Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[RichH]

Harvard and Yale are on NESN right now for those of you in New England.
2-2 middle of the 2nd

That sounds like a miserable way to spend time.

[stereax]

Maine, Ohio State, and Merrimack can help us out if they can pull out wins against 12 Connecticut, 13 Wisconsin, and 15 BC...

[Trotsky]

Harvard and Yale are on NESN right now for those of you in New England.
2-2 middle of the 2nd

That sounds like a miserable way to spend time.

Boston Garden, 1985:

"Bald!" "Fat!"

[Trotsky]

FUCK YOU, DARTMOUTH!!!

-- 1816 New Hampshire state legislature.

[Snowball]

FUCK YOU, DARTMOUTH!!!

-- 1816 New Hampshire state legislature.

Love that.

Princeton vs Q-Pak today at 4pm, Go Princeton!!!

[marty]

Pee at Quu 0-0 after one period.  On SNY cable.

[Snowball]

Pee at Quu 0-0 after one period.  On SNY cable.

Now 1-1 in the 2nd, Princeton playing well.'

[Snowball]

2-1 Q-Pak end of the 2nd

[dbilmes]

4-1 Q with 3 minutes remaining.

[Snowball]

Princeton loses to Q-Pak, 4-1

[adamw]

As a fool who gets carried away, it has been humbling to watch a fool get carried away.  This keeps up I may learn something.

Not a nice thing to say about someone who runs one of the five most popular websites in a niche college sport

imagine being so unable to ever say you're wrong, that your only recourse is to (wrongly) insult people. sweet.

The good news is, IDGAF. The only reason I reply to you is so that all the other people here (many of whom are friends on some level or another) will get some interesting facts or insight that I can share, instead of the last thing they see being your drivel. I don't expect you to ever admit anything yourself. You choose not to believe me, just because you don't feel like it. I wouldn't say this stuff if I didn't know some things.  I don't profess to know every detail about every thing, nor do I ever proclaim to be "better" than anyone here (except you).

Cheers ... pal.

[BearLover]

As a fool who gets carried away, it has been humbling to watch a fool get carried away.  This keeps up I may learn something.

Not a nice thing to say about someone who runs one of the five most popular websites in a niche college sport

imagine being so unable to ever say you're wrong, that your only recourse is to (wrongly) insult people. sweet.

The good news is, IDGAF. The only reason I reply to you is so that all the other people here (many of whom are friends on some level or another) will get some interesting facts or insight that I can share, instead of the last thing they see being your drivel. I don't expect you to ever admit anything yourself. You choose not to believe me, just because you don't feel like it. I wouldn't say this stuff if I didn't know some things.  I don't profess to know every detail about every thing, nor do I ever proclaim to be "better" than anyone here (except you).

Cheers ... pal.

My post was rude and I take it back. You've been calling me names for several years now, including swooping into conversations that didn't even involve you. So I snapped and resorted to a personal insult, which I try hard not to do.

I know my takes on NIL/revenue sharing drive you crazy, but I'm not really talking about you when I say:
The discourse on this topic is incredibly lazy. Paying players has become an easy scapegoat for anyone whose midmajor has been struggling. Yet I believe this to be complete bullshit in the vast majority of cases. (Speaking solely about men's hockey here but I think most of this applies to other non-football/basketball sports also.)

Here's why:
* nobody who says this stuff has worked in a college athletic department. Nobody has grappled with the costs. In particular, let's take a team that opts into the House Settlement and is now offering 26 rather than 18 scholarships. Even if such a school doesn't add scholarships to any other sport (unlikely), that's still an additional 16 scholarships—8 for men, and 8 for women to satisfy Title IX. That in itself is an extra million-plus dollars per year. And now you expect Colorado College or BU, with no big-time athletics funding to speak of, to revenue share on top of that? Yes, the AD can pull funding from somewhere else—but they're pulling funding all the same. Is it coming out of facilities? Coaches' salaries? Somewhere else? There's no free lunch. It may even get pulled from the same hockey program that the revenue sharing is supposedly helping!
* the relevant question is whether, by attending school A, player X is making money they would not have made by attending school B. Yes, Cole Hutson is getting some money at BU, but that's because he's one of the best players in the country, not because he's at BU. CJ Kirst was making money last year too, and Cornell had zero NIL program to speak of. For purposes of judging the effect of NIL on competitive balance, the fact Cole Hutson is getting money he would have gotten at any other school is meaningless. [Using Cole Hutson as a random example to illustrate a point. Some of the details obviously might be off.]
* the media coverage on this topic is nonexistent. That's not just CHN. It's also USCHO and elsehwere. When I read the McMahon piece, it didn't move the needle for me at all. There's no detail in there. Just vague generalities.
* there's clearly NIL and revenue sharing in college hockey to some degree. But it's very easy to show it exists; it's much harder to show it's widespread. Does the fact one donor was willing to fork over 500K for McKenna mean anything beyond that one specific case? Does the market for such a player affect teams outside the five or so blue-bloods who ever would have been competitive for such a player in the first place? There's a motte-and-baily going on where people are using one instance of some kid somewhere getting NIL to prop up the claim that plenty of teams in big conferences are throwing around money left and right.
* the Cornell coaches have not said the same thing behind closed doors. 

