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)

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.

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.

RPI’s last 2+ decades have created lots of questions about what the program’s ceiling is and whether the program can realistically compete in this new era of college athletics. I wanted to write this article to layout if RPI can compete nationally with all the changes to the NCAA, if so, how they can do it. However, before even getting to all those changes and their impact, the way to win generally as a program is important to go over. This also isn’t just applicable to RPI; it’s the same for every small school out there.

What I (and many others I assume) have discovered over the years is that there’s a clear recruiting and on-ice formula that small schools have to follow in order to compete nationally. This is the formula that Quinnipiac has been following to be a top program nationally the past 5 or so years, and it’s also the one that Minnesota State followed under Mike Hastings during their excellent run. These are the two main examples I use since these are the two programs that I feel perfected the formula, and that’s why Quinnipiac was able to win it all while Mankato made it to the title game (and had a 3rd period lead that they gave up).

What this article won’t be focusing on is the recent NCAA landscape changes and the effect of that. Those matter a lot, and there will be a follow-up article (a part 2 if you will) about how you follow this recruiting and on-ice formula as a small school while disadvantaged by those rules. For this article though, let’s breakdown the recruiting and on-ice system.

Part 1: Recruit Top Older Players

At a school like RPI or even Quinnipiac, you’re not getting top prospects who are top NHL draft picks. When Brandon Pirri came to RPI, it was an entirely different era. That’s not going to happen again barring RPI getting a major upgrade in facilities and the ability to pay players, and even then, it is quite unlikely.

It is possible to get some mid to late round picks, and I’d say your ideal roster has a handful of these players. Quinnipiac brought in Elliott Groenewold as a true freshman last year and Ethan Wyttenbach this year, as examples, and usually has somewhere around 5-6 draft picks on the roster. Minnesota State had Nathan Smith on the roster when they made it to the National Championship in 2022. Cornell had Morgan Barron on their excellent 2020 team and has typically had a handful of mid to late round picks on the team. There’s plenty more examples, but you get the idea.

However, the majority of your roster is going to be made up of older players who have played at least 2-3 years of junior hockey (even a lot of their drafted players fit this bill and didn’t enroll until 19 or 20). They still have talent and skill, just not as much, but they are older and more experienced. Traditionally, these have been players that are playing multiple years in the USHL or BCHL.

These are players like Zach Metsa and Ethan De Jong on Quinnipiac’s national title team. Both are skilled, good players who played leading roles on that team, but they’ve both primarily only played in the AHL to this point with Metsa only just now getting NHL games. For Mankato, they had Ryan Sandelin and Julian Napravnik among the leaders of that national runner-up team in 2022. Those are just a few examples, but both programs have been littered with these types of players that come to college older, develop and become excellent college players, and then top out in the AHL or European leagues most likely.

Obviously, you also have to do a good job developing these players once they get to campus, but you can’t compete for national championships without great players. You have to recruit the players and then develop them. It has been a big challenge finding and keeping players of that caliber, even when they’re older, for small schools in the past.

However, it has now become a whole lot easier. With the rule change to allow CHL players to play college hockey, there is more talent than ever before to recruit. All 3 major junior leagues in Canada are high quality leagues. The consensus is the WHL and OHL are both on par with the USHL, if not better, while the QMJHL is a bit below. They’re all high quality leagues and clearly in the same ballpark talent wise. Not every player in the CHL will play college hockey, but the talent pool is nearly doubled from this. That’s huge for any small school. There’s so much talent that it’s going to introduce more parity as more schools recruit these talented older players that are now available from more than just the USHL and Junior A in Canada.

That’s why during the coaching change last year, I kept mentioning the ability to recruit the CHL as incredibly important for the next coach. With RPI’s location and league, they should be able to thrive at recruiting the CHL. They need to recruit players that contribute in these leagues and are coming in after 2-3 years in order to compete. While the staff ended up shifting to the WHL instead of staying more local with the OHL and QMJHL, the point is that the quality of these leagues are all stellar, and you need great players to compete. Good players come from everywhere, but most of the good players will be in the USHL, OHL, WHL, and QMJHL.

This is the most important part of the formula. You can’t win without good players, no matter how good your scheme and system are.

Part 2: Play a Strong Puck Possession Game

Puck possession for these small schools has to be the bread and butter for how they play on the ice. While still talented, they don’t have these high-level, blue-chip NHL prospects. Those prospects can break open a game by themselves by dangling through the defense and beating the goalie, or cutting to the middle and ripping one under the bar. They can create scoring chances from nothing, so the blue blood teams with more of these players don’t need as strong puck possession to score and control the game.

Small schools don’t have that luxury. While the older talent is still good and can score pretty well too, it’s a different level. They need sustained possession in the offensive zone to take over games and win a lot. Even more importantly, when you have the puck a lot, it means your opponent doesn’t have it and can’t score.

Quinnipiac has been absolutely elite in this regard during their reign, and Minnesota State was the same way under Hastings. They both were consistently top 5 in the country in close corsi percentage, which is a great measure of puck possession. For those that don’t know, corsi is just a measure of all shot attempts, and the percentage of shot attempts a team has is roughly how much possession they’re controlling. Close corsi is adjusted for score effects and only takes into account when the games are close at even strength. This is because teams that are losing in games tend to start throwing everything at the net in desperation, and it often skews the numbers, especially as it gets later in the game.

Both schools have been absolutely elite at possessing the puck, and that’s a big part of how they both have consistently been national championship contenders.

Part 3: Defend the Slot

This falls under puck possession to a certain extent, but I do think it’s distinct enough to mention separately. A hallmark of the Minnesota State teams were the way they defended the slot and made their goalies’ lives easier. Quinnipiac is the same way. Both teams have had good goaltenders, but their numbers have been a lot better than their talent level because of how well they defend. Call it the Dryden McKay effect. He would consistently have shutouts making less than 20 saves because of how good the defense was, and he had great numbers for his entire career because of it despite having only an ECHL career in the pros to date.

Both programs particularly have defended the slot well and prevented high danger chances. Only allowing around 20 shots is outstanding defending on its own, and out of those shots, very few of them would be big scoring chances. This smothering defense has been a trademark of these teams, and it is shown by their extremely low expected goals against numbers.

Expected goals is a measure of shot quality. Every shot has a chance of going in, but obviously shots taken in the slot or near the net have a much higher chance of going in than a point shot. Using historical data, every shot is assigned a percentage chance of going in based on the location and situation. That percentage is the expected goal value for that shot (e.g. a shot with a 30% chance of going in is worth 0.3 expected goals). You can sum up those expected goals over a game, season, etc. to see how well a team is playing in terms of earning or allowing dangerous shots and scoring chances. Quinnipiac and Minnesota State have consistently been elite in expected goals against per game, meaning they defend at a high level.

Both teams have had those elite suppression numbers lead to outstanding results in the actual goals department too.

To be competitive on the national stage as a small school, the team defense has to be elite at preventing dangerous scoring chances and keeping the puck out of the net. The recruiting from part 1 even plays into this because the older and stronger players make it more difficult for the younger, more skilled players to get to the dangerous areas. Defending the slot is a huge part of the blueprint.

Part 4: Control the Neutral Zone

The final piece to the puzzle is the neutral zone and transition play. Controlling the neutral zone is extremely important for any team in general because that’s what drives the rest of the game. The most dangerous opportunities come in transition and off of turnovers. Being able to generate off the rush and defend the rush is a big part to keeping the possession and game tilted in your favor, so a lot of this ties into the previous topics. I thought it was still worth mentioning though.

Think of it this way: if a team can enter the zone with possession, they’re able to start their offensive zone sequence immediately and look to attack the net. Since not all players on the other team are back in their own zone yet (typically), that also means there is more time and space to work with. If they are forced to dump it in, they start the sequence without the puck and have to spend the time and energy winning races and puck battles to earn possession before attacking. The time spent doing this also means that typically all the players on the other team are now back in the zone, which takes away space. If a team can do this well offensively while preventing it defensively, it’s pretty much always going to lead to good possession, chance generation and chance suppression.

Looking at controlled zone entries per game, the trend is clear here too. Controlled zone entries are zone entries either through stickhandling or through passing because the team is entering the offensive zone with control and possession.

Typically, the most skilled teams tend to be the best here, so it’s not totally shocking that the two programs were typically more in the 6-10 range rather than top 5. They’re not recruiting the blue-chip prospects with elite skill as noted earlier, but they’re still getting the talented older players with a good skill level. Then, they play to their system perfectly.

Unfortunately, data is not available for preventing controlled zone entries on the defensive side, but given everything we have analyzed, I’d be willing to bet that it would look similarly excellent. Both programs have controlled the neutral zone to tilt the possession in their favor and help contribute to also generating and preventing dangerous scoring chances.

The Formula

The formula for competing nationally with the chance to win a championship is clear. You need high-level recruiting of older players, great player development, and a system that effectively prioritizes puck possession, defending the slot, and controlling the neutral zone in order to maximize that talent. It sounds a whole lot easier than it is, and there’s a reason that ECAC, CCHA, and Atlantic Hockey programs are hardly competitors on the national scene. The coaching needed to execute this has to be elite; it cannot only be very good. Both Mike Hastings and Rand Pecknold are unanimously top 5 coaches in the sport for a reason.

They are elite in all of these areas. Recruiting, player development, and systems execution are all areas where they excel, and a small school coach cannot afford to be missing in even a single area. That’s hard to do; even really good coaches in college hockey tend to be slightly behind in at least one area. It takes a truly elite coach to excel in all of them and build a nationally competitive program. For the RPI fans, I think Eric Lang is one of these rare caliber of coaches after what he was able to do at AIC, winning 4 straight league titles for NCAA tournament berths with ZERO resources. Building them up to do it once or twice is one thing, but the ability to keep them there for so long is truly astounding. His accomplishments there were genuinely unreal.

The good news if you’re a small school fan? The blueprint is obvious, and I can practically guarantee you that every single coach at a small school is trying to replicate it. With the plethora of talent available now because of the CHL, it has never been easier to execute on the recruiting front of this. The depth of talent means there will be increasingly more parity in the sport. After that? It’s a matter of player development and system execution. Personally, I don’t think the small schools are dead. I think we will continue to see at least a couple per year with a legitimate shot at winning it all like a Quinnipiac or Minnesota State. The biggest blocker to there being more small schools competing is the transfer portal and ability to pay players. Stay tuned for part 2 for how small schools will have to navigate that in this new era of college sports.

Since we haven’t recapped in a few weeks, I am going to try to cover my bases here with all the recent matters of the program that we have been tracking. RPI has a month left to go in the regular season, with all their remaining games coming in the ECAC.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we have been very upfront about that with you all season. I think a lot of the fans we interact with who were the most outspoken about wanting a coaching change got a little out over their skis expecting overnight results. These overnight rebuilds are certainly happening much faster than they used to before the portal, but that was never really in the equation for RPI this year. It took a long time for Eric Lang to be chosen, at which point the best players on last year’s team were already in the portal. There have been bright spots this year, none bigger than the incoming recruiting class shaping up to be RPI’s deepest since the classes of 2018 and 2019. Public announcements about HFH renovations this offseason are encouraging, as has been the marketing for the team, which we have long called for. Our internal goal here at The Field House was 10 wins and/or home ice in the ECAC first round, both of which RPI has some work to do in order to achieve. Let’s dig a bit deeper:

Mayor’s Cup & Last Weekend

None of us are local right now and due to the lack of streaming (why…) we weren’t able to see any of this game live. Nonetheless, this one stings about as bad as a loss can. Coach Lang called it one of the most crushing defeats and most surprising finishes of his career. It would have been a great one to have to gain some traction locally, in a rivalry that has been totally one-sided in the past decade plus. Lang seems hellbent on changing that narrative, and this one could have been planted a flag in the ground. Listen to the very end of his presser… “As our program builds and gets pretty good, and then we’re going to get frickin’ really good and you can take that to the goddamn bank”. Yeah, I’m all in.

This past weekend at Harvard and Dartmouth was the exact synopsis of the ‘25-’26 season. Great effort, low scoring, not enough puck possession and shots on net, and not enough goals.

It is what it is at this point with this team, and I do agree with Lang that they will be a tough out in the playoffs. Krawchuk has proven that he’s capable of stealing you one, and the team can clearly play with anyone. They just can’t score yet, and that’s going to take time through recruiting and development.

Remaining Schedule

RPI has at least 3 very winnable games, albeit they are all on the road. I think 3-5 is doable, and then hopefully a playoff win to get to double digit wins on the year. That is my hope…

Recruiting Corner

Evaschesen on fire lately in the WHL.

Michael —> Evaschesen. More of that to come in Troy!

Ryan Michael committed to the program in January, and we will have a piece out shortly detailing that one. His high-IQ, 2-way game will be an immediate plug and play on the left side.

Leo-Gabriel Gosselin gets time in the QMJHL.

Gosselin is just an ‘09 birth year, meaning he has a ton of time to develop. His rights were recently traded from Chicoutimi to Baie-Comeau in the QMJHL, notoriously a top program in the league. He has been called up a few times recently and is gaining solid experience in the league this year.

A very happy new year to everyone, and what a crazy year it was for the RPI men’s hockey program. We’ve documented it all here, and we hope you have enjoyed the coverage. To wrap up the year and to thank everyone for their support, we wanted to turn it over to you guys and take in some mailbag questions. Here are our best thoughts on your pressing questions surrounding the program:

Will Matthew Jovanovic see more playing time in the second half of the season? - Toga

Stephen: All along the plan was to bring Jovanovic along slowly and gradually get him back into the swing of things. After all, he went 4.5 years without playing a single competitive hockey game. Now that he has played a couple of games, we do expect that he will start seeing some more ice time as the season goes on. When he has played, he’s looked pretty solid, and he has clear talent with his size and skating ability. One thing that Chris has also said about him is that he also just seems to have very good feel for the game. He’s probably not going to be an every night player, but we expect he will play more than 2 games in the second half. He is a player we’d circle for an offseason breakout, but it probably won’t happen as soon as the next few weeks.

What’s it going to take for RPI to turn its season around in the final 16 regular season games? - Ed

Stephen & Chris: Honestly, this probably isn’t the answer that you’re looking for, but RPI isn’t going to turn this season around. Rebuilds are a process, and RPI is very early on in it. The team simply isn’t good enough to turn around the year to finish in the top 4 of the league. If it did happen, it would be driven by excellent goaltending by Krawchuk in net and improvements from the top 9 forwards who have not produced much like Wallace, Buckley, Tinling, Rullers and Tapper. A reasonable goal for the 2nd half would be to build enough sustainable momentum to earn home ice in the ECAC playoffs and/or win a playoff game.

Is Coach Lang still living in a hotel room? - John

Stephen: This is a funny question. As far as we know, yes. Keep grinding Coach… it’ll all be worth it.

Is RPI going to recruit out of the ECHL like some of the other NCAA schools are doing? - John

Stephen: This is pretty doubtful. First of all, this is probably going to be only a one-year thing. All the former pro players currently in the NCAA (or being added to rosters midseason) are former major junior players who never got to take advantage of the rule change. Current major junior players can just go directly to the NCAA. Second of all, the players that have been added to rosters were late adds to replace last minute departures. Arizona State lost Cole Spicer in the summer and thus had a spot to fill, which they used on Jack Beck. Quinnipiac lost Ben Saunderson, who decided to go to USports instead, and they filled his spot with Graham Sward. The midseason addition of Mats Lindberg for Colorado College is because they lost a defenseman, Max Burkholder, for the season due to injury. RPI doesn’t have any long-term injuries that we are aware of, so this is highly unlikely. Expect Lang & co. to continue targeting the CHL for the roster overhaul.

