ELynah Forum

Quote from: BearLover on February 11, 2026, 03:39:17 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on February 11, 2026, 03:36:19 PM

Quote from: BearLover on February 11, 2026, 03:28:30 PMhttps://x.com/mikerodak/status/2021599214493405336?s=20

Relevant to discussions about revenue sharing. It has become a popular talking point that schools without major football/basketball will be able to commit a higher portion of revenue to hockey. That never really made any sense, because profits are negative outside of football and basketball.

Does "profits are negative outside of football and basketball" apply to schools where hockey is the biggest sport?

NoDak in particular, but also Denver, Colorado College, pretty much all the Minnesota schools except probably U of M, and some of the Hockey East schools maybe.

NoDak I'd guess is the only school in the country (1) without big-time football/basketball and (2) with a hockey program materially in the black. Highly doubt CC or the non-flagship Minnesota schools profit. Denver maybe breaks even.

It's true that without football, certain schools won't have as much revenue, so at the end of the day, football or no football, a school like Providence or Denver will have the same "hockey budget" as, say, Michigan. However, without the runaway costs of football, and need to feed that beast, it may make giving hockey teams a certain budget more palatable. I suspect Denver's "hockey budget" will be about $1 million in rev share at the end of the day. I may know more soon on that.

Quote from: stereax on February 07, 2026, 10:22:59 PMBoth.

Should've walked away, at minimum because of the consequences attached but also probably just a bad idea in general to get into a bar fight. But good that he stuck up for her.

The idea that he was sticking up for his mom, was a Twitter rumor that took off like wildfire and is being talked about like it's fact. That is still not proven by any actual evidence at this point. Not saying it didn't happen - but no actual news site has reported this.

Quote from: Robb on February 04, 2026, 09:11:02 PMAs big of a travesty as the name of the award is, it's worse that Galajda (1.56, .931, 23-2-4) lost out in 2019-2020 in favor of Jeremy Swayman of Maine (2.07, .939, 18-11-5).

C'mon, man.

I voted for Swayman. I don't think it was close. Sorry.

Quote from: Trotsky on February 06, 2026, 11:28:57 AM

Quote from: fastforward on February 06, 2026, 09:31:16 AMI really enjoy listening to Casey. He's so upbeat and positive about things and I'm sure it has a trickle down effect on the team

Yes, he is great.  And unlike Early Mike (Acoustic Mike?) you aren't bracing every second for him to say something that will get him suspended by the league.

having written some of the quotes that got him suspended (meaning I was standing there) - I am confident in saying that when he got suspended, he wanted to get suspended. Every time.

Quote from: adamw on January 31, 2026, 09:51:37 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 31, 2026, 01:02:23 AMCan we stop using AI for shit that CHN has on its website?

Union - 22.8
Colgate - 22.8
St. Lawrence - 22.3
Brown - 22.3
RPI - 22.2
Clarkson - 22.2
Yale - 22.2
Dartmouth - 22.0
Princeton - 22.0
Quinnipiac - 21.9
Cornell - 21.5
Harvard - 21.1

Though the number on CHN vs the one on EP is different - EP's gives that 20.97 number, and lines up with Gemini on most - but not all - numbers.

glad someone said it

We also have a whole dedicated page for this ... https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-ageavg.php

The differences may be based on when the cutoff date is, since it's not necessarily "today" for the purpose of determining your hockey age. But the relative number between teams should be the same.

For poops and giggles, I just added another column to this page:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-ageavg.php

It's the age for each player as of today, weighted by the amount of games played. And each column is sortable.

Quote from: stereax on January 31, 2026, 01:02:23 AMCan we stop using AI for shit that CHN has on its website?

Union - 22.8
Colgate - 22.8
St. Lawrence - 22.3
Brown - 22.3
RPI - 22.2
Clarkson - 22.2
Yale - 22.2
Dartmouth - 22.0
Princeton - 22.0
Quinnipiac - 21.9
Cornell - 21.5
Harvard - 21.1

Though the number on CHN vs the one on EP is different - EP's gives that 20.97 number, and lines up with Gemini on most - but not all - numbers.

glad someone said it

We also have a whole dedicated page for this ... https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-ageavg.php

The differences may be based on when the cutoff date is, since it's not necessarily "today" for the purpose of determining your hockey age. But the relative number between teams should be the same.

