Last weekend was frustrating one for the Engineers. Two different games where RPI was clearly the better team, and they did not come away with a win in either of them. There are positives though. The 2nd period against Clarkson is easily the best period they’ve ever had under Coach Lang. I’d also wager that the 9 expected goals on the weekend is the highest mark they’ve had in his tenure too. If they keep playing like that, they are not going to lose too many games.

Friday at UNH

UNH is going to be a very tough opponent to start the weekend with. They are off to a 5-4-1 start, which puts them at 25th in the NPI currently. They started off horribly with a 10-2 loss against Quinnipiac, and that’s deflating a lot of their numbers. Since then, they have really buttoned up into a tight team defensively, allowing only 17 goals in the last 9 games. On the season, they are only allowing 22 shots on goal per game, which is 6th in the country.

UNH has only lost to teams ranked in the top 20 so far: Quinnipiac, Michigan State, and UVM. Against Michigan State, they dominated the weekend despite the crazy firepower on that roster. In game 1, they outshot Michigan State 34-14. In game 2, it was 39-23. The only reason UNH wasn’t able to sweep the weekend was because of 1st round pick Joshua Ravensbergen stealing the 2nd game.

UNH is led by Nick Ring at forward with 14 points in 10 games. He is a shifty and skilled playmaker who has been driving a ton of offense for them. The next two highest scorers are transfer Ryan Johnson, who has 9 points, and freshman Emile Guite with 6 goals and 8 points. The scoring depth has been a weakness for UNH, and their forwards really drop off after that. If RPI can find a way to keep those top guys off the board, they’ll be in good shape.

RPI is going to have to continue their play from last weekend to generate chances against this stingy UNH team. Expect a low-scoring and low event game where it’ll be up to both teams to finish the limited chances that they do earn.

Saturday at Lowell

UMass Lowell has really struggled out of the gate this season. They are 2-8 on the season with the only wins coming against Colgate and St. Lawrence. They have struggled scoring; they average only 2.5 goals per game. Like UNH, they also really struggle with scoring depth. Dalyn Wakely has 11 points in 10 games, and Jacob MacDonald has 10 points in 9 games. After that duo, the next highest point getter only has 5 points.

Lowell’s underlying metrics actually aren’t that bad. They are breaking even in shots on goal: 30.3 for/29.7 against. Their main issue is that they have struggled finishing their chances, and the goaltending has been poor. While they certainly could use more talent, their system is known for stifling their offense, and I think that’s a big part of the issue on the finishing side. For goaltending, they have a 0.875 team SV%, and neither goaltender has shown to be capable. Austin Elliott has more starts and a 0.877 SV%. He led the London Knights to a Memorial Cup in junior, but he has struggled to translate that success to the NCAA level. Cole Moore transferred over from Bowling Green and he has only a 0.871 SV% in his 4 games.

Are they due for some positive regression? They could be because it’s not like they’ve played as poorly as a 2-8 record indicates, but I do think their style is limiting offensively. I expect the defense and goaltending to improve over the course of the year though. Let’s hope their positive regression comes on Friday night against Union.

These are two winnable games against opponents who are better than they look on paper, in my opinion. It should be a great weekend of hockey. Let’s Go Red!

A little bit of air came out of the balloon after the Engineers dropped both games to Union to start their ECAC slate. We did our best on the pod Sunday night to level-set where things stand 8 games in, but the short of it is that this has been about as expected. RPI and Union played two very close games last weekend that should leave fans confident in the skill and compete level of this Engineers group. This will be a tough test in the North Country and a very important one for league points. RPI has had success against Clarkson and struggled against SLU of late, which is a bit opposite of what you’d typically expect. With all that being said, let’s break down the matchups.

Friday at SLU:

St. Lawrence is winless out of the gates and dropped two exhibitions to Maryville to go with it. They’re giving up close to 6 goals per game right now, the worst marker in the country by a wide margin. The offense has produced a bit, but that’s a tough statistic to overcome. The Saints were picked 10th in the ECAC coaches’ poll and figure to be a fighting an uphill battle with what we’ve seen thus far. With that being said, a winless team on home ice is very dangerous and you know they have RPI circled on their calendar. RPI was frustratingly swept by SLU last year and needs to pick up games like this if they’re going to get where they want to go.

Sophomore Center Cooper Pierson leads the Saints in points thus far after a 20-point Freshman campaign. He’s been joined on that line thus far by fellow Sophomore Sam Ledrew, who leads the team with a pair of goals. The key for the Saints will be finding some continuity in net, whether it be Colin Winn or Cameron Smith, who clearly have both struggled.

Saturday at Clarkson:

The Engineers will head to Cheel Arena on Saturday night to open their season set with the Clarkson Golden Knights after being ousted in the playoffs last year. The Engineers fought valiantly that night in March, but their efforts were not enough despite having swept the season series. This is a fairly similar Clarkson team but is missing a few of last year’s most prominent faces including Ryan Bottrill, Erik Bargholtz, and of course, Matthew Mayich. The veteran Shane Soderwall and freshman Ben Gaudreau have split time in net for 3rd year bench boss J.F. Houle.

Old friend Tyler Wallace leads the Knights in points with 2-4-6 in 7 games played, and is joined by an army of sophomores including Justin Cote, Bryce Sookro, Owen Van Steensel, and Remi Gelinas. This is a good Clarkson team who is still finding their footing, and I expect a full effort from them as they open up ECAC play.

It’s worth noting tha RPI was a bit banged up last weekend, missing Jagger Tapper, Ryan Michael, and James Guo for Saturday’s game. I continue to look for the goal scoring to broaden out from Rullers and Sitar who’ve led the way, and was encouraged to see contributions from Scherzer, Gavin, and Lindberg last weekend. This North Country trip poses a challenge to a young RPI team that’s done very little travel so far, so I wouldn’t be upset with a split. Let’s go red.

Lang was visibly upset in his interview following the first period of Friday’s game. The game was tied at 1, but RPI had taken three penalties and barely seen the offensive zone. They would go onto win that game 2-1 after Tapper sniped a powerplay goal, but it sloppy.

Saturday night was a different story. LIU didn’t get a shot on goal until nearly 10 minutes in. Lang called it one of the best periods of hockey that the team had played that year. While the final score didn’t fully reflect it, this was a much more comfortable game for RPI. They defended cleaner, won the puck possession battle, and ultimately came away with a sweep on the weekend.

Two very different games, but the team found ways to win both. Let’s break down some of the highlights:

1. RPI was down a man for nearly a quarter of the game and won 2-1

Six powerplay opportunities and just over a minute of empty net time at the end added up to nearly 15 minutes of shorthanded time for the Engineers to deal with on Friday night. And deal with it they did. RPI kept their perfect penalty kill streak intact not only throughout Friday night, but into Saturday as well, leaving them at a perfect 14/14 on the season.

While this may be more an indictment on LIU’s powerplay, which hasn’t scored in 22 opportunities this season, it has been comforting to see the penalty kill be a strength early on for the Engineers.

2. Sobieski is deadly in the offensive zone if given space

After a three-point night on Saturday, Kaz Sobieski is now tied with Rullers for the team lead in both goals and points. He was named as one of the ECAC stars of the night on Saturday, and for good reason. LIU had no answer for him in the offensive zone. Give him space to set up for a shot in the upper slot, and he’s got a good chance of putting in the back of the net.

In the defensive zone he has still had a few missteps, but pairing him with Ryan Michael, who has had a very steady start his college career, has been a success.

3. Klassek is a “business handler”

Klassek hasn’t had quite the offensive output that Sobieski has, but his work in the defensive zone has been stellar so far. The description I keep coming back to for him is “business handler.” Whether it’s winning a puck battle along the back boards, getting a clean poke check in, or chipping out with the perfect weight to avoid an icing, Klassek has just made every play asked of him this season. Handling business consistently.

4. Still trying to find chemistry with the forward group

Lang shuffled up the forward lines on Saturday night after three straight games with effectively the same group up top. Only Bono and Lindberg had swapped spots on the fourth line. The shakeup worked out for Alfie Lindberg and Ian Scherzer, who had several nice sequences together with Sobieski, leading to two goals.

It still feels as though there is more to be unlocked with the wingers in the top six. Guys like Hadland, Gavin, Yurchuk, and Goukler all have shown glimpses, but it hasn’t fully clicked for any of them yet. Rullers and Sitar have looked great to start the year, but if Lang can really get some of the supporting pieces going as well, this could be a potent offense.

5. McCallum gets a first look in net

Krawchuk has obviously had a great start to the year, with a .960 save percentage, but Lang decided to go with McCallum for game two against the Sharks. It was his first game at the college level, and he acquitted himself well. 24 saves on 26 shots on goal. Going forward, you’d probably want him to do a little better on LIU’s second goal, where he could have come out early to clear the puck, but a moment of hesitation in a first college game isn’t the end of the world. It’s been a promising start from the goalie tandem so far.

RPI got off to a great start last weekend with a split against a strong Ohio State team. They’ll look to keep up the good play this weekend against LIU. It’s going to be much tougher than you might think. First, the two teams could not be more different. Ohio State is a very fast and skilled team that was all over the ice and had the puck a lot. LIU doesn’t have that level of talent, but they are one of the grittiest teams in all of college hockey. They always give their opponents a challenge, no matter how good they are. Anyone expecting this to be an easy weekend for RPI is mistaken.

Last Year and Early This Year

Last year, LIU was in their first season under up-and-coming head coach Brendan Riley. He took over from Brett Riley after he accepted the job at Ferris State. Brett Riley did an excellent job building up the program from absolutely nothing into a very competitive team, and Brendan Riley continued along that path last season in his first year on the job. Brendan Riley was actually an assistant at AIC under Eric Lang before the program was disbanded, so that will be a fun matchup of the mentor taking on his mentee.

LIU ended up at 14-18-1 last season and 42nd in the NPI. They had some good results throughout the year against quality opponents. They opened the season against BU and played them extremely tight the entire game. They also took Penn State to OT and probably should have won that game. They got a big time win on the road against Minnesota, and they also picked up a win against a Merrimack team that won Hockey East.

This year, LIU continued that trend. They gave Minnesota Duluth all they could handle in the first game by taking a 4-3 lead in the third period before Duluth came storming back to win. In the second series, they split with Canisius.

Roster Breakdown

Up front, LIU has a few dangerous forwards returning from last year. JR Perdion and Sixten Jennersjo both had 25 points while Dylan Kinch had 24 points as just a freshman. Isaac Lambert had 15 points last year and looks primed for a breakout year this year. Perdion has been fighting an injury, so I’m not sure if he will be in the lineup. Jennersjo, however, has 4 points in 4 games to start the year. Kinch and Lambert only have 2 points so far but are among the team leaders in scoring chances, so I don’t expect that to last long.

On the blue line, Nate Benoit returns after 13 points in 31 games and 21 minutes of ice time per game. Trent Powell also returns after 11 points in 33 games. Benoit currently has no points this season, but he is second on the team in ice time. Powell has 2 points in 4 games and is 3rd in ice time. He also has 10 shots on goal, so he’s been generating a lot for LIU offensively. The leading defenseman is actually familiar face Lucas Lemieux. He is averaging 21.5 minutes a night, but he has just 1 assist to start.

In net, Daniel Duris started the first 3 games for LIU, but he left during the 3rd game due to an injury, presumably. Lukas Renaud stepped in for the rest of that game and started for the win over Canisius. I’m not sure who we will see in net because of that injury, but Renaud has played pretty well in relief with a 0.912 SV% in those two games.

Preview

RPI finds itself in a role reversal this weekend compared to their usual spot. For most of their games last year and against Ohio State, they were the lesser team in talent and had to make up the difference with tons of competitiveness along with being opportunistic with chances and strong in the net.

This weekend, there’s no doubt that RPI is the more talented and skilled team. LIU is known for how hard they play and for the ability to give even the best programs huge scares. Despite being more talented and skilled, RPI can’t let the compete level and work rate they have consistently shown to dissipate. LIU will absolutely make them pay if they do. The best teams combine their raw talent and skill with that, and that is what RPI will need to do this weekend.

I’m expecting that one of the games RPI will win comfortably with a strong offensive performance, but due to the youth and inexperience, the other game they will drop in a close one for a split. LIU is a veteran team with very few freshmen in the lineup, and the ones that do play are at the bottom of it. I think that the youth and inconsistency for RPI compared to LIU’s experience will lead to a split.

Here’s to hoping I’m wrong though, and they get a nice sweep to keep the start of the season going well! Let’s Go Red!

There was no shortage of questions surrounding the RPI hockey program as they entered year two under Eric Lang. 14 new faces and still deep in the culture building phase of the program will do that to you. But on opening weekend in front of a healthy homecoming weekend crowd, these youthful Engineers showed flashes of what Lang’s vision of the program appears to be. Friday night’s 3-0 shutout win was exciting, meaningful, and a flag planted in the ground that this group means business. It’s not the finished product, not even remotely close. But you saw more glimpses of the vision across the board. It would have been nice to convert Saturday’s 2-1 3rd period lead into a sweep, but there will be many lessons for this young group to learn from it. All in, from the results on the ice, to the unveiling of the Houston Field House renovations, and the enhanced marketing and buzz around the program, this weekend was an unequivocal win.

5 Things:

#1: Nate Krawchuk may be a top 20 goaltender in the country.

Maybe higher than that too. Nate’s 36 save shutout on Friday was one of the best displays of goaltending I’ve seen in an RPI uniform in years. Any questions about his hot finish to last year’s season were totally answered by his efforts this weekend. I still think Ethan McCallum will get some run, but RPI is going to need Chucky to keep building upon this great start.

#2: RPI’s one-two punch at Center is very real.

RPI scored 5 times this weekend and 4 of them came from Filip Sitar and Rainers Rullers. Add in Rullers’ hat-trick in the exhibition against Army, and well, you do the math. Lang really needs those two to carry the load up front and they got off to an excellent start. Beyond the goal scoring though, they both made their presence known in the defensive end. Sitar in particular is a true 200-foot center with a complete game, who brought such a calming presence to his line with two of the younger guys. And Rullers, who looks like RPI’s best player so far, has been outstanding.

#3: Forward depth looks a little thin.

My biggest concern with this group after Smith and Evaschesen decommitted from the program was the depth at forward. Looking back on this weekend, that unfortunately was the case. Beyond Sitar and Rullers’ big weekends, I thought Goukler made a big impact. Only Jack Brackett has rivaled his speed of recent memory, and Goukler is way more skilled. Gavin made a few plays, Tapper was steady, but beyond that the forwards were quiet. It’s hard to tell how skilled OSU’s defense was, so I think next weekend against LIU will give us some helpful data points to assess the unit. Nonetheless, it can’t just be Sitar and Rullers offensively.

#4: Development was noticeable.

I’ve been having a hard time articulating this thought since the weekend, but I felt like every time one of the returners touched the puck I breathed a sigh of relief. Which I think is best illustrated through Sobieski and Klassek, who had excellent first years but were spotty defensively. This weekend though, I thought they were erasers in their own end, initiated on offense, and consistently made the smart play. I’ve hit on Rullers, Sitar, and Krawchuk now too, and I even thought Buckley was a step faster. We’ve seen Lang’s recruiting ability, but I thought this weekend read very nicely for our first glimpse at player development under him. It will be a fun and important theme to monitor.

#5: Almost everything “non-hockey” was a step in the right direction.

We’ve talked a lot on here about the lack of support that the program has gotten over the years. And as the page turned to the Lang era, it felt like a good time for a top-down analysis of the way the program has been run. That’s what a new coach is supposed to do. Fast forward to Friday night, and I thought 18-months into Eric’s tenure, you could see tangible evidence of a program being run with more seriousness. The renovations to the Field House looked awesome. The athletic department running student season ticket promos to get more students in the stands. Consistent, exciting social media content all weekend to bring fans behind the scenes. It just feels like they’re finally getting the little things right, which may take time to feel an impact from but was an absolute necessity to change.

Much more work to be done, but last weekend was a win all things considered. The Engineers host LIU for two at the Field House this weekend, so keep your eyes peeled for our preview. Let’s go red.

RPI opens it up its season on Friday with an exciting series against the Ohio State Buckeyes. The Engineers last faced off against Ohio State in 2017 where they earned two 1-1 ties on the road. It should be a great homecoming weekend this time around with an excited crowd ready to see this young team in action!

Last Year

Ohio State had an interesting year last year where they were a better team than their raw record showed. They went 14-21-2, but there’s a couple things in there that are worth noting.

First, they were 21st in the NPI because their strength of schedule was in the top 10. The record was more of a product of a tough schedule than it was indicative of poor performance. They were also 2-8 in OT games, which is a bit unlucky since 3v3 OT isn’t real hockey. Lastly, the goaltending was terrible. Ohio State had a 0.877 team save percentage last year, which was tied with SLU(!!) for the lowest in the country. They actually did a pretty good job at possessing the puck, generating chances, and scoring goals, but that goaltending really let them down. They averaged 3.22 goals per game but allowed 3.62 per game.

Despite all of this, Ohio State was still only one game away from getting into the NCAA tournament. They lost to Michigan in the Big Ten Championship.

Roster Breakdown

Ohio State returns most of last year’s group. At forward, they return 4 out of their top 6, at defense, they return 3 out of their top 4, and in net, they return their starting goalie. Ohio State also brought in a great recruiting class with 9 NHL draft picks coming in either as freshmen or through the transfer portal. They should be a pretty talented and deep team.

Starting up front, those 4 returners all had at least 23 points. Jake Karabela led the team in scoring as a freshman with 37 points and returns for his sophomore year where he’ll serve as the top line center again. Familiar face Felix Caron had 30 points last season and will probably be on Karabela’s wing on the top line. The other two players both play center, which will give Ohio State great depth down the middle. Max Montes had 28 points while Ryan Gordon broke out with 23 points.

The newcomers at forward should give them a pretty good top 9 with depth scoring. Erik Pahlsson transferred in from Minnesota and will no doubt slot in somewhere in the top 3 lines. I expect the remaining spots will get taken up by returner James Hong who had 13 points last season and some combination of the 5 incoming freshmen who are all NHL draft picks.

Ben Wilmott had a point per game in the OHL last year and was selected in the 3rd round as a double overager. Ryan Rucinski and Jackson Crowder both had over a point per game in the USHL after being selected in the 2025 NHL draft. Evan Jardine was selected in the 4th round in the summer and had 61 points in 53 games in the USHL. Lastly, William Tomko had 60 points in 59 games and was selected in the 7th round this summer. I assume all of them will find their way into the lineup, but it’s tough to tell who will end up in the top 9. I’d assume Wilmott and Jardine have the edge.

On defense, the top 3 in ice time last year are all back and will likely get top 4 minutes again. William Smith, Nathan McBrayer, and Chris Able all played at least 18 minutes a game last season. None of them are high end talents, but they are all steady and reliable players. The high end talent is coming as newcomers. Sascha Boumedienne is a first round pick and transfers in from BU where he played nearly 22 minutes per game. He will slot in as their #1 defenseman.

There’s a couple other newcomers on the back end. Jakub Fibigr is a very capable two way defenseman who was consistently very good over the course of his OHL career. Frankie Marrelli is undrafted, but he was pretty underrated in my opinion. He is excellent in his own end, and he can move the puck and produce offensively as well.

Kristoffer Eberly returns in net, and Jakub Milota is an NHL draft pick coming in from the QMJHL. The two of them will compete for the starting role.

Preview

Ohio State will be a very tough opponent. They have a deep roster with a lot of talent distributed throughout it, and they scored a lot last season.

That being said, I don’t think they have a profound advantage in the series. In the past, the talent advantage would have been quite large for Ohio State over RPI. With this year’s recruiting class coming in for the Engineers though, I’d say the advantage is only moderate now. Ohio State is without a doubt the favorite, but I think RPI can get a split here for a couple reasons.

First, Ohio State hasn’t played at all yet this season. They didn’t even have an exhibition last week, while RPI got in an exhibition at Army. That will give RPI a bit of an extra advantage. It’s hard to come out of the gate against the first real opponent and have it go smoothly. Only going against your own team in practice is VERY different from game action. Even just the exhibition should help RPI in the first game as Ohio State adjusts.

Second, their goaltending is still questionable heading into the year. Eberly was their primary starter and a big reason why the goaltending struggled. He had a 0.885 SV% in his first year as the full time starter (26 GP). He did well part-time as a freshman and sophomore with a 0.911 SV% (14 GP) and 0.915 SV% (17 GP) in those years, respectively. Overall, he has a 0.900 SV% for his career.

Jakub Milota was a 4th round pick by the Nashville Predators, but I’d say there’s even question marks with him. Last year, he was out the entire season due to injury and only played in 3 games. He was excellent in those 3 games, but it’s still just 3 and who knows how he will do coming back from such a long-term injury. The year before that, he had a 0.903 SV%, which is solid but not anything special. That put him 16th in the QMJHL in SV%. I think he’ll be good long-term. The injury is a major question though, especially since it’ll be his first action in nearly a year, and his track record before the injury isn’t overly convincing despite being an NHL draft pick.

