Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[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 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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

I don't see the new proposal hurting Ivies any more than the NCAA proposal, given that the Ivy coaches were all firmly behind it and Casey was one of the most outspoken speakers at the coaches conference in trying to plead college hockey's case to the NCAA lawyers.

[The Rancor]

I feel like there can't be many 5th year graduate school hockey players, now or in the future. I could be wrong. Mitch Gilliam was one at Notre Dame, right?

[scoop85]

I feel like there can't be many 5th year graduate school hockey players, now or in the future. I could be wrong. Mitch Gilliam was one at Notre Dame, right?

Galadja

[The Rancor]

I feel like there can't be many 5th year graduate school hockey players, now or in the future. I could be wrong. Mitch Gilliam was one at Notre Dame, right?

Galadja

And I was wrong! If only there was a way to check these things. ☠️

[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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

[BearLover]

I feel like there can't be many 5th year graduate school hockey players, now or in the future. I could be wrong. Mitch Gilliam was one at Notre Dame, right?

Currently there are almost zero 5th year players because there are only four years of eligibility. Only kids who missed almost a full year due to injury are eligible for a fifth year. During the COVID 5-year eligibility rule, there were plenty of 5th year seniors. There were seven on Quinnipiac's national championship team and there's no shot they would have won without them.

[stereax]

I feel like there can't be many 5th year graduate school hockey players, now or in the future. I could be wrong. Mitch Gilliam was one at Notre Dame, right?

Galadja

And I was wrong! If only there was a way to check these things. ☠️

Kovich this year did his MBA at Minn Duluth.

[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.

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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

[The Rancor]

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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

5th year guys will be coming off ACL surgery or nerds sprinkled with a few last hurrah jocks before going into finance sprinkled in. If anything, the likely scenario is that kids burn a year in Junior Hockey and then take 4 (or less) in College.

edit: spelling

[scoop85]

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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

Or finance bros

[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.

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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

Or finance bros

One last ride and all'at.

The top talent isn't going to stay longer, the NHL wants them. Guys who have legit NHL aspirations won't do a fifth year.

[chimpfood]

Cole Emerton's Barrie Colts made it to the OHL final where they fell to Kitchener. The D man turned 18 in March, got a lot of time on the powerplay. A bit undersized at 5'11 170. 31 points in 66 games this season; fantastic for such a young defenseman. Exciting prospect.

Henri Ament's Everett Silvertips are in the memorial cup but Ament hasn't played for them in the playoffs. Not sure if it's an injury situation or a healthy scratch since he played 45 games during the regular season. Only put up 5 points, is already 19, and also only 5'11. His prep numbers aren't very good either so not sure what the vision is here, but I guess we always need to be recruiting the next Marian Moskos and Misha Songs to be bodies at practice.

[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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

Yes, but many of those players are extremely valuable, players like Kraft or Major or Robertson or Shane or Galajda. Just because they won't make the NHL doesn't mean they aren't great college players. Now imagine Quinnipiac is able to convince a bunch of those players to either stay at Quinnipiac through their fifth year, or transfer to Quinnipiac from another school for their grad year. It is a big advantage over the Ivies.

[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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

5th year guys will be coming off ACL surgery or nerds sprinkled with a few last hurrah jocks before going into finance sprinkled in. If anything, the likely scenario is that kids burn a year in Junior Hockey and then take 4 (or less) in College.

edit: spelling

This is not at all what happened in 2022-25 when there was a fifth year of eligibility. Just look at Quinnipiac's national championship team from 2023, many of their best players were fifth years including their top defenseman who now plays for the Buffalo Sabres.

[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.

why would so many kids in other sports do post-grad years when they don't do so now?

Competition will force them to do post-grad years: it's a way to get a leg up on the competition. There will be even fewer roster spots per student when the same kid can occupy a spot for 5 years rather than 4, and it will be even harder for kids who skip the post-grad year to compete with kids who have that extra year of training/experience.

You're forgetting one thing: who's doing 5 years?

Mack Celebrini isn't doing 5 years. Gavin McKenna isn't doing 5 years. Porter Martone isn't doing 5 years.

The guys who are doing 5 years are overwhelmingly going to be guys who end up as minor league/Euro league lifers.

Or finance bros

One last ride and all'at.

The top talent isn't going to stay longer, the NHL wants them. Guys who have legit NHL aspirations won't do a fifth year.

There is a massive gulf between "NHL talent" and "not a useful college player."