ELynah Forum

Time for a new thread. I'm bullish on the guys we have in the pipeline. These are the players who could come in 2026-27.
1. Pelletier—good year in the USHL this season, will look to dominate next season. Hopefully will play on the first line/PP. Could have come this year but another year of juniors first is even better assuming he eventually matriculates.
2. Sandruck—physical checking forward who is Pelletier's teammate on Lincoln. I'll be watching to see if he has more of an offensive role next season.
3. Tuminaro—big defenseman who was injured all of last season. He was on NHL central scouting lists but never got a chance to prove himself. While he probably won't be drafted because of it, he has a chance to break out next season and get drafted as an overager.
4. Dec—extremely high scoring forward for St. Andrews, should play in the OHL next year. Smaller guy who seems very skilled.
5. Major—Charlie's brother, who is hopefully on a similar development path. Like Charlie, Henry didn't put up many points as a forward in his first year with the Chicago Steel, but if all goes according to plan he will break out next season like Charlie did.
6. Marmulak—forward who was named rookie of the year this season on his QMJHL team.
7. Wehmann—Fisher's and Ryan's teammate on the Penticton Vees this season. He had solid numbers as a middle six forward and will likely have a bigger role next season against better competition: the Vees are moving from the BCHL to WHL.

Then we have a bunch of recruits who haven't played much/any junior hockey yet but look promising. I think all of them will be in the CHL or USHL next season (well, except for DiPlacido, who has another year at St. Andrews but who has already played games in the OHL on the side). These guys seem more likely to come in fall of 2027 or later.

Good breakdown, thank you.

Quote from: TrotskyGood breakdown, thank you.

Ditto

I wonder if any were committed pre-coaching switch

Quote from: underskillI wonder if any were committed pre-coaching switch

If you check Chris Heisenberg's spreadsheet, it lists when players committed. Casey was announced as the new head coach in June 2024.

Harvard picked up their first commitment from the CHL, Alex Huang of the QMJHL, '06 defenseman ranked #77 by NHL Central Scouting for this year's draft.

Quote from: BearLoverHarvard picked up their first commitment from the CHL, Alex Huang of the QMJHL, '06 defenseman ranked #77 by NHL Central Scouting for this year's draft.

Unless of course the Trump administration is able to follow through with not allowing foreign students to attend Harvard.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLoverHarvard picked up their first commitment from the CHL, Alex Huang of the QMJHL, '06 defenseman ranked #77 by NHL Central Scouting for this year's draft.

Unless of course the Trump administration is able to follow through with not allowing foreign students to attend Harvard.

That could eventually impact all colleges-doubt he will stop at Harvard

Quote from: fastforward

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLoverHarvard picked up their first commitment from the CHL, Alex Huang of the QMJHL, '06 defenseman ranked #77 by NHL Central Scouting for this year's draft.

Unless of course the Trump administration is able to follow through with not allowing foreign students to attend Harvard.

That could eventually impact all colleges-doubt he will stop at Harvard

i'm crying and throwing up

Henri Ament to the WHL

https://chl.ca/whl-silvertips/article/henri-ament-signs-whl-scholarship-and-development-agreement-with-silvertips/

Now we should have a recruit in each CHL league next year, with Marmulak in the Q and Dec in the OHL. On Dec, I am very excited to see what he can do this season. He had good production with St. Andrews and was a point a game in a small OHL sample size.

Edit: Whoops didn't realize Penticton had jumped to the WHL so I guess we already had Louis Wehmann in the league.

Alexis Cournoyer goes to Montreal in the fifth round, 145 overall.

Quote from: chimpfoodAlexis Cournoyer goes to Montreal in the fifth round, 145 overall.

AHHHHHH

Quote from: chimpfoodAlexis Cournoyer goes to Montreal in the fifth round, 145 overall.

I believe he's our 1st drafted goalie since Leneveu

DiGiulian didn't get drafted though, right?

Quote from: stereaxDiGiulian didn't get drafted though, right?

Correct. In all likelihood, he is deeply disappointed not to have had his name called during the draft. Nevertheless, he will have more control over his post-college employment opportunities as an undrafted free agent.

Incentive to play his absolute best.

They all always have that anyway.  Nobody in D1 is dogging it based on their draft status.  They need to prove to coach they deserve premium minutes, to their draft team they are developing, and they'd never have reached this level without the neurotic thirst to achieve it takes decades of therapy to unkink.

Oh... great... (https://x.com/PuckPedia/status/1943343460096053580?t=ju99G3BwVfa0TNEB4DLPuA&s=19)

The new CBA changes the time teams have drafted players' rights before signing them (4 years for drafted at 18, 3 years drafted at 19, etc).

These changes are expected to be effective starting with the 2027 draft class. Players drafted prior to 2027 will be subject to the existing rules/timelines

Quote from: stereaxOh... great... (https://x.com/PuckPedia/status/1943343460096053580?t=ju99G3BwVfa0TNEB4DLPuA&s=19)

The new CBA changes the time teams have drafted players' rights before signing them (4 years for drafted at 18, 3 years drafted at 19, etc).

These changes are expected to be effective starting with the 2027 draft class. Players drafted prior to 2027 will be subject to the existing rules/timelines

There was talk that there may be an exception if a player is in college, in which case their rights would expire X days after graduating. Did that end up not making it into the CBA?

This change seems to hurt most the teams with a lot of good but not great draft picks (guys who might want to stay 3 or 4 years). It also means college teams should rush drafted players to college whether they're ready or not.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: stereaxOh... great... (https://x.com/PuckPedia/status/1943343460096053580?t=ju99G3BwVfa0TNEB4DLPuA&s=19)

The new CBA changes the time teams have drafted players' rights before signing them (4 years for drafted at 18, 3 years drafted at 19, etc).

These changes are expected to be effective starting with the 2027 draft class. Players drafted prior to 2027 will be subject to the existing rules/timelines

There was talk that there may be an exception if a player is in college, in which case their rights would expire X days after graduating. Did that end up not making it into the CBA?

This change seems to hurt most the teams with a lot of good but not great draft picks (guys who might want to stay 3 or 4 years). It also means college teams should rush drafted players to college whether they're ready or not.

If they're "not ready" for college, what is the benefit of rushing them to come in? I'd rather have a guy who's "ready" even if it's for only 2 or 3 years.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: stereaxOh... great... (https://x.com/PuckPedia/status/1943343460096053580?t=ju99G3BwVfa0TNEB4DLPuA&s=19)

The new CBA changes the time teams have drafted players' rights before signing them (4 years for drafted at 18, 3 years drafted at 19, etc).

These changes are expected to be effective starting with the 2027 draft class. Players drafted prior to 2027 will be subject to the existing rules/timelines

There was talk that there may be an exception if a player is in college, in which case their rights would expire X days after graduating. Did that end up not making it into the CBA?

This change seems to hurt most the teams with a lot of good but not great draft picks (guys who might want to stay 3 or 4 years). It also means college teams should rush drafted players to college whether they're ready or not.

If they're "not ready" for college, what is the benefit of rushing them to come in? I'd rather have a guy who's "ready" even if it's for only 2 or 3 years.

Fair enough—I think though that it's rarely black and white, and if a player is anywhere close to being able to make the lineup (probably true of most draft picks) they'll be brought in immediately event if a year of juniors would be better for their growth.

Ok so as per this (https://x.com/PuckReportNHL/status/1943804643244421281?t=7M5zWyieuU212JpCdMX6nQ&s=19) what I understood is true:

Draft rights: starting in 2027 draft

• age 18, rights expire on the fourth June 1 afterward.

• 19 or older, rights expire on the third June 1 afterward.

• if NCAA, rights expire following the 30th day after Central Registry is informed the player is leaving college hockey

Quote from: stereaxOk so as per this (https://x.com/PuckReportNHL/status/1943804643244421281?t=7M5zWyieuU212JpCdMX6nQ&s=19) what I understood is true:

Draft rights: starting in 2027 draft

• age 18, rights expire on the fourth June 1 afterward.

• 19 or older, rights expire on the third June 1 afterward.

• if NCAA, rights expire following the 30th day after Central Registry is informed the player is leaving college hockey

So the exception I was referring to above made it into the CBA after all. I.e. I don't think the new rule changes much of anything for college hockey.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: stereaxOk so as per this (https://x.com/PuckReportNHL/status/1943804643244421281?t=7M5zWyieuU212JpCdMX6nQ&s=19) what I understood is true:

Draft rights: starting in 2027 draft

• age 18, rights expire on the fourth June 1 afterward.

• 19 or older, rights expire on the third June 1 afterward.

• if NCAA, rights expire following the 30th day after Central Registry is informed the player is leaving college hockey

So the exception I was referring to above made it into the CBA after all. I.e. I don't think the new rule changes much of anything for college hockey.

changes nothing - except I think it used to be Aug. 1 now says "30 days" - and I also don't know what it means to inform anyone they're leaving college hockey if they're a senior.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: stereaxOk so as per this (https://x.com/PuckReportNHL/status/1943804643244421281?t=7M5zWyieuU212JpCdMX6nQ&s=19) what I understood is true:

Draft rights: starting in 2027 draft

• age 18, rights expire on the fourth June 1 afterward.

• 19 or older, rights expire on the third June 1 afterward.

• if NCAA, rights expire following the 30th day after Central Registry is informed the player is leaving college hockey

So the exception I was referring to above made it into the CBA after all. I.e. I don't think the new rule changes much of anything for college hockey.

changes nothing - except I think it used to be Aug. 1 now says "30 days" - and I also don't know what it means to inform anyone they're leaving college hockey if they're a senior.

Perhaps that is written if a player leaves before graduating.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: stereaxOk so as per this (https://x.com/PuckReportNHL/status/1943804643244421281?t=7M5zWyieuU212JpCdMX6nQ&s=19) what I understood is true:

Draft rights: starting in 2027 draft

• age 18, rights expire on the fourth June 1 afterward.

• 19 or older, rights expire on the third June 1 afterward.

• if NCAA, rights expire following the 30th day after Central Registry is informed the player is leaving college hockey

So the exception I was referring to above made it into the CBA after all. I.e. I don't think the new rule changes much of anything for college hockey.

changes nothing - except I think it used to be Aug. 1 now says "30 days" - and I also don't know what it means to inform anyone they're leaving college hockey if they're a senior.

Perhaps that is written if a player leaves before graduating.

or if they graduate but have eligibility remaining

Fwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

Cornell - 7
Harvard - 6
Colgate - 3
Clarkson, QU - 2
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

Quote from: ithacatFwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

Cornell - 7
Harvard - 6
Colgate - 3
Clarkson, QU - 2
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

Quinnipiac's and Clarkson's numbers are low because their strategy, at least for next season, was to load up on CHL overagers who could immediately come to college the following season. So these teams are recruiting heavily from the CHL, but less so younger players who are still a few years away from matriculating. Clarkson had a bunch of decommitments from the coaching change so I can give them a pass, but Q's strategy seems to have been to kick most of their longtime recruits to the curb (either tell them they no longer have a roster spot, or send them back to juniors for another year) in favor of bringing in 7 CHL overagers. These kids were likely lined up to come to Q this summer until the CHL players became eligible, and a few months later those kids were told to kick rocks. Quinnipiac is surely not the only team doing this, but they're probably the only team in the ECAC doing this.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: ithacatFwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

Cornell - 7
Harvard - 6
Colgate - 3
Clarkson, QU - 2
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

Quinnipiac's and Clarkson's numbers are low because their strategy, at least for next season, was to load up on CHL overagers who could immediately come to college the following season. So these teams are recruiting heavily from the CHL, but less so younger players who are still a few years away from matriculating. Clarkson had a bunch of decommitments from the coaching change so I can give them a pass, but Q's strategy seems to have been to kick most of their longtime recruits to the curb (either tell them they no longer have a roster spot, or send them back to juniors for another year) in favor of bringing in 7 CHL overagers. These kids were likely lined up to come to Q this summer until the CHL players became eligible, and a few months later those kids were told to kick rocks. Quinnipiac is surely not the only team doing this, but they're probably the only team in the ECAC doing this.

RPI's Jack Ziliotto left Trail (BCHL) for Sudbury (OHL) and played 28 regular season games (5 goals, 9 assists) and 4 more in the playoffs there. I wrote Chris about this, and he stated that he was not going to make the change. I will write to him again since there are a lot of changes (e.g., Klassek and Lemieux will be in Troy).

