ELynah Forum

Quote from: BearLover on June 30, 2026, 02:28:25 PM

Quote from: stereax on June 29, 2026, 09:36:36 PMBancroft (predictably) does not get a qualifying offer from Nashville.

Dude made a big mistake leaving college

same could be said for 95% of them

Quote from: stereax on June 27, 2026, 11:07:43 PM

Quote from: BearLover on June 27, 2026, 10:38:30 PMAdded and 8th pick for PSU and the first pick for Michigan Tech as well.

I'll repeat what I said like 6 months ago that we need to pick up our recruiting. 2ish players per draft was alright before the CHL opened. Now it's too far below par.

Same amount of kids get drafted a year.

Now more of 'em get to go to Denver and MichState.

CHL -> NCAA is becoming somewhat common among draft picks nowadays. Back in The Day, we'd have Canadian guys in the BCHL and shit so they could come play NCAA hockey. Now they can play in the OHL and then go to the NCAA. Which tends to help the rich get richer.

Would be interested in seeing how many NHL picks pre-CHL stuff went the NCAA route and the proportional number of those that went to different schools.

You can find all those numbers and a lot more here:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/draft-history.php

And you can click on the years to see the individual year breakdown.

Quote from: billhoward on June 22, 2026, 04:44:34 PMThis middle graf was painful:

QuoteCollege Hockey News
Prior to that, Rassey was an assistant at Harvard for Ted Donato, who recently resigned after 22 years as the Crimson's head coach.
Despite CHN learning of the agreement Wednesday, Harvard has yet to make an official announcement as of this weekend.
The other finalists for the job were Dartmouth assistant Jason Tapp, and Niagara head coach Jason Lammers.

Which as an editor I'm reading this as, "Hey, we broke the story, why don't you acknowlege it? We're not Sports Illustrated [neither is SI this decade] but still, give us some credit ... " Sometimes breaking a story comes easy: Cornell had a major-sports hire coming [like decades back], I had an idea who it was, I called the house on behalf of the Rochester paper, the babysitter answered and said, "They're out the evening, he wants you to know he's very much interested and if he can talk tomorrow, great." Coaching is one more profession where everybody leaks like a sieve.

multiple legit news sources reported it last week with the news that Harvard was expected to announce by last Thursday, including us.

Quote from: Weder on June 22, 2026, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: stereax on June 21, 2026, 11:17:26 PM

Quote from: Weder on June 21, 2026, 07:43:29 PMRIT's schedule lists them at Lynah on Dec. 5.

So Merrimack was wrong? Updating.

I wonder if it's possible that Merrimack is lined up for an exhibition game?

Merrimack bailed out on the game for unclear reasons that didn't make anyone happy. So I doubt they're scheduled for anything at the moment.

Quote from: BearLover on June 17, 2026, 05:30:52 PM

Quote from: adamw on June 17, 2026, 12:09:56 PM

Quote from: BearLover on June 15, 2026, 03:02:35 PMI think it's a safe assumption that most good players, upon obtaining an undergrad degree, will look to transfer to another school unless they have a great pro offer (probably AHL or above). Again, the five-year COVID eligibility years are instructive here. Tons and tons of players took advantage of a fifth year, including many from Cornell.  I suspect that fewer will now, but that's more a function of roster caps and more skill in college hockey (more pro potential) rather than kids not wanting to.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

Why is this not at all what happened during the COVID 5-year eligibility rule? There were tons and tons of fifth years. Many were very good players who played five full college seasons. Look at Quinnipiac's or Clarkson's rosters from those years. I don't understand why this would be much different.

Quotesecond - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

Am I missing something here? Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds. Last year Cornell brought in 12 freshmen and only three of them were already 20. The rest were 18 or 19 and thus would be eligible for five years, if I'm reading the rule correctly. 

I went back the past few seasons and it looks like over 75% of Cornell players would have been eligible for a fifth year under the new rule.

So, honestly, I don't get either of your points - there were tons of fifth years during the COVID seasons, and Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds.

COVID years didn't have the age limit restriction.

I believe Cornell is more likely to bring in 20 year olds than 19 year olds going forward, notwithstanding past practice.

Quote from: BearLover on June 15, 2026, 03:02:35 PMI think it's a safe assumption that most good players, upon obtaining an undergrad degree, will look to transfer to another school unless they have a great pro offer (probably AHL or above). Again, the five-year COVID eligibility years are instructive here. Tons and tons of players took advantage of a fifth year, including many from Cornell.  I suspect that fewer will now, but that's more a function of roster caps and more skill in college hockey (more pro potential) rather than kids not wanting to.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

second - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

put it all together, and it's practically moot. whereas the alternative was "catastrophic" (words of many coaches, including Ivies)

Quote from: BearLover on June 14, 2026, 06:01:41 PM

Quote from: stereax on June 14, 2026, 05:21:48 PMif the rule change does not benefit us why was casey going so hard for it

The new rule gives our opponents more options, while not giving us any more options. Therefore, it is strictly negative for us.

I think there is a disconnect in this conversation and people are talking past each other, because there are three rules at issue.
1. The current rule, that you get four years of eligibility if you enroll age 20 or sooner.
2. The NCAA's original proposed rule, that adds a fifth year of eligibility, but starts the eligiblity clock upon graduation.
3. Hockey's counterproposal, that accepts the new fifth year of eligiblity but starts the clock upon the year you turn 19, NOT upon graduation. If you enroll your age 20 year, you still get four years.

