ELynah Forum

Quote from: Trotsky on August 03, 2026, 05:10:25 PMThe inspired write poetry.

The diligent write novels.

The lazy write screenplays.

The bottomfeeders write political or sports pieces.

The reward structure is inverse to the amount of talent.

cf. acting

It's always heartwarming when I get evidence that a Cornell education is no better than my lowly Ithaca College education. Thanks Trotsky!

Quote from: scoop85 on August 05, 2026, 06:14:35 PM

Quote from: BearLover on August 05, 2026, 05:41:28 PM

Quote from: BearLover on August 05, 2026, 05:23:55 PMhttps://x.com/ClankoMedia/status/2084747398400684182

Syer apparently recently decommitted a bunch of '06 Princeton recruits. You can see all the crossed out names on Heisenberg's 2026 spreadsheet. And another crossed out name on the 2027 spreadsheet. Looks like 8 players total with '05 and '06 birth years have been decommitted, though I'm not sure if all were recent.

My thoughts on this:
Cornell never really does this at a large scale, even with recruits who don't pan out. Some of these kids committed under the old coach, but why wait over two years to decommit them? Could ostensibly be due to the new "start before your 20th birthday, else you lose a year" rule, but even in that case, they'd still get 3 years of eligibility. And there isn't much downside to keeping them on the roster even if they aren't good, since Princeton isn't subject to roster caps.

No roster caps, but an Ivy coach only gets so many slots with admissions, so it behooves them to make each of them count.

It's actually worse than that for Princeton. They're the only ECAC team that has to deal with a "slotting" system officially - meaning, that once a player enrolls at Princeton, if they de-commit or leave, Princeton cannot replace that player EVER in what would've been that 4-year window. This was never an issue in the past because all this movement never happened. It is now, which is how I finally came to learn about this.

Quote from: ugarte on August 05, 2026, 05:58:11 PMThey also aren't subject to commitments like they may be at other schools. (I don't know the latest status on the validity of letters of intent but the Ivies have never used them. Plus the decommits may not have all originated from Syer. The landscape changed for recruits just as it did for the coaches and maybe things changed for the players.

There is no such thing as Letters of Intent anymore.

Quote from: Dafatone on August 05, 2026, 10:06:11 AMThe partner of a friend who played junior hockey (the partner not the friend) claimed that he was recruited by Harvard but couldn't clear the academics bar.

Chris Drury was going to follow his brother, Ted, to Harvard, but couldn't get in. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: Old Red on August 11, 2026, 10:33:54 PM

Quote from: stereax on August 11, 2026, 09:06:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on August 11, 2026, 01:14:12 PMThe lower ranking assistant coaches bounce around constantly. It's not specific to this season nor to Cornell.

Yep, this exactly. And it's not like we lost an coach or staff member who's been with the team for years.

Also possible that they were looking into Kaiser already before Robinson accepted the offer.

I disagree.  The "lesser" coaches are the foundation of the program.  They develop the players and the better their quality, the better the team.  And obviously the better programs will attract better talent at all levels.

Cornell was expecting Robinson to stay because they posted this bio update in early summer, before he left.  It refers to him starting his second year.   https://cornellbigred.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/roster/coaches/josh-robinson/11947

I sense that Cornell undervalues goalie coaches.  That may be why we lost Cournoyer to Wisconsin.

I wouldn't read anything into the web site getting updated. It doesn't mean he was expected to stay. The web site is updated as a matter of course. The SIDs have no insight into anything going on in hockey operations until it happens. And that's a not a criticism. That's true for every school.

It's kinda weird given Cornell's history with goalies to think that it's doing anything wrong in that department.

Quote from: BearLover on August 12, 2026, 12:00:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on August 12, 2026, 08:25:25 AM

Quote from: Old Red on August 11, 2026, 10:33:54 PM

Quote from: stereax on August 11, 2026, 09:06:15 PM

Quote from: BearLover on August 11, 2026, 01:14:12 PMThe lower ranking assistant coaches bounce around constantly. It's not specific to this season nor to Cornell.

Yep, this exactly. And it's not like we lost an coach or staff member who's been with the team for years.

Also possible that they were looking into Kaiser already before Robinson accepted the offer.

I disagree.  The "lesser" coaches are the foundation of the program.  They develop the players and the better their quality, the better the team.  And obviously the better programs will attract better talent at all levels.