I also expect Chemrouk to play for Victoria (QMJHL) and Dwyer for Baie-Comeau (QMJHL) where they were after Stanstead's season ended. Neither got much ice time in the Q.

Quote from: ithacatFwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

Cornell - 7
Harvard - 6
Colgate - 3
Clarkson, QU - 2
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

But I was told Cornell was going to have problems recruiting from the CHL...

Genuine question tho, can you break it down by league? It feels like most of our recruits stem from the Q, would be interested to know if other ECAC teams are pulling from the O and W or if we're all mostly dealing with the closest league.

Quote from: stereax

Quote from: ithacatFwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

Cornell - 7
Harvard - 6
Colgate - 3
Clarkson, QU - 2
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

But I was told Cornell was going to have problems recruiting from the CHL...

I wasn't one of the people who said that. But for what it's worth, most of these kids were recruited prior to going to the CHL. They then went to the CHL where before they would have gone to the BCHL or USHL.

Quote from: stereax

Quote from: ithacatFwiw, Heisenberg's list for 2026 & beyond, with updated teams, shows the following number of recruits planning to play in the CHL this season:

(Q/O/W)
Cornell - 7 (3-2-2)
Harvard - 6 (2-3-1)
Colgate - 3 (0-2-1)
Clarkson, QU - 2 (1-1-0) (0-1-1)
Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale - 1 (Q), (W), (W)
Brown, RPI, SLU, Union - 0

But I was told Cornell was going to have problems recruiting from the CHL...

Genuine question tho, can you break it down by league? It feels like most of our recruits stem from the Q, would be interested to know if other ECAC teams are pulling from the O and W or if we're all mostly dealing with the closest league.

Updated. I don't know if there's any discussion around changing the territorial rights for the CHL.

Quote from: BearLoverQ's strategy seems to have been to kick most of their longtime recruits to the curb (either tell them they no longer have a roster spot, or send them back to juniors for another year) in favor of bringing in 7 CHL overagers. These kids were likely lined up to come to Q this summer until the CHL players became eligible, and a few months later those kids were told to kick rocks. Quinnipiac is surely not the only team doing this, but they're probably the only team in the ECAC doing this.

Hopefully it damages Pecknold's reputation for future recruiting.

New forward recruit, Declan Wotton, a 6'1 200 lb 16 year old from Maine. Drafted by Fargo of the USHL and Baie-Comeau Drakkar of the QMJHL
 
https://www.instagram.com/p/DM0sDt5gdc8/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Quote from: scoop85New forward recruit, Declan Wotton, a 6'1 200 lb 16 year old from Maine. Drafted by Fargo of the USHL and Baie-Comeau Drakkar of the QMJHL
 
https://www.instagram.com/p/DM0sDt5gdc8/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Looks good judging by Neutral Zone reviews although only 3.75 *'s.

A little disconcerting to me that Cornell is working on the supposedly 2027-entering class while RPI still needs two for this fall after two recent decommits. (One there is a rumor about.)

Quote from: ursusminorA little disconcerting to me that Cornell is working on the supposedly 2027-entering class while RPI still needs two for this fall after two recent decommits. (One there is a rumor about.)

He's 16.  He might be 2030-entering.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ursusminorA little disconcerting to me that Cornell is working on the supposedly 2027-entering class while RPI still needs two for this fall after two recent decommits. (One there is a rumor about.)

He's 16.  He might be 2030-entering.

That's why I wrote "supposedly". :-)

The Cornell Big Red have received a commitment from Charlie Puglisi!

The '08 born Forward from NY had 19 points in 28 GP during the 2024-25 season for The Winchendon School.

https://x.com/CollegePuckNXT/status/1960831274937147637

Good to see a local lad (Latham) stay home.

Favorite sons fleeing to the CHL or rivals is always irritating, even though yeah get outta dodge the second you can, I feel ya.

Quote from: TrotskyGood to see a local lad (Latham) stay home.

Favorite sons fleeing to the CHL or rivals is always irritating, even though yeah get outta dodge the second you can, I feel ya.

I don't know about the "staying home" part. If he were really doing that, he'd be a Union or RPI commit as Latham is a suburb of Albany

Commits born during the Obama presidency (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html) aren't freaking me out at all.

Quote from: TrotskyCommits born during the Obama presidency (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html) aren't freaking me out at all.

People stopped being born after like, 2007. 2009??? That kid's still in diapers ::cry::

Quote from: stereaxPeople stopped being born after like, 2007

Which is odd, given all 20-year olds think they invented sex. ::banana::

Glad to see so many New York guys staying in NY and committing to Cornell!
It make us have a "homegrown" feel, at least in my opinion

A short free evaluation on Neutral Zone of Puglisi. https://neutralzone.com/2025/09/02/ncaa-commitments-aug-25-31/ He has been evaluated several other times .

Charlie Puglisi (F, R, 5'9, 152, The Winchendon School, 04/16/2008, Cornell)

Puglisi played 28 games with The Winchendon School, recording six goals and 19 points. In 2028, he will go to play at Cornell.

Puglisi was evaluated by NZ scouts at the NYSAHA Spring Selection Camp.

"Puglisi has shown some physical growth in his frame. He was displaying his stride and speed to create scoring chances. He was also showing his puck skills off the rush as he was driving wide around defenders or slipping through holes to the net for opportunities. While Puglisi was not lighting up the scoresheet, he was involved offensively consistently."

Chicago played their first game of the season today, major tallied an assist and Tuminaro was +1. Exciting that hockey is starting back up.

The Heisenberg list has a couple names I don't remember seeing before. One is Nolan Long who is playing for Saint Andrews this year. Presumably he is Aidan Long's brother because they have the same birthplace. There is also Declan Wotton who is a 16 year old (may birthday) in the Q who scored in his first game.

Quote from: chimpfoodThe Heisenberg list has a couple names I don't remember seeing before. One is Nolan Long who is playing for Saint Andrews this year. Presumably he is Aidan Long's brother because they have the same birthplace. There is also Declan Wotton who is a 16 year old (may birthday) in the Q who scored in his first game.

Nice. Wotton's on the Drakkar, which are a better team in the Q. I'll have to keep an eye out for him.

It's the very beginning of the junior hockey season, and things should clear up as we move forward, but right now the state of our recruiting seems highly uncertain.

Three main points of uncertainty:
1. I don't have a good baseline for how much our players should be scoring in the three CHL leagues. Is a point per game not as impressive as it is in the lower scoring USHL? How should we adjust expectations based on age (eg. if our recruit is 16/17/18/19)?
2. The relative strengths of the leagues has been jumbled. Has the USHL gotten worse with more players going to the CHL? Right now, I'm viewing it as largely the same. And then there are the lower junior leagues, in which we have fewer players than in past years, but I have to imagine those leagues have gotten weaker.
3. Everyone else is recruiting better, but how much better? Now that the pool of eligible players is much larger, the average quality of recruit has improved. That means ours will need to improve to keep up. How much it needs to improve, though, is a mystery. A point per game player in the USHL was almost a surefire strong recruit before—how about now? What about a point per game player in the BCHL, or a D who averages .5 PPG? A goalie with a .920 sv%?

I have started to miss Big Red Puckhead, which compiled all the stats in the same place. When everyone was in the USHL and BCHL it was simple enough to keep up, but now the recruiting is more diffuse and harder to keep tabs on.

Quote from: BearLover on October 02, 2025, 10:44:09 AM1. I don't have a good baseline for how much our players should be scoring in the three CHL leagues. Is a point per game not as impressive as it is in the lower scoring USHL? How should we adjust expectations based on age (eg. if our recruit is 16/17/18/19)?

I have always felt things change enough year to year that the only way to judge is by relative position during that year in that league.  Look at league leaders to get a feel.  Look at the mean GPG for the league.  Also try to get a feel for the dispersion -- some leagues tend to "clump" while others (e.g., the CHL) are wildly spread out.

For age, do the same but within the age pool.

And even then the coachs' eye tests are often at odds with on-ice production.  You can pick your nose but you can't pick your line mates.

There is an 18-year old Max Psenicka from Prague on the Portland Winterhawks (WHL).

At the moment the recruit who looks most promising to me is Cole Emerton. He turned 17 in March and has 4 assists in 4 games in the OHL as a defenseman. Other than Emerton, nobody is jumping off the page yet.

Michael Dec looks very exciting to me, 15 points through his first 15 OHL games, looks like he's on the first power play as well.

Quote from: chimpfood on October 06, 2025, 10:00:32 PMMichael Dec looks very exciting to me, 15 points through his first 15 OHL games, looks like he's on the first power play as well.

Dec has had a good couple of good games since I posted the above message. I think it may have inspired him.

A free article on Neutral Zone about changes which have affected college hockey's entering classes. There is a paragraph titled "Cornell". This is not the appropriate thread for it, but I didn't want to resurrect last year's recruit thread.

https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/06/a-new-era-of-ncaa-hockey/

Quote from: ursusminor on October 07, 2025, 04:36:23 AMA free article on Neutral Zone about changes which have affected college hockey's entering classes. There is a paragraph titled "Cornell". This is not the appropriate thread for it, but I didn't want to resurrect last year's recruit thread.

https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/06/a-new-era-of-ncaa-hockey/

Similarly - this fits well enough here as well. Cornell mentioned, by new RPI Coach Eric Lang.

Eric Lang Mentions Cornell (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/10/06_QA-With--RPI-Coach-Eric.php)

Quote from: ursusminor on October 07, 2025, 04:36:23 AMA free article on Neutral Zone about changes which have affected college hockey's entering classes. There is a paragraph titled "Cornell". This is not the appropriate thread for it, but I didn't want to resurrect last year's recruit thread.

https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/06/a-new-era-of-ncaa-hockey/

Interesting article. The authors pose this question at the end: "Are the CHL players staying for the full-season or are some leaving at Christmas break?" which is something I've been curious about too. Sure it seems like a good idea to go get NIL money and play hockey at a well known brand school- but you might actually have to go to school. Some players might not like playing 50 less games a season in front of empty arenas. It could be one or two seasons before we see a slowdown of CHL players- or maybe they like it better and it only increases.

Quote from: ursusminor on October 07, 2025, 04:36:23 AMA free article on Neutral Zone about changes which have affected college hockey's entering classes. There is a paragraph titled "Cornell". This is not the appropriate thread for it, but I didn't want to resurrect last year's recruit thread.

https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/06/a-new-era-of-ncaa-hockey/

I'm not so sure about the Cornell section of this article. It speaks of Cornell going off the beaten path for recruits and references two aspects of our recruiting:
(1) that we have a lot of incoming players from the BCHL rather than the CHL. But most of our BCHL recruits committed before CHL players became eligible.
(2) that we recruit from the OJHL and CCHL. But that hasn't really been true in the past five years?

Quote from: BearLover on October 07, 2025, 03:39:06 PM

Quote from: ursusminor on October 07, 2025, 04:36:23 AMA free article on Neutral Zone about changes which have affected college hockey's entering classes. There is a paragraph titled "Cornell". This is not the appropriate thread for it, but I didn't want to resurrect last year's recruit thread.

https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/06/a-new-era-of-ncaa-hockey/

I'm not so sure about the Cornell section of this article. It speaks of Cornell going off the beaten path for recruits and references two aspects of our recruiting:
(1) that we have a lot of incoming players from the BCHL rather than the CHL. But most of our BCHL recruits committed before CHL players became eligible.
(2) that we recruit from the OJHL and CCHL. But that hasn't really been true in the past five years?

Yeah, we haven't done much in the OJHL and CCHL the past few years -- I think that summary is off the mark.

Alex Pelletier absolutely going off in the USHL. 7 goals and 2 assists in 7 games.

Quote from: chimpfood on October 11, 2025, 09:40:39 PMAlex Pelletier absolutely going off in the USHL. 7 goals and 2 assists in 7 games.

Pelletier is an interesting recruiting case. The following is based off what I can find on the Internet. Someone with more knowledge of his situation/junior hockey generally may want to fill in some details. 

He's from Connecticut, committed to Cornell while at Avon Old Farms prep school. Back in 2021 he was a first round pick in the QMJHL American draft. (I'm not sure how competitive this draft is, as it's just of American players, but first round sounds good. Also, did the team who drafted him have reason to believe he'd leave prep school and go play Canada major juniors?) He ended up finishing prep school, and committed to Cornell in the fall of his senior year. After graduating he was a second round (19th overall) pick in the USHL draft. By the time he started in the USHL, he had already turned 19. He had a good first year. Now, in his second season, at 20 years old, he leads the USHL in goals.

