Castagna and Walsh - The Worry Zone

[cth95]

I could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Unlike this year's team, I remember how crisp and accurate that team's passing was throughout the entire season.  Everything was tape-to-tape. I even mentioned that to Coach Schafer at the Hobey Baker award ceremony.
That team was also incredibly balanced from Leneveau out.  IIRC, they were #1 or close to it in both PP and PK% and in GPG and GAPG.
I told Leneveau all of the fans loved him and hoped he stayed, but I knew the chances were slim.

[adamw]

BL - there was no ad hominem there really. calling it "useless" was in making a point that it didn't matter what happened 25 years ago, because it's a completely different world. You've taken so many potshots at me over the years, that to get all huffy about something relatively innocuous now, is quite rich.

Also - the reason my response perhaps sounded aggressive to you, is because there's an implication in there that Mike Schafer was great at keeping players, and so far Casey is not. You have a subtle way of criticizing people and then claiming "no, I was just sayin'" - OK. Whatever. It's noticeable to me. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

But let's set aside, yet again, the latest spat.

If Cornell loses every player drafted in the 3rd round or higher after 3 years at best, your implication is that would be Casey's fault. And my point is, that leaves out other data points - such as, that this is broadly a whole new universe.

Also, again, acknowledge that the 2003 team had only one high draft pick - the goalie - and yet was the No. 1 overall seed. Thanks to - yes - the seniors, largely.  It's a broken record at this point to say that a) now is different, and b) those were lower-rounded guys.

You say it doesn't matter what round they're taken in once they're drafted. This is not historically true for a number of reasons

a) the NHL team values their higher picks more
b) by nature, the higher picks are better players than the lower picks, so as a data point, it would stand to reason they are more likely to leave. It should be telling that the only player from that team that did leave super-early was the 2nd round pick (immediately), and 3rd rounder Shane Hynes (after jr. year). None of the seniors, or Ryan Vesce (undrafted) or Matt Moulson (8th round - which doesn't even exist anymore), were in that boat.
c) While it has been a steady progression, 2003 to 2026 is, again, a different world. The CBA WAS indeed different then. Players weren't automatically leaving early out of NHL teams' fear they would become free agents. That wasn't a thing then.

Look at the roster of the team that Cornell team played in the Frozen Four:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/roster/New-Hampshire/38/20022003

There isn't a single player there drafted higher than the 5th round - one guy, who was a 3rd liner.

Compare that to the rosters of this year's Frozen Four teams.

As I said, the better comparison is Boston College's championship teams of 2006, 2008, 2012, etc... Tons of NHL guys that lasted 3+ years. That was considered the norm then, though there were high-profile exceptions. Nowadays, if a 1st rounder - even 2nd - lasts 3 years it's a miracle. There are many reasons for this, not just the CBA. Players are more NHL ready now. And so on.

Seniors are *crucially* important to winning a national championship. But you also need drafted skill players. And the seniors on these Frozen Four teams:
Wisconsin 0 drafted seniors
Denver 2 drafted - 2nd and 3rd round - some extenuating circumstances there though
North Dakota 2 drafted - 2nd and 7th round - the 2nd rounder Dylan James - there's a lot of background on that. Everyone considers that a miracle really. Had to do with new coaching staff. And the fact that North Dakota could pay him some $$$ to stay
Michigan - 1 drafted senior - 7th rounder.

So - maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make. But them's the facts. Don't throw out "research" and not expect pushback that the analysis has tons of holes, and is implying something very misleading.

And maybe you can get more angst - or solace - out of this Part 2 of my report, about all the money.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

[adamw]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

[The Rancor]

I could have worded it more clearly, but what I said was that, in comparison to the best teams in the country, the 2003 team and the 2026 were about on the same level.

I gotta correct you there, BearLover. The 2003 team was the overall number one seed in the tournament.

Sure. Speaking purely about talent though. I think this year's team and 2003 were similar levels (normalized against the rest of the country). The difference I'm trying to show was the 2003 was stacked with talented seniors.

