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 instructive 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).

[The Rancor]

Just switch majors.

[stereax]

Apparently Walshy isn't at Bruins devcamp this year 🤔

[Weder]

Just switch majors.

From the Ag School's website (since that's where most hockey players are):
Requests to delay graduation for the purpose of changing a major will not be approved.

The other, more complicated route would be transferring to a different college.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

This fight.  Artist's conception.

Donald Trump is fucking Satan!

[adamw]

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 instructive 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.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

second - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

put it all together, and it's practically moot. whereas the alternative was "catastrophic" (words of many coaches, including Ivies)

[BearLover]

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 instructive 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.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

Why is this not at all what happened during the COVID 5-year eligibility rule? There were tons and tons of fifth years. Many were very good players who played five full college seasons. Look at Quinnipiac's or Clarkson's rosters from those years. I don't understand why this would be much different.

second - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

Am I missing something here? Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds. Last year Cornell brought in 12 freshmen and only three of them were already 20. The rest were 18 or 19 and thus would be eligible for five years, if I'm reading the rule correctly. 

I went back the past few seasons and it looks like over 75% of Cornell players would have been eligible for a fifth year under the new rule.

So, honestly, I don't get either of your points - there were tons of fifth years during the COVID seasons, and Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds.

[adamw]

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 instructive 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.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

Why is this not at all what happened during the COVID 5-year eligibility rule? There were tons and tons of fifth years. Many were very good players who played five full college seasons. Look at Quinnipiac's or Clarkson's rosters from those years. I don't understand why this would be much different.

second - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

Am I missing something here? Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds. Last year Cornell brought in 12 freshmen and only three of them were already 20. The rest were 18 or 19 and thus would be eligible for five years, if I'm reading the rule correctly. 

I went back the past few seasons and it looks like over 75% of Cornell players would have been eligible for a fifth year under the new rule.

So, honestly, I don't get either of your points - there were tons of fifth years during the COVID seasons, and Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds.

COVID years didn't have the age limit restriction.

I believe Cornell is more likely to bring in 20 year olds than 19 year olds going forward, notwithstanding past practice.

[BearLover]

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 instructive 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.

much ado about very little. Anyone "good" is getting at least an AHL deal and isn't sticking around in college. If Quinnipiac wants the 5th year 4th liners from Cornell - sure, whatever.

Why is this not at all what happened during the COVID 5-year eligibility rule? There were tons and tons of fifth years. Many were very good players who played five full college seasons. Look at Quinnipiac's or Clarkson's rosters from those years. I don't understand why this would be much different.

second - people are forgetting another major point - Cornell (and everyone else) will likely bring in mostly players at 20 years old, who will only have 4 years remaining. If they last 4 years at Cornell, they won't have a 5th year to play. 5-year clock starts at 19. So it only pertains to a 19-year old. And if a player comes in at 19, it is VERY likely that player is really good, and therefore, no way they're playing a 5th year in a college.

Am I missing something here? Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds. Last year Cornell brought in 12 freshmen and only three of them were already 20. The rest were 18 or 19 and thus would be eligible for five years, if I'm reading the rule correctly. 

I went back the past few seasons and it looks like over 75% of Cornell players would have been eligible for a fifth year under the new rule.

So, honestly, I don't get either of your points - there were tons of fifth years during the COVID seasons, and Cornell rarely brings in 20-year-olds.

COVID years didn't have the age limit restriction.

I believe Cornell is more likely to bring in 20 year olds than 19 year olds going forward, notwithstanding past practice.

Your first point is a good one. I am not sure how many of the fifth year players during COVID were 25 or 26 and thus wouldn't be eligible today.

Your second point, eh, I think Cornell will still try to assemble the best team possible and bring in players when they're ready. That will hopefully include a lot of drafted or otherwise very good 18- and 19-year-olds. I don't see why that would change under the new rule. Many of these players won't have much of a pro career, but that doesn't mean a team won't want them for a fifth college season.

[scoop85]

Corey Pronman of The Athletic did a 7-round draft and "selected" 3 of our recruits: Charlie Puglisi to Nashville at pick 179, Cole Tuminaro to Detroit at 196, and Daniel Walters to San Jose at 201.

[Pghas]

No surprise, but Alex Pelletier named USHL Player of the Year: https://ushl.com/news/2026/4/20/mens-ice-hockey-alex-pelletier-named-ushl-player-of-the-year.aspx

Some credit should go to the Cornell coaching staff, as Pelletier never could have won USHL PotY had the coaches brought him in last year.

this is kinda the exact reason you send him back to be fair. If we brought him in he would've been standing at the top of section D most games and now he gets to shoot 7 shots per game and put up 85 points in a season.

I find it very unlikely he would run away with the USHL goals and points lead but not be able to crack the Cornell lineup.

Who knows man. Sean Donaldson lit the world on fire in juniors and never got much playing time. I still wouldn't be surprised if Pelletier never becomes very close to a point per game player in college. His production was really impressive this year but he takes a ridiculous amount of shots that he's not gonna get now that he's on a team with Letourneau, Hemming, etc.

I certainly don't expect Pelletier to win the Hobey. But I think it's also highly likely the coaching staff didn't realize what they had in Pelletier. Running away with the USHL lead in points and goals is extremely hard to do. For reference, this fall we're bringing in multiple players who are the same age as Pelletier but produced about half as many points.

old news here but DiGiulian and Pelletier both played for Lincoln the year before and Gio was far more impactful.  Giving Pelletier another year to develop seemed to make sense (I think our scratches were mostly first-year D this year not forwards)  - you do that hoping he lights it up and then honors his commitment.  Walsh was the second leading scorer in the USHL behind Celebrini and he didnt bail to go elsewhere.