blackwidow

Edit

Sorry for starting trouble.

scoop85
blackwidow (and to a lesser extent, bearlover) is giving Trotsky a run for his money in the assholery department.

Don't threaten me.

scoop85
blackwidow (and to a lesser extent, bearlover) is giving Trotsky a run for his money in the assholery department.

Having deep concern for and thinking about what's best for Cornell hockey should not be considered being an asshole...

Judge a man by the foes he's made.

billhoward
Judge a man by the foes he's made.

I thought we were all friends here united in the common goal of making Cornell hockey great for the first time since the start of Mike Schafer's tenure.

#ignore

We've seen this movie before. The troll will go away if it doesn't get attention.

Trotsky
#ignore

We've seen this movie before. The troll will go away if it doesn't get attention.

Just saying 25+ years should've been enough for the team to random walk its way to the NCAA. Whats up with this forum being bent over backwards?

Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

maybe if the playing field was level they would have won one.. or Covid hadnt happened.

I would say more frozen four appearances would be a fair expectation

blackwidow

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when? We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history. That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite. A couple recruiting mishaps might mean you lose a season or two you hoped to do better in. And even if things do click, which is by no means guaranteed, there are another 11 teams in the ECAC, and 50+ in the NCAAs, for whom it might click even better that year.

Or, you know, Covid might come along and fuck us in the ass.

I mean, lets be real. It is understandable now that they arent winning much because way more colleges take college hockey seriously and given the structural disadvantages and comparatively limited resources at cornell, it's tough to recruit guys and whatnot. But, no ecac title since 2010 is kind of unacceptable.

French Rage

blackwidow

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when? We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history. That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite. A couple recruiting mishaps might mean you lose a season or two you hoped to do better in. And even if things do click, which is by no means guaranteed, there are another 11 teams in the ECAC, and 50+ in the NCAAs, for whom it might click even better that year.

Or, you know, Covid might come along and fuck us in the ass.

All the boot licking for mike schafer on this forum is over the top. He may very well be the best coach cornell mens team can ever find or whatever but he certainly has never performed any miracles over his lenghty tenure. Has he done a decent job given his limited resources and the awkward position cornell finds itself in? Maybe. Cornell's perennial in the mix. But, we never went far enough and actually won something meaningful in the past two decades

there is only X amount a coach can do at any given school. you can recruit every perfect kid that would be great. That doesnt mean they will come, and that doesnt mean they can get accepted..

Its not just the lack of scholies that hurts. Location, cost, type of school, degrees offered. It all adds up.

upprdeck
there is only X amount a coach can do at any given school. you can recruit every perfect kid that would be great. That doesnt mean they will come, and that doesnt mean they can get accepted..

Its not just the lack of scholies that hurts. Location, cost, type of school, degrees offered. It all adds up.

Yeah, i acknowledge that coaching at cornell is not a walk in the park. Recruiting def is a challenge because it lacks the brand power of Harvard (im sure everyone is aware of the Alex Killorn recruitment saga?) and also the NHL pipeline like UMich.

But look at the numbers of alums of hockey programs in the ecac that are currently playing in the NHL or on NHL level contracts... cornell's at an all time low. Even Brown has like 4-5 players in the NHL, i think.

I’m amazed you guys started a thread on one guy. I don’t agree with all his points, but blackwidow isn’t far off on his thinking. We are all on the same team here. We can all make excuses why or why not we haven’t made it to the summit (thanks UNH ref, thanks fauci), but we are all rooting for the same outcome.

blackwidow

French Rage

blackwidow

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when? We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history. That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite. A couple recruiting mishaps might mean you lose a season or two you hoped to do better in. And even if things do click, which is by no means guaranteed, there are another 11 teams in the ECAC, and 50+ in the NCAAs, for whom it might click even better that year.

Or, you know, Covid might come along and fuck us in the ass.