Prior to the season, I had expected RPI to be able to score in bunches but struggle defensively. It now seems as though that may have been too optimistic. What do you see as the primary reason behind the scoring struggles (roster, system, something else)? - Brown Hockey Blog

Stephen: This team was never going to be one that was dynamic offensively, but we did expect them to score more than this. Depth was supposed to be the strength of the forward group, while the lack of top end talent would hold them back. So far, it has played out like that. However, the depth hasn’t been quite as strong as expected, and the top 6 is scoring even less than expected despite already being viewed as a weakness. Dovar Tinling and Jagger Tapper have taken steps back production-wise compared to last year, while Tyler Wallace and Rainers Rullers haven’t scored as much as expected going into the year. That’s about it; they need more production from the top 6.

Looking beyond the raw results. Do you see this year as a net positive, negative, or neutral so far, given the massive roster overhaul and new coach/system needing to be implemented? - Mike

Stephen & Chris: Definitely a net positive. With all that you mentioned, it was definitely going to be a tough year, but we have seen a good system and nice flashes from some young players. We think the roster was collectively overrated by the fanbase in the offseason off the sheer hope that Lang was a miracle worker. There is a lot of pieces we like, young ones especially, but the group lacks firepower and that has held them back. 7-28 on this year’s roster is better than last year’s in my opinion, but they don’t have anyone of the caliber of Caron, Muzzatti, Gilson, and others from last year. This takes time to build, a lot of it has to come from juniors recruiting and is tough to just poach out of the portal for a school like RPI. The calendar year has been a massive win given the coaching change, I’d say the season has been about neutral or slightly above what I expected. In early 2026? The wins to look for are more HFH news, a strong 2nd half, and roster improvement in the portal.

Who on RPI is most poised for a breakout second half? - Anonymous

Stephen: Our answers are probably all different. For me (Stephen), I’d say Buckley; his metrics are excellent with tons of shots and chances generated. The puck just hasn’t been going in the net. With his shot, I expect that’ll return to the mean.

Chris: Tinling. He’s just better than what we’ve seen so far. I imagine he’s had to shoulder a lot as a Captain and one of the main guys trying to integrate the new players and establish a culture. He also has had to move off his primary position (center) and get established on the wing. Regardless, he is better than the 4 points he has turned in thus far.

I think Tyler Wallace will do more not just in the 2nd half but hopefully in his senior year here too. He has 4 goals and 4 assists at the midway point but has clearly been on RPI’s best play driving line so far. They are different players, but in terms of career production I have always comped him to Austin Heidemann as a reference coming from the Atlantic. Austin started slow moving up from Mercyhurst but grew all the way into RPI’s leading point getter in 23-24 with 27 points. I think Wallace can follow a similar track.

While we are all excited about the recent recruiting wins, what are you most looking forward to seeing from the team on the ice as the season continues? -Matt

Chris: For me personally, the systems that Lang has implemented have looked solid so far. They have been competitive with most of the top teams, the PK has improved significantly as have the goalies, and their breakouts are effective. The team just seems to lack the talent to possess the puck for long enough right now. Thus, I am focused on more individual improvement in the 2nd half and want to see some of the younger players grow into building blocks for the program as they think about how to attack the portal in the spring. It would take a lot of pressure off the staff in the spring if the likes of Buckley, Sitar, Sobieski, Rullers, etc. establish themselves as top-flight players that can be built around.

What is the status of the Field House renovation? - Michael

Chris: The school has definitely kept this buttoned up and we understand the fear of it just being something that is “in the works” forever and ever. To make matters worse, Union just unveiled their fancy new arena this fall right across town. We understand the frustration. I don’t know the exact dollar amount, but somewhere in the $5-$10 million range ($7 sounds right to me), is being put into the Houston Field House this spring. It is supposed to be for ice and board renovations, refrigeration, and other maintenance to the overall facility. At the golf outing this summer, they were showing mock-ups for the proposed overhaul of the facility that would be north of $50 million, for new seats, locker rooms, weight rooms, lounges, and a new lobby. In essence, this would be your shiny new arena that the fans could enjoy. The fact of the matter is that this is going to take some pretty big donors, even with hockey being a big priority to Schmidt and Bowers. I imagine Dr. Bowers is working hard to get fundraising efforts in order because it is in her best interest to add a revival of the hockey program and an HFH renovation to her resume as AD. I do take solace in the fact that Schmidt, Bowers, and Lang are all highly incentivized to get this done. For now, though, we’re in stay tuned mode.

Coach Lang said on Big Board Sports with Rodger Wyland last week that in Year 1 at AIC they had to put a team together, in Year 2 they got really young and in Year 3 they got really good. It seems he is following the exact same model as he looks to get this program up off the mat, and into a perennial contender. The staff seems hellbent on doing this the right way and not “skipping any steps”, and so far, I would argue we are right on track.

RPI is 5-13-0 at the break after starting 0-6, battling hard in the middle of the season to a 5-5 mark with wins over Union, Clarkson, and Lowell, and finishing with a disappointing weekend against Quinnipiac and Princeton. They sit 11th in a bunched-up conference, have picked up some huge wins on the recruiting trail, and are right about where I would have expected at this juncture.

Forwards:

I think the forwards are just about where I would have predicted before the season. The criticism before the season of the forward unit was that it lacked explosion in the form of a true top-line, and unfortunately that has played out. On the other hand, the unit did look to have some depth, which has also played out for the most part. Prior to the season, we tiered the group as follows:

Looking back, we were correct on the roles, I’d say the one exception has been Matthew Buckley sliding up and Tinling and Tapper coming down a bit. The bottom 6 has been productive as we predicted, and basically propelled RPI to a sweep two weekends ago against Niagara.

Filip Sitar and Matthew Buckley have been the biggest surprises on the good side. The question for Sitar was if the increased role would lead to more production, and I would say the answer is unequivocally yes. Buckley on the other hand was confusing because he had a huge year in the OHL in 23-24 but was a bit disappointing in 24-25. His production has cooled off, but statistically he has been RPI’s best forward on a Corsi and xG basis. Both of these guys are real building blocks that Lang must be eager to retain and develop.

To get where they want to go in the 2nd half, they need the returners to elevate so they can truly run 3 lines out there that can produce. Tinling, Rullers, and Tapper have been quiet, perhaps a bit snakebitten, but we all know what they are capable of. This has been the missing piece in the first half.

What I would call out here is RPI’s finishing ability was clearly strongest in the middle 6. They have generated at a somewhat similar clip, but in those middle games they converted the opportunities they had, whereas early on and recently they have not. A lot of this is skill driven and hard to coach, but it is still critical to winning. At the end of the day, it has to be a focus of the program right now to recruit players that help the team possess the puck more, because their margin for error is really small.

Defense:

Our conversation about the defense through the preseason was that they are young and will have growing pains, but that it should benefit the program in the long run. There’s definitely been some good and a couple guys have established themselves as building blocks going forward. For the most part though, RPI hasn’t possessed the puck enough and this hurts them offensively. This team under Lang doesn’t get caught in its own end the way they did the last few seasons, but they struggle to truly move pucks from their own end into the opposing zone for sustained offense.

The bright spots to me for me have been Thomas Klassek and Kaz Sobieski, two young guys who have a world of talent and should become excellent players here. Sobieski has clearly been the #1 guy for the Engineers and has been a mainstay on the top pair and PP unit. His defense hasn’t been perfect, but I think it will keep developing with time. I see a top pair of Grayson Burzynski (more to come on that one) and Kaz Sobieski for the next two years, and that gets me very excited. Klassek is also a work in progress defensively, but he skates very well and has offensive ability that you can build around.

The left side has been fine but lacks a standout, for the most part Gustavs Ozolins has filled a void on the top pair, but RPI needs more from that unit. Gunnar VanDamme started strong but has faded a bit, and Lucas Lemieux has been quiet to start. We thought Lemieux was a bit raw but had a huge ceiling coming into RPI, so hopefully his game elevates as the season goes on and helps this group. Hilditch and Jovanovic have played sparingly but I’ve liked what I’ve seen so far from both.

My question for the 2nd half? Do we see a full-blown youth movement or do the likes of Russell, Goffredo, and VanDamme elevate their games enough to force those guys to wait their turn.

Goaltending:

Teams live and die by their goaltending. It’s just the truth of this game. RPI’s has been all over the place to say the least, but Nathan Krawchuk seems to have emerged as the Engineers best option. This is encouraging given Krawchuk’s young age, and he has certainly shown flashes. Bruveris has had some good games but has been disappointing for the most part. Given Krawchuk’s age and the staff’s vested interest in his development, I expect him to be given the keys in the 2nd half to investigate what they have in him. Whether or not he is the long-term starter remains to be seen, but I think he has certainly proven so far that he is part of the puzzle.

Between the two of them though, the goaltending has been a lot better as the year has gone on. RPI basically outplayed Miami for the weekend, who sits at 10-6-2 in the NCHC, but goaltending let them down a ton. It has progressed dramatically and directly led to wins against Union, Lowell, and game 2 against Niagara.

Recruiting and Miscellaneous:

TFH Blog:

We will have posts out on these guys shortly, but it’s hard to wrap up the first half without touching on the recruiting wins RPI has gotten. Lang has said multiple times that some of their most important wins right now have to come on the recruiting trails, and that certainly came to fruition this week.

Lange in Austria

Assistant Coach Matthias Lange is coaching for Austria in the IIHF World Championships right now. Best of luck to Coach Lange!

Hecker Commits

We had a piece go out last week detailing Ryan Hecker’s commitment to RPI. He is definitely a few years away, but the aforementioned 4 players, Hecker, and Gosselin now bring the pipeline recruited by Lang to 6.

RPI is headed the right direction as a program halfway through the 25-26 season. This season was always going to be a transition, but I’d point towards programs in year 2 of a head coach like Miami and Princeton as reasons to be excited. It doesn’t take long to remake a roster in this era, and the systems that Lang plays all look very dependable. Stay the course as this thing slowly builds — we are on the right track.

It’s been an interesting start for the league this year. The top of the league has looked better than I thought they would for the most part, leading me to believe that the league could actually get back to 3 bids in the NCAA tournament. I would not have put any money on that at the start of the year, but the top 5 teams (in my eyes) are all looking quite good. Conversely, the middle of the league has been weaker than expected, which is an okay trade off. The drop off is something to follow over the course of the year because I bet we see a decent sized gap between that top grouping and the rest of the league. The bottom of the league has been pretty much exactly what I expected.

Brown

They had a rough opening weekend against Air Force on the road, but they’ve done pretty much what I expected since then. They beat Princeton and took Quinnipiac to OT before getting swept last weekend by Colgate and Cornell. The defense has been just okay to start, but Tyler Shea has had a good start to the year in net. I still expect the defense to be pretty solid.

The offense has predictably struggled greatly. As I broke down in my season preview, Brown lacks any sort of depth up front and is pretty much fully reliant on Ryan St. Louis, Brian Nicholas, and Ben Poitras for scoring. So far, those guys have not been up to expectations; Nicholas has the most points on the team with 4. They need more than that from the top forwards or else they’ll continue scoring only 1.5 goals per game.

Clarkson

By far the weirdest team in the league this season, and it’s not close. I don’t understand Clarkson, and I suspect no one does (including the staff and team themselves). I don’t understand how you beat Penn State on the road, beat North Dakota, and beat a solid Michigan Tech team, but you also lose to every Atlantic team you play and Lake State. I said before the season that Clarkson is such a young team that it wouldn’t be a surprise if they struggled more than anticipated. However, these are crazy swings and way more inconsistent than expected.

Clarkson has been struggling since the start of ECAC play too with 3 straight losses now. I suspect that Clarkson is the type of team that is going to be much better at the end of the year when their young players are more adjusted to the college game, but there’s no way this is a second place team like I predicted. They are way too inconsistent for that and are looking much more likely to end up in the middle of the league.

Colgate

Colgate is around where I expected them to be. In terms of individual results, they’ve had some surprisingly good weekends against BU and Maine. They got a tie against BU and beat Maine. They also took Maine to OT in the second game against them. They’ve also dropped games they were expected to win though. They were swept by RIT and lost to Canisius. They almost lost to Yale too, but they managed to come back in the 3rd period and pull it out in OT.

Overall though, my Colgate prediction is looking spot on. The goaltending is weak: Reid Dyck has gotten most of the starts and is struggling while Andrew Takacs has been very meh in his starts. The defense hasn’t been good due to that. The offense has been just okay: they are generating about the same number of chances as last year, but they aren’t finishing as well. Last year, Colgate’s finishing was very good, but it has fallen to average. I think that falls more in line with their true talent level than last year. I expect Colgate to continue at around this pace.

Cornell

They’re looking pretty good to start the year. I thought they would continue to be a very good team with strong defense and goaltending, but I was concerned about an average looking offense. So far, that’s been about right. The defense is excellent and has allowed 1.5 goals per game. Alexis Cournoyer has stepped right in and looked elite between the pipes. Offensively, they’re averaging just under 3 goals per game. I don’t expect the defense will continue at THAT good of a rate, so they will want to up their scoring to be a true NCAA tournament contender.

So far so good though for Cornell. They’re 4-2, and the only 2 losses are close ones against good teams in UMass and Dartmouth. Before the year, I thought they’d be just outside the NCAA tournament, but I think they’re better than that. As of now, I’d predict them to make the tourney.

Dartmouth

Dartmouth is starting to get some national hype due to the 6-0 start, but I would pump the brakes a little bit. They’re definitely a good team, but the current rate is unsustainable. Their PDO is currently a whopping 109.7 with a 15.2% shooting percentage and a 0.945 team save percentage. That’s not going to happen all season. Going into the season, I had them 6th due to the goaltending and defense. So far, they have been excellent in both areas. While the goaltending won’t continue at that rate, if it’s reliable, they are easily a top 4 team because that was the main thing holding them back. I think the defending is sustainable though, so this is a team that will definitely outperform my projection.

The real question for me is: how much will they outperform it by? It’s a tough one to answer only 6 games into the year. My gut right now tells me that they’ll be on the NCAA tournament bubble, and I’m not sure which side of it. They are doing an excellent job possessing the puck. Their close corsi % is 60.9% which is 7th in the country. My SNACC metric, which is a corsi metric that factors in Strength of Schedule, has them 14th. That’s the main reason I see them as a bubble team. The rest of it will come down to how good their goaltending and finishing ACTUALLY is.

Harvard

On the other hand, I think Harvard is super underrated right now. The national media hasn’t caught up to them yet. They are 4-1-1 right now with their only loss to Cornell, and they tied a very good UConn team. Ben Charette has been awesome in net, even better than the most optimistic people expected of him. They are scoring easily as well with contributions up and down the lineup. I’d absolutely have them ranked in the top 20

The main hole for Harvard is the defense. They haven’t defended well in front of Charette, and they need to be better there. He can’t keep bailing them out constantly. I think that will improve because the defense corps is pretty experienced for the most part, and their overall puck possession has been pretty good. If they improve that, they can make the NCAA tournament, but if not, they’ll be on the outside of it. I view them similarly to Dartmouth in terms of level.

Princeton

This is another team that’s pretty much right where I thought they would be (so far). They’re 3-2 against an extremely weak schedule with wins over Alaska and Stonehill and road losses to Brown and Yale. The stats look much better than predicted obviously given the record and showing some good scoring in goaltending in that stretch. Based on the losses to Brown and Yale though, it’s pretty clearly schedule driven, and once they start playing the quality teams, it’ll fall down. I still view them in that 8-9 range in the league.

