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

[adamw]

Still following this story and waiting for more info - but at the annual coaches meetings in Florida this week, the only thing of substance the coaches agreed on -- almost universally -- was an increase of the games limit to 40.

Needless to say which schools did not agree.

A 10-game gap between Ivies and others is quite brutal.

Still subject to approval by a few levels through the NCAA food chain.

Death by a thousand cuts.

you've been beating the same extremely negative drum for awhile now, and while i've been pessimistic myself, this "death by a thousand cuts" talk is kind of silly when the ivy league arguably just had its best season in a long time

Neither the 40-game thing, nor the 5th year thing, nor the age limit thing, nor the diminished ability to recruit from Major Junior (especially Quebec) thing, nor really the money stuff (in earnest) have kicked in yet.  So, as with everything NCAA these days, what happened before is irrelevant.  These are all the cuts I'm referring to.

[BearLover]

Still following this story and waiting for more info - but at the annual coaches meetings in Florida this week, the only thing of substance the coaches agreed on -- almost universally -- was an increase of the games limit to 40.

Needless to say which schools did not agree.

A 10-game gap between Ivies and others is quite brutal.

Still subject to approval by a few levels through the NCAA food chain.

Death by a thousand cuts.

you've been beating the same extremely negative drum for awhile now, and while i've been pessimistic myself, this "death by a thousand cuts" talk is kind of silly when the ivy league arguably just had its best season in a long time

Neither the 40-game thing, nor the 5th year thing, nor the age limit thing, nor the diminished ability to recruit from Major Junior (especially Quebec) thing, nor really the money stuff (in earnest) have kicked in yet.  So, as with everything NCAA these days, what happened before is irrelevant.  These are all the cuts I'm referring to.

Cornell is recruiting heavily from major junior, especially Quebec. I haven't followed the other Ivies' recruiting as closely, but I don't see why Cornell would be so prolific in this area if the Ivies faced significant recruiting limitations in this .region specifically The 40 game thing sounds bad but I would imagine the Ivies will have no choice but to approve more games now. With regard to the money stuff, I've said my piece, and would prefer not to rehash this argument, but it still seems that from available reporting there is little money right now beyond Alston/COA, which is getting lumped in with revenue sharing. I also see no reason why spending will increase substantially, especially now that most schools will be losing more money from playing additional games. The 5-year eligibility rule is very bad, yes.

[adamw]

Still following this story and waiting for more info - but at the annual coaches meetings in Florida this week, the only thing of substance the coaches agreed on -- almost universally -- was an increase of the games limit to 40.

Needless to say which schools did not agree.

A 10-game gap between Ivies and others is quite brutal.

Still subject to approval by a few levels through the NCAA food chain.

Death by a thousand cuts.

you've been beating the same extremely negative drum for awhile now, and while i've been pessimistic myself, this "death by a thousand cuts" talk is kind of silly when the ivy league arguably just had its best season in a long time

Neither the 40-game thing, nor the 5th year thing, nor the age limit thing, nor the diminished ability to recruit from Major Junior (especially Quebec) thing, nor really the money stuff (in earnest) have kicked in yet.  So, as with everything NCAA these days, what happened before is irrelevant.  These are all the cuts I'm referring to.

Cornell is recruiting heavily from major junior, especially Quebec. I haven't followed the other Ivies' recruiting as closely, but I don't see why Cornell would be so prolific in this area if the Ivies faced significant recruiting limitations in this .region specifically The 40 game thing sounds bad but I would imagine the Ivies will have no choice but to approve more games now. With regard to the money stuff, I've said my piece, and would prefer not to rehash this argument, but it still seems that from available reporting there is little money right now beyond Alston/COA, which is getting lumped in with revenue sharing. I also see no reason why spending will increase substantially, especially now that most schools will be losing more money from playing additional games. The 5-year eligibility rule is very bad, yes.

Great - so you agree 2 of the things I said were bad.

Money ... yeah, don't know what to tell you. We continue to have extremely different definitions of what is "substantial" given that every school is attempting to raise $250,000 minimum, and this transfer cycle has seen $50k payments to random players.

Again - you are confusing current recruiting with future. Not sure why. What is happening right now in recruiting is not relevant to the new rules, which haven't even happened yet.  I thought we were at the point where you read all my articles - but in the latest, Ben Syer talks about being concerned about all of this.  More is coming.  There is a reason our own Casey Jones made impassioned remarks to NCAA lawyers today at the coach's meetings.  What is happening today in recruiting, changes significantly over the next couple years as the new rules take effect, assuming no further changes. Just to give one thing in a nutshell (hardly the only thing) that everyone is talking about ... Quebec kids graduate high school at 17. If they play Major Junior until 20, they would only have 2 years of NCAA eligibility remaining.  This is actually the case for all kids, but it's a particular issue in Quebec.  What's going to happen is, players will be asked to delay graduating high school so they can come into the NCAA at 19 or 20 and still have 5 or 4 years of eligibility remaining. Getting this message to 17 year olds who are focused on major junior and not thinking NCAA at that point, is going to be difficult - let alone whether it's logistically possible under the laws of various jurisdictions.  So ... that's one reason why everyone's hair is on fire at the moment.  In fact, this is such a big deal that even David Carle - who really has his pick of the litter of 18 year olds right now - made the same plea to NCAA lawyers (who could care less).

[BearLover]

Still following this story and waiting for more info - but at the annual coaches meetings in Florida this week, the only thing of substance the coaches agreed on -- almost universally -- was an increase of the games limit to 40.

Needless to say which schools did not agree.

A 10-game gap between Ivies and others is quite brutal.

