Recruiting

[redhair34]

[quote bothman]
Cornell will be okay next year, but I guarantee you down the road, this class (as it now stands) will come back to haunt them[/quote]

That's a pretty strong prediction.  And we probably won't be able to see if it comes true.  I'd be shocked if Cornell doesn't add at least another forward and defenseman.  

Sometimes it's a modest class that leads a team to success.  Look at Cornell's 2004-2005 seniors--Downs, Cook, Varteressian, Knoepfli, Iggulden.  Those guys weren't exactly touted as world beaters coming in.  But, they developed over time and did all of the little things that made the 04-05 team so good.

Regarding the original question, I'm not that concerned with next year's incoming class.  As Ari mentioned, we aren't really losing that much.  Mike Devin and Patrick Kennedy look to be the highlights of the class so far.  

I also think landing Nash would not only instantly make the incoming class  an upgrade over the departing class, but also be the biggest recruiting coup for the team in recent memory.  Salmon Arm's coach says Riley is better now than Travis Zajac (played for Salmon Arm) was at the same age.  That is a huge compliment.  He has improved dramatically over the course of the season and has been tearing up the BCHL the last couple of months.  I don't think it's unrealistic to think that if Riley committed to Cornell he could be the team's best player the moment he steps on the ice.

[redhair34]

[quote bothman]
For 2008, Harvard beat out Cornell for both Kroshus and Killorn (BC, BU, UNH all wanted this kid) [/quote]

Kroshus is a good example of losing out on a battle we typically win, as we tend to recruit well in western Canada.  I don't consider Killorn a good example.  Cornell has been and will always be the underdog when they go after a New England prep kid against the likes of the Hockey East powerhouses and Harvard.

[bothman]

Agreed, but this is Killorn's first year at Deerfield and he is Canadien (from Montreal) so it's not like he's been at prep school from Day 1.

Interesting that with the Biega's, Richter, and now Kroshus & Killorn, Harvard is starting to rekindle its Canadien pipeline to an extent - something that has been dormant for too long.

The prep school track is still good, but it is not what it once was during the 1980s and there is a direct correlation between the fall of the Prep League and Harvard's fall from being feared year in and year out on the national scene.

[bothman]

I agree with you on Nash.  Would be a HUGE coup for Cornell...a real difference maker.

I think the strenght of a team really comes down to the strength of its upperclassmen (Junuiors and Seniors).  When you get freshman and sophmores that become high impact guys (Brandon Wong for example) that gives you the needed depth you need for a serious run.

When was the last time Cornell and Harvard had a real impact freshman?  Someone who scored 30 points?  I could make an argument that Alex Biega could be considered an imapct guy as a defenseman based on his play and #'s, but I would not say Doug Rogers, Tony Romano, Blake Gallagher, etc are impact guys.

[min]

[quote bothman]
When was the last time Cornell and Harvard had a real impact freshman?  Someone who scored 30 points? [/quote]

For Cornell, that's easy. Kyle Knopp (11G, 19A) during the 95-96 campaign.

[Cornell95]

We can all be routing for a win in that recruiting battle, but when I think of recruiting classes, they are framed around both signing year and expected graduation date... I am glad for any Cornell players that are able to jump early, but also nostalgic for the days when college players stayed 4 years and got a degree.  I am sure the coaching staff is fighting to get Riley Nash, but every time you grab an "impact player" you have the potential to be short at a position in just a year or two (like dealing with the more typical 4 year cycle and other problems (injuries,grades,etc) isnt hard enough.  my 2 bits(z)

[Josh '99]

If Riley Nash is that good, I have a hard time believing he'll come here, Brendon or no Brendon.

[/pessimism]

[Trotsky]

[quote Josh '99]If Riley Nash is that good, I have a hard time believing he'll come here, Brendon or no Brendon.

[/pessimism][/quote]We never used to be even in the picture for these type of players.  The very fact that we are could indicate that things we used to take for granted, like never getting a true blue chipper, may be changing.  Cornell now has 8 strong years in the books, Schafer has an extension, Lynah has new player facilities.  Things are moving in a very positive direction.