His case is an illustration of why recruiting is hard to predict from stats and rankings alone: when he committed, he was an 18-year-old senior in prep school and it was impossible to tell if he was a good recruit. Now, he's having a great season in the USHL, so we have a lot more to go on. Still, how much of his USHL success is due to him being 20?

Overall, he looks like a strong recruit. But as always, there's a lot of uncertainty in recruiting.

Quote from: BearLover on October 13, 2025, 10:43:47 AMStill, how much of his USHL success is due to him being 20?

Overall, he looks like a strong recruit. But as always, there's a lot of uncertainty in recruiting.

Unless his age decreases, his current performance suggests his potential going forward.

Looking at Pelletier's box scores with Lincoln every night cracks me up. The guy has scored 5 goals and gotten 3 assists over the last 3 games and he did so while taking a ridiculous 24 shots, 10 of them coming tonight. The kid can clearly score but he's not gonna be allowed or able to take that many shots in college so I don't know how much it's gonna carry over. Pretty much the polar opposite of him is recruit Michael Dec, a forward for Owen Sound in the OHL who has 1 goals and 11 assists in his 12 games. Get these two on a line together and it might just work.

NHL Central Scouting Players To Watch list dropped today. The are two Cornell recruits listed in the "W" category, indicating a candidate for a 6th/7th round pick: Tuminaro and Puglisi. Harvard is recruiting well again, with five on the list, including a B, three Cs, and one W. Quinnipiac has two Ws. Dartmouth surprises with one C and one W. Brown, Yale, and Colgate each have a W as well. Don't see any for Clarkson, StL, RPI, Union, or Princeton.

Usual blue blood programs at the top of the list except Minnesota only has two Cs.

Overall I'd like to see us step up our recruiting a bit. The bar is higher now with so more talent pouring into college hockey.

https://www.nhl.com/news/gavin-mckenna-tops-central-scouting-preliminary-players-to-watch-list

If I understand eligibility rules correctly, 16 of our 17 current recruits (all except Declan Wotton) are eligible to be drafted in the spring. So it's disappointing to only have two listed in the rankings, both as potential late round picks.

You could view our recruits in three batches:
1. Pre-Casey [Sandruck, Tuminaro, Pelletier, Dec, Major]
2. Casey hired, Schafer and Leivermann still on staff [Marmulak through Dontigny]
3. Current coaching makeup, with Schafer and Leivermann gone and two new assistants [Wotton, Puglisi, Long]

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to assess the promise of the different batches and/or ascertain any sort of causation.

One thing I will say is that a lot of recruits are under 6', which hurts their draft stock even if they end up as strong college players.

Assuming Heisenberg meant Cornell and not "Corbell," we have picked up a new recruit from Saint Andrews, Charlie Sullivan.

Heisenberg's 2026 list can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/1bCxOl1bl2oSsBb-nE28c5BaS4QMqcRCyJDIxqkaOOjk/htmlview#gid=1310221579

A public post on Neutral Zone about recent commitments. https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/27/ncaa-commitments-oct-20-oct-26/

Re: Sullivan

QuoteCharlie Sullivan (D, L, 6'1, 183, St. Andrew's College, 03/21/2009, Cornell)

A draft pick of the Guelph Storm, Sullivan is currently playing at St. Andrew's College. In 2028, the defenseman will head to Cornell.

Sullivan put in a great performance at the OHL Cup, where his Don Mills Flyers placed second.

"Throughout the OHL Cup, Charlie showcased his strong compete level, skating, and shot. Looking at his compete level, Charlie backchecked consistently. He rarely trailed the play and was consistently one of the first players back to limit zone entries for his team. Charlie won numerous puck battles. Due to his strong physical game, Charlie delivered many hits to opponents away from the puck, enabling him to gain puck possession and initiate breakouts. Charlie frequently positioned himself in shooting lanes, demonstrating a willingness to put his body on the line. He blocked many shots, limiting scoring chances against his team. Regarding his skating, he was agile. Charlie demonstrated the ability to utilize both his inside and outside edges effectively."

Quote from: ursusminor on October 29, 2025, 01:24:08 AMA public post on Neutral Zone about recent commitments. https://neutralzone.com/2025/10/27/ncaa-commitments-oct-20-oct-26/

Re: Sullivan

QuoteCharlie Sullivan (D, L, 6'1, 183, St. Andrew's College, 03/21/2009, Cornell)

A draft pick of the Guelph Storm, Sullivan is currently playing at St. Andrew's College. In 2028, the defenseman will head to Cornell.

Sullivan put in a great performance at the OHL Cup, where his Don Mills Flyers placed second.

"Throughout the OHL Cup, Charlie showcased his strong compete level, skating, and shot. Looking at his compete level, Charlie backchecked consistently. He rarely trailed the play and was consistently one of the first players back to limit zone entries for his team. Charlie won numerous puck battles. Due to his strong physical game, Charlie delivered many hits to opponents away from the puck, enabling him to gain puck possession and initiate breakouts. Charlie frequently positioned himself in shooting lanes, demonstrating a willingness to put his body on the line. He blocked many shots, limiting scoring chances against his team. Regarding his skating, he was agile. Charlie demonstrated the ability to utilize both his inside and outside edges effectively."

Sounds like a prototypical Cornell defenseman.

Dec traded to Erie.

Quote from: chimpfood on November 01, 2025, 03:24:48 PMDec traded to Erie.

Erie has been offensively challenged, and Owen Sound wanted a more physical foward. Dec has a lot of skill and will almost certainly be a key PP guy when he arrives in Ithaca.

Looking at the Chris Heisenberg website it looks as if one of our top recruits may have decommitted. Alex Pelletier's name has been crossed out under the list of Cornell commits as has Michael Sandruck's.  In looking at the Lincoln Stars roster they don't have Pelletier listed as going to Cornell any longer.  Sandruck is not a surprise, that may have been Cornell's doing seeing as he hasn't progressed as was hoped.  If true about Pelletier that is a big loss.  I haven't been able to find out where he may be committing or if he is just reopening the recruiting process with his huge start to the USHL season.

Quote from: Redpucks1! on November 02, 2025, 05:38:36 PMLooking at the Chris Heisenberg website it looks as if one of our top recruits may have decommitted. Alex Pelletier's name has been crossed out under the list of Cornell commits as has Michael Sandruck's.  In looking at the Lincoln Stars roster they don't have Pelletier listed as going to Cornell any longer.  Sandruck is not a surprise, that may have been Cornell's doing seeing as he hasn't progressed as was hoped.  If true about Pelletier that is a big loss.  I haven't been able to find out where he may be committing or if he is just reopening the recruiting process with his huge start to the USHL season.

Yeah looks like he took down his commitment post and elite prospects also has him as decommitted. I can't think of why unless someone offered to bring him in over winter break, because he's going to have to wait until next year anyway.

I did expect him to come in over guys like Caton Ryan and Connor Arsenault. With Ryan being a first liner right now I can understand bringing him over Pelletier, but bringing in Arsenault a year early and losing a top recruit in return is not great.

To be honest I wasn't totally sold on him anyway thanks to a combination of size, age, and huge shot volume that he won't get in college but it's too bad we couldn't at least see what we had with him. Opens the door for Jones to work some magic and maybe get us a good CHLer to fill his spot though.

Quote from: chimpfood on November 02, 2025, 05:45:11 PM

Quote from: Redpucks1! on November 02, 2025, 05:38:36 PMLooking at the Chris Heisenberg website it looks as if one of our top recruits may have decommitted. Alex Pelletier's name has been crossed out under the list of Cornell commits as has Michael Sandruck's.  In looking at the Lincoln Stars roster they don't have Pelletier listed as going to Cornell any longer.  Sandruck is not a surprise, that may have been Cornell's doing seeing as he hasn't progressed as was hoped.  If true about Pelletier that is a big loss.  I haven't been able to find out where he may be committing or if he is just reopening the recruiting process with his huge start to the USHL season.

Yeah looks like he took down his commitment post and elite prospects also has him as decommitted. I can't think of why unless someone offered to bring him in over winter break, because he's going to have to wait until next year anyway.

I did expect him to come in over guys like Caton Ryan and Connor Arsenault. With Ryan being a first liner right now I can understand bringing him over Pelletier, but bringing in Arsenault a year early and losing a top recruit in return is not great.

To be honest I wasn't totally sold on him anyway thanks to a combination of size, age, and huge shot volume that he won't get in college but it's too bad we couldn't at least see what we had with him. Opens the door for Jones to work some magic and maybe get us a good CHLer to fill his spot though.

I totally agree with all of this. Him being 20 made me question how high his ceiling actually is. But he was still clearly one of our better recruits. With respect to bringing in someone else last year, maybe I'm missing something but I guess some of these choices that look crazy on paper do end up being crazy. Arsenault is a year younger and didn't put up numbers in junior, they couldn't let him develop in the minors an extra year and bring in Pelletier, who had a solid USHL year last season? Again, I may be missing something, but seems like a huge mistake by the coaching staff.

Well that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

Quote from: scoop85 on November 02, 2025, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

The recruiting is looking pretty sketchy at the moment. The Pelletier thing is especially annoying because it seems like an unforced error.

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 10:58:40 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 02, 2025, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

The recruiting is looking pretty sketchy at the moment. The Pelletier thing is especially annoying because it seems like an unforced error.

What's especially annoying is your tendency to assume things without having any evidence whatsoever as to why they happened, and then blame it on the coaching staff 90 percent of the time.

You and several others are assuming that the coaches actively decided to bring someone else in, and that Pelletier had to wait as a result.  While that's possible, it's just as possible that Pelletier had some reason to want to wait another year, or that both sides thought it made sense.

Or maybe Pelletier was already starting to waver a bit in his own mind, and as they kept in touch over the summer and doing whatever they do to decide who is actually coming in when, the coaching staff could sense that and deferred for another year to make sure the kid was back to rock solid.

Interestingly, whenever a guy leaves early, whether it's Robertson after 2 years or others after 3, you always blame the player and are like good riddance, traitor.

When there's some change with a recruit, you always blame the coaches.

When there is a down year on the lower play, you blame the coaches.

Actually, you almost never blame the players, it's always the coaches.   It's never possible that there really was a rash of injuries in a couple recent years, and then other guys playing hurt on top of that.   Or not believing that half the team has a GI big on a given day.    It's always the coach's fault to you.

#doomandgloomlover

I couched my post with qualifiers like "it appears" and "I could be missing something but..." Nobody has all the information, obviously. But those of us who follow recruiting were surprised when he wasn't brought in for this season, given his age and good year in USHL. Meanwhile, younger players, including some who didn't produce as much in juniors, were brought in. Flash forward 5 or 6 months. The entirety of that time Pelletier has stayed committed to Cornell. Only when he starts blowing up and leading the USHL in goals does he decommit. So, there are many explanations and certainly several contributing factors, but weighing all of them it seems likely the coaching staff misevaluated how good he would be and missed a chance to bring him to Ithaca.

Your post is nonsensical anyway because this is probably the first time I've ever blamed the coaching staff for something like this happening.

Quote from: abmarks on November 03, 2025, 06:35:28 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 10:58:40 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 02, 2025, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

The recruiting is looking pretty sketchy at the moment. The Pelletier thing is especially annoying because it seems like an unforced error.

When there's some change with a recruit, you always blame the coaches.

Completely making things up eh?

Pelletier just committed to BC.

Not following this as closely as you all, but could this be a matter of he was recruited by Schaf and Schaf  retired so he no longer wanted to come.

Quote from: arugula on November 03, 2025, 06:49:40 PMNot following this as closely as you all, but could this be a matter of he was recruited by Schaf and Schaf  retired so he no longer wanted to come.

Well Schafer announced his retirement 1.5 years ago and Pelletier listed himself as committed to Cornell until recently...

Perhaps some NIL money plus the "traditional" full ride athletic scholarship to a traditional blue blood program was enough of an enticement.

Quote from: scoop85 on November 03, 2025, 09:40:10 PMPerhaps some NIL money plus the "traditional" full ride athletic scholarship to a traditional blue blood program was enough of an enticement.

Will he commit to Penn State or some other program flush with cash?

Quote from: marty on November 03, 2025, 10:52:30 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 03, 2025, 09:40:10 PMPerhaps some NIL money plus the "traditional" full ride athletic scholarship to a traditional blue blood program was enough of an enticement.