Still subject to approval by a few levels through the NCAA food chain.

Death by a thousand cuts.

you've been beating the same extremely negative drum for awhile now, and while i've been pessimistic myself, this "death by a thousand cuts" talk is kind of silly when the ivy league arguably just had its best season in a long time

Neither the 40-game thing, nor the 5th year thing, nor the age limit thing, nor the diminished ability to recruit from Major Junior (especially Quebec) thing, nor really the money stuff (in earnest) have kicked in yet.  So, as with everything NCAA these days, what happened before is irrelevant.  These are all the cuts I'm referring to.

Cornell is recruiting heavily from major junior, especially Quebec. I haven't followed the other Ivies' recruiting as closely, but I don't see why Cornell would be so prolific in this area if the Ivies faced significant recruiting limitations in this .region specifically The 40 game thing sounds bad but I would imagine the Ivies will have no choice but to approve more games now. With regard to the money stuff, I've said my piece, and would prefer not to rehash this argument, but it still seems that from available reporting there is little money right now beyond Alston/COA, which is getting lumped in with revenue sharing. I also see no reason why spending will increase substantially, especially now that most schools will be losing more money from playing additional games. The 5-year eligibility rule is very bad, yes.

Great - so you agree 2 of the things I said were bad.

Money ... yeah, don't know what to tell you. We continue to have extremely different definitions of what is "substantial" given that every school is attempting to raise $250,000 minimum, and this transfer cycle has seen $50k payments to random players.

Again - you are confusing current recruiting with future. Not sure why. What is happening right now in recruiting is not relevant to the new rules, which haven't even happened yet.  I thought we were at the point where you read all my articles - but in the latest, Ben Syer talks about being concerned about all of this.  More is coming.  There is a reason our own Casey Jones made impassioned remarks to NCAA lawyers today at the coach's meetings.  What is happening today in recruiting, changes significantly over the next couple years as the new rules take effect, assuming no further changes. Just to give one thing in a nutshell (hardly the only thing) that everyone is talking about ... Quebec kids graduate high school at 17. If they play Major Junior until 20, they would only have 2 years of NCAA eligibility remaining.  This is actually the case for all kids, but it's a particular issue in Quebec.  What's going to happen is, players will be asked to delay graduating high school so they can come into the NCAA at 19 or 20 and still have 5 or 4 years of eligibility remaining. Getting this message to 17 year olds who are focused on major junior and not thinking NCAA at that point, is going to be difficult - let alone whether it's logistically possible under the laws of various jurisdictions.  So ... that's one reason why everyone's hair is on fire at the moment.  In fact, this is such a big deal that even David Carle - who really has his pick of the litter of 18 year olds right now - made the same plea to NCAA lawyers (who could care less).

OK, well I was "confusing current recruiting with future" because I wasn't clear on what you were referring to. You don't need to convince me that all this upheaval is a mess, but if anything it sounds like kids graduating at 17 is going to hurt the schools recruiting blue chippers or kids who aren't interested in an education more than it is going to hurt the Ivies. Cornell is coming off its most successful stretch in many years, and the Ivies are looking as good as ever--yes, things are changing further, but they've been changing for awhile. Who would have thought that four years into the transfer portal, the Ivies are looking as good as ever? Maybe in the midst of all the upheaval, the only thing that isn't changing is the value of an Ivy education. I think that allows a few schools like Cornell to weather these storms better than other schools can. But the big thing is we have no idea how things are going to shake out. We don't even know what the final NCAA rule is going to be, or if it survives in court.

[BearLover]

One more thing - to the extent kids are graduating too early to play 4-5 years, well, that mitigates the downside of the Ivies not being able to take advantage of 5-year eligiblity, at least.

[The Rancor]

The 40 game thing sounds bad but I would imagine the Ivies will have no choice but to approve more games now.

If the Ivy League cared about game limits, they'd have cared about Football and Cornell and HYP would still be competing for national championships. We already play 6 less in hockey than everyone else, and they only last year gave us one game, after schedules were already set, and didn't actually tell anyone (if you remember). I'm curious if Casey and the Ivy coaches are arguing that they want more games too, but they don't think athletic directors will give them to us, or if they are against it, thinking it is too many for 'student' athletes.
The 5 year thing really bones us though, doesn't it?

[Trotsky]

The 40 game thing sounds bad but I would imagine the Ivies will have no choice but to approve more games now.

Could be the opposite.  We had just gotten the Ivies to 30 and the diminution of the gap made me hopeful we could finally get rid of that symbolic difference, but now that it becomes huge again (in the 1970s there was effectively no limit and western schools approached 50-game RS schedules) it fuels the camp that says it is not worth trying to converge with the NC$$ as the latter will never honor the academic aspect of student athletics in revenue sports.

The unspoken hypocrisy at the heart of college sports is star football and basketball players at the best teams have never been real students.  Even in the early years before 1900 when Harvard and Yale dominated football the players were a well known joke.  The NC$$ hides behind the actuality of student athletes in non-revenue sports, but everybody understands when money is on the line academics goes completely out the window and the "students" are barely literate and less educated than a gen pop high school student.  Not necessarily less intelligent.  A pro style offense is no joke to understand, and of course there are many dimensions of intelligence. But in terms of traditional education -- reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic -- pro-level college athletes in football and basketball have neither the time nor the inclination to bother.  Bill Bradley, Bill Russell, John Urshel, Myron Rolle, and Alan Page are unicorns.

Is that where hockey's going?  My guess is yes if it is net positive on revenue, otherwise academics might still be permitted since it aint costing the university President cash flow.