Casey reportedly argued against rule (2), at a time when rule (1) was still in place. At the time, rule (3) wasn't on the table. Maybe he does think rule (3) is better than rule (2), but in any case, rule (3) is DEFINITIONALLY WORSE for us than rule (1).

Factually untrue. Everyone knew in Florida that the NCAA was not going back to (1), no chance. The arguments in Florida - that Casey was leading on - was to make it (3) instead of (2). Considered a massively lesser of two evils by all 63 coaches.

It's definitely much worse in other sports - though I feel more for all the HS athletes who get fewer opportunities now because 5th years are blocking them.

Hockey players have pro hockey to go to. This mitigates 5th-year 24-year olds. Most anyone that's any good, will want to be in pro hockey by then.

Casey didn't just not want to upset the apple cart. He specifically was one of a couple of coaches who made impassioned arguments against the NCAA lawyers at the April coaches convention. He has specifically been lobbying on behalf of getting the NCAA to land where it is now. He's been mentioned by other coaches as a leader on this. I've mentioned this before, but some are choosing to conveniently ignore this.

Quote from: BearLover on June 05, 2026, 11:34:31 PMWe need look no further than the COVID eligibility years to see how big a factor fifth year seniors were...they were a big factor.

I think the NCAA would be better off without fifth year players. More younger skilled players, fewer plodding giant 24-year-olds.

I'm pretty annoyed with the NHL and junior hockey sticking their nose into this. College hockey shouldn't exist to prop up those leagues. Tons more kids are gonna take gap years across the other collegiate sports now too.

Mostly just care about this in the context that it sucks for Cornell though.

every single coach supported where it stands now, including the Ivy coaches, including Casey. There's likely a reason for that, and that this is one case where it will not actually screw Cornell like you think.  I loathe the 5-year rule in general - and I agree that having to face 5th years is a disadvantage to a degree - but I also don't think it will be that big a thing. I don't think it will be as widespread as COVID. In that case, players were doing it because the got a truncated 4 years otherwise.

Quote from: stereax on May 26, 2026, 09:31:26 AMInteresting article about college hockey budgets.

FYI - this is mainly useless data. Without a breakdown, there's no way of knowing what this even means. For example, most of Arizona State's budget is really paying down arena debt, and paying off the NCHC entry fee. It has nothing to do with hockey expenses. Meanwhile, some schools count scholarships in their ledger, and others do not. And so on.

Quote from: stereax on May 24, 2026, 06:41:41 PM

Quote from: cth95 on May 24, 2026, 01:04:50 PM

Quote from: BearLover on May 24, 2026, 11:15:34 AMSeems like on the average day this forum has somewhere between 2 and 10 Russian bots signing up for accounts.

After reading any interesting threads, the "Mark Read" button is a pretty quick way to keep the site current.  That is a simple thing we can do between the times the Mods have a chance to eliminate Spam threads and update security.

Wait, you mean you guys DON'T want to know where to get cheap Viagra???

most guys on here are at the age where they already know.

Quote

Quote from: stereax on May 21, 2026, 08:21:36 PM

Quote from: BearLover on May 21, 2026, 06:12:17 PMApparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

I mean, does that change a lot? Eligibility clock starts in your 20yo season. That's when a lot of our guys come in anyway. It's 5 years, okay, more grad transfers maybe, but I'd say for the most part in a post-pandemic world, grad transfers aren't that important. Q's run excepted.

More of our players come in at 18 or 19. Now those players will play a grad year at Q or Duluth or something. So will other teams' players. Or Q's players will stay at Q for five years. Fifth year seniors were a big factor in the post-COVID years so I don't see why it would be any different if the rule becomes permanent.

It seems probably moot anyway since I don't really see why the NCAA would go along with hockey's proposal. So many more kids in other sports would do post-grad years. It would significantly increase the number of 19-y/o freshmen in other sports. One of the purposes of the rule change was to bring down the age of college athletes so I don't know why the NCAA would agree to hockey's proposal.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

I don't see the new proposal hurting Ivies any more than the NCAA proposal, given that the Ivy coaches were all firmly behind it and Casey was one of the most outspoken speakers at the coaches conference in trying to plead college hockey's case to the NCAA lawyers.

Quote from: BearLover on May 21, 2026, 06:12:17 PMApparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

I really thought you'd grown to love me - posted this article to CHN 2 days ago

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/20_Hockey-Community-Rallies-.php

Quote from: Weder on May 21, 2026, 05:21:22 PM

Quote from: stereax on May 21, 2026, 03:04:56 PMNote that my "count" has 29 games already, not counting exhibition or scrimmage. I truthfully can't recall how many regular season games the Ivies are allowed to play - I think we upped it to 30? Maybe? With exhibition?

It's 30 regular season, but was part of the deal that you are limited to no more than 1 exhibition? (I think that was the speculation on why Cornell played 29 last season -- because they wanted the 2nd exhibition?)

they played 29 last year because they didn't have time to schedule another game. not sure if exhibition amount has been changed. two separate issues I believe.

Quote from: 617BigRed on May 21, 2026, 10:05:44 AMBoston Globe article on how new NCAA rules could impact college hockey:

www.bostonglobe.com/2026/05/21/sports/ncaa-eligibility-rule-college-hockey/

Our latest, FYI...

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/20_Hockey-Community-Rallies-.php