Quinnipiac

Quinnipiac is not playing up to my expectations so far, but the underlying numbers are right where I thought they would be. They’ve gotten unlucky against Alaska (twice) and had a couple super strange losses to Merrimack and Yale, but they’re so good it is unlikely to matter. As usual, they are one of the top puck possession teams in the nation and generate tons of chances while limiting their opponents. They’re averaging 3.4 goals per game while allowing only 2.3.

This is still a no doubt NCAA tournament team that’s one of the country’s elite, a couple fluke results aside. The only real weakness is that they have not been finishing their chances well; they should be scoring even more than 3.4 goals per game. The goaltending has been only average if you want to nitpick too, but it hasn’t been an issue really. They’re the top team in the ECAC.

RPI

Entering the first year of a new head coach inheriting a rebuild, the results were expected to be bad, but RPI has picked it up as of late. They started 0-6 against an extremely tough non-conference slate, but they’re 3-3 in the last 6 games. They’ve found ways to get upset wins against Clarkson and Union in league and against UMass Lowell out of the league.

RPI still isn’t a good team even with these results. They don’t possess the puck well, they don’t finish their chances, and the special teams are poor. But they’re starting to show some flashes with good transition play, and Nate Krawchuk is heating up in net as a freshman. I think they’re still a bottom 4 team, but I have more faith in them than some of the others now.

St. Lawrence

This is a team that’s just as bad as expected. St. Lawrence is sitting at 2-9-1 despite playing a very weak schedule. They have little offensive talent to speak of and are scoring barely more than 2 goals per game. Defensively, they’ve been horrendous in terms of chances allowed, and Mason Kucenski has struggled in net. There’s nothing really positive to speak of here. They’re one of the worst teams in the country, and they seem even worse than I had them preseason.

Union

Another interesting team to me, but for different reasons as the others. Union has been great, but they have played the worst schedule in the country. Going 8-2-1 is great, but there’s a reason they are currently only 35th in the NPI. The question for Union will be: are they actually good or just a product of their schedule?

For me, the sweep of UNH and UMass Lowell was impressive; I think they’re actually good. Even though the schedule is weak, they also have been dominant against it. Their close corsi % is 3rd in the country, and in my SNACC metric, they’re 9th even with how weak the schedule is. They’re scoring 4 goals per game and allowing only 1.9. That’s about as good as you can ask for. They’re definitely in the top 4 mix with Harvard and Dartmouth, but they’re not an NCAA tournament option unlike those teams.

Why? Well, to be honest, Union totally screwed themselves with this schedule. It legitimately isn’t good enough to make the tournament even if they are good enough as a team. Going 8-2-1 and only being 35th is crazy. In order to make the tournament as an at-large, they need 25 wins. That means going 17-6 the rest of the way, and that’s not going to happen. You need to be a Quinnipiac or Cornell level of dominant to do that, and I don’t see Union being that.

Yale

It’s tough to make any real conclusions on Yale. Their win over Quinnipiac was impressive even though it’s clearly a fluke. Outside of that though, they got an OT win over Princeton, and then got swept by Colgate and Cornell. They are struggling offensively and defensively with 2.4 goals per game and 3.6 goals against per game. That’s about what was expected. One thing to watch for though is goaltender Noah Pak. They’ve switched to him away from Jack Stark, and he has delivered so far with a 0.934 SV%. Despite the deficiencies that are clear on Yale’s roster, if he can give them good goaltending, they can outperform the projection to be around 9th in the league. Otherwise, they seem on track to land between 10-12.

Updated Projection

I try not to overreact too much to a limited sample size, so I’m a bit hesitant to drift a ton from my pre-season projections. It’s tough to place the 3-5 teams in the right order. I decided I need to see Union beat a team better than 43rd in the NPI before I move them up higher, and I need to see Dartmouth maintain their goaltending for longer before I move them up higher as well. I think Quinnipiac and Cornell will make the NCAA tournament, and either Harvard or Dartmouth will. The top of the league feels strong enough to get 3 teams in, even if the depth is not there.

1. Quinnipiac

2. Cornell

3. Harvard

4. Dartmouth

5. Union

6. Clarkson

7. Colgate

8. Princeton

9. RPI

10. Brown

11. Yale

12. St. Lawrence

It’s no secret this year that the Engineers will be fielding one of the most inexperienced defense groups in the league. Four freshmen and two sophomores are part of the group, and only one player will be graduating following the year. There’s certainly talent there though, and I expect that they will probably start off a little rough and improve throughout the year. Let’s breakdown the group.

The Vets

Starting with the lone graduating player of the group, Trevor Russell transferred in from Michigan Tech this offseason after graduating there. He missed all of last season due to an injury, but the year prior, he played a key role on an NCAA tournament team as a shutdown defenseman. He is expected to be in the top 4 for RPI this season as well, and he brings key leadership and experience to the young group. Look for him to be the top penalty killer for the unit and to get frequent defensive zone starts.

The staff is really high on Gunnar VanDamme, who comes in from Alaska-Anchorage after two years there. He was their #2 defenseman last season. He has average size, but he’s a very good skater with smooth edges and good overall mobility. He is very good at breaking out the puck and will fit in well with Lang’s system. However, he is not physical and not the best defensively. He projects to start out in the top 4 for RPI, but with the talent behind him, I would not be surprised if he ends up being surpassed by the end of the year.

One of the lone returners from last year on the back end, Jimmy Goffredo is a two way defenseman. He’s a good skater and good at breaking out the puck. His physicality is an underrated part of his game as he is not at all afraid to lay down the lumber. Goffredo has been a mainstay on the 3rd pairing in his two seasons at RPI, and he projects to play the same role this season.

The other returner from last year, Gustavs Ozolins, is a physical, gritty defenseman. He’s undersized and lacks foot speed, but he is extremely intelligent and competitive. He had solid defensive results last season and should fill a 3rd pairing/depth role again this season.

The Rookies

Coming over from Austria is Thomas Klassek. Klassek is a two way defenseman with a lot of talent. He dominated Austria’s U20 league, and he has played a multitude of games in their professional league. He should be ready to play right away due to his experience facing such tough competition in the pro league, and he is expected to be a lineup regular right from the jump.

Donning the same #22 that his father Todd wore at RPI, Landen Hilditch comes to the Engineers after 3 seasons in the BCHL. Last year, he wore the “C” with West Kelowna before a trade to Penticton. He did struggle with injuries and only appeared in 24 games, but by all accounts, he is healthy and ready to go now. Hilditch is an exciting player due to his size and athleticism. He is listed at 6’4” and 200 LBs, and he has very good skating ability for that size. He is also physical and tough in front of his own net. The right side of the defense is pretty talented, so he might not be a lineup regular right away. He is good enough to be a shutdown defenseman in the top 4 long term though.

The X Factors

While these players could fall under other categories, it felt like they deserved one of their own due to the variability in their outcomes.

A BCHL second team All-Star, Lucas Lemieux is arguably the most talented defenseman on the roster. He is 6’4” with outstanding skating ability and great skill and offensive ability to go with it. He has the potential to be a top two way defenseman in the country and earn an NHL contract at the end of his RPI career. He is a bit more raw though than the defensemen projected to be ahead of him on the depth chart. I think his talent will win out, and he will get top 4 minutes by the end of the year. If he does that, it bodes well for RPI’s ceiling since there’s not another player with his skillset. However, he is probably going to be lower in the lineup to start the year.

Another transfer defenseman, Kazimier Sobieski has a unique path compared to the others on the roster. Sobieski played 5 games at UMass and really struggled before returning to the USHL. He was excellent in the USHL for the remainder of the year. He is a very talented offensive defenseman who should be in the top 4 on talent alone. However, his UMass struggles beg the question of whether or not his game translates as well to the college level. I think he’ll be a top 4 mainstay and the QB of one of the power play units, and I do think he will be much better here.

The Wildcard

Lastly, the biggest wildcard on the roster, Matt Jovanovic has had one of the most unique paths in college hockey. His last competitive game was April 24th, 2021 with the Des Moines Buccaneers in the USHL as a 16 year old. Since then, he has struggled with a variety of problems with hip injuries, but he has been back skating for almost a year now. He’s been working with an NHL group in Toronto and has looked good. The range of outcomes are extremely wide for him. He could never regain pre-injury form and only be a depth defenseman in his career. Or he could get back to the elite 16 year old form and become a top player in the country. He probably will fall somewhere in between, but he will be an exciting player to follow at RPI.

I’m told that Jovanovic is healthy and cleared to play. He will play his first game in 4.5 years tomorrow against BU. I can’t wait to see him and the rest of the team on the ice tomorrow, when RPI hockey starts this new journey! LET’S GO RED!

After a very busy offseason (at least for me as someone who covers RPI primarily), the new season is on the cusp! It’s time to dive into the ECAC and take a deep look at every team. I’ll once again be using my model to predict the standings as it consistently has driven pretty good results. An interesting wrinkle that I’m excited to see play out is the addition of CHL players. They add a little variance because it’s impossible to know for sure how they will translate to college hockey. The consensus is that the OHL and WHL are on par with the USHL (if not even a little better) while the QMJHL is behind those 3. Here’s what the model had last year (with the difference from the actual result in parentheses).

1. Quinnipiac (—)

2. Cornell (4)

3. Clarkson (1)

4. Dartmouth (1)

5. Colgate (2)

6. Harvard (1)

7. Union (3)

8. Brown (—)

9. Princeton (—)

10. St. Lawrence (2)

11. RPI (1)

12. Yale (1)

Pretty good results overall. Every team was within 2 spots of their prediction except Cornell, who was extremely unlucky early in the year before making a run in the playoffs that justified the preseason hype, and Union, who was actually the 6th best team in the ECAC by the pairwise. If you ranked the teams by the pairwise, the model actually did fantastic with every team within 1 spot. Now, let’s get into it for this season!

1. Quinnipiac (Last Year: 1)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is now the 5th season in a row that Quinnipiac has been predicted to finish in first place, and they have delivered every time. This year, they are absolutely loaded with a roster that looks like a national championship contender on paper. The gap between them and the #2 projected team is about the same as the gap between #2 and #7 to give you an idea of how highly the model views them.

Key Losses: F Travis Treloar (36 points in 38 games), F Jack Ricketts (27 points in 38 games), D Davis Pennington (17 points in 38 games), D Cooper Moore (14 points in 37 games), D Aaron Bohlinger (14 points in 32 games)

Key Returners: F Jeremy Wilmer (41 points in 38 games), F Mason Marcellus (38 points in 38 games), F Andon Cerbone (35 points in 38 games), F Aaron Schwartz (30 points in 38 games), F Tyler Borgula (25 points in 38 games), F Chris Pelosi (24 points in 38 games), D Elliot Groenewold (12 points in 38 games), D Charlie Leddy (11 points in 37 games), G Matej Marinov (0.928 SV%)

Key Newcomers: D Will Gilson (RPI), F Matthew Lansing (USHL), D Logan McCutcheon (WHL), F Ben Riche (WHL), D Brady Schultz (QMJHL), D Graham Sward (ECHL), D Nate Tivey (QMJHL), F Antonin Verreault (QMJHL), F Markus Vidicek (QMJHL), F Ethan Wyttenbach (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 1

Incoming Class Rank: 1

Projected Offensive Rank: 1

Last year was somewhat of a rebuilding year for Quinnipiac as they had lost a lot of top players and gave multiple freshmen significant ice time. This year, they return the vast majority of their roster and the most returning scoring in the league.

Jeremy Wilmer was outstanding out of the transfer portal with over a point per game. He was joined by Mason Marcellus and Andon Cerbone who had 38 and 35 points, respectively. Those 3 upperclassmen will be looked at to lead the offense again, and now, they’re experienced and should have no issues there.

While Quinnipiac did lose key forwards Travis Treloar and Jack Ricketts to graduation, they should have no issues replacing them. Last year’s dynamic freshmen trio of Aaron Schwartz, Tyler Borgula, and Chris Pelosi all had 24+ points, and they’ll be expected to take a step forward this year. Based on their junior hockey pedigree, all 3 seem well equipped to do so. That gives Quinnipiac 6 dynamic forwards all returning from last year’s team.

When you factor in their recruiting class, it’s easy to see why the roster is so loaded. Quinnipiac went all-in on the CHL and landed numerous high level players, all of whom project to contribute immediately. Ben Riche had above a point per game in the WHL with 74 points in 64 games. Antonin Verreault has absolutely dominated the QMJHL the past 2 years with 107 points two seasons ago and 85 points last year. Markus Vidicek had a point per game in the Q last year after posting 88 points two seasons ago and 80 three seasons ago. All 3 players would probably be immediately on the top line for the majority of ECAC teams, but they’ll have to fight to even be on Quinnipiac’s second line.

Players from the USHL absolutely should not be discounted though. Ethan Wyttenbach is young, but he had above a point per game in the USHL last year, which led to a 5th round selection in the NHL draft. Matthew Lansing probably will only start out as a bottom 6 forward, but he was selected in the 7th round after he had 27 points in 54 games.

I have no idea how Quinnipiac is going to get all these players ice time honestly, but they will have no issues scoring.

On the blue line, they did lose a trio of good players from the top 4. Pennington, Moore and Bohlinger all contributed offensively, even if none of them were elite. To replace them, Quinnipiac landed RPI transfer Will Gilson out of the portal after he led the Engineers in scoring. He will slide right into the top 4 and contribute at even strength and on the power play.

Quinnipiac does return a couple players who should be able to take steps forward to fill bigger roles. Elliot Groenewold had a good freshman year where he contributed well both offensively and defensively despite being a true freshman. Now, he will need to be a go to guy in all situations, which he seems capable of doing based on his pedigree. Charlie Leddy transferred from BC and was able to contribute more offensively for the Bobcats than the Eagles.

The other spots were all filled with more high level CHL players. Logan McCutcheon is undersized but put up great offensive numbers in the WHL. He should still be able to transition well to the ECAC as the WHL is considered the most physical league in the CHL. Brady Schultz had a decorated career with Halifax in the QMJHL with excellent offensive numbers throughout his career. Lastly, Nate Tivey profiles very well due to his elite size (6’5 and 205 LBs) while also putting up outstanding offensive numbers last year in the QMJHL (40 points in 63 games). All 3 will likely contribute immediately.

Lastly, Quinnipiac made a late to the addition to the roster with Graham Sward. Sward is a former star WHL defenseman who had a whopping 81 points in 66 games in his final season there. Last year, he played a full season in the ECHL where he was a reliable two way defenseman. I have no idea how ECHL production translates to the NCAA for obvious reasons, but based on his WHL career, he seems like an elite two way defenseman who should be a stud at the college level. Quite the late add.

I see zero offensive holes to be honest. Quinnipiac has an excellent combo of elite returning talent and the league’s top recruiting class, which is filled with top junior hockey players. The model thinks this offense will score a whopping 4 goals per game, and while that’s a high number, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility considering they hit that mark in 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 1

Unsurprisingly, Quinnipiac is expected to be an elite defensive team once again as well.

Starting in net, they return Matej Marinov who led the team with a 0.928 SV% last season. I’m not really sure why they gave him less starts than Dylan Silverstein (0.903 SV%) when he was clearly better, but I don’t expect them to make that mistake this year. Marinov is easily the most proven goalie in the league heading into the season, and his track record leaves me no doubt he will deliver for them.