Unlike this year's team, I remember how crisp and accurate that team's passing was throughout the entire season.  Everything was tape-to-tape. I even mentioned that to Coach Schafer at the Hobey Baker award ceremony.
That team was also incredibly balanced from Leneveau out.  IIRC, they were #1 or close to it in both PP and PK% and in GPG and GAPG.
I told Leneveau all of the fans loved him and hoped he stayed, but I knew the chances were slim.

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

[scoop85]

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

I agree with your observation except, sadly, the last 2 games our passing largely went off the rails for whatever reason.

[Pghas]

If I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Of course.  But I think college hockey is fundamentally very different right now than it was even 5 years ago.

Five years ago:  You're an American or Canadian Kid growing up playing hockey.  You're a great player.  You want to go as far as hockey can take you. And let's be clear:  Hockey is the priority.  Getting an education is nice, but this isn't 1987 where you are using your hockey skills to get yourself into Cornell.  Your goal is to play as much hockey for as long as you can.  Your choices are: 1. Go play junior hockey as a teenager in Canada and hope to be drafted into the NHL, BUT you then are not allowed to play college hockey.  All or nothing. 2. Go play at a prep school in the Northeast (or live in Minnesota and play public HS there) and then, while you are less likely to be drafted into the NHL, you can be recruited and committed to play in college (with a stop at junior hockey along the way). From there, you might hope to go to the NHL.  As you might expect, you are much more likely to have been drafted if you cut your teeth in the major Canadian junior leagues.  Many of those kids get drafted but it doesn't pan out and they just forget hockey and go on with their lives. And many of them are probably much better players than the kids who went to prep school and then college. If you choose the prep school>USHL>college path, you are much less likely to wind up in the NHL. College really was generally NOT seen as a path to the NHL. So kids valued the education much more and understood.  And like you said, if you had a Moulson on the team you did significantly better.

The biggest change - more than the transfer portal and the NIL stuff - is the change last fall to allow all of those major Canadian junior players to go to college.  I will tell you because I know this for a fact -since that change, 95%+ of all college commitments are coming from junior hockey.  So many coaches are actually waiting to see how kids develop and what they develop into before committing them.  It minimizes the chances of them signing a prep school kid who doesn't work out in juniors. That is the new pathway.  All the best college recruits now skip prep school and go straight to the OHL or the Q or the WHL.  So they are ready by the time they finish high school, AND the next logical step for them between juniors and the NHL is now college hockey for a year or two. And the college teams that can grab onto the Celebrinis and McKennas are going to have the best chances of winning THAT YEAR.  Once those guys are developed enough, they go to the NHL. Presumably by that time, they are significantly better players than the fourth year seniors they beat on their way to the dance.  And developing players at the NCAA level for four years does not provide them with the kind of development they generally need to jump to the NHL.  Like Castagna - he's as developed as he can be playing ECAC hockey, he needs the next step.  Walsh may or may not be in a similar position.

[BearLover]

BL - there was no ad hominem there really. calling it "useless" was in making a point that it didn't matter what happened 25 years ago, because it's a completely different world. You've taken so many potshots at me over the years, that to get all huffy about something relatively innocuous now, is quite rich.

Also - the reason my response perhaps sounded aggressive to you, is because there's an implication in there that Mike Schafer was great at keeping players, and so far Casey is not. You have a subtle way of criticizing people and then claiming "no, I was just sayin'" - OK. Whatever. It's noticeable to me. Maybe I'm the crazy one.

But let's set aside, yet again, the latest spat.

If Cornell loses every player drafted in the 3rd round or higher after 3 years at best, your implication is that would be Casey's fault. And my point is, that leaves out other data points - such as, that this is broadly a whole new universe.

Also, again, acknowledge that the 2003 team had only one high draft pick - the goalie - and yet was the No. 1 overall seed. Thanks to - yes - the seniors, largely.  It's a broken record at this point to say that a) now is different, and b) those were lower-rounded guys.

