe it):

After Courns's "hot start" and first 7 games (so from Red Hot on), his sv% for the rest of the season was sub-.900, putting him around #80 for all college goalies.

After those 7 games, his 10-game rolling average sv% was never above .913, which is good for maybe #40 for college goalies.

And, in his words, "You saw Shane's shitty season - which was still better than Courns's last 20 games."

I dunno if it was stress, fatigue, or what - maybe Casey knew something we didn't when he was platooning Keopple and Courns. But the point stands that after November, Cournoyer's numbers were actually pretty pedestrian. (And, unlike a guy like Yegorov, you can't point to a hot mess on D as being part of the culprit.)

So literally all we need is someone league average to be competitive for the ECAC and secure an NCAA playoff berth. We don't even need a guy who can make the tough saves. Just league average.

Problem is, are Roest or Katz going to be the answer, even temporarily, or are we going to find someone else?

[The Rancor]

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.

This, 100% agree. You get it.

We'll find our new Mr. Goaltender, and Courns aint it. Perhaps he goes on to a great career. He's probably a good kid. I wish him luck, but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I will pop a bottle of champagne when his team is eliminated next season, and it will be something good when Cornell is still alive.
He should, IMO, stay here. But he's not, so Bon Voyage, Peewee. Everyone on this board was stoked (and speculating) to see what Roest was going to bring to the table 3 seasons ago. I feel a little bad for Keopple. That's sports, though.
And FWIW- Courns isn't even in the top 40 of Cornell Goaltenders for single season shutouts. Except that one came against Harvard, so kudos for that.  He never took over a game. He never stood solid while I cringed and gasped and clenched my toes only to see the puck swallowed by his mitt. He played well enough. Looking forward to who's next.

I think I said this before - but Courns was effectively League Average for most of his time here. A friend and I were running the numbers, and, as per him (I didn't fact check this in depth but I absolutely believe it):

After Courns's "hot start" and first 7 games (so from Red Hot on), his sv% for the rest of the season was sub-.900, putting him around #80 for all college goalies.

After those 7 games, his 10-game rolling average sv% was never above .913, which is good for maybe #40 for college goalies.

And, in his words, "You saw Shane's shitty season - which was still better than Courns's last 20 games."

I dunno if it was stress, fatigue, or what - maybe Casey knew something we didn't when he was platooning Keopple and Courns. But the point stands that after November, Cournoyer's numbers were actually pretty pedestrian. (And, unlike a guy like Yegorov, you can't point to a hot mess on D as being part of the culprit.)

So literally all we need is someone league average to be competitive for the ECAC and secure an NCAA playoff berth. We don't even need a guy who can make the tough saves. Just league average.

Problem is, are Roest or Katz going to be the answer, even temporarily, or are we going to find someone else?

Yes, agree. He had to earn his spot every night as 1A to play ahead of Koepple. I'm sure he's going to have to battle for starts against Roest and probably Cirka, if he's coming this season, and definitely against whoever Casey pulls out of the QMJHL or the Portal.

[ugarte]

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.

correct. similarly, if you can not afford to pay your busboy minimum wage you should bus your own tables or not open a restaurant.

I have argued over and over (not that anyone important cares or is listening to me) that all of the "athletes rights" advocates have no idea what hellscape they unleashed. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg comes is an obvious phrase that comes to mind.

...

For those that say the ideals would still work in D-III ... How is D-III any different than D-I in terms of athletes rights? They "work" the same amount of hours, under direct supervision. This fits the definition of an employee according to many. Should D-III have to pay their athletes minimum wage? That may happen one day. If so, goodbye D-III sports as well. Same goes for the Olympic D-I sports.

...

Fans of "athletes rights" should've thought long and hard about the consequences. They ignored them all. They are greedy just like the colleges were in taking the big TV deals and paying coaches $10 million/year.  For the benefit of 1% (maybe) - they have screwed, in the long run, hundreds of thousands of student-athletes, and their fans.

If it's not college sports, a lot of people won't care - for all the reasons everyone articulated. It will survive for a while on the fact that some people just want to see their team win. But even then, it will be no different than pro sports, and many will say "well, if I want that, I'll just watch pro sports" and peel away ...

But at least if Armageddon is around the corner, I know I'll have a College Hockey News exit strategy.

The athletes, who schools value, should be able to get their worth in the market of the college sports business. Full stop. College football is a money machine as are some other sports to varying degrees in fewer locations. The accounting on all of it is, as everyone knows, janky as hell - on purpose. Those of us who advocated to pay the players knew exactly what we were asking for.