Quinnipiac does have some minor question marks on the blue line since they lost 3 key contributors, and they will be pretty young there. I’m not overly concerned about it though (and neither is the model). Charlie Leddy had elite defensive impacts last season and will step into a bigger role this year. Groenewold was also strong defensively and should only get better given how young he is. That helps their projection even though the model does ding them for losing Pennington, Moore and Bohlinger.

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.

2. Clarkson (Last Year: 2)

Clarkson surprised me a bit last year, only because they had underperformed for two straight seasons, then had a coaching change. Naturally, I was skeptical to put them back in the top 4. I worried about their scoring depth, and I wasn’t sure how their defense would fare under a new head coach. I had them 6th even though the model had them 3rd. I should have listened to the model.

This year, Clarkson will have a young team with a bevy of CHL players as incoming recruits. They have a lot of talent and a deep roster that can contend for the title if the freshmen can adjust to college hockey quickly. I expect they will be an NCAA tournament bubble team again as J.F. Houle continues to put his own stamp on the program.

Key Losses: F Ayrton Martino (51 points in 39 games), F Ellis Rickwood (35 points in 39 games), F Ryan Richardson (30 points in 38 games), D Trey Taylor (29 points in 39 games), D Kaelan Taylor (7 points in 39 games), G Ethan Langenegger (0.914 SV%)

Key Returners: D Tristan Sarsland (23 points in 39 games), D Tate Taylor (16 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: G Nick Avakyan (NAHL), D William Bishop (QMJHL), F Justin Cote (QMJHL), F Remi Gelinas (QMJHL), D Noah Houle (Lindenwood), F Mikael Huchette (Concordia), F Jace Letourneau (BCHL), D Matthew Mayich (OHL), F Adrian Misaljevic (OHL), G Keenan Rancier (UVM), G Shane Soderwall (Curry), D Bryce Sookro (BCHL), F Mael St-Denis (QMJHL), F Owen Van Steensel (OHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 10

Incoming Class Rank: 2

Projected Offensive Rank: 2

Clarkson lost its top 4 scorers from last year. Martino is gone after a decorated career culminating in a 25 goal, 51 point season and an NHL contract. Richardson is also gone after 4 good years. Top line center Ellis Rickwood decided to transfer to North Dakota while Trey Taylor left early to sign an NHL contract. All are big losses at the top of the lineup.

Only Tristan Sarsland and Tate Taylor profile as key returners. Sarsland had 23 points from the blue line and will be their top defenseman this season. He is excellent both ways and should be an All-ECAC selection. Tate Taylor had a great freshman year and should take a step forward with more minutes this season.

The best returning forwards are Ryan Bottrill, Talon Sigurdson, and Luka Sukovic. All are solid players, but none of them hit the points per game mark needed to be considered key returners. With the youth of Clarkson’s forward group, they need the 3 of them to take steps forward.

Even if they don’t though, I think the incoming freshmen are talented enough to play top 6 minutes immediately, even if they have some growing pains to start. Remi Gelinas dominated the CCHL to start the year with 2 points per game, then moved over to the QMJHL where he still scored at well over a point per game pace. Adrian Misaljevic had 69 points in 67 games in the OHL. Both will play big roles right from the jump.

I also really like Justin Cote, Mikael Huchette and Owen Van Steensel. Cote is incredibly undersized at 5’6, but he was a prolific scorer for his entire career in the Q. He could be Clarkson’s next Jack Jacome. Huchette had above a point per game in his last year in the Q, and then had 28 points in 26 games at Concordia. I think people are underrating USports transfers currently. These are players who were top CHL players in junior and then went to USports and developed further against older competition. They’re more like transfer portal players than freshmen, and I believe they will transition smoother as a result. Huchette was excellent as a USports freshman and should contribute for Clarkson. Last but not least, Van Steensel had 86 points in the OHL two seasons ago and 53 points last season. He’s a very good player.

This collection of strong forward recruits give the model and myself a lot of faith in Clarkson’s offensive abilities. If the returning forwards don’t take a step AND the new guys struggle, then they will have issues, but I really think at least one will go their way.

For the rest of the lineup, Jared Mangan had a decent freshman year and can play in the bottom 6. Erik Bargholtz has been a bottom 6 staple in his Clarkson career and this season should be no different. Letourneau and St-Denis profile as recruits who can contribute right away in the bottom 6, but they’ll need to earn those spots since Clarkson has a lot of depth.

On the blue line, Clarkson also has more than just Sarsland and Taylor who project to contribute offensively. Noah Houle comes over from Lindenwood after a 17 point season and should slot in well. Bryce Sookro was dominant in the BCHL with 56 points in 53 games and won the BCHL’s top defenseman award. He’s an excellent incoming recruit. Matthew Mayich is a St. Louis Blues draft pick who has been a great two way defenseman his entire OHL career and projects to play key minutes right away. Lastly, William Bishop had a breakout year in the QMJHL with 43 points. With Clarkson’s defensive depth, he’ll probably be further down the lineup, but he’s a good recruiting pickup. Not to mention they return Ty Brassington who was pretty solid as a freshman. There’s no shortage of options for Clarkson, and while they are very youthful on the blue line too, the talent is notable.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 3

Clarkson’s defense should be similarly strong like last year. They take a hit due to their aforementioned youth and the players they lost last season. Kaelan Taylor had the best defensive impacts on the team and will be missed, while Trey Taylor played major minutes in all situations. However, the hit is pretty mild because they do return Sarsland who was excellent both ways along with Brassington and Tate Taylor who were solid as freshmen and should take steps forward.

In net, there are some question marks after the graduation of Ethan Langenegger. Originally, Clarkson was slated to bring OHL goalie of the year Jackson Parsons, who easily projected as the best incoming freshman goaltender. Unfortunately for them, they got screwed by him signing an NHL contract with the Ottawa Senators this summer, well after any good replacements would be available.

In his place, Clarkson added Keenan Rancier out of the transfer portal. At Minnesota State, Rancier was pretty solid and had a 0.909 SV% or higher every year there. But at UVM last season, he struggled greatly with a 0.885 SV%. Can he regain his mojo at Clarkson? Perhaps, but the model doesn’t project him to be the starter.

Another portal add for Clarkson was Shane Soderwall from Curry College. Soderwall is interesting because he has totally dominated at the D3 level with a 0.949 SV% as a freshman and 0.945 SV% last season. The model has him rated pretty solidly with a projected 0.915 SV%, which would pretty much match what Langenegger did last year. If he can actually perform to that level, they’ll be totally fine, but there are question marks around how a D3 player will translate to the D1 level.

Lastly, Nick Avakyan comes in from the NAHL. He’s expected to be the #3, but he could be a sneaky pickup; the model likes him. While he did struggle throughout his WHL career, he was excellent in the NAHL last season with a 0.923 SV%. I don’t think he should be totally discounted from the competition.

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.

3. Cornell (Last Year: 6)

I broke down Cornell’s season pretty in depth when I did my ECAC playoff preview podcast. To summarize though, they were mostly really unlucky with bad goaltending that came out of nowhere from Ian Shane after he had been a rock star his entire career. It caused them to finish 6th in the league despite being expected to easily finish top 3 and make the NCAA tournament. In the ECAC tournament, they finally made good on their talent and went on a run to win the league and send out Mike Schafer with a championship. Then, they upset Michigan State in the Regional Semifinals of the NCAAs before falling in Regional Final, just short of the Frozen Four. Despite their start to the year and 6th place standings finish, I thought they were pretty clearly the second best team in the league behind Quinnipiac.

Now this year with new head coach Casey Jones, they are projected to take a small step back after losing a multitude of key seniors to graduation. They’ll still be quite a good team, but I don’t think they’re going to make the NCAA tournament again. To me and the model, this is a team that’s around 20 in the pairwise, and I’ll get into why below.

Key Losses: F Dalton Bancroft (27 points in 36 games), D Tim Rego (24 points in 36 games), F Sullivan Mack (24 points in 32 games), F Ondrej Psenicka (22 points in 30 games), D Ben Robertson (15 points in 36 games), D Michael Suda (11 points in 36 games)

Key Returners: F Ryan Walsh (31 points in 36 games), F Charlie Major (18 points in 28 games), D George Fegaras (14 points in 30 games), D Hoyt Stanley (13 points in 36 games)

Key Newcomers: D Luke Ashton (Minnesota State), G Alexis Cournoyer (QMJHL), F Giovanni DiGiulian (USHL), F Reegan Hiscock (BCHL), F Aiden Long (USHL), F Chase Pirtle (BCHL), F Caton Ryan (BCHL), D Xavier Veilleux (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 9

Incoming Class Rank: 5

Projected Offensive Rank: 6

This is the weakest offensive projection for Cornell that the model has ever had, but it does make sense based on the lack of returning offense. Additionally, the recruiting class is good, but usually, Cornell’s recruiting prowess has been excellent and not just good. This makes it tough to fill in the gaps from all the graduating seniors.

Dalton Bancroft left after his junior year to sign an NHL contract, and he’ll be missed. Sullivan Mack and Ondrej Psenicka have graduated after 20+ points each. That’s half of the top 6 gone. Additionally Jack O’Leary and Kyler Kovich graduated after putting up 17 points and 14 points, respectively. Lastly, the top 2 scoring defensemen on the team both have departed; each had at least 15 points. Tim Rego graduated, and Ben Robertson transferred to Michigan. In all, Cornell lost 6 out of its top 8 point getters and 7/10.

There are some good returners up front despite the losses. Ryan Walsh is a top center in the league with his two way ability. He elevated his game last season to lead the Big Red in points, and they’ll be relying on him to be an elite center on the top line once again. Charlie Major had a good freshman year but missed some time due to injury. Cornell will need him to stay healthy this year and take a step forward.

Other forwards that should be good players are Jonathan Castagna, Nick DeSantis, and Jake Kraft. Castagna was disappointing last season. After a stellar freshman campaign coming straight from Canadian prep school, he dropped from 25 points to 15. He is one of the most purely talented players in the league with his size, skating and skill, and Cornell needs him to live up to that potential to make up for the lost talent. He needs to bounce back this season. DeSantis has been a steady contributor throughout his Cornell career with 20, 14, and 14 points his first 3 seasons. As a senior, they can count on him to fill a key role as a middle 6 winger. Lastly, Jake Kraft had 13 points as both a freshman and sophomore and should contribute on the 3rd line. If those guys can elevate their games beyond what they accomplished last season, it’ll help a lot to replace the scoring.

For incoming freshmen, there’s a lot of good forwards that project to score right away. It starts with Aiden Long, who had nearly a point per game in the USHL in Madison. He’s a big power forward who is capable of jumping right into the top 6 on the wing. Giovanni DiGiulian was another high level USHL player who is capable of playing in the top 6 right away. Chase Pirtle is more of a second line player, but he dominated the BCHL last season with 64 points in 54 games. Those are the players who project as top 6 types from the jump.

For other key incoming forwards, Caton Ryan is really talented and had nearly a point per game in the BCHL as an 18 year old. He profiles as more of a 3rd liner to start, but he has a lot of potential. Reegan Hiscock is a huge power forward who had a point per game in the BCHL and also can play on the 3rd or 4th line to start.

On the blue line, Cornell did a good job replacing the losses from all the seniors leaving. First though, Hoyt Stanley returns after a good sophomore year, and given his talent and pedigree, he should take a step forward this year. Similarly, George Fegaras will be counted on more this season.

For the newcomers, Luke Ashton comes over from Minnesota State as a rare transfer portal addition. He had 13 points as a freshman there after being chosen in the NHL draft. His massive size (6’6” and over 230 LBs) and skill to go with it fits right into Cornell’s M.O., and I expect he’s going to be a great defenseman for them. Xavier Veilleux is another NHL draft pick, and he had an outstanding year in the USHL. He should be able to slide right into Cornell’s top 4 on the left side.

I’m not as high on the rest of the defensemen though. Michael Fisher has NHL draft pick pedigree, but he has struggled a lot with injuries the past few years. He also was very mediocre in the BCHL with Penticton last season. Hudson Gorski is a big defensive defenseman who should do well as a 3rd pairing type, but he doesn’t project to add much offensively.

You might be seeing why the model is lukewarm on Cornell’s offense now. There’s a few too many 3rd line and middle 6 types and not enough top 6 and top line types. Now, the model could be wrong; Castagna could bounce back, Kraft could take a step, etc. But having 5 forwards projected in teens for points and only a handful projected for more than 20 (and only Walsh for more than 30) is why it’s expected to be average. On the blue line, they have a lot of really good players, but none of them project to be 20+ point type defensemen. It’s mostly really good 2 way types, which helps their defensive projection but not offensive.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 2

I’m curious to see if there’s any sort of drop off for Cornell defensively after the coaching change. I don’t think there will be since Casey Jones was known for bringing a heavy and strong defensive style to Clarkson, and his system was fairly similar to what Schafer was running at Cornell.

They do lose a lot on the blue line to be fair. Tim Rego was their top defenseman who was good defensively in addition to his offensive prowess. Michael Suda was an excellent shutdown defenseman who will be missed. Lastly, Ben Robertson had pretty good defensive impacts as well.

Regardless of that, Cornell should be excellent defensively as usual. Hoyt Stanley is great defensively and returns in their top 4. However, the main thing that evens out the losses on the blue line in the eyes of the model is the goaltending. Ian Shane really struggled last year after a previously sparkling clean resume over the first 3 years. He went down to a 0.905 SV% when his lowest before was a 0.916. The model expects improvement there.

The reason for the expected improvement is due to incoming freshman Alexis Cournoyer. Cournoyer dominated the QMJHL last season with a stellar 0.942 SV% and was selected in the 5th round of the NHL draft. The model expects he will give Cornell another elite goalie to add to their history at the position.

If for whatever reason, he isn’t ready to be a full time starter, I do like Remington Keopple as well. He never has seen much action in his career due to Ian Shane, but he was good in the USHL prior to Cornell and was on the USA U20 world junior team back in the day. He honestly should have gotten more time last season when Shane was struggling while he had a 0.958 SV%. For his career, he has a 0.896 SV%, and I think he could be good if needed even if he doesn’t have the upside that Cournoyer does.

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.

4. Harvard (Last Year: 7)

Guess who’s back? Back again? Harvard’s back, tell a friend.

Okay that might be a bit of an exaggeration since it’s not like Harvard is going to be a bonafide NCAA tournament team like they were up until 2 years ago. However, this looks like the year where Harvard can get back into the top 4.

After Harvard’s mass exodus to the NHL two years ago, I got called crazy for predicting them to take a big step backward to 7th in the league. They ended up finishing 8th. Last year, the model predicted them to take a slight step forward to 6th, and I personally was a little more bullish because I thought the young talent on the roster would progress more than they did. Still, they did take a small step forward to 7th place. I did think back when they lost all that talent that they would end up rebounding in 2-3 years once they could get a couple of their recruiting cycles in and developed. They have had talent, but it’s just been way too young. This year, I do think the talent will have developed enough to get back into the top 4.

