Opponents and other news and results 2026-2027

[Dafatone]

The Mets are out there, fighting the good fight against a salary cap by proving that it's not just money.

Stand with the MLBPA. Support the Mets.

Words can hurt too you monster!

I'm a Mets fan. Cornell hockey can't kill me because I'm already dead.

[Trotsky]

The Mets are out there, fighting the good fight against a salary cap by proving that it's not just money.

Stand with the MLBPA. Support the Mets.

Words can hurt too you monster!

I'm a Mets fan. Cornell hockey can't kill me because I'm already dead.

Cornell is our reward for what happens in the summer and fall.

[BearLover]

Wrote an article about the blueprint for small schools succeeding that I thought you all might be interested in too, even though I look at it through somewhat of an RPI lens.

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/the-formula-to-national-success-as

I think it could've been summarized better in one sentence: "Get a large donation from a billionaire alum."

Which I believe is much more doable than any other solution, and will lead to everything else mentioned.

The money part is a second article upcoming. I don't agree though. Plenty of coaches and programs squander good talent and enough resources because they don't recruit the right mix of players, don't develop their players properly, or are poor at executing their systems. I don't think Penn State will ever win a national championship with Gadowsky's run and gun system for example. BU was decidedly mediocre last year because they were too young and soft. Harvard has been squandering their talent for years now (which is why they pushed Donato out). You need the resources, yes, but if you don't have a good system, you're not going to make good on the talent you bring in.

Schools like RPI, Clarkson, etc... -- hate to say -- will never be able to compete nationally again without a massive infusion of cash.  Those alums are out there, just need to convince them to spend.

Or, just say: if that's what it's going to take to be competitive, it's no longer the college sports that you've enjoyed following for years, and it no longer matters to you how your team does in that kind of environment, and you find a new interest.

Money has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

[adamw]

Money has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

I said No. 1 thing if you want to compete nationally. Which is what the poster was talking about. And not that it's the most important thing, per se - but that it's the baseline, and without it, you're going nowhere (nationally). It's the first thing. So at least respond accurately.

Next - it's not necessarily the same pot - since everyone is getting creative with the donations to figure out how to get more money.

But - even if it was the same pot - that's irrelevant - since if, as you say, more is going to players and less is going elsewhere .... well, money going to players is what's affecting the ability to be competitive.

Once again -- since I don't know why this is even in question -- if the money weren't a big deal, why is EVERY school putting together a pot of between $100k and $1 million to pay college hockey players?  And freaking out trying to do so?

[arugula]

Unrelated.  For a variety of reasons, mostly Mainers visiting for Thanksgiving, I didn't want to get the Cornell section tickets for the Frozen Apple.  The general presale begins tomorrow.  Any idea of a presale code?  can't find one. 

[jts15]

I just got this in my email this morning.
The Frozen Apple: Cornell vs. Maine
Saturday, November 28
Madison Square Garden
Venue Presale: Wed, Jul 29 at Noon – Thu, Jul 30 at 11am
Use Code: PREMSG

[arugula]

Yes, as did I and thanks for getting back to me.

[BearLover]

Money has ruined college football and basketball. It remains to be seen whether hockey follows. Not to rehash old arguments, but adamw is jumping the gun by saying money is the most important thing. College hockey programs cannot support themselves. Unlike football and basketball, there are no lucrative TV contracts or ticket sales. Instead, programs are reliant on donors. It is true programs can pay players now, but the pot of money they have to spend hasn't magically increased. Where before it was split amongst recruiting, travel, facilities, and coaching, the same pot of money is now squeezed even further to the extent it is shared with players. Clarkson and RPI are struggling financially, but that's been the case for awhile. In any case, they should be concerned with competing within the ECAC rather than nationally. Within the ECAC, money isn't really a thing.

I said No. 1 thing if you want to compete nationally. Which is what the poster was talking about. And not that it's the most important thing, per se - but that it's the baseline, and without it, you're going nowhere (nationally). It's the first thing. So at least respond accurately.

Next - it's not necessarily the same pot - since everyone is getting creative with the donations to figure out how to get more money.

But - even if it was the same pot - that's irrelevant - since if, as you say, more is going to players and less is going elsewhere .... well, money going to players is what's affecting the ability to be competitive.

Once again -- since I don't know why this is even in question -- if the money weren't a big deal, why is EVERY school putting together a pot of between $100k and $1 million to pay college hockey players?  And freaking out trying to do so?

1. Citation needed that every school is doing this. St. Lawrence, Colgate, Alaska?
2. Citation needed that every school is freaking out about it.
3. Already been discussed here but David Carle mentioned on a podcast recently that Alston money + cost of attendance is factored into what we consider revenue sharing/NIL. At Denver that amounts to 10K per player, so a roster of 26 is getting paid 260K total even without any additional rev share/NIL. Alston money/COA is relatively new but predates NIL and revenue sharing. I don't know if a school like RPI/Clarson/StL/Colgate/Alaska was paying Alston money/COA, but even just doing that would get them to 260K. I mention this because nobody really cared about Alston money/COA before, but now the notion that teams have a 260K budget for paying its players is supposedly a big deal. To be clear: teams were already paying these amounts, before the House settlement/advent of NIL. It has now simply been repositioned as part of the rev share/NIL bucket. But the amount being paid to players hasn't necessarily increased.
4. I mention that RPI/Clarkson should care more about winning in-conference not in response to what you said (I wasn't even responding to your post) but because it's a more realistic aspirational goal that would still be considered a success.

[BearLover]

The reality of running a college hockey program:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HOaEvjgX0AA4b5W?format=jpg&name=large