I expect the two goalies to split the games, and I expect RPI to split the games with Krawchuk and McCallum as well. With Ohio State’s questions in net, I could easily see RPI taking one of these games. Which version of Eberly will show up for them? Will Milota be ready in his first game action in almost a year? I think RPI has the advantage in net, and that’s a big deal despite the talent gap.

Prediction

I think the rustiness for Ohio State having not played a game yet plus that goaltending difference will open the door for RPI to take game 1 behind a strong performance from Krawchuk. Then, I think Ohio State will adjust and come back strong in game 2 to earn the split. I can’t wait for this opening weekend to see this new look Engineers squad on the ice, and it’s exciting they will be immediately tested by a high quality opponent! Let’s Go Red!

RPI’s season began on Friday night with an exhibition victory over Army. They won 5-4 in a game they largely controlled. A hat trick and 4 points from Rullers led the way for an exciting start to the season. After watching the game, here are the notes that I have jotted down (in a pretty random order because I just wrote things down as I was watching).

• Forecheck and compete looks a lot better with more speed to get to the spots in a timely manner.

  It was definitely more disruptive to Army’s breakouts and caused more turnovers and issues than what we saw last year.

• Sloppy defensively, there were lots of breakdowns.

  Army was able to get a decent amount of good scoring chances, but most of them felt like miscues and breakdowns by RPI rather than them just beating the defense.

• Buckley looks a step faster.

  Last year, his shot and skill level allowed him to get top 6 minutes right away, but it felt like his skating was holding him back a bit. He looks a little faster this year, which I think will go a long way for his game. He had a nice goal off the rush to cap RPI’s scoring.

• Mostly just rolled the lines.

  For this exhibition game, RPI rolled out the entire team and rather than distributing the ice time like a normal game, they pretty much just spread out the 5 lines evenly throughout the game. I think this was good to get all the newcomers acclimated.

• Krawchuk looks great.

  He had a few grade A saves and was moving extremely well. He also was doing a great job tracking the puck. His only goal against was on a pretty good shot and wasn’t a bad one to let up. He looks ready to pickup where he left off last season.

• Top line is as advertised.

  The top line of Hadland - Rullers - Tapper look just as advertised. They were RPI’s most dangerous line and created a few different scoring chances at 5v5. Tapper had the puck on his stick A LOT and looked really good with it. Rullers was all over the place and had a very well-rounded game beyond his obvious counting stats. Hadland didn’t look quite as good as those two and seemed to be adjusting to the pace of the college game, but that’s not unexpected for a freshman and I still liked his game. The three of them also seemed to have pretty good chemistry already.

• Goukler’s skating looks incredible.

  He is easily the best skater I’ve seen at RPI. Jack Brackett might have been a little faster in straight lines, but Goukler is way more agile and shifty. He lost the puck a lot when he had it due to some good defensive plays and not making quick enough choices with it. That seemed to be another instance of adjusting to the pace of the college game for a freshman, but I expect he will adjust very quickly. Even with some of those turnovers, he created some great chances and once he is acclimated, he is going to create TONS of offense.

• Yurchuk is also as advertised.

  He looked very skilled with the puck on his stick, and he had some excellent passes to create chances for RPI. The first goal came from a great pass on the power play to give Rullers a tap-in.

• McCallum struggled in his first collegiate action.

  The first goal was just a really good shot on a breakaway, but the others, I did not really like from him. The second goal against him was bad. It was a normal shot that he should have saved, but he let it squeak through him. The third goal against was a bad rebound that he left hanging right in the crease. Krawchuk was clearly better this game and definitely has the edge right now. I’m not too worried about McCallum and think he’ll be totally fine. It’s typical for freshmen to struggle in net in their first action; Krawchuk did that just last year!

• The power play was awesome.

  You might be saying, “they had 3 PP goals, duh!!” However, I think just looking at goals can be misleading sometimes. There can be a lucky bounce, defensive breakdowns, etc. That was not the case here. The power play was consistently dangerous and looked great. They were zipping the puck around quickly and effectively and got a lot of really good looks. The 3 goals were a reward for great puck movement and shots, and the PP looked about as good as it could have.

• I was not impressed with Guo this game.

  I didn’t think it was a great game defensively for him, and it looked like a couple of the breakdowns were on him. His skating looked good, and he moved the puck well. It’s not like it was all bad; just needs to clean up defensively. He’ll be fine.

• In general, I felt a little underwhelmed by the defense corps.

  This kinda goes along with the previous point, but with the breakdowns that they had defensively, I thought the defense corps was just okay. I liked the attacking mentality they showed in the offensive zone, and they moved pucks pretty well in transition though.

• Hilditch looked improved from last year.

  I was pretty impressed with the improvement Hilditch showed. He looked more confident out there, and he was moving really well and played a strong game in his own end in my opinion. He was also a top PKer for the team, and I think he looks capable of cracking the lineup consistently in a key shutdown role.

• Slezak looked better than expected.

  I was expecting Slezak to struggle this game. Not only is he a freshman, but he also missed all of the last year due to injury. He shattered those expectations those and looked pretty steady! He played a simple game but was effective. In general, I felt good about the depth on defense with Hilditch, Slezak, and Heroux as well having solid games by keeping it simple and playing hard.

Lastly, I wanted to make note of the special teams units since you won’t see those on a line chart.

PP1

Yurchuk Rullers Tapper
Sobieski Burzynski
Ross replaced Sobieski on this unit for RPI’s 2nd PP but then he moved back down.

PP2

Goukler Sitar Gavin
Buckley Klassek

PP3

Scherzer Ross Hadland
Michael Serlin
Guo replaced Michael on this unit for the last PP. Usually there’s only 2 PP units, so I don’t expect they will actually roll 2 out there for the real games.

PK1

Lodewyk Lindberg
Klassek Hilditch
Goukler replaced Lindberg for the 2nd PK.

PK2

Sitar Hadland
Michael Heroux
This unit was only out there for the 1st PK because the 2nd PK ended with a goal pretty quickly. It’s hard to know the full PK personnel right now because there were only 2, and the 2nd one ended very quickly.

Overall, there was lots to build off of this game. The transition game and power play were both awesome, and the team was very disciplined to only give Army two power plays. I also thought they defended well and didn’t allow Army to have much possession.

The main thing to clean up is the defensive breakdowns. Without them, Army would have barely generated any offense, and they can’t afford to do that against Ohio State. Ohio State has the talent to really make them pay. If they get those cleaned up though, this looks like a fun and exciting team, and I think they are for sure capable of beating Ohio State even as a Big Ten team!

The incredibly youthful ‘26-’27 forward group leaves the range of outcomes much wider than we’ve seen in prior years. Filip Sitar and Rainers Rullers return as the main headline and figure to grab the top two spots at center. Beyond them though, an assortment of youthful returners, transfers, and freshmen will vie for the core spots in the lineup. RPI graduated veterans Dovar Tinling and Luc Wilson, lost Tyler Wallace to the portal, and last-minute de-commits from Shane Smith and Josh Evaschesen leave some spots up for grabs. So I’m going to do my best to break it down and take you through how this puzzle might fit together.

Top 6 Locks:

I know that more than 2 guys go in the top 6, I promise. But Sitar and Rullers are really the only two you can put there as locks right now.

Filip Sitar (8-9-17 in 35GP last year) was the Engineers best forward in the first half last year. His scoring stagnated later in the year, but the total impact of his game doesn’t show up in the box score. Fil was one of RPI’s best PKers and led the forwards in minutes in his first year over from UCONN. I see a lot of Ture Linden in his game and hope he keeps developing that way. I’m not sure he has a point-per-game ceiling, but expect a meaningful step forward for Fil in year 2 in Troy.

Sitar’s One-Liner: Sitar does all the little things right. Can he maintain this style while being leaned on for more production this year?

It’s year 3 for Rainers Rullers after a big step forward as a sophomore. Rainers jumps off the page more than other guys, likely because of his sheer size and skill. For many teams, he gets circled as RPI’s best player and one that commands attention. You saw the goal scoring ability flash (9 last year), and there should be more in the tank. He more than other guys has the tools to be elite, but he needs more physicality to put it all together. By the way, his Freakout goal was electric.

Rullers One-Liner: RPI needs a go-to guy. Rullers is skilled enough to be it, but is he willing to do the little things and be physical enough to shoulder the load?

And Now the Depth…

These Engineers should have so much depth, which makes you feel a bit better about the lack of high-end scoring. Yurchuk and Ross will be interesting to watch as big unknowns, dropping down from top Hockey East schools. Buckley and Scherzer were both promising as freshman and RPI will really need them to take big jumps forward.

I like Caleb Hadland’s game a lot. Caleb plays extremely hard but he has the skill to be a really impactful college player. Caleb reportedly had a huge camp and earned his way onto the top line with Rainers Rullers and Jagger Tapper. While this surprises me a bit, it makes sense as Hadland plays an extremely mature, college ready game. Caleb scored on Friday night at Army and that line with Rullers had a huge opening night.

Hadland One-Liner: Just how much offensive talent does he have and can he create offense on his own?

I am really high on Ian Scherzer, who I think is the clear cut 3C unless the staff wants him to stay on the wing. Ian got hurt in the exhibition last year which sort of washed out his 1st half. I thought he really got his legs under him in February though, headlined by big goals in the Freakout and at Clarkson in the playoffs. Ian has IQ, speed, and playmaking ability, with holes in the top-6 providing him a big sophomore year opportunity.

Scherzer One-Liner: How good was his offseason? The opportunity and skills are there, and the staff needs him to take it and run.

Jagger Tapper figures to be a big voice in the locker room as one of the lone players here for year 3 in Troy. Lang worked hard to round out Tapper’s game last year and get him playing “the right way”, which started to bear fruit in the 2nd half. Jagger’s really solid and brings a veteran presence that a coach can really trust. I think his role looked smaller when Smith and Evaschesen were supposed to come, but Jagger probably finds himself back in the top 9 with the current roster assembly.

Tapper One-Liner: Can he find a year-3 breakout as one of the veteran guys in the room?

Early rumblings are that Luke Goukler looks excellent. The Chicago Steel product was a late get, but his tape absolutely jumped to me. He might be a little green, he really needs to add weight and develop the shot, but he is so fast and really smart. His speed might only be rivaled by Jack Brackett of late, and he has way more skill. Look for Luke to earn a big role right from the jump.

Goukler One-Liner: Not much here on my end… I just think he is going to be really good.

Brendan Ross is a big wildcard as he comes over from Providence, where he only played 3 games last year. Ross was very good at Alaska the year prior and had almost 100 points in his last AJHL season. He’s 6’3 and scored 47 times that year in the Alberta, so you can’t say the tools aren’t there. But Ross comes into his junior year with more questions than answers, with a big opportunity right in front of him.

Ross One-Liner: Does his size and skill translate better in the ECAC than it did in his prior two stops, and where does he stack up at RW vs. Buckley and Tapper?

Matthew Buckley found himself on the top line early last year, where he, Tyler Wallace, and Filip Sitar got off to a really hot start. He cooled off as the year went on despite strong underlying numbers, which paints an interesting picture into year 2. Buckley will get another big chance to establish himself as RPI is pretty thin at right wing.

Buckley One-Liner: RPI needs goals, and Buckley had 30 of them in the OHL two years ago. Can he establish himself as a 10+ goal scorer in year two?

If Ross is the wildcard, then Ben Yurchuk is the x-factor to me. TJ Walsh feels like a very natural comp to Ben when you look at the pedigree both came into RPI with. And frankly, I’d sign up for that right now. Yurchuk didn’t crack the lineup much for the Hockey East champion Merrimack Warriors, but he was really good with the Chicago Steel. He’s undersized, but very skilled and very fast. And in some sense, his game is very similar to Gavin’s which makes me wonder if there’s room for both in the top 9. He’s tough to project, but has as much natural skill as anyone on this team.

Yurchuk One-Liner: Can Ben beat out the glut of left wings to earn a scoring role?

Alfred Lindberg was a little disappointing in his first year here, but he showed a well-rounded game that could contribute in the bottom 6. If Scherzer stays on the wing, I think he could earn 3C again and hopefully put together a productive senior year. He might not find that 22-pt freshman year form again, but clearly that is in there somewhere.

Lindberg One-Liner: RPI is really young, which leads me to think Eric will give the vets a lot of run. Can Alfie take that opportunity and run with it?

We’ve covered extensively how Jordan Gavin has as much pedigree as you’ll find coming into a program like RPI. His WHL production did flatline as he got older which raises some questions, but he can absolutely be an all-ECAC level player. Gavin is the complete offensive package, and that’s exactly why he’s here. He needs to play with enough defensive intensity to earn Lang’s trust though.

Gavin One-Liner: Few players can slow the game down on offense like Gavin can. But how long will it take him to do that at the college level, playing against 23- and 24-year-olds?

The Bottom 6:

Ethan Bono returns for his senior year and figures to be one of the leading voices in the room. In his first year at RPI, Ethan mirrored his production from Merrimack almost exactly. In 3 seasons of college hockey, he’s been nothing if not consistent, with 9,9, and 10 points respectively. I think he may get squeezed out of a scoring role by some of the younger guys though, which is why I have him down here in the bottom 6.

Bono One-Liner: Can he bring a big veteran presence to the 4th line and help RPI’s PK and defensive efforts this year?

Coach Lang raves about Harrison Lodewyk when we speak to him. Lodewyk is 210 lbs but he can fly, not to mention he has a ton of jam to his game and is great on the PK. Harrison was one of the best centermen in the WHL last year, winning draws around a 65% clip and over 70% in the playoffs. He is an automatic plug and play at 4C and may push his way up into a bigger role over time. For now though, he is one of those hand-picked, “Lang style players” that is going to set the tone for how he wants the team to play.

Lodewyk One-Liner: I feel really comfortable projecting him as an elite 4th-liner, but can Harrison develop enough offense to be a middle-6 center over time?

Mathieu Bourgault is one of the longest tenured guys now, but last year was his first healthy one. Mathieu played his role well last year, was willing to hit and play with physicality and did work on the PK. Look for more of the same this year despite some more competition up front.

Bourgault One-Liner: Can Bourgault win a role on the 4th line thanks to his size and defensive ability?

Captain Brad McNeil will be the leader of this tribe once again. Brad is as good of a guy as there is and its no surprise that the coaching staff loves having him lead the room. His role has shrunk a bit over the years and it may happen again, but his full impact on the program doesn’t always show up in the box score.

McNeil One-Liner: Can he fight his way back into a prominent bottom-6 role like the one he played as an underclassmen?

Leo Serlin is last but certainly not least. Leo is the most recent addition, who the staff snatched up after Smith and Evaschesen decommitted late in the game. Eric noted on last week’s podcast that they were recruiting Leo for 2027, but he expressed interest in coming early and thus is here now. This is telling about his intentions given that Guelph, his junior team in the OHL, was set to host the Memorial Cup this year. Clearly getting an education is important to Leo and he wants to be here at RPI. We will see what his role looks like in year 1, but he’s going to have every chance to earn one in the bottom 6.

Serlin One-Liner: It may take time to get up to speed, but can Leo play his best hockey in the 2nd half and earn himself a role in the bottom 6?

Lots of new faces present an exciting new puzzle to solve for Lang and Cory Schneider to solve in year 2. I think two questions dictate what will make or break this group. Number one, can a couple of the freshman, specifically Hadland, Gavin and Goukler, really stick and produce offense right away? And number two, how much can the Engineers put on the shoulders of those two centers (Rullers and Sitar) to drive this group? We will have our answers soon, and if the 5 goals last Friday at Army are any indication, things are looking up. Let’s go red.

We’re only days out from the start of the season meaning it’s time for my yearly preview article! For those that are new here: every season I use a model I created to predict the standings for the ECAC. Then, I go through those predictions and preview every team, giving my own commentary and opinions. I did an evaluation of the model’s performance last year recently, linked below.

Model Explanation

In the past, I’ve been asked for more details on how the model works, so I figured that’s a good way to start this preview. There are two parts of the model, offense and defense, used to project goals per game and goals against per game. It’s actually a pretty simple model overall.

On offense, every player has a projected points per game number. This is created by taking each returner’s points per game from the season prior and factoring in some projected progression based on the article I wrote below as a follow-up to my evaluation of last season.

After doing the returners, I project the incoming freshmen. I created a projection model for incoming freshmen based on their junior league and scoring rates awhile ago, but as I said in my evaluation article, I found that it has drifted more and more over time. This offseason, I recalibrated it, and I included the CHL leagues now that we have a season of data for them. Lastly, for incoming transfers, they are split into two buckets. The first is if they barely played at their previous stop. If that happens, that data is pretty much useless, and I just pretend they are a freshman and use their junior hockey scoring. If they did play though, I treat them as if they are a normal returner, and I will include an adjustment based on the conference. For example, Hockey East is better than the ECAC, so I will slightly adjust their projected scoring to be higher to factor that in. Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, I have found those projections to be pretty accurate over the years.

Once every player has a projected points per game, I create a projected lineup with the highest projections, and then I convert that lineup into a projected goals per game for the team.

The defense is a little bit more complicated. First, in net, it’s really tough to get it right, and I’ve found that’s been the hardest part to model. Usually, the model misses come from getting the goaltending wrong. For returners, we project their performance using up to 3 years of data, weighted by recency. Newcomers work the same way as it does offensively. Freshmen have a projection model based on junior hockey performance. Transfers get treated as freshmen if they barely played. Otherwise, their college hockey data is used and adjusted for conference.

After the goaltending, I try to project the quality of the defense by using returning players’ defensive impacts. I use +/- compared to the team’s average to try to model defensive impact, and then, the defensive quality is weighted by who is returning and their individual impacts. I’d honestly love to use better metrics than +/-, but that data isn’t publicly available.

With those calculated, the model generates the projected goals against per game for the team. Then, I just sort the teams by their projected overall goal differential!

1. Quinnipiac (Last Year: 1)

This year’s Quinnipiac team is the best team the model has ever seen, and it’s not close. Honestly, I have no idea how they are not getting more hype nationally because they would be on my shortlist of teams to win the national championship this year. The offensive projection is the highest the model has ever put out based on the returning and incoming talent, and the defense should be improved after the changes Quinnipiac made in net.

Key Losses: D Will Gilson (28 points in 37 games), F Jeremy Wilmer (13 points in 15 games), D Charlie Leddy (7 points in 29 games)

Key Returners: F Ethan Wyttenbach (59 points in 40 games), F Antonin Verreault (40 points in 40 games), F Markus Vidicek (35 points in 40 games), F Mason Marcellus (34 points in 38 games), F Chris Pelosi (34 points in 35 games), F Aaron Schwartz (29 points in 39 games), F Andon Cerbone (22 points in 40 games), D Elliott Groenewold (20 points in 40 games), D Braden Blace (20 points in 33 games), F Matthew Lansing (18 points in 40 games), D Graham Sward (16 points in 40 games), F Tyler Borgula (14 points in 29 games)

Key Newcomers: D Parker Alcos (WHL), G Rorke Applebee (Lake State), F Dylan Edwards (OHL), F Gabriel Frasca (OHL), D Jan Golicic (QMJHL), G Christian Kirsch (OHL), F Alex Kostov (OHL), F Jack Stockfish (Holy Cross), D Andrew Strathmann (North Dakota)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 1

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 3

Average Rank: 1

Freshmen

Total Rank: 3

Average Rank: 1

Transfer

Total Rank: 3 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 2 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 1

Defensemen Rank: 3

Total Offensive Rank: 1

I have never seen a key returners list be so long in my time doing these, and that’s what propels Quinnipiac’s projected offense up to such high levels. The only key players that they are losing offensively are Will Gilson on the blue line and Jeremy Wilmer, who missed most of the season anyways.

First, Quinnipiac returns their 7 highest scoring forwards who all had at least 20 points. Ethan Wyttenbach is back after leading the nation in points as just an 18 year old and should be a dominant force in college hockey this year. Pelosi and Vidicek give them a dynamic 1-2 punch at center, while Verreault, Schwartz, Marcellus, and Cerbone add skill on the wings. Lansing and Borgula would be in the top 6 for most teams in the league, but on Quinnipiac, they might be relegated to the 4th line.

That’s just returning forwards too. The recruiting class is once again the best in the ECAC by average quality with numerous players who project to make big impacts.

Starting with the freshmen, Dylan Edwards was 9th in the OHL in scoring last season with 87 points. Alex Kostov got drafted after being passed over in the previous 2 drafts after he had 55 points in only 47 games. Lastly, Gabriel Frasca had 54 points in the OHL. Those 3 are all capable of varying levels of immediate contributions, but it’s unclear where they will fit in the lineup with all the returning talent.

Jack Stockfish is also coming in from Holy Cross after a 35 point season. He’s an outstanding 2 way center with size, and will no doubt slot into the lineup. Like the others though, it’s hard to know exactly where he will fall in such a loaded lineup.

On the blue line, Groenewold returns as the best all-around defenseman in the ECAC after putting up 20 points in 40 games and an insane +39 rating. Sward had 16 points and will return in a key role in the top 4. Blace had 20 points in limited time on the 3rd pairing.