Key Losses: D Ian Moore (14 points in 32 games)

Key Returners: F Mick Thompson (32 points in 33 games), F Casey Severo (28 points in 33 games), F Joe Miller (23 points in 28 games), F Ben MacDonald (16 points in 27 games), D Ryan Healey (13 points in 33 games), D Lucas St. Louis (11 points in 33 games), D Mason Langenbrunner (10 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: D Donato Bracco (USHL), F Richard Gallant (USHL), F Aidan Lane (OHL), F Heikki Ruohonen (USHL), F Chase Stefanek (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 2

Incoming Class Rank: 4

Projected Offensive Rank: 3

Harvard is always one of the most talented teams in the league, and this year, they will have the scoring experience to combine with the raw talent. The entire top line of Thompson, Severo and Miller are back after all had 23+ points last season. Thompson was absolutely outstanding as a freshman with 32 points to lead the team and made it onto the ECAC All-Rookie team. Severo is an excellent top line center who should further grow as a senior. Lastly, Miller has been around a point per game his entire career, and he can safely be projected to do the same this season.

Harvard also has depth outside of that trio. Ben MacDonald had some injuries last season, but when healthy, he is a good 2nd line center with size and skill. Justin Solovey had a solid freshman year with 12 points and should take a step in the middle 6, while Phil Tresca also had 12 points and can be a reliable depth scorer as a senior.

The incoming freshmen are really exciting too. Gallant was selected by San Jose in the NHL draft after a great year on the NTDP, and he projects to slide right onto the 2nd line. Lane is another NHL draft pick with a high skill level. He spent most of the year at St. Andrew’s in Canadian prep, but after the CHL rule change, he joined Brampton in the OHL and immediately started producing at a point per game rate, which relaxes concerns on how he will translate as such a young player. He also projects as a top 6 player.

Heikki Ruohonen was drafted by Philadelphia in 2024 and then spent last year in the USHL with Dubuque. He’s a strong two way center who would be on the 2nd line for most teams, but given Harvard’s scoring depth, he probably will center their 3rd line. Stefanek is another who will probably be lower in the lineup but on most teams, he would be on the 3rd line. Harvard is pretty loaded with scoring talent up front this season.

This holds true on the blue line as well despite losing captain Ian Moore after a great career as a two way defenseman. Ryan Healey returns for his senior season as a proven offensive defenseman. Lucas St. Louis had a good freshman year and can be counted on to provide some offense in the top 4. Mason Langenbrunner had his best offensive year last year, and his two way game will be really important for Harvard.

The incoming freshmen will be able to contribute immediately for the remaining spots in the lineup. Bracco was one of the top defensemen on the NTDP and is lauded for his hockey IQ and vision. I expect he can play in the top 4 right from the jump despite being undersized. Drake Murray was solid in the USHL and should play on the 3rd pairing behind Healey and Langenbrunner on the right side.

Harvard returns 86.8% of their scoring from last season with only Moore being a key contributor. That returning scoring combined with the excellent incoming freshman class means Harvard looks like one of the most dynamic teams in the league.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 7

All of the returning talent means Harvard is projected to improve defensively to be about middle of the pack after allowing almost 3 goals against per game last year.

The improvement is only expected to be mild though because of the losses of Moore and Jack Bar. I already talked about Moore above, but he was consistently a very good two way defenseman during his career who had good defensive impacts. Bar didn’t provide a lot of offense, but he also had good defensive impacts. Both will be missed on the blue line, and the model gives them a slight penalty there.

For the returners, Langenbrunner had excellent defensive impacts last year and is their top two way defenseman who should balance out the offensive minded Healey and St. Louis. Matthew Morden was decent defensively as a freshman last year and should improve given his talent and pedigree.

In net, Harvard did lose Koskenvuo early to an NHL contract, but they return Ben Charette who had a solid freshman year. Charette was excellent in the AJHL before arriving at Harvard, and last year, he had a 0.909 SV%. I think he’s a pretty safe bet to repeat that and give them a steady presence in net even if he doesn’t take a step forward. If he does take a step forward though, it would go a long way for improving their defense.

One issue that should be mentioned though is that behind Charette, Harvard does not have any quality goaltenders. Their backups are walk-on 3rd string types that they just pulled straight from prep school, so if Charette really struggles or gets injured, they are totally screwed. Like I said, I feel pretty good about Charette, but goaltending is highly variable so it’s worth noting.

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.

5. Union (Last Year: 4)

Union has been a team on the rise since hiring Josh Hauge, and the model predicts they will improve this year. The reason it predicts a drop in the standings is because even though they finished 4th in the league, they really were more like the 6th best team in the league if you go by the pairwise. I really, really liked what they did this offseason, and the model has them just barely below Harvard. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they finished in the top 4.

Key Losses: F Caden Villegas (29 points in 36 games), D John Prokop (27 points in 36 games), F Josh Nixon (23 points in 36 games), D Cullen Ferguson (16 points in 36 games)

Key Returners: F Colby MacArthur (29 points in 36 games), F Brandon Buhr (28 points in 36 games), F Ben Muthersbaugh (28 points in 36 games), F Nate Hanley (28 points in 36 games), D Nick Young (10 points in 36 games)

Key Newcomers: F Luke Buss (Wisconsin), D Tyler Dunbar (Colorado College), D Will Felicio (Michigan), G Cameron Korpi (Michigan), F Alex Laurenza (NAHL), D Etienne Lessard (USHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 3

Incoming Class Rank: 7

Projected Offensive Rank: 5

Union returns a lot of firepower up front despite the losses during the offseason. Caden Villegas tied for the team lead in scoring after a very good career, and Josh Nixon was consistently pretty good in his two years there.

The players that come back though definitely outweigh that. Colby MacArthur had a breakout year with 29 points after only 12 total his first two years. Nate Hanley had another great year and gives Union an excellent 1-2 punch at center. On the wing, Brandon Buhr had 19 goals last season and is a preseason All-ECAC selection. Ben Muthersbaugh had 13 goals last season in an outstanding freshman campaign. That group of 4 is up there with some of the talent that Harvard and Quinnipiac return.

Behind them, Union also returns good depth scorers. Lucas Buzziol and Riley Brueck had solid freshmen seasons with 13 and 10 points, respectively, and they should be able to fill roles in the middle 6. Parker Lindauer had 14 points after transferring in from Maine and should score in that range again.

Union has two newcomers that project to contribute. First, Luke Buss transfers in from Wisconsin and projects to be a solid addition to the middle 6. He was a very good performer in the BCHL before going to Wisconsin, but he hardly saw any ice time for them. Second is the player who I think is the most underrated incoming freshman in the league. Alex Laurenza comes in after dominating the NAHL and putting up 82 points. Because the NAHL is a weaker league and there’s tons of hype around all the CHL additions, Laurenza has fallen under the radar, but he’s a great addition and projects to play in Union’s top 6 right from the jump even with their good scoring depth.

On the blue line, John Prokop is a huge loss as one of the top defensemen in the league last year and arguably the country. Cullen Ferguson is also a big loss as he was another very key defenseman for Union last year. They do return Nick Young who was solid offensively, but there’s not much returning offense from the back end.

However, Union’s newcomers at defense are excellent and should help fill the void somewhat. Tyler Dunbar comes in from Colorado College where he barely played his first two seasons. Prior to going there, Dunbar was a top defenseman in the USHL, and he is pretty talented. The model really likes him based on his USHL experience, and I think he is going to make a difference in Union’s top 4. Will Felicio is arguably the top transfer portal addition in the league. Felicio was a top offensive defenseman in the USHL with dynamic skill and vision and very good skating despite being undersized. He went to Michigan at 18 and barely played for some reason. Despite barely playing, he still produced with 11 points in 25 games, all at even strength. When he entered the portal, I thought for sure he would end up at a good Hockey East school, so that was a huge recruiting win for Union and likely was made possible by the new arena and facilities. He should be one of their top defensemen.

For the more traditional newcomer, Etienne Lessard was a top offensive defenseman in the USHL last season and projects to contribute immediately. He is quite undersized though at only 5’9”, so that could hold him back in such a physical league. The offensive contributions should still be there though.

In summary, Union has a lot of returning talent up front and supplements that well with a couple of newcomers to give themselves a good 3 lines that can score. While they did lose their two most productive defensemen, they made good use of the transfer portal to help mitigate that. They look like they will be a good team offensively.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 4

Union’s projected defensive improvement is actually more notable than the offense because that is what is going to drive them up this season. They already didn’t have issues scoring last year with 3.11 goals per game, but the defense allowed 3.03 goals per game, which isn’t good. This year, that is expected to change.

Union had a great offseason on this front. John Prokop is a huge loss defensively in addition to the offense, but from a defensive standpoint, it views the loss of Cullen Ferguson as a good thing. Ferguson easily had the worst defensive impacts on the team last year, so the model views him as addition by subtraction (defensively of course, not offensively). Then, the depth defensemen who graduated/transferred weren’t anything special either, so losing Prokop is mostly evened out.

Additionally, returning Nick Young is very big for them on defense because he had the best defensive impacts on the team by a wide margin. He should continue to be a great shutdown defenseman for Union. As long as the touted newcomers that I mentioned above are at least decent defensively, their blue line looks to be in good shape.

The biggest difference between this year and last, however, is in net. I have long been saying that Kyle Chauvette was overrated and more of a high-end back up or low-end starter who should split time rather than a full time starter. Last year, he had below a 0.900 SV% on the year despite Union actually doing pretty well to limit chances against. He just isn’t good enough to start full time for a good team.

I think Union recognized that, and they went out into the portal and got another huge recruiting win with Cameron Korpi. Korpi was very good in the USHL prior to going to Michigan last year. Then, at Michigan, he split the net and recorded a 0.904 SV%. As a freshman in a very tough conference in the Big 10, that’s not bad at all. He should be even better for Union in the ECAC. The model views him as a major upgrade on Chauvette.

After that happened, Chauvette apparently decided he didn’t like having competition and entered the transfer portal. Honestly, if I were a Union fan (gross!), I’d say good riddance. If you can’t handle competition being brought in when you weren’t good enough to warrant being handed the job again, then I wouldn’t want you on my team. I’d say it all worked out quite well in Union’s favor, but we will have to see how it plays out on the ice.

On paper, Union should be pretty improved defensively to the point that they are projected to be the 4th best defense in the conference. That’s a big difference from last year, and if they do live up to that, they are going to absolutely contend for the top 4.

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.

6. Dartmouth (Last Year: 5)

Reid Cashman has done a great job at Dartmouth turning them into a pretty good program. I am going to be lower on them than most of the projections after they have been 4th and 5th the past two years, and they continue to do a good job recruiting. I don’t disagree with any of that, but there does appear to be a major flaw with Dartmouth that keeps them below the other 5 teams despite having a lot of talent.

Key Losses: F Sean Chisholm (27 points in 33 games), F Cooper Flinton (24 points in 32 games), D John Fusco (21 points in 32 games), F Luke Haymes (18 points in 22 games), F Braiden Dorfman (16 points in 31 games), D Ian Pierce (9 points in 24 games)

Key Returners: F Nikita Nikora (30 points in 33 games), D CJ Foley (30 points in 33 games), F Hayden Stavroff (22 points in 31 games), F Hank Cleaves (21 points in 32 games), D Eric Charpentier (11 points in 33 games)

Key Newcomers: F Andrew Clarke (USHL), F Brock Cummings (BCHL), D Brock Devlin (NAHL), F Nathan Morin (BCHL), F Ryan Schelling (BCHL), F Jason Stefanek (BCHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 6

Incoming Class Rank: 3

Projected Offensive Rank: 4

Dartmouth lost some big pieces in the offseason, both to graduation and early to the pros. Luke Haymes had some injuries last year but was a top forward in the league when healthy. He signed early along with Cooper Flinton. Both were top forwards that are big losses for the Big Green. Sean Chisholm also scored at nearly a point per game pace last season and now has graduated, so they’re losing basically 3 top line forwards. Braiden Dorfman was also a consistent middle 6 scorer.

Luckily, Dartmouth does return other important forwards. Nikita Nikora is an excellent playmaker, and he led the team in scoring last season. Hayden Stavroff and Hank Cleaves both had great freshmen years with 20+ points apiece. All 3 will be mainstays in the top 6.

What makes Dartmouth’s offensive projection still pretty good despite the major losses is they quietly have an excellent recruiting class with numerous quality forwards being added.

Andrew Clarke had 45 points in the USHL last year and projects to play middle 6 minutes right away. Brock Cummings and Nathan Morin were both solid in the BCHL and can play on the 3rd line. The crown jewels of the class though are Ryan Schelling and Jason Stefanek. Schelling was 3rd in the entire BCHL in scoring with 75 points and should play top 6 minutes immediately. Stefanek had 63 points in the BCHL and also projects to contribute in the top 6 right away. The incoming recruits add some top end talent and scoring depth up front for Dartmouth.

On the back end, John Fusco is a huge loss after he had 21 points. Ian Pierce also contributed offensively when he was healthy and will be missed. Those two were very good players, but losing them isn’t back breaking.

It’s especially not back breaking because Dartmouth returns star defenseman CJ Foley. Foley had 30 points and was one of the top defensemen in the league last year. It’s also rumored he turned down NHL contracts to return for his junior season. He’s on the Preseason All-ECAC team for a reason, and he should be elite once again. Eric Charpentier is also a key blue liner returning after putting up 11 points as a sophomore. The two of them will likely be the top pairing.

The only key newcomer at defenseman is a big one: Brock Devlin. It may not seem like he is a big addition on the surface because he played in the NAHL. He had a crazy 67 points in 55 games though, absolutely bonkers numbers for a defenseman. I don’t care what league you’re in, well above a point per game is amazing for a defenseman. He should be an excellent offensive defenseman for Dartmouth right off the bat.

Dartmouth’s underrated recruiting class will help fill the holes left by their many key departures, and they return enough talent to be pretty good offensively. They should score at a good rate this season.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 8

Here is that fatal flaw I was referring to with Dartmouth. The defense is projected to be below average. There’s a few different factors for this that I’ll get into below, but their projection defensively is worse than the other teams in their range in Harvard and Union.

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.

7. Colgate (Last Year: 3)

The model is always too low on Colgate, but it’s tough to see how they should be above any of the top 6 on paper. They don’t project to be as good offensively or defensively as any of those teams. It’s fair to be skeptical of this projection though given the track record here. They consistently have found recruits who have outplayed their junior hockey pedigree, and they have done really well at developing their players.

Key Losses: F Brett Chorske (34 points in 36 games), F Alex DiPaolo (26 points in 32 games), D Tommy Bergsland (24 points in 36 games), F Ben Raymond (18 points in 36 games), D Reid Irwin (17 points in 32 games)

Key Returners: F Max Nagel (24 points in 36 games), D Michael Neumeier (20 points in 35 games), F Ryan Sullivan (15 points in 23 games), D Antonio Fernandez (14 points in 31 games), F Simon Labelle (13 points in 25 games), F Daniel Panetta (13 points in 25 games), D Brett Merner (9 points in 35 games)

Key Newcomers: F Tyson Doucette (OHL), G Reid Dyck (WHL), D Joshua Niedermayer (USHL), D Isaiah Norlin (Omaha), F Easton Wainwright (OHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 5

Incoming Class Rank: 8

Projected Offensive Rank: 7

The offense is projected to be pretty average this season after many big losses to graduation. Brett Chorske and Alex DiPaolo were the two top scorers on the team last season, with both scoring at nearly a point per game rate, and both have now graduated. Ben Raymond was more of a middle 6 scorer, so he’s not as big of a loss.

Colgate has some good returners who hopefully will be more healthy this year since Sullivan, Panetta and Labelle all missed a good amount of time last season. Max Nagel was great as a freshman and is the leading returning scorer. He will probably lead the team in scoring this year. Ryan Sullivan took a step forward last year to put up 15 points in 23 games, and he should play in the top 6 this year. Daniel Panetta and Simon Labelle also had injury filled years and will be in the top 6. The year before both had 27+ points, and Colgate will need them to get back to that. It’s a solid but unspectacular group of 4 if they don’t bounce back.

