ELynah Forum

Quote from: The Rancor on April 03, 2026, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: stereax on April 02, 2026, 11:58:20 PM

Quote from: The Rancor on April 02, 2026, 10:42:31 PMI can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

Goalies are different and need a lot more time to develop. Plus the goalie room in MTL is stacked between Fowler, Dobes, and Montembeault. He almost certainly won't sign after his sophomore year. Transfers, who the hell knows anymore.

That being said, we do have Cirka recruited...

When they're stacked, he's expendable... trade-able. One bag of pucks and a salary dump and he's signing with a team that didn't draft him. LeNeveu went after his Sophomore year, and, honestly, if he puts up numbers again like he did this season, what more is there to prove at the NCAA level? I don't want to say Bon Voyage, but it isn't unrealistic, especially if we make a deep playoff run.

I don't know - goalies are different.  None of the great Cornell goalies other than Dryden have gone on to even notable NHl careers - and ncaa does not appear to be a real pathway for goalies.  So he may leave but there won't be nearly as much of a push.  Goalies wind up not in the nhl or AHL after Cornell but the ECHL

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 02, 2026, 03:49:09 PMNot really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty much my point. Totally agree.  That's why I'm asking can we out-recruit them or out-retain them? And how? I don't think it's realistic to expect kids to say no to the NHL.  More on that later.

Quote from: BearLover on April 02, 2026, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: Pghas on April 01, 2026, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

We need to be realistic about our limitations. We cannot go down the path of getting the McKennas, nor can we go down the path of bringing in a bunch of high-end transfers. These players do not want to play at an Ivy League school in the ECAC that does not offer scholarships. Any changes in philosophy will take place on the margins.

As far as how Cornell grows as a program, I'm not really sure at this point. The model has been to recruit very good, though not blue-chip, players who value an education, and develop them for four years. Stanley leaving is bearish. There's some BL catastrophizing going on here, but I really do think that if guys are leaving Cornell for a career in the AHL, then we're in trouble. Looking around the country, it's quite common for teams to retain a player of this caliber. We'd have been a top team in the country this season if we had Robertson and Bancroft back, and we'd be a top team next year if we had Castagna, Stanley, Walsh, and Fegaras back. If we want a legit chance at the Frozen Four, we need to get most of these players to stay. Beyond that, what else can we do? Casey is already recruiting the best player he can. The quality of talent coming in is pretty good. I suppose NIL is one path forward--we can't do real NIL, but some Penn basketball-style thing where we set players up with fancy internships sounds plausible and I understand Casey has already been looking into something like that.

The recruits in the pipeline look alright. But there is going to be a clear step down from the stacked 2023 recruiting class (Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, Fegaras, Robertson, Devlin, Kraft, Catalano).

Yeah I hear you.  I dont think Stanley leaving is a catastrophe, I just look more at the results the last few years - which are certainly great ones - and can see that we could use a bit more high end elite skill to get up those last few steps.  That said, it may work out that the players we develop and have a few years of experience at this level will ultimately trump the programs that are relying on one-year lottery picks.  we will see.  Also having two sons who are Cornellians I know a bit about majors and the process  - I will say that the hardest undergraduate program to get admitted to at Cornell is the Dyson business program, and at least a few of the hockey players are actually in that program, which is a pretty big recruiting pull and also suggests what those guys' intentions may be (Walsh and Fegaras are both in that program, although they may have transferred into it) in terms of NOT only thinking about hockey. Irrespective of that, Cornell is so well-represented and networked in finance that hockey players coming out of here have fantastic opportunities and I am sure they play that up.  I wonder if they take advantage of Cayuga lake in the warmer months for recruiting purposes.

Quote from: ugarte on April 01, 2026, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 04:56:24 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 03:04:41 PMYes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 02:28:18 PM

Quote from: adamw on April 01, 2026, 01:33:40 PM

Quote from: BearLover on April 01, 2026, 11:55:07 AMWhich is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

Quote from: fastforward on March 31, 2026, 09:42:04 PMIf I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Of course.  But I think college hockey is fundamentally very different right now than it was even 5 years ago.