Quote from: pjd8 on January 30, 2026, 03:24:07 PM

Quote from: adamw on January 29, 2026, 08:17:57 PM

Quote from: pjd8 on January 29, 2026, 07:47:54 PM

Quote from: adamw on January 29, 2026, 05:41:39 PMCashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

But by starting at Dartmouth during the Covid blackout, he's had a bigger uphill battle than Gaudet ever did. The Ivies are just now putting the ramification of those lost games behind them.

It's hard to compare coaches across different decades and different years of experience. If you compare Gaudet's first five years at Dartmonth to Cashman's, Cashman's record is clearly better. I do agree it will be a more compelling case when Cashman has had more seasons to regress to the mean but doesn't.

clearly better in what way? Gaudet took over an absolutely wretched program. Now let's see what happens in years 6-10, when Gaudet won 20,14 (w/ 9 ties),20,19,18

To get some kind of apples-to-apples comparison, I'm looking at each coach's record in their first five years at Dartmouth. (Yes, I realize there is a two decade difference that is not insignificant.)

In Gaudet's first five years at Dartmouth, he took a team that was just under .500 and brought them just over .500. In Cashman's first five years at Dartmouth, he took a team that was well under .500 and has them well above .500.

Their winning percentages are very close. But if I'm hiring a coach based solely on this data, it's a no-brainier to hire Cashman. It's the trend line that matters. Gaudet went from 11-13-5 to 14-13-5. Cashman has gone from 7-22-3 to 14-6-1 (so far this year). If Dartmouth wins five more games, they'll have more wins than last year, and with RPI x 2, Yale, Brown, and two quarterfinal ECAC games to go, they should be able to clear that mark.

This is no way diminishes what Gaudet has done. It just suggests that Cashman might have a higher potential ceiling. He'll still have to prove out that optimism over time.

well, that doesn't sound "clearly better" anymore .... but to beat this dead horse further ... there were extenuating circumstances behind how far Dartmouth dropped, so it was a bit easier for Cashman to spring it back from the Covid debacle than how Gaudet had to do it in his first five years. The year before Gaudet took over was 10 wins, but that was a high water mark for a program that had been wretched for 15 years at that point. Covid notwithstanding, Dartmouth hockey, as a program, was in much better shape when Cashman took over.

Quote from: pjd8 on January 29, 2026, 07:47:54 PM

Quote from: adamw on January 29, 2026, 05:41:39 PMCashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

But by starting at Dartmouth during the Covid blackout, he's had a bigger uphill battle than Gaudet ever did. The Ivies are just now putting the ramification of those lost games behind them.

It's hard to compare coaches across different decades and different years of experience. If you compare Gaudet's first five years at Dartmonth to Cashman's, Cashman's record is clearly better. I do agree it will be a more compelling case when Cashman has had more seasons to regress to the mean but doesn't.

clearly better in what way? Gaudet took over an absolutely wretched program. Now let's see what happens in years 6-10, when Gaudet won 20,14 (w/ 9 ties),20,19,18

Quote from: BearLover on January 29, 2026, 10:05:00 AM

Quote from: adamw on January 29, 2026, 09:37:42 AM

Quote from: Iceberg on January 29, 2026, 07:15:16 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 28, 2026, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: underskill on January 28, 2026, 09:29:25 PMHe's taking FMLA leave per CHN

Starting Feb 20. And then when he comes back, will be "transitioning" into a new role in athletics and they'll be looking for a new HC.

Overdue. Brown has needed a new HC for a while but they may actually get someone much better (i.e. Gaudet for Cashman at Dartmouth)

Not sure Cashman has yet proven to be better than Gaudet.

Wut. In 23 years at Dartmouth Gaudet never made the NCAA tournament and never even made it to the ECAC final.

Well Gaudet took Brown -- BROWN! -- to an NCAA Tournament, as an at-large. Their last appearance. He also won an ECAC regular-season title with Dartmouth, and had numerous teams in the 16-20 range of Pairwise. The amount of times they fell agonizingly short was remarkable, in the 2000-2010 era. Also put numerous players into the NHL in that span - from Dartmouth!

Cashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

Quote from: Iceberg on January 29, 2026, 07:15:16 AM

Quote from: stereax on January 28, 2026, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: underskill on January 28, 2026, 09:29:25 PMHe's taking FMLA leave per CHN

Starting Feb 20. And then when he comes back, will be "transitioning" into a new role in athletics and they'll be looking for a new HC.

Overdue. Brown has needed a new HC for a while but they may actually get someone much better (i.e. Gaudet for Cashman at Dartmouth)

Not sure Cashman has yet proven to be better than Gaudet.