Cornell was expecting Robinson to stay because they posted this bio update in early summer, before he left.  It refers to him starting his second year.   https://cornellbigred.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/roster/coaches/josh-robinson/11947

And if you think the goaltending coach is not important consider this:
Dartmouth  -- Associate Head Coach Jason Tapp
Princeton -- Assistant Coach Shane Talarico (former Cornell Directory of Operations)
Michigan -- Assistant Coach Kevin Reiter

Dartmouth has been attracting great goalies. 

I sense that Cornell undervalues goalie coaches.  That may be why we lost Cournoyer to Wisconsin.

We lost Cournoyer to Wisconsin primarily because of $. Pretty sure Adam said about as much.

I don't think Adam said that. I believe the only things he said about Cournoyer's transfer were (1) that prior to committing anywhere, his advisor contacted a bunch of programs to ask if they had interest and (2) Adam insinuated Cournoyer wasn't a serious student. Adam would probably tell you he doesn't know why Cournoyer transferred. No idea about the goalie coach issue but it would indeed be bad (and surprising) if we had been one of the few schools without a dedicated goalie coach.

It's true - I didn't say that. I believe $ is a big deal right now. But in Cournoyer's case, it wasn't really that.

Quote from: VIEWfromK on August 09, 2026, 05:58:13 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on June 12, 2026, 11:42:01 PMI'm fine with the 5 years -- it's defensible. I want the Ivies to drop their performative nonsense and adopt everybody else's rules.  The brand will survive.

I'm curious how many of our athletes can afford a fifth season anyway?  In past conversations a couple impacted by COVID said they would have loved to finish at Cornell but couldn't afford to so they transferred.

They weren't allowed to stay.

Quote from: BearLover on July 29, 2026, 08:54:55 PM

Quote from: adamw on July 29, 2026, 07:39:23 PM

Quote from: BearLover on July 29, 2026, 12:53:25 PM

Quote from: adamw on July 28, 2026, 06:31:43 PM

Quote from: BearLover on July 28, 2026, 03:55:33 PMMoney has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

I said No. 1 thing if you want to compete nationally. Which is what the poster was talking about. And not that it's the most important thing, per se - but that it's the baseline, and without it, you're going nowhere (nationally). It's the first thing. So at least respond accurately.

Next - it's not necessarily the same pot - since everyone is getting creative with the donations to figure out how to get more money.

But - even if it was the same pot - that's irrelevant - since if, as you say, more is going to players and less is going elsewhere .... well, money going to players is what's affecting the ability to be competitive.

Once again -- since I don't know why this is even in question -- if the money weren't a big deal, why is EVERY school putting together a pot of between $100k and $1 million to pay college hockey players?  And freaking out trying to do so?

1. Citation needed that every school is doing this. St. Lawrence, Colgate, Alaska?
2. Citation needed that every school is freaking out about it.
3. Already been discussed here but David Carle mentioned on a podcast recently that Alston money + cost of attendance is factored into what we consider revenue sharing/NIL. At Denver that amounts to 10K per player, so a roster of 26 is getting paid 260K total even without any additional rev share/NIL. Alston money/COA is relatively new but predates NIL and revenue sharing. I don't know if a school like RPI/Clarson/StL/Colgate/Alaska was paying Alston money/COA, but even just doing that would get them to 260K. I mention this because nobody really cared about Alston money/COA before, but now the notion that teams have a 260K budget for paying its players is supposedly a big deal. To be clear: teams were already paying these amounts, before the House settlement/advent of NIL. It has now simply been repositioned as part of the rev share/NIL bucket. But the amount being paid to players hasn't necessarily increased.
4. I mention that RPI/Clarkson should care more about winning in-conference not in response to what you said (I wasn't even responding to your post) but because it's a more realistic aspirational goal that would still be considered a success.

you're hopeless

lol if you think Denver's 2 first-rounders are making 10k

I never said they're making 10k and I find it interesting you didn't engage with anything I actually wrote

You find it interesting because you are a stubborn child, and so it's useless. I've told it all to you many times before, yet you still insist on things that aren't true.  So - what more do you want.  If you want engagement, read my old replies.

