Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[stereax]

I have happened upon a copy of the EP draft guide.

Nick Cirka, Cole Emerton, Cole Tuminaro, Daniel Walters are in it. Anyone want their writeups?

(Charlie Puglisi isn't in it, mildly surprising to me. Neither is Caton Ryan, for those wondering, though Cooper Cleaves is.)

Of course we want the write ups (thanks in advance)

Cirka (D grade):...
Emerton (F grade):...
Tuminaro (D grade, Hammer badge):...
Walters (D grade):...

this doesn't sound ... great? but is this a typical profile for good to very good college players who will probably max out in the ECHL?

They have 30 prospects total ranked A. 38 ranked B. 123 ranked C, 121 ranked D, 132 ranked F.

Generally, A ranks are first rounder NHLers, B rank is 2nd round, C is 3-5, D is 6-7, F is like, maybe you take a late round flier on this guy, maybe not.

And this is focused solely on NHL drafting.

So yes, these guys will be good-to-very-good in college, likely maxing out in the AHL - but, I mean, who really knows. Look at Malinski for example.

[stereax]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

[BearLover]

Wow, that totally blows. Cornell and the Ivies at a huge disadvantage now.

[stereax]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

Just got done reading this from Jane's post.
I think it's a good decision compared to the original deal put forth- but nothing is perfect-how do others feel?

I think BL is overselling it lol. This is way better for junior hockey and consequently the level of play at the NCAA level. The fifth year thing I think is the main sticker, and I suspect not that many students will be using it. But we'll see.

[BearLover]

We need look no further than the COVID eligibility years to see how big a factor fifth year seniors were...they were a big factor.

I think the NCAA would be better off without fifth year players. More younger skilled players, fewer plodding giant 24-year-olds.

I'm pretty annoyed with the NHL and junior hockey sticking their nose into this. College hockey shouldn't exist to prop up those leagues. Tons more kids are gonna take gap years across the other collegiate sports now too.

Mostly just care about this in the context that it sucks for Cornell though.

[The Rancor]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

Just got done reading this from Jane's post.
I think it's a good decision compared to the original deal put forth- but nothing is perfect-how do others feel?

I think BL is overselling it lol. This is way better for junior hockey and consequently the level of play at the NCAA level. The fifth year thing I think is the main sticker, and I suspect not that many students will be using it. But we'll see.

For any number of reasons, lots of kids just aren't ready for college at 18- or even 19. I think in this compromise at least addresses guys burning 3+ years in Juniors and then coming to the NCAA and also, to a degree, encourages College Hockey or at least the decision to continue on that route. I'm doubtful the impact of of graduate school players will make a huge difference. Now, at least, traditional high schoolers can go play a season or two in Junior Hockey and still play 3-4 at a college or university- which is good for the sport.

[stereax]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

Just got done reading this from Jane's post.
I think it's a good decision compared to the original deal put forth- but nothing is perfect-how do others feel?

I think BL is overselling it lol. This is way better for junior hockey and consequently the level of play at the NCAA level. The fifth year thing I think is the main sticker, and I suspect not that many students will be using it. But we'll see.

For any number of reasons, lots of kids just aren't ready for college at 18- or even 19. I think in this compromise at least addresses guys burning 3+ years in Juniors and then coming to the NCAA and also, to a degree, encourages College Hockey or at least the decision to continue on that route. I'm doubtful the impact of of graduate school players will make a huge difference. Now, at least, traditional high schoolers can go play a season or two in Junior Hockey and still play 3-4 at a college or university- which is good for the sport.

Precisely.

The fifth-year grad thing may have been big for Quinnipiac, but gotta recognize as well that those grads were impacted by Covid and didn't get to play for a year or two. With a new environment where everyone can take a grad year after doing 4 years of college, things will likely normalize. Again, I feel like most of the current teams that win (Denver, WMU) do it on the back of high-pedigree talent more than old player talent.

Is a high-pedigree model going to be good for us moving forward? Probably not, I don't think we'll seriously land a 1st/2nd round pedigree player. Guys like Castagna were drafted high because of raw physical potential. Guys like Gardiner and Fisher are essentially "lapsed" draft picks - they were drafted several years back and likely won't get serious NHL time unless they develop really well. Not sure what's going on with Fegaras but still not having PP1 as an offensive dman junior is concerning. (Well, Veilleux is better at it, but, like...) Dallas will probably sign him if only because they have an annual humiliation ritual of overpaying on the trade market for dogshit right-hand defensemen...