The difference between D-I and D-III isn't that there is less work to playing sports but there is less of a pie to be distributed. There is not the kind of market for Division III volleyball players that would be converted to a bidding war. It is borderline unfathomable to have read - in the wake of the massive tv contracts that led to bloated coaches' salaries and team training facilities built to compete with Versailles - that the players were being "equally greedy" for demanding to be cut in on the spoils. You can tell me that the players should back off when football stops piling so much money on glitz promoted as in-kind benefits. Just write a check.

College sports becoming "just pro sports but worse" or canonizing the student-athlete are arguments that the colleges themselves have been making in bad faith for decades. As I'm sure you know, student-athlete was a lawyer-invented nomenclature specifically designed to make the charnel house of college football exempt from workers' compensation obligations. It did so despite the quite open mercenary acquisition of ringers. Adding a layer of schmaltz by acting as if those football players are students just like we were and we root for them as fellow students ignores just how much of college sports fandom is driven by proximity, not by alumni. Alabama sports fans don't have a local pro team to root for. The Crimson Tide are the local pro team.

I'm glad you have an exit strategy from CHN because I fear your material interest in the ongoing vitality of college sports is clouding your judgment on who gets to pick the winners and losers and why they should.

[adamw]

The athletes, who schools value, should be able to get their worth in the market of the college sports business. Full stop. College football is a money machine as are some other sports to varying degrees in fewer locations. The accounting on all of it is, as everyone knows, janky as hell - on purpose. Those of us who advocated to pay the players knew exactly what we were asking for.

The difference between D-I and D-III isn't that there is less work to playing sports but there is less of a pie to be distributed. There is not the kind of market for Division III volleyball players that would be converted to a bidding war. It is borderline unfathomable to have read - in the wake of the massive tv contracts that led to bloated coaches' salaries and team training facilities built to compete with Versailles - that the players were being "equally greedy" for demanding to be cut in on the spoils. You can tell me that the players should back off when football stops piling so much money on glitz promoted as in-kind benefits. Just write a check.

College sports becoming "just pro sports but worse" or canonizing the student-athlete are arguments that the colleges themselves have been making in bad faith for decades. As I'm sure you know, student-athlete was a lawyer-invented nomenclature specifically designed to make the charnel house of college football exempt from workers' compensation obligations. It did so despite the quite open mercenary acquisition of ringers. Adding a layer of schmaltz by acting as if those football players are students just like we were and we root for them as fellow students ignores just how much of college sports fandom is driven by proximity, not by alumni. Alabama sports fans don't have a local pro team to root for. The Crimson Tide are the local pro team.

I'm glad you have an exit strategy from CHN because I fear your material interest in the ongoing vitality of college sports is clouding your judgment on who gets to pick the winners and losers and why they should.

I'm sorry - but if you work, you work.  Walmart doesn't get to stop paying their employees if they fail to turn a profit.  If a D-III athlete fits the definition of work -- which it does, according to the judge in the Dartmouth case -- then they will have to get the same minimum wage as every other athlete.  Football players can make more on top of that -- but every college athlete will fit the definition of work.

This will, again, in turn cause schools to drop athletics entirely.  Especially so in D-I where non-revenue athletes get scholarships.  That will not happen.  So - again - the opportunities will disappear for hundreds of thousands of kids.  This is already happening just due to the landscape now.  Declaring everyone an employee will only make it worse.

You can cite the legalities all day long - but if you think that's a good idea, then ... what else is there to say. We have a fundamental disagreement on the value of collegiate athletics to a person, and to the greater college community. The fact that colleges EFFED this all up with their greed does not therefore mean it's wonderful to throw the baby out with the bath water, or that we should all be championing such as the solution.

[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 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!

To be brutally frank, the ideal of the student-athlete as a sincere everyday student has, with notable exceptions from time to time, in D-1 and its precursors, been a farce since the 40s in football and the 80s in basketball.  There are of course student athletes who are engaged in academic pursuit and wonder.  But not most.  Most are, if not rockheads, at most the equivalent of the typical business undergrad sweating out four irritating years of interruptions of their partying to obtain a credential and go make $$$ and never think again.  We should just have them mail the check and give them the degree at admissions and save them, their professors, and the rest of us the annoyance of babysitting them for four years.

That's all most revenue sport student athletes are.  So even when they stayed for four years, they weren't "one of us," unless you consider us to be emotionally checked out mercenaries with the imagination of a floor wax.

I like to believe Cornell hockey players are different.  Their parents sure seem wonderful.  And I otherwise keep my distance because some Comfort Myths I just don't want debunked.

[Snowball]

I'm glad you have an exit strategy from CHN because I fear your material interest in the ongoing vitality of college sports is clouding your judgment on who gets to pick the winners and losers and why they should.

What??

That feels like shooting the messenger. Adam has spent a lot of time walking us through what these changes mean for college hockey. You can disagree, but reducing it to self-interest is unfair.

[stereax]

Sidenote - the ? ? ? -> emoji pisses me off