Quote from: BearLover on July 29, 2026, 12:53:25 PM1. Citation needed that every school is doing this. St. Lawrence, Colgate, Alaska?
2. Citation needed that every school is freaking out about it.
3. Already been discussed here but David Carle mentioned on a podcast recently that Alston money + cost of attendance is factored into what we consider revenue sharing/NIL. At Denver that amounts to 10K per player, so a roster of 26 is getting paid 260K total even without any additional rev share/NIL. Alston money/COA is relatively new but predates NIL and revenue sharing. I don't know if a school like RPI/Clarson/StL/Colgate/Alaska was paying Alston money/COA, but even just doing that would get them to 260K. I mention this because nobody really cared about Alston money/COA before, but now the notion that teams have a 260K budget for paying its players is supposedly a big deal. To be clear: teams were already paying these amounts, before the House settlement/advent of NIL. It has now simply been repositioned as part of the rev share/NIL bucket. But the amount being paid to players hasn't necessarily increased.
4. I mention that RPI/Clarkson should care more about winning in-conference not in response to what you said (I wasn't even responding to your post) but because it's a more realistic aspirational goal that would still be considered a success.

you're hopeless - and wrong - but ... shrug

lol if you think Denver's 2 first-rounders are making 10k

I know it's a waste of time trying to get you believe it - so again, just for everyone else's sake - no, it's not shifting money around, yes every school is raising funds to pay players, yes in Denver's case that number is well north of $500k. And yes raising new money is all they're all worrying about every day.

Quote from: BearLover on July 29, 2026, 12:53:25 PM1. Citation needed that every school is doing this. St. Lawrence, Colgate, Alaska?
2. Citation needed that every school is freaking out about it.
3. Already been discussed here but David Carle mentioned on a podcast recently that Alston money + cost of attendance is factored into what we consider revenue sharing/NIL. At Denver that amounts to 10K per player, so a roster of 26 is getting paid 260K total even without any additional rev share/NIL. Alston money/COA is relatively new but predates NIL and revenue sharing. I don't know if a school like RPI/Clarson/StL/Colgate/Alaska was paying Alston money/COA, but even just doing that would get them to 260K. I mention this because nobody really cared about Alston money/COA before, but now the notion that teams have a 260K budget for paying its players is supposedly a big deal. To be clear: teams were already paying these amounts, before the House settlement/advent of NIL. It has now simply been repositioned as part of the rev share/NIL bucket. But the amount being paid to players hasn't necessarily increased.
4. I mention that RPI/Clarkson should care more about winning in-conference not in response to what you said (I wasn't even responding to your post) but because it's a more realistic aspirational goal that would still be considered a success.

you're hopeless - and wrong - but ... shrug

lol if you think Denver's 2 first-rounders are making 10k

Quote from: BearLover on July 29, 2026, 12:53:25 PM

Quote from: adamw on July 28, 2026, 06:31:43 PM

Quote from: BearLover on July 28, 2026, 03:55:33 PMMoney has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

I said No. 1 thing if you want to compete nationally. Which is what the poster was talking about. And not that it's the most important thing, per se - but that it's the baseline, and without it, you're going nowhere (nationally). It's the first thing. So at least respond accurately.

Next - it's not necessarily the same pot - since everyone is getting creative with the donations to figure out how to get more money.

But - even if it was the same pot - that's irrelevant - since if, as you say, more is going to players and less is going elsewhere .... well, money going to players is what's affecting the ability to be competitive.

Once again -- since I don't know why this is even in question -- if the money weren't a big deal, why is EVERY school putting together a pot of between $100k and $1 million to pay college hockey players?  And freaking out trying to do so?

1. Citation needed that every school is doing this. St. Lawrence, Colgate, Alaska?
2. Citation needed that every school is freaking out about it.
3. Already been discussed here but David Carle mentioned on a podcast recently that Alston money + cost of attendance is factored into what we consider revenue sharing/NIL. At Denver that amounts to 10K per player, so a roster of 26 is getting paid 260K total even without any additional rev share/NIL. Alston money/COA is relatively new but predates NIL and revenue sharing. I don't know if a school like RPI/Clarson/StL/Colgate/Alaska was paying Alston money/COA, but even just doing that would get them to 260K. I mention this because nobody really cared about Alston money/COA before, but now the notion that teams have a 260K budget for paying its players is supposedly a big deal. To be clear: teams were already paying these amounts, before the House settlement/advent of NIL. It has now simply been repositioned as part of the rev share/NIL bucket. But the amount being paid to players hasn't necessarily increased.
4. I mention that RPI/Clarkson should care more about winning in-conference not in response to what you said (I wasn't even responding to your post) but because it's a more realistic aspirational goal that would still be considered a success.

you're hopeless

lol if you think Denver's 2 first-rounders are making 10k

Quote from: BearLover on July 28, 2026, 03:55:33 PMMoney has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

I said No. 1 thing if you want to compete nationally. Which is what the poster was talking about. And not that it's the most important thing, per se - but that it's the baseline, and without it, you're going nowhere (nationally). It's the first thing. So at least respond accurately.

