Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harvard 2023-24: Now is the Winter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Unsure about what the lower level NLRB decision about Dartmouth, or the entire question nationally, is supposed to mean, partly because I haven't been able to google the full text of the Dartmouth case which in any event pertains to the right to bargain collectively.

    My first naive question is this: if student athletes are employees, then shouldn't they be entitled to receive cash wages equal to at least the minimum wage for their hourly work? If a student shelves books in the rare books library, they are treated as an employee, are paid wages, receive a W-2 and so forth. It doesn't matter whether the rare books library makes a profit or is a trade or business.

    Next: If they have the right to bargain collectively, shouldn't each local union negotiate wages and fringe benefits with its associated university? Presumably, then, basketball players at Duke would bargain for and receive higher compensation than Ivy players. But, furthermore, professional players associations negotiate general rules categorizing players into tiers (rookies, 5 year players and so on) for compensation purposes with individual players then free to negotiate their own compensation within the agreed upon parameters for their tier. So a Patty Kaz winner could negotiate higher compensation than a third liner.

    Finally, if they are employees, even if not unionizwd, shouldn't they have the right to negotiate their own compensation individually? And in doing so, the universities must be subject to antitrust strictures

    My naive questions merely raise the issue why should conferring "employee" status on student-athletes leave in place any portion of the whole current structure of athletic scholarships, donor programs and so forth, as opposed to a more radical transformation into something like the compensation structures of professional sports or bursary students or adjunct faculty?
    Last edited by Watson Rink; 02-18-2024, 11:15 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Watson 3860903
      My first naive question is this: if student athletes are employees, then shouldn't they be entitled to receive cash wages equal to at least the minimum wage for their hourly work? If a student shelves books in the rare books library, they are treated as an employee, are paid wages, receive a W-2 and so forth. It doesn't matter whether the rare books library makes a profit or is a trade or business
      I think that is the whole point of the Dartmouth case. Because the Ivies are not offering athletic scholarships, the Ivy athletes want to be compensated for their commitment to their respective athletic programs. They see what is going on around the country and as some of the Ivy programs are D-1, the athletes feel that they should be entitled to some form of compensation.


      Next: If they have the right to bargain collectively, shouldn't each local union negotiate wages and fringe benefits with its associated university? Presumably, then, basketball players at Duke would bargain for and receive higher compensation than Ivy players. But, furthermore, professional players associations negotiate general rules categorizing players into tiers (rookies, 5-year players, and so on) for compensation purposes with individual players then free to negotiate their compensation within the agreed-upon parameters for their tier. So, a Patty Kaz winner could negotiate higher compensation than a third liner.
      All true. In this case, and I am surmising here w/o any facts, the Ivy athletes want to form a Players Association to guarantee compensation for every athlete that participates in a varsity sport. The comp levels may very well vary based on the tiers you describe although for Patty Kaz or Hobey Baker nominees, I would guess that NIL money would augment their salary benefit structure. I can't see the Universities negotiating individually with these athletes.

      Finally, if they are employees, even if not unionized, shouldn't they have the right to negotiate their own compensation individually? And in doing so, the universities must be subject to antitrust strictures.

      My naive questions merely raise the issue why should conferring "employee" status on student-athletes leave in place any portion of the whole current structure of athletic scholarships, donor programs and so forth, as opposed to a more radical transformation into something like the compensation structures of professional sports or bursary students or adjunct faculty?
      If they are not unionized, then yes, they would negotiate individually. Forming the Players Association would enable the athletes to have a go-to resource prior to stepping foot on campus to understand the different comp structures and how NIL money would factor into their total package. As I mentioned previously, the Dartmouth men are pursuing this because they see the money being thrown around in other D-1 conferences and they want to have access to compensation that helps them defray the cost of an Ivy education. The Universities are loathe to accept this premise and will no doubt try and tie this up in court for as long as possible.

      Comment


      • #33
        Yesterday's shellacking at the hands of Quinnipiac closes the book on probably the worst season in Harvard women's hockey history. Percentage wise it is the worst. To put things in perspective, they scored 1 goal or fewer in 20 out of their 30 games this season. They were shut out on 7 occasions. In 5 of their games, they gave up 8 or more goals. The only year in the program's history that they won fewer than five games was in the second year of the program when they went 4-13.

        I'm not sure how they recover from this. It may take years before they are back in contention. One only needs to look at Brown and Dartmouth to see how once mighty programs have not been able to crack the Top Four in the ECAC for a long time.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Skate79 View Post
          Yesterday's shellacking at the hands of Quinnipiac closes the book on probably the worst season in Harvard women's hockey history. Percentage wise it is the worst. To put things in perspective, they scored 1 goal or fewer in 20 out of their 30 games this season. They were shut out on 7 occasions. In 5 of their games, they gave up 8 or more goals. The only year in the program's history that they won fewer than five games was in the second year of the program when they went 4-13.

          I'm not sure how they recover from this. It may take years before they are back in contention. One only needs to look at Brown and Dartmouth to see how once mighty programs have not been able to crack the Top Four in the ECAC for a long time.
          On the bright side they do have a better Pairwise ranking than Bemidji.