Will he commit to Penn State or some other program flush with cash?

scroll up... this was referring to BC

Quote from: ugarte on November 03, 2025, 11:29:32 PM

Quote from: marty on November 03, 2025, 10:52:30 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 03, 2025, 09:40:10 PMPerhaps some NIL money plus the "traditional" full ride athletic scholarship to a traditional blue blood program was enough of an enticement.

Will he commit to Penn State or some other program flush with cash?

scroll up... this was referring to BC

How could I possibly have skimmed over the BL BC comment?

Quote from: scoop85 on November 03, 2025, 09:40:10 PMPerhaps some NIL money plus the "traditional" full ride athletic scholarship to a traditional blue blood program was enough of an enticement.

Yep. That's probably it. To which I say: ah, shucks. That's just how the cookie is going to crumble for some. Cornell is great, but scholarship + blue blood (more NHL scouting attention, which imo is a reason Robertson transferred to Michigan) + NIL (+ let's face it, Ithaca isn't Boston) is going to turn heads.

People are missing the point. It isn't about why a player would choose BC over Cornell. Kids have been choosing BC over Cornell for the past 40 years. This is about a 20-year-old kid having been committed to Cornell for over two years, Cornell having the chance to bring him to campus six months ago after a good year in the USHL, and then the kid decommitting. Meanwhile, Cornell brought in some younger kids who did not have success in the USHL or lesser leagues. That's the interesting question here, not why a kid might choose BC over Cornell.

(By the way, I also disagree with some of the reasons stated for why he or Robertson bolted, but that's beside the point.)

Nobody knows why he didn't come as part of this year's class so your speculation is just that.

We've benefitted from recruiting flips (Walsh was committed to Brown initially)

Quote from: scoop85 on November 04, 2025, 01:05:49 PMNobody knows why he didn't come as part of this year's class so your speculation is just that.

We've benefitted from recruiting flips (Walsh was committed to Brown initially)

True.  What I haven't seen the team benefit from is endless speculation.  Yet it seems more endless than ever.

Quote from: marty on November 04, 2025, 01:08:18 PMWhat I haven't seen the team benefit from is endless speculation.  Yet it seems more endless than ever.

Happily it is irrelevant.  No member of the team or staff knows or cares what any fan thinks or says, as is proper.

I prefer the bulls at the tauromachy not consult me for tactics.  The fuck do I know?

Quote from: abmarks on November 03, 2025, 06:35:28 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 10:58:40 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 02, 2025, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

The recruiting is looking pretty sketchy at the moment. The Pelletier thing is especially annoying because it seems like an unforced error.

What's especially annoying is your tendency to assume things without having any evidence whatsoever as to why they happened, and then blame it on the coaching staff 90 percent of the time.

Either he is 12 and trolling for attention or he was raised by Stephen A. and those imbeciles and doesn't know any better.

Either way, just ignore him.  If you have ever suffered through a game thread on social media you realize 75% of any fan base are howler monkeys.  There is no point engaging.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 03:47:45 PM

Quote from: abmarks on November 03, 2025, 06:35:28 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 10:58:40 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on November 02, 2025, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 09:55:25 PMWell that really sullied a good weekend. WTF

Only if you let it. I'm confident we'll continue to recruit very well despite it all.

The recruiting is looking pretty sketchy at the moment. The Pelletier thing is especially annoying because it seems like an unforced error.

What's especially annoying is your tendency to assume things without having any evidence whatsoever as to why they happened, and then blame it on the coaching staff 90 percent of the time.

Either he is 12 and trolling for attention or he was raised by Stephen A. and those imbeciles and doesn't know any better.

Either way, just ignore him.  If you have ever suffered through a game thread on social media you realize 75% of any fan base are howler monkeys.  There is no point engaging.

Yawn. In this case it seems likely that the coaching staff actually messed up. You can try to spin it however you like or dismiss it as speculation (of course it's speculation! I don't work for the hockey team and I'm posting on a fan forum!), but the fact remains he could have been brought in for this season and wasn't, and had he been brought in he'd be playing for Cornell right now instead of committing to BC. Sorry if it offends the people on here to posit these things. chimpfood said the same thing and then a bunch of people who don't closely follow recruiting reassembled the Coaching Staff Defense Squad.

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:10:03 PMYawn. In this case it seems likely that the coaching staff actually messed up. You can try to spin it however you like or dismiss it as speculation (of course it's speculation! I don't work for the hockey team and I'm posting on a fan forum!), but the fact remains he could have been brought in for this season and wasn't, and had he been brought in he'd be playing for Cornell right now instead of committing to BC. Sorry if it offends the people on here to posit these things. chimpfood said the same thing and then a bunch of people who don't closely follow recruiting reassembled the Coaching Staff Defense Squad.

In this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see since i'm not being paid to represent anyone here. it's entirely possible that he declined to be brought in a year early to bet on himself or other reasons but who knows. if cornell brought anyone in early, but didn't bring in pelletiier, the most reasonable speculation is that it was Cornell's call.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there's a limit to the handwringing and back and forth that you probably need to engage in once you've staked your posiition because at a certain point you're just playing ping pong and messing with everyone's new message notifications.

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever.  We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

We now have more recruits playing for St. Andrews College than the entire USHL.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

i have no meta opinion on their net recruiting. the kid from northeastern looked good though.

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

Seems like he's taking his talents to the best available hockey school. CHN  (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/11/04_BC-Lands-USHL-Leading-Scorer.php)

Honestly who knows why, but a scholarship or some NIL to offset costs could be a big part of it. We'll never know.

From the chn article. Quoting his coach.

"He's always been a patient person, whether that was spending an extra year at Avon (Old Farms Academy) or an extra year of junior hockey with us now. So he understands the development process and he continues to round out his overall game."

That doesn't reveal whether he decided he needed another year or if we asked him to.   Wish I was the interviewer and had the chance to ask for elaboration.

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

No, I don't have those answers. I'm speculating. I already said as much. But the speculation  is pretty reasonable in this case, IMO.
1. Most (not all, but I believe a substantial majority of) players want to get to college ASAP. Particularly when you're already 20.
2. Given he graduated high school two years ago, it is extremely unlikely there are academic issues because he is not involved in academics at all currently.
3. I find it very unlikely a 19-y/o who had 37 points in 60 USHL games thought he would blow up the next season and get a big financial reward. (I doubt he even is getting a real financial reward aside from a scholarship.)

So, as is usually the case on a hockey forum when a poster is not himself associated with the team, I am speculating. You can ignore it or push back on it or agree with it, but I don't agree with launching into a diatribe on speculating in the first place.

Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 08:34:24 PMI am speculating. You can ignore it <snip>

This is The Way.

Pelletier won USHL player of the week for like the fifth week in a row. I don't know how we managed to screw this up.
*coaching staff defense squad assembles*

Quote from: BearLover on November 14, 2025, 02:07:24 PMPelletier won USHL player of the week for like the fifth week in a row. I don't know how we managed to screw this up.
*coaching staff defense squad assembles*

neither does anyone else, or if they screwed up at all! nobody is defending anyone but we've also moved on. he isn't coming.

Quote from: ugarte on November 14, 2025, 02:39:34 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 14, 2025, 02:07:24 PMPelletier won USHL player of the week for like the fifth week in a row. I don't know how we managed to screw this up.
*coaching staff defense squad assembles*

neither does anyone else, or if they screwed up at all! nobody is defending anyone but we've also moved on. he isn't coming.

Never give up. He's already decommitted once before.

Southern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 03:21:31 PMSouthern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

I'll admit that I was a clueless nerd in high school.  I'd scored quite well on the standardized tests, as did we all who made it to Cornell, and I received lots of mailings from colleges.  The one that really baffled me was a big picture postcard from some southern school showing a row of coeds in bathing suits sitting on a diving board at a swimming pool.  The words on the other side were as skimpy as the bathing suits, and included no mention of the academic program.  Since the education was why I planned to go to college, I just didn't grasp the point of the postcard. 

Quote from: David Harding on November 14, 2025, 10:10:14 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 03:21:31 PMSouthern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

I'll admit that I was a clueless nerd in high school.  I'd scored quite well on the standardized tests, as did we all who made it to Cornell, and I received lots of mailings from colleges.  The one that really baffled me was a big picture postcard from some southern school showing a row of coeds in bathing suits sitting on a diving board at a swimming pool.  The words on the other side were as skimpy as the bathing suits, and included no mention of the academic program.  Since the education was why I planned to go to college, I just didn't grasp the point of the postcard. 

As a HS junior I got a "return this for your diploma" brochure from Pepperdine.  Now if you have seen Pepperdine you know their campus is jaw-droppingly beautiful.  They are the Pebble Beach of universities. 

(https://cdn1.matadornetwork.com/blogs/1/2020/08/College-campuses-Pepperdine-University.jpeg)

And because of the demo (southern California, Fundies without a brain in their pretty little heads) the campus is not all that is amazing.

In a 32-page brochure with pictures of their undergrads in various poses and activities on every page, there was not a single book.  God I wish I had kept that.  When people say schools today merely market T&A to their students I always think back to 1979.  I assume it was the same in 1959 too.  And 1939. 

You gotta set the tone.

Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 08:34:24 PM

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

No, I don't have those answers. I'm speculating. I already said as much. But the speculation  is pretty reasonable in this case, IMO.
1. Most (not all, but I believe a substantial majority of) players want to get to college ASAP. Particularly when you're already 20.
2. Given he graduated high school two years ago, it is extremely unlikely there are academic issues because he is not involved in academics at all currently.
3. I find it very unlikely a 19-y/o who had 37 points in 60 USHL games thought he would blow up the next season and get a big financial reward. (I doubt he even is getting a real financial reward aside from a scholarship.)

So, as is usually the case on a hockey forum when a poster is not himself associated with the team, I am speculating. You can ignore it or push back on it or agree with it, but I don't agree with launching into a diatribe on speculating in the first place.

Sorry that I phrased it so you could interpret my post as a diatribe. My intent was to point out that we don't know the reason for him not coming and yet you definitively blamed the coaching staff without any knowledge to support that.

You make declarative statements like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." &  "I don't know how we managed to screw this up."

With those statements you don't speculate, you declare.

My point is don't make declarative statements unless you know something for a fact, or at least close to a fact. There are ways to discuss your opinions that are not be declarative.

Something such as "I wonder why we didn't..." or "It seems like a mistake to not have him here." That would show your opinion without looking like you know the reason.

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 25, 2025, 09:51:12 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 08:34:24 PM

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:14:33 AM

Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: ugarte on November 04, 2025, 04:27:26 PMIn this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

No, I don't have those answers. I'm speculating. I already said as much. But the speculation  is pretty reasonable in this case, IMO.
1. Most (not all, but I believe a substantial majority of) players want to get to college ASAP. Particularly when you're already 20.
2. Given he graduated high school two years ago, it is extremely unlikely there are academic issues because he is not involved in academics at all currently.
3. I find it very unlikely a 19-y/o who had 37 points in 60 USHL games thought he would blow up the next season and get a big financial reward. (I doubt he even is getting a real financial reward aside from a scholarship.)

So, as is usually the case on a hockey forum when a poster is not himself associated with the team, I am speculating. You can ignore it or push back on it or agree with it, but I don't agree with launching into a diatribe on speculating in the first place.

Sorry that I phrased it so you could interpret my post as a diatribe. My intent was to point out that we don't know the reason for him not coming and yet you definitively blamed the coaching staff without any knowledge to support that.

You make declarative statements like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." &  "I don't know how we managed to screw this up."

With those statements you don't speculate, you declare.

My point is don't make declarative statements unless you know something for a fact, or at least close to a fact. There are ways to discuss your opinions that are not be declarative.

Something such as "I wonder why we didn't..." or "It seems like a mistake to not have him here." That would show your opinion without looking like you know the reason.

My original post on this topic: " Again, I may be missing something, but seems like a huge mistake by the coaching staff."

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 10:41:13 AMTo be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 10:41:13 AMTo be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Big Arthur is watching you... LMAO.

Quote from: BearLover on November 25, 2025, 11:07:11 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 10:41:13 AMTo be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Yes.

Though when you say things like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." that is a fact pattern with a truth value.  Did we have an opportunity?  How do you know?  If not then your whole statement falls apart.  "If we had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't, then we fucked up." is the more semantically correct sentence, and if that is what you are conveying it really should not be up to me to perform the calculation in my head to get your meaning.

Bullshitting is fun, but we deserve precision, German-engineered bullshit.

nothing wrong with leaving out "in my opinion" -- but there is an obvious difference in tone between stating something as if it's a well-known fact (not to mention when it's not only not a fact but the opposite is actually true), and just someone's "concern" or "speculation." Being unable to spot the difference is either tone deaf, or intentional belligerence/trolling. you be the judge.