All the boot licking for mike schafer on this forum is over the top. He may very well be the best coach cornell mens team can ever find or whatever but he certainly has never performed any miracles over his lenghty tenure. Has he done a decent job given his limited resources and the awkward position cornell finds itself in? Maybe. Cornell's perennial in the mix. But, we never went far enough and actually won something meaningful in the past two decades

The best part is how this doesn't address any actual point I made.

French Rage

blackwidow

French Rage

blackwidow

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when? We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history. That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite. A couple recruiting mishaps might mean you lose a season or two you hoped to do better in. And even if things do click, which is by no means guaranteed, there are another 11 teams in the ECAC, and 50+ in the NCAAs, for whom it might click even better that year.

Or, you know, Covid might come along and fuck us in the ass.

All the boot licking for mike schafer on this forum is over the top. He may very well be the best coach cornell mens team can ever find or whatever but he certainly has never performed any miracles over his lenghty tenure. Has he done a decent job given his limited resources and the awkward position cornell finds itself in? Maybe. Cornell's perennial in the mix. But, we never went far enough and actually won something meaningful in the past two decades

The best part is how this doesn't address any actual point I made.

My apologies for quoting your post but made more of a blanket statement regarding the view the majority of the people on this forum seem to hold.

So, you did accept that during the Schafer era, Cornell was often considered one of the top teams in the ECAC. So, there were many years where we were considered either the heavy favorites or deemed good enough to go after some hardware at least within the ECAC. Cornell did win the ECAC championship 5 times under Schafer's management but No ECAC title since 2010. I would look at this as a very disappointing result. We often fail to win the hardware when we were considered the heavy favorites + we never seem to pull off mild upset victories in tournaments. Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "a couple of recruiting mishaps"? Are you referring to some recruits that the coaching staff thought were promising but turned out to be busts or are you referring to the recruits that originally committed to Cornell but decided to go elsewhere or forego college altogether (Mark Scheifele)? Isn't it the responsibility of the coaching staff to minimize the chances of such mishaps happening? I do not believe the responsibility solely lies with the coaching staff. Cornell is in an awkward position in terms of recruiting talents and I sympathize with the coaching staff on this. As an alum, I am trying to figure out if there's anything we can do to help (financial assistance, some PR campaigns to make Cornell men's hockey appear more attractive to future talents, etc).


Plus, Schafer has managed 2 consecutive wins in the NCAA tournament only once (2003) in the 26 seasons he's had at Cornell. Despite the relative lack of rigor of the EZAC in the context of other D1 hockey leagues, for a team that often gets ranked pretty high to manage only one win in the NCAA tourney every few years, I would say, is a disappointing result.

PS: in the early to mid 2010s, I think we were getting some USNTDP graduates, but that seems to have almost completely dried up. I know the USNTDP graduates that came to Cornell didn't really have the best of hockey careers for one reason or another, including some unfortunate injuries. I believe Cole Bardreau's has been the best out of the group. Additionally, there have been several 3rd round draft picks in recent years that, some may say, did not quite meet the expectations (Starrett, Cairns, etc). These are the data points where I start wondering if there's some player development history within Cornell men's hockey that college hockey prospects and their agents look at and think of as red flags.

toddlose
I’m amazed you guys started a thread on one guy. I don’t agree with all his points, but blackwidow isn’t far off on his thinking. We are all on the same team here. We can all make excuses why or why not we haven’t made it to the summit (thanks UNH ref, thanks fauci), but we are all rooting for the same outcome.

I would not have given him a thread as "that which is subsidized increases," (and indeed it was a mistake in the first place that it went public so maybe Age will nuke the whole thing as a mercy killing) but my impression is he didn't earn it with his opinions but his manner.

After all, I was the other person cited in OP, and I'm obnoxious and disliked did you know that? I make valid points too -- eat the rich with a nice chianti -- but I make them in an overtly off-putting tone which is the despair of my friends if I had any.

That's the point of the thread. It's supposed to shame blackwidow into stop treating this forum like whatever half-assed honk hate chamber he crawled out of, and start treating others here with Gentleness and Kindness.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a frat date rape joke to make.

