Money: Cornellians lost to (and gained from) the portal

[BearLover]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Thanks for the reporting, very interesting. Metcalf says college hockey is arguing for the clock to start at 19, and to not look at college graduation at all. That wouldn't make sense for the other sports, right? In those sports there is no junior system, so if the five years start at 19, what would that mean for the 18-year-olds in these sports?

[stereax]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Merci as always Adam

Yeah, this sounds like it's gonna be a shitshow.

[tretiak]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Merci as always Adam

Yeah, this sounds like it's gonna be a shitshow.

If child born in December
1. Redshirt kindergarten
2. Send to Eaglebrook for grades 8a and 8b before prep school

This will definitely be a shitshow that lasts for a few seasons before self-immolating.

A few positives. They gamed out the prep school shenanigans so that only the craziest parents will get their kid an extra year. I actually like the 19 year old gets 5 years of eligibility rule and think it's a good mix of letting kids get some junior time and then jump to d1. That means it has no hope.

[adamw]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Thanks for the reporting, very interesting. Metcalf says college hockey is arguing for the clock to start at 19, and to not look at college graduation at all. That wouldn't make sense for the other sports, right? In those sports there is no junior system, so if the five years start at 19, what would that mean for the 18-year-olds in these sports?

you mean high school graduation? I think he meant just for college hockey.

[BearLover]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Thanks for the reporting, very interesting. Metcalf says college hockey is arguing for the clock to start at 19, and to not look at college graduation at all. That wouldn't make sense for the other sports, right? In those sports there is no junior system, so if the five years start at 19, what would that mean for the 18-year-olds in these sports?

you mean high school graduation? I think he meant just for college hockey.

Oh, so they want a carve-out just for hockey.

[stereax]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Thanks for the reporting, very interesting. Metcalf says college hockey is arguing for the clock to start at 19, and to not look at college graduation at all. That wouldn't make sense for the other sports, right? In those sports there is no junior system, so if the five years start at 19, what would that mean for the 18-year-olds in these sports?

you mean high school graduation? I think he meant just for college hockey.

Oh, so they want a carve-out just for hockey.

I mean, it makes sense. Hockey already has a highly-developed junior system that generally takes a non-bluechip player until they're 20, if not 21. Really all you have to change is drop the HS graduation thing and go 20+5 or from when college starts, the earlier of the two.

But, I mean, 19+5 isn't too awful either. Colleges will adapt to it, and still, a 20yo entry will get 4 years and a degree. (And if you're going to Cornell, chances are the 4 years is "enough" anyways.) It's more so going to have terrible implications down the chain, especially at the USHL level. The CHL will still have the 20-21yos who don't want to do college hockey (and plenty of those still exist). Leagues like the BCHL, AJHL, and so on, which were already pretty gutted after the CHL-USHL transfer stuff, are only going to get worse. And the USHL is going to suffer as well from the difficult decisions it's going to force kids who are 18 and 19 into. Especially if they're going to be strict about "not gaming the system" for delaying graduation.

Iunno. It feels like it benefits the bluechippers, who come in at 18, sometimes even 17, and only stay 2-3 years anyway, and hits the "average player" who comes in at 19 or 20 (or 21, in several cases) and wants to complete a degree.

[BearLover]

here's my article

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/05/04_Eligibility-Changes-Hot-Topic.php

Thanks for the reporting, very interesting. Metcalf says college hockey is arguing for the clock to start at 19, and to not look at college graduation at all. That wouldn't make sense for the other sports, right? In those sports there is no junior system, so if the five years start at 19, what would that mean for the 18-year-olds in these sports?

you mean high school graduation? I think he meant just for college hockey.

Oh, so they want a carve-out just for hockey.

I mean, it makes sense. Hockey already has a highly-developed junior system that generally takes a non-bluechip player until they're 20, if not 21. Really all you have to change is drop the HS graduation thing and go 20+5 or from when college starts, the earlier of the two.

