Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[adamw]

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).

Factually untrue. Everyone knew in Florida that the NCAA was not going back to (1), no chance. The arguments in Florida - that Casey was leading on - was to make it (3) instead of (2). Considered a massively lesser of two evils by all 63 coaches.

[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).

Factually untrue. Everyone knew in Florida that the NCAA was not going back to (1), no chance. The arguments in Florida - that Casey was leading on - was to make it (3) instead of (2). Considered a massively lesser of two evils by all 63 coaches.

Um, at the time wasn't it reported that hockey was looking to be carved out from the rule, rather than changing the rule entirely?

It doesn't affect the conclusion anyway. Like I said, "maybe he does think rule (3) is better than rule (2)." You can remove the "maybe" and the point still stands - (3) is worse for Cornell than (1). We are now worse off.

[Trotsky]

This fight.  Artist's conception.

[stereax]

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.)

I mean, theoretically yes. But I think there's a 12 credit minimum to be a full time student. Could be easier to do it in a way that's like, you don't take a core required class for an extra semester or two?

But at the same time, we need to stop considering getting a 5th year the ultimate goal of college hockey players... I would wager that MOST would prefer to do 4 and then go to the ECHL/AHL.

[BearLover]

Five years via delaying graduation isn't realistic in a sport that spans both semesters. Especially when a kid could just graduate on time and then transfer elsewhere for a fifth year.

I think it's a safe assumption that most good players, upon obtaining an undergrad degree, will look to transfer to another school unless they have a great pro offer (probably AHL or above). Again, the five-year COVID eligibility years are illustrative here. Tons and tons of players took advantage of a fifth year, including many from Cornell.  I suspect that fewer will now, but that's more a function of roster caps and more skill in college hockey (more pro potential) rather than kids not wanting to.

Lacrosse is the one sport where kids may delay graduation to play five years, via skipping fall semester. Buczek should already be talking to Goldstein and Firth about this. Honestly, though, this isn't sustainable. You can't have a whole system that involves kids skipping fall semester.

I would describe the new rule as a two-alarm fire in men's hockey and a four-alarm fire in all other sports in which we have national aspirations (eg. women's hockey, men's lacrosse).

If this ultimately prompts the Ivies to let grad students play (unlikely), then it'll be worth it. That's the silver lining here (if you squint).