I hadn’t realized until now that I was mentioned in the initial post. I don’t really care, honestly. I’m a more pessimistic person than many on here, and I tend to disagree with the ELynah hivemind, but I try to support my arguments with facts and data. Anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on this site is usually quickly chased off the forum, but personally I don’t mind the pushback. And you can say whatever you want about my ELynah-minority views, but at least I haven’t made fifteen jokes about lacrosse players being rapists like another poster here.

I would just like to add our lacrosse players from the working class are among the finest people at the university and their sexual proclivities are consensual. I thank them for their service.

Trotsky
I would just like to add our lacrosse players from the working class are among the finest people at the university and their sexual proclivities are consensual. I thank them for their service.

How do you know this? Is it from hearsay, or is it from first-hand experience?

Swampy

Trotsky
I would just like to add our lacrosse players from the working class are among the finest people at the university and their sexual proclivities are consensual. I thank them for their service.

How do you know this? Is it from hearsay, or is it from first-hand experience?

Surely you are not impeaching their honor? Why that could only be from prejudice. Good day, sir!

Swampy

Trotsky
I would just like to add our lacrosse players from the working class are among the finest people at the university and their sexual proclivities are consensual. I thank them for their service.

How do you know this? Is it from hearsay, or is it from first-hand experience?

Trotsky is getting consensually serviced by lacrosse players but only with hands. This is certainly a weird thread, even for eLynah.

I better not ask if it is the men's or women's team or if Dr. Mrs. knows about this.

ursusminor

Swampy

Trotsky
I would just like to add our lacrosse players from the working class are among the finest people at the university and their sexual proclivities are consensual. I thank them for their service.

How do you know this? Is it from hearsay, or is it from first-hand experience?

Trotsky is getting consensually serviced by lacrosse players but only with hands.

If only. Those hands must be so soft from never working a day in their lives.

Whoever took their SATs for them must be calloused as hell, though.

Bearlover actually adds a lot of value and makes some good points. Trotsky just isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. Black widow probably just enjoys being a troll.

CU2007
Trotsky just isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

Can confirm.

blackwidow
PS: in the early to mid 2010s, I think we were getting some USNTDP graduates, but that seems to have almost completely dried up. I know the USNTDP graduates that came to Cornell didn't really have the best of hockey careers for one reason or another, including some unfortunate injuries. I believe Cole Bardreau's has been the best out of the group. Additionally, there have been several 3rd round draft picks in recent years that, some may say, did not quite meet the expectations (Starrett, Cairns, etc). These are the data points where I start wondering if there's some player development history within Cornell men's hockey that college hockey prospects and their agents look at and think of as red flags.

To address only this one point: Recruiting tends to be strongest from the organizations with which a school's assistant coaches have the strongest relationships. We've seen that wax and wane with various juniors leagues and high school regions over Schafer's tenure as Casey, Brent, Derek, Topher, et al. have come and gone. Remember our seemingly permanent Nanaimo pipeline? What do we have on the roster now, one former Clipper? I can't say for certain that this is what happened to whatever USNTDP connection we had, but it's a reasonable theory.

Beeeej
Remember our seemingly permanent Nanaimo pipeline? What do we have on the roster now, one former Clipper?

The pipeline has to be open on both ends; maybe personnel changed out in Nanaimo.

Trotsky

Beeeej
Remember our seemingly permanent Nanaimo pipeline? What do we have on the roster now, one former Clipper?

The pipeline has to be open on both ends; maybe personnel changed out in Nanaimo.

Right, and maybe personnel changed out in the Development program. Then factor in other D1 teams that might notice a bunch of strong recruits coming from somewhere in particular and try to get in on it. Anyway, the point is, things like this change and it's not more likely to be because of anything like neglect than because of inherent cycles.

And the numbers are so small one or two close decisions that go the other way seem seismic.

I did not expect this thread to become interesting.

Beeeej

Trotsky

Beeeej
Remember our seemingly permanent Nanaimo pipeline? What do we have on the roster now, one former Clipper?

