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

[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.

[stereax]

• 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.

Especially "fourth year after ninth grade" is really weird, given there are plenty of athletes who may struggle at the HS level with things like ADHD, dyslexia, etc that might actually need 5 years to graduate HS.

I've said it before I'll say it again, start the clock on enrollment into college or 19yo/20yo and nobody has a problem with it. It's this whole HS BS that makes it a pain in the S.

And yeah, if it drops to 19 across the board we adapt to it. The main issue is for the next 4-5 years, kids who want to do college hockey will be graduating HS normally, and if that's 17, you have serious pressure to put them on the roster ASAP. It would be very, very easy to futz with elementary/middle school things, especially private, to hold kids who are seriously athletics-inclined back a few years. Like, even for HS hockey, Walsh repeated his junior year when he went to Salisbury School. Pretty sure Teddy Stiga (for a guy who's more a bluechip prospect) repeated 9th grade when he went to Belmont Hill. ("How do you remember this?" I love the guy to death.) And neither of those two were held back - they just repeated grades. You could easily figure out how to "make" someone repeat 7th or 8th grade if they were serious about the college route from that young an age - and they very well may be. You don't even have to have them fail, honestly, you could just decide to do it anyway. Especially because, when you're applying for colleges, middle-school grades don't show up on your transcripts, so if you're aiming to play Ivy hockey, say, you don't have to fail 9th grade. And if the NCAA is only going to be looking at the high schools to verify they're not arbitrarily delaying graduation... start it lower down the chain. When you're 12 or 13, you already have an idea of whether you're going to be doing hockey in major junior, college, or generally as more than a Fun Sport.[/list]

[BearLover]

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.

I think most kids and their parents don't want the kid to spend two seasons in a small town halfway across the country when they could instead just go to college.

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.

I don't know how judges decide these things, but I'd imagine the argument "the NCAA lets hockey players play until they're 23, therefore they should let football players do the same" is more persuasive than "some kids are in college until they're 23, therefore I should be eligible to play football until I'm 23." The former is arguing against a distinction the NCAA is drawing within its own eligibility rules; the latter is arguing the NCAA shouldn't be able to limit eligibility by age at all.

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.

I suppose that works but it seems that's not what the NCAA wants. They specifically are trying to stop older kids from playing college sports. They want kids playing at ages 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, and they don't want kids repeating grades in school to get an extra year. So they'd need a pretty big change of heart to go with your proposed rule, even if it does keep the current hockey ecosystem in tact.

I've said it before I'll say it again, start the clock on enrollment into college or 19yo/20yo and nobody has a problem with it. It's this whole HS BS that makes it a pain in the S.

I think people do have a problem with this, though. That's why the NCAA is trying to stop it. The ages of kids in college sports has become a running joke.

And I don't think kids are going to be repeating grades in elmentary/middle school to get an extra year of NCAAs. If you're good enough at hockey at that point, you're trying to jump to the next level as soon as possible, not hold yourself back an extra year at your current level.

[adamw]

I think people do have a problem with this, though. That's why the NCAA is trying to stop it. The ages of kids in college sports has become a running joke.

In two sports - football and basketball - and only because "kids" can go find a way to play at age 24 or whatever so they can make $1 million -- which doesn't matter in any other sport.  That's the point of all of this - upending a situation where nothing is wrong, just to placate a desire to stop getting sued by older players in two sports. And yes we all know why. Doesn't make it right, however.

[BearLover]

I think people do have a problem with this, though. That's why the NCAA is trying to stop it. The ages of kids in college sports has become a running joke.

In two sports - football and basketball - and only because "kids" can go find a way to play at age 24 or whatever so they can make $1 million -- which doesn't matter in any other sport.  That's the point of all of this - upending a situation where nothing is wrong, just to placate a desire to stop getting sued by older players in two sports. And yes we all know why. Doesn't make it right, however.

True

[BearLover]

Assuming the NCAA does not carve out hockey from its new 5-year eligibility rule, i.e. you have to start at 19 or else you don't get 4 years, then I believe the Ivies are uniquely well positioned in hockey going forward. They have shown an ability to hold onto players unmatched across the rest of D-1 hockey.

[BearLover]

Cournoyer recently spoke to a Quebec magazine:

"I am very grateful for the opportunity Cornell gave me in the NCAA. The team was solid in terms of my development. However, this was a personal decision, made in consultation with my agent and my parents. I am a very competitive person who always wants to improve and prove himself at the highest possible level. So, after my first season, I wanted the chance to compete in a highly competitive conference like the Big Ten," Cournoyer commented.

It is worth noting that Cournoyer is set to head to Wisconsin in the coming days to visit his new campus for the first time.

Incidentally, the Canadiens were not involved in Cournoyer's decision. The Montreal organization simply conveyed to the Trois-Rivières native that they were pleased to see him joining a Big Ten program.

[stereax]

Cournoyer recently spoke to a Quebec magazine:

"I am very grateful for the opportunity Cornell gave me in the NCAA. The team was solid in terms of my development. However, this was a personal decision, made in consultation with my agent and my parents. I am a very competitive person who always wants to improve and prove himself at the highest possible level. So, after my first season, I wanted the chance to compete in a highly competitive conference like the Big Ten," Cournoyer commented.

It is worth noting that Cournoyer is set to head to Wisconsin in the coming days to visit his new campus for the first time.

Incidentally, the Canadiens were not involved in Cournoyer's decision. The Montreal organization simply conveyed to the Trois-Rivières native that they were pleased to see him joining a Big Ten program.

Was this translated from French? Source?