For the newcomers, Andrew Strathmann saw limited ice time at North Dakota, but he is a very talented NHL draft pick who was outstanding in the USHL prior to college. Parker Alcos and Jan Golicic are two other NHL draft picks coming in from the WHL and QMJHL, respectively. Both have great size but can also move the puck well. They should be pretty good right away.

I know I just listed a ton of players without going super in-depth on them individually. Quinnipiac just has so much talent that I can’t go in-depth on the individual players without making this insanely long. To put into context how the model views them, it predicts they will score 5 goals per game. Obviously, that will not happen, but this is still easily one of the best forward groups in the country with starpower and depth throughout the lineup.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 3

Quinnipiac is also expected to be elite defensively. They are ranked 3rd by the model for defense, but teams 1-3 are all super close together in the defensive projections. There’s not really a meaningful difference there.

Quinnipiac did lose 4 defensemen, but the model is not really concerned about those losses. Logan McCutcheon and Drew Hockley both barely played, and Gilson’s defensive impacts weren’t good last year. His impact was pretty much entirely offensive. The only key loss defensively was Charlie Leddy. He was a very good defensively minded defenseman, but since the other 3 don’t rate as big losses here, Quinnipiac shouldn’t miss a beat playing their usual system.

In the net, there was a ton of turnover, which was likely by choice after both goalies struggled last season. Matej Marinov had been rock solid in each of his first two seasons, but he fell back to a 0.898 SV%. Dylan Silverstein had numbers that looked good with a 0.912 SV%, but given the strength of Quinnipiac’s defense and how few chances they allow, it’s not actually that good.

Both goalies left in the offseason. To replace them, Quinnipiac got Rorke Applebee from the transfer portal after two great seasons at Lake State. He had a 0.907 SV% as a freshman and a 0.914 SV% as a sophomore, and considering how leaky Lake State’s defense was, these are both very good seasons. Last season, CHN had him ranked 14th in the country in goals saved above expected with 10.6 GSAx. I think he will be the primary starter in net.

The other goalie coming in is Christian Kirsch from the OHL. He had a solid season for Kitchener last year and helped lead them to the Memorial Cup. He should compete with Applebee for the starting role, but he’s a little bit raw. With Applebee being proven at the college level, he probably has the edge. Both of them should be pretty solid though, and that upgraded goaltending should have Quinnipiac’s defense back with the elite in the country.

There are literally zero question marks surrounding this Quinnipiac roster. They return a ton of talent and brought in a lot of talent to supplement it. One of their only weaknesses last season was a lack of size, and the players they brought in really help address that. Defensively, they lost very little, and they brought in even more talent than they were losing on the blue line. They upgraded in net, which was the biggest weakness last season and shores up the most important position. This is the clear #1 team in the ECAC and will be among the best teams in the country. They have a real chance at a national championship.

2. Dartmouth (Last Year: 2)

Dartmouth had a breakout year last season with their first NCAA tournament appearance since 1980 and an ECAC championship. They ended up as the #6 overall seed in the NCAA tournament but lost in the first round to Wisconsin. This year, they return basically their entire roster, and they should be a lock for the NCAA tournament as a result.

Key Losses: F Cam MacDonald (22 points in 34 games)

Key Returners: F Hayden Stavroff (48 points in 35 games), F Hank Cleaves (40 points in 35 games), F Nikita Nikora (25 points in 35 games), D CJ Foley (24 points in 35 games), D Colin Grable (20 points in 35 games), F Jack Silverberg (16 points in 35 games), F Nathan Morin (15 points in 29 games), D Eric Charpentier (13 points in 35 games), D Tim Busconi (12 points in 35 games), F Jason Stefanek (12 points in 26 games), D Cooper Cleaves (10 points in 30 games), G Emmett Croteau (0.922 SV%)

Key Newcomers: F Jesse Allecia (QMJHL), D Matthew Desiderio (Brown), G Sebastian Gatto (OHL), D Ryan Harvey (BCHL), F Drew Stewart (USHL), F Grant Young (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 2

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 7

Average Rank: 5

Freshmen

Total Rank: 6

Average Rank: 4

Transfer

Total Rank: 9 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 4 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 2

Defensemen Rank: 1

Total Offensive Rank: 2

Dartmouth returns a ton of talent this season, which will make them a formidable team in the national landscape. The only key player leaving is Cam MacDonald after graduating, but I think Dartmouth did more than enough to replace him.

Starting off with the returning ECAC Player of the Year, Hayden Stavroff scored 29 goals last season to lead the country and turned down NHL offers to return for his junior year. He will once again be one of the top players in the country and a dynamic goal scorer. Hank Cleaves is Stavroff’s center with great size, two-way play, and passing ability. He had 40 points last season, and he returns as the second part of Dartmouth’s dynamic duo at the top of the lineup. Outside of those top two, Nikita Nikora returns for his senior year with a proven track record of scoring after 3 seasons of 20+ points.

One of Dartmouth’s weaknesses last season was a lack of scoring depth beyond those top 3 scorers, but I think that won’t be a weakness this year with all the young players returning in those depth roles who should take steps forward. Jack Silverberg and Nathan Morin had 16 and 15 points, respectively, last season, and this season, they should be able to take steps forward more in the 20 point range. Jason Stefanek could also be in that range. He only had 12 points last season but missed a decent chunk of time due to injury. Andrew Clarke, Ryan Schelling, and Brock Cummings had 12, 11, and 11 points, respectively, as freshmen last season, and they all can take steps forward to give Dartmouth more scoring depth. All of the players mentioned in this paragraph were either freshmen or sophomores last season, which is why they are all expected to take steps up to help augment Dartmouth’s scoring depth.

For the newcomers, there’s a few that should provide immediate impacts. Jesse Allecia had about a point per game in the Q last season, and he’s capable of playing in the middle 6 right away if he can earn a role over all those returning players. Grant Young had 28 points in 43 games in the USHL last season, and he should contribute in the bottom 6 right away.

The most important incoming forward though is Drew Stewart. He had over a point per game for Muskegon in the USHL last season as one of their top centers, and I think he’s capable of immediately sliding into Dartmouth’s top 6 behind Cleaves.

On the blue line, Dartmouth returns all the key players from last year’s run. CJ Foley returns as one of the top defensemen in the ECAC with a track record of producing well and winning his minutes. Eric Charpentier is one of the best shutdown defensemen in the league and has a little bit of offense to go with it too. Colin Grable had a huge breakout year last year, coming out of nowhere to score 20 points and a crazy +30 rating. Those 3 will all return to the top 4.

Outside of them, Tim Busconi and Cooper Cleaves were very good further down the lineup. Cleaves is the brother of top line center, Hank Cleaves, and his size, youth, and ability led to him being selected in the 3rd round of the NHL draft despite playing down the lineup. Busconi is a solid two-way defenseman who scored the game winning goal in OT to win the ECAC championship.

I think they will probably be the bottom pairing because Dartmouth’s only transfer portal addition is Matthew Desiderio coming over from Brown after their coaching change. He had a pretty solid freshman year there and has a great track record from his play in the USHL. I think he’ll slot in as the final defenseman in the top 4.

It’s a pretty loaded blue line with all the really good returners plus Desiderio coming in, and the model actually rates it as the best in the ECAC above Quinnipiac. It’s not more talented than Quinnipiac, but it’s older and more proven.

Offensively, Dartmouth is pretty loaded up all around to make another run this year. They return tons of top end talent and depth throughout the lineup, which will only continue to develop, and their incoming class has a few players who should be key contributors right away.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 1

Dartmouth will be one of the best defensive teams in the country this year, much like last year. They have the best returning blue line in the league, which should at minimum maintain their elite level of chance suppression and shot suppression, but it’s certainly possible that it improves too. Returning all top 6 defensemen and then adding a top 4 defenseman from another ECAC team will do that!

Then, in net, Dartmouth will be totally set. Emmett Croteau finally broke out with a 0.922 SV% and returns for his senior year where he will be locked in as the #1 goaltender. He ranked 16th in the country in goals saved above expected with 8.11.

Should he falter for any reason though, I love incoming freshman Sebastian Gatto. He had a 0.916 SV% with London in the OHL last season, which was good for 5th in the league. London is also one of the best programs in the entire CHL, which only gives more confidence in his abilities. I think he is actually capable of pushing Croteau right away, but it’ll be Croteau’s net to start and presumably throughout the year. Gatto is great insurance behind him though, and he will take the mantle up in the future.

Overall, Dartmouth is projected to be an NCAA tournament lock by the model, and it actually has them rated so highly that I think they are a darkhorse national championship contender. I wouldn’t put them in my top 5 contenders or anything, but they have the ability to be in the mix. The only real question mark is if their depth scoring can improve this year through the development of the young players and newcomers. It’s worth noting that Dartmouth had a 12.8% shooting percentage last year too, which was 2nd in the country, and it’s possible that falls down too. That’s been consistent for Dartmouth under Cashman though, so I think that’s just them prioritizing quality over quantity at a system level. Regardless, it would take a disaster for them to miss the tournament, and if they can play up to their potential, the rest of the country should watch out.

3. Cornell (Last Year: 3)

Cornell had a really good season last year, reaching 11th in the NPI, but got blown out by Denver in round 1 of the NCAA tournament. The model views them very highly with all the talent coming back, but there is one major question mark remaining. They should be an NCAA tournament lock either way, but it’ll determine their ceiling this season.

Key Losses: F Jonathan Castagna (34 points in 34 games), D Hoyt Stanley (15 points in 34 games), G Alexis Cournoyer (0.915 SV%)

Key Returners: F Ryan Walsh (33 points in 33 games), F Caton Ryan (30 points in 34 games), F Charlie Major (27 points in 32 games), D Xavier Veilleux (26 points in 34 games), D George Fegaras (21 points in 34 games), F Aiden Long (20 points in 34 games), F Jake Kraft (18 points in 34 games), D Luke Ashton (11 points in 34 games), D Michael Fisher (8 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: F Charles Arend (USHL), F Coco Armstrong (WHL), F Brad Gardiner (OHL), D Ryland Randle (USHL), G Mathis Rousseau (Maine), F Ivan Zadvernyuk (Brown)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 3

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 4

Average Rank: 4

Freshmen

Total Rank: 4

Average Rank: 5

Transfer

Total Rank: 8 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 1 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 3

Defensemen Rank: 4

Total Offensive Rank: 3

While Cornell did lose Castagna early to an NHL contract, he was the only important loss up front, and they did well to replace him as best they could.

Still, they return Ryan Walsh for his second year as the captain, and he will once again be one of the top forwards in the ECAC and slot in as the top line center. Caton Ryan also returns after an outstanding freshman year with 30 points, and with his youth, he should have a good step forward too. Charlie Major returns after his 27 point campaign last season too, and those three should make up a dynamic trio on the top line.

The other key forwards returning are Aiden Long and Jake Kraft. Long had a pretty good 20 point freshman season and should slot right into the top 6 at LW. Kraft is a proven, steady middle 6 player who can provide good depth scoring. It’s also possible Gio DiGiulian takes a step forward after putting up 14 points and 9 goals as a freshman last season.

For the newcomers, Ivan Zadvernyuk is transferring from Brown, and he is the replacement for Castagna at center. He had 22 points in 30 games for Brown last year and is a skilled center with great size. He should fill that void as the second line center behind Walsh, although his penchant for taking really dumb penalties could get him in trouble with such a disciplined program. Brad Gardiner is the highest projected freshman after a 65 point OHL season. He’s capable of sliding right into the top 6, but with Cornell’s talent and depth, he might be on the third line to start. Charles Arend had a great USHL season, but he probably starts in the bottom 6 due to Cornell’s depth. Same with Coco Armstrong after his WHL season.

The forward group for Cornell looks very good because Walsh, Ryan, Major, and Zadvernyuk give them a lot of top end talent, and they also should have the necessary depth between Long, Kraft, DiGiulian, Gardiner, Arend, and Armstrong.

On the blue line, Veilleux returns after an outstanding 26 point freshman season. He was immediately one of the best defensemen in the ECAC and played 24 minutes a night, and he should only keep getting better and better with how young he is. George Fegaras has had very good career for Cornell so far, and he returns for his senior year where he’ll likely be the #2 to Veilleux after 21 points last season. Luke Ashton is more of a defensively minded defenseman, but he has some offensive upside too. I think he will build on his 11 points from last year with more ice time and continued development.

There’s only two incoming defensemen, both freshmen, but they both expect to slot into the lineup. Ryland Randle had a great year in the USHL, and while he doesn’t have the size of typical Cornell defenseman, he’s a really good player who gives their blue line a bit of a different look. Cole Tuminaro doesn’t have much offense to his game, but he will find his way into the lineup given his size and defensive abilities that led to him being drafted.

Despite the loss of Castagna and Stanley, Cornell has enough firepower in the lineup to again make the NCAA tournament. I actually think the lineup all-around is better than last year’s, and it’s pretty comparable to Dartmouth in terms of the model’s projection. They should have no issues scoring this year.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 2

Cornell’s defensive structure pretty much always guarantees that they will be a top team defensively, regardless of the personnel. That remains true for this upcoming season, but there are still plenty of reasons to like them outside of that.

The only key loss on the blue line is Hoyt Stanley, but the model doesn’t view it as that big a loss defensively. While he played a ton of minutes last season, his defensive impacts in terms of +/- were not that good. The other regular they lost was Jack O’Brien who was solid on the 3rd pairing but very replaceable. The rest of the defensemen return, which includes 3 of the top 4, as I mentioned in the offense section, and that will keep the quality of their defense high.

The real issue and biggest question mark for Cornell is in net. They lost Alexis Cournoyer to the transfer portal after a great freshman year with a 0.915 SV%. Cornell went out into the portal and got Mathis Rousseau from Maine to replace him. The model does not have much faith in him, and to be honest, I’m not sure I do either. Last season, he had a 0.896 SV% despite playing for a Maine team that was pretty strong defensively. His goals saved above expected was -4.54 on the season, which ranked 130th in the country. I also am not sold on his track record prior to Maine. He played in the QMJHL for a long time, and his numbers his final year there were just okay with a 0.906 SV% and a 0.903 SV% split between two teams. While his numbers were better prior, he was on one of the best QMJHL teams those years, and he’s undersized to boot.

The two backups who are returning are Justin Katz and Erick Roest, and both have not seen a single minute of NCAA action. If Rousseau falters, there is no backup plan. A counterargument is that you could argue that Cournoyer wasn’t even that good when you factor in the quality of Cornell’s defense. Despite a 0.915 SV%, he only had 1.02 goals saved above expected, which was 51st in the country. If Rousseau can give them even average goaltending, he likely will have pretty solid numbers, and that should be good enough with the quality of the defense.

The goaltending question mark is what keeps Cornell below Dartmouth in the rankings even though they are quite close. If Rousseau can be that guy for them, they could surpass Dartmouth to get 2nd. Overall, he will determine their ceiling. The model likes Cornell so much that if he gives them good goaltending, they could be a darkhorse national championship contender. As it stands right now though, they’re rated a tournament lock with the talent and defense they have as long as he’s not disastrous. Can they be more than that? It’ll be something to watch.

4. Union (Last Year: 5)

Union was pretty good last season, rising up to 26th in the NPI, and they were in contention for a first round bye the entire year but fell just short to Princeton. Their puck possession system was very good, and they had a lot of offensive firepower. However, this is the first ranking that I disagree with the model. Union lost a lot of talent in the offseason, but they’re still rated highly because they return a ton of depth scoring. The returning scoring is rated too highly in my opinion because Union beat up on a weak non-conference schedule and inflated their offensive numbers, and they didn’t play nearly to that level in conference play. They should still be pretty solid, but I’d personally have them a little lower.

Key Losses: F Ben Muthersbaugh (36 points in 36 games), F Brandon Buhr (36 points in 35 games), F Parker Lindauer (34 points in 37 games), F Colby MacArthur (32 points in 35 games), F Nate Hanley (22 points in 36 games)

Key Returners: D Tyler Dunbar (33 points in 37 games), F Lucas Buzziol (27 points in 37 games), D Etienne Lessard (24 points in 37 games), F Alex Laurenza (19 points in 32 games), F Riley Brueck (17 points in 36 games), D Will Felicio (13 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: F Tommy Cronin (Alaska), F August Falloon (Minnesota), F Nathan Free (WHL), F Gavin Garry (USHL), F Luke Garry (USHL), F Elliot Gulley (USHL), F Lefty Markonidis (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 6

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 2

Average Rank: 3

Freshmen

Total Rank: 2

Average Rank: 3

Transfer

Total Rank: 1 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 3 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 4

Defensemen Rank: 2

Total Offensive Rank: 4

From the list of key losses and key returners, it should be obvious why I’m skeptical of the model. Union loses its top 3 scorers and 4 out of their top 5 with only Tyler Dunbar returning from that group. For the forwards, they lose 5 out of their top 6 with only Lucas Buzziol returning.

That being said they do have some talent returning. Buzziol had 27 points last season. Alex Laurenza had a solid freshman year with 19 points. Riley Brueck had 17 points and should be able to take a step with more ice time. Connor Smith had 12 points in only 30 games and will likely be a lineup regular this year. Drew Sutton, Troy Pelton, and Jacob Jeannette all had decent results in very limited ice time.

For the newcomers, it is a pretty good recruiting class overall between the transfers and freshmen. The Garry twins both had about a point per game in the USHL last season and should play key roles immediately. Elliot Gulley had 51 points in the USHL, and Nathan Free had 53 points in the WHL; both should slot into the lineup right away. Tommy Cronin transferred in from Alaska after 16 points in 18 games as a freshman. August Falloon barely played at Minnesota, but he was solid in his final USHL season before going there.

That’s a good amount of talent coming in, and that talent combined with the returners that Union does have is why the model still likes the forward group. I want to go a little deeper though to explain why I’m skeptical of it.

First, as I mentioned before, Union played an extremely weak non-conference schedule that really inflated their numbers. Their scores were:
1-1 vs Army
5-2 at Mercyhurst
5-3 at Mercyhurst
3-2 vs Niagara
6-0 vs Niagara
7-1 vs Lowell
6-0 vs UNH
8-1 vs Sacred Heart
2-3 vs Miami
5-1 vs Alaska
3-2 vs Alaska
5-4 vs RPI

That works out to 4.67 goals per game. In conference play, they averaged 3.23 goals per game. That’s a huge difference, and it got reflected in the stats for their players too.

For the returners I mentioned, Buzziol only had 14 points in conference play, Laurenza had 10, Brueck had 8, and Smith had 3. All of these players at least put up half their production against the weak competition in non-conference play. This also applies to the defensemen too. Tyler Dunbar only had 15 points in ECAC play, and Etienne Lessard only had 12.

Second, based on the projections, two of the three players on their top line are projected to be Laurenza and Tommy Cronin, and I have questions about them outside of the schedule strength last year. For Laurenza, he was a healthy scratch at times last year despite his ability to put up points, and only 4/19 points were goals. If the staff didn’t have full belief in him last year, and he can’t really score goals for a team that lost all its best goal scorers, why should I think he can make that jump? For Cronin, he only played 18 games due to injury, so it’s possible that his scoring would have regressed with a full season of play. Even if not, he also only had 4 goals out of his 16 points, and his track record before Alaska wasn’t good. In his final year of junior hockey, he was not able to hold down a spot in neither the USHL nor BCHL and ended up back in the NAHL. I don’t believe he’s a top line player like the model is projecting based on his limited time at Alaska.

To be clear, I don’t think Union will be bad offensively, and they should still be pretty solid. I just think the model is overrating the offense and team in general with all of this.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 5

Union had a solid defense last year, and it should be solid this year as well. They return 5 out of their top 6 defensemen, and Nick Young doesn’t register as that big of a loss. Tyler Dunbar should be their best all around player not just because of his offense, but he also has pretty good defensive impacts. Etienne Lessard had decent defensive impacts for a freshman especially considering his lack of size, while DJ Hart had good defensive impacts in limited ice time. He will look to shoulder more responsibility this season.

In net, Cameron Korpi returns after an underwhelming season last year with a 0.899 SV%. He had a solid freshman year at Michigan and was good in the USHL before that, so I would imagine he bounces back. If he doesn’t though, Union also returns Brayden Gillespie who had a 0.915 SV% in limited time last season behind Korpi. With his performance, I imagine that Korpi won’t have too long of a leash should he struggle out of the gate.

Overall, Union could definitely finish 4th with the talent they have on the roster. Doing that will require their key players to perform better in conference play and all the newcomers to adapt quickly. Even at their ceiling though, I can’t see them coming close to catching the top 3, and at best, they probably land at 20th in the NPI. With how the model is overrating their numbers though and only pretty small gaps between teams 4-6 in the model, I think they don’t wind up in 4th. I’d put them 5th or 6th.

5. Clarkson (Last Year: 8)

Clarkson was very inconsistent last season due to its youth. They had the talent and ability to beat anyone with wins against Penn State, North Dakota, and a sweep of Quinnipiac in the ECAC playoffs to reach Lake Placid. They also could lose to anyone though with losses to Canisius, RIT, and Alaska. After ending the year on a high note and with a lot of that young talent returning this season, they should make a move up the standings.