We should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 12:12:56 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 25, 2025, 11:07:11 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 10:41:13 AMTo be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Yes.

Though when you say things like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." that is a fact pattern with a truth value.  Did we have an opportunity?  How do you know?  If not then your whole statement falls apart.  "If we had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't, then we fucked up." is the more semantically correct sentence, and if that is what you are conveying it really should not be up to me to perform the calculation in my head to get your meaning.

Fine. I mean, I am making inferences here. But I think that's obvious. Also, as previously mentioned I believe these are very reasonable inferences. Pelletier was committed to Cornell for many months after the coaching staff decided on whom it was bringing in for this season. And it is the case for the vast majority of recruits, particularly those who are 20 years old, that they want to get to campus sooner rather than later. Ergo, I am confident that Cornell could have told him to come this past Spring, and he would have. Am I certain? No. But seems very likely. Anyway, fair enough, I'll use the "if...then" disclaimer next time for clarity.

Quote from: chimpfood on November 25, 2025, 01:07:24 PMWe should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

oh MAN this reminds me i need lynah to mock harvard about that during the harvard game. not sure how you get the harvard crowd to do that though.

Quote from: chimpfood on November 25, 2025, 01:07:24 PMWe should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

Definitely true. The Veilleux case was a nice poaching "win." I think that was likely similar to the Pelletier case though, where Harvard overrecruited and
didn't have enough space to bring in Veilleux when they could have.

Anyway, I see the Veilleux case as different from the Walsh case (we poached him from Brown). This is because we poached Veilleux from a top hockey school, whereas when Walsh started to blow up in junior hockey he likely decided he could do better.  If we want to win a national championship, we can't be losing current recruits/players to BC (Pelletier) or Michigan (Robertson). IF we are losing recruits to these places because they are seeking out a higher caliber program, then competing nationally isn't really tenable. We are above Brown on the food chain, so I don't see it as particularly notable when we have a poaching win there, and at the same time we need to not be losing to the BCs and Michigans we're trying to compete with nationally. Yes, we aren't going to get the USNTDP kids, and I am under no illusions that we can attract the same caliber of 16-year-old, but we should not be seeing overagers decommitting once they blow up in junior hockey, or our best players transferring out. That bodes poorly for our ability to compete nationally.

Quote from: BearLover on November 25, 2025, 01:37:19 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 12:12:56 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 25, 2025, 11:07:11 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 25, 2025, 10:41:13 AMTo be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Yes.

Though when you say things like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." that is a fact pattern with a truth value.  Did we have an opportunity?  How do you know?  If not then your whole statement falls apart.  "If we had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't, then we fucked up." is the more semantically correct sentence, and if that is what you are conveying it really should not be up to me to perform the calculation in my head to get your meaning.

Fine. I mean, I am making inferences here. But I think that's obvious. Also, as previously mentioned I believe these are very reasonable inferences. Pelletier was committed to Cornell for many months after the coaching staff decided on whom it was bringing in for this season. And it is the case for the vast majority of recruits, particularly those who are 20 years old, that they want to get to campus sooner rather than later. Ergo, I am confident that Cornell could have told him to come this past Spring, and he would have. Am I certain? No. But seems very likely. Anyway, fair enough, I'll use the "if...then" disclaimer next time for clarity.

this discussion is too meta now. there is dispute over how reasonable the inferences are and how many inferences have to be piled on other inferences. in a sense what ends up bothering me is not the speculation and inference and more that when people disagree, as often happens to everyone who states an opinion, the conversation circles back to the opening premise. it becomes ping-pong, not a debate, and not everyone keeps their cool.

now, if you don't mind, i have to repair the walls of my house as i've been throwing stones everywhere and the damage is extensive.

.... it becomes ping-pong, not a debate, and not everyone keeps their cool.
[/quote]

"But I paid for this argument (https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?si=xvatzM1D2u_ZdO0D)"  ;D

Quote from: Chris H82 on November 25, 2025, 07:26:18 PM.... it becomes ping-pong, not a debate, and not everyone keeps their cool.

"But I paid for this argument (https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?si=xvatzM1D2u_ZdO0D)"  ;D
[/quote]

No you didn't.

It seems like every team in NCAA hockey is going through the same restructure, rebuild, rebalance that Cornell is going through. Each team we have played, and most of them on the national stage, have large incoming classes of freshmen and transfers from the portal and CHL. I'm sure at some point that it will all even out as the wave calm, but this was THE year for players to make moves to improve their fortunes, and you can see that they did. 'Losing' a recruit like Pelletier is a bummer, but lots of teams lost out on Cournoyer or Ashton (at 6'7" he had to get offers) And imagine all the people who 'passed' on DiGulian? He's a menace. Sometimes recruiters know that a kid just has the right stuff, and there isn't a tangible, hard data reason for it all to come together. Boston Collage has excellent scouting and recruiting, and if you play hockey, you want to be at BC, as great as we think Cornell is.
FWIW Gio DiGulian and Alex Pelletier played at Lincoln in the USHL last year.

We will know how we navigated The Revolution in about a decade.  Until then it's just worry and cope mud wrestling in a slimy pool of ignorance.

One reason I brought up Cournoyer's late recruitment/bringing in a fourth goaltender is that one concern I had with Casey was the level of turnover of his teams at Clarkson. Many players would transfer in or out each season, and they had some high profile decommitments. Contrast with Cornell under Schafer, which rarely saw any players leave or decommit.

Continuity is a plus. Earlier in this thread some criticized my worry, arguing that a coach should build the best hockey team, even if it pisses off some players. My issue is that there's a long run cost to the short term fix of bringing in a player to replace another one.

To illustrate, consider Emmett Croteau. He currently has a .970 sv% for 8-0 Dartmouth (this number will obviously come down somewhat). Casey recruited him to Clarkson and he arrived as a Canadiens draft pick. He struggled his freshman year, and Casey brought in a grad transfer goalie for the following season. Croteau responded by transferring to Dartmouth.

Clarkson isn't unique in its high player turnover. Rather, Cornell is unique in its low player turnover. But we've already seen more turnover at Cornell than usual in Casey's first year (Robertson transferring out, two transfers brought in, late recruitment of our starting goalie, the leading scorer in the USHL decommit). Some of this may be due to the coaching change, and will settle down. I'm a little concerned about the precedent this is setting, though.

To preempt the nonsense I know is coming from the four is so posters who never post anything substantive but who log on just to criticize me, let me be clear:
*I am expressing a concern about Cornell Hockey on a Cornell Hockey forum.
*That does not mean the concern will come true.
*The fact that the future is uncertain does not make it illegal to express concern.
*There is precedent for high profile recruits decommitting under Schafer, but they are few and far between. I think the most recent one was Alex Limoges in 2017.
*As mentioned earlier, Clarkson's high turnover was not unique to them. It's likely harder to retain players and recruits at a non-Ivy. But was have seen increased turnover so far, thus my concern.
*Clarkson lost some top recruits to blue bloods like BC, and top players to HE schools like Northeastern via the portal.  While lesser hockey schools may have a difficult time retaining these players, if Cornell wants to compete nationally we NEED to retain these players.
*I'm overall impressed with Casey and Cournoyer. That does not make it illegal to express a concern, even if the overall package of the current Cornell Hockey team and staff is a good one.
*This is now the 9th bullet point clarifying something that should always have always been perfectly clear: one can hold nuanced views about teams, coaches, and players. To say one negative thing does not make one a hater of the coach, team, or player. The real haters on here are the four of you who respond to every one of my posts with vitriol and personal insults (and contribute nothing to the conversation).

Quote from: BearLover on December 03, 2025, 09:46:34 AMOne reason I brought up Cournoyer's late recruitment/bringing in a fourth goaltender is that one concern I had with Casey was the level of turnover of his teams at Clarkson. Many players would transfer in or out each season, and they had some high profile decommitments. Contrast with Cornell under Schafer, which rarely saw any players leave or decommit.

Continuity is a plus. Earlier in this thread some criticized my worry, arguing that a coach should build the best hockey team, even if it pisses off some players. My issue is that there's a long run cost to the short term fix of bringing in a player to replace another one.

To illustrate, consider Emmett Croteau. He currently has a .970 sv% for 8-0 Dartmouth (this number will obviously come down somewhat). Casey recruited him to Clarkson and he arrived as a Canadiens draft pick. He struggled his freshman year, and Casey brought in a grad transfer goalie for the following season. Croteau responded by transferring to Dartmouth.

Clarkson isn't unique in its high player turnover. Rather, Cornell is unique in its low player turnover. But we've already seen more turnover at Cornell than usual in Casey's first year (Robertson transferring out, two transfers brought in, late recruitment of our starting goalie, the leading scorer in the USHL decommit). Some of this may be due to the coaching change, and will settle down. I'm a little concerned about the precedent this is setting, though.

To preempt the nonsense I know is coming from the four is so posters who never post anything substantive but who log on just to criticize me, let me be clear:
*I am expressing a concern about Cornell Hockey on a Cornell Hockey forum.
*That does not mean the concern will come true.
*The fact that the future is uncertain does not make it illegal to express concern.
*There is precedent for high profile recruits decommitting under Schafer, but they are few and far between. I think the most recent one was Alex Limoges in 2017.
*As mentioned earlier, Clarkson's high turnover was not unique to them. It's likely harder to retain players and recruits at a non-Ivy. But was have seen increased turnover so far, thus my concern.
*Clarkson lost some top recruits to blue bloods like BC, and top players to HE schools like Northeastern via the portal.  While lesser hockey schools may have a difficult time retaining these players, if Cornell wants to compete nationally we NEED to retain these players.
*I'm overall impressed with Casey and Cournoyer. That does not make it illegal to express a concern, even if the overall package of the current Cornell Hockey team and staff is a good one.
*This is now the 9th bullet point clarifying something that should always have always been perfectly clear: one can hold nuanced views about teams, coaches, and players. To say one negative thing does not make one a hater of the coach, team, or player. The real haters on here are the four of you who respond to every one of my posts with vitriol and personal insults (and contribute nothing to the conversation).

Poopyhead.

Quote from: Beeeej on December 03, 2025, 09:50:06 AMPoopyhead.

Auto rec TV's Frank.

Dec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Too bad we didn't bring Pelletier to campus this fall. He is on his second 7-game goal scoring streak of the season and has 23 goals in 21 USHL games and should run away with the league MVP. Coaching staff needs to spend the entire winter break recruiting in Ontario and Quebec.

Meh, CHL players haven't been hugely successful for the most part. I still would take a USHL point per game player over a CHL one

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 11:08:46 PMMeh, CHL players haven't been hugely successful for the most part. I still would take a USHL point per game player over a CHL one

Depends where you look. CHN recently had an article that the top 3 scorers in college are from the CHL. I don't disagree with you though, I just meant that there are way more uncommitted players in the CHL old enough to jump straight to college. It's three leagues versus one, and those three leagues weren't eligible to commit to colleges until recently.

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 11:08:46 PMMeh, CHL players haven't been hugely successful for the most part. I still would take a USHL point per game player over a CHL one

On the other hand, top end talent like Martone is going wild...

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 01:14:55 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

I'm looking at it as Henry went from U16 to the USHL while Charlie spent a year at U18 and then went to the USHL. There is no doubt that Charlie's 2nd year with Chicago saw a much bigger jump in production than Henry's has seen so far. Charlie had the benefit of being older and having an extra year of development. It may have benefited Henry more to have spent last year at BK Selects with the U18s where he would have received a lot of ice time, but he stepped up a level and let's hope that pays off for him in the future. I think Charlie was 20 when he first played for Cornell and if Henry comes in next season he would turn 20 at the end of his freshman season, if my math is correct. I don't know if it's a big deal.

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 03:31:49 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 01:14:55 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

I'm looking at it as Henry went from U16 to the USHL while Charlie spent a year at U18 and then went to the USHL. There is no doubt that Charlie's 2nd year with Chicago saw a much bigger jump in production than Henry's has seen so far. Charlie had the benefit of being older and having an extra year of development. It may have benefited Henry more to have spent last year at BK Selects with the U18s where he would have received a lot of ice time, but he stepped up a level and let's hope that pays off for him in the future. I think Charlie was 20 when he first played for Cornell and if Henry comes in next season he would turn 20 at the end of his freshman season, if my math is correct. I don't know if it's a big deal.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if he plays another year of junior hockey.