The pipeline has to be open on both ends; maybe personnel changed out in Nanaimo.

Right, and maybe personnel changed out in the Development program. Then factor in other D1 teams that might notice a bunch of strong recruits coming from somewhere in particular and try to get in on it. Anyway, the point is, things like this change and it's not more likely to be because of anything like neglect than because of inherent cycles.

Cornell is probably struggling to recruit top guys in general for various reasons. I came across this tweet if anyone finds interesting.

Cooley, Snuggerud & Chesley headline the top recruiting class (@GopherHockey) heading into the 22-23 season. @UNDmhockey @UMDMensHockey @umichhockey and @TerrierHockey round out the top-5 #CollegeHockey #NCAAHockey #NCAA #NCHC #HockeyEast #BigTen pic.twitter.com/HQ4z5rS59D

— Evan Pace (@evanpace17) July 2, 2022

?t=bQNF5IJ5nppFCFGm-F4J_g&s=19

What was the source of the rankings?

Trotsky
What was the source of the rankings?

Evan Pace is a rising senior at UConn which probably means it is far from accurate and may also explain the poor ranking of QU at #42, not that I would mind that.

ursusminor

Trotsky
What was the source of the rankings?

Evan Pace is a rising senior at UConn which probably means it is far from accurate and may also explain the poor ranking of QU at #42, not that I would mind that.

I give a rating for each player based on their 21-22 performance / draft status. Then I give a multiplier based on their league (i.e. USHL > NAHL). And lastly I factor in the highest rated players more. So quantity can help in some cases, but Quality > Quantity for the most part!

— Evan Pace (@evanpace17) July 2, 2022

?t=7Z2lgG2avgdkvkPnZPsp0A&s=19

I asked to share the exact weighting methodology but he wasnt responsive.

I would not put much/any stock in this random guy’s rankings. With that said, Cornell certainly has not been knocking it out of the park in recruiting. They have been recruiting like an above average team, not a team that made four straight NCAA tournaments and two 1-seeds between 2017 and 2020.

Cornell is likely to have 2 (& maybe 3) recruits selected in this weekend’s NHL draft. This year’s class includes the third leading scorer in the BCHL (pts/game), the MVP of the OJHL, & a transfer who has had 2 productive college seasons. I’m excited about the players in the pipeline.

CAS
Cornell is likely to have 2 (& maybe 3) recruits selected in this weekend’s NHL draft. This year’s class includes the third leading scorer in the BCHL (pts/game), the MVP of the OJHL, & a transfer who has had 2 productive college seasons. I’m excited about the players in the pipeline.

I think we have a nice group coming in this year, and our overall roster will be strong. We should see balanced scoring up and down the lineup, and there's no reason we shouldn't compete for the top of the ECAC's and be competitive nationally.

We should have a solid roster and be a top-four ECAC team. I just would have liked to see more of an uptick in recruiting from our recent success. Harvard and Quinnipiac are going to have rosters that are quite a bit better on paper. Harvard, because their recruiting is in a different stratosphere than the rest of the ECAC. Quinnipiac, because they have a ton of returning fifth-year seniors and are taking full advantage of the transfer portal and have one of the best goalies in the country. I would have hoped that being one of the top programs in the country in 2017-20 we would have attracted higher-end recruits. Maybe it has, but we are at least a few years away from them getting here.

BearLover
We should have a solid roster and be a top-four ECAC team. I just would have liked to see more of an uptick in recruiting from our recent success. Harvard and Quinnipiac are going to have rosters that are quite a bit better on paper. Harvard, because their recruiting is in a different stratosphere than the rest of the ECAC. Quinnipiac, because they have a ton of returning fifth-year seniors and are taking full advantage of the transfer portal and have one of the best goalies in the country. I would have hoped that being one of the top programs in the country in 2017-20 we would have attracted higher-end recruits. Maybe it has, but we are at least a few years away from them getting here.

I know im being unrealistic but i wish we could recruit players of the same calibre as those of Harvard.

we can recruit them. Can we get them into the school though.