Key Losses: F Ryan Bottrill (36 points in 38 games), F Erik Bargholtz (20 points in 38 games), D Tristan Sarsland (16 points in 38 games), D Matthew Mayich (15 points in 34 games)

Key Returners: F Owen Van Steensel (25 points in 38 games), F Remi Gelinas (21 points in 38 games), F Jared Mangan (20 points in 38 games), F Justin Cote (19 points in 38 games), D Tate Taylor (19 points in 37 games), D Ty Brassington (16 points in 38 games), F Jace Letourneau (13 points in 26 games), F Adrian Misaljevic (4 points in 6 games)

Key Newcomers: D Michael Craig (Robert Morris), D Axel Dufresne (QMJHL), G Ben Gaudreau (ECHL), F Sebastien Gervais (OHL), F Alex Pharand (OHL), F Hayden Reid (OHL), F Tyler Wallace (RPI), D Nikolas Young (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 5

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 5

Average Rank: 6

Freshmen

Total Rank: 7

Average Rank: 6

Transfer

Total Rank: 4 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 5 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 6

Defensemen Rank: 5

Total Offensive Rank: 5

Clarkson isn’t quite at the level to return to the NCAA tournament, but they will definitely be improved. The young talent returning this season is a big reason why. First, Van Steensel, Gelinas, and Cote all return after putting up 20+ points in their freshman year and should be mainstays in the top 6. Jared Mangan also had 20 points in his sophomore season and should join them in the top 6.

Outside of those 4, Luka Sukovic, Talon Sigurdson, and Jace Letourneau were all in the teens in points, and I expect all of them will slot into the lineup probably in 3rd line type of roles. Getting Adrian Misaljevic back healthy will be huge for Clarkson as well. He had 4 points in the first 6 games of the season before missing the rest of the year due to injury. If he had been healthy, he would be mentioned with the other 3 freshmen above, and I think he’s in line for a great year. On a similar note, I’m very curious where Mikael Huchette will fit in the lineup after he missed all of last season due to injury. He was pretty good in the QMJHL and USports before landing at Clarkson.

For the incoming forwards, they all project more as 3rd line or depth type of players, which is why their recruiting rankings are probably lower than you would expect. The best newcomer is Tyler Wallace coming in from RPI where he had 18 points last season. He will probably do about the same for Clarkson this season and should be somewhere in their middle 6. Gervais, Pharand, and Reid all project as pretty good bottom 6 players, and they will be competing with guys like Mael St-denis, Shawn O’Donnell, and Conyr Hellyer for spots in the lineup. Clarkson’s forward depth is excellent this season, and they have no shortage of options at the top, middle, and bottom of the lineup.

On the blue line, Clarkson does lose Tristan Sarsland who was excellent over the course of his career there, but they return Tate Taylor. Taylor will move up to the #1 role now that Sarsland has graduated, and I think he will do quite well there. Clarkson also returns Ty Brassington after he had 16 points last season.

While they also lost Matthew Mayich (who everyone in the hockey community is thinking of and praying for) after an excellent freshman year when he entered the portal and went to Arizona State, Clarkson did pretty well with who they bring in, which I think will help mitigate that loss on offense. Michael Craig transferred in from Robert Morris after 3 great years there and should immediately slide into the top 4. Nikolas Young had 42 points in 61 games in the USHL last season, which is excellent for a defenseman, and I think he will make an immediate impact. Axel Dufresne comes in from the QMJHL after 4 years there, and I also expect he will make an impact right away.

I really like the makeup of this Clarkson offense. There’s talent and depth at both forward and defense, and all the key contributors coming back were younger players who should still be on an upward trajectory.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 7

Defense will be the question mark with this Clarkson team. They fell from 2.23 goals against per game 2 years ago to 2.92 last year. The model is projecting them to be about the same this year overall.

The model has Mayich as a huge loss for the defense. Last season, he was the only defenseman who had a positive +/- rating, and it wasn’t very close. He had a +13 while the next highest was a -1. That discrepancy means that Clarkson is getting dinged a lot for that loss in addition to the loss of Sarsland. It honestly might be too harsh here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to not be an issue because of the quality defensemen Clarkson has coming in. I’m just explaining why the model sees it that way.

In net, the model is not totally sold either. It doesn’t have the goaltending as bad, but it’s not rated as good either. Shane Soderwall returns as the starter, but he only had a 0.905 SV% last season, which is below average for a starting goalie. I do think he was a little better than that indicates since he saved 2.92 goals above expected for the year, which was 38th in the country. He’s definitely not bad, but Clarkson will look for him to take a step to being above average.

Behind him, I’m not really sold either. If we’re being honest, any backup they have will be better than Keenan Rancier was last year, so it’s not a big deal. However, their backup will be Ben Gaudreau coming in from the ECHL. Gaudreau has played the past 2 seasons in the ECHL with a career 0.900 SV% at that level. While that’s not bad, it’s not good either, and it doesn’t really inspire confidence that he’s more than just a reliable backup, which is what the model rates him as. Maybe it’s wrong, but the NCAA is, on average, better than the ECHL.

Overall, Clarkson should be taking a jump up the standings this year with all the talented young players returning and plenty of depth. I really like the roster on paper. If the defense and goaltending can improve, then watch out. Even without that though, I personally think they end up higher than Union and get to 4th place in the league.

6. Harvard (Last Year: 6)

As I mentioned in my piece reviewing last season, Harvard did not take the step I was expecting due to their top players all regressing. This year, it’s hard to know what to make of them. As always, they have a lot of talent and a very good recruiting class. Ted Donato stepped down though. It’s already hard to know how that talent will fare given the struggles the past few seasons, and a new head coach just makes it that much tougher. With how close 4-6 are in the model, I could see them landing anywhere in that grouping.

Key Losses: F Philip Tresca (19 points in 30 games), F Casey Severo (18 points in 34 games), D Ryan Healey (12 points in 34 games), D Mason Langenbrunner (10 points in 32 games)

Key Returners: F Mick Thompson (27 points in 33 games), D Matthew Morden (20 points in 34 games), F Heikki Ruohonen (19 points in 28 games), F Richard Gallant (18 points in 34 games), D Lucas St. Louis (11 points in 33 games), G Ben Charette (0.910 SV%)

Key Newcomers: F Niles Benson (USHL), F Justin Graf (USHL), G Rudy Guimond (QMJHL), D Alex Huang (QMJHL), F Joseph Salandra (OHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 7

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 10

Average Rank: 2

Freshmen

Total Rank: 5

Average Rank: 2

Transfer

Total Rank: N/A

Average Rank: N/A

Overall

Forwards Rank: 5

Defensemen Rank: 8

Total Offensive Rank: 6

Harvard’s offense definitely has a higher ceiling than this if Rob Rassey can get the young players to progress more than they had been under Ted Donato. Mick Thompson returns as the leading scorer after a 27 point season, though he did have 32 points the year prior. Heikki Ruohonen was an excellent two way center as a freshman, and he should take a step forward this year and be Harvard’s top line center. Richard Gallant had 18 points as just an 18 year old freshman, and he should also take a step forward.

After those 3, there are some question marks at forward, but the talent is there to answer them. Ben MacDonald fell from 16 points to 10 points and battled injuries last season. If he can have a bounce back year, that would really help the offense. Harvard, on paper, is missing a second line center, and if MacDonald can fill that void, that would be huge. I also have my eyes on Michael Callow and Aidan Lane. Callow is talented, and he had a very good finish to last season after dealing with injuries most of the year. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a breakout year. Lane is even more talented, but he was very young as an 18 year old freshman last year. He also didn’t have a full year of junior hockey before enrolling, so it was always going to take him time to get acclimated to college hockey. I’m a big believer in his skill and upside.

For the freshmen, Niles Benson and Joseph Salandra project to be bottom 6 players to start. Justin Graf is one of the best incoming freshmen in the ECAC though. He had 55 points in 52 games in the USHL last year and was selected in the 4th round of the NHL draft. I expect he will earn a top 6 spot right away.

On the blue line, Matthew Morden returns as the #1 defenseman after a breakout year with 20 points and great defense to go with it. Harvard also returns Lucas St. Louis who has proven himself to be a solid top 4 defenseman. Alex Huang is the best incoming defenseman in the league by far after his 70 point season in the Q last year. He should play big minutes on the top pairing immediately.

I think Harvard’s biggest issue this season though is the depth on the blue line. After those 3, the next best defenseman is Drake Murray. While I don’t think he’s bad, he only played in 24 games last season, and I do not think he is top 4 quality. After him, it gets even worse. Donato Bracco really struggled as a freshman last year. He has a lot of talent coming from the NTDP, but he needs to make some major strides in order to be counted on consistently in the lineup. Lastly, I’m just not a believer at all in any of Sean Keohane, Matthew Biotti, James Mackey, or David Hejduk.

The writeup should make it clear why Harvard ranks where they do offensively. They have questions around their secondary scoring at forward, and they have issues with their defense corps after the top 3. The talent is there to be better than expected in those areas though, and it’ll be up to Rassey to get that performance out of them.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 6

Harvard should be solid defensively this season because of their goaltending even if their blue line is questionable. Everything I said about the defensemen in the offense section also pretty much applies here. I don’t have faith in any of the players outside of the top 3 barring Murray and Donato taking major leaps forward. This dings their defensive projection for the model.

However, the goaltending should be very good for Harvard this season. Ben Charette returns after two solid seasons with a 0.909 and 0.910 SV%, respectively. He can be a solid starter if relied upon. However, I actually think he’s going to get usurped this year. Harvard is bringing in Rudy Guimond from the QMJHL where he was outstanding the past two years. Two seasons ago, he had a 0.940 SV%, and last season, he had a 0.922 SV% while playing 50 games. This was the second best save percentage in the league, and the player in first only played 14 games. Based on his track record, I think he can beat out Charette and be among the top goalies in the league right away. This projected goaltending brings Harvard’s defensive projection back up to a solid level in spite of the defensemen.

Overall, Harvard definitely has the talent to end up higher than this. With the tight grouping of teams in the 4-6 range, they could find their way into the top 4. Where they land in the standings will come down to getting development from the players in the middle and bottom of the lineup to give some quality depth.

7. Colgate (Last Year: 7)

Colgate took an expected step back last season due to a lack of talent and poor defensive structure. This year looks to be about the same middle of the pack type of season. There appears to be limited secondary scoring, and the defense seems like it’ll struggle again.

Key Losses: F Simon Labelle (28 points in 37 games), D Michael Neumeier (23 points in 37 games), D Jacob Napier (11 points in 35 games)

Key Returners: D Isaiah Norlin (28 points in 37 games), F Ryan Sullivan (26 points in 36 games), F Max Nagel (26 points in 27 games), F Jack Brandt (18 points in 34 games), D Josh Niedermayer (10 points in 27 games), D Brett Merner (7 points in 18 games)

Key Newcomers: F Braiden Clark (OHL), D Nathan Larioza (BCHL), F Tobias Ohman (USHL), F Luke Shcherbyna (WHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 8

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 6

Average Rank: 9

Freshmen

Total Rank: 8

Average Rank: 8

Transfer

Total Rank: 7 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 9 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 9

Defensemen Rank: 6

Total Offensive Rank: 7

Colgate lost a couple of its top players, but they return enough that they should be decent offensively. They also were hurt last year with some injuries to key players, and having those players healthy will be helpful.

Simon Labelle graduated from the top of the lineup, but Max Nagel and Ryan Sullivan return after pretty good years with 26 points each. Nagel, in particular, should be excellent as he was producing at a point per game level but couldn’t play the full season due to injury.

There’s not much returning behind those two, however. Jack Brandt had 18 points, but he’s not the type of player that I see making a big step forward. Tyson Doucette and Easton Wainwright had okay freshmen years with 11 and 10 points, respectively, but they will need to take major jumps to help Colgate offensively.

There’s a trio of newcomers who look like solid pickups to varying degrees, but the issue is that they will likely be forced to play higher up in the lineup than they should be. Tobias Ohman is the best incoming player after he had nearly a point per game in the USHL last year. He’s a shifty and skilled player with the puck. However, I have questions about how his game will translate. He is absolutely tiny, and he could get pushed around in a physical league like the ECAC. The other two project as 3rd line type players. Braiden Clark left Providence and played for London in the OHL last year where he was just okay. He definitely has some talent, but his scoring track record the past couple of years has not been there. Luke Shcherbyna comes from the WHL where he had a good but not great year.

This lack of depth really hurts Colgate offensively, but they are helped a lot by having some capable puck movers on the back end, even after the departure of Michael Neumeier and Jacob Napier. Isaiah Norlin returns after he had 28 points in 37 games. He should make an All-ECAC team again this season. Josh Niedermayer is also back and should have an expanded role. He had 10 points in 27 games with 3rd pairing minutes. With top 4 minutes, I expect he’ll put up even more points. Having Brett Merner back healthy will be helpful too. He was on his way to a solid season last year, but he missed half the year due to injury.

Nathan Larioza could contribute as a freshman too. He had nearly a point per game in the BCHL last year, but he left midway through the year to go to the USHL. He wasn’t nearly as productive in the USHL, but I think with Colgate’s lack of depth after those top 3, he could earn some minutes right away.

It all comes out to an average offensive projection. The lack of secondary scoring and depth at forward is the big issue, but if they can find a few breakouts there, Colgate could be sneaky good offensively.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 8

Colgate will be weak again defensively, and they will likely be around the same ballpark as last season. Jacob Napier had the best defensive impacts on the team, and losing him definitely hurts. Funny enough, Neumeier’s loss actually helps the defense in the eyes of the model because his defensive impacts were terrible. He was a -28 in 37 games last year, and he handedly was losing his minutes. I don’t actually think he’s addition by subtraction, but the model doesn’t have a way to determine that. Luke Malboeuf had solid results in his depth minutes as a reliable, stay-at-home defenseman. It all evens out to be about the same defensively.

In net, there are major question marks. Reid Dyck returns, but he struggled as the starter last year with a 0.897 SV%. He saved -2.9 goals above expected on the season, which was 110th in the country. Colgate was supposed to bring in NHL draft pick Matthew Minchak, but he ended up going back to the OHL. They had to replace him with a walk-on type in net, so they also don’t have depth at the position and will be forced to rely on Dyck.

Overall, Colgate’s offense will have to be the strength of the team, but with the lack of depth up front, it will be tough in that department unless the blue line can really carry the load. The defense doesn’t look to have much hope barring a lot of improvement from the returning defensemen or Dyck performing much better than last year. Personally, I’d have Colgate a little lower than this with their question marks.

8. Princeton (Last Year: 4)

Princeton came out of nowhere last year to make a huge leap up the standings on the back of a veteran lineup with lots of development from those players. It was a great team, but nearly all the best players were seniors and have now graduated. While there is some returning talent, the drop off is quick and steep, and there does not appear to be enough talent to keep Princeton that high in the league.

Key Losses: F David Jacobs (36 points in 34 games), F Jaxson Ezman (26 points in 34 games), F Brendan Gorman (22 points in 34 games), D Tyler Rubin (16 points in 30 games), D Nick Marciano (11 points in 34 games)

Key Returners: F Kai Daniells (39 points in 34 games), F Jake Manfre (26 points in 34 games), D Kai Greaves (14 points in 34 games), G Arthur Smith (0.913 SV%)

Key Newcomers: F Jake Gudelj (WHL), F Shaan Kingwell (OHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 10

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 12

Average Rank: 12

Freshmen

Total Rank: 12

Average Rank: 12

Transfer

Total Rank: N/A

Average Rank: N/A

Overall

Forwards Rank: 12

Defensemen Rank: 12

Total Offensive Rank: 12

Princeton lost nearly all of its talent with only the 10th most returning scoring in the league. They lose half of their top 6 with Jacobs, Ezman, and Gorman all gone after pretty good years. On the blue line, they lose 4 of their top 5 scoring defensemen. That’s a lot of key players to lose.

There are a few really good players returning. Kai Daniells was one of the most dangerous forwards in the league last season, and he will have to lead the offense again in his senior year. Jake Manfre broke out with 26 points, and he’s a very good player who will have to score a lot as well.

The issue is that the drop off after those two is absolutely massive. The next best forward is Julian Facchinelli who only had 10 points last season. Going from 26 points to 10 for the 2nd best forward to the 3rd best forward is very bad and shows a lack of scoring throughout the lineup. Fachinelli and Luc Pelletier, who had 11 points last season, will have to take huge steps forward in order for Princeton to have enough firepower offensively.

The only two incoming freshmen at forward are Jake Gudelj and Shaan Kingwell. Gudelj had a solid year in the WHL last year, but he projects as a bottom 6 type player to start. Kingwell had a similar year in the OHL and has the same projection. They will both have to play higher up in the lineup though. Kingwell has some potential in my opinion. He’s only 19, and Princeton is bringing him in a year early. He’ll have the opportunity to earn a key role right away though and fast-track his development.

On the blue line, Kai Greaves returns after posting excellent two way results last year in the top 4. He will be their top defenseman. After him though, there’s absolutely nothing offensively. Ian Devlin had 5 points last year, and Chris Reiniger had 4 points. None of the incoming freshmen defensemen have any track record of production in junior, even though there are 4 newcomers. Barring some offensive breakouts there, the defensemen can’t really be counted on offensively.

The offensive picture for Princeton is pretty destitute. Outside of the top 3 players, there’s practically no scoring projected, and it’s going to be tough for them. Even with a bunch of breakouts, I can’t see them getting anywhere close to the offense they had last year.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 4

The defense, however, looks very good, and it will keep Princeton competitive this season. Even though they lose Rubin who had excellent defensive impacts, Marciano and Ma didn’t have great defensive impacts. Greaves was very good defensively and so was Ian Devlin. Devlin was pretty good in limited minutes last year, and he should play a larger role this season.

Even though the incoming freshmen don’t have much offense, they all profile as stay-at-home defensemen, which will presumably help as well even though that’s not factored into the model.

The cherry on top is returning goalie Arthur Smith. Smith finally broke out last season with a 0.913 SV%, and he returns for his senior year where he will be the clear #1 in net. They will need him to deliver a similar performance with the lack of run support they’ll have, and I expect he will. I’m pretty confident that with the returning defensemen, Smith, and Ben Syer’s defensive system that Princeton will remain very good defensively this year.

Overall, Princeton is going to be playing a lot of low event and low scoring games this year. They have the worst projected offense due to the lack of returning scoring and the league’s worst recruiting class. However, their defense should be pretty good, and I think that’ll stop them from slipping all the way to the bottom 4. Placing them 8th feels right.

9. RPI (Last Year: 9)

RPI enters year 2 of its rebuild under Eric Lang with an extremely young roster that will see lots of freshmen getting minutes right away. There was lots of roster turnover this offseason as the staff looked to bring in their guys. The model has them staying in 9th due to the youth, but I think they will finish a little higher than that after bringing in the top freshman class in the league per both Neutral Zone and Puck Preps.

Key Losses: F Luciano Wilson (22 points in 34 games), F Tyler Wallace (18 points in 35 games)

Key Returners: D Thomas Klassek (18 points in 34 games), F Filip Sitar (17 points in 35 games), F Rainers Rullers (16 points in 35 games), D Kazimier Sobieski (12 points in 35 games), G Nate Krawchuk (0.909 SV%)

Key Newcomers: D Grayson Burzynski (WHL), F Jordan Gavin (WHL), F Luke Goukler (USHL), D James Guo (OHL), F Caleb Hadland (WHL), F Harrison Lodewyk (WHL), G Ethan McCallum (WHL), D Ryan Michael (WHL), D Simon Motew (Maine), F Brendan Ross (Providence), F Leo Serlin (OHL), F Ben Yurchuk (Merrimack)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 11

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 1

Average Rank: 7

Freshmen

Total Rank: 1

Average Rank: 7

Transfer

Total Rank: 2 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 6 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 10

Defensemen Rank: 7

Total Offensive Rank: 9

RPI only loses two key players at the top of the forward lineup. The reason they only have the 10th most returning scoring is because they largely turned over the bottom of the roster to make room for all the incoming freshmen. For the key returners at forward, Filip Sitar and Rainers Rullers are both young, two way centers who should take a step forward this year offensively, but right now, they only project to score at middle 6 rates. RPI will need more improvement than that.

The high quality recruiting class will likely fill in most of the forward lineup. The model has these recruits ranked lower than Neutral Zone or Puck Preps because the vast majority of the recruiting class is from the WHL, and the production of WHL players last year didn’t translate as well as the other CHL leagues. As a result, I think that a lot of these freshmen are likely underrated by the model, and I think they will perform more in-line with the Neutral Zone ratings, which are based on in-person viewings. The recruiting would also have rated even better if Shane Smith and Josh Evaschesen didn’t defect at the last minute in August.

For those incoming forwards, Brendan Ross and Ben Yurchuk come in from the portal after not getting much ice time at Hockey East schools. Ross had a good freshman year at Alaska, and he was one of the top players in the AJHL before college. He should rebound and play a much bigger role for RPI than at Providence where he struggled to crack the lineup. Yurchuk was good in the USHL prior to going to Merrimack and should also see a bigger role for RPI.

