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

[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?

[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.

Was this translated from French? Source?

https://www.lenouvelliste.ca/sports/sport-local/2026/04/21/transfert-chez-lalma-mater-de-cole-caufield-pour-alexis-cournoyer-KXAFCXK5GFALXJMCPKK5VOBACY/

[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?

https://www.lenouvelliste.ca/sports/sport-local/2026/04/21/transfert-chez-lalma-mater-de-cole-caufield-pour-alexis-cournoyer-KXAFCXK5GFALXJMCPKK5VOBACY/

Merci. Archive link.

It definitely seems like he and/or his agent thinks that there's a "better opportunity" in the B10. In the same breath, he calls it a "personal decision", haha.

I wouldn't look too deeply into the exact word choice, especially because we're translating it from French.

[arugula]

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?

https://www.lenouvelliste.ca/sports/sport-local/2026/04/21/transfert-chez-lalma-mater-de-cole-caufield-pour-alexis-cournoyer-KXAFCXK5GFALXJMCPKK5VOBACY/

Merci. Archive link.

It definitely seems like he and/or his agent thinks that there's a "better opportunity" in the B10. In the same breath, he calls it a "personal decision", haha.

I wouldn't look too deeply into the exact word choice, especially because we're translating it from French.

A shame Dryden or Nieuwendyk or Malinski didn't transfer to Ohio State so they could've developed better and been more successful at the next level....

[adamw]

A shame Dryden or Nieuwendyk or Malinski didn't transfer to Ohio State so they could've developed better and been more successful at the next level....

While I agree that there is no need for a player to choose a Big Ten school over Cornell to develop, even today ... comparing it to anything from 60 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 3 years ago, means just about nothing. First, nowadays, the Big Ten has a significant gap over the ECAC which didn't exist - certainly not to this degree - at any other time. Second, you weren't even allowed to transfer freely until a couple years ago, so none of those were going to go. Transferring then was about as rare as a unicorn sighting. Third, money didn't exist until the last 2 years - and whether you can consider it significant enough to matter or not - $50,000 does (approx.) to some.

If Cornell produces the next Sam Malinski within a couple years - then that will be the only comparison. Right now, we really have nothing to go by.

[arugula]

A shame Dryden or Nieuwendyk or Malinski didn't transfer to Ohio State so they could've developed better and been more successful at the next level....

While I agree that there is no need for a player to choose a Big Ten school over Cornell to develop, even today ... comparing it to anything from 60 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 3 years ago, means just about nothing. First, nowadays, the Big Ten has a significant gap over the ECAC which didn't exist - certainly not to this degree - at any other time. Second, you weren't even allowed to transfer freely until a couple years ago, so none of those were going to go. Transferring then was about as rare as a unicorn sighting. Third, money didn't exist until the last 2 years - and whether you can consider it significant enough to matter or not - $50,000 does (approx.) to some.

If Cornell produces the next Sam Malinski within a couple years - then that will be the only comparison. Right now, we really have nothing to go by.

Understood.  I was being sarcastic. Thought the ellipses sent the message.  I guess you're saying the current situation is sui generis so hard to compare or predict and Obviously top to bottom the big 10 is the better league. But just to satisfy my sanctimony and Not to be difficult, but Remind me again how many national titles each league has since the Big 10 picked up hockey.

If cournhoyer was concerned about this point and/or NIL money, wasn't he recruited by those schools last year?  Odd that a fifth round pick woukd not be widely recruited.

[stereax]

A shame Dryden or Nieuwendyk or Malinski didn't transfer to Ohio State so they could've developed better and been more successful at the next level....

While I agree that there is no need for a player to choose a Big Ten school over Cornell to develop, even today ... comparing it to anything from 60 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 3 years ago, means just about nothing. First, nowadays, the Big Ten has a significant gap over the ECAC which didn't exist - certainly not to this degree - at any other time. Second, you weren't even allowed to transfer freely until a couple years ago, so none of those were going to go. Transferring then was about as rare as a unicorn sighting. Third, money didn't exist until the last 2 years - and whether you can consider it significant enough to matter or not - $50,000 does (approx.) to some.

If Cornell produces the next Sam Malinski within a couple years - then that will be the only comparison. Right now, we really have nothing to go by.

Understood.  I was being sarcastic. Thought the ellipses sent the message.  I guess you're saying the current situation is sui generis so hard to compare or predict and Obviously top to bottom the big 10 is the better league. But just to satisfy my sanctimony and Not to be difficult, but Remind me again how many national titles each league has since the Big 10 picked up hockey.

If cournhoyer was concerned about this point and/or NIL money, wasn't he recruited by those schools last year?  Odd that a fifth round pick woukd not be widely recruited.

minor correction in that he got drafted AFTER he joined us. cournoyer's career trajectory was going to be triple A into probably usports, but he played lights out for I think truro and got called up to the Q proper and set off like a firecracker there. that's how we found him and caught him (along with some other teams who were interested, but it's very possible casey's frenchness and related factors of being closer to quebec helped tip the scales). that's also how he got drafted to the habs, but he got drafted at the end of june and officially joined us at the beginning, iirc. it was still also pretty valid to worry if he wasn't lightning in a bottle.

[adamw]

Understood.  I was being sarcastic. Thought the ellipses sent the message.  I guess you're saying the current situation is sui generis so hard to compare or predict and Obviously top to bottom the big 10 is the better league. But just to satisfy my sanctimony and Not to be difficult, but Remind me again how many national titles each league has since the Big 10 picked up hockey.

Yes, that is the anticipated comeback ... but whether they have won national titles or not, a bunch of teams have been in Frozen Fours in the last 5 years ... and just look at the players coming from there in terms of NHL blue-chipper-ness ... Fantilli, Martone, Cole Caufield, Quinn Hughes, Brock Faber, Jakub Dobas, Snuggerud, Logan Cooley, now McKenna, the list goes on. Besides McKenna, yet, those guys are all killing it in the NHL already.  Note I'm not saying Cournoyer is anywhere near this level. But it just answers the question as to why someone would believe the Big Ten was a better path to development than the ECAC., and why someone would want to transfer there now that it's so easy and they're giving you $50k to do it. And again, I don't even agree that it's necessary. But it's easy to see why anyone would.

If cournhoyer was concerned about this point and/or NIL money, wasn't he recruited by those schools last year?  Odd that a fifth round pick woukd not be widely recruited.

He was not. He was a bit of a late bloomer. Great job by Cornell seeing it, and striking while the iron was hot there. But this is the risk you take when transferring is so easy now.

[BearLover]

I remember watching this interview with Cournoyer shortly after he committed and wondering how in the world this kid ended up at an Ivy League school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8beuZ2yyRo0