New Recruit for '08

[bothman]

Phil,

I'd take that bet anytime for 2007.  Mike Devin should be a good player, but let's keep in mind that while an extra year in the BCHL will certainly help him, he wasn't even a Top 7-8 defenseman in New England prior to that.  He was not considered even in the same realm as Alex Biega, and while Alex had a great freshman campaign last year for Harvard, I don't expect him to be anywhere near as good as Grimshaw.

To me, it seems like Harvard & Clarkson recruiting has picked up, while Cornell's has fallen relative to where each of these teams were 4-5 years ago.  Harvard has gone head to head with Michigan (Grimshaw), Wisconsin (Hoyle), and every East Coast team (Killorn) and won.

Nash was a great get for Cornell, but other than him, I don't see Cornell going out and beating the upper echelon teams for talent.

The guys you mention may very well evolve into great players (Sam Paolini etc) and I will have to eat crow.  But, let's be honest, on paper, by no means are these players highly coveted by the top teams in college hockey.  That should tell you something right there.

[Beeeej]

[quote bothman]Phil,

I'd take that bet anytime for 2007.  Mike Devin should be a good player, but let's keep in mind that while an extra year in the BCHL will certainly help him, he wasn't even a Top 7-8 defenseman in New England prior to that.  He was not considered even in the same realm as Alex Biega, and while Alex had a great freshman campaign last year for Harvard, I don't expect him to be anywhere near as good as Grimshaw.

To me, it seems like Harvard & Clarkson recruiting has picked up, while Cornell's has fallen relative to where each of these teams were 4-5 years ago.  Harvard has gone head to head with Michigan (Grimshaw), Wisconsin (Hoyle), and every East Coast team (Killorn) and won.

Nash was a great get for Cornell, but other than him, I don't see Cornell going out and beating the upper echelon teams for talent.

The guys you mention may very well evolve into great players (Sam Paolini etc) and I will have to eat crow.  But, let's be honest, on paper, by no means are these players highly coveted by the top teams in college hockey.  That should tell you something right there.[/quote]

So what would you do about it, exactly?  Are you suggesting that we're not seeking the upper-echelon talent?  If not, if you're merely noting that we often lose the battles, what would you suggest we do to improve our record on them?  We'll likely never offer scholarships, and likely never have the reputation of being as good a school or as good an opportunity as Hahvahd.  So what's your suggestion?

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Beeeej]So what would you do about it, exactly?[/quote]
Why "suggest" when you can just annoy?

If Harvard keeps getting these wonderful recruiting classes, maybe they'll win an NCAA tournament game again in my lifetime.  Beanpots, of course, are hopeless.

[cbuckser]

In the last two decades, Cornell has not landed many players who were recruited by several national powerhouses.  It's true that Riley Nash is the exception rather than the rule.

That said, Mike Schafer and his assistants have put together several national-title contenders despite not having a lot of highly touted talent.  The best Cornell team in the last 35 years (2002-03) had one player, Mark McRae, for whom Cornell went out and beat upper echelon teams for talent.

The coaching staff has done a remarkable job identifying and recruiting talented players before they found their way on other teams' radar screens.  Whether finding diamonds in the rough (e.g., Mike Iggulden, David McKee) or receiving commitments from players before their breakout seasons in junior hockey (e.g., Brendon Nash, Mike Garman), Cornell has put together some great teams despite having only two NHL first-round draft picks in its history.

It's premature to label Braden Birch a role player.  He is a high-ceiling talent who I think has a good chance of becoming a top-two defenseman for Cornell.  The fact that he isn't yet well-known doesn't mean that he's not a great get for Cornell.  It just means that Cornell landed him before most other teams noticed.

[Trotsky]

[quote bothman]Nash was a great get for Cornell, but other than him, I don't see Cornell going out and beating the upper echelon teams for talent.

The guys you mention may very well evolve into great players (Sam Paolini etc) and I will have to eat crow.  But, let's be honest, on paper, by no means are these players highly coveted by the top teams in college hockey.  That should tell you something right there.[/quote]I know bothman's gonna get killed for this comment, but let'sw be fair -- his statement is fairly accurate.  This isn't a Michigan or Minnesota recruiting class.

But in response:

1. The most dominant ECAC team since the great Harvard teams of the late 80's was Schafer's run early in this decade.  Who were the highly coveted recuits on that team?  Only one guy taken in the drafts between 1998 and 2003 went earlier than the 3rd round -- Leneveu, after a year at Cornell.  The McRae brothers had a little buzz.  The best player of that period, Murray, wasn't lighting up the recruiting board.  It was a lunch pail team that developed from within.