The freshmen all look solid as well. Jordan Gavin is the former #2 overall pick in the WHL draft, and he comes to RPI after putting up 58 points last season. He’s in line for the top 6 right away. Luke Goukler had 31 points in the USHL last year, and he should make an immediate impact on the 3rd or 4th line. Caleb Hadland was another former first round WHL pick, and he had 44 points last season and will be an immediate contributor. Harrison Lodewyk should contribute in the bottom 6 after having 40 points in the WHL. Lastly, Leo Serlin had 41 points in the OHL last year, and he also looks like he can contribute in the bottom 6.

The issue with RPI’s forward group is that there’s a ton of depth, but there is pretty much no high end talent right now. The returners I mentioned plus Jagger Tapper, Ian Scherzer and Matthew Buckley all look like middle 6 type players. None of the freshmen really project to be studs right away (Evaschesen and Smith would have really helped here), so even though there’s a lot of quantity there, the quality isn’t high enough.

The blue looks better with some good puck movers. All-ECAC Rookie team defenseman Thomas Klassek returns and should build upon that season at the top of the lineup. Kazimier Sobieski also returns and has some good offensive abilities.

The recruiting class also looks excellent on the defensive side and will add much needed support for those two. Starting with Grayson Burzynski, he was one of the top defensemen in the WHL last season with 58 points in 59 games and will immediately play a big role in the top 4. He is one of the top incoming freshmen in the entire league. James Guo had a very good year in the OHL and also looks capable of playing top 4 minutes right off the bat. Simon Motew barely played last season at Maine, but he had a good track record of play in the OHL and USports prior to Maine. He should provide some steadiness on the 3rd pairing. Lastly, Ryan Michael had 33 points in the WHL last season, and he is also capable of contributing offensively.

Overall, RPI is just a young team with a lot of talent that looks kind of similar to Clarkson last year in some ways. They will have a lot of freshmen playing key roles right away, and they have a ton of offensive depth that they can roll out. If some of their younger players can breakout or any of the freshmen take the ice time and produce a lot, RPI could do some damage.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 9

Since RPI turned over nearly its entire defense corps, they rate on the lower end here too. RPI actually has the least returning defensive impacts in the league, which is what keeps their projection low. Sobieski struggled defensively last season in #1 minutes that he probably was not quite ready for yet. Klassek faired a little better but wasn’t anything to write home about defensively either.

The defensive decline projected from all that talent gets balanced out by the goaltending room, which projects to be quite strong. Nate Krawchuk returns after a good freshman year with a 0.909 SV%, and he finished the season playing absolutely lights out. He projects to be the starter in net once again.

However, he will be pushed by Ethan McCallum who the model likes a lot. McCallum had a 0.907 SV% in the WHL last season, which was 6th in the league. He should be a very good college goalie, and he is capable of beating out Krawchuk although he will probably start out as the #2. If he is the backup, he’s a luxury to have as the #2. This is definitely one of the better goaltending rooms in the league.

Overall, I think RPI finishes a bit higher than this. I already mentioned how I think the model is a little low on the recruiting class due to the WHL translation from last season. I also think it’s a bit low on the defensive side. Even though RPI lost the most from their back end among all teams in the league, the reason for that was they were turning over their roster, and the defensemen they bring in are better than the ones who left. With the youth on the roster, I don’t think they’ll be in the top 6, but I foresee a similar season as Clarkson last year. The talented and young roster will probably be inconsistent with ups and downs, but they will be playing their best hockey at the end of the year and a tough out in the playoffs despite being a lower seed.

10. Yale (Last Year: 10)

Yale enters year 1 of the Jeff Hamilton era with some young offensive talent but a pretty bad defense, which is what keeps their projection low. I don’t think it’s out of the question that Yale outperforms this if they can find good goaltending and better defense, but it’ll be tough to do that under an entirely new staff.

Key Losses: F David Chen (24 points in 31 games), F Tyler Wallace (18 points in 35 games)

Key Returners: F Ronan O’Donnell (23 points in 28 games), F Donovan Frias (21 points in 31 games), F Micah Berger (18 points in 31 games), F Iisai Pesonen (13 points in 28 games), D Rhys Bentham (11 points in 31 games)

Key Newcomers: F Alex Assadourian (OHL), F Kyle O’Leary (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 4

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 11

Average Rank: 11

Freshmen

Total Rank: 11

Average Rank: 11

Transfer

Total Rank: N/A

Average Rank: N/A

Overall

Forwards Rank: 8

Defensemen Rank: 9

Total Offensive Rank: 8

Yale only loses 2 out of its top 15 scorers and returns 84.3% of its point production, which is great and bodes well for its offense this year. Leading scorer David Chen did graduate, but the rest of the lineup returns.

Ronan O’Donnell had 23 points in 28 games last season, and he projects to be close to a point per game this season. He’s likely the best forward at the top of their lineup. Donovan Frias and Micah Berger are both good forwards too, and the three of them should give Yale a pretty dynamic top line.

After those three though, Yale will be relying on a bunch of players to take steps forward and provide more secondary scoring. David Andreychuk, Iisai Pesonen, James Shannon, Zach Wagnon, and Will Richter all had between 10 and 14 points last season. The model does project progression now, but they will have to outpace that projected improvement to give Yale enough secondary scoring.

There’s only 2 freshmen expected to make immediate impacts, and they both have bottom 6 projections. Alex Assadourian had a solid year in the OHL, but he switched to the USHL mid-season and really struggled. Kyle O’Leary played the full year in the USHL and had a solid year with 33 points. With all the returning forwards, I don’t expect either will be super high in the lineup.

On the blue line, Rhys Bentham returns as the top defenseman after 11 points in 31 games last year. Hughie Hooker had 9 points in only 26 games, and Owen Forester had 8 points in only 24 games. Both of them will have to up their games in bigger roles. All 3 need to produce more as the top defensemen in the lineup. Dylan Hunt could also take a step forward after 8 points in 31 games as a freshman.

Despite all the returners, Yale still is about average in their offensive projection. The lack of secondary scoring is the biggest factor, and the players I listed will all need to step up. The other main issue is there are no real high scorers in defense corps despite having some solid players back there. If the returning players can develop on that end too, Yale would be in good shape. Those are two question marks though.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 11

Despite the offense having a decent outlook, the projected defensive performance keeps Yale pretty low in the projections. Yale was awful defensively last season, allowing 3.71 goals per game, and they don’t project to be much better this year.

Only Owen Forester had a positive defensive impact on the blue line last year. Most of the returners were in the negatives in +/-, and I’m not sure how much improvement can be counted on there. If all these returning players can be more reliable defensively, which is a big if, Yale is still starting from such a low spot on defense that it wouldn’t rise enough to make them a competitive team.

The bigger issue is in net. The top two goalies are Noah Pak and Jack Stark, and neither can be counted on to be the #1. Starting with Pak, he has the higher model projection because he wasn’t totally awful last year, but he still only had a 0.902 SV%. His freshman year, he had a 0.872 SV%. Stark was great as a freshman with a 0.919 SV%, but he has been awful since that year. Last year, he had a 0.871 SV% and was among the worst goaltenders in the country. This is one of the worst goaltending rooms in the league, and the defensive projection reflects that.

Overall, Yale is probably one of the most likely teams to outperform their projection due to the sheer number of returners. If their players can take big steps forward to improve their offensive depth and defensive capabilities, they can compete for home ice. It would need to be big steps though, and I’m just not sure they have that in them.

11. Brown (Last Year: 12)

Another Ivy with a new coach at the helm, Brown lost all of their best players this offseason during the coaching change. Tom Upton arrives in Providence looking to rebuild Brown the same way Reid Cashman has rebuilt Dartmouth. They don’t have the talent to be competitive this year, but the model projects the defense to be good enough to keep them out of the basement.

Key Losses: F Ivan Zadvernyuk (22 points in 30 games), F Ryan St. Louis (15 points in 30 games), D Matthew Desiderio (12 points in 31 games)

Key Returners: F Ben Poitras (18 points in 31 games), F Andrew King (11 points in 20 games), D Ethan Mistry (6 points in 31 games)

Key Newcomers: F Matteo Danis (WHL), F Cullen Emery (USHL), F Griffin Erdman (Northeastern), D Marco Senerchia (USHL), G Devin Shakar (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 12

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 9

Average Rank: 10

Freshmen

Total Rank: 9

Average Rank: 10

Transfer

Total Rank: 6 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 8 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 11

Defensemen Rank: 11

Total Offensive Rank: 11

Brown’s lack of talent jumps out right away when the top projected forward only had 18 points last year. While Poitras is a good player who excites with his speed and skill, it is worrisome when a player of that level is the top forward on the roster. Behind him, Andrew King returns after showing some productivity in a limited role last year. It might have been an aberration given his lack of scoring in junior, but hopefully for Brown’s sake, it was not. Brian Nicholas is another key returner. As a freshman, he had 25 points in 28 games, but he really struggled last year with only 13 points in 31 games. Brown really needs a bounce back from him.

Brown does have some good incoming players who will help out their scoring. Griffin Erdman has the best projection after scoring 15 points in limited ice time with Northeastern last season. With a much larger role at Brown, he should be pretty good in the top 6. Matteo Danis had nearly a point per game in the WHL, and while he projects as more of a middle 6 type to start, he will likely play in Brown’s top 6. Lastly, Cullen Emery had a good year in the USHL and is a well-rounded forward who should make an impact on the 3rd line.

On the blue line, there’s really no offense to speak of after Desiderio and Pineau transferred out. The top offensive projection among all the defensemen on the roster belongs to Marco Senerchia who had a solid year in the USHL (but not anything to write home about), and he’s projected for only 8 points. Similar to the forwards, if your top offensive defenseman is only projected for 8 points, it’s going to be a difficult time scoring. The rest of them are either stay-at-home types or just don’t really have a whole lot of skill.

There’s just overall a general lack of talent across the roster, and it’s tough to see Brown scoring a lot. There’s some players with potential at the top of the forward lineup. Upton will have to develop those guys as his foundation and then add a lot of talent to the roster in the coming years as he begins his rebuild.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 10

Brown has some big question marks defensively as well. Ironically, the model has them improving on that side after losing Desiderio and Pineau. The two of them had a -20 and -18 rating, respectively, both the two worst on the team. Since those defensive impacts were pretty horrendous, the model views it as addition by subtraction. Even though the case was likely just that they were out of their depth with the quantity and difficulty of their minutes, those are still really bad results.

Ethan Mistry returns as the top defender on the roster. He has consistently posted good defensive results at Brown despite contributing little offensively. This season, he should continue to do well there for Brown, and I expect he will also take on a bigger load with Desiderio and Pineau gone.

The goaltending is another big question mark for Brown. Freddie Halyk returns after losing the starting role last year to Tyler Shea. He struggled a lot with a 0.881 SV%, but prior to Brown, he had some decent results at Denver. Can he get back to that level? We’ll have to see. The model doesn’t really believe in him after last year.

Brown also brought in Eli Pulver from the transfer portal after he really struggled at Wisconsin last season. He had a 0.867 SV% in 12 games there, but before going to college, he was excellent in the BCHL. He had a 0.923 SV% in his BCHL career with nearly 100 games played. There’s clearly some potential there although skepticism is certainly warranted.

Lastly, the goalie with the highest model projection is actually incoming freshman Devin Shakar. While his projection isn’t very good, he was okay in the USHL last year, especially given his situation. He had a 0.888 SV% with the Omaha Lancers, one of the worst teams in the league. They had an incredibly leaky defense, allowing more than 34 shots against per game. All things considered, he didn’t do too bad, but he still projects more as a reliable backup than a starting level goalie.

Overall, Brown’s talent will hold them back, but their defense should be enough to keep them out of the basement. If the blue line can improve in terms of how much they give up, and Brown can find an answer in net between those 3 goalies, they can outperform this ranking. I still can’t see them getting higher than 9th though at the absolute highest.

12. St. Lawrence (Last Year: 11)

St. Lawrence has a lot of young returning talent to build off of after another year in the bottom 4. However, the defense was the worst in the country last season, and they are running back the same goaltending group and most of the same defense corps. The defense is again projected to be very bad as a result and is the reason they’re projected for last.

Key Losses: F Tyler Cristall (31 points in 34 games), F Rasmus Svartstrom (24 points in 34 games)

Key Returners: F Cayden Casey (24 points in 35 games), F Cooper Pierson (20 points in 34 games), F Filip Juricek (18 points in 35 games), F Sam LeDrew (18 points in 32 games), F Isaac Tremblay (16 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: F James Fisher (Northeastern), F Ihnat Pazii (OHL), F Luke Posthumus (OHL), F Jake Rozzi (Ohio State), F Owen Tylec (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 9

Recruiting

Overall

Total Rank: 8

Average Rank: 8

Freshmen

Total Rank: 10

Average Rank: 9

Transfer

Total Rank: 5 (out of 9)

Average Rank: 7 (out of 9)

Overall

Forwards Rank: 7

Defensemen Rank: 10

Total Offensive Rank: 10

Despite losing Tyler Cristall and Rasmus Svartstrom, St. Lawrence actually has a pretty solid forward group due to tons of players returning from last year’s team. They return 8 out of the top 10 scorers and 12 out of the top 15.

Cayden Casey returns as the top line center after a 24 point season last year. Cooper Pierson, Filip Juricek, and Sam LeDrew all return for their sophomore years. They all had very good freshman years with between 18 and 20 points. Isaac Tremblay had 16 points last year and should play a role in the middle 6. Those players all project to be pretty solid. After those players, there’s also a bunch of depth players returning too.

Those players make up the core of the lineup, but there’s a few good newcomers that will play key roles too. Jake Rozzi had 12 points at Ohio State as a freshman before fighting injuries last year and only getting 10 games. He should have an expanded role at SLU, and he has a good track record going back to the USHL. I think he will end up playing in their top 6. Luke Posthumus comes in after a very good year in the OHL with 57 points. He projects to make an immediate impact in the middle 6. Lastly, Ihnat Pazii and James Fisher both have bottom 6 projections, which helps add to the forward depth of the group. Add it all up, and SLU has a pretty decent forward group with some good top 6 players and some depth too.

The blue line is where their offensive projection gets hurt though. They return their entire top 4, but none of those players surpassed 8 points. The good thing is that 3 of them were freshmen, so if those players can take big leaps forward, St. Lawrence’s offense could be getting underrated by the model. None of the incoming defensemen have good offensive projections either. The best one is William-Charles Bishop who transferred in from Clarkson. With an increased role, he could provide more offense than he did at Clarkson, but he’s right in line with the others.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 12

The defense is again expected to be one of the worst in the country, which is why SLU falls below Brown in the projections. While they do return the entire top 4, they lose Babbage and Bandu whose defensive impacts were better than the rest of the team (even though they still weren’t good). That hurts them since the top 4 all had very poor defensive impacts with 3 of them at -15 or worse on the season.

St. Lawrence is projected to have weak goaltending too. Cameron Smith returns after he had a 0.903 SV% last year and took hold of the starting job. Even factoring in the defensive struggles though, that’s still a bad mark for a starter. They should improve simply by starting him in the majority of games because Mason Kucenski was one of the worst goalies in the country last year. Smith isn’t good enough though for that to drastically improve their defense. They will need the defensemen to take big leaps in terms of their ability to prevent chances.

Overall, St. Lawrence’s offense will probably be below average, but it has the potential to surprise if the defensemen take larger steps forward. Since the team was so young last year, they also could all improve a lot more across the board than the model is giving credit for. The defense will have to improve drastically in order to compete for home ice though. I think the model is a little low on SLU here given how young they were last year and how their offensive ceiling is definitely higher than Brown’s. I feel like they have a wider range than the other teams down this low in the standings because they have more offensive talent and depth. It’ll be interesting to see where they end up.

Final Model Rankings

1. Quinnipiac

2. Dartmouth

3. Cornell

4. Union

5. Clarkson

6. Harvard

7. Colgate

8. Princeton

9. RPI

10. Yale

11. Brown

12. St. Lawrence

My Rankings

1. Quinnipiac

2. Dartmouth

3. Cornell

4. Clarkson

5. Harvard

6. Union

7. RPI

8. Princeton

9. Colgate

10. Yale

11. St. Lawrence

12. Brown

Model Tiers

Quinnipiac
————————-
Dartmouth
Cornell
————————-
Union
Clarkson
Harvard
————————-
Colgate
Princeton
RPI
————————-
Yale
Brown
St. Lawrence

All-League Predictions

1st Team

Jr F Hayden Stavroff, Dartmouth

Sr F Kai Daniells, Princeton

So F Ethan Wyttenbach, Quinnipiac

Sr D Tyler Dunbar, Union

So D Xavier Veilleux, Cornell

Sr G Emmett Croteau, Dartmouth

2nd Team

So F Antonin Verreault, Quinnipiac

Jr F Hank Cleaves, Dartmouth

Jr F Chris Pelosi, Quinnipiac

Jr D Isaiah Norlin, Colgate

Sr D CJ Foley, Dartmouth

Jr G Rorke Applebee, Quinnipiac

3rd Team

So F Caton Ryan, Cornell

Sr F Ryan Walsh, Cornell

Jr F Max Nagel, Colgate

Sr D Matthew Morden, Harvard

Jr D Elliot Groenewold, Quinnipiac

Sr G Arthur Smith, Princeton

All-Rookie Team

F Drew Stewart, Dartmouth

F Justin Graf, Harvard

F Luke Garry, Union

D Alex Huang, Harvard

D Grayson Burzynski, RPI

G Rudy Guimond, Harvard

Awards

Player of the Year: So F Ethan Wyttenbach, Quinnipiac

Goalie of the Year: Sr G Emmett Croteau, Dartmouth

Rookie of the Year: Fr D Alex Huang, Harvard

Thanks for reading! I’m excited for the season to begin this week, and we’ll be able to start seeing how the ECAC does in non-conference play!

You may not see a younger defensive unit in all of the ECAC next year, but that may turn out to be the best possible thing for RPI as a program. As Trevor Russell, Gunnar VanDamme, Gustavs Ozolins, Jimmy Goffredo, Lucas Lemieux, and Matthew Jovanovic headed for the door, there was a mountain of playing time up for grabs. It’s hard to argue that the writing wasn’t on the wall, as the staff lined up 3 blue-chip recruits who couldn’t return to juniors and would surely be expecting to play immediately. These three talented freshmen — Burzynski, Michael, and Guo — will join last year’s standouts Kaz Sobieski and Thomas Klassek to form the core of the Engineer D in 2026-27. Three right-shot defensemen, Landen Hilditch, Simon Motew from Maine, and Logan Heroux from Ferris State, and late summer add Guerin Slezak, will round out the core and likely vie for the final regular spot. The group is young, but incredibly talented with a chance to be the real driving force for success over the coming years.

Standout Returners: Kaz Sobieski and Thomas Klassek

From night one of last year’s regular season, Sobieski and Klassek firmly planted themselves on the top pairs and were the catalysts of the Engineers’ unit. It was very important to retain them both as they are each on a path to being all-league caliber players. Klassek made the ECAC all-rookie team with an offensive onslaught in February, where he was defender of the month. He deserves a lot of credit for coming right to the NCAA without a stop in North American juniors, as the transition is often pretty difficult. It seemed like the American game started to slow down for him in the 2nd half, hopefully inspiring confidence in him that will carry over this fall.

Sobieski’s overall offensive output ended up trailing Klassek’s just barely, but he was more heavily relied upon and generally the more dependable one. Kaz had the best all-around numbers of RPI’s defensemen last year by a wide margin and found his rhythm in college hockey. I expect him to quarterback the top PP unit once again and find himself firmly on the top pairing again. Now Sobieski and Klassek didn’t pair together, presumably because they are both offensively minded and better complemented by other players. Whether this will be the case again remains to be seen, but frankly I’m not sure it matters much. Make no mistake about it, these two will make this unit go and be the ones RPI has to lean on for leadership and stability.

Freshman Re-Enforcements: Grayson Burzynski, Ryan Michael, James Guo & Guerin Slezak

Coach Lang once quoted an old college hockey adage to us on one of our podcasts, saying “The best time to play a freshman defenseman is when he is a sophomore.” Well, given that he has 9 defensemen right now and 4 are freshman, that’s going to be hard to go through on. While Coach’s joke holds equal parts truth as it does humor, he’s not bringing these three CHL guys in to play immediately without a reason for it. All three players are very, very talented recruits, rated 4-stars or better by Neutral Zone, each with over 150 games of CHL experience. The blueprint is simple: Expedite their development to build an elite defensive unit in the 2-3 years that follow.

Grayson Burzynski is one of the 3 Brandon Wheat Kings coming from Western Canada to Troy. He has a case for the most prolific defensive recruit in the past decade, which I don’t say lightly. His 4.25-star Neutral Zone rating is the best of the class and it’s reasonable to project him onto that top pair with Sobieski. He has the size, skill, and IQ to make a big difference for RPI once he is acclimated to the college game.

James Guo has a unique calling card as he comes to RPI. As we’ve covered prior, Guo’s team in Saginaw went to the 2024 Memorial Cup finals with NHLers Michael Misa and Zayne Parekh on the roster. The OHL is historically a better league and its players translated the best production wise in year 1 of the NCAA’s CHL inclusion. This boosts Guo’s stock a bit, which was plenty high already given the caliber of his past 2 seasons (73 points in 125 games). I think his two-way game will translate extremely well and he has a real case for top-4 minutes right away.