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 05:07:01 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 03:31:49 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 01:14:55 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

I'm looking at it as Henry went from U16 to the USHL while Charlie spent a year at U18 and then went to the USHL. There is no doubt that Charlie's 2nd year with Chicago saw a much bigger jump in production than Henry's has seen so far. Charlie had the benefit of being older and having an extra year of development. It may have benefited Henry more to have spent last year at BK Selects with the U18s where he would have received a lot of ice time, but he stepped up a level and let's hope that pays off for him in the future. I think Charlie was 20 when he first played for Cornell and if Henry comes in next season he would turn 20 at the end of his freshman season, if my math is correct. I don't know if it's a big deal.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if he plays another year of junior hockey.

It would be nice to see them play together for a couple years.

Sister Cora looks to be having a strong year at Northwood School. She might be the best of the 3: As a 16yo defenseman, 36-11-26-37 (tel:36-11-26-37).

Quote from: ithacat on December 08, 2025, 01:29:08 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 05:07:01 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 03:31:49 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 01:14:55 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

I'm looking at it as Henry went from U16 to the USHL while Charlie spent a year at U18 and then went to the USHL. There is no doubt that Charlie's 2nd year with Chicago saw a much bigger jump in production than Henry's has seen so far. Charlie had the benefit of being older and having an extra year of development. It may have benefited Henry more to have spent last year at BK Selects with the U18s where he would have received a lot of ice time, but he stepped up a level and let's hope that pays off for him in the future. I think Charlie was 20 when he first played for Cornell and if Henry comes in next season he would turn 20 at the end of his freshman season, if my math is correct. I don't know if it's a big deal.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if he plays another year of junior hockey.

It would be nice to see them play together for a couple years.

Sister Cora looks to be having a strong year at Northwood School. She might be the best of the 3: As a 16yo defenseman, 36-11-26-37 (tel:36-11-26-37).

Oh, right. I wasn't even thinking of that. Yeah, I expect he'll be on campus next fall.

Might Cora come to Cornell?

Quote from: BearLover on December 08, 2025, 01:34:22 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 08, 2025, 01:29:08 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 05:07:01 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 03:31:49 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 07, 2025, 01:14:55 PM

Quote from: ithacat on December 07, 2025, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 09:40:53 PMDec keeps balling. 4 points tonight

Dec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft. Given his big numbers in AAA I was hopeful Henry Major would produce like Charlie did with the Chicago Steel but that hasn't happened. Not sure if late CHL recruits like Cournoyer are in the cards but the staff needs to step it up, I'm definitely not content with the pipeline right now.

Henry seems to be doing fine. He's a year ahead of Charlie in his progression. He's on track to double Charlie's production as a comparable 18yo. Charlie blew up as a 19yo; Alex blew up as a 20yo. Of course teams are different, linemates are different, maturity rates are different, so comparing stats isn't going to offer us much more than conversation points.

Is this really the case though? Looks to me like just a 6 month difference, with Henry's birthday in April and Charlie's in September. I'm comparing both in their second year of USHL with the Steel. AFAICT I'm comparing the same year of development. Both would be 19 when their junior career ends/when they matriculate, unless Henry goes back for another year.

I'm looking at it as Henry went from U16 to the USHL while Charlie spent a year at U18 and then went to the USHL. There is no doubt that Charlie's 2nd year with Chicago saw a much bigger jump in production than Henry's has seen so far. Charlie had the benefit of being older and having an extra year of development. It may have benefited Henry more to have spent last year at BK Selects with the U18s where he would have received a lot of ice time, but he stepped up a level and let's hope that pays off for him in the future. I think Charlie was 20 when he first played for Cornell and if Henry comes in next season he would turn 20 at the end of his freshman season, if my math is correct. I don't know if it's a big deal.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if he plays another year of junior hockey.

It would be nice to see them play together for a couple years.

Sister Cora looks to be having a strong year at Northwood School. She might be the best of the 3: As a 16yo defenseman, 36-11-26-37 (tel:36-11-26-37).

Oh, right. I wasn't even thinking of that. Yeah, I expect he'll be on campus next fall.

Might Cora come to Cornell?

If Casey doesn't defer her.

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 11:26:06 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 06, 2025, 11:08:46 PMMeh, CHL players haven't been hugely successful for the most part. I still would take a USHL point per game player over a CHL one

Depends where you look. CHN recently had an article that the top 3 scorers in college are from the CHL.

freshman scorers - though at the moment, it's three of the top 6. The leader is Wyttenbach - not an MJ player.

I think we missed this guy (https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/987170/nolan-long), or anyway I don't recall him.

Nolan Long
F
6-0
176
5/22/08
St. Andrew's Saints (Can Prep)
Mono, ON

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PMDec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft.

TBRW list (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html).

Of these you are saying Dec is the only one who may be drafted?

Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 03:05:41 AMI think we missed this guy (https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/987170/nolan-long), or anyway I don't recall him.

Nolan Long
F
6-0
176
5/22/08
St. Andrew's Saints (Can Prep)
Mono, ON

Aidan's brother

Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 03:23:05 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PMDec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft.

TBRW list (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html).

Of these you are saying Dec is the only one who may be drafted?

I don't think Dec will be drafted because he's 5'9 and was passed over in the 2025 draft. NHL central scouting ranked Cole Tuminaro and Charlie Puglisi as potential late round picks, so they seemingly have the best shot. I thought Cole Emerson might have a chance too but he didn't make the rankings.  NHL scouts really value size, especially when it comes to defensemen.

Quote from: BearLover on December 11, 2025, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 03:23:05 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PMDec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft.

TBRW list (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html).

Of these you are saying Dec is the only one who may be drafted?

I don't think Dec will be drafted because he's 5'9 and was passed over in the 2025 draft. NHL central scouting ranked Cole Tuminaro and Charlie Puglisi as potential late round picks, so they seemingly have the best shot. I thought Cole Emerson might have a chance too but he didn't make the rankings.  NHL scouts really value size, especially when
 it comes to defensemen.

Unless a 5'9 guy is truly elite (think Cole Caufield), it's tough for them to get drafted. Dec looks like he has the potential to put up a lot of points at the college level, and seems to profile similarly to Charlie Major. I think we'd all sign up for that.

Quote from: BearLover on December 11, 2025, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 03:23:05 AM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 09:51:06 PMDec looks good. Overall though the recruits are not producing much. We are on track for 0 or 1 players taken in this year's NHL draft.

TBRW list (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2026/2026_Future_Players.html).

Of these you are saying Dec is the only one who may be drafted?

I don't think Dec will be drafted because he's 5'9 and was passed over in the 2025 draft. NHL central scouting ranked Cole Tuminaro and Charlie Puglisi as potential late round picks, so they seemingly have the best shot. I thought Cole Emerson might have a chance too but he didn't make the rankings.  NHL scouts really value size, especially when it comes to defensemen.

Thanks.

NHL scouts value size an insane amount. Not to bring them up again, but if either of Lane or Cole Hutson were 6 foot, they'd definitely have gone in the first round of the draft - elite skill, but the worry is they're "too small". Meanwhile, you have many GMs picking guys who are 6'3" and look like pylons on the ice because big.

A couple teams, like Dallas and Carolina, draft super well and don't look at size very much. Most, though, consider it a pretty big factor. Especially if you're not a superstar, the bigger guys tend to make more room for themselves on the ice.

Around the mid season point so why not take a stab at our newcomers for next year. We lose the five seniors for sure. At this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras, and maybe a transfer if we are unlucky. This means an estimate of seven losses from this years roster, but our roster this year is massive, so we probably only need to bring in around 4 or 5 new guys.

So, looking at our recruit list I would say that Dec, Wehmann and Tuminaro are most ready to come in. I would prefer to see Major and Marmulak get another year in the juniors because they would both have a really tough time finding playing time with us, but I wouldn't be shocked if Major comes in because he is Charlie's brother.

Right now we certainly don't have the issue of overcommitting guys, and I think we could do well to go out and get another older guy who is ready for next year (work your French magic Casey). I think the talent we have coming in is good, and the positions line up well with what we are losing.

Other recruits of note: Emerton is producing in the OHL but he is still 17 and it is pretty much all assists. Looks like a good prospect but give him another year at least. Nolan Long is producing a bit for Saint Andrews, but again he is just 17 and doesn't seem like a super high end talent that can make the jump straight from prep to college, so give him a year in the OHL.

After the guys already mentioned, the rest of our guys in the juniors producing less but still young. Wotton and Kirkwood are on a truly horrendous Baie Como-Drakkar team and not doing a lot on the scoresheet. Henri Ament has been a complete ghost in the WHL as an 18 year old (not a good sign) and Anthony Dontigny isn't putting up points in the BCHL. Luckily the prep talent looks better.

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

I sure hope they all stay. We would be a damn good team next year.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

Quote from: BearLover on December 14, 2025, 02:38:47 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

If Walsh wanted the money, he'd have moved in June or July.

Quote from: stereax on December 14, 2025, 08:46:07 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 14, 2025, 02:38:47 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

If Walsh wanted the money, he'd have moved in June or July.

I don't know about that. Similar situation to Bancroft, who had offers after his sophomore year and then took one after his junior year. Most teams are happy to let a 6th round pick develop in college for three years, but the Bruins will come knocking once this season ends. Of all the players on the team Walsh is by far the biggest risk to leave early IMO. Doesn't mean he will, but he's the best NHL prospect and likely the one who is going to have the most pressure put on him by an NHL team.

Kinda small for the NHL, isn't he?  I mean, we know he's great but they are very John Holmesy up there.

Edit: Nah, never mind.  Average NHL F is 6' 0.5" / 198.  Walshy is listed at 6' 1" / 195.  That'll play.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 15, 2025, 01:47:51 PMKinda small for the NHL, isn't he?  I mean, we know he's great but they are very John Holmesy up there.

Edit: Nah, never mind.  Average NHL F is 6' 0.5" / 198.  Walshy is listed at 6' 1" / 195.  That'll play.

Took me a few seconds to figure out what John Holmes had to do with the NHL.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on December 15, 2025, 05:25:22 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 15, 2025, 01:47:51 PMKinda small for the NHL, isn't he?  I mean, we know he's great but they are very John Holmesy up there.

Edit: Nah, never mind.  Average NHL F is 6' 0.5" / 198.  Walshy is listed at 6' 1" / 195.  That'll play.

Took me a few seconds to figure out what John Holmes had to do with the NHL.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/313538/john-holmes

Quote from: Trotsky on December 15, 2025, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on December 15, 2025, 05:25:22 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 15, 2025, 01:47:51 PMKinda small for the NHL, isn't he?  I mean, we know he's great but they are very John Holmesy up there.

Edit: Nah, never mind.  Average NHL F is 6' 0.5" / 198.  Walshy is listed at 6' 1" / 195.  That'll play.

Took me a few seconds to figure out what John Holmes had to do with the NHL.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/313538/john-holmes

Looked him up in TBRW and apparently he, uh... didn't score.

He may have.  My records before Lynah are very spotty.

6'1" and 175..?

Quote from: stereax on December 16, 2025, 01:34:42 PM6'1" and 175..?

Remember, this predated high-fructose corn syrup.

Quote from: BearLover on December 14, 2025, 02:38:47 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

Not likely he'd make that playing in the AHL.

Quote from: Jim Hyla on December 18, 2025, 03:28:09 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 14, 2025, 02:38:47 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

Not likely he'd make that playing in the AHL.

Weren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Looks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 18, 2025, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Just to be clear, that $950,000 is his salary even if he spends the entire year in the AHL?

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:26:41 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 18, 2025, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Just to be clear, that $950,000 is his salary even if he spends the entire year in the AHL?

Nope. Checked on PuckPedia. Here. (https://puckpedia.com/player/dalton-bancroft)

It's an ELC, so they're kind of limited in how much they can guarantee a player. Plus, Bancroft is making 98000 in signing bonus. 85000 is his minors salary. If he plays 5 games with the NHL Bruins, he gets a performance bonus of 25000. (Plus the pro-rated NHL salary for that point.)

Quote from: stereax on December 18, 2025, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:26:41 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 18, 2025, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Just to be clear, that $950,000 is his salary even if he spends the entire year in the AHL?

Nope. Checked on PuckPedia. Here. (https://puckpedia.com/player/dalton-bancroft)

It's an ELC, so they're kind of limited in how much they can guarantee a player. Plus, Bancroft is making 98000 in signing bonus. 85000 is his minors salary. If he plays 5 games with the NHL Bruins, he gets a performance bonus of 25000. (Plus the pro-rated NHL salary for that point.)