And yeah, the current eligibility rules make a lot more sense for college hockey. The thing about juniors is that they're well-established paths of going to the NCAA. For a sport like football, it's high school->NCAA. Hockey is like, U15-18->USHL/BCHL/AJHL/CHL now/sometimes foreign leagues like the SHL->NCAA. ("Castagna went directly from prep school" Castagna is a known outlier.) ("Minnesota high schools -" Yeah, but that's only one state with the infrastructure to do that, plus those players only rarely get anywhere professionally. I'm not sure we had a high draft pick out of MN-HS before Mason West in recent memory, and he only did that because he wanted to play football and hockey.) You force teams into taking younger players who aren't ready for it, the quality of college hockey suffers significantly. And junior hockey, where your college hockey players develop, has to radically restructure.

I mean, honestly, if their original 5-in-5 passed, I'd have expected the USHL and company to file lawsuits.

[chimpfood]

Anyone know how the rule will be ushered in? Will it only be for incoming recruits or will guys already on the roster be subject to the same rules? Will it be in place for recruits this year (e.g. Gardiner only gets 3 years max)?

[stereax]

Anyone know how the rule will be ushered in? Will it only be for incoming recruits or will guys already on the roster be subject to the same rules? Will it be in place for recruits this year (e.g. Gardiner only gets 3 years max)?

Even the NCAA doesn't know 💜

We've legit heard conflicting information on implementation. I don't think they can touch current roster players, but it might affect this year's incoming class, it might not. We'll see.

[BearLover]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

Just got done reading this from Jane's post.
I think it's a good decision compared to the original deal put forth- but nothing is perfect-how do others feel?

I think BL is overselling it lol. This is way better for junior hockey and consequently the level of play at the NCAA level. The fifth year thing I think is the main sticker, and I suspect not that many students will be using it. But we'll see.

For any number of reasons, lots of kids just aren't ready for college at 18- or even 19. I think in this compromise at least addresses guys burning 3+ years in Juniors and then coming to the NCAA and also, to a degree, encourages College Hockey or at least the decision to continue on that route. I'm doubtful the impact of of graduate school players will make a huge difference. Now, at least, traditional high schoolers can go play a season or two in Junior Hockey and still play 3-4 at a college or university- which is good for the sport.

Precisely.

The fifth-year grad thing may have been big for Quinnipiac, but gotta recognize as well that those grads were impacted by Covid and didn't get to play for a year or two. With a new environment where everyone can take a grad year after doing 4 years of college, things will likely normalize. Again, I feel like most of the current teams that win (Denver, WMU) do it on the back of high-pedigree talent more than old player talent.

That's not what happened - the fifth years (on Quinnipiac and elsewhere) didn't miss a season at any point. They simply played five full seasons in college after a normal junior hockey career.

I think it's very clear that this new rule puts us at a significant disadvantage. You just need to look at what happened a few years ago during COVID five year eligibility. Every program except the Ivies had the option to retain some great players for a fifth year or bring in a grad transfer for a fifth year. Quinnipiac was the most noteworthy beneficiary, but almost every team (except for the Ivies) had a few fifth years. Several Cornell players, including good ones like Zack Tupker and Jack Malone, we would have welcomed back for a fifth year, but we couldn't, so they went to play at Quinnipiac and BC, respectively. Consider Jacob Kraft: great college player, little shot at a real pro career. Another school could get him to stay for a fifth year, or get him to transfer in. We don't have that option. So we lose one of our better players, and another program gains him. It happened countless times the last time there was five-year eligibility and it will be the norm going forward.

Yes, schools like Denver focus on younger, high draft picks. But there's nothing stopping them from supplementing those with fifth year players. In fact, Denver had multiple older players on their championship teams who played big roles. This option is available to Quinnipiac, Denver, and everyone else - except for a small number of Ivies and similarly situated schools.

[Pghas]

McMahon on Twitter:

Breaking: The NCAA D1 Cabinet met and further discussed the hockey model today.

Sources say the NCAA will adopt hockey's proposed model, where the eligibility clock begins the season following an athlete's 19th birthday or college enrollment, removing HS graduation.

I would think it's age 19 or college enrollment, whichever comes first.  Since many players repeat years in prep school or need at least one year of junior hockey I don't think it changes much.  How many 19 year olds are playing college hockey and staying 4-5 years.  I agree for those kids ivies are at a disadvantage if there is no mechanism to play a fifth year but wouldn't 5th year players need to matriculatecdonegow wherever they play? This can't be a tough problem to solve

[adamw]

We need look no further than the COVID eligibility years to see how big a factor fifth year seniors were...they were a big factor.