Next - it's not necessarily the same pot - since everyone is getting creative with the donations to figure out how to get more money.

But - even if it was the same pot - that's irrelevant - since if, as you say, more is going to players and less is going elsewhere .... well, money going to players is what's affecting the ability to be competitive.

Once again -- since I don't know why this is even in question -- if the money weren't a big deal, why is EVERY school putting together a pot of between $100k and $1 million to pay college hockey players?  And freaking out trying to do so?

Quote from: sezenack on July 21, 2026, 09:48:42 AMYes you are totally correct that you need both. However, that doesn't mean that we can't analyze the system portion of it in isolation to see what the best small school programs have done there to keep up with big teams. Like I said, once I finish up part 2, it will say the same thing as you about resources. I just think people are a little tired of the money talk right now though, so I wanted to isolate the recruiting and systems part of it first for that reason.

I hear you and agree - but the reason I reacted like I did is because it's way easier to find a coach to do all the things you presented. Most coaches know this, and know what they're doing. They're all trying to do exactly that. The No. 1 answer for how to compete is money. The rest is already being done by every coach.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio on July 21, 2026, 06:27:30 AM

Quote from: adamw on July 20, 2026, 09:11:57 PM

Quote from: sezenack on July 20, 2026, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: adamw on July 20, 2026, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: sezenack on July 20, 2026, 02:37:36 PMWrote an article about the blueprint for small schools succeeding that I thought you all might be interested in too, even though I look at it through somewhat of an RPI lens.

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/the-formula-to-national-success-as

I think it could've been summarized better in one sentence: "Get a large donation from a billionaire alum."

Which I believe is much more doable than any other solution, and will lead to everything else mentioned.

The money part is a second article upcoming. I don't agree though. Plenty of coaches and programs squander good talent and enough resources because they don't recruit the right mix of players, don't develop their players properly, or are poor at executing their systems. I don't think Penn State will ever win a national championship with Gadowsky's run and gun system for example. BU was decidedly mediocre last year because they were too young and soft. Harvard has been squandering their talent for years now (which is why they pushed Donato out). You need the resources, yes, but if you don't have a good system, you're not going to make good on the talent you bring in.

Schools like RPI, Clarkson, etc... -- hate to say -- will never be able to compete nationally again without a massive infusion of cash.  Those alums are out there, just need to convince them to spend.

Or, just say: if that's what it's going to take to be competitive, it's no longer the college sports that you've enjoyed following for years, and it no longer matters to you how your team does in that kind of environment, and you find a new interest.

That is definitely a reasonable option.

Quote from: sezenack on July 20, 2026, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: adamw on July 20, 2026, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: sezenack on July 20, 2026, 02:37:36 PMWrote an article about the blueprint for small schools succeeding that I thought you all might be interested in too, even though I look at it through somewhat of an RPI lens.

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/the-formula-to-national-success-as

I think it could've been summarized better in one sentence: "Get a large donation from a billionaire alum."

Which I believe is much more doable than any other solution, and will lead to everything else mentioned.

The money part is a second article upcoming. I don't agree though. Plenty of coaches and programs squander good talent and enough resources because they don't recruit the right mix of players, don't develop their players properly, or are poor at executing their systems. I don't think Penn State will ever win a national championship with Gadowsky's run and gun system for example. BU was decidedly mediocre last year because they were too young and soft. Harvard has been squandering their talent for years now (which is why they pushed Donato out). You need the resources, yes, but if you don't have a good system, you're not going to make good on the talent you bring in.

Honestly, it's a tired age-old discussion that always has the same answer. Does Manchester City win because it has the most money or the best system/coaching? Yes. Do the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers win because of the money or the system? Yes.  St. John's made the Sweet 16 again for the first time in 27 years after a billionaire pumped $5 million into the program to pay players.

When people say "money is not the reason you need a good system" - it's a false dichotomy. Everyone knows you need both.  Holy Cross isn't winning a national championship any time soon, no matter what they do.  The greatest coach with the greatest system on god's green earth isn't competing nationally without money.  When the money gap used to be smaller, it was more possible, though having "resources" were still important. Now that the money gap is a giant chasm, it's even more difficult to bridge the gap by being smarter.

Schools like RPI, Clarkson, etc... -- hate to say -- will never be able to compete nationally again without a massive infusion of cash.  Those alums are out there, just need to convince them to spend.