The claim that NIL/revenue sharing is having a significant impact on competitive balance in college hockey is wholly unsupported by any publicly available reporting. Does that mean the claim is wrong? Not necessarily. But those making the claim have done nothing to support it.

I'm really tired of this lazy talking point.

[Iceberg]

Harvard and Yale are on NESN right now for those of you in New England.
2-2 middle of the 2nd

That sounds like a miserable way to spend time.

This game ended with maybe the strangest or worst goal decision I've ever seen. In OT, the Yale player takes a bad angle shot that the Harvard goaltender Charette stops but the puck goes under him. It's not clear whether the puck crosses the goal line in real time and the ref quite obviously calls no goal. Both refs go to the review booth and from the overhead view, the puck is squarely on the line by the time play is blown dead but nothing conclusively or clearly shows the puck completely past the goal line. Despite this, the call on the ice is overturned and Yale wins the game. This year may have some of the most questionable or outright bad officiating I've seen in a long time or maybe ever since I've been watching ECAC games

[Jim Hyla]

Harvard and Yale are on NESN right now for those of you in New England.
2-2 middle of the 2nd

That sounds like a miserable way to spend time.

This game ended with maybe the strangest or worst goal decision I've ever seen. In OT, the Yale player takes a bad angle shot that the Harvard goaltender Charette stops but the puck goes under him. It's not clear whether the puck crosses the goal line in real time and the ref quite obviously calls no goal. Both refs go to the review booth and from the overhead view, the puck is squarely on the line by the time play is blown dead but nothing conclusively or clearly shows the puck completely past the goal line. Despite this, the call on the ice is overturned and Yale wins the game. This year may have some of the most questionable or outright bad officiating I've seen in a long time or maybe ever since I've been watching ECAC games

I'd like to see an explanation of that. Conclusive proof to overturn the on ice No Goal???

[adamw]

The claim that NIL/revenue sharing is having a significant impact on competitive balance in college hockey is wholly unsupported by any publicly available reporting. Does that mean the claim is wrong? Not necessarily. But those making the claim have done nothing to support it.

I'm really tired of this lazy talking point.

I am reporting it, all the time. Just not naming the kinds of names and details you want to hear. So - again - believe me or don't believe me. Whatever.

What's your definition of widespread?

Real world example: Best player in a big conference, on a team that used to be a big deal, but no longer has those kinds of resources, was offered $50k to go to a blue-blood school in the same league. He left. He's not the only one.  I'm using this one example to represent many similar stories.  Does that mean it affects competitive balance for the 20 or so programs that have been able to keep up (or Cornell, for example, which wouldn't necessarily be as impacted because its plusses/minuses are already well-known to a student before coming there, and haven't changed)?  No, those teams have stayed the same. The pool of teams, however, that can keep up, is growing smaller.  The unlimited transfer policy was the first big problem. The growing NIL/Rev-share imbalance is another.  You would be hard-pressed to find any coach whose team is currently below, say, 25 in the NPI to say otherwise.  It's not sour grapes - it's just reality.

I can't speak for other reporters. But if you mean them and not me, make it more clear. Because I'm the one here - trying to help paint the picture.  Seriously.  And when you say certain funds aren't available at certain schools, and that it's not a thing, it's just false. I don't start out being argumentative about it, but yes, it drives me crazy when you don't believe it, just because I can't lay out exact details and receipts.

Give me something realistic that you want in the coverage that you aren't getting? It's a constant topic and we're constantly trying to add new light.

It's not just about Cole Hutson. There are some advisors out there creating bidding wars for players now. There is no way some of the former high-end powers -- New Hampshire, Maine, the CCHA schools, Clarkson -- can possibly compete for players they used to compete for. This is abundantly obvious.

I will be continuing to write and talk about this as much as possible.