Recruits 2025 and Beyond

[Tom Lento]

Thanks, glad to hear it, eliteprospects and CHN didn't list him so I figured he decomitted but glad to hear he hasn't.

The definitive list.  **]

But how many of these kids are coming next year, we know we need like 10+

While many years there are some surprise deferrals or accelerations, I expect next fall we'll see at least the following 10: Pirtle, Roest, Pelletier, McCrady, Long, Hiscock, Hamiton, Gorski, Veilleux, and DiGiulian. The only 2006 born player int that group is Veilleux, but he seems more than ready for NCAA hockey. It's possible some of the other 2006's might be in the mix, which would include Arsenault, Ryan, and Sandruck.

I would guess McCrady spends another year in juniors. He is a late '05 and has just 9 assists and 0 goals through 40 BCHL games. Seems likely the coaching staff views him as a shutdown defender rather than as an offensive threat, so maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely that he would get playing time. Same goes for Hamilton, who has 1 goal and 4 assists across 34 games this season in the USHL and BCHL. Unlike McCrady, though, Hamilton will have already spent three seasons in high level juniors, so my guess is he comes next year.

Assuming 5F/3D/1G come next year, and assuming no further departures, that replaces everybody leaving excluding Rayhill. One question is whether Casey dips in the transfer portal. He regularly did this at Clarkson, but at Cornell it's going to be harder. It seems to me the biggest position of need by far is goaltending, but Cornell already has three goalies on its roster for next year. For those three goalies, it would be a kick in the balls if Casey were to go out and bring in a fourth to be the starter. Maybe Casey is too nice of a guy to do something like that, but Rand and many other successful coaches would do it in a heartbeat.

Regarding a guy like Hamilton, I assume that unlike Veillieux Hamilton is more of a stay-at-home defenseman so the lack of points doesn't necessarily reflect his ability or potential value.

Out of curiosity, does scoring output for a defenseman devalue the same way from juniors to DI as from DI to the pros? I know it does for forwards, but I've generally not paid much attention to how it translates for defense.

I ask because a legitimate stay at home defensive prospect for the NHL is usually well above average in terms of scoring in college. Think Doug Murray or Sam Malinski. If the same trend holds for juniors to college (and I suspect it does, same basic mechanism involving skill gaps), then in all likelihood any low-scoring guy is probably not going to crack the lineup unless there's some external reason for the low point production.

[BearLover]

Thanks, glad to hear it, eliteprospects and CHN didn't list him so I figured he decomitted but glad to hear he hasn't.

The definitive list.  **]

But how many of these kids are coming next year, we know we need like 10+

While many years there are some surprise deferrals or accelerations, I expect next fall we'll see at least the following 10: Pirtle, Roest, Pelletier, McCrady, Long, Hiscock, Hamiton, Gorski, Veilleux, and DiGiulian. The only 2006 born player int that group is Veilleux, but he seems more than ready for NCAA hockey. It's possible some of the other 2006's might be in the mix, which would include Arsenault, Ryan, and Sandruck.

I would guess McCrady spends another year in juniors. He is a late '05 and has just 9 assists and 0 goals through 40 BCHL games. Seems likely the coaching staff views him as a shutdown defender rather than as an offensive threat, so maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely that he would get playing time. Same goes for Hamilton, who has 1 goal and 4 assists across 34 games this season in the USHL and BCHL. Unlike McCrady, though, Hamilton will have already spent three seasons in high level juniors, so my guess is he comes next year.

Assuming 5F/3D/1G come next year, and assuming no further departures, that replaces everybody leaving excluding Rayhill. One question is whether Casey dips in the transfer portal. He regularly did this at Clarkson, but at Cornell it's going to be harder. It seems to me the biggest position of need by far is goaltending, but Cornell already has three goalies on its roster for next year. For those three goalies, it would be a kick in the balls if Casey were to go out and bring in a fourth to be the starter. Maybe Casey is too nice of a guy to do something like that, but Rand and many other successful coaches would do it in a heartbeat.