Niko Rexine and Jake Schneider both had 15 points last season, and Colgate will need them to take steps forward to become true top 6 talents. Easton Wainwright and Tyson Doucette seem to be around that level as well as incoming freshmen. Both were pretty good in the OHL but not great, and they look to be middle 6 type players. I feel like that’s the issue with Colgate on paper this year. Plenty of solid players, but with Chorske and DiPaolo gone, there’s a lack of high end talent.

On the blue line, top defenseman Tommy Bergsland is gone after graduating, and so is former top 4 mainstay Reid Irwin. Both were quite good offensively the past couple years and are big losses. I do really like the defensemen that Colgate return though. Michael Neumeier had an excellent freshman year with 20 points and should be their top defenseman. Antonio Fernandez is a good offensive defenseman who had 14 points last year. I also really like Brett Merner. He only had 9 points but was lower in the lineup due to Colgate’s depth last year. I think he could breakout this year.

Colgate should still be pretty deep on the back end with two of their newcomers. Isaiah Norlin scored nearly a point per game in the BCHL before going to Omaha last year. He didn’t play much and transferred in search of more ice time, and Colgate should be in position to give him that. I think he’ll be really good for them based on his play in junior hockey. Joshua Niedermayer went to Arizona State too young and then went back to juniors and played in the USHL last year where he had a pretty solid year. I think he will be good for them as well.

Colgate has a lot of solid players, but there’s just generally a lack of high end talent after all the graduations of the top players. Having guys like Daniel Panetta and Simon Labelle return to their pre-injury form, and having guys like Michael Neumeier take steps forward is imperative to being more than a middle of the pack offense.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 9

Colgate was very weak defensively last season but managed to overcome that to win games. They still project to be fairly weak defensively this season but slightly improved.

Bergsland is a big loss defensively in addition to his offense, but the other losses weren’t really contributors defensively. Irwin’s defensive impacts were just meh last season even though he was good in previous years. Belpedio is another example of addition by subtraction as he had by far the worst impacts on Colgate last year. It averages out to not hurt Colgate too much.

They also return some really good defenders. Neumeier was excellent both ways and will be key back there this season. Brett Merner had great defensive impacts too, and he should step up into a bigger role this year.

In net, Colgate returns Andrew Takacs. This is an area where similar to Dartmouth, they are weaker than the top teams in the conference. Takacs had a 0.903 SV% last year and a 0.901 for his career. He’s not good enough to be a full time starter.

It’s possible that incoming freshman Reid Dyck can compete with him. Dyck projects to be pretty similar in performance. He is very experienced with a long WHL career, but he was just okay in the WHL with a career 0.892 SV%. He has some pedigree as he was drafted by the Boston Bruins back in 2022, but there’s also a reason that they chose not to sign him when their rights to him expired. They clearly didn’t think he was good enough to warrant signing him, and I can’t say I disagree.

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.

8. Brown (Last Year: 8)

This ranking probably surprises some people given that Brown lost a lot of key players in the offseason, but they did enough to still be ahead of the bottom 4, all of whom look to be pretty bad. Another thing that helps Brown is they look pretty solid defensively. They have a somewhat similar outlook as last season with some good top of the lineup players but extremely limited depth.

Key Losses: F Tyler Kopff (28 points in 32 games), F Max Scott (26 points in 32 games), D Brett Bliss (5 points in 31 games), G Lawton Zacher (0.914 SV%)

Key Returners: F Ryan St. Louis (29 points in 23 games), F Brian Nicholas (25 points in 28 games), D Alex Pineau (16 points in 32 games), D Ethan Mistry (12 points in 32 games)

Key Newcomers: D Matthew Desiderio (USHL), G Freddie Halyk (Denver), F Ben Poitras (Northeastern), F Michael Salandra (Quinnipiac)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 8

Incoming Class Rank: 9

Projected Offensive Rank: 9

Losing Tyler Kopff and Max Scott after only their sophomore years was a killer blow for a Brown team that actually has many very good young pieces that they were starting to build around. Kopff was signed early to an NHL contract, while Scott transferred to Maine. Those two were top of the lineup pieces that are not easily replaced, especially with Brown’s lack of depth.

The other two excellent top of the lineup forwards will have to keep playing up to that level. Ryan St. Louis struggled with injuries but still led the team in points with 29 in only 23 games. He’s a dynamic player who should be Brown’s best player night in and night out. Brian Nicholas was outstanding as a freshman, producing at a near point per game rate. He will slide up as the top line center now that Scott is gone.

The issue is the talent surrounding them. Brown did try to make up for it through the transfer portal despite being limited there due to Ivy League rules. Ben Poitras comes over from Northeastern where he played lower in the lineup and only had 3 points in 31 games. Prior to Northeastern, however, he was dynamic in the USHL and had more than a point per game his final year there. I think he’s going to be great for Brown, and he could be a similar success story as St. Louis, who also transferred in from Northeastern. Michael Salandra is the other transfer. He didn’t play a single game at Quinnipiac last season, but he had a point per game in the BCHL before going there.

Those are good pickups, but after that? It doesn’t look good. Even with Salandra, on most teams, he’s probably a 3rd line player. Outside of those 4, the top 6 is going to be filled with two rising sophomores who had 10 and 9 points. Charlie Gollob doesn’t have much junior hockey pedigree to speak of; he was extremely mediocre in the BCHL. Ivan Zadvernyuk had a point per game in the NAHL before Brown, but that’s nothing special for that league either. I know our friends at Brown Hockey Blog disagree, but I just don’t see it with them. They’re 3rd line players at best.

After them, it gets even more dire. Ryan Shostak is next on the list for highest point scorers up front, and he had only 6 points last year. That’s the 7th best forward on the team. Not good! The bottom 6 is going to be an extreme weakness.

On the blue line, Alex Pineau returns after building on his great freshman year. He should be their top defenseman again. Ethan Mistry also returns as a very good two way defenseman and should contribute offensively again. For the newcomers, Matthew Desiderio was one of the top defensemen in the USHL and is a huge add for Brown. He should step immediately into the top 4 and have a big impact. None of the other defensemen project to add much offense.

Luckily for Brown, it’s harder to find top end talent than it is to find good depth players. If they can develop one of the current players into a good 3rd liner and get Gollob and Zadvernyuk to take steps forward, they could be meh offensively instead of on the lower end. It’s certainly possible, but I would bet against it.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 5

This is where Brown is expected to do well, and it’s why they are still supposed to finish in 8th despite the offense and losses. They are not projected to be as good defensively as last season, but it’s still pretty solid.

On the blue line, Brett Bliss is a loss defensively as he had pretty good impacts there. They also lose Tony Andreozzi, but the model doesn’t view him as a particularly big loss. It really likes the return of Nick Traggio and Ethan Mistry as guys who are good in their own end. It all evens out there in the end despite the loss of Bliss.

In net is where the main downgrade comes in. Lawton Zacher was a top goaltender in the ECAC last season and arguably the country. He decided to enter the transfer portal and go to Northeastern following the season. It certainly was a big blow to the team.

Brown did well in finding his replacement in my opinion though. Freddie Halyk comes over from Denver after posting a 0.915 SV% in limited time there last year. He has great size at 6’6” and was solid in the AJHL before going to Denver. I think he was a good pickup for Brown. While the model obviously doesn’t expect him to replace Zacher, it projects him to be less of a downgrade than you might think. I think he can keep Brown solid defensively even if he won’t be a top goalie in all likelihood.

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.

9. Princeton (Last Year: 9)

Princeton will be looking to improve in year two of the Ben Syer era after an expectedly below average start. They struggled offensively as anticipated since they lack talent, but defensively, they were about average. The defense should be the strength of the team again after the offseason and given Syer’s track record at Cornell. However, the offense does not project to improve the way you would hope in year two of a new head coach, which is what holds Princeton back.

Key Losses: D Noah de la Durantaye (10 points in 29 games), G Ethan Pearson (0.913 SV%)

Key Returners: F Brendan Gorman (26 points in 30 games), F Jake Manfre (17 points in 30 games), F Jaxson Ezman (15 points in 30 games), D Nick Marciano (14 points in 30 games), F David Jacobs (14 points in 26 games), D David Ma (13 points in 30 games), D Ian Devlin (4 points in 30 games)

Key Newcomers: None

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 4

Incoming Class Rank: 10

Projected Offensive Rank: 10

It may be surprising to see Princeton’s offense projected so low given they return a lot of scoring. The main thing is that their returning offense is mostly driven by quantity not quality. Last year, they struggled to score, so returning 88.6% of their point production doesn’t really do a whole lot.

No key forwards were lost up front, but they also only had one 20 point scorer. Brendan Gorman had nearly a point per game last year and returns as the clear top player on the roster. Jake Manfre had a good freshman year, and they will need him to take a step forward to be competitive offensively. Jaxson Ezman and David Jacobs were solid, but they need more from the two of them. Jacobs had 24 points the year before, so he has shown he can be a true top 6 player. If he can get back to that, that would be a big help.

Those are the only players who had above half a point per game last year, which shows immediately why the Princeton offense is lackluster. Other guys who will have to step up are Miles Gunty, Kevin Anderson, and Luc Pelletier who all had between 8 and 10 points last season. There are no key incoming forwards, but Hans Martin Ulvebne is the closest. He had 23 points in the USHL last season and projects to add 9 points.

For the defensemen, Nick Marciano and David Ma were both pretty solid offensively, but neither is a top level talent. Noah de la Durantaye was consistently a very good defenseman for Princeton, and he’s a pretty big loss for them even though he wasn’t as good last year as in the past. Tyler Rubin was very good as a sophomore but missed half the year last year due to injury. A return to form for him would be quite helpful.

The only incoming freshman on the blue line is Chris Reiniger who played 2 years in the USHL with the Chicago Steel and had 22 points there last season. He should be a solid player for them right off the bat, but he’s not a player that the model registers as a key newcomer offensively.

There’s just not enough talent on the roster for Princeton to score much. If they have some of the younger players who showed promise take big steps forward, they have a chance to be middle of the pack, but that’s a big if.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 6

This is where Princeton’s bread and butter will be. Last season, they were slightly below average, and it should improve to be solid this year.

First, they only lose de la Durantaye as part of the defense corps. While he was good offensively, his defensive impacts were the worst on the team, so the model views him as addition by subtraction. Ian Devlin was pretty good defensively and returns while Ma was solid defensively as a good two way player. The combo of addition by subtraction with plenty of key returners gives them some expected improvement.

In net, Ethan Pearson graduated after a pretty good year with a 0.913 SV%. Neither of the incoming freshmen project to be starting level in the net, so Princeton will be turning to Arthur Smith. Smith was a pretty heralded recruit with lots of talent and some NHL draft looks prior to going to Princeton. However, he has struggled a lot his first two years there. As a rising junior, it’s kind of now or never for him to finally breakout and live up to his potential. If he can breakout, Princeton has the chance to surprise with a pretty good defense.

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.

10. St. Lawrence (Last Year: 12)

SLU is in a bad position as a team that both struggled greatly last year, and they also lose the vast majority of their top players from that team as only 2 of the top 9 return. That team already struggled a lot to score, and now the situation looks pretty dire there. However, the defensive side looks improved, and that’s the difference here.

Key Losses: F Greg Lapointe (19 points in 34 games), D Mason Waite (16 points in 35 games), F Tomas Mazura (14 points in 17 games), D Philippe Chapleau (11 points in 35 games)

Key Returners: F Tyler Cristall (17 points in 29 games)

Key Newcomers: D Sam Frandina (BCHL), F Sam LeDrew (BCHL), F Cooper Pierson (BCHL), F Rasmus Svartstrom (BCHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 11

Incoming Class Rank: 11

Projected Offensive Rank: 12

The cupboard is pretty bare here offensively. Not a single player on the team last year crossed over the 20 point threshold, and they lose 2 out of the 3 players who managed to have more than half a point per game in Lapointe and Mazura. Other scorers that were high up in the lineup, like Felikss Gavars, Ty Naaykens, and Reilly Connors have also departed.

For the returners, Cristall was pretty good last season, but that’s the only key returner. The next best returner is Isaac Tremblay who had a solid freshman year with 12 points, but if you’re 2nd best returning scorer had only 12 points, you’re in trouble. Gabe Westling, Gunnar Thoreson, and Nicholas Beneteau are all younger players who could take steps forward but none scored more than 10 points last year.

There are some incoming freshmen who will make impacts. First, Rasmus Svartstrom is easily the best player in the class. He led the entire BCHL with 46 goals, and he had 69 points total on the season. He adds some much needed scoring talent, and he should be an immediate boost to the top 6. After him, Sam LeDrew had nearly a point per game in the BCHL. He projects to be an impactful 3rd liner as a freshman. Cooper Pierson struggled in the USHL but was pretty good in the BCHL last year. He projects to be a bottom 6 forward immediately. The main issue is that the latter two are solid but unspectacular recruits, and only Svartstrom is expected to have a big impact.

On the blue line, the top 3 defensemen have graduated. Mason Waite and Philippe Chapleau were the only two who had double digit points last year. Drake Burgin also graduated, which does not help, even though he took a step back offensively in his senior year. The best returning defenseman is Isack Bandu who had 7 points.

Sam Frandina was really good in the BCHL and projects to be a solid offensive defenseman but nothing special. Andrew Brown is the only other notable defensive recruit. He was good in the BCHL but just average in the QMJHL, so he doesn’t project to add too much offensively.

The offense is projected to be the worst in the league for a reason. Even with some surprises and players taking steps, I just can’t see a path to a good offense here.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 10

While the defense isn’t projected to be good at all, it is expected to improve enough to put SLU above RPI and Yale in the model.

The reason for this is pretty interesting. Despite losing Waite, Chapleau, and Burgin, they are all more examples of the model viewing a player as addition by subtraction when they have weak defensive impacts. That trio of players all had the worst defensive impacts on the team, and the model thinks it is a good thing that they have all graduated now. Should it do that? I’ve gone back and forth on it, but I do think so. Just because a player leaves a team doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. There’s plenty of players who have negative impacts on their team.

In net, they return Mason Kucenski who is expected to be the starter after he was the primary starter last season. He was below average with just a 0.900 SV%, and I was surprised they didn’t try to give others opportunities honestly. Kucenski was not very good in the USHL before going to SLU, so it’s not as if he has some great pedigree to fall back on either. He is projected to give them similar results as last year.

The changes are enough to project SLU to improve by 0.5 goals per game defensively. Even though they were very bad defensively last season, the blue line improvement and slight improvement in net means they shouldn’t be horrible like last season. Instead, they should just be a normal level of bad.

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.

11. RPI (Last Year: 10)

Onto the team who certainly had the most eventful offseason. The better question for RPI is what didn’t change? They decided to let go Dave Smith as the head coach, and they replaced him with Eric Lang from AIC. After a multitude of losses in the transfer portal and lots of roster turnover with a whopping 19(!!) new players, they land here as a team with good depth but a lack of high end talent and question marks defensively. I have been trying to calm down all the RPI fans who are excited about the Lang hire and expect immediate results and convince them that this year is still looking to be a rough one.

