Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[adamw]

It's definitely much worse in other sports - though I feel more for all the HS athletes who get fewer opportunities now because 5th years are blocking them.

Hockey players have pro hockey to go to. This mitigates 5th-year 24-year olds. Most anyone that's any good, will want to be in pro hockey by then.

Casey didn't just not want to upset the apple cart. He specifically was one of a couple of coaches who made impassioned arguments against the NCAA lawyers at the April coaches convention. He has specifically been lobbying on behalf of getting the NCAA to land where it is now. He's been mentioned by other coaches as a leader on this. I've mentioned this before, but some are choosing to conveniently ignore this.

[Trotsky]

He specifically was one of a couple of coaches who made impassioned arguments against the NCAA lawyers at the April coaches convention. He has specifically been lobbying on behalf of getting the NCAA to land where it is now. He's been mentioned by other coaches as a leader on this. I've mentioned this before, but some are choosing to conveniently ignore this.

Thank you, Adam.  This is helpful and salubrious.

Casey continues to impress me.

[BearLover]

It's definitely much worse in other sports - though I feel more for all the HS athletes who get fewer opportunities now because 5th years are blocking them.

Hockey players have pro hockey to go to. This mitigates 5th-year 24-year olds. Most anyone that's any good, will want to be in pro hockey by then.

Casey didn't just not want to upset the apple cart. He specifically was one of a couple of coaches who made impassioned arguments against the NCAA lawyers at the April coaches convention. He has specifically been lobbying on behalf of getting the NCAA to land where it is now. He's been mentioned by other coaches as a leader on this. I've mentioned this before, but some are choosing to conveniently ignore this.

I can't speak to Casey's reasons but it's pretty clear this rule change does not benefit Cornell on net. That's all.

It's a rule that by definition can only hurt us. Maybe it doesn't hurt much in men's hockey and is a disaster in lacrosse and women's hockey. But it definitionally cannot help us.

[marty]

It's definitely much worse in other sports - though I feel more for all the HS athletes who get fewer opportunities now because 5th years are blocking them.

Hockey players have pro hockey to go to. This mitigates 5th-year 24-year olds. Most anyone that's any good, will want to be in pro hockey by then.

Casey didn't just not want to upset the apple cart. He specifically was one of a couple of coaches who made impassioned arguments against the NCAA lawyers at the April coaches convention. He has specifically been lobbying on behalf of getting the NCAA to land where it is now. He's been mentioned by other coaches as a leader on this. I've mentioned this before, but some are choosing to conveniently ignore this.

I can't speak to Casey's reasons but it's pretty clear this rule change does not benefit Cornell on net. That's all.

It's a rule that by definition can only hurt us. Maybe it doesn't hurt much in men's hockey and is a disaster in lacrosse and women's hockey. But it definitionally cannot help us.

That's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all that's all.

[stereax]

if the rule change does not benefit us why was casey going so hard for it

[chimpfood]

I don't see why we wouldn't just keep our recruits in juniors for an extra year before coming in. Then we get better developed players and they have no eligibility left when they're done with us.

[BearLover]

if the rule change does not benefit us why was casey going so hard for it

The new rule gives our opponents more options, while not giving us any more options. Therefore, it is strictly negative for us.

I think there is a disconnect in this conversation and people are talking past each other, because there are three rules at issue.
1. The current rule, that you get four years of eligibility if you enroll age 20 or sooner.
2. The NCAA's original proposed rule, that adds a fifth year of eligibility, but starts the eligiblity clock upon graduation.
3. Hockey's counterproposal, that accepts the new fifth year of eligiblity but starts the clock upon the year you turn 19, NOT upon graduation. If you enroll your age 20 year, you still get four years.

Casey reportedly argued against rule (2), at a time when rule (1) was still in place. At the time, rule (3) wasn't on the table. Maybe he does think rule (3) is better than rule (2), but in any case, rule (3) is DEFINITIONALLY WORSE for us than rule (1).

Why? Because rule (3) puts college hockey players and teams in essentially the same place as rule (1), except now players can play 5 years if they enroll by their age 19 year, and teams can have fifth year players. EXCEPT for the Ivies. The Ivies do not let grad students play. Every other team can now have fifth year players. Aside from that, everything is essentially the same.

Under rule (3), Cornell and the Ivies are in the exact same boat as rule (1) in terms of team makeup, while EVERY OTHER PROGRAM WITH A GRADUATE SCHOOL can have fifth year players. This makes us worse off definitionally because hockey is a zero-sum game. Everyone else can now have a better team, but we can't. We are going to have a harder time winning now, the only question is how much harder.

[BearLover]

I don't see why we wouldn't just keep our recruits in juniors for an extra year before coming in. Then we get better developed players and they have no eligibility left when they're done with us.

Because then you end up in a Pelletier situation where players decommit when we don't bring them in even if they're ready. Players want to jump up a level when they're ready for that next level. We would further miss out on players like Castagna (and, actually, most of our current team) who are ready to make the jump before their age 20 year.

[chimpfood]

Obviously I don't mean every single time man, I just mean if we do that as a general rule it won't change much for us, whereas other teams may be bringing in less experienced guys so that they can get the full five years out of them.

[BearLover]

Obviously I don't mean every single time man, I just mean if we do that as a general rule it won't change much for us, whereas other teams may be bringing in less experienced guys so that they can get the full five years out of them.

Cornell currently brings kids in when they're ready for NCAA hockey and I don't expect that to change. To the extent a kid would benefit from another year in juniors, then we would already be sending them back under the current rule - I don't expect us to send more kids back now. If anything, we will probably send back fewer because it'll piss the kid off if they lose a year of eligibility. There is now going to be an added desire for kids to matriculate early.

Also other teams I doubt plan to get all five years out of a kid...that would require the kid sticking around for grad school. More likely, the kid will go somewhere else for their fifth year or not use their fifth year.

[Old Red]

if the rule change does not benefit us why was casey going so hard for it

Because it is the right thing to do.  Once back in the mythos that was the purpose of a classical, Ivy League, liberal education, to give us an understanding of the world and of ourselves to enable us to do and live a life of right and avoid what is wrong.

But today it is all fie on goodness, fie.

[ugarte]

BearLover, and I don't say this as a criticism but simply as a normative explanation, looks at every change through one prism: will Cornell win a greater or lesser number of games post-implementation relative to the competition. Whatever questions he has about morality or fairness are secondary. He explains at length why he thinks the new rules are bad for Cornell. I suspect Casey is not quite that mercenary in how he sees the rules, or if he is, he has a different opinion of Cornell's relative selling points are than BearLover does so he feels comfortable with what he's arguing for.

Me? I'm just going to watch the games.

[Trotsky]

if the rule change does not benefit us why was casey going so hard for it

Because it is the right thing to do.  Once back in the mythos that was the purpose of a classical, Ivy League, liberal education, to give us an understanding of the world and of ourselves to enable us to do and live a life of right and avoid what is wrong.

But today it is all fie on goodness, fie.

But to spend a tortured evening
Staring at the floor
Guilty and alive once more!

[TimV]

Can we get 5 seasons out of a player by lightening the credit hour load?

[Weder]

Can we get 5 seasons out of a player by lightening the credit hour load?

It would be tough for hockey since the season spans both semesters. I think there's a process for taking nine semesters to graduate, but it would be much more difficult to persuade them to give you 10. I don't know what the current rules are, but when I was there you also had to be making substantial progress toward graduating in eight semesters after your sophomore and junior years. (My student job was in a college registrar's office, so I learned a lot about graduation requirements.)