You say it doesn't matter what round they're taken in once they're drafted. This is not historically true for a number of reasons

a) the NHL team values their higher picks more
b) by nature, the higher picks are better players than the lower picks, so as a data point, it would stand to reason they are more likely to leave. It should be telling that the only player from that team that did leave super-early was the 2nd round pick, and 3rd rounder Shane Hynes. None of the seniors, or Ryan Vesce or Matt Moulson, were in that boat.
c) While it has been a steady progression, 2003 to 2026 is, again, a different world. The CBA WAS indeed different then. Players weren't automatically leaving early out of NHL teams' fear they would become free agents. That wasn't a thing then.

As I said, the better comparison is Boston College's championship teams of 2006, 2008, 2012, etc... Tons of NHL guys that lasted 3+ years. That was considered the norm then, though there were high-profile exceptions. Nowadays, if a 1st rounder - even 2nd - lasts 3 years it's a miracle. There are many reasons for this, not just the CBA. Players are more NHL ready now. And so on.

So - maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make. But them's the facts. Don't throw out "research" and not expect pushback that the analysis has tons of holes, and is implying something very misleading.

And maybe you can get more angst - or solace - out of this Part 2 of my report, about all the money.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

You're reading into my analysis something I never said. I'm under no impression that Casey could have prevented Castagna, Stanley, Bancroft, or Robertson from leaving. His teams have had far more turnover than Mike's historically, but I was never trying to make that point. I believe that's mostly a Cornell vs Clarkson thing than a Mike vs Casey thing. If I had replaced "Schafer" with "Cornell" in the original post, the same point would have stood. All I can say for certain is that Mike retained players. Too soon to say on Casey.

I'm a random dude on an Internet forum, spending an hour compiling a list, which I thought was interesting, then offering my opinion on it. The main conclusion is that historically Cornell has retained players four years, even those who had great junior years. It's really not more complicated than that.

I agree that the round in which a draft pick was selected is a signal as to how good that player is, but (1) once that player is in the system, the round is no longer relevant (see, e.g., Walsh being the most sought after draft pick last season), (2) there's really not a whole lot of difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick, and most importantly (3) even if you adjust by draft pick, it doesn't change the conclusion that recent turnover is atypical.

[ugarte]

... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

[stereax]

... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

This is how rounds tend to look:
1st rounders: Should be an NHL player. Hopefully impact.
2nd rounders: Should be an NHL player. Probably a lower-tier one.
3rd rounders: You want these guys to develop into NHL players. More up in the air though.
4-7 are essentially lottery tickets. You're betting on certain aspects of a guy's game more than you are the whole package.
Of course, this does depend - guys drop in the draft all the time, whether because they're short, or hurt, or Russian, or whatever else. Some guys break out only after being drafted, too. But if you mess around with PuckPedia's draft pick value calculators, anything after the third is a lottery ball, and even the third can be.

Also, the difference between 32nd overall (1st round) and 33rd overall (2nd round) is a lot smaller than people seem to think.

One more thing I'll mention is this - Castagna went straight from prep school to the NCAA. That will not happen anymore. Even guys in the BCHL, AJHL, NAHL, the like - will have vastly reduced opportunities at the college hockey level, in part because Canadians can now go through the CHL to the NCAA, in part because the USHL is becoming a lot better as well. This changes the recruiting landscape significantly. Your connection with the coach of the Victoria Grizzlies (hi, Hiscock and Pirtle) now means a lot less.

[BearLover]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

[BearLover]

... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window. Btw, Castagna WAS a raw materials pick. Drafted straight out of high school, had great size and a fantastic combine.

[The Rancor]

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

I agree with your observation except, sadly, the last 2 games our passing largely went off the rails for whatever reason.

Yes, the wheels came off the last two games, for sure.

[Pghas]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

[BearLover]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

[Beeeej]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.