Regarding a guy like Hamilton, I assume that unlike Veillieux Hamilton is more of a stay-at-home defenseman so the lack of points doesn't necessarily reflect his ability or potential value.

Out of curiosity, does scoring output for a defenseman devalue the same way from juniors to DI as from DI to the pros? I know it does for forwards, but I've generally not paid much attention to how it translates for defense.

I ask because a legitimate stay at home defensive prospect for the NHL is usually well above average in terms of scoring in college. Think Doug Murray or Sam Malinski. If the same trend holds for juniors to college (and I suspect it does, same basic mechanism involving skill gaps), then in all likelihood any low-scoring guy is probably not going to crack the lineup unless there's some external reason for the low point production.

I suspect there's a high correlation between point production in juniors and playing time in college, even for D. The reason could simply be that the lack of offensive ability is very costly to a team; it's a lot easier to create offensive when everyone on the ice is a threat to score. Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

[Tom Lento]

Thanks, glad to hear it, eliteprospects and CHN didn't list him so I figured he decomitted but glad to hear he hasn't.

The definitive list.  **]

But how many of these kids are coming next year, we know we need like 10+

While many years there are some surprise deferrals or accelerations, I expect next fall we'll see at least the following 10: Pirtle, Roest, Pelletier, McCrady, Long, Hiscock, Hamiton, Gorski, Veilleux, and DiGiulian. The only 2006 born player int that group is Veilleux, but he seems more than ready for NCAA hockey. It's possible some of the other 2006's might be in the mix, which would include Arsenault, Ryan, and Sandruck.

I would guess McCrady spends another year in juniors. He is a late '05 and has just 9 assists and 0 goals through 40 BCHL games. Seems likely the coaching staff views him as a shutdown defender rather than as an offensive threat, so maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely that he would get playing time. Same goes for Hamilton, who has 1 goal and 4 assists across 34 games this season in the USHL and BCHL. Unlike McCrady, though, Hamilton will have already spent three seasons in high level juniors, so my guess is he comes next year.

Assuming 5F/3D/1G come next year, and assuming no further departures, that replaces everybody leaving excluding Rayhill. One question is whether Casey dips in the transfer portal. He regularly did this at Clarkson, but at Cornell it's going to be harder. It seems to me the biggest position of need by far is goaltending, but Cornell already has three goalies on its roster for next year. For those three goalies, it would be a kick in the balls if Casey were to go out and bring in a fourth to be the starter. Maybe Casey is too nice of a guy to do something like that, but Rand and many other successful coaches would do it in a heartbeat.

Regarding a guy like Hamilton, I assume that unlike Veillieux Hamilton is more of a stay-at-home defenseman so the lack of points doesn't necessarily reflect his ability or potential value.

Out of curiosity, does scoring output for a defenseman devalue the same way from juniors to DI as from DI to the pros? I know it does for forwards, but I've generally not paid much attention to how it translates for defense.

I ask because a legitimate stay at home defensive prospect for the NHL is usually well above average in terms of scoring in college. Think Doug Murray or Sam Malinski. If the same trend holds for juniors to college (and I suspect it does, same basic mechanism involving skill gaps), then in all likelihood any low-scoring guy is probably not going to crack the lineup unless there's some external reason for the low point production.

I suspect there's a high correlation between point production in juniors and playing time in college, even for D. The reason could simply be that the lack of offensive ability is very costly to a team; it's a lot easier to create offensive when everyone on the ice is a threat to score. Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I'm thinking the level differences also mean guys who are excellent all around players but aren't generating enough offense to score points regularly will have a tougher time adjusting to the college game because they need to make a bigger adaptation in their play than a similar guy who's more dominant on the scoresheet. On average, anyway, there's a lot of luck involved in hockey.

[Jim Hyla]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

[billhoward]

I'm pretty anti-fighting in hockey in general, but fighting in leagues with players under 18 is less than great.