Ryan Michael is probably the most adept defender of the group, known for his IQ and penalty killing prowess. Michael put together a really solid offensive season though with 3-30-33 in 67GP this year. He was a multi-year captain player in the WHL and certainly has that “hard skill” that Lang covets. I have no concerns about his game translating and think that RPI only carrying 3 left-shot defensemen tells you everything you need to know about how they feel about him.

Guerin Slezak was a mid-summer add and figures to play a depth role in year 1. Slezak missed all of last season with injury after captaining Cedar Rapids of the USHL the year prior. He’s a defensive specialist and has potential as he gets back to health but probably finds himself behind a few guys on the depth chart to start.

Right-Side Depth: Simon Motew, Landen Hilditch, and Logan Heroux

I think Simon Motew will earn the final spot on the right side to open the season. Motew played sparingly at Maine last year but posted very good years in USports and the OHL before. It’s unclear what happened at Maine, maybe the competition jump was just too much. But Motew has some pedigree, and with a year of NCAA experience now, he looks poised for a breakout at RPI.

Logan Heroux comes over from Ferris State for a change of scenery and chance to earn a bigger role. Heroux’s production dropped off from his promising freshman year, and he’ll be looking to regain that form at RPI. He does bring a lot of game experience to a very young group, which will help his case for playing time.

Last is Landen Hilditch, who played very well in February when Trevor Russell went down last season. Hilditch plays a steady yet unexciting game and by all accounts is an excellent leader. I think you know what you’re getting with Landen, he’s going to give you some size, physicality, and reliability when he plays. He’s got some competition on the right side but figures to get a good bit of run in a 3rd-pair role.

The Engineers have a really promising defensive core that could develop into something very special. We talk about the Quinnipiac model and how Eric Lang built his best AIC teams with great puck-moving defensemen. This is the group of guys he has handpicked to do it with, and while there might be growing pains with the youth, I think they’re going to get really good. We’re less than 2 weeks from having hockey. Let’s go red.

When I decided I was going to model player progression for my ECAC prediction model, I had to choose the proper way to do that.

Age curves are nothing new to hockey. From fans arguing that their career bottom 6 forward can breakout at age 26 to Dom Luszczyszyn’s fantastic work applying it to his projection models, it’s a constant debate of trying to correctly predict how players will perform in the future.

College hockey doesn’t have anything like that, not yet at least, with its niche (but awesome, I must add) fan interest and a lack of data available publicly. The general thought has always been that rising sophomores will improve the most with that improvement gradually dropping as the years go on. That’s definitely true generally. When it came to trying to model it though, I thought that I could do better than just going based off of class year by using the player’s actual age. That’s how the NHL age curves work, and it’s more specific. I figured it would be more accurate to say that an 18 year old freshman moving to his sophomore year would improve more than a 21 year old freshman.

I decided to move forward with that theory for modeling player progression and figured I could mess around with various options if it didn’t look good. However, those other options were not necessary at all as the age-based progression turned out to be very clean data.

I used the past 4 years of data from 2022-26. I’ll just explain the data a bit before breaking it down. First, age is defined by a player’s birth year and is based on the start of the season. A 17 year old for this upcoming season would be any ‘09, an 18 year old is any ‘08, etc. Second, I only included players who played in NCAA D1 at both ages in the data. Points per game difference is the average change in points per game from year 1 to year 2 at those ages. The percentage difference is just turning that into a ratio by dividing year 2 by year 1. Lastly, the final 2 rows are not really relevant. Assuming no redshirts or extra years, even an overager starting at 21 years old would end their career at 24 years old. The only reason those two rows even have data is from COVID granting everyone an extra year of eligibility. The 24→25 row is basically exclusively players who started college at 21 years old who decided to play a 5th year instead of going pro. The 25→26 row has a sample size of two players who only got 6 years because they had a redshirt year, and then, they had the COVID year on top of that.

For the data itself though, it works out extremely neatly, much more than I thought would. To me, that validates using age for progression rather than the class year. Unsurprisingly, the younger the player is the more they improve in point production from year to year. The improvement is also pretty moderate in general. While there are certainly numerous players who take huge leaps forward, a player is only going to improve by a few points a year on average. Those big leaps forward get averaged out by the players who regress and don’t produce as much.

One thing I wonder if the data would show is if the improvement is different for different tiers of players. In other words, I think elite players would probably show much more improvement than a middle of the lineup player, and a middle of the lineup player would show more improvement than a bottom of the lineup or depth player. For now, I think this is good enough to use as a simple model for my ECAC projections. In the future though, I will probably do something like that to further improve.

That’s all I’ve got for you; I wanted to keep this one pretty short!

Ever since I started following college hockey, I’ve witnessed numerous rebuilds executed by great coaches. Starting from a low point, they manage to build up their programs with incremental gains every year until reaching varying levels of relevancy. These rebuilds all follow essentially the same pattern for the first 5 years:

Year 1 - suck

Year 2 - turn over the roster and the coach brings in “his guys”, improved team but inconsistent (and usually young)

Year 3 - first year of being good and competitive

Year 4 - a bit of stagnation but still a good and competitive team

Year 5 - the peak

Sometimes years 4 and 5 are reversed, but that’s the general pattern. There’s numerous programs in the past decade with new coaching hires who have generally followed this pattern, and we’ll be going over their results to show the type of season to expect from RPI. First, here’s our examples that we’ll be using as a baseline:

Atlantic Hockey

Bentley (2023-Present), Andy Jones

Holy Cross (2021-2026), Bill Riga

AIC (2016-2021), Eric Lang

CCHA

Augustana (2023-Present), Garrett Raboin

St. Thomas (2021-2026), Rico Blasi

ECAC

Dartmouth (2021-2026), Reid Cashman

Princeton (2024-Present), Ben Syer

RPI (2017-2020), Dave Smith (including first 3 years before COVID derailed the rebuild)

Union (2022-Present), Josh Hauge

Hockey East

Maine (2021-2026), Ben Barr

UMass (2016-2021), Greg Carvel

Merrimack (2018-2023), Scott Borek

Independent

LIU (2020-2025), Brett Riley

NCHC

Miami (2024-Present), Anthony Noreen

Now, let’s start breaking down the numbers and metrics. I’ll also be discussing the progression of the programs to try to contextualize the numbers as best I can.

Wins

First, the simplest metric: wins. How many games did the program win in year 2 of the new head coach? One thing that I’ll also be including though is the improvement from year 1 to year 2 in addition to the raw number.

I think the improvement is arguably just as useful as the raw win total. While all of these rebuilds started from a low point, there is still a lot of variance in that starting point. Some of the ones included were starting from absolutely nothing and were among the worst teams in the country year 1. Others had a little bit more to work with, so they weren’t totally horrible year 1. That context matters.

On average, the programs improved by 6 in the win column and finished with 14 wins. Eric Lang’s AIC rebuild was a little higher than that at 7 wins improvement and 15 wins. This rebuild is an important one to look at specifically for context because he is bringing a similar blueprint from AIC over to RPI.

One interesting thing about the data is that the ECAC programs didn’t tend to do as well. Dartmouth is actually the only program that managed a worse 2nd year than 1st year. Even without them included though, the average would be only 4 wins of improvement. I don’t think this is really indicative of a trend showing that ECAC programs are tougher to rebuild though because Princeton and Union were two of the programs who were starting from a higher place with double digit year 1 wins.

The best programs from year 1 to year 2 were Miami, UMass, and Maine with 15, 12 and 8 wins of improvement, respectively. Those would be the high end standard, but they are unlikely to be replicated by RPI this year.

Why do I say that? Well, my biggest takeaway from this data was that it’s a lot easier to have big win increases when you are starting from lower. The biggest increases came from programs with single digit wins in year 1. When you’re starting from practically nothing, there’s nowhere to go but up. Usually these teams are a bit below .500, but starting so low means that the lower programs improve more to get to that point.

Programs starting out with double digit wins would be getting to 20+ wins with that type of improvement, which just is not very realistic in year 2 of a rebuild, even though many got close to it. The programs who started out with double digit wins capped out at 7 wins of improvement with Bentley. They averaged 5.2 wins of improvement.

Standings

Another good marker of improvement is how much the program is moving up in the conference standings. It helps place the program among its peers.

The average standings improvement was about 2 spots in the standings to 7th place. AIC moved up exactly that many spots in year 2 of Lang’s rebuild there and wound up in 8th. The best programs in this category once again included UMass and Maine, but Princeton also was right there with them with 5 spots of improvement. Once again, the ECAC was a little lower than average due to Dartmouth, but without Dartmouth, they’d be right in-line with the average.

I don’t have too much to add here. I think 4 or 5 spots of improvement is unrealistic. Anything below that is plenty realistic though and would be in line with the average.

Pairwise/NPI

This is the most valuable piece of data in my opinion. The Pairwise (formerly) and NPI (now) both are rating systems that factor in strength of schedule alongside a team’s results in order to determine the NCAA tournament field. That makes it the best data point to use in terms of where the programs stood nationally.

The best programs here are all the same ones mentioned before (Miami, UMass, Maine, and Princeton) with Bentley also joining the list. These teams all rose a whopping 20+ spots in the rankings.

The average team wound up rising 12 spots and at around 40th in the rankings. At AIC, they improved 10 spots to 44th in the rankings. Rather than giving you my opinion just based on my data, I want to contextualize all these performances to paint a deeper picture.

Categorizing the Programs

Looking at the recruiting and roster construction of each of these programs for year 1 to year 2, each one clearly breaks into one of the following categories.

1. Big and high quality freshman class

2. Veteran laden team, either inherited or built through the portal

3. Big and not as high quality freshman class

4. Balanced

Pasted below is the recruiting and roster info of each program for year 2. The recruiting class rankings come from Neutral Zone, and I included both the overall ranking and the ranking based on the average star level. Then, you can also see how the roster was built based on the other columns. First, how many underclassmen (Freshmen and Sophomores) and upperclassmen (Juniors and Seniors) make up the top 5 scorers and top 10 scorers on the roster are included. Second, I include the year of the primary starter in net. Including the years of the key players on the roster gives you an idea of how young or old it was, and I will add additional context from looking at the rosters. This will be relevant when we breakdown the blueprint of the programs.

Highly Successful

I’m defining the highly successful year 1 to year 2 programs as the ones who improved 20+ spots in the pairwise/NPI.

Bentley was a veteran heavy team with 4/5 and 7/10 top scorers being upperclassmen in addition to the starting goalie. Most of the upperclassmen were acquired through the transfer portal from bigger programs where the players were not getting much ice time. Bentley ended up rising 22 spots in the pairwise to #22, driven by these players, and they got into the NCAA tournament by winning the Atlantic Hockey championship.

Princeton was a veteran heavy team as well. Zero freshmen were in the top 10 scorers; all 4 in the top 10 were sophomores. Out of the 6 upperclassmen, 5 of them were seniors as well. Since Princeton cannot use the portal as an Ivy League team, they likely will not be continuing their ascent under Ben Syer this coming season, but it has been a successful rebuild thus far for sure. They likely will just be taking a different path than the usual 5 year plan.

While based on the numbers, you would probably think that Maine was balanced and leaning veteran heavy, I would argue they fall into the first category. They had a large, quality freshman class, but a lot of them just didn’t fall into the top 10 scorers. For 11-17 on the scoring list, 6/7 of those players were underclassmen, 5 of them being freshmen. Most of them just played depth roles to start out. Given their recruiting rankings and that roster context, they fall into the first category.

UMass absolutely falls into that category as well. All 5 of their top 5 scorers were freshmen! Even 9 out of the top 10 being underclassmen is absolutely nuts. John Leonard, Mitchell Chaffee, Oliver Chau, Mario Ferraro, and lastly, some guy named Cale Makar formed the nucleus of the team that would lose in the national championship the following year. UMass had by far the best recruiting class on the list and fall into the large and high quality freshman class category.

Miami had the biggest jump of all programs here as they won a whopping 15 more games and jumped 30 spots in the rankings. They were another team in the big, high quality freshman class category. Most of their scoring came from underclassmen including 3/5 top scorers being only freshmen. It truly was an impressive season from them, and I’d bet that they take another jump this season with the core established.

Successful

I’m considering any program going up 10-19 spots as “successful.” This meant they took a good sized jump, but it wasn’t too crazy of a leap.

AIC went fully into the large freshman class strategy. While unfortunately the Neutral Zone rankings for them are no longer up, I can pretty much guarantee that they would have been high in the overall rankings due to a big class. They would not have been very high in the average rankings though since AIC was largely not able to get quality recruits (making Lang’s success there all the more impressive). This strategy resulted in all 5 top scorers and 9/10 coming from freshmen and sophomores, which is crazy, and it set the stage for big years down the road.

St. Thomas was in just year 2 of being D1 after moving up from D3. They went fully into bringing in a ton of freshmen as evidenced by their top 10 recruiting class ranking but only 41st in average. Their scoring was heavily tilted towards that youth with all 5 of their top 5 scorers being freshmen! These players all formed their foundation going forward as St. Thomas continued rising up.

Just Okay

Any program that improved less than 10 spots in the pairwise/NPI is in this category. All but 1 of these rebuilds are not really comparable to RPI this year. Almost all of these programs took a more balanced approach, while only Union and Merrimack were different from that.

Holy Cross was mostly a balanced team. They leaned slightly veteran but had some key underclassmen who became core players for the future teams that rose up under Riga. You’ll find that all the teams that fall into the “balanced” category were just okay in terms of results. Going hard into either a veteran heavy team or a high quality and big freshman class always yielded the best year 2 results.

Augustana was also in the balanced category but leaning slightly towards youth. For them, it made sense to go more balanced because they were in year 2 of a brand new program starting from scratch. They built the program with a combo of incoming freshmen recruits and a lot of transfer portal usage. This makes sense because you wouldn’t want a crazy imbalance of class years starting up. For their improvement though, it meant they only slightly improved from the year prior, but they were still solid overall. It set the stage for a good year 3 this past season.

Dartmouth was the only team to actually get worse from year 1 to year 2. I remember it being a surprise because I thought they were going to have some improvement heading into that year. They didn’t have a big freshman class nor a quality one, but generally, they were still pretty youthful from the freshman class the year prior. They’d fall into a similar category as Augustana as a balanced team that leaned towards youth. Their issue overall was really just that all the players they returned from year 1 didn’t really improve in year 2. It took another year of development for Dartmouth to really start blossoming.

RPI had some moderate improvement from year 1 to year 2 under Dave Smith. I’d say they were balanced but slightly veteran heavy. While 4/5 and 6/10 top scorers were upperclassmen, they did have a lot of freshmen playing immediately too, including star goalie Owen Savory. The top players were mostly upperclassmen, but the top 10 scorers included future core pieces like Ottoville Leppanen, Ture Linden, Jakub Lacka, and Kyle Hallbauer in addition to Savory in net.

Union was very much veteran heavy with zero freshmen in the top 10 scorers, and only 3 underclassmen total. They are really the only veteran heavy program to not improve a lot in this deep dive, which is surprising. A lot of these older players continued developing well in the following year, while Union effectively used the portal to fill in the gaps.

Merrimack had a top 10 recruiting class going into year 2, and it was also high in quality, comparable to Maine and Miami. Out of their top 10 scorers, 6 were freshmen and 8 were underclassmen. The results say they only went up 9 spots in the pairwise, placing them in this group, but this is one of the few cases where I feel that’s misleading. I think they would have been right up there with those teams had it not been for disastrous goaltending. Merrimack ended up with a 0.871 team SV%, which was by far the lowest in the country. They split the net between two freshmen, Troy Kobryn and Jere Huhtamaa, who both really struggled. Kobryn and Huhtamaa were not the answers in net for Merrimack’s rebuild. After combining for 40 games played as freshmen, they combined for only 7 games played the remainder of their careers. Simply put, Merrimack missed in recruiting at goalie with those two, and they moved on quickly. It hurt their second season under Scott Borek even though they figured it out long term.

LIU improved in year 2 behind a veteran heavy team built mostly through the transfer portal. Since they had started from nothing the year prior, they had a huge freshman class that season, so they kept the class small in year 2. While LIU didn’t have a pairwise in their first year to look at for official placement, they ended up at 53 in their second year, and there were only 61 programs in 2020-21. It would’ve been impossible for them to improve 10+ spots, so they are in this group.

Applying this to RPI this Season

You may have guessed where RPI falls in this year. All the teams in the big and high quality freshman class category had top 15 recruiting classes overall and had top half of the country classes by average. RPI is #14 overall and #22 by average in the Neutral Zone rankings. The categories breakdown like this (NZ ranking/NZ average ranking):

Big and high quality freshman class

Maine (13/31)

UMass (3/14)

Merrimack (7/29)

Miami (14/29)

RPI - under Eric Lang (14/22)

Veteran laden team

Bentley (60/44)

Princeton (51/52)

Union (53/51)

LIU (47/51)

Big and low quality freshman class

AIC (N/A)

St. Thomas (8/41)

Balanced

Holy Cross (42/53)

Augustana (30/23)

Dartmouth (46/48)

RPI - under Dave Smith (29/47)

This breakdown shows the results for year 2 pretty clearly based on strategy. Across the board, balanced teams had the least improvement in year 2. Big freshmen classes with low quality generally had solid improvement but nothing too crazy. Veteran heavy teams didn’t necessarily improve as much as big freshmen classes with high quality, but they were more successful because they all started from a better spot with an average of 14 wins and 43rd in the pairwise/NPI year 1.

The best strategy, at least for year 2, is obviously the big and high quality freshmen classes. It should make us feel very good that this is clearly the strategy Coach Lang has chosen to go with given these results from other programs. The fact that RPI’s recruiting class is arguably the second best on this list (if you go by average quality) is even more of a bonus.

Let’s now set the expectations based on these similar programs (and including AIC as a proof of concept for Eric Lang specifically).

First, in wins, the comparable programs averaged 9.25 wins of improvement from year 1 to year 2. Simply put, that’s not happening; RPI is not getting to 20 wins this year. I think it’s fair to say that Lang got the most out of last year’s team in order to get 11 wins, and the other programs all started in the single digits for wins. They had a lot of runway to grow. AIC improved by 7 wins, and that’s probably the high end of improvement for RPI this year. Merrimack only improved by 2, and I’d say that’s probably around the floor given that they were only that low because of horrendous goaltending.

Their actual win totals are more useful here in my opinion. Those come out to be 9, 15, 17, and 18. AIC also had 15. That 15-18 range is right where I expect RPI to land.

The standings aren’t super useful to look at in this case because none of these programs play in the ECAC, but we will still take a quick look. Their placements were 6, 7, 8, and 10 with AIC landing in 8th as well. That 6-8 range is where I expect RPI to land too, and that seems reasonable given the talent on the roster and the state of the ECAC.

Lastly, the NPI is where we look, and here the improvement totals actually are relevant because RPI is coming from a similar range as the others. They averaged a whopping 20.5 spots of improvement and #36.25 in the rankings. That is within the realm of possibility, but I think that would be on the higher end of outcomes. AIC started in the same #54 spot as RPI and improved 10 spots to #44, which is probably the floor. For the others, you have 30, 22, 21, and 9 spots of improvement. You can rule out 30 for RPI this year; I just cannot see that big of a jump happening. I’d say 22 spots of improvement is probably the ceiling based on my gut feeling. The comparable programs’ placements in the pairwise/NPI were #30, #33, #36, and #46. Again, my gut feeling is that RPI isn’t quite as high as some of those teams despite the quality of the recruiting class. I’d expect the 35-40 range.

Overall, RPI is clearly on the right path in the rebuild given the data and the strategy taken. I’m very optimistic for the future of the program with Eric Lang at the helm, and this is shaping up to be an exciting year with lots of young talent getting acclimated to college hockey.

With the quality of the recruiting class, it would be fair if you’re more optimistic than I am based on the data. However, I don’t think the expectations should be that high as that kind of improvement would be a huge jump. I’d prefer for more cautious optimism as the program still has a long way to go and a lot of work to be done before becoming relevant.

My predictions:

16 wins (+5)

7th in ECAC (-2)

39th in NPI (-15)

With the whole team having already reported to Troy for the new year, the RPI Engineers made one last call up north of the border for their final piece of the roster. Due to two unexpected decommits at the last minute, the staff found themselves in desperate need of a body with few places to turn. What they found in Serlin though, is a highly intelligent player with room to grow into his raw skill. Serlin is coming off his best year in the OHL and enters a situation at RPI where he can play right away.

Game Breakdown

Leo doesn’t play the game with a ton of flash, but what shines through on tape is his intelligence. He is more of a playmaker at heart and is the type of guy that always makes his teammates look better. He really found his scoring touch last year in Guelph, posting more than double his point total of each of the prior seasons.

The shot is real effective, and I think he has more runway to unlock it as his game develops further. The next leg of development for Leo’s offensive game will be getting to places on the ice where he can get his shot off, because the game IQ is clearly there.