Key Losses: D Will Gilson (24 points in 35 games), F Tyler Hotson (22 points in 35 games), F Felix Caron (21 points in 35 games), F Jake Lee (20 points in 35 games), F John Beaton (19 points in 34 games), D Elliott McDermott (18 points in 35 games), D Max Smolinski (15 points in 35 games)

Key Returners: F Dovar Tinling (20 points in 32 games), F Jagger Tapper (20 points in 29 games)

Key Newcomers: F Ethan Bono (Merrimack), F Matthew Buckley (OHL), F Cole Gordon (Arizona State), F Jack Gorton (BU), G Nathan Krawchuk (OHL), F Jackson Kyrkostas (BCHL), D Lucas Lemieux (BCHL), F Ian Scherzer (USHL), F Filip Sitar (UConn), D Kazimier Sobieski (USHL), F Tyler Wallace (Niagara), F Luc Wilson (Minnesota State)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 12

Incoming Class Rank: 6

Projected Offensive Rank: 8

Unsurprisingly, RPI has the least amount of returning scoring in the conference; they only return 25% of their point production from last season. Hotson and Caron were big losses in the transfer portal as young core players who had 20+ points, while Lee and Beaton graduated. RPI basically had the difficult combination of a big senior class followed by lots of transfers due to the coaching change.

Two very good forwards do return up front though. Dovar Tinling has had two very good years as a top 6 center since transferring in. Now, he’ll likely be the leader of the forward group as the top line center. Jagger Tapper had a surprise freshman year with 20 points, and he should be playing in the top 6 once again in a key role. Rainers Rullers is the only other returner of note there after a 13 point freshman campaign and a development camp invite to Tampa. He is expected to play in the top 9.

The vast majority of the forward lineup will be newcomers though. Starting with the numerous transfers, Filip Sitar comes in from UConn after one year there. In junior hockey, he was a stellar player and was getting some NHL draft looks, but at UConn, he was suspended to start the year due to pro games in Sweden. Once he finally got into the lineup, he was relegated to the 4th line where he played a key defensive role for the top 10 team, but he only recorded 3 points on the year. The model likes him to make good on his junior hockey promise and talent, similar to Ben Poitras on Brown.

Tyler Wallace comes into RPI after 2 great years at Niagara where he had 30 and 26 points. He likely won’t produce that much in the ECAC, but he was a good pickup that can play in the top 6. Luc Wilson comes over from Minnesota State where he was a good 3rd liner for them with 13 points. The year before, he had 19 points, so he’s a proven middle 6 forward on a good team. On this RPI team, he will likely see more ice time and is expected to be productive. Ethan Bono played in the bottom 6 at Merrimack for two years, recording 9 points in each. He is projected to score more at RPI given the step from Hockey East down to the ECAC and will probably be slotted into the 3rd line.

Cole Gordon was a good 4th line center for a pretty good ASU team last year, and he projects to play a similar role for RPI. Lastly, Jack Gorton barely saw the ice at BU, but prior to BU, he was pretty solid in the BCHL, so the model also likes his projection on the 4th line.

One wild card that I didn’t mention because the model has a low projection on him is Alfred Lindberg. Lindberg was highly productive at AIC as a freshman with 22 points in 20 games, but last year, he struggled with injuries and AIC struggled in general. He fell back to 11 points in 34 games, and since that’s in the Atlantic, the model doesn’t expect much from him. However, if he falls back to his freshman year level, that’s another player that can get into RPI’s lineup and produce.

For incoming freshmen, Jackson Kyrkostas is expected to be the most productive after he had over a point per game in the BCHL. He has consistently put up points everywhere he has gone in his career, and he should be an immediate impact freshman in the middle 6. Matthew Buckley comes in from the OHL where he had 35 points last year, but the year before he had 51. He projects to play a 3rd line role. Lastly, Ian Scherzer had a solid year in the USHL and also projects to be a 3rd line type.

Defensively, RPI lost their top defensemen from last year. Will Gilson, Elliott McDermott and Max Smolinski all left either through the transfer portal or graduation, so there’s a large offensive void on the blue line.

The most impactful newcomers there are Lucas Lemieux and Kazimier Sobieski. Lemieux was one of the best defensemen in the BCHL last season, earning a selection on the 2nd All Star team. He should be an immediate impact in the top 4 with his offensive abilities. Sobieski is an interesting transfer. He played 5 games at UMass to start the year and struggled, and then, he returned to the USHL where he was excellent. He is projected to be in the top 4 as well, and he has the highest point projection among the defensemen. None of the other returners or newcomers are expected to produce offensively, which is definitely a weak point.

With all the key transfers and freshmen, it might be surprising that RPI’s offense is projected to be 8th in the league, but you might have noticed why that is the case. Almost all of these players project as middle of the lineup types, and they lack players who are supposed to be highly productive. Only Tinling, Tapper, and Wallace have top 6 projections, and then it’s a lot of middle 6, 3rd line, and bottom 6 projections. The depth will keep RPI competitive, but it means they are unlikely to score as much as last year.

I do want to shoutout that depth though because RPI actually has one of the deepest forward lineups in the league by the projections. If you compare the 4th line and their projections for every team in the league, Quinnipiac is by far #1, but RPI, Clarkson, and Harvard are all practically tied for #2. Obviously, you don’t win many games with your 4th line, and there’s a reason those other teams are top 3 teams by the offensive projections while RPI is 8th. It still gives them a good foundation to start with in year 1 of the Lang era.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 11

This is the huge weakness that keeps RPI below the rest of the teams. Defensively, RPI was extremely weak last year, and it’s not supposed to get any better after all they lost. Gilson, McDermott and Smolinski were the top 3 defensemen on the roster both by offense and by defense. Losing them given their defensive impacts drops RPI’s defensive projection a significant amount. There is no team in the league that lost more defensively.

In the goaltending department, this actually helps mitigate the expected drop. RPI is bringing in a very good goalie in the model’s eyes with Nathan Krawchuk. Krawchuk was a great goalie in the OHL last year, ranking 13th in SV% on a team that was incredibly leaky defensively. This represents a big upgrade from the subpar goaltending last season, and if Krawchuk actually delivers, that’ll be a big core piece to have in place for the rebuilding effort.

Despite that improvement in the goaltending department, it really only evens out the losses defensively, meaning the projection is pretty similar to RPI’s defensive performance last season, which was really bad. That projection keeps them below SLU, who the model has them pretty close to, and Brown and Princeton who project to have at least mediocre defenses even if RPI is better offensively.

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.

12. Yale (Last Year: 11)

Yale has consistently been the lowest rated team by the model due to their continuous shortcomings in the recruiting department leading to some pretty horrendous offense. This year, the offense is once again supposed to be bad even with some bright young pieces to build with. However, it’s really the defense that keeps their projection so low after allowing 4 goals per game last season.

Key Losses: F Will Dineen (18 points in 30 games), D Connor Sullivan (11 points in 30 games), D Dylan Herzog (11 points in 30 games)

Key Returners: F Ronan O’Donnell (20 points in 29 games), F David Chen (17 points in 18 games), F Micah Berger (15 points in 21 games), D Rhys Bentham (4 points in 8 games)

Key Newcomers: F James Shannon (BCHL)

Offense

Returning Offense Rank: 7

Incoming Class Rank: 12

Projected Offensive Rank: 11

Yale’s poor recruiting once again hampers their offensive ability. However, this year feels like the first time in awhile where there’s actually a pretty solid young core to build around. They only lose Will Dineen up front who was good and is a loss. However, the young players seem capable of filling that hole.

David Chen returns after struggling with injuries, but when he was healthy, he had nearly a point per game. He should be their best player this season. Micah Berger also had some injury troubles but had an excellent freshman year when healthy. He is a true top 6 forward. Lastly, Ronan O’Donnell had a surprise freshman year with 20 points to lead the team. He looks to be a valuable power forward in the top 6 once again.

There’s some promising young players below them too, but they will need to take steps forward since they played at a 3rd line level. Zach Wagnon and Donovan Frias had 14 and 12 points, respectively, which are respectable freshman seasons. Will Richter had 11 points as a sophomore. That trio needs to be more in the 20 point range this season.

The issue is that those players profile like 3rd line players, so after the top 4 forwards, the depth drops off quickly. Even after those 3 players, the next best returning forward had 6 points. That’s a dramatic difference, and that lack of depth means they don’t project to score very much. They aren’t going to get much help from the league’s worst recruiting class either. Only James Shannon projects to contribute, and even that is only a bottom 6 projection since he had slightly less than a point per game in the BCHL.

Yale also loses their top two defensemen in Connor Sullivan and Dylan Herzog. They will be helped by Rhys Bentham hopefully being healthy for the full year. He only played in 8 games last season but was looking really good in those games with 4 points. He will likely be their top defenseman. The highest point total for a returning defenseman is 6 though, so there’s not much offense on the blue line. Similarly, there’s not any help coming from the recruits. Beyond the top players in Yale’s lineup, there’s simply just not much of note.

Yale is going to struggle to score again this season. Even if the promising young players all take steps, there’s not enough depth or talent on this roster. It’s basically the same story as Princeton but with way less depth and slightly more talent at the top of the lineup.

Defense

Projected Defensive Rank: 12

The defense is projected to be the worst in the league once again. Defense was actually supposed to be a strength for Yale last year, but then, it totally imploded. Jack Stark somehow dropped from a 0.919 SV% to a 0.879, which is an insane difference. That was the best save percentage of any of the goalies on the team somehow. Yale’s goaltending was the 2nd worst in the country only above Miami.

For this year, the losses of Sullivan, Herzog, and Kieran O’Hearn hurt them because those three were their top defensemen. The model projects there to be more shots and chances against with those losses. Again, this is a spot where a healthy Bentham should be a really big help for Yale.

In net, Stark will likely be the starter again. The model uses up to 3 years of data for goaltending, so it is projecting a bounce back for him, which Yale desperately needs. Even with a bounce back projected for Stark though, the improvement isn’t expected to be drastic enough when you’re starting from such a low spot; Yale gave up 4.03 goals per game last season.

While there is improvement expected overall, the blue line losses counteract the goaltending bounce back a little bit, so the improvement is projected at 0.23 goals per game, which is solid, but it’s not nearly enough. Allowing 3.8 goals per game would still be horrendous, and certainly the worst mark in the league. There is some hope here though. Stark has shown he can play at a high level, so if he truly can rise back to his freshman year level, they can get back to a respectable defense and potentially finish higher than 12th. I think it’ll all come down to Stark though because with the losses on the back end, I don’t think they can really improve too much in shots against and chances against.

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.

Final Model Rankings

1. Quinnipiac

2. Clarkson

3. Cornell

4. Harvard

5. Union

6. Dartmouth

7. Colgate

8. Brown

9. Princeton

10. St. Lawrence

11. RPI

12. Yale

Model Tiers

Quinnipiac
————————- (big gap)
Clarkson
Cornell
————————- (small gap)
Harvard
Union
Dartmouth
————————-
Colgate
Brown
Princeton
————————-
St. Lawrence
RPI
Yale

All-League Predictions

1st Team

Sr F Jeremy Wilmer, Quinnipiac

Jr F Mason Marcellus, Quinnipiac

Sr F Ryan St. Louis, Brown

Jr D CJ Foley, Dartmouth

Sr D Tristan Sarsland, Clarkson

Jr G Matej Marinov, Quinnipiac

2nd Team

So F Mick Thompson, Harvard

Jr F Ryan Walsh, Cornell

Jr F Andon Cerbone, Quinnipiac

So D Michael Neumeier, Colgate

Sr D Will Gilson, Quinnipiac

Fr G Alexis Cournoyer, Cornell

3rd Team

Sr F Brandon Buhr, Union

Sr F Brendan Gorman, Princeton

Sr F David Chen, Yale

Jr D George Fegaras, Cornell

So D Tate Taylor, Clarkson

So G Ben Charette, Harvard

All-Rookie Team

This year’s all rookie team was particularly hard to predict because of the influx of CHL talent. There’s a lot of talent coming into the league this season, that’s for sure.

F Adrian Misaljevic, Clarkson

F Aiden Long, Cornell

F Remi Gelinas, Clarkson

D Matthew Desiderio, Brown

D Xavier Veilleux, Cornell

G Alexis Cournoyer, Cornell

Awards

Player of the Year: Jr D CJ Foley, Dartmouth

Goalie of the Year: Jr G Matej Marinov, Quinnipiac

Rookie of the Year: Fr G Alexis Cournoyer, Cornell

If you’ve made it all the way to the end of this preview, thanks for reading! Hockey season is coming this week and I can’t wait!

The leaves are starting to turn, football has begun, and that means hockey season is right around the corner. The Engineers forward group (like every position) is going to look completely different this year and is more transfer heavy than the defense is. Dovar Tinling and Jagger Tapper figure to be the most prominent returners of the group, but aside from that we will have quite a few new faces to learn. Seeing as the unit will have 8-9 new players at a minimum, and oh hey, a new coaching staff as well, I don’t find analyzing last year to be a worthwhile exercise. So, let’s start fresh with an entirely new unit that has a ton of eligibility and the chance to grow into something special.

Part of what has me excited for this team is how young it is at every position. Guys like Luc Wilson and the aforementioned Tinling will provide experience up front, and Trevor Russell and Jimmy Goffredo the same for the defense. For the most part though, most of the team has 2-4 years of eligibility left and the chance to be Coach Lang’s first great core of players here. That should leave all fans excited. The other major theme that jumps out to me is that this forward group has a ton of lefties and a ton of centers. Like a ton. That will be a challenge for Lang & co. to manage and makes projecting the roster a bit more difficult than usual. Will it propel freshman RW’s Matt Buckley and Jackson Kyrkostas into bigger roles right away? Which guys move to the wing, and will some play on their offside? Those questions are above my pay grade, but I will do my best here to take them apart for everybody. Let’s jump into it.

The Top-6:

I think part of what makes this era of college hockey exciting is that there are so many ways to build a team and players find your program at completely different places in their career. When I look at this top 6, I see players stepping up in competition looking to sustain their production, others coming down looking for more opportunity, sophomores looking to build on a great freshman year, etc. The challenge now is to make it all mesh together.

Tyler Wallace comes over from Niagara with a background very similar to Austin Heidemann’s at the time. 2 highly productive years in Atlantic Hockey including 30 points as a freshman, preceded by a very successful junior hockey career, primarily in the AJHL for Wallace. He was 5th in points in the AJHL before going to Niagara and brings quite a bit of goal scoring and size to the Engineers. He has mostly played center and Lang highlighted that he had one of the best faceoff percentages in the country, but his experience at wing makes him a logical fit to move over given the team’s personnel.

One-Liner: Tyler has produced at every level, but will he be able to take that next step forward despite much harder competition on RPI’s schedule this year?

Dovar Tinling is the veteran of this forward group and arguably the best bet to lead the team offensively. The fanbase is familiar with Dovar’s story now and how he went to UVM too early, but I really think his best hockey is still in front of him. He centered Jack Brackett and Felix Caron for the majority of last season and figures to be a top-line staple in 2025. Tinling’s allegiance to the program through the coaching change when he would have had many suitors figures to make him an immediate leader for this group. I think his offensive game is very solid and he should have every opportunity to produce this season. The question for me is if he can elevate his two-way game to an all-league level as he figures to be at the top of the scouting report for the Engineers.

One-Liner: Is Tinling ready to be the featured guy up front after the Muzzatti, Hotson, and Caron departures?

Jagger Tapper is a very welcomed returner after a pleasantly surprising freshman year where he turned in 20 points. Injuries in the top-6 launched Jagger into an elevated role, which he ran with and never gave back. This time last year, we were talking about Tapper as someone who had work to do to crack the lineup but possessed all the tools to be a successful college player. Tapper is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle here for quite a few reasons. First, he is very skilled and has the ability to continue developing into a top-level offensive player. Second, RPI is very short on right wings this year, so Tapper has a big role to take on. Lastly, he is one of the few holdovers being relied upon to carry the RPI culture, and his 3 years of eligibility remaining make him an exciting piece for the staff to keep developing.