But, I mean, 19+5 isn't too awful either. Colleges will adapt to it, and still, a 20yo entry will get 4 years and a degree. (And if you're going to Cornell, chances are the 4 years is "enough" anyways.) It's more so going to have terrible implications down the chain, especially at the USHL level. The CHL will still have the 20-21yos who don't want to do college hockey (and plenty of those still exist). Leagues like the BCHL, AJHL, and so on, which were already pretty gutted after the CHL-USHL transfer stuff, are only going to get worse. And the USHL is going to suffer as well from the difficult decisions it's going to force kids who are 18 and 19 into. Especially if they're going to be strict about "not gaming the system" for delaying graduation.

Iunno. It feels like it benefits the bluechippers, who come in at 18, sometimes even 17, and only stay 2-3 years anyway, and hits the "average player" who comes in at 19 or 20 (or 21, in several cases) and wants to complete a degree.

In Adam's article it sounded like the NCAA wasn't interested in budging and carving out certain sports because the rule would more likely survive legal scrutiny if it were uniform across all sports.

Cornell is fucked if the rule is 19+5, so I hope that doesn't happen. I think the current system is pretty silly. Why does hockey need to be the one sport where kids are spending multiple years between high school and college? It feels off to most people that there are 25 year olds still playing college hockey. Colleges can adjust to the new rule and junior hockey eventually will have to as well. Nobody shed a tear for the CHL when the NCAA eligibility rule changed last year, but now the NCAA is supposed to protect junior hockey? I just don't think NCAA hockey is putting forth a very compelling case that the NCAA should carve it out.

[The Rancor]

5 years, starting at 19 seems like an obvious compromise that cuts down on the few 20+ year old freshman, and doesn't completely mess up Junior Hockey or the NCAA. I'm ok with kids spending an extra year developing in Juniors and then coming as a Sophomore. The CHL can figure out their end, with the NHL & AHL and this doesn't gut USHL etc.

[Pghas]

The issue really is that the way things have evolved, the different pathways really don't jibe with one another.  30 years ago, you might play public school hockey or prep school hockey and if you were a great player, you went on to play in college.  Separate from that was the junior hockey system which was geared solely towards NHL development.  As it has evolved though, kids are expected to play 2 years of junior hockey before playing D1 and, now, D3 hockey. A lot of the driving force behind it is money, and I dont just mean NIL money.  I mean, these junior leagues showed up and inserted themselves into the conversation.  So at the D1 level, other than the best players in the world, you don't have any 18 or 19 year olds playing, and so, if you aren't Mack Celebrini, you need to go play against other kids your age for a few years so you can show up and compete against the 20 and 21 year old freshmen.  For what? And now that the CHL doesn't cost anyone their eligibility, that's clearly the best pathway. 

The last 2 years my son went to the Matterhorn Fitness Showcase in Florida - its one of the premier showcases and is set up down in Florida to take place right about now, just after the NCAA coaches convention, so that coaches from all the Ivies, ECAC, Hockey East all come to it.  (by the way it was founded and is run by our own Ryan Vesce and his wife Kate, 2 Cornelian gems if there ever were any - they fly members of the Cornell band down to play the fight song after goals.  Do you have any idea how cool it is for your kid to score a goal and hear the band playing the fight song? but I digress...). In any case, at last year's event, one of the coaches stood up and told everyone that since the recent change in CHL and NCAA rules, 95% of all commits were coming from junior hockey.  Before that, a lot more were coming from Prep schools. 

What's really evolved is that these are two very distinct pathways.  Either you are playing hockey or you are a student. Some have stated that it's always been that way.  My experience as a student and a student-athlete was that perhaps admissions standards at the Ivies were not as tough for athletic;etes, but those guys were all still smart people who mostly worked hard at both school and in sports with the understanding that they were both.  But now it really is difficult to excel academically and still pursue intercollegiate sports - and the system has made it that way.  Lots of kids that my son played with growing up have gotten pulled away by academies, which basically foregoes a decent HS education, and then committed to schools.  Sometimes they make it, sometimes they get dropped. The juniors thing adds a whole new level to it,  For those years, you are not a student at all.  And I personally have know several kids who were Cornell commits (that we have discussed on  this board) who were absolutely spectacular prep school players and then in juniors, just showed up and the coach hated them.  Or the level of goonery tolerated at those levels resulted in injuries.  And they wound up not playing here.

