Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[BearLover]

Pelletier won USHL player of the week for like the fifth week in a row. I don't know how we managed to screw this up.
*coaching staff defense squad assembles*

neither does anyone else, or if they screwed up at all! nobody is defending anyone but we've also moved on. he isn't coming.

Never give up. He's already decommitted once before.

[Trotsky]

Southern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

[David Harding]

Southern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

I'll admit that I was a clueless nerd in high school.  I'd scored quite well on the standardized tests, as did we all who made it to Cornell, and I received lots of mailings from colleges.  The one that really baffled me was a big picture postcard from some southern school showing a row of coeds in bathing suits sitting on a diving board at a swimming pool.  The words on the other side were as skimpy as the bathing suits, and included no mention of the academic program.  Since the education was why I planned to go to college, I just didn't grasp the point of the postcard. 

[Trotsky]

Southern schools have hookers on the cheer squad for the school visit.  Just sayin'.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/crime/entire-college-cheer-squad-suspended-after-prostitution-accusation/93-428172071

< thinks about the consequences of admission scores >

Just give em cash.

I'll admit that I was a clueless nerd in high school.  I'd scored quite well on the standardized tests, as did we all who made it to Cornell, and I received lots of mailings from colleges.  The one that really baffled me was a big picture postcard from some southern school showing a row of coeds in bathing suits sitting on a diving board at a swimming pool.  The words on the other side were as skimpy as the bathing suits, and included no mention of the academic program.  Since the education was why I planned to go to college, I just didn't grasp the point of the postcard. 

As a HS junior I got a "return this for your diploma" brochure from Pepperdine.  Now if you have seen Pepperdine you know their campus is jaw-droppingly beautiful.  They are the Pebble Beach of universities. 



And because of the demo (southern California, Fundies without a brain in their pretty little heads) the campus is not all that is amazing.

In a 32-page brochure with pictures of their undergrads in various poses and activities on every page, there was not a single book.  God I wish I had kept that.  When people say schools today merely market T&A to their students I always think back to 1979.  I assume it was the same in 1959 too.  And 1939. 

You gotta set the tone.

[Jim Hyla]

In this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

No, I don't have those answers. I'm speculating. I already said as much. But the speculation  is pretty reasonable in this case, IMO.
1. Most (not all, but I believe a substantial majority of) players want to get to college ASAP. Particularly when you're already 20.
2. Given he graduated high school two years ago, it is extremely unlikely there are academic issues because he is not involved in academics at all currently.
3. I find it very unlikely a 19-y/o who had 37 points in 60 USHL games thought he would blow up the next season and get a big financial reward. (I doubt he even is getting a real financial reward aside from a scholarship.)

So, as is usually the case on a hockey forum when a poster is not himself associated with the team, I am speculating. You can ignore it or push back on it or agree with it, but I don't agree with launching into a diatribe on speculating in the first place.

Sorry that I phrased it so you could interpret my post as a diatribe. My intent was to point out that we don't know the reason for him not coming and yet you definitively blamed the coaching staff without any knowledge to support that.

You make declarative statements like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." &  "I don't know how we managed to screw this up."

With those statements you don't speculate, you declare.

My point is don't make declarative statements unless you know something for a fact, or at least close to a fact. There are ways to discuss your opinions that are not be declarative.

Something such as "I wonder why we didn't..." or "It seems like a mistake to not have him here." That would show your opinion without looking like you know the reason.

[BearLover]

In this case i'm with BL. "We don't know his reasons" is something for church. the rest of us base our opinions on what we can see

OK, but what do we see?  Only a single fact.  We know nothing behind it.  So if the coaching staff is at fault for losing guys then it is equally to their credit when we steal guys.  Thus, they are doing fine.

Now, I see no universe in which it is reasonable to assume the coaching staff is responsible for any of these changes of player heart, but even if we posit that then our staff is still doing fine.

"Coaching staff makes one mistake" does not equate to "coaching staff sucks."

There is ALWAYS the risk of a change of player heart when you don't bring guys to campus. Ergo, you bring guys to campus when they're ready to contribute to your team, else you might lose them to a change of heart, change in family economics, whatever. We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't. One can reasonably blame the coaching staff for misevaluating Pelletier's readiness and not bringing him to campus. That's very different from blaming the coaching staff for the player experiencing a change of heart.

I haven't followed his recruiting closely, but you keep saying that we didn't bring him in. Do you know that for a fact? Could there have been some academic issues? Do we know that he wanted to come this year? As was said by someone, did he think it might have been good to wait a year and see what other prospects might open up? Might he have thought waiting might open more monetary opportunities?

I have multiple questions that I don't have answers to, so I don't make declarative statements. Maybe these have been answered and I missed them, but maybe we don't know who made the decision not to come, CU or the player.

