blackwidow

[ugarte]

yeah because getting into a school is the same for everyone that applies.

you are inventing the premise that harvard has an easier time getting players in than we do, and it is based on...?

[blackwidow]

yeah because getting into a school is the same for everyone that applies.

you are inventing the premise that harvard has an easier time getting players in than we do, and it is based on...?

He was probably joking

[upprdeck]

maybe you should go talk to players.

[jtwcornell91]

Only 14 teams, 2 ECAC, and 1 Ivy have done it in the last 25 years, so it's a ridiculous assertion to say that any particular team should have pulled it off "by chance."

I do have to acknowledge the stats you quoted show winning the NCAA title in the last 25 years should not have been claimed to be a walk in the park for the majority of the teams in the ECAC.

But Cornell men's hockey started out as the best hockey program in the ECAC. I guess I should have said if you had given me the best hockey school in the ECAC, I would have random walked my way to the NCAA in 25+ years.

"Started out" when?  We're certainly near or at the top of most ECAC metrics over history.  That doesn't mean we enter every season as the prohibitive favorite.

At the risk of entering a discussion that never should have happened, the relevant point in time for "started out" in the context of Schafer is presumably 1995.  I don't think anyone considered Cornell to be the best hockey school in the ECAC in 1995...

[osorojo]

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

[BearLover]

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):

1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

[billhoward]

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

[BearLover]

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

Scholarship schools have 18 scholarships per roster to assign in full or in part to their players. That leaves some/many players on a roster without a full scholarship.

At Ivies, athletes from low-income families can play for cheap or for free, but many hockey players come from families who earn more than $75K. For these players, they may be faced with a choice of whether to play for free at a scholarship school, or pay substantial tuition to attend Cornell, or pay less tuition to play at a school with great financial aid like Harvard.

From the above we can see why Cornell is at a significant recruiting disadvantage compared to other hockey programs when it comes to cost of attendance. Cornell recruits decently well despite this, likely due to the other factors listed above. If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this:

A+: Harvard
B: Cornell, Clarkson
B-: Quinnipiac [Q makes up for relatively weak recruiting by heavily leveraging the transfer portal]
C+: Yale, Union
C- or below: everyone else

Compared to the rest of college hockey, Cornell is probably around the 65th percentile in recruiting.

[Weder]

I wonder what the top five considerations are most commonly the deciding factor in a college hockey recruit's choice of school? My guess is head coach is near, if not the top of this list.

If I had to guess the top considerations of the average college hockey recruit (in order):
1. Cost of attendance
2. Tradition of success
3. Coaching staff
4. Professional development
5. Campus/location
6. Quality of education

If you're good, cost of attendance should be nil. In the Ivies with no athletic scholarships, a lot of families with sub-$100K incomes have very low cost of tuition, room, board.
Other factors, maybe you've got that factored into one of the six:
* Quality of rink, locker rooms, weight rooms
* Student body - alumni - town support including percentage of rink filled for most games. (One reason Lynah may be properly sized except for all but the Harvard game.)
* Level of education suited to player's needs

Scholarship schools have 18 scholarships per roster to assign in full or in part to their players. That leaves some/many players on a roster without a full scholarship.

At Ivies, athletes from low-income families can play for cheap or for free, but many hockey players come from families who earn more than $75K. For these players, they may be faced with a choice of whether to play for free at a scholarship school, or pay substantial tuition to attend Cornell, or pay less tuition to play at a school with great financial aid like Harvard.

From the above we can see why Cornell is at a significant recruiting disadvantage compared to other hockey programs when it comes to cost of attendance. Cornell recruits decently well despite this, likely due to the other factors listed above. If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this:

A+: Harvard
B: Cornell, Clarkson
B-: Quinnipiac [Q makes up for relatively weak recruiting by heavily leveraging the transfer portal]
C+: Yale, Union
C- or below: everyone else

Compared to the rest of college hockey, Cornell is probably around the 65th percentile in recruiting.

Related: Princeton just announced that students will pay nothing if their families make up to $100,000. Harvard and Yale are at $75,000 for free attendance.

[Trotsky]

If one were to rank the ECAC schools by recruiting over the past five years or so, it would look something like this

Src?