Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[ursusminor]

Even without the house settlement, there's still the question of number of scholarships available. It might be the case of "we're not renewing your scholarship, you should go look to play elsewhere because RPI is $70k/year"

Oh, true. Presumably RPI still offers 18 scholarships, as that's the rule for teams who didn't opt in, I believe.

In any case, the Ivies not being involved with roster caps, scholarships, or paying players seems like it is leading to greater continuity from year to year.

I think that we still have to wait a couple of years before we should draw a conclusion, and by then the rules will have changed again.

[The Rancor]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

[BearLover]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

[stereax]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

Could also be guys wanting ice time, and the coaches knowing they can't give that ice time.

As BL said - I think this factor works out in our favor. A decent amount of guys on the hockey team are incentivized to stay at Cornell because of the academics/name on the degree/connections/cushy finance job they'll land after four years at Lynah. Versus a school like Quinnipiac... which is... less academically renowned.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Versus a school like Quinnipiac... which is... less academically renowned.

But I'll bet they have a poll that says it is.

[BearLover]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

Could also be guys wanting ice time, and the coaches knowing they can't give that ice time.

As BL said - I think this factor works out in our favor. A decent amount of guys on the hockey team are incentivized to stay at Cornell because of the academics/name on the degree/connections/cushy finance job they'll land after four years at Lynah. Versus a school like Quinnipiac... which is... less academically renowned.

Also, Quinnipiac opted into the House settlement, so they're bound by the 26-player roster cap. They probably opted in for purposes of basketball, but it affects all their sports.

[The Rancor]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

you asked what the advantage was of cutting guys: they aren't going to play. They are being told, "Go to the Portal because there's not a spot for you here." what can't you get about that?

[BearLover]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

you asked what the advantage was of cutting guys: they aren't going to play. They are being told, "Go to the Portal because there's not a spot for you here." what can't you get about that?

You said there's not a roster spot for them, but RPI has unlimited roster spots. You are apparently using "roster spot" as a euphemism for "being in the lineup," but they're not exactly the same. I was asking why RPI is cutting guys from the team, given they don't have a roster limit. Cornell has guys who don't play, but they don't get cut from the team.

[The Rancor]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

you asked what the advantage was of cutting guys: they aren't going to play. They are being told, "Go to the Portal because there's not a spot for you here." what can't you get about that?

Cornell has guys who don't play, but they don't get cut from the team.

This is why I stopped responding to you.  They absolutely do, and will more often, in the portal era. Did you even listen to the Podcast? You're purposely obtuse, as usual.

[BearLover]

Huh. Yeah might not be much point in investing resources into recruiting younger guys any more.

That was a big component of the hockey think tank podcast with topher that someone posted last week. Coaches are focusing on "what wins next year" not "building a program" and they're not fighting for young kids, they're letting them develop in the CHL and recruiting later. Also there are fewer slots on average and kids are getting cut to bring  in these new CHL players. It's a weird time.

This exactly. They also emphasized that with the Settlement, smaller roster sizes, plus CHL eligibility, has made it way harder to find a spot on a team, and that kids are being told to go to the Portal, by their coaches. It isn't that the grass is greener, they are just being replaced.

Yes. We have been told by ursusminor that a bunch of RPI skaters were told they would not be on the team next year.  Some of them made their way to the Portal.

RPI has not opted into the House settlement, right? In that case, what's the advantage of cutting guys? Cornell evidently almost never cuts anyone.

They've got guys in the CHL that are coming and there isn't a roster spot for them.

They don't have a roster cap because they did not opt into the House settlement. But as pfiger said, I guess the coach is taking away their scholarship. 

you asked what the advantage was of cutting guys: they aren't going to play. They are being told, "Go to the Portal because there's not a spot for you here." what can't you get about that?

Cornell has guys who don't play, but they don't get cut from the team.

This is why I stopped responding to you.  They absolutely do, and will more often, in the portal era. Did you even listen to the Podcast? You're purposely obtuse, as usual.

??

Cornell is clearly not cutting players in the portal era. We have a massive roster. Our guys who don't play stay on the roster through graduation anyway. That's clearly been the case the past few years.

There's nothing about the "portal era" that would necessitate Cornell cutting players. We (and RPI) did not opt into the House settlement, so that part is immaterial. I listened to the entire podcast, and the part about cutting players related to the roster caps from the House settlement, which don't apply to us.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

[BearLover]

Anyway, my general point was that the Ivies seem pretty well positioned in hockey going forward. Trends can change,  but the Ivies have lost very few players to the portal, as I showed a couple weeks ago (we lost two good players, but no one else besides Brown lost a single player to a non-Ivy in the last three years). We don't have to worry about roster caps, so we can field big rosters without worry about injuries depleting our lineup in game or in practice. Plus more competition for lineup spots. Because kids stick around, even when they don't play much as underclassmen, we can actually develop them. Unlike the coaches referenced in the podcast who have to focus on building next year's team rather than building a program, the Ivies don't have that issue. And thankfully the five-year eligibility rule, should it go into effect as contemplated, will have little effect on Ivy League hockey.

[BearLover]

Apparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

[stereax]

Apparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

I mean, does that change a lot? Eligibility clock starts in your 20yo season. That's when a lot of our guys come in anyway. It's 5 years, okay, more grad transfers maybe, but I'd say for the most part in a post-pandemic world, grad transfers aren't that important. Q's run excepted.

[BearLover]

Apparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

I mean, does that change a lot? Eligibility clock starts in your 20yo season. That's when a lot of our guys come in anyway. It's 5 years, okay, more grad transfers maybe, but I'd say for the most part in a post-pandemic world, grad transfers aren't that important. Q's run excepted.

More of our players come in at 18 or 19. Now those players will play a grad year at Q or Duluth or something. So will other teams' players. Or Q's players will stay at Q for five years. Fifth year seniors were a big factor in the post-COVID years so I don't see why it would be any different if the rule becomes permanent.

It seems probably moot anyway since I don't really see why the NCAA would go along with hockey's proposal. So many more kids in other sports would do post-grad years. It would significantly increase the number of 19-y/o freshmen in other sports. One of the purposes of the rule change was to bring down the age of college athletes so I don't know why the NCAA would agree to hockey's proposal.

[adamw]

Apparently hockey (like all of hockey...the NCAA hockey programs, junior leagues, NHL, etc.) is lobbying the NCAA to push back the start of 5-year eligibility by one season. Per Mike McMahon: "In its place, hockey's brass offered a counter-proposal: start the eligibility clock the season following an athlete's 19th birthday, or upon college enrollment—whichever comes first." If this happens, scratch what I said about the Ivies being well positioned, and flip that on its head--the Ivies, which are among the very few schools that don't permit grad students, would be uniquely poorly positioned in such a world.

I really thought you'd grown to love me - posted this article to CHN 2 days ago

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/20_Hockey-Community-Rallies-.php