I think the NCAA would be better off without fifth year players. More younger skilled players, fewer plodding giant 24-year-olds.

I'm pretty annoyed with the NHL and junior hockey sticking their nose into this. College hockey shouldn't exist to prop up those leagues. Tons more kids are gonna take gap years across the other collegiate sports now too.

Mostly just care about this in the context that it sucks for Cornell though.

every single coach supported where it stands now, including the Ivy coaches, including Casey. There's likely a reason for that, and that this is one case where it will not actually screw Cornell like you think.  I loathe the 5-year rule in general - and I agree that having to face 5th years is a disadvantage to a degree - but I also don't think it will be that big a thing. I don't think it will be as widespread as COVID. In that case, players were doing it because the got a truncated 4 years otherwise.

[stereax]

We need look no further than the COVID eligibility years to see how big a factor fifth year seniors were...they were a big factor.

I think the NCAA would be better off without fifth year players. More younger skilled players, fewer plodding giant 24-year-olds.

I'm pretty annoyed with the NHL and junior hockey sticking their nose into this. College hockey shouldn't exist to prop up those leagues. Tons more kids are gonna take gap years across the other collegiate sports now too.

Mostly just care about this in the context that it sucks for Cornell though.

every single coach supported where it stands now, including the Ivy coaches, including Casey. There's likely a reason for that, and that this is one case where it will not actually screw Cornell like you think.  I loathe the 5-year rule in general - and I agree that having to face 5th years is a disadvantage to a degree - but I also don't think it will be that big a thing. I don't think it will be as widespread as COVID. In that case, players were doing it because the got a truncated 4 years otherwise.

almost like i was right in saying that 🤔

[Trotsky]

I'm fine with the 5 years. I want the Ivies to drop their performative bullshit.  We all know the score.  Just fucking come clean guys.  The asshole label-conscious parents from Five Towns are still going to send their little shits here.

[BearLover]

We need look no further than the COVID eligibility years to see how big a factor fifth year seniors were...they were a big factor.

I think the NCAA would be better off without fifth year players. More younger skilled players, fewer plodding giant 24-year-olds.

I'm pretty annoyed with the NHL and junior hockey sticking their nose into this. College hockey shouldn't exist to prop up those leagues. Tons more kids are gonna take gap years across the other collegiate sports now too.

Mostly just care about this in the context that it sucks for Cornell though.

every single coach supported where it stands now, including the Ivy coaches, including Casey. There's likely a reason for that, and that this is one case where it will not actually screw Cornell like you think.  I loathe the 5-year rule in general - and I agree that having to face 5th years is a disadvantage to a degree - but I also don't think it will be that big a thing. I don't think it will be as widespread as COVID. In that case, players were doing it because the got a truncated 4 years otherwise.

Do you really think Casey was going to take a stand against all 62 other coaches? I don't know the dynamic, but that sounds unlikely. This is clearly bad for Cornell - maybe less so for Brown and Yale who rely on bringing in 20-year-olds, but unequivocally bad for Cornell. The only question is how bad.

Honestly, compared to the alternative - the 5 year clock starting at graduation - I think this is really bad for Cornell men's hockey. Why? Because hockey is a zero sum game. Cornell will still have the same quality team as before. But now all the small schools will keep bringing in 20-year-olds. All the Denvers and Michigans will pluck the best fifth year grad students in the portal. Quinnipiac will do their usual, stock their team with fifth years. Cornell will lose out on the Krafts or Shanes for their fifth years and they'll transfer elsewhere. In sum, everyone else is clearly better off under the "hockey proposal 5-year rule" than the "original NCAA proposal 5-year rule," except for a few Ivies, namely Cornell and Harvard. When 60 or so teams benefit, and you're one of the 2 or 3 who don't, it means you're a big loser. I think there is a lot of cope in this thread and people aren't grasping the reality that hockey is a zero-sum game where we lose when everyone else wins.

Frankly, though, this is going to be even worse for women's hockey and lacrosse and any other sport without the junior league infrastructure of men's hockey where Cornell has aspirations of competing nationally. I'm incredibly bearish on women's hockey and men's lacrosse, and only somewhat bearish on men's hockey, as a result of this rule.