BearLover
We should have a solid roster and be a top-four ECAC team. I just would have liked to see more of an uptick in recruiting from our recent success. Harvard and Quinnipiac are going to have rosters that are quite a bit better on paper. Harvard, because their recruiting is in a different stratosphere than the rest of the ECAC. Quinnipiac, because they have a ton of returning fifth-year seniors and are taking full advantage of the transfer portal and have one of the best goalies in the country. I would have hoped that being one of the top programs in the country in 2017-20 we would have attracted higher-end recruits. Maybe it has, but we are at least a few years away from them getting here.

Since it took Teddy 13 years of "different stratosphere" recruiting and draft-heavy rosters to get past an NCAA first round game, and our record against them in the past five years is something like 5-1-2, I'm not really inclined to sweat his new roster any more than his old ones. Would I like Cornell to have as many recent ECAC titles as Harvard has? Oh, totally.

upprdeck
we can recruit them. Can we get them into the school though.

it is not easier for harvard to slip players past admissions than it is for cornell and even if you can show me an exception it's silly to pretend otherwise. harvard's academic index has a higher baseline than cornell's does.

yeah because getting into a school is the same for everyone that applies.

upprdeck
yeah because getting into a school is the same for everyone that applies.

you are inventing the premise that harvard has an easier time getting players in than we do, and it is based on...?

ugarte

upprdeck
yeah because getting into a school is the same for everyone that applies.

you are inventing the premise that harvard has an easier time getting players in than we do, and it is based on...?

He was probably joking

maybe you should go talk to players.

French Rage

blackwidow

Robb
Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it’s a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off “by chance.”

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when? We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history. That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite.

At the risk of entering a discussion that never should have happened, the relevant point in time for "started out" in the context of Schafer is presumably 1995. I don't think anyone considered Cornell to be the best hockey school in the ECAC in 1995...

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

osorojo
I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):

1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

BearLover

osorojo
I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

billhoward

BearLover

osorojo
I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

Scholarship schools have 18 scholarships per roster to assign in full or in part to their players. That leaves some/many players on a roster without a full scholarship.

At Ivies, athletes from low-income families can play for cheap or for free, but many hockey players come from families who earn more than $75K. For these players, they may be faced with a choice of whether to play for free at a scholarship school, or pay substantial tuition to attend Cornell, or pay less tuition to play at a school with great financial aid like Harvard.

From the above we can see why Cornell is at a significant recruiting disadvantage compared to other hockey programs when it comes to cost of attendance. Cornell recruits decently well despite this, likely due to the other factors listed above. If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this:

A+: Harvard
B: Cornell, Clarkson
B-: Quinnipiac [Q makes up for relatively weak recruiting by heavily leveraging the transfer portal]
C+: Yale, Union
C- or below: everyone else

Compared to the rest of college hockey, Cornell is probably around the 65th percentile in recruiting.

BearLover

billhoward

BearLover

osorojo
I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

Scholarship schools have 18 scholarships per roster to assign in full or in part to their players. That leaves some/many players on a roster without a full scholarship.

At Ivies, athletes from low-income families can play for cheap or for free, but many hockey players come from families who earn more than $75K. For these players, they may be faced with a choice of whether to play for free at a scholarship school, or pay substantial tuition to attend Cornell, or pay less tuition to play at a school with great financial aid like Harvard.

From the above we can see why Cornell is at a significant recruiting disadvantage compared to other hockey programs when it comes to cost of attendance. Cornell recruits decently well despite this, likely due to the other factors listed above. If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this:

A+: Harvard
B: Cornell, Clarkson
B-: Quinnipiac [Q makes up for relatively weak recruiting by heavily leveraging the transfer portal]
C+: Yale, Union
C- or below: everyone else

Compared to the rest of college hockey, Cornell is probably around the 65th percentile in recruiting.

Related: Princeton just announced that students will pay nothing if their families make up to $100,000. Harvard and Yale are at $75,000 for free attendance.

BearLover
If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this

Src?