The question becomes is the NCAA - and Im really just talking about hockey here I guess - just another conduit to the NHL, or is it a destination in and of itself? The very top players in many sports play in the NCAA for a year or two, then turn pro.  Hockey is the only sport in which the Ivies are nationally relevant in this regard.  So there is the idea of them recognizing that they can offer a great hockey program and experience (and Im sorry I disagree that playing in the Big Ten or wherever is so much better than the ECAC for a few years), but also get a year or 2 of an Ivy education under their belt - that they can ALWAYS go back to.  And for the four-year players, the student athlete concept should somehow remain relevant and important.  When you start bringing in kids who played great in the Q or the OHL, you are bringing in kids who basically went to generally subpar online schools for years.  They are not remotely equipped for a place like Cornell academically.  And that should still matter. I wish I knew what the solution was.

[Trotsky]

The issue really is that the way things have evolved...

This is likely the highest quality post in eLynah history, and you are our GOAT poster for WAR.  Thank you so much for taking the time to post here.  I very much appreciate your contributions and I am sure I am not the only one.

[stereax]

Echoing Trots here. Thanks for putting it in a way I feel most of us struggle to, @Pghas - you're spot-on with all of this, that how hockey has evolved over the years has led to it having this strange system not seen in many, if any, other junior sports.

Will also reiterate that 19+5 still covers 20yo freshmen who only play 4 years collegiately. So playing at an Ivy and starting a year later may be "worth" giving up that theoretical extra year of eligibility. Players may have to contend with the decision to go NCAA at, say, 19, at a bad school like Mercyhurst (RIP) and transfer up, or go back to juniors and burn off an eligibility year, if coaches at "better" schools deem them not yet ready to play the NCAA level. The real problem starts when you graduate HS at 17, like it seems is common in Quebec. Would not be surprised if those players are less likely to go NCAA after this - you can get 3 QMJHL years in after HS graduation and then hopefully stick the landing to the AHL/NHL, versus either having to go to the NCAA young(er), when you might not be physically/mentally able to keep up, or forgo NCAA eligibility, finish in the Q, then do maybe only 2 or 3 years at the NCAA before you're capped out. Which generally means... no degree. (Unless you're pursuing an accelerated degree like Wiebe, or can do 2 years at U of Montreal that transfer in.)

I still think we land feet first no matter what. But the growing pains are gonna suck. Thankfully, most schools will also be dealing with this. (Of course, our selling point is academics... which is a can of worms in and of itself.)

[BearLover]

I'm a Cornell fan first and foremost, so I do not want anything to do with 5 years of eligibility that all the non-Ivies can use and we can't.

A few other points:

• I think kids who are really interested in NCAA but who are on pace to graduate at 17 will simply attend a different school (e.g. St. Andrews) where they can graduate at 18. Over time, this will become the norm for hockey players interested in NCAA. There may be hiccups the first year or two, but I don't see this being an issue longer term.
• There may be fewer CHL kids who on a whim at age 20 decide they want to play NCAA. But things were already trending in that direction once NCAA become the premier path - the NCAA is surely going to be on most kids' minds since an early age, going forward. And those kids will structure their development path accordingly.
• 5 years upon graduation (which would mean 4 years from age 19 if you graduate at 18) would definitely hurt some lesser programs but I don't think it would hurt Cornell much at all.
• I'm not especially sympathetic to the plight of the junior leagues. I think it is pretty silly that we have this ecosystem where kids are basically required to play a year or two (or three) of juniors before going to college. Let kids go straight to college like every other sport. Since all kids are in the same boat (having to start college at an earlier age), then that will make the college game younger but it won't disadvantage the individual kids. It's worse for the junior leagues (though maybe better for the CHL, since fewer kids might go NCAA now), but better for the kids.
• It said in Adam's article that the NCAA didn't seem interested in carving out hockey, so I wouldn't expect them to. Seems it would open the NCAA up to litigation. So I am hopeful we do get the graduation +5 model, which for all intents and purposes will mean 19+4 unless you're an elite talent that is going straight from high school which, again, means you unlikely would stay 5 years anyway.
• I get the thinking for why CHL kids would be less interested in school, but (1) a lot of American kids are also surely pretty dumb and (2) Cornell is recruiting heavily, and successfully, from the CHL, so I'm not seeing any evidence that there's a shortage of Canadian kids interested in a Cornell education.