Leo’s game is just really well-rounded. He’s quick, he plays with tenacity and works incredibly hard in all 3 zones. He was extremely effective as a penalty killer, and I think he is a very natural fit in RPI’s bottom 6 while the rest of his game develops further. He’s willing to make contact below the goal line and forechecks with a lot of effort. His game might not have the highest offensive flash and ceiling as a few others in the class, but Leo should force his way into the mix with the jam he brings to the lineup.

So Where Does the Roster Stand?

RPI (finally) dropped the official roster last week. Oh, by the way, I hope the Hurricanes-esque uniform graphic are the new home threads, because those are sweet. But that’s beside the point.

With the late departures of Shane Smith and Josh Evaschesen and the arrival of Leo Serlin, the Engineers are set with 28 guys. There should be a ton of competition for time throughout training camp, with only a handful of guys likely already locked into their roles. Candidly, we thought there was a bit of a glut of left wings that would be competing for time when the two aforementioned recruits were expected. Now, expect guys like Ian Scherzer, Caleb Hadland, Ben Yurchuk, and Luke Goukler to establish roles and stick in the lineup.

The forwards are harder to project, but my best guess at tiers is as follows:

Likely Top-6: Rainers Rullers, Filip Sitar, Jordan Gavin
Competing for Top-9: Matthew Buckley, Brendan Ross, Ian Scherzer, Luke Goukler, Ben Yurchuk, Caleb Hadland, Jagger Tapper
4th-Line Types: Alfred Lindberg, Ethan Bono, Harrison Lodewyk, Leo Serlin, Brad McNeil, Mat Bourgault.

And then the defense, which I’d be very surprised if it didn’t start out like this:

Burzynski-Sobieski
Klassek-Guo
Michael-Motew
Hilditch

Challenge me in the comments if you disagree, but that’s the way I see it to start. There should be plenty of competition for roles as camp gets underway and I can’t wait to see the team hit the ice next month. Congrats to Leo and his family, we’re excited to see him suit up in the Cherry and White!

In part 1, I examined the recruiting and on-ice formula for success for small schools. What I purposely left out is the resources aspect and how that plays into recruiting and roster retention. I didn’t leave it out because it’s not important (in fact, it’s the opposite), but because I wanted to keep it narrowed to specifically the traditional parts of a hockey program. First, let’s go over the basics of the recent changes that have fundamentally changed college athletics.

NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness)

NIL essentially just means that players can now make money using the fact they’re student-athletes. Beforehand, they were not allowed to star in commercials, do autograph signings, etc. For the past few years, they have been able to do that.

However, what this ended up turning into in actuality is groups of donors, called collectives, paying players to play for the school. The collective essentially acts as a proxy for the school to pay the player. This has now mostly changed though with the introduction of the House Settlement, which allows schools to just pay the players directly. There is definitely supplemental NIL in addition to the direct payments, especially in football and basketball, but the method of money going to players doesn’t really matter as much as the amount.

House Settlement

The house settlement is a settlement to an NCAA lawsuit that led to a number of changes in college athletics. For a full breakdown of it, here’s a good article that lays it out. For a more college hockey focused breakdown, Mike McMahon did an excellent job there as did CHN in their recent report on the money in college hockey. Schools can opt in to the settlement and the rules that follow, but they don’t have to.

There are two main parts to the settlement. The first is increasing the scholarship limit from 18 to 26 while also implementing a 26 player roster cap. This is just an increase to the maximum number of scholarships to 26, but a program doesn’t have to fund that full 26. The second is allowing schools to revenue share with players in the athletic department with a maximum of about $20 million for the entire department.

Most college hockey programs don’t have that kind of money at their disposal. The top spenders are going to be the P4 schools who have somewhere from $500k to $1 million to play with each year for their roster budget.

This example from BC shows how they distribute their revenue sharing budget. Hockey obviously falls into the 5% of everything else, and they will only get a portion of that.

Per CHN’s report on the money that I linked before:

The Big Ten schools and Boston College are ready to play in the big pool, with budgets anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million. It’s not clear if Notre Dame is doing that yet for hockey, but will need to.

Not all of that will necessarily come from rev share, by the way, since those big schools need to spend so much on football programs. But a lot of it could come from the rev share pool, with some still supplemented by the NIL collectives.

Whatever the case may be, the overall pay package to players, if you add it all up, will be in that high range.

Most schools won’t have nearly that much to play with though. The baseline for competitive programs is in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, depending on the conference the program is in. A Big Ten team probably needs $500k minimum, but for the other conferences, the requirement to be competitive won’t be that high. Also from CHN’s report:

"If you want to be competitive, the standard is going to be around $250,000," said one athletic director.

In the grand scheme of college athletics, where some college football rosters are allegedly totaling $40 million, that’s not a crazy amount needed! Now, let’s get into specific aspects of the formula, and how the money ties into it.

Recruiting

Believe it or not, throwing money around doesn’t actually impact recruiting nearly as much as you would think.

A caveat to that is the high-end blue chip prospects. A program definitely needs a healthy amount of money available to be able to pay them right off the bat. The going price for a first round NHL draft pick is at least $75K and usually $100K+. The better the prospect, the more money required. Everyone has heard of the alleged $700K price tag for Gavin McKenna from Penn State. Porter Martone was allegedly in the $250K range for Michigan State last year. Could these numbers be inflated by media and the game of telephone? Absolutely. The point remains though that these prospects command money and a lot of it.

That doesn’t really matter for the small schools though because they were never competing for those types of prospects anyways. You don’t need the top NHL first round picks to win as Brad Schlossman laid out well here and as I said in part 1. Small schools are not landing blue chip prospects and have not been for well over a decade now. They have to land the older players and a handful of late round NHL picks. So how does the money impact the recruiting of these players?

The answer is truthfully not that much. Since these players are not the top prospects, the price tag isn’t as high, and that makes them easier to recruit and land. Going back to RPI, I’m not at liberty to discuss specifics, but there are incoming freshmen who turned down NIL/rev share money from bigger programs during their recruitment.

For the players not being offered full scholarships, the school cost can be a factor though. Using the Minnesota State and Quinnipiac examples from before, Minnesota State cost of attendance is about $37.5K while Quinnipiac’s is about $81.8K (my god). If a prospect is offered a half scholarship at both, that’s a major difference in the out-of-pocket expenses, assuming no academic aid or financial aid also helping with the cost. That definitely matters, and it’s likely more of an impact for these types of prospects where NIL/rev share money isn’t playing much of a role. The small schools that offer a lot of financial aid (like the Ivies) or academic aid can help mitigate the disadvantage in the athletic scholarships and direct player funding.

With the CHL opening up, there’s also more talent available than ever before, and the big programs don’t have enough spots on their roster to take all of them. As a result, lots of the older players don’t need to be given money beyond their normal scholarships. For the players that do want to be paid extra, a lot of schools move on because there’s enough talent available in that same tier that they can get a player at a similar level without money.

While money will certainly help any small school in recruiting, it’s not necessary to follow the recruiting strategy of older players. RPI currently is ranked as the 13th best incoming freshman class in the country by Neutral Zone, and they’re ranked 22nd by average quality of recruit. They did this without any money at their disposal to pay players.

Player Development

This is where there’s a big impact from paying players. The ability to pay players alongside no restrictions for the transfer portal has created a year-to-year free agency where any player can leave at any time for any reason. Tampering is rampant, with agents and schools in contact as early as December discussing transfers. There’s no such thing as planning rosters for 2-4 years out anymore; the only future planning that can take place is for the following season.

It’s the wild west, and the new landscape of paying players adds directly to it. A small school who develops a young forward now might lose them early after putting up 30 points as a sophomore. A big school will come along, offer them $50K to transfer and play on their second line, and off they go. It doesn’t matter that they were happy and playing a top of the lineup role; more often than not, they are taking that offer.

A lot of people say this is a lack of loyalty and an issue with today’s players, but I disagree and think that’s a short-sighted way of looking at it. Think about it like this. These players are usually between 21-23 years old, sometimes even older, and they very likely do not have a long-term NHL future. At best, they might have a career in the AHL or Europe. For those players, $50K for a year while still in college is a lot of money. If we were all in that same situation, I don’t think we would behave any differently.

It’s worth noting that programs can still invest in development facilities. Players want to play pro, even if that’s at the AHL level. If a program invests in strength and conditioning facilities, hockey development areas, and nutrition, and they also create an environment where players are treated as pros, that matters. Consistently sending players to pro hockey, even at just the AHL level, is huge. Players want to be developed into pro hockey players, and these details are still important for achieving that. The money matters a lot, but it isn’t the only part of the equation.

In part 1, I mentioned needing an elite coach to execute the formula. While that’s true, not even an elite coach will consistently overcome this money gap while developing players. Can they win a battle here and there to keep a player from transferring? Absolutely, and that happens frequently. Sutter Muzzatti had offers with NIL money from big programs to transfer after both his freshman and sophomore years that he turned down to stay at RPI with the old coaching staff. He only entered the transfer portal after the coaching change. As the old adage goes though, you can win the battle but lose the war. That’s going to be the case for any small school without the ability to pay players.

This easily is the biggest wrench in the plan for small schools competing. If they lose the really good older players that they have developed before they are upperclassmen, they are not going to be able to compete on the national stage.

How Do the Small Schools Compete?

The unfortunate reality in today’s landscape is that you need a budget to pay players. It’s the answer that no one wants to hear because everyone wants to believe that small schools can compete without it, but that’s no longer the case. My part 1 laid out the on-ice formula for competing, but the issue is that without money, schools can’t consistently retain the players that they develop to execute that formula.

The lucky thing that I mentioned before is that the money in hockey really isn’t that much compared to football or basketball. A budget of about $250K can keep you competitive, and overall, that’s not too much! The way I see it, there’s a couple of different ways to reach that budget in terms of donations. The first is the traditional yearly donations being scraped together from alumni. A $20 monthly donation from a group of 1,000 alumni gets you to $240K yearly. In the grand scheme, that’s not a lot of people, but obviously, that is easier said than done to find a group like that.

There’s another less traditional way to do it, but in my opinion, it is the better way to set up your budget. I think an endowment fund is the better way to operate if a school can get it set up. An endowment fund of about $5 million gets the school to the $250K yearly budget as the typical endowment uses about 5% annually of the funds and lets the rest grow. The benefit to this is it sets it up in perpetuity because the other 95% of the fund compounds and grows, so the 5% can permanently fund the player budget. If you have a mega donor, it also combats the donor fatigue because it’s just a one time donation.

This is extremely similar to the C. Lloyd Bauer endowment for RPI’s head coach position where the endowment pays for the yearly salary for the coach, as an example of how it can be set up. The difficulty with setting up an endowment like that is finding the donor with the money obviously. At an Ivy League school or tech school like RPI, it’s certainly easier than other small schools, but it is hard to get at any school. There are plenty of other ways to get creative and have the money, but these are the two main ways that come to mind.

One interesting creative path that the Ivies and others are attempting is setting up paid summer internships for their players as a form of this. CHN mentioned this in their report, and I’ve also heard about this through some sources as well. The thought process is that programs can use their vast alumni networks to set up their players with lucrative summer internships that pay them. This passes the Ivy League rules because it is a true summer internship, and setting it up through alumni connections is no different from how most normal internships work anyways. It’s pretty normal networking, but now it is with college athletes. I believe RPI and other programs with great academics have been working on setting this up too to try to find ways to compete in the money space.

If a small school does find the money, the way to manage it is pretty straightforward to me. They pretty clearly do not need the money to recruit older talent given the wealth of talent available now. RPI’s incoming class is evidence enough of this. Once they develop those talented players, they should use the money to retain them. If they can match those offers from big schools, they can likely keep the players, which allows them to continue with the talent and systems play needed to compete nationally. They still won’t keep every player; sometimes the alure of a big program with all the resources and brand recognition is too much to overcome regardless of the money. However, it shifts the balance from losing most top players and only keeping some occasionally to keeping most top players and only losing some occasionally. It’s a whole lot more manageable.

One arguable advantage for RPI and the Ivies is the top notch education. They can lean into recruiting good students who care about their education, and it can help with player retention. There is a reason that the ECAC consistently is one of the better conferences in terms of players transferring out. The double edged sword is that it definitely limits their player pool. RPI has lost plenty of players over the years because of transfer credits not being accepted, players not wanting to go to such a difficult school, and so on. Is it worth the trade-off? With today’s expanded player pool and the issue being more slanted towards retention rather than recruiting, it probably is.

The resources required to win have always been a debate in college hockey going back decades. The resources included have evolved over time, whether it’s paying players, having top notch development facilities, and on as you go back further and further in the timeline. It has always been agreed upon that a school needs a supportive administration to tackle the various shortcomings, whether it’s getting help from admissions to get players admitted into the school (something the Ivies, RPI and many others always have to deal with), getting the necessary funding needed for the program’s budget, etc.

If you want to come out of this feeling hopeful, small schools have always found ways to stay afloat throughout the decades despite whichever “resource” is the current hot topic. There also have always been at least a few who have managed to compete nationally with the best resourced programs in every era of college hockey. Maybe this one turns out to be no different, but there’s no doubt that the freedom for players to leave whenever they want for whatever reason when money is so accessible has created the most daunting challenge that the small schools have ever seen.

After the COVID year that saw 8 of the 12 teams in the ECAC take a full year off, people in the media thought there was absolutely no way to predict the standings for the 2021-22 season with any level of confidence. I disagreed with this. We knew generally how good the returning players were, even if we couldn’t predict how players would improve. We also know about how good incoming players are based on the junior league they played in and how they performed in that league before enrolling in college. It was this basis that sparked my idea to create a model to predict the standings, and I went ahead and did that.

The results immediately were great. The model was highly accurate and won a USCHO ECAC standings prediction contest that season. Over the years, I’ve made some small tweaks here and there, but I have noticed some consistent blind spots in the model that it has gotten wrong. Before we get there though, I wanted to do a retrospective of this past season and how the model did.

Quinnipiac

Projected Finish: 1st

Actual Finish: 1st

What I Said

Overall, Quinnipiac profiles as a national championship contender this season. They are projected to be the best team in the league by far with an elite offense and a similarly elite defense backed by the best returning goalie in the league. The only weakness is inexperience on the blue line, and that’s nitpicking to find an issue.

What Actually Happened

I was pretty spot on with Quinnipiac minus the goaltending situation. Throughout the year, they were a top 10 team, and they were also one of the best teams in the country in terms of puck possession and scoring chances.

The goaltending was the only weakness as both Matej Marinov and Dylan Silverstein struggled, which was unexpected. Marinov had a 0.913 SV% as a freshman and a 0.928 SV% as a sophomore. In the year before arriving at Quinnipiac, he had a 0.917 SV% in the USHL. Needless to say, it was a big shock that he dropped all the way down to a 0.898 SV% last season. Silverstein had a 0.912 SV% in limited time, but even that is not great behind the strength of Quinnipiac’s defense. This was the big miss by the model, but honestly, I don’t think it was foreseeable by the model given Marinov’s pedigree prior to the year.

Overall though, that didn’t hold the model back from getting it right with Quinnipiac since everything except the goaltending was exactly as predicted.

Clarkson

Projected Finish: 2nd

Actual Finish: 8th

What I Said

Overall, Clarkson has a lot of talent and depth, which should put them near the top of the league and in the mix for the NCAA tournament. However, they still have plenty of question marks. The forward group is extremely young and is full of CHL players. How will they adjust to the NCAA? If it’s not well, they could be in trouble. While it’s not as youthful, a similar question exists on the defensive side.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the situation in net has major question marks. Can Soderwall transition well from D3? If not, can Rancier regain his Minnesota State form or was he just bolstered by their strong defensive system and his UVM play is more representative of who he is? Is Avakyan as good as his NAHL play suggests or did he just play well in a weak league and his WHL form is his true level?

I think Clarkson is probably a year or two away from being a no doubt NCAA tournament team again. This year though, I do agree with the model that they’ll overcome the youth question marks due to their talent, and that Soderwall will transition well enough in net to make them a strong team that either just barely makes the NCAA tournament or is just outside the field. They’ll be an interesting team to watch for sure.

What Actually Happened

Clarkson’s youth did indeed up being a big problem. They proved to be a talented but mercurial team. The highs were extremely high: wins over Penn State and North Dakota. The lows were arguably just as low though with losses to RIT and Canisius. At the end of the season, they did come together to play their best hockey and upset Quinnipiac in the ECAC Quarterfinals to earn a Lake Placid berth. However, there’s no doubt here that this was a miss by the model.

A couple things went wrong: the youth on the team and some injuries. First, the youth didn’t adjust as smoothly as projected, and I was rightly skeptical of the model assuming they wouldn’t miss a beat considering the number of freshmen slotted into key roles right away. Clarkson was actually solid offensively at 2.92 goals per game, and considering that Adrian Misaljevic and Mikael Huchette both missed practically the entire season (Misaljevic got 6 games and Huchette didn’t play any), they didn’t end up too bad there.

The real issue causing the model difference was the defense being well below expectations. The model projected the defense at 2.20 goals against per game, but they ended up at 2.92 goals against per game. Even though they were losing Trey Taylor and Kaelan Taylor, the model liked the returners enough to not project too much of a fall off, and the freshmen were expected to not be too high in the lineup. It also thought the goaltending with Shane Soderwall coming in would be comparable to the goaltending with Ethan Langenegger. Neither happened though. The defense went from 24.6 shots against per game to 26.7 shots against per game. In net, they dropped from a 0.909 team SV% to a 0.891 team SV%. While the freshmen defensemen weren’t in the top 3 in ice time, they were 4-6, and clearly that had an impact. Obviously, the goaltending wasn’t nearly as good either.

The frustrating thing with Clarkson is I kind of saw it coming. The biggest gap in the model has always been that I didn’t build in player progression. This meant that the model has long overrated teams with really large and high quality freshman classes while underrating teams with a lot of returning scoring. Clarkson fell very clearly into the former, but I’ve always just regarded it as an acceptable gap. I don’t think that any longer.

Cornell

Projected Finish: 3rd

Actual Finish: 3rd

What I Said

Overall, I have to agree with the model. Cornell doesn’t look to have the scoring talent that they have typically had in recent years, but it should be good enough. The real strength of the team should be the defense, which will keep them a top team in the league. I expect them to easily make it into the top 4 on the back of the defense. Nationally, I see them as a team that will probably be on the wrong side of the NCAA tournament bubble, but if they can outperform the offensive projection with guys like Castagna taking a step forward, they have a chance to slide into the NCAAs.

What Actually Happened

I was pretty spot on with Cornell overall. The defense was outstanding at 2.03 goals against per game, which was 3rd in the country. I was skeptical about Cornell offensively, as you can see, because I thought they had too many players who projected as middle of the lineup forwards rather than top of the lineup. As I said though, guys like Jonathan Castagna taking steps forward could make them an NCAA tournament team.

That’s exactly what happened. Castagna led the team with 34 points, Charlie Major developed well and took a step forward with 27 points, and Caton Ryan surprised with a 30 point freshman season to fill the gaps at the top of the lineup. With the needed offense at the top of the lineup, they were able to make the NCAA tournament, and they finished exactly where the model had them in the ECAC.

Harvard

Projected Finish: 4th

Actual Finish: 6th

What I Said

Overall, Harvard’s defense projects to keep them from truly regaining status as a top 20 team in the country. Their losses on the blue line keeps their projected improvement from the model pretty mild there, and while Charette was a solid goaltender as a freshman, he doesn’t project to be a great one yet. The offensive talent and model projection on that side means that their improvement should definitely bring them back into the top 6 of the league, and I agree with the model that it will carry them back into the top 4.

What Actually Happened

Harvard did jump into the top 6, but only at 6th place. They did not jump back into the top 4. The reason why was actually very straightforward, which I’ll get to. First though, the model got the defense right. It was about average, and Charette was solid but not great.

The main issue was not only a lack of player development, but all the top of the lineup players for Harvard actually performed significantly worse than the year before. A big factor driving Harvard’s offensive projection was their returning players. Mick Thompson had 32 points, Casey Severo had 28 points, Joe Miller had 23 points, and Ben MacDonald had 16 points. Every single one of those players dropped, and most of them dropped significantly. Thompson had 27 points, Severo dropped all the way to 18 points, Miller only had 12 points, and MacDonald only had 10 points. None of the incoming freshmen or other returning scorers stepped up enough to fill that gap even though there were a few with nice seasons. Unlike Clarkson, I don’t think this miss was really foreseeable. The defense was spot on, and the offense missed because all of the top players significantly regressed. That’s not really predictable for anyone.

Union

Projected Finish: 5th

Actual Finish: 5th

What I Said

Overall, Union’s combination of good offense and defense, without being elite in either, has them projected to be 5th. As I said at the beginning though, this looks like a good team, and they should be in contention for a top 4 spot. The model has them extremely close to Harvard, and I could see it going either way.

What Actually Happened

I’d say this was mostly accurate on Union’s part, although the team they were neck and neck with for 4th was Princeton and not Harvard. Union is a little bit tough to judge by the numbers because their strength of schedule was SO weak that it heavily inflated their numbers overall. They had 3.78 goals per game offensively and allowed 2.65 goals per game defensively to lead to 22 wins, yet they didn’t even sniff the NCAA tournament because of how weak the schedule was. They finished 26th in the NPI.