No, I don't have those answers. I'm speculating. I already said as much. But the speculation  is pretty reasonable in this case, IMO.
1. Most (not all, but I believe a substantial majority of) players want to get to college ASAP. Particularly when you're already 20.
2. Given he graduated high school two years ago, it is extremely unlikely there are academic issues because he is not involved in academics at all currently.
3. I find it very unlikely a 19-y/o who had 37 points in 60 USHL games thought he would blow up the next season and get a big financial reward. (I doubt he even is getting a real financial reward aside from a scholarship.)

So, as is usually the case on a hockey forum when a poster is not himself associated with the team, I am speculating. You can ignore it or push back on it or agree with it, but I don't agree with launching into a diatribe on speculating in the first place.

Sorry that I phrased it so you could interpret my post as a diatribe. My intent was to point out that we don't know the reason for him not coming and yet you definitively blamed the coaching staff without any knowledge to support that.

You make declarative statements like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." &  "I don't know how we managed to screw this up."

With those statements you don't speculate, you declare.

My point is don't make declarative statements unless you know something for a fact, or at least close to a fact. There are ways to discuss your opinions that are not be declarative.

Something such as "I wonder why we didn't..." or "It seems like a mistake to not have him here." That would show your opinion without looking like you know the reason.

My original post on this topic: " Again, I may be missing something, but seems like a huge mistake by the coaching staff."

[Trotsky]

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

[BearLover]

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

[stereax]

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Big Arthur is watching you... LMAO.

[Trotsky]

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Yes.

Though when you say things like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." that is a fact pattern with a truth value.  Did we have an opportunity?  How do you know?  If not then your whole statement falls apart.  "If we had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't, then we fucked up." is the more semantically correct sentence, and if that is what you are conveying it really should not be up to me to perform the calculation in my head to get your meaning.

Bullshitting is fun, but we deserve precision, German-engineered bullshit.

[adamw]

nothing wrong with leaving out "in my opinion" -- but there is an obvious difference in tone between stating something as if it's a well-known fact (not to mention when it's not only not a fact but the opposite is actually true), and just someone's "concern" or "speculation." Being unable to spot the difference is either tone deaf, or intentional belligerence/trolling. you be the judge.

[chimpfood]

We should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

[BearLover]

To be fair to BearLover (throws up in mouth a little), I will frequently omit the implicit "In my opinion," which prefaces nearly everything I write on social media.

I typically assume posters are bloviating, not truth speaking.  Nobody here actually knows anything.  Except Arthur.  Arthur knows everything.  And one reason he knows everything is people know he doesn't talk about it.

Yes, I try to couch my posts with "it seems," "IMO," etc. to convey lack of certainty, but I really shouldn't need to. This is an Internet forum of people bullshitting. I am not issuing press releases on behalf of Cornell hockey.

Yes.

Though when you say things like "We had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't." that is a fact pattern with a truth value.  Did we have an opportunity?  How do you know?  If not then your whole statement falls apart.  "If we had an opportunity to bring this guy to campus, and we didn't, then we fucked up." is the more semantically correct sentence, and if that is what you are conveying it really should not be up to me to perform the calculation in my head to get your meaning.

Fine. I mean, I am making inferences here. But I think that's obvious. Also, as previously mentioned I believe these are very reasonable inferences. Pelletier was committed to Cornell for many months after the coaching staff decided on whom it was bringing in for this season. And it is the case for the vast majority of recruits, particularly those who are 20 years old, that they want to get to campus sooner rather than later. Ergo, I am confident that Cornell could have told him to come this past Spring, and he would have. Am I certain? No. But seems very likely. Anyway, fair enough, I'll use the "if...then" disclaimer next time for clarity.

[stereax]

We should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

oh MAN this reminds me i need lynah to mock harvard about that during the harvard game. not sure how you get the harvard crowd to do that though.

[BearLover]

We should also appreciate the fact that one of our top pair defenseman was acquired via poaching. We're not only suffering from this, we've had our wins too.

Definitely true. The Veilleux case was a nice poaching "win." I think that was likely similar to the Pelletier case though, where Harvard overrecruited and
didn't have enough space to bring in Veilleux when they could have.

Anyway, I see the Veilleux case as different from the Walsh case (we poached him from Brown). This is because we poached Veilleux from a top hockey school, whereas when Walsh started to blow up in junior hockey he likely decided he could do better.  If we want to win a national championship, we can't be losing current recruits/players to BC (Pelletier) or Michigan (Robertson). IF we are losing recruits to these places because they are seeking out a higher caliber program, then competing nationally isn't really tenable. We are above Brown on the food chain, so I don't see it as particularly notable when we have a poaching win there, and at the same time we need to not be losing to the BCs and Michigans we're trying to compete with nationally. Yes, we aren't going to get the USNTDP kids, and I am under no illusions that we can attract the same caliber of 16-year-old, but we should not be seeing overagers decommitting once they blow up in junior hockey, or our best players transferring out. That bodes poorly for our ability to compete nationally.