Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[adamw]

He's taking FMLA leave per CHN

Starting Feb 20. And then when he comes back, will be "transitioning" into a new role in athletics and they'll be looking for a new HC.

Overdue. Brown has needed a new HC for a while but they may actually get someone much better (i.e. Gaudet for Cashman at Dartmouth)

Not sure Cashman has yet proven to be better than Gaudet.

Wut. In 23 years at Dartmouth Gaudet never made the NCAA tournament and never even made it to the ECAC final.

Well Gaudet took Brown -- BROWN! -- to an NCAA Tournament, as an at-large. Their last appearance. He also won an ECAC regular-season title with Dartmouth, and had numerous teams in the 16-20 range of Pairwise. The amount of times they fell agonizingly short was remarkable, in the 2000-2010 era. Also put numerous players into the NHL in that span - from Dartmouth!

Cashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

[marty]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

For an idea of NIL in a sport that isn't football or basketball, Bill helpfully linked to a story I was going to put here in the wrestling thread. An elite 125 pounder who had committed to Cornell "pulled his committment" - though it is generally believed that his gap year grades at FLCC weren't good enough for Admissions. After reopening his recruiting, he stayed near home, at Rutgers, for $200K a year.  So, yes, I assume there is a lot of hockey NIL money floating around even if the public information is sparse.

And if it's something other than $200K no one cares.  At least almost no one.  And no one is entitled to that knowledge.  Most understand this - but sadly not all.

Setting aside that this is another swipe at me (which is most of your posts, please find a new hobby), the substance of your post makes zero sense. No one is entitled to information about anything. Stories get reported when there is public interest. By your logic no athlete's contract should be reported on? What about other happenings to athletes, or happenings to people outside the sports world? Why should the public be entitled to information about anything??? What are you even talking about dude

As to ugarte's post, yes, it always just takes one crazy donor somewhere to pay a kid $200K. As it stands though, college programs other than big-time football and basketball struggle to stay afloat with the donations they have. One instance of a large payout does not indicate what is the norm. There's also a survivorship bias type of thing going on where of the thousands of athletes in wrestling/hockey/etc we only hear about the few kids rumored to be getting an NIL deal to, e.g., jump from CHL to NCAA. But we don't hear about the 90% of blue chippers in the CHL who don't make the jump. These one-off cases (often pure rumor and/or with scant detail) don't really prove anything. Until someone looks into money in college hockey on a wider scale we just don't know anything.

Love the way you ignore the premise that the dollar amount is not as important as the fact that NIL does sway players.

Now please waste another 15 minutes responding.

[pjd8]

Cashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

But by starting at Dartmouth during the Covid blackout, he's had a bigger uphill battle than Gaudet ever did. The Ivies are just now putting the ramification of those lost games behind them.

It's hard to compare coaches across different decades and different years of experience. If you compare Gaudet's first five years at Dartmonth to Cashman's, Cashman's record is clearly better. I do agree it will be a more compelling case when Cashman has had more seasons to regress to the mean but doesn't.

[BearLover]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

For an idea of NIL in a sport that isn't football or basketball, Bill helpfully linked to a story I was going to put here in the wrestling thread. An elite 125 pounder who had committed to Cornell "pulled his committment" - though it is generally believed that his gap year grades at FLCC weren't good enough for Admissions. After reopening his recruiting, he stayed near home, at Rutgers, for $200K a year.  So, yes, I assume there is a lot of hockey NIL money floating around even if the public information is sparse.

And if it's something other than $200K no one cares.  At least almost no one.  And no one is entitled to that knowledge.  Most understand this - but sadly not all.

Setting aside that this is another swipe at me (which is most of your posts, please find a new hobby), the substance of your post makes zero sense. No one is entitled to information about anything. Stories get reported when there is public interest. By your logic no athlete's contract should be reported on? What about other happenings to athletes, or happenings to people outside the sports world? Why should the public be entitled to information about anything??? What are you even talking about dude

As to ugarte's post, yes, it always just takes one crazy donor somewhere to pay a kid $200K. As it stands though, college programs other than big-time football and basketball struggle to stay afloat with the donations they have. One instance of a large payout does not indicate what is the norm. There's also a survivorship bias type of thing going on where of the thousands of athletes in wrestling/hockey/etc we only hear about the few kids rumored to be getting an NIL deal to, e.g., jump from CHL to NCAA. But we don't hear about the 90% of blue chippers in the CHL who don't make the jump. These one-off cases (often pure rumor and/or with scant detail) don't really prove anything. Until someone looks into money in college hockey on a wider scale we just don't know anything.

Love the way you ignore the premise that the dollar amount is not as important as the fact that NIL does sway players.

Now please waste another 15 minutes responding.

I truly have no idea what you're trying to say. NIL obviously sways players and it obviously depends on the dollar amount. What???

[adamw]

Cashman hasn't made an NCAA Tournament - yet. Last season he finally got to 18 wins - something Gaudet did there 6 times. Gaudet is easily the most successful coach at Dartmouth since WW II - with a couple blips of weirdness in 1979, 1980 - when he was the actually the goalie.

Cashman may very well turn out to be a great coach. To say that he's already proven to be better than Gaudet because of one 18-win season in five years, is pretty ridiculous.

But by starting at Dartmouth during the Covid blackout, he's had a bigger uphill battle than Gaudet ever did. The Ivies are just now putting the ramification of those lost games behind them.

It's hard to compare coaches across different decades and different years of experience. If you compare Gaudet's first five years at Dartmonth to Cashman's, Cashman's record is clearly better. I do agree it will be a more compelling case when Cashman has had more seasons to regress to the mean but doesn't.

clearly better in what way? Gaudet took over an absolutely wretched program. Now let's see what happens in years 6-10, when Gaudet won 20,14 (w/ 9 ties),20,19,18