For ECAC-only numbers, they scored 3.23 goals per game and allowed 3.09 goals per game. Both those are pretty in line with what was expected. The offense was a bit better while the defense was a bit worse than the model predictions. Overall, Union was pretty clearly a hit by the model.

Dartmouth

Projected Finish: 6th

Actual Finish: 2nd

What I Said

First, the defensive production lost on the blue line is a lot. Only RPI, who got ravaged in the transfer portal after their coaching change, lost more defensive production. Dartmouth lost both John Fusco and Ian Pierce as mentioned in the offense section. This may not seem like a lot, but it’s the quality of their play that matters here.

John Fusco was excellent defensively in addition to his offense and represents a huge individual loss. Ian Pierce didn’t play the full season due to injury, but his defensive impacts were also quite good. The model may be overrating the defensive impacts of only two players, but they are big losses without a doubt.

The other main flaw for Dartmouth that none of the other top 6 teams have is in the goaltending department. I was high on Emmett Croteau last year despite his struggles at Clarkson, but last year, he was below average for Dartmouth. He has enough of a track record now that the model is going entirely off of his college play instead of including the very good USHL pedigree. And that college track record has not been good. If he can breakout, Dartmouth can for sure make me look silly, but he has yet to show a high enough level of play at the college level.

All of this results in a projected 0.31 drop in goals against average, which puts them in the bottom half of projected defenses in the conference. They will need improved goaltending and some defensemen to step up defensively to mitigate the losses there in order to outplay that projection.

Overall though, they are still very much in range to get into the top 4. They are not very far behind Union and Harvard in the projections, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they can be better defensively than expected. They’ll be a pretty competitive team once again.

What Actually Happened

I wouldn’t say the model was totally off base on Dartmouth despite ending up as the #2 team in the league. I was right when I said that Croteau could improve and make the model projection look silly. That combined with a couple of other factors were where Dartmouth was able to outperform the model.

First, Dartmouth’s player development was outstanding and far beyond the typical growth. Both Hayden Stavroff and Hank Cleaves doubled their scoring output to put up monster years. Those are obviously the main two and the most important ones, but there were others too.

Tying into player development a little bit, the defense did not actually decline at all. Despite losing Fusco and Pierce, Dartmouth did not miss a beat there. They went from 23.6 to 24.0 shots against per game, so they were still at around the same level of great defense. Eric Charpentier took another step defensively and was a dominant shutdown force for the Big Green. Colin Grable came out of nowhere to score 20 points in 35 games and had a +30 rating showing outstanding ability in both ends. The year prior, he only appeared in 19 games with 1 point and an average of 6:42 of ice time per game. That’s just an insane leap.

As I mentioned before, Croteau also took a big leap going from a 0.903 SV% to a 0.922 SV%, which was the biggest factor defensively.

I don’t think there was any single “miss” here by the model. There’s no way to predict that level of player development, and sometimes, you just have to tip your cap to the players and coaching staff for succeeding to that extent. The goaltending was a little bit more predictable, but it’s tough to blame the model for being skeptical when Croteau had not performed to the level of a good D1 starter prior to the season. All of these factors just combined to make Dartmouth not only a top ECAC team, but a top 10 team in the country.

Colgate

Projected Finish: 7th

Actual Finish: 7th

What I Said

Overall, Colgate needs to find some top end players to keep their performance from last year. They have managed to do this before and prove the model wrong, so it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion. I’m definitely skeptical though. The bigger issue in my eyes is that the defense projects to be below average and without a true #1 goaltender. That limits their ceiling a lot in a league where a lot of the middle teams are improving.

What Actually Happened

I’d say this was pretty on the money in terms of what happened. There were a few players who were close to being top end players but weren’t quite there. If Nagel had stayed healthy during the season, he probably would’ve qualified, but he missed a decent chunk of time. The biggest surprise in terms of top end players was the way Michael Neumeier struggled in his #1 minutes with a -28 rating despite having 23 points. Even with playing 27 minutes a night against tough matchups, a #1 should not be struggling to that extent. Lastly, the goaltending was indeed a struggle with both Andrew Takacs and Reid Dyck hovering around a 0.900 SV%. They landed right where they were predicted.

Brown

Projected Finish: 8th

Actual Finish: 12th

What I Said

Overall, Brown’s defense should keep them competitive this year even with the offseason losses. The offense has enough top end talent to score more than most of the bottom of the league teams even though the depth is pretty dire and will really hurt them. I think people are being a little too harsh on Brown after the offseason, and the model doesn’t have them that much behind Colgate. It’s possible they could surprise people even though their ceiling is probably limited.

What Actually Happened

Brown ran into similar issues as Harvard did with their top players regressing and not playing at anywhere near the level that was needed of them. Ryan St. Louis went from 29 points to 15 points, and Brian Nicholas went from 25 points to 13 points. Their talent was already lacking significantly with zero depth to speak of, and it was expected that those two would carry the load offensively. With those two falling that much, it meant their offense had practically zero firepower despite Ivan Zadvernyuk taking a jump up to 22 points. That was a major issue.

The other main issue was the huge drop in the team defensive play. The model projected Brown’s defense to be slightly above average like it had been the year before, but it totally fell off. They went from allowing 30.5 shots per game to allowing a whopping 36.8 shots per game. That’s a massive difference over one year, and it’s particularly confusing because Brett Bliss was the only real loss on the blue line.

Those were both massive gaps from the model predictions, and it led to Brown dropping all the way to 12th in the league. Similar to Harvard, I don’t believe it was predictable, and sometimes teams are just going to surprise in one direction or the other.

Princeton

Projected Finish: 9th

Actual Finish: 4th

What I Said

Overall, Princeton is a really vanilla team. They lack offensive talent and will struggle to score. The defense should be solid though and keep them competitive in most games. It is what keeps them in 9th above the other bottom teams in the conference. They have the potential to surprise if enough of the younger players step up, but they look to be a pretty plain team that will play a lot of low scoring games.

What Actually Happened

This was a miss by the model that should have been more predictable to me than it was. Princeton had the 4th most returning scoring in the conference, and they were not losing any key forwards up front. On the blue line, they were losing their #2 defenseman, but returning everyone else. Even though they were returning a lot, I looked at the players coming back who were solid but unspectacular and just didn’t see enough talent.

I should have realized though that the players would continue to take steps up. Usually, I feel that I’m pretty good at recognizing that and factoring it in mentally even though the model doesn’t, but I missed on that with Princeton. The model missing on that since it doesn’t factor in player progression makes a ton of sense. This is one that feels obvious in hindsight and again exposes a major blind spot of the model.

Now, even if the model did factor in player progression, Princeton still would not have been predicted to finish 4th. Like Dartmouth, their players and staff deserve credit for the big leaps a lot of players took. However, I’m positive that they would have been at least a little higher and not as big of a miss, and that’s still important.

St. Lawrence

Projected Finish: 10th

Actual Finish: 11th

What I Said

Overall, it’s really tough to see St. Lawrence rising out of the bottom 4 this year. Even with some pretty significant defensive improvement projected, it’s only enough to raise them to 10th. Offensively, they just don’t have the talent to really compete in the league and look like the worst scoring team in the ECAC.

What Actually Happened

The model was pretty much correct on St. Lawrence. The offense ended up being slightly better than expected due to the emergence of a lot of young players in the lineup, but it was only a slight difference. That improvement was counteracted entirely though by the defense not actually improving. It was the worst defense in the country in part because their 0.877 team SV% was also the worst in the country. Overall, there’s not too much to write about here because the model was right that they lacked talent, and the defense was even worse than projected (which was pretty bad!).

RPI

Projected Finish: 11th

Actual Finish: 9th

What I Said

There’s always some unknowns with a new head coach, but the first year in a new head coach’s rebuild is pretty much always a tough year. Even some of the recent successful rebuilds, such as Maine with Ben Barr, started out with single digit win seasons. Maybe Lang can buck that trend with so much turnover defensively and a new defensive system in place, but I think it’s unlikely to expect a team with so many new faces to vastly improve immediately on defense. Overall, RPI’s depth should have them competing in most games, but the roster needs a lot of work in future years as Lang takes the reigns.

What Actually Happened

This was also pretty spot on. RPI lacked scoring ability with the top scorer putting up 22 points, and then it fell to 18 for the next highest scorers. The depth was solid and usually allowed them to stay competitive within games. The defense still struggled with an entirely new system and a ton of young players seeing a lot of ice time, but it ended up being a bit better than expected. At the end of the season, the team really started coming together to execute the defensive system, and Krawchuk found consistency as the #1 in net. That allowed RPI to surpass the projection by a little, but ultimately, the model was right about the lack of talent in the first year of a rebuild with Eric Lang.

Yale

Projected Finish: 12th

Actual Finish: 10th

What I Said

Overall, Yale has a nice, young core to build around, but they still lack scoring talent and will struggle in that department. They need to do a better job recruiting to surround that core with better pieces. Even with big jumps from the young players, it will not be enough to be more than a below average offense. Defensively, Yale will need Stark to return to his freshman year form to have success, and their ceiling as whole pretty much lies with him.

What Actually Happened

This was another team the model was spot on about. The offense was below average despite having some nice young players on the roster. Defensively, Stark did not recover and once again struggled a lot. They ended up turning to Noah Pak to start more as a result, and while he was better, it still was not good. The defense was in the bottom 10 of the country. Honestly, the reason that Yale was 10th and higher than the model prediction had nothing to do with Yale being better than expected. It was pretty much solely because Brown and St. Lawrence were worse than expected.

Classifying the Teams

Breaking down the teams into categories, here’s how I see it.

Hits
Quinnipiac
Cornell
Union
Colgate
St. Lawrence
RPI
Yale

Unpredictable Misses
Harvard
Dartmouth (went back and forth on this one but the areas they outperformed weren’t really predictable by a model)
Brown

Predictable Misses
Clarkson
Princeton

Overall, it’s pretty good, but the predictable misses do have me kicking myself.

Tweaks Coming

In the past, I’ve avoided trying to model player progression because I wanted to make a robust model taking into account numerous data points. I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist. What I have realized though is that even a simple player progression model would be effective and better than not doing anything. As they say, “perfect is the enemy of good.”

Additionally, while my initial freshman projection model was fairly accurate, I have noticed it drift further from reality the past few years. Considering the model was trained on data from about 2016 to 2020, it makes sense that it would drift. This resulted in freshmen consistently being overrated in terms of how they will perform immediately.

Initially, I was okay with it when I realized it because I figured this would counteract the lack of player progression included in the model. However, very large freshman classes for a team with not much returning scoring or very small freshman classes for a team with a lot of returning scoring would clearly not even out. This is exactly how it played out with Clarkson and Princeton.

I refuse to let these obvious (and fixable) blind spots exist any longer though. Stay tuned for an upcoming post about player progression with my research findings there. I will also re-calibrate the freshmen projections to make those accurate in present day. This should elevate the model’s performance from good to great. These updates will be included in the model for the upcoming season, and I’ll describe them more in-depth when I do my yearly ECAC preview.

A few weeks ago, RPI picked up a commitment from ‘06 Defenseman Guerin Slezak to complete their blue line. Slezak is a left shot listed at 5’10” and 187 LBs who has been with Cedar Rapids in the USHL for the last 3 years. He was previously committed to Princeton and originally supposed to spend another year in the USHL due to injury issues. He tore his ACL in the 2025 playoffs and then tore it again in November when he was due to make his return. The likely reason that he is moving on from Princeton is due to the new 5 in 5 rule that starts the eligibility clock at 19 years old and then allows players up to 5 seasons of play. If Slezak went back to junior hockey for another season as an overager, he would only have 3 years of collegiate eligibility. By enrolling now, he gets 4 years.

Slezak missed all of this season due to his injury, but the season prior, he had 3 goals, 8 assists, and 11 points with a +12 rating in 61 games. The past 2 seasons, he also served as the captain of the Roughriders, showcasing his exemplary character and leadership. On the ice, Slezak profiles as a defensive defenseman. He has a strong stick, which allows him to separate players from the puck. His defensive positioning is always very good to prevent passes to the slot area and stop scoring chances. He is a well-balanced skater who keeps a tight gap and forces opponents to the outside. Lastly, he is very safe with the puck and rarely makes mistakes or turns it over. Overall, he will add safe and reliable play in his own end.

Slezak will join the Engineers this fall and slot in as the 9th D to start behind Hilditch and Heroux as he comes back from his injury. He will provide valuable leadership and character in the locker room while being a safe option in a depth role on the blue line. I’m excited to see him at RPI soon. Congratulations to Guerin and his family!

A mid-summer recruiting flurry saw the Engineers nab the last 2 pieces to its ‘26-’27 roster, including Chicago Steel forward Luke Goukler. Goukler is a very well-regarded recruit and former Merrimack commit who came available late in the cycle. My best guess is Merrimack wanted him to do another year in the USHL, whereas RPI can offer the chance to compete for minutes in the top-9 immediately. It makes all the sense in the world for Lang, who is eager to put as many young players as he can into intense competition. Goukler’s the type of kid you want to pick up, flexing strong USHL production, a brief stint with NTDP, a Central Scouting ranking, and elite prep numbers. I’m confident that RPI’s tight checking system will harden his game enough to be a very impactful ECAC player.

His Speed and Skill Pop

Goukler’s biggest asset is undoubedtly his speed, which I think matters more given the circumstances. The ECAC is a tight checking league; it always has been. Guys that lack physicality get pushed around. But Goukler’s game is effective because he is excellent in small spaces, and his explosive skating gets him to those spots.

Look at how fast he pounces on a pocket of open ice, and before you know it the puck is in the net. He hasn’t fully reached his potential and rounded out his game in my view, but he’s intriguing to me because that skill is hard to teach. Lang is an elite player developer, and I’d rather see him nab prospects that have this ability and rely on his experience to help them fill in the gaps.

If you watch any of these clips, watch this one. Look at how quick he is getting out into open ice and making something out of nothing.

The Shot is Good but Can Be Developed

That last clip illustrates how Goukler really can tuck it under the cross bar with ease. He doesn’t need long to get the shot off and his release is super quick. However, I think his game slightly skews on the pass-first side, which is why the goal scoring production hasn’t been crazy. I think he’s at his best when he lets it rip and would love to see him do it more.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

It’s hard to really see how good his game IQ is without a full slate of tape to review. I think he has more physical skill/traits than most recruits I’ve watched, but the biggest factor is always the brain. If he can process the offensive game, I think he gets really good.

He needs to add weight. While he’s good in small spaces, puck transportation is essential to his game and he needs the strength to not get knocked off it. I think he will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the college weight room regiment. His game should look way different at 6’0 & 195 lbs than at 5’11 & 177 lbs.

Luke had a 6th round ranking from Central Scouting in 2024 and went undrafted. He played games for NTDP and developed with the Steel, two of the most prominent junior hockey organizations in the world. It’s not lost on me that Merrimack sniped a recruit from RPI at this time a year ago and now it’s seemingly come full circle. He’s got some development to do, and it might not happen immediately, but I do think Goukler can get really good. Another strong 4-star pickup from the staff, who seems entirely focused on adding youthful talent to this team. Welcome aboard Luke!

Hockey season is right around the corner, and RPI once again rolls out a roster smattered with new faces. 15 new Engineers will join the squad to be exact. This deviates a bit from the build through the draft, roster continuity approach that was promised, but I think it was necessary for quite a few reasons. We’ve spoken at length about the quick turnaround time for roster assembly last offseason, leading to a mix-and-match portal cycle. Second, this was a transformational recruiting year for the program. On our offseason pod, I equated it to uncovering a gold mine and needing to grab as much value as you possibly could. Thus, a lot of new faces, which gives us plenty of fodder to pontificate about, which is just about all we can do this time of year! Let’s look at how this roster shapes up and assess what seem to be the obvious strengths, question marks, and unknowns.

The Highs

Forward Depth

To borrow a baseball analogy, last year’s forwards had a lot of doubles, but Lang and Schneider went swinging for the fences up front this offseason. The 6 forward recruits are very high end and all of them have the chance to be top line or top 6 players at this level. Yurchuk and Ross have a history of scoring and the talent to thrive in the ECAC. Sitar, Rullers, and Scherzer proved they can produce here last season. I think McNeil and Bourgault are the only two guys who won’t see time on the scoring lines, and that is absolutely nothing against their games. It just goes to show that RPI has an abundance of forward talent that will be competing neck-and-neck for ice time. Iron sharpens iron, so this competition should be exactly what Lang wants to expedite player development.

Centers

Just like Dave Smith, Lang likes to recruit centers. Lots of them. Once again referencing baseball, centers are like shortstops, who have incredibly high game IQ and can play anywhere. Sitar and Rullers are a real good 1-2 punch, and from there you have options. Lodewyk won draws at nearly a 65% clip in the WHL, and I am sure he will stick in the middle. Lindberg, Scherzer, Yurchuk, Smith, Evaschesen, and Bono all have spent time at center. Lang has no shortage of options.

Emphasis on Hard Skill

I think it’s really easy to recruit a highly skilled team or a hard-working team. But I think it’s really, really hard to build a team that does both. RPI’s secret sauce is going to be building it like Cornell, Quinnipiac, and other teams that thread this needle so well. This team is building the right way and consistently adding talented players that are hard to play against. I think this year will be our first glimpse of what this looks like inside the new system.

A Very Athletic Defense

Take one look at Eric Lang’s best teams at AIC and you’ll realize that he loves athletic defenseman that can quickly break the puck out. This asset drives his system’s transition game and helps his teams get opponents stuck on their heels. He is starting to pull this together here, with a combination of quick skaters and skilled puck handlers. Michael, Guo, and Burzynski all have this in their game which will pair nicely with the returners in Sobieski and Klassek.

The Holes

It’s still super early to project how this thing comes together, and I think it’s actually a very well-rounded group. But for the purpose of the exercise, here would be my question marks on paper.

Defensive Depth

I think the defense is fun and exciting, but it’s young and could yield a variety of results. I thought last year’s unit was about as safe as you could get, with Sobieski and Klassek the bright spots, surrounded by a group of steady but unexciting veterans. 4 of those guys departed, making way for 3 freshman and likely one of Simon Motew or Landen Hilditch to take the final full-time role. I’m on the record saying that if this group can be retained and developed, it will be a top 2 defensive unit in the league in 2027-28. In the meantime? There might be some growing pains for a unit of guys in which none of the players have more than 1 full season of NCAA hockey under their belt.

Who are the go-to guys once again?

I love the depth on this team and think they will roll out 4 lines that can produce goals. I do think though, that they again lack players that opponents will be circling on the line charts. This is incredibly understandable; Lang needs some time to recruit and develop them. And we have also seen freshman step right into that role before, even as recently as Sutter Muzzatti, Tyler Hotson, and Felix Caron. I just think their goal is going to have to be to score with depth and wear teams down with effort until some of the freshmen have grown into true scoring threats.

It’s a very, very young team

RPI is slated to bring in 11 freshmen, which to my math will easily be the most in the ECAC. Only Ethan Bono, Alfred Lindberg, and Brad McNeil are slated to leave the program come next spring, which sets this team up to be very youthful. My view is as follows: This is clearly by design, as Lang felt there was more talent in juniors recruiting than the portal and it fit his program building culture better. He clearly knows this team will be inexperienced but thinks this approach will yield a more exponential success in years to come than recruiting solid, but safe 23-year-old transfers will.

The Unknowns

Goalie Development

Nate Krawchuk came on incredibly strong by the end of the 2026 campaign. For a kid originally recruited by the last staff and not given the starting role initially, it’s hard not to grade his freshman season an unequivocal win. How much is in the tank though? Can he be a top 3 or 4 goalie in the ECAC? Can Ethan McCallum push him in year 1? McCallum was good not great last year in the WHL but was invited to Toronto’s camp a few weeks ago. Krawchuk struggled to give them back-to-backs down the stretch despite having the hot hand. I think this young duo is formidable and has lots of potential, but how far can they take the Engineers in 2026-27?

How will all the WHL recruits translate?

This will be year 2 of the CHL-to-NCAA transition, and year 1 produced mixed results to say the least. Hockey pundits are still fleshing out their definitive league rankings, with most grouping the OHL and USHL as tier 1, with the WHL a close 3rd.

Year 1 CHL Translation

For a team with 8 WHL recruits slated to come in, the data illustrated in this piece disappoints me just a bit. It’s still very early and will take years to truly rank the recruiting prowess of each junior league. But, as this data suggests, you can expect all the point-per-game recruits coming in to produce roughly 0.37 of their point total last year. Only time will tell what leagues are most desirable to spend most of your recruiting time in. But for now, RPI’s high reliance on the WHL being a reliable feeder will be something to monitor.

Parting Thoughts

I tried to call it as fair as I could in this exercise, as I genuinely think RPI is close to great things under Lang despite still being in transition. This roster is young with only 3 seniors, but it is inherently more Lang’s which should excite fans. All of these players are here for a reason, most were recruited by this staff now, and most will be a part of his first true core of talent here. Even if the Engineers are a year away, expect this season to be much more revealing of what Lang’s program will look like.