Thanks. So he gets 85K plus the 97.5K signing bonus if he spends the entire year in the AHL (likely)? Or is the signing bonus prorated too? It's unfortunate for him that he left Cornell, he has 1 assist and 0 goals through 16 AHL games and I think that same contract would have been available after his senior year.

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 05:15:26 PM

Quote from: stereax on December 18, 2025, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:26:41 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 18, 2025, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Just to be clear, that $950,000 is his salary even if he spends the entire year in the AHL?

Nope. Checked on PuckPedia. Here. (https://puckpedia.com/player/dalton-bancroft)

It's an ELC, so they're kind of limited in how much they can guarantee a player. Plus, Bancroft is making 98000 in signing bonus. 85000 is his minors salary. If he plays 5 games with the NHL Bruins, he gets a performance bonus of 25000. (Plus the pro-rated NHL salary for that point.)

Thanks. So he gets 85K plus the 97.5K signing bonus if he spends the entire year in the AHL (likely)? Or is the signing bonus prorated too? It's unfortunate for him that he left Cornell, he has 1 assist and 0 goals through 16 AHL games and I think that same contract would have been available after his senior year.

Unless he had some sort of horrifying injury, which is a risk.

Quote from: Dafatone on December 18, 2025, 05:26:42 PMUnless he had some sort of horrifying injury, which is a risk.

Players ought to be automatically enrolled by the NHL in a catastrophic insurance pool the moment they are drafted to protect them against career-ending injury.  Spread the risk across the whole league.  If the Players Association doesn't agree to that change the Players Association.  If the owners don't agree to that strike til they do.

I think a lot more guys would stay 4 years.  At the moment Bear is quite correct: if you are offered $1M you will likely not roll the dice.  A 22-year old shouldn't have to make that choice and give up his (someday soon, her) college years.

Quote from: chimpfood on December 18, 2025, 04:25:29 PMLooks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

former OSU recruit

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 05:15:26 PM

Quote from: stereax on December 18, 2025, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:26:41 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 18, 2025, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 18, 2025, 04:04:21 PMWeren't people on here saying that Bancroft got a huge signing bonus/contract?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/player/_/id/99798/dalton-bancroft

Just to be clear, that $950,000 is his salary even if he spends the entire year in the AHL?

Nope. Checked on PuckPedia. Here. (https://puckpedia.com/player/dalton-bancroft)

It's an ELC, so they're kind of limited in how much they can guarantee a player. Plus, Bancroft is making 98000 in signing bonus. 85000 is his minors salary. If he plays 5 games with the NHL Bruins, he gets a performance bonus of 25000. (Plus the pro-rated NHL salary for that point.)

Thanks. So he gets 85K plus the 97.5K signing bonus if he spends the entire year in the AHL (likely)? Or is the signing bonus prorated too? It's unfortunate for him that he left Cornell, he has 1 assist and 0 goals through 16 AHL games and I think that same contract would have been available after his senior year.

Signing bonus procs July 1st each contract year (generally) for the full amount no matter what. So he got the 97.5k then, full, in one payment. And then he gets 85k for spending the year in the minors. Every day he gets called up to the NHL (if he does), he gets a pro-rated NHL salary for that day.

On his next contract, he could very well have a guaranteed salary - a lot of older AHL tweeners get those, to convince them to stick it out. You'll often see contracts like 775K NHL/200K minors, 250K guarateed - in that case, even if the player spends the whole year in the minors, he still gets paid 250K, not 200K, due to the guarantee. But I don't think ELCs are eligible for that.

That being said, it's also possible there's a handshake deal where it's like "sign the ELC, then next year we'll pay you". Something similar happened with Kevin Labanc a few years back - took a massive discount deal for the Sharks one year, then got summarily overpaid the next four.

Tbh it's also possible there's a handshake in place that they'll give him his 5 games for the PB at the end of the season, provided they aren't in playoff distance...

Quote from: ursusminor on December 19, 2025, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 18, 2025, 04:25:29 PMLooks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

former OSU recruit

they should have brought him in

Quote from: ursusminor on December 19, 2025, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 18, 2025, 04:25:29 PMLooks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

former OSU recruit

Article regarding his commitment: https://www.telegraphherald.com/sports/local_sports/article_1a160662-6d0a-4dd6-b8cb-e719245c88b4.html

Quote from: ugarte on December 19, 2025, 11:06:57 AM

Quote from: ursusminor on December 19, 2025, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 18, 2025, 04:25:29 PMLooks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

former OSU recruit

they should have brought him in

I know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier. This kid seems like a fine player but it's a little strange to be picking up cast-offs from programs that I would consider equal to or lesser than ours.

Also, I want to add—-it's commendable how diplomatic Arend was about OSU, but that's some serious bullshit on the part of the school that things are more uncertain under the new landscape, therefore we can't guarantee you a spot, blah blah blah. Umm, you can certainly guarantee anybody a spot, what you're actually saying is "we'll take you unless we can find someone better." Which is not how a commitment works. Essentially, OSU reneged on their offer. Which happens all the time, sure, but they should call it what it is.

I want to reiterate that Arend looks like a fine player and seems like a good kid too. So no issues with us picking him up. But there's some serious bullshit being put out by schools these days. 

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PM... and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

i don't think it's unlikely though! i think it's fairly routine. on the other hand, what's kind of unbearable about belaboring this is that it assumes pelletier was offended he wasn't brought in OR that the analysis by hindsight is a reflection of anything other than bad luck.

the way i see it, Cornell didn't know Pelletier was about to break out like this. If anyone had known, we'd have brought him in and taken advantage of his leap. On the other hand, if he *hadn't* had a breakout year we wouldn't have lost him but he wouldn't be salivating over getting the guy having a breakout year.

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PM

Quote from: ugartethey should have brought him in

I know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, ...

of course i'm trolling and of course i hadn't read the article yet!

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

I could have not included the word since the probability of it being true is so high, I but decided to include it to throw a bone to the doubters.

Quote from: ugarte on December 19, 2025, 05:48:25 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PM... and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

i don't think it's unlikely though! i think it's fairly routine. on the other hand, what's kind of unbearable about belaboring this is that it assumes pelletier was offended he wasn't brought in OR that the analysis by hindsight is a reflection of anything other than bad luck.

the way i see it, Cornell didn't know Pelletier was about to break out like this. If anyone had known, we'd have brought him in and taken advantage of his leap. On the other hand, if he *hadn't* had a breakout year we wouldn't have lost him but he wouldn't be salivating over getting the guy having a breakout year.

Yeah, the simplest explanation is also by far the most likely: the coaching staff misjudged what they had in Pelletier. This isn't a logical leap at all, as it comports with how hockey recruiting tends to work. Anyway, I've moved on but am happy to reopen this debate any time I get gently trolled on this topic.

Quote from: ugarte on December 19, 2025, 11:06:57 AM

Quote from: ursusminor on December 19, 2025, 01:10:15 AM

Quote from: chimpfood on December 18, 2025, 04:25:29 PMLooks like we have a new commit for next year: Charles Arend of Dubuque in the USHL. He turns 20 in a couple of weeks, is a 6 feet tall, 190 pound forward. He was under half a point per game the last couple of years but has 20 points in 27 games this year.

former OSU recruit

they should have brought him in

Their coaches should answer for this travesty.  Their fans deserve to know who made their bone-headed decision.

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:50:46 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

I could have not included the word since the probability of it being true is so high, I but decided to include it to throw a bone to the doubters.

Most of whom would like to pick up a bone or a stick and break it across la tete.

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 06:00:39 PM

Quote from: ugarte on December 19, 2025, 05:48:25 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PM... and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

i don't think it's unlikely though! i think it's fairly routine. on the other hand, what's kind of unbearable about belaboring this is that it assumes pelletier was offended he wasn't brought in OR that the analysis by hindsight is a reflection of anything other than bad luck.

the way i see it, Cornell didn't know Pelletier was about to break out like this. If anyone had known, we'd have brought him in and taken advantage of his leap. On the other hand, if he *hadn't* had a breakout year we wouldn't have lost him but he wouldn't be salivating over getting the guy having a breakout year.

Yeah, the simplest explanation is also by far the most likely: the coaching staff misjudged what they had in Pelletier. This isn't a logical leap at all, as it comports with how hockey recruiting tends to work. Anyway, I've moved on but am happy to reopen this debate any time I get gently trolled on this topic.

зделия капля стекла для

Quote from: marty on December 19, 2025, 08:00:24 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 06:00:39 PM

Quote from: ugarte on December 19, 2025, 05:48:25 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PM... and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

i don't think it's unlikely though! i think it's fairly routine. on the other hand, what's kind of unbearable about belaboring this is that it assumes pelletier was offended he wasn't brought in OR that the analysis by hindsight is a reflection of anything other than bad luck.

the way i see it, Cornell didn't know Pelletier was about to break out like this. If anyone had known, we'd have brought him in and taken advantage of his leap. On the other hand, if he *hadn't* had a breakout year we wouldn't have lost him but he wouldn't be salivating over getting the guy having a breakout year.

Yeah, the simplest explanation is also by far the most likely: the coaching staff misjudged what they had in Pelletier. This isn't a logical leap at all, as it comports with how hockey recruiting tends to work. Anyway, I've moved on but am happy to reopen this debate any time I get gently trolled on this topic.

зделия капля стекла для

Translation please?

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on December 19, 2025, 08:49:30 PM

Quote from: marty on December 19, 2025, 08:00:24 PMзделия капля стекла для

Translation please?

For those who are familiar with Tom Lehrer's _Lobachevsky_, "It stinks."

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:50:46 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

I could have not included the word since the probability of it being true is so high, I but decided to include it to throw a bone to the doubters.

remember that part about saying things with certainty when you really don't have any, and how that is the issue, and not that you have are being persecuted for having opinions? yeah ... ah, nevermind FFS

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:00:06 PMAlso, I want to add—-it's commendable how diplomatic Arend was about OSU, but that's some serious bullshit on the part of the school that things are more uncertain under the new landscape, therefore we can't guarantee you a spot, blah blah blah. Umm, you can certainly guarantee anybody a spot, what you're actually saying is "we'll take you unless we can find someone better." Which is not how a commitment works. Essentially, OSU reneged on their offer. Which happens all the time, sure, but they should call it what it is.

I want to reiterate that Arend looks like a fine player and seems like a good kid too. So no issues with us picking him up. But there's some serious bullshit being put out by schools these days. 

The days of "Commitments" are over - both ways. Gone. Out the window.  So everyone might as well just get used to it.

Go look at the recruit list of all the teams. UMass, for example, has 30 players "committed" ... um, duh, that's not going to happen.  They are not alone. Most of the other big teams have 20+ players on their lists. They'll never all show up in a million years.  Some of it will the player's decision.  Some of it will be the school's decision.  At this point, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and everyone knows it.

At this point "we'll take you unless we can find someone better" - is basically exactly how it is working - both ways.

Quote from: adamw on December 20, 2025, 05:38:33 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:50:46 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

I could have not included the word since the probability of it being true is so high, I but decided to include it to throw a bone to the doubters.

remember that part about saying things with certainty when you really don't have any, and how that is the issue, and not that you have are being persecuted for having opinions? yeah ... ah, nevermind FFS

I'm serious about this—don't you have better things to do with your time?

In this case, I think what I said is quite likely the case. Therefore, I said that. Confidence level depends on the particular case. Should be obvious.

Quote from: adamw on December 20, 2025, 05:41:43 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:00:06 PMAlso, I want to add—-it's commendable how diplomatic Arend was about OSU, but that's some serious bullshit on the part of the school that things are more uncertain under the new landscape, therefore we can't guarantee you a spot, blah blah blah. Umm, you can certainly guarantee anybody a spot, what you're actually saying is "we'll take you unless we can find someone better." Which is not how a commitment works. Essentially, OSU reneged on their offer. Which happens all the time, sure, but they should call it what it is.

I want to reiterate that Arend looks like a fine player and seems like a good kid too. So no issues with us picking him up. But there's some serious bullshit being put out by schools these days. 

The days of "Commitments" are over - both ways. Gone. Out the window.  So everyone might as well just get used to it.

Go look at the recruit list of all the teams. UMass, for example, has 30 players "committed" ... um, duh, that's not going to happen.  They are not alone. Most of the other big teams have 20+ players on their lists. They'll never all show up in a million years.  Some of it will the player's decision.  Some of it will be the school's decision.  At this point, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and everyone knows it.