          Comment


          • #35
            Yes a dismal year. But remember Yale didn’t make the playoff about 7 years ago…don’t quote me on year and look what they did!

            Comment


            • #36
              It really is quite amazing to witness the fall of such a prestigious program. However, I'm not sure if you can blame a first year coach that has been dealt a bad hand. This is still entirely on the shoulders of KS, the hubris of her staff and the Harvard athletic department, and in many ways the institution as a whole. Only two years ago, this team had 35 players rostered with 5 goalies. The team photo looked like a football squad. Every home game had a minimum 13 players in the stands in street clothes. It was only a matter of time until she felt obligated to cull the herd - her "basket of deplorables."

              HH class of 2024 originally had 7 members. How do you end up with 1 finishing the program? Could the addition of Thompson and Arnone helped this team this year - of course. Is there still a dedicated group of true believers that think KS was persecuted and did nothing wrong? Absolutely!! The Bright-Landry still reeks of it. Like many elements of Harvard culture that have been exposed over the past 6 months, it all starts at the top, and likely appears intentional. To fix it, you must cut the head off the snake. This goes a lot higher than a head coach.

              I'm not even sure it they care about a 5 win season. The continued behavior of AD McDermott and her disdain for popular opinion is mind boggling. After all the anti-semitism critique and examination of Claudine Gay and Harvard Corporation review on a national scale, could you ever imagine telling a group of football alumni that "we don't need your donations." It must be a market top if that's what she really believes.

              I think it would be amazing journalism if The Athletic came back a year later and did a follow-up to see if anything had changed. What is the tone like in the locker room? Are any of the "traditions" still secretly taking place? Has the school provided counseling or mental health assistance for those affected by the abuse? Is KS allowed to step foot in the rink and attend alumni events? It isn't nearly as salacious as as a "Naked Skate" headline, but I do think it would spark some interest.

              Sadly, I think Harvard wants to put this era to bed once and for all. By not releasing the findings of the Jenner & Block investigation last year, they don't really want to get to the bottom of this. Who benefits? Who remains protected? Who are the true victims and culprits? Those questions are what the Globe and Athletic should continue to press. The Claudine Gay and Anti-Semitism issues just allowed the onion to be peeled back even more. This moral corruption has been going on for years, and in order to fix it, the Board has to be willing to start doing its job.

              If this football lobby really wanted to go after McDermott, they should press for the release of the J&M findings. She might be more culpable of abuse, neglect and mismanagement than the entire 2022-23 staff!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MAHOCKEY FAN View Post
                Yes a dismal year. But remember Yale didn’t make the playoff about 7 years ago…don’t quote me on year and look what they did!
                Good point.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ShootDePuckNo View Post
                  It really is quite amazing to witness the fall of such a prestigious program. However, I'm not sure if you can blame a first year coach that has been dealt a bad hand. This is still entirely on the shoulders of KS, the hubris of her staff and the Harvard athletic department, and in many ways the institution as a whole. Only two years ago, this team had 35 players rostered with 5 goalies. The team photo looked like a football squad. Every home game had a minimum 13 players in the stands in street clothes. It was only a matter of time until she felt obligated to cull the herd - her "basket of deplorables."

                  HH class of 2024 originally had 7 members. How do you end up with 1 finishing the program? Could the addition of Thompson and Arnone helped this team this year - of course. Is there still a dedicated group of true believers that think KS was persecuted and did nothing wrong? Absolutely!! The Bright-Landry still reeks of it. Like many elements of Harvard culture that have been exposed over the past 6 months, it all starts at the top, and likely appears intentional. To fix it, you must cut the head off the snake. This goes a lot higher than a head coach.

                  I'm not even sure it they care about a 5 win season. The continued behavior of AD McDermott and her disdain for popular opinion is mind boggling. After all the anti-semitism critique and examination of Claudine Gay and Harvard Corporation review on a national scale, could you ever imagine telling a group of football alumni that "we don't need your donations." It must be a market top if that's what she really believes.

                  I think it would be amazing journalism if The Athletic came back a year later and did a follow-up to see if anything had changed. What is the tone like in the locker room? Are any of the "traditions" still secretly taking place? Has the school provided counseling or mental health assistance for those affected by the abuse? Is KS allowed to step foot in the rink and attend alumni events? It isn't nearly as salacious as as a "Naked Skate" headline, but I do think it would spark some interest.

                  Sadly, I think Harvard wants to put this era to bed once and for all. By not releasing the findings of the Jenner & Block investigation last year, they don't really want to get to the bottom of this. Who benefits? Who remains protected? Who are the true victims and culprits? Those questions are what the Globe and Athletic should continue to press. The Claudine Gay and Anti-Semitism issues just allowed the onion to be peeled back even more. This moral corruption has been going on for years, and in order to fix it, the Board has to be willing to start doing its job.