[underskill]

There's also the exchange rate for tuition plus living costs for Canadian families if no scholarships or financial aid

[stereax]

Quote from: BearLover on 5/5/2026, 8:27:45 PM

• I get the thinking for why CHL kids would be less interested in school, but (1) a lot of American kids are also surely pretty dumb and (2) Cornell is recruiting heavily, and successfully, from the CHL, so I'm not seeing any evidence that there's a shortage of Canadian kids interested in a Cornell education.

On this point - I'm referencing some CHL guys (Zach L'Heureux comes to mind) who've said, even with the choice to go NCAA, they would still go CHL to AHL. Which is still a development path many kids take.

If you stay in the CHL until age 20, assuming you graduate HS at 18, you only get 3 years max at the NCAA level. Which means no degree, at least from Cornell, unless you REALLY kick your ass and overdose on credits and do summer classes too.

We're not in play for the Martones and McKennas who come to the NCAA at 18 from the CHL either. Our guys usually come in when they're 20, and that's after completing high school 2 years earlier. Under these rules, they'd only get to stay 3 years. Even if you spin down to 19, as most schools will, you can get all 4 years, but that player will then be ineligible for a grad year.

Part of the problem is, the Mack Celebrinis of the world get comparatively better when you have rules that strongly incentivize going to the NCAA at 18/19.

I dunno really where I'm going with this. But yeah, this'll really, really suck for the junior system. And for those who don't care about the junior system, that may be so! I don't particularly have strong feelings about the USHL, BCHL, AJHL, etcetera. (I do like my Volts, but outside that.) But weakening these leagues via these rules means your prospects are facing weaker competition, means they're not as good when they come into Cornell.

Honestly - this could be really good for prep school, Minnesota high schools, and the like, though, as a dev path going straight to the NCAA... remains to be seen though. Outside of MN (and even nowadays, MN isn't what it used to be), and a few prep schools in Canada, doing high school hockey is often a dead end. You go from HS to the USHL to the NCAA.

[adamw]

• It said in Adam's article that the NCAA didn't seem interested in carving out hockey, so I wouldn't expect them to. Seems it would open the NCAA up to litigation. So I am hopeful we do get the graduation +5 model, which for all intents and purposes will mean 19+4 unless you're an elite talent that is going straight from high school which, again, means you unlikely would stay 5 years anyway.
• I get the thinking for why CHL kids would be less interested in school, but (1) a lot of American kids are also surely pretty dumb and (2) Cornell is recruiting heavily, and successfully, from the CHL, so I'm not seeing any evidence that there's a shortage of Canadian kids interested in a Cornell education.

Opinion piece coming out today, but ... preview: Kids coming to college younger may be nicer for them, assuming that's what they really want, which I don't think is a given -- but the teams won't be as good, because the kids won't be as mature. And that's already a problem for the smaller schools. The current rules hurt no one, really, unless you're an NCAA lawyer.

However, why do you assume the NCAA lawyers know what they're talking about when they say there will be fewer lawsuits with a uniform rule? Their track record is pretty bad. What is going to stop a 20-year old from suing the NCAA for 4 years of eligibility? All they have to say is "if a regular student can start college at 20 and have a normal 4 years, why can't I?" I'd bet good money the kid wins that lawsuit.

Junior hockey has flaws just like anything else. That doesn't mean we need to completely upend the system (and that's certainly not the reason the NCAA is doing it). In fact, you don't even need a carve out for hockey. All you need is to make the rule so that the clock starts ticking whenever you enroll in college, and not whatever your fourth year after 9th grade is. Then say the clock starts ticking on 5 years at age 19 max, or earlier if you enroll earlier.  That can be the same rule for every sport, and there's no issue. NCAA gets its uniformity. No player in any other sport is going to delay their enrollment two years - they have nowhere else to go. And if some tennis player goes to an academy for two years first, god bless 'em. Football players ain't gonna do that - especially when they will be passing up $500k to be the backup safety.