2. So they stay four years.  Fine with me.

3. As I'm sure bothman would agree, Schafer's system runs on size, power, intimidation, and commitment to defense.  THN's annually over-hyped Princess Anne recruits don't fit that profile.

4.  We'll see.  I'll be happy if at the end of four years we can say "my redheaded stepchild beat up your honors student." ::uptosomething::

[scoop85]

I may not be up on these things, but I didn't have the impression that Pokulok was considered a big-time recruit.

[ithacat]

[quote bothman]Phil,
Nash was a great get for Cornell, but other than him, I don't see Cornell going out and beating the upper echelon teams for talent.[/quote]

You know Harvard's recruiting has picked up when Denver (Garman, Jillson), North Dakota (Jillson), New Hampshire (Jillson), and Michigan State (Birch) aren't considered upper echelon teams.

[bothman]

If you think Jillson & Birch are high-end, upper echelon takent, then you need to take off those Big Red shades....

Garman & Nash were great gets.  I'm just saying that everything else seems to be very middle of the road.

An earlier poster said that Schafer's system has never relied upon high-end talent, and I agree, that is true.  Schafer clearly has been able to develop guys and have them buy into the system which allows Cornell's team to be better than the sum of its parts.  Harvard under Donato has gotten better at this, but is still playign catch up in this regard....no argument from me there.

I'm not trying to throw Cornell under the bus, I'm just saying that the 2007 & 2008 class (thus far) does not appear to stack up to the Cornell classes of the early 2000s.

Look at Harvard's 2008 class:
Killorn - 3rd round draft pick
Hoyle - Top-rated goalie in the AJHL
Grimshaw - potential 1st - 2nd round NHL draft pick in 2008 draft
Moore - won't be a high draft pick due to size, but solid USNDT player
Kroshus - Top kid out of AJHL

Seriously, break down Cornell's 2008 class and tell me where each recruit projects.  I suppose that we will have to see how Ross & Jillson perform this year in the USHL which should give everyone a much better sense for what kind of players they are.

[evilnaturedrobot]

Bothman, nobody here is going to debate the fact that Harvard's 2008 recruiting class is, on paper, superior to Cornell's.  Great for Harvard, we're all very proud for you.  But the point is that we are still a year away from the 2008 class even matriculating, not to speak of how they adjust to NCAA hockey.  The player who commits a year early is often not the same player that arrives on campus, and in the past we've seen Schafer and co. pick out some of those players that make signifigant strides in their last year of junior. Was Brendon Nash a big recruit when he signed with Cornell?  Colin Greening?  

Would we like to see Cornell go out and grab some big name guys?  Of course, and who knows, there's still a year in which that may happen, but if that player doesn't materialize then I have confidence that the players coming in will produce within the system.

And, as of this moment, neither the NCAA, ECAC or the Ivy League hands out hardware for 'Best Recruiting Class.'

[Robb]

You're on another school's message board beating your chest about guys who won't pull on a Harvard sweater for another 13 months?  Puh-leeze.  Even Minnesota, NoDak, BC, and the true big boys of hockey sometimes miss on can't-miss prospects, so don't count your chickens too early - or too late, because they may be gone before you know it.

Maybe if Teddy figures out how to finish ahead of Fat Mike in the standings some day or win an NCAA game, we'll have to start taking you guys seriously again.  ;-)

[sah67]

[quote evilnaturedrobot]  Great for Harvard, we're all very proud for you.  [/quote]

And maybe even a little sympathetic that such a miniscule fanbase doesn't have its own message board on which to boast about players who won't be pulling on a sweater for another year...but still, only a little sympathetic

[Jacob '06]

Not really along these lines, but it has to do with Harvard fans:
What do you do when someone on your rec league team is a Harvard grad? Found out after our first game that someone on my team was a Harvard grad and hockey fan there. I told him "it was nice having home games both home and away against Harvard"

[ftyuv]

Even nicer when one of those home games is right near home.  Oh snap!  

Mmmm, thread drift.

[KeithK]

A Harvard hockey fan in your rec league?  I'd say just ignore him.  He clearly is a figment of your fevered imagination.

[Jacob '06]

[quote KeithK]A Harvard hockey fan in your rec league?  I'd say just ignore him.  He clearly is a figment of your fevered imagination.[/quote]

In Pasadena California even.