                  If this football lobby really wanted to go after McDermott, they should press for the release of the J&M findings. She might be more culpable of abuse, neglect and mismanagement than the entire 2022-23 staff!
                  I wasn't aware of McDermott's missive to the football alumni. One sure way to get yourself in trouble is to tick off the alumni, especially from a sport that is central to the school. McDermott has been able to shield herself somehow and escape criticism, but the bill will come due at some point. Her handling of the KS mess was an abject disgrace and should have led to her being asked to leave. I agree that it is high time that the Board step in and right the ship. Between what happened with Claudine Gay and the problems with the women's program and now the football team, Harvard needs leadership and accountability. I'm attending a virtual Zoom call with President Garber in March, and I intend to ask about what steps the school will take in light of what came up during the Globe and Athletic's investigation. I can also ask Bob Hohler if there will be any follow-up.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                    not posting (unless unduly provoked)

                    It turns out that the most unduly provocative post on this threadbare thread this year was the first one, where some bozo said that Harvard would outperform whatever its pre-season pick in the conference would be (8). Well, I’ve come back to turn myself in.

                    In celebrating the physical and emotional stamina of last year’s team, playing under the tabloid spotlights, I was too quick to assume that surviving that onslaught would result in an energized core, ready to play some kick-*** underdog hockey. Instead, the results seem to point to a collective PTSD-like funk that crippled any hope of moving forward. In the defensive zone the team played non-stop PK, even at full strength, as if shot-blocking were an end in itself; in the neutral zone they played hot potato, instantly throwing the puck in the general direction of a friendly jersey, whatever the distance; in the offensive zone . . . . . well, there was so little real time spent there that it’s hard to say what the issues might have been. In a word: no confidence.

                    Bellamy stepped into the hardest role in women’s hockey right now, and rookie coaches maybe deserve a critical pass in the best of times. Nonetheless it was hard to see an ex-UMD assistant presiding over such wretched special teams. She also took to platooning goalies later in the season, which no doubt rested the ever defenseless junior captain Pellicci (her senior co-captain chose to lead from the box), but also led to starting her in goal for the inevitable February loss to Clarkson rather than having her start the rematch against a St. Lawrence team she had shut out with 52 saves earlier in the season. Very puzzling. (Davidson, a budding Pellicci, took the 4-2 loss that night with 36 saves.) Pellicci is our prime asset. She has to be treated well and used wisely.

                    If not now, when? This was the season to move beyond business-as-usual and go for some on-air candor, but we had to wait for the last game and a Q guy to say that Harvard “couldn’t hit the barn.” (A lot of people under the age of forty-five, say, don’t really know familiar expressions but they get the drift.) He also used the name “Stone” and the word “controversy” in the same sentence, only once and fleetingly, but there it was! How about some of our local guys addressing our barn problems with some talk about discipline, schemes, line play, shot selection, etc., and maybe even occasionally nod to the Stone controversy as something that has a half-life of more than six months? I realize there’s a payroll involved, but as the women’s collegiate game is wending its way toward becoming quasi semi-pro, let’s get real about what's going on, on-ice and off.* You can be honest without being nasty. Calling Tony Romo!



                    * The PR print guys, of course, are in a league of their own, with some game recaps that lean toward self-parody. For example this, from the first game against Q (L, 1-7):

                    The Crimson controlled the face-offs in period one . . . Despite the effort the Bobcats escaped the period with a 4-0 lead. ——-- Oh, those crafty Bobcat escape artists!



                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                      It turns out that the most unduly provocative post on this threadbare thread this year was the first one, where some bozo said that Harvard would outperform whatever its pre-season pick in the conference would be (8). Well, I’ve come back to turn myself in.
                      Don't be too hard on yourself. You were just being overly optimistic and sometimes, that's a good thing.


                      Bellamy stepped into the hardest role in women’s hockey right now, and rookie coaches maybe deserve a critical pass in the best of times. Nonetheless it was hard to see an ex-UMD assistant presiding over such wretched special teams. She also took to platooning goalies later in the season, which no doubt rested the ever defenseless junior captain Pellicci (her senior co-captain chose to lead from the box), but also led to starting her in goal for the inevitable February loss to Clarkson rather than having her start the rematch against a St. Lawrence team she had shut out with 52 saves earlier in the season. Very puzzling. (Davidson, a budding Pellicci, took the 4-2 loss that night with 36 saves.) Pellicci is our prime asset. She has to be treated well and used wisely.
                      As you say, Bellamy stepped into a very tough situation. That said, coming from a national program like UMD, one expected she would have more of an effect on the team with a new system and philosophy. The results say otherwise. It may take her several years of A-level recruiting and buy-in to turn the program around. Brown and Dartmouth are still swimming in the muck after many years and coaching changes so I'm not overly optimistic.


                      * The PR print guys, of course, are in a league of their own, with some game recaps that lean toward self-parody. For example this, from the first game against Q (L, 1-7):

                      The Crimson controlled the face-offs in period one . . . Despite the effort, the Bobcats escaped the period with a 4-0 lead. ——-- Oh, those crafty Bobcat escape artists!
                      I too laughed at the game recaps and how they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to say something good about the Crimson. They would be more credible if they just reported on what happened, no matter how gruesome.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X