[ugarte]

[quote Josh '99]If Riley Nash is that good, I have a hard time believing he'll come here, Brendon or no Brendon. [/pessimism][/quote]
If he wants to play college hockey I don't see any reason why Cornell wouldn't be a school that he would consider. I could see it if he were from someplace where we had a recruiting disadvantage but BC may as well be our home turf. I'm not saying we should be optimistic, necessarily, but there are enough reasons that we should be much less pessimistic now than we've been in the past.

Fingers crossed...

[rstott]

How talented is Riley Nash anyway?  Word of mouth is terrific, but NHL Central Scouting ranks him 99, which suggests he's good but hardly great.

[pfibiger]

[quote rstott]How talented is Riley Nash anyway?  Word of mouth is terrific, but NHL Central Scouting ranks him 99, which suggests he's good but hardly great.[/quote]

I think he'll end up going higher than 99. He's a mid-to-late 89 birthdate, so he's young. He's 11th in scoring in the BCHL, the #1 rookie by a wide margin (the next rookie is 29th). Almost everyone ahead of him in scoring is 1-3 years older than he is (except Kyle Turris, the phenom headed to Wisconsin next year). He's the leading scorer on his team.

I still don't hold out a ton of hope for him (though there is a really positive rumor going around that UND is out of the race and Cornell is back in the hunt and maybe even ahead of DU), but he would instantly make this one of the best recruiting classes in the ECAC (even if it is small). Joe Devin is hard to read, he's been in and out of the lineup with injuries and has taken longer to adapt to the higher level of play in Jr. A. I think both Mike Devin and Patrick Kennedy will be able to contribute right away.

Also, bothman's been talking a lot about Harvard recruiting in this thread. The one thing Harvard is missing, and we've got locked down, is a goalie of the future. Garman came in to Nanaimo and has outplayed former Cornell target and DU recruit Marc Cheverie. Assuming he comes back from injury playing at the level he had been, I think he'll be Nanaimo's go-to goalie for the playoffs.

[bothman]

When's the last time a team won a national title that didn't have or recruit players that were capable of leaving early?

Probably back to a time when college players played Olympic hockey so that gave them reason to stick around.

If you want to win it all, you have to be going after Phil Kessel, Kyle Turris and other high impact guys.

[bothman]

[quote pfibiger][quote rstott]
Also, bothman's been talking a lot about Harvard recruiting in this thread. The one thing Harvard is missing, and we've got locked down, is a goalie of the future. Garman came in to Nanaimo and has outplayed former Cornell target and DU recruit Marc Cheverie. Assuming he comes back from injury playing at the level he had been, I think he'll be Nanaimo's go-to goalie for the playoffs.[/quote]

I thought that was Davenport?  :-D

You are absolutely right.  Harvard lost Bachman to CC and then lost Muse to BC.  Goalie is the most important position on the ice and Donato has not delivered in that category.  Richter has had some good games, but like Davenport and Srivens, has not played consistently enough to get the goalie of the future tag.  I am far from sold.

[Trotsky]

[quote bothman]When's the last time a team won a national title that didn't have or recruit players that were capable of leaving early?[/quote]Without researching it, off hand I'd say the Lake State teams., which were built much in the style of (and inspired) Schafer 1.0 -- suffocating, total team defense, a great backstop, and the occasional bright light scorer.  Because goalies and defensemen take longer to develop, it was more likely that those stars stayed all four years.

As the game opens up (and as we adopt Schafer 2.0), an even greater premium will be placed on skill guys -- the guys more likely to get the big bonus checks to jump.

[KeithK]

[quote Cornell95]We can all be routing for a win in that recruiting battle, but when I think of recruiting classes, they are framed around both signing year and expected graduation date... I am glad for any Cornell players that are able to jump early, but also nostalgic for the days when college players stayed 4 years and got a degree.  I am sure the coaching staff is fighting to get Riley Nash, but every time you grab an "impact player" you have the potential to be short at a position in just a year or two (like dealing with the more typical 4 year cycle and other problems (injuries,grades,etc) isnt hard enough.  my 2 bits(z)[/quote]
I think when you go after a true blue chip player you have to assume that he will not stay for 4 years.  Losing a player after two years to the pros doesn't hurt as much when the recruiting strategy plans for this.  What hurts is when a guy tells you he's staying and then turns around and signs last minute.