Eventually, then, the parents get involved. Or their mouths do. Especially in HS / prep where the parents have super big (super unlikely) hopes for their kids.

[abmarks]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

[Jim Hyla]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

[BearLover]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

[Jim Hyla]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

Yes they for sure are recruited early. But if they don't develop, the process stops. You don't keep recruiting a player who isn't going to make it.

Your post was talking about players who were already in Juniors.

point production in juniors and playing time in college

If they're in Juniors and aren't getting playing time, the chance of being recruited, except for circumstances like injuries, must be very low.

[stereax]

If they're in Juniors and aren't getting playing time, the chance of being recruited, except for circumstances like injuries, must be very low.

Or covid. Wasn't Psenicka's story a bit that he barely played for two years before Cornell? But that's again a bit of a special case and we don't expect a pandemic to come back any time soon.

[Jim Hyla]

If they're in Juniors and aren't getting playing time, the chance of being recruited, except for circumstances like injuries, must be very low.

Or covid. Wasn't Psenicka's story a bit that he barely played for two years before Cornell? But that's again a bit of a special case and we don't expect a pandemic to come back any time soon.

Totally agree. Long illnesses are like injuries.

We lost a coach to long Covid, and didn't give up on him. Much to some's regret, I think.

[BearLover]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

Yes they for sure are recruited early. But if they don't develop, the process stops. You don't keep recruiting a player who isn't going to make it.

Your post was talking about players who were already in Juniors.

point production in juniors and playing time in college

If they're in Juniors and aren't getting playing time, the chance of being recruited, except for circumstances like injuries, must be very low.

Yeah but we were talking about projecting someone's ability in college off of their stats in junior. The discussion was agnostic as to the point when they were actually recruited. They could have been recruited in high school or very early on in junior hockey (eg. they just turned 16) and then they don't end up panning out/getting playing time. Many such cases among Cornell recruits and other schools' recruits.

[Jim Hyla]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

Yes they for sure are recruited early. But if they don't develop, the process stops. You don't keep recruiting a player who isn't going to make it.

Your post was talking about players who were already in Juniors.

point production in juniors and playing time in college

If they're in Juniors and aren't getting playing time, the chance of being recruited, except for circumstances like injuries, must be very low.

Yeah but we were talking about projecting someone's ability in college off of their stats in junior. The discussion was agnostic as to the point when they were actually recruited. They could have been recruited in high school or very early on in junior hockey (eg. they just turned 16) and then they don't end up panning out/getting playing time. Many such cases among Cornell recruits and other schools' recruits.

I give up.

[BearLover]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

Yes they for sure are recruited early. But if they don't develop, the process stops. You don't keep recruiting a player who isn't going to make it.

Maybe I don't understand your point, but I think this right here is the point of disagreement. It is not true that "the process stops." There are many players on Cornell's current list of commitments who are struggling for playing time or had to change teams to find playing time. That's just the world of hockey recruiting.

[Jim Hyla]

Or it could be that lack of production reflects lack of playing time/lack of possession when on the ice.

It's doubtful that any player with a lack of playing time, excluding due to injury, would be recruited.

Recruited without playing time would seem to imply that our coaches see something that their coaches don't.

We could get a commit who gets loads of ice at the time, but fast forward 2 years and he's in the bchl and playing on the 4th line.

There's always that few percent chance.

But that doesn't change the main point.

Remember I said doubtful, not never.

(And if that happened, it's likely we had already told him that we 're not interested.)

Many players are recruited before they set foot in the USHL/BCHL. Colleges like Cornell project how the kids will develop. So playing time down the road is not certain.

Yes they for sure are recruited early. But if they don't develop, the process stops. You don't keep recruiting a player who isn't going to make it.

Maybe I don't understand your point, but I think this right here is the point of disagreement. It is not true that "the process stops." There are many players on Cornell's current list of commitments who are struggling for playing time or had to change teams to find playing time. That's just the world of hockey recruiting.