Quote from: BearLover on January 27, 2026, 03:37:20 PMThis is obviously technically true—in that there are cases where players are swayed by NIL or rev sharing-but by itself the statement doesn't really mean anything. The degree of NIL/rev sharing, who pays it, and who gets it, matter a lot, and from that perspective we are left completely in the dark.
Which schools are paying players? Only power 5? Non-power 5 schools like NoDak? BU? Denver? Duluth?
Which types of players are getting paid? Entire rosters? Just one or two hotshot recruits per team? Do seniors who committed their whole careers to the program get anything? (If so, there's not much money left to spread around.)

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Every school that is allowed to pay players, is paying players - something. The big schools are paying just about all their players at least ... something. Every school you mentioned is paying players.

Quote from: BearLover on January 26, 2026, 05:48:35 PM

Quote from: stereax on January 26, 2026, 05:30:25 PM

Quote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 04:46:20 PMMSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Pretty sure they do.

With regard to NIL in hockey, I would like to see a smidge of actual reporting, somewhere, anywhere, with specific details (players + amounts). Everyone just waives their hands and shouts "NIL!" whenever a good recruit signs with a top school. But there's no hard evidence anywhere. In football and basketball, we know NIL to be a major factor because such reporting exists. In hockey, we never get specific details. The one exception is Gavin McKenna receiving "$700,000," reported elsewhere as $500,000 or less, which is itself disputed by others (I heard on a hockey podcast it's under $250K). And then when you listen to the people who report these figures, it becomes clear they don't even know if it's NIL, or revenue sharing, or if it includes scholarship, or if it's just for McKenna's freshman year or if instead it only gets paid in full if he stays more than one year.

What I'm saying is, we're left totally in the dark on NIL in hockey, as any reporting is wildly vague. It sounds like the reporters themselves don't know.

I am sure NIL/revenue sharing in hockey exists, but I'm skeptical it exists to any real degree outside of specific circumstances. Money does not materialize out of thin air. Hockey programs were already reliant on donations to survive, so for NIL to be a major factor you'd need donors committing vast sums of money on top of what they were previously committing. That's certainly possible, but it's unlikely for most schools, even the big ones. And that's leaving out questions such as passing the new NIL clearinghouse or the difficulties of foreign players earning NIL.

NIL -- and moreso, revenue sharing -- 10000% exists to a significant basis (significant enough to sway recruiting even more towards big schools.) This is unquestioned. I have talked to enough people to know this. However, it's not my full-time job and I don't have time to dig on everyone's details. In fact, given the relatively popularity of football to hockey, there basically are no reporters that exists whose full-time job it is.

As for a Trotsky comment about how pro athletes' contracts are publicly known .... that's only because it's collectively bargained to be that way. There isn't some FOIA thing out there making it so. In fact, judges have been consistently and specifically striking down any attempt by media to get access to Player Aid Agreement contracts, even at public universities.

Quote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 04:46:20 PMMSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Porter Martone gets about 300k - I have more or less verified it's at least around there. MSU got the better of that deal, vis-a-vis McKenna

Quote from: BearLover on January 17, 2026, 01:19:45 PM

Quote from: chimpfood on January 17, 2026, 01:15:11 PMThe world is changing. People have less time and are less passionate about the things that they care about. Things like Halloweekend and leaving early for break take priority over hockey now, and there's not really anything to school can do to change that. To me it's all relative. We have the best environment in the ECAC (by far), and one of the best in the country. We're doing well, but it'll never be what it used to be.

Things like Halloweekend and leaving early for break took precedence over hockey 15 years ago too, FWIW.

I agree we still have one of the best environments in the country, but it could be much better. The environment is honestly far, far, far worse than it used to be. Throwing up our hands and blaming cell phones and kids these days doesn't get us anywhere. +500 per game is a very attainable goal if the people who make these decisions actually tried.

You accused Trotsky of being repetitive, but everyone here is repetitive, including yourself, and I will be as well.

You're both right and wrong. Of course winning more would help attendance. It's ALSO true that things are worse than they "used to be." ... My repetition involves me reminding you that this is NOT unique to Cornell. It's like this everywhere, and will continue to be. Things can be improved on the margins. But the old world is not coming back. It was less rabid in the 2000s than the 1970s as well. Another 20 years later, and it's less rabid than that. Concert goers are less attentive too. And don't get me started about movies.

FWIW - I just ran some other super secret numbers - and my rudimentary analysis of those shows some things like ...

Quinnipiac is top 10 in the country in things like "defending opponent controlled entries" and "contested loose puck win %" and "o-zone controlled entries leading to scoring chances"

Cornell is middle of the pack in all three on that.

Make of that what you will.