Five years ago:  You're an American or Canadian Kid growing up playing hockey.  You're a great player.  You want to go as far as hockey can take you. And let's be clear:  Hockey is the priority.  Getting an education is nice, but this isn't 1987 where you are using your hockey skills to get yourself into Cornell.  Your goal is to play as much hockey for as long as you can.  Your choices are: 1. Go play junior hockey as a teenager in Canada and hope to be drafted into the NHL, BUT you then are not allowed to play college hockey.  All or nothing. 2. Go play at a prep school in the Northeast (or live in Minnesota and play public HS there) and then, while you are less likely to be drafted into the NHL, you can be recruited and committed to play in college (with a stop at junior hockey along the way). From there, you might hope to go to the NHL.  As you might expect, you are much more likely to have been drafted if you cut your teeth in the major Canadian junior leagues.  Many of those kids get drafted but it doesn't pan out and they just forget hockey and go on with their lives. And many of them are probably much better players than the kids who went to prep school and then college. If you choose the prep school>USHL>college path, you are much less likely to wind up in the NHL. College really was generally NOT seen as a path to the NHL. So kids valued the education much more and understood.  And like you said, if you had a Moulson on the team you did significantly better.

The biggest change - more than the transfer portal and the NIL stuff - is the change last fall to allow all of those major Canadian junior players to go to college.  I will tell you because I know this for a fact -since that change, 95%+ of all college commitments are coming from junior hockey.  So many coaches are actually waiting to see how kids develop and what they develop into before committing them.  It minimizes the chances of them signing a prep school kid who doesn't work out in juniors. That is the new pathway.  All the best college recruits now skip prep school and go straight to the OHL or the Q or the WHL.  So they are ready by the time they finish high school, AND the next logical step for them between juniors and the NHL is now college hockey for a year or two. And the college teams that can grab onto the Celebrinis and McKennas are going to have the best chances of winning THAT YEAR.  Once those guys are developed enough, they go to the NHL. Presumably by that time, they are significantly better players than the fourth year seniors they beat on their way to the dance.  And developing players at the NCAA level for four years does not provide them with the kind of development they generally need to jump to the NHL.  Like Castagna - he's as developed as he can be playing ECAC hockey, he needs the next step.  Walsh may or may not be in a similar position.

There are 2 sides to this coin.  Yers, it would be nice to keep great players for 4 years.  On the other hand, for Cornell to take the next steps towards a frozen four berth, they probably need to recruit some players who are first round or high first-round draft picks.  They need that level of speed and skill, and those guys will leave after a year or two.  But for those elite players, thats the pathway now.  Harvard had Laferriere and Coronado a few years back.  Everyone knew those guys weren't playing 4 years.  Now the money issue has reared its head so it remains to be seen how Cornell will be able to pull it off. Say you are Cornell and you are recruiting Gavin McKenna.  What do you offer him?  we will compete for ECAC and national championships, you will play in front of  the Lynah Faithful, but we cannot offer you 700K and probably, since you'll only be here a year, cannot offer you a Cornell degree, though you can always come back here and finish it in a decade or so.  Something will have to give - either schools won't want to waste energy and money recruiting guys who will only be in college for a year and dont have any sense at all of being part of the program long-term, or the schools with more cash to throw around - and the willingness to do it - will win out.  Maybe it becomes a thing where you catch lightning in a bottle and a few guys you dont expect to light it up do.  Or if it comes down to Gavin McKenna for a year, you pony up the $ for that kid and go for it that year.

It's really not college sports in many ways anymore.  Like sports at all levels it is so much about the $. 

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 29, 2026, 03:16:33 AMI never played hockey so I'm not an expert. When Bancroft left Cornell as a junior to go pro, I was kind of surprised. The kid was a sniper and had a hard shot, but was he well rounded enough to turn pro and have legit chance? He seems to be getting more playing time with his new team so maybe this is breakthrough he needed?
     To me, Walsh and Castagna bring much more. Both are better defensively, better on face offs, quicker, etc. I think with Walsh wearing the "C" it made him a little too unselfish at times this season. He's very talented and I think there were a few times he could have "taken over" more than he did.
     Anyway, in my head: "if Bancroft went pro, then surely Walsh and Castagna will go". Would be interested in hearing thoughts from people with more
Knowledge about this.

I won't say i have more knowledge - Bancroft either didn't play much for Providence or struggled this year.  I think Calgary presents an opportunity for Castagna, he will be one of a slew of young players trying to establish themselves and will have the opportunity to do that.  As we discussed Boston isn't even giving Hagens an nhl contract yet so it looks like Walsh's path with that team is more complicated.  For both of them it's not clear how much more growth they can experience as players through another year of ECAC hockey.  Would say that especially about Castagna.  Would think those factors are the biggest ones for these kids.