One-Liner: His standout freshman year was unanticipated and at times a bit lucky with ENGs and secondary assists. Can he legitimize that production as an essential part of the core in his sophomore season?

Luc Wilson transfers to RPI from a Minnesota State team that won the CCHA and took the National Champion WMU Broncos to 2 OTs in the NCAA tournament. Wilson primarily was a middle-6 center for Mankato but figures to move to the wing given RPI’s glut at center.

Wilson is a high-IQ offensive player with a capable shot and playmaking ability. Last year’s 13 points regressed from his 19 as a sophomore, but he did stay consistent with 7 goals. Similar to Tinling, he is a 1-year guy that will bring experience to a fairly inexperienced team. I don’t expect an enormous jump despite a moderate drop in competition, but Wilson figures to be a solid producer on the 2nd line.

One-Liner: Wilson is as safe a bet as you’ll find and has produced at every level. What is his ceiling for a team desperate for high-end scoring?

Filip Sitar is far and away the x-factor on this roster to me, and like Tapper, a very important player with 3 years of college hockey left. Sitar is a very high-IQ center that is great in the dot and plays a 200-foot game. Stephen did a great piece breaking down his game over the summer which I recommend everyone checks out. To summarize though, Sitar was regarded as an NHL draft prospect in Sweden but was blocked last season on a very strong UConn team. The numbers show his defense was excellent in his 4th-line role, but his production internationally suggests there is way more offense to his game. Additionally, Coach Lang said to us he thought Sitar went to UConn a year too early. We have seen this model work before for RPI with guys like Dovar Tinling and TJ Walsh, and you could make the argument that Sitar is the best player of the three at this point in their respective careers.

One-Liner: The blueprint has worked in the past, so can Sitar deliver on the increased opportunity to produce that he should receive this year?

Rainers Rullers had a productive freshman year and was our lone attendee of development camp this summer, where he spent a week with the Tampa Bay Lightning. He was consistently RPI’s 3rd-line center last year, mostly behind Lee and Tinling on the depth chart. Rainers took on a lot of responsibility as a freshman, as he was one of RPI’s top penalty killers and logged a lot of minutes. Logic would tell you he’d slot up a spot onto the 2nd line this year, but with the surplus of centers this year I think he could be a candidate to move to the wing. I’d expect Rullers to be a top defensive forward again, but I’d love to see him use his size to turn into a true power forward. A year of a college weightlifting program should work wonders, and hopefully we see an uptick in physicality this year, especially around the net. If he can elevate his offensive production, I expect him to be a very useful player for RPI that plays in all situations.

The Middle-6

The middle 6 this year is the strength of the forward group and has a lot of options, especially at center. RPI is going to need to rely on its depth, both to score up and down the lineup, but also to help out with defensive coverage. It is safe to plug in the top-6 players, as well as Bono and Lindberg into the lineup every night. That leaves the three freshmen to carve out the final top 9 role, or establish that they can contribute in a defensive role on the 4th line.

Ethan Bono reminds me a lot of where John Beaton fit into the roster the last few years. Bono is naturally a center but seems like a candidate to move to the wing given the surplus. He was pretty young when he went to Merrimack and did produce for them in a tougher league. He’s got good size and should be a better fit in a league that is more physical than Hockey East. I think it is fair to say there is a role for him if he doesn’t improve from last year, but development as he drops down to the ECAC would be a welcomed occurrence for RPI.

One-Liner: Is he a natural fit to move to the wing and will this move come with a scoring bump?

Alfred Lindberg was the lone AIC Yellow Jacket to follow Coach Lang across the state border this spring. He had a bit of a confusing career at AIC, as he produced 22 points points in just 20 games his freshman but regressed down to 11 last year. He was a bit banged up and Lang said he was extremely snake-bitten, but this is pretty significant point-per-game regression. He was an assistant captain as just a sophomore and certainly seems like the type of kid Lang wanted to bring with him for the transition.

One-Liner: Will his familiarity with Coach Lang facilitate a smoother adjustment for him than the rest of the transfers?

Matt Buckley should be a beneficiary of the left-handed skew of this forward group, as he comes in from a stacked Oshawa team in the OHL. In my view, Buckley is best positioned among the freshman forward to make an impact right away. His 30 goals in the OHL 2 years ago show he has significant offensive prowess which the team is looking for. Last year was a down year, but I expect a bounce back as he joins the collegiate ranks. Buckley should get powerplay opportunities early on as a freshman and wouldn’t be surprised to see him contend for ECAC all-rookie honors.

One-Liner: Was last year’s drop in production an aberration or a concern?

Ian Scherzer is one of the most interesting players on the roster to me, as I truly think he can be a building block for the next 4 years of the program. He is a pure center with elite play-driving metrics, defense, and a very high-IQ. His underlying metrics in the USHL were excellent last year and suggest he was a bit unlucky with his point total. Lang referred to him as “one of our type of players” and I think he may force his way into a prominent role sooner rather than later. I think he has the capability to be a really, really good college player at RPI if he stays and develops. Early in the season, I think he more than Kyrkostas and Buckley has the ability to make an impact on the 4th line if he is blocked out by older players in the top 9.

One-Liner: Can he translate elite play driving metrics into legitimate point production as a college player?

Jackson Kyrkostas is the last true candidate to play in a scoring role in my view, and he is a name RPI fans should be pretty familiar with. He committed to the program during his days at Kimball Union and has been a prolific scorer everywhere he has gone. I suspect he starts in more of a depth role earlier on, but he has the offensive capabilities to be a very productive player.

One-Liner: The skill is there, but does he play a complete enough game to get extended time as a freshman?

The Bottom-6:

The Engineers have struggled immensely on defense, and the penalty kill in the past two seasons, and there are many reasons that is the case. One of those was a lack of depth at forward, causing an inability to defend with your typical 4th-line checkers. It pushed guys like Jake Gagnon and Sutter Muzzatti into penalty killing roles, when in reality, you want those guys taking your offensive chances. I think RPI finally has the right mix and proper depth in the bottom 6 which is going to help forwards stay fresh and help the defense.

Brad McNeil is expected to be one of the captains and is a clear leader of the group. He is a high-IQ forward, a penalty killer, and a guy that you know what you’re getting from. He didn’t take the step forward offensively that I was hoping for last year, but I am not sure this team needs him to. I’d expect him to be plugged right into the 4th line all year long and relied upon for his experience.

One-Liner: Is there any more offense to his game that could propel him beyond just a 4th-line role?

Cole Gordon comes to RPI from an ASU team that made the NCAA tournament last year. Gordon is a grinder through and through, and I feel as if I need to fully reserve judgment until seeing his game in person, because his impact doesn’t show up in the box score. I think Gordon will bring a tenacity to the bottom 6 that the team has sorely lacked recently and will help with the PK improvement as well. Expect he and McNeil to be penciled into the lineup immediately each night.

One-Liner: Will his tenacity and physicality help the team defensively and make his role irreplaceable?

I did a piece highlighting Jack Gorton last week, but he is a bit of a tough scouting report because we don’t have much data on his game. He does possess a lot of size and has flashed some skill, but his game is clearly raw. It’ll be interesting to see how he fits into the puzzle early on.

One-Liner: Can Gorton help carry BU’s culture and winning ways to help Coach Lang establish winning habits within the program?

Mat Bourgault reportedly had an excellent training camp last fall and was flying around the ice in the exhibition game at UMass we saw last year. And then, he suffered a season ending injury and we never got to see anything more. He stuck at RPI through the coaching change and should be fully healthy now, and I expect he will contribute in the bottom 6. Similar to Gorton, we don’t have much tape on him because he has played so sparingly, but I am excited to see him fully healthy again. I expect Mat to force his way into the lineup after a broken freshman year.

One-Liner: Can he force his way into a crowded bottom 6 after years of injuries and setbacks?

Lucas Matta is our final highlight, as the former defenseman is expected to play forward again this year after injury forced him to change position in 2024. Matta is a leader of the group and will provide the team positional flexibility as needed.

One-Liner: Will it be forward or defense for Matta in his final collegiate season?

This year is a big transition for the RPI program, and there will be a lot of new faces for fans to get used to. I strayed away from the more team-oriented preview we typically do in favor of a player spotlight piece, sheerly due to the number of new players there are. It is going to take some time for Lang to get this to gel, and it may not even come this season. I am excited to see the deployment of a new system, and look forward to seeing this young forward group grow together over the next few years. I think the unit has excellent depth and its strongest points are the middle 6, but it will be reliant on development from a few top players to carry the scoring. They will need to score with depth and compete hard to get the most out of their talent this year. A little more than a week until the team hits the ice, we will have a lot more content coming your way to kick off the season. As always, Let’s Go Red.

RPI released its roster for the first year of the Eric Lang era last week in what all signs point to being a developmental year. The roster is ironically not up on the website now, but I feel like we have a strong inclination at what it’ll look like. The roster looked as expected with the exception of Ethan Elias and Joseph Henneberry, who Stephen reported had committed in June. I am willing to chalk this up to a communications error and expect them both in Troy next year. It has been a while since we got any content out there, so I wanted to go through some initial thoughts on the roster.

The Youth Movement

The coaching staff did a nice job finding veteran pieces that can help now, but this is going to take a year or two to build a “core”. It took Seth Appert a few years to develop his first core of Chase Polacek, Tyler Helfrich, Allen York, and others. Dave Smith’s best group was the classes that had Jake Johnson, Ture Linden, Owen Savory and others. I think even if there are growing pains, there is reason to be excited by the freshman class and I will add in the talented sophomore transfers as well, Filip Sitar and Kaz Sobieski. Retention is not guaranteed in this era, but there will be opportunities for these players to contribute and grow into a top-tier core for the roster going forward. I think Nathan Krawchuk has high-end starter potential, Lucas Lemieux and Joseph Henneberry have all-league potential, and all of the others are very solid prospects that will contribute.

Depth, Depth, Depth

I certainly won’t be penciling in any line charts, but those of you that have been reading the blog a while know I like to game out line charts. This would be my preliminary depth chart right now.

Wilson-Tinling-Tapper
Wallace-Rullers-Sitar
Henneberry-Lindberg-Buckley
McNeil-Gordon-Bono
Bourgault-Scherzer-Kyrkostas
Gorton

Lemieux-Russell
VanDamme-Sobieski
Ozolins-Elias
Klassek-Goffredo
Matta-Hilditch

Bruveris
Krawchuk

I feel so significantly better about this roster than I have in prior years. The top end is not as strong as it was last year after the Gilson, Hotson, and Muzzatti losses but the depth is drastically improved. It truly feels like everyone on the roster either does right now or will contribute significantly during their career.

Centers

Coach Lang really prioritized depth at center in the portal, and it feels as if the Engineers have 8-9 guys that can line up in the middle. There is definitely more depth on the lefthanded side so I would expect the Wallace’s and Bono’s of the world to go to LW. Tinling, Sitar, Rullers, Wallace, Bono, Lindberg, Buckley, Kyrkostas, Scherzer, McNeil, and Gordon all have significant experience at center. This makes it a bit harder to forecast a lineup, but I equate centers to shortstops and centerfielders in baseball. The learning curve is steeper at those positions, so I would rather have depth there and flex guys to the wing than vice versa.

I think this roster lacks the firepower at the top to score a lot and probably doesn’t have the goaltending to be superb defensively either. However, the depth is exciting as Lang begins his rebuild. Fans should be excited by the depth he is accumulating, as there is a “build through the draft” feel to this offseason as he stockpiles young talent. There are a few top players that will graduate after this year, but I think retention and development of this young core is the path to success. Much more to come on the blog and hockey season will be here before we know it. It is an exciting time in Troy as we ramp into the first season with Eric Lang at the helm!

Wow! What a day it was yesterday. It had been nearly a month without a head coach for the RPI Engineers, but the guy who had been the favorite all along ends up with the job. Barring a super out of the box hire, Lang always made the most sense and was by far the best candidate. His record at AIC is well documented, with numerous league titles, NCAA Tournament appearances, and a win over the #1 seed in the tournament in 2019. We have spoken at length on Substack and X about why he was the right man for the job and are ecstatic with Dr. Bowers’ decision. So rather than repeating ourselves again, we compiled a to-do list for the first offseason of Coach Lang’s tenure. It calls to mind the first 100 days of the U.S. presidency, as the first month of Lang’s tenure will be hectic to say the least. Decorate the office in June, coach, we have work to do!!

1. Retention, retention, retention

Immediately when RPI fired Dave Smith as the head coach, all of the best players on the Engineers started getting calls from other programs trying to poach them. Most of the top ones did choose to enter the portal, 5 of them to be exact. Gilson landed at Quinnipiac, Smolinski at St. Cloud, and Hotson announced Monday night he would head to Bowling Green, leaving Muzzatti and Caron looking for spots. However, there’s still some left who are likely undecided that had been waiting to see who was hired.

We think most fans would agree that the most important players to retain at this point are Dovar Tinling, Jagger Tapper, Rainers Rullers, and Jimmy Goffredo. These players should be high priorities for Coach Lang to keep as the main players left at the top of the lineup. Additionally, it would be beneficial to keep the depth players as well for culture purposes. Guys like Brad McNeil and Gustavs Ozolins have been looked to as future captains since arriving on campus due to their leadership qualities and compete level. Plus, there’s the fact that they need to field a roster. The team only has 12 players returning from last season as of right now; can that number really afford to be lower? He doesn’t exactly have a head start with the transfer portal, as many players are off the board or very close to committing. The true roster overhauling may begin next offseason, so it makes sense to retain the valuable pieces and develop what he can.

Lastly, Coach Lang should take a run at trying to convince the portal guys to return. While 3 of them are committed, we know all too well that verbal commitments are not binding, which has burned RPI plenty of times. Maybe it is RPI’s turn to be on the other end of it. Muzzatti and Caron are uncommitted and are likelier to return while their future is still up in the air. Caron, in particular, would be a huge piece to return as he has 3 years of eligibility remaining and would be core piece of the rebuild. It’s worthwhile to try to reach out to all of them and attempt to sell them on your vision at RPI. It’s not like they were unhappy at the school; their coach just got fired. It’s not too different from a normal portal recruitment, and worst case scenario, it fails.

2. Determine which recruits to keep

You can probably add in Lucas Lemieux, Jackson Kyrkostas, Nate Krawchuk, and Thomas Klassek from the recruit pool to the players we listed above as well. These players should be just as big of a priority to keep as key recruits who are expected to contribute immediately as freshmen and could help make up the core of Lang’s team as he builds the roster in his image. It bodes well that none have decommitted yet, so I think there’s a good chance of keeping them.

For the rest of the recruits, there’s more question marks surrounding them. For guys like Jack Ziliotto, Easton Adrian, and Landen Hilditch, the question is whether or not they come in this year or get delayed a year. All 3 are good recruits, but Ziliotto would probably be more of a 3rd line player if he came to RPI this fall instead of waiting a year. Adrian and Hilditch have had injury-plagued years, so the question for them is more about how healthy and ready they are. The other recruits either project as depth players or are young and definitely need more development in junior hockey. Coach Lang will have to decide which of those players to keep.

3. Use the portal (and CHL) to fill the remaining roster holes

The first big area that needs to be addressed