At this point "we'll take you unless we can find someone better" - is basically exactly how it is working - both ways.

It feels like a BUNCH of prospects flip their commitment nowadays.

It could be we are more informed of early commits than before.

I suspect nothing has changed.  But then I believe nothing has changed in human affairs since we first swung down from the trees.

Quote from: BearLover on December 20, 2025, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: adamw on December 20, 2025, 05:38:33 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 05:50:46 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 19, 2025, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 19, 2025, 04:25:30 PMI know you're trolling but there's a big difference between a school essentially telling a player they don't have space for him, as OSU did, and a school delaying a recruit's arrival by one year, as was presumably the case with Cornell and Pelletier.

That word is carrying so much weight my back hurts just reading it.

I could have not included the word since the probability of it being true is so high, I but decided to include it to throw a bone to the doubters.

remember that part about saying things with certainty when you really don't have any, and how that is the issue, and not that you have are being persecuted for having opinions? yeah ... ah, nevermind FFS

I'm serious about this—don't you have better things to do with your time?

In this case, I think what I said is quite likely the case. Therefore, I said that. Confidence level depends on the particular case. Should be obvious.

This Will They or Won't They is getting intense.

Nolan Long is Saint Andrew's top overall scorer and their goal scoring leader in league play. Might interest some teams in this years draft. Wouldn't be surprised if Dec is also taken this time around. Other possibilities for this year are Tuminaro and Puglisi (listed on NHL watchlist) and Cole Emerton.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 21, 2025, 02:03:49 PMIt could be we are more informed of early commits than before.

I suspect nothing has changed.  But then I believe nothing has changed in human affairs since we first swung down from the trees.

everything has changed, for sure ... there used to be Letters of Intent. That no longer exists. There used to be a "gentlemen's agreement" that was mainly adhered to. That no longer exists. There just used to be less poaching in general, if at all. We've been aware, on some level, of recruiting for 30 years. It's never been like this.

...has anyone else noticed that our recruiting looks weaker than usual?
*ducks*

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 11:28:07 AM...has anyone else noticed that our recruiting looks weaker than usual?
*ducks*

Hard disagree

Quote from: chimpfood on January 08, 2026, 11:55:04 AM

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 11:28:07 AM...has anyone else noticed that our recruiting looks weaker than usual?
*ducks*

Hard disagree

We have fewer players producing at a high clip in juniors, and more players not producing at all, than we typically do.

Also, grading on a slight scale because a flood of CHL players recently became available, meaning our recruiting should be improving.

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 12:05:48 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on January 08, 2026, 11:55:04 AM

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 11:28:07 AM...has anyone else noticed that our recruiting looks weaker than usual?
*ducks*

Hard disagree

We have fewer players producing at a high clip in juniors, and more players not producing at all, than we typically do.

Also, grading on a slight scale because a flood of CHL players recently became available, meaning our recruiting should be improving.

We also just brought in a huge freshman class and aren't graduating a ton of seniors.

Plus, the recruiting landscape is changing drastically, and we can grab guys like that Ohio State recruit who fall out of favor with other programs, as well as CHL players with the requisite academics. I mean, we got Courns in like, April?

Point is, at this point, our recruiting list is more a SUGGESTION of future years than an iron-clad "this is how the team will look".

Cornell currently has 17 committed players, which is a good amount. We don't typically decommit guys, so there isn't much room for more recruits. Of those 17, only Michael Dec, Cole Emerton, and Nolan Long stand out to me. There are a few young recruits who haven't started junior hockey yet, but most of our guys are in juniors and not producing much if at all.

Some of these kids may well blossom into good players, but on average this is definitely less production than I'm used to seeing.

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 02:20:06 PMCornell currently has 17 committed players, which is a good amount. We don't typically decommit guys, so there isn't much room for more recruits. Of those 17, only Michael Dec, Cole Emerton, and Nolan Long stand out to me. There are a few young recruits who haven't started junior hockey yet, but most of our guys are in juniors and not producing much if at all.

Some of these kids may well blossom into good players, but on average this is definitely less production than I'm used to seeing.

What are you used to seeing? This year is totally unprecedented. Our list of recruits is FULL of kids who are playing their first year of major junior hockey, not juniors. That's a totally different level of hockey and a different transition. What's considered good for a first year player in the Q? It's certainly not the same PPG as a second year in the BCHL. These kids aren't first round NHL talent who are expected to come in and light up major juniors.

I spot checked half a dozen kids playing major junior committed to Quinnipiac and it seems like the spread of production is pretty similar (without anyone producing like Dec).

Don't worry, though, I bought you a present:

(https://i.etsystatic.com/40982484/r/il/1e3940/5263589534/il_570xN.5263589534_p8sb.jpg)

Quote from: pfibiger on January 08, 2026, 05:56:13 PM

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 02:20:06 PMCornell currently has 17 committed players, which is a good amount. We don't typically decommit guys, so there isn't much room for more recruits. Of those 17, only Michael Dec, Cole Emerton, and Nolan Long stand out to me. There are a few young recruits who haven't started junior hockey yet, but most of our guys are in juniors and not producing much if at all.

Some of these kids may well blossom into good players, but on average this is definitely less production than I'm used to seeing.

What are you used to seeing? This year is totally unprecedented. Our list of recruits is FULL of kids who are playing their first year of major junior hockey, not juniors. That's a totally different level of hockey and a different transition. What's considered good for a first year player in the Q? It's certainly not the same PPG as a second year in the BCHL. These kids aren't first round NHL talent who are expected to come in and light up major juniors.

I spot checked half a dozen kids playing major junior committed to Quinnipiac and it seems like the spread of production is pretty similar (without anyone producing like Dec).

Don't worry, though, I bought you a present:

(https://i.etsystatic.com/40982484/r/il/1e3940/5263589534/il_570xN.5263589534_p8sb.jpg)

I didn't jump to conclusions, I was just remarking that we seem to be producing a lot less in juniors than normal. Is major junior not "juniors"? I am assuming it's approximately on the level of the USHL. I could go down the list but I think it's clear from clicking on players' stats that we have a ton of forwards in their first year of juniors who aren't producing at all, forwards in their second year of juniors who are producing at a half point per game or less, etc.

He's good with people.

Quote from: Trotsky on January 08, 2026, 07:31:34 PMHe's good with people.

"To serve man"?

Quote from: Trotsky on January 08, 2026, 07:31:34 PMHe's good with people.

This is exactly the type of post that is going to de-escalate the bickering on this forum. I ask that if you post something of no substance just to egg on another poster that you at least make it funny or original! But this post is so stupid that I just don't see the point  :'( 

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 08:32:22 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on January 08, 2026, 07:31:34 PMHe's good with people.

This is exactly the type of post that is going to de-escalate the bickering on this forum. I ask that if you post something of no substance just to egg on another poster that you at least make it funny or original! But this post is so stupid that I just don't see the point  :'( 

I made a dumb joke from Office Space. Trotsky kind of quoted the same character. Feels like pretty standard message board banter.

As for league performance -- the USHL is in a league of its own in juniors and maybe as good as the worst major junior league. This is a pretty interesting analysis of league performance:

https://hockey-graphs.com/2020/03/02/which-league-is-best/

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/tYm7O9e4K4TfH7t07pZY6XlENaS9sE234gKjME-uxGq7Q0SP_itT7R8o47pFzEyc_59MPcOscCJwbyowJL7vWYY8uZ9VBd5zAqY9ZXEJjU8MvvfixKf77-_nq2vNy_5Yx-SgpK7Y)

Quote from: pfibiger on January 08, 2026, 08:36:34 PM

Quote from: BearLover on January 08, 2026, 08:32:22 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on January 08, 2026, 07:31:34 PMHe's good with people.

This is exactly the type of post that is going to de-escalate the bickering on this forum. I ask that if you post something of no substance just to egg on another poster that you at least make it funny or original! But this post is so stupid that I just don't see the point  :'( 

I made a dumb joke from Office Space. Trotsky kind of quoted the same character. Feels like pretty standard message board banter.

As for league performance -- the USHL is in a league of its own in juniors and maybe as good as the worst major junior league. This is a pretty interesting analysis of league performance:

https://hockey-graphs.com/2020/03/02/which-league-is-best/

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/tYm7O9e4K4TfH7t07pZY6XlENaS9sE234gKjME-uxGq7Q0SP_itT7R8o47pFzEyc_59MPcOscCJwbyowJL7vWYY8uZ9VBd5zAqY9ZXEJjU8MvvfixKf77-_nq2vNy_5Yx-SgpK7Y)

Oh, I missed that reference tbh.

I think the problem with the above graph is that it's cut off in 2018. The general view (from what I've gleaned from podcasts and other hockey coverage) is that he USHL is a lot better now than it was in 2018, probably now better than the Q and on par with the W.

Also, the USHL is perceived as lower scoring than the CHL. Overall I think it's reasonable to treat a lack of production in the CHL as similar to the same in the USHL.

There's an inverse relationship between how much BL talks about hockey and how much he understands it.

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's (https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/qmjhl-vs-ushl.3020214/) a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Quote from: The Rancor on January 08, 2026, 11:05:44 PMThere's an inverse relationship between how much BL talks about hockey and how much he understands it.

That doesn't even make sense

If I was the one choosing I would send all of our best recruits to the USHL. It's older, plays the college hockey Friday/Saturday game schedule, and seems more similar to ECAC style hockey (structured and defensive).

The CHL schedule makes it harder for guys to get stronger during the season and the leagues overall are less focused on development and future success than the USHL is.

Quote from: chimpfood on January 09, 2026, 12:41:15 AMIf I was the one choosing I would send all of our best recruits to the USHL. It's older, plays the college hockey Friday/Saturday game schedule, and seems more similar to ECAC style hockey (structured and defensive).

The CHL schedule makes it harder for guys to get stronger during the season and the leagues overall are less focused on development and future success than the USHL is.

The CHL, to me, has historically been focused on getting its top guys to the NHL quick and everyone else can kick sand. But yeah, the college hockey schedule of the USHL is definitely a boon. Though aren't the CHL and the USHL both up to 20 years old, with the CHL having a few overagers a year?

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

Quote from: BearLover on January 09, 2026, 01:01:41 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

CHL's still a cut above the USHL, imo, due to factors like pace and playtime and all.

And don't a bunch of our recruits come from leagues like the BCHL?

My point is - if you're sticking in the CHL, and playing in the lineup consistently, you're probably pretty solid even if you're not putting up the points.

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 01:03:58 AM

Quote from: BearLover on January 09, 2026, 01:01:41 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

And don't a bunch of our recruits come from leagues like the BCHL?

Not anymore really. Prior to CHL NCAA eligibility we would recruit heavily from the BCHL (along with many other schools), and rarely from the other leagues like the OJHL, CCHL. CHL eligibility seems to have changed things. We currently don't have any BCHL recruits outside of players cut from their CHL teams.

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's (https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/qmjhl-vs-ushl.3020214/) a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

Quote from: scoop85 on January 09, 2026, 08:07:08 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's (https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/qmjhl-vs-ushl.3020214/) a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [pauses to take a deep breath] AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

God. I love remembering that Lafreniere exists. What a bust.

Quote from: scoop85 on January 09, 2026, 08:07:08 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 09, 2026, 12:02:23 AMNCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's (https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/qmjhl-vs-ushl.3020214/) a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

When I was a lad I served a term
As WHL fan of the Portland firm

And my impression back then, going on 30 years ago, was the Q was firewagon hockey with tremendous skills and finesse, the occasional gifted (and tested) goaltender, and absolutely no defense.

They were not weaker.  Merely different.  They have won 4 of the last 6 Memorial Cups, and 7 of the last 13.

Wehmann and Arend have been hot recently, both older guys in their leagues so good to see the scoring still progressing. Emerton picked up a goal and Tuminaro also picked up an assist tonight.

Quote from: chimpfood on January 10, 2026, 12:33:16 AMWehmann and Arend have been hot recently, both older guys in their leagues so good to see the scoring still progressing. Emerton picked up a goal and Tuminaro also picked up an assist tonight.

Wehmann has 8 points over his last 10 games, and Arend has 9 over that same stretch.

We've had good success with guys who committed late in the process (both Hiscock and Caton Ryan committed fairly late in 2024), and Arend looks like another guy who can be productive for us.

Henry Major traded by Chicago to Des Moines (one USHL team to another).