Quote from: Bluelightning on March 28, 2026, 07:15:22 AMI think we did peak too early. Too many nights we didn't play well from February 7 until last night. Loss to Clarkson, tie RPI, ugly loss to Union, bad loss at Princeton, got suckered into a bar fight vs Clarkson, game 1 vs Harvard wasn't a good look, Princeton, culminating in Denver. I was starting to think that maybe we don't like playing on Fridays.
     Every year when the last game is over, I think "how are we ever going to win again without x senior?". Obviously that is changing with the addition of transfer portal and players going pro earlier so I have to worry about underclassmen. But every year we seem to figure it out. We need suffocating defensemen that play consistent and limit the mistakes.

Agree about them peaking early - Harvard/Dartmouth weekend was a huge peak for sure, never felt they were as good after that.
Tough to say if from their perspectives Castagna and Walsh should stay.  As good as they were this year I'd love to see them be able to really step up in a game like last nights .  But maybe developmentally the ECAC doesn't provide enough of a challenge to get to the next level.  Most guys coming out of Cornell have trouble sticking at the AHL level never mind NHL.

Quote from: Scersk '97 on March 27, 2026, 10:24:57 PM

Quote from: stereax on March 27, 2026, 09:49:31 PM"They're an extremely talented team. Their goalie played well. They got Pohlkamp back there. They're a really deep team, right? They're going four lines all night."

There was a time when we were the really deep team, but I feel like it's been while since we had three dangerous, wear-em-down lines and a checking line, if that's a thing anymore. I'd like to see us get back there.

As far as I'm concerned, the weakest part of our play this year was puck possession by forwards in the offensive zone. Sure, when we win a lot of face-offs our possession numbers are good. But we lose the puck a lot on rushes, and we haven't seemed to have a lot of cycling time; hence, we don't have the dwell time necessary to force in "greasy" goals when we need them. It's the difference between 22-11-1 and 31-5-1.

I always feel like Cornell's entire plan is to get greasy goals.  Those are bread and butter and yes you need enough of them and honestly that can win you the ECAC especially when Quinnipiac can be outworked. But beyond that it's speed and elite skill. The 2020 team oozes talent and had guys who were headed to the NHL. In games like last night's you need a guy or 3 who can step up and just flat-out make an elite skill play and get us back in it.  It may seem counterintuitive but - for example on Denver's 3rd goal - bad turnover but the kid just sniped it.  Our guys throw that into the goalie every time. One example of a kid with wheels and skill is DiGiulian.  He's not a big hitter at all and isn't going to win the Selke.  But in January they were down to Omaha at home, and he buries an absolute snipe to tie it, then forces a turnover and makes a quick back and assist to set up the winner.  After the game I remember being surprised that there was no acknowledgment of that - probably because he doesn't do a ton otherwise - but Gio won us that game. You do actually need guys who can make plays.  He'll, Wyttenbach is pretty one dimensional but that dimension made a huge difference for q.

Quote from: Trotsky on March 28, 2026, 06:13:11 AMFrom McNally:

QuoteIf nothing else, playing a team like Denver solidifies in Cornell's mind what it seeks to become.

Mike's template was the Lake Superior State teams of the 90's.  We won.  And we watched 30 years of low event hockey.

If Casey's template is the Denver teams of the 20's, we are going to have fun the next decade.

I always thought it was the Jersey Devils of the 90s but probably same thing.

everything has changed so much in the last 18 months - since they opened up the Canadian Junior leagues to NCAA, nobody gets committed out of prep school anymore.  Totally makes sense - there have been so many recruits who get to the ju hors level and it just doesn't work out for them.  Since success in juniors seems to correlate much more closely with NCAA success it makes much more sense to just recruit kids - sometimes a bit older kids - from juniors.  Just means that kids will have to decide playing college hockey is the most important thing they want to do in life and go play juniors during or after high school. Smart kids less willing to do that without a commitment.

I don't know - would we rather be playing Denver in Denver first before having to beat the western Michigan to get to the frozen four, or playing in Albany but needing to go through Michigan to get there?

Quote from: BearLover on March 21, 2026, 12:14:50 AMSoundly outworked by Princeton. No support for the puckcarrier, resulting in no sustained possession. This team is nothing special when we aren't winning faceoffs. 

I don't know that they were outworked.  Princeton is just faster and has better team speed. Historically Cornell has generally played a 1990s Jersey Devils type of big bodied defensive hockey.  They've started to move away from that for sure but in recruiting need to place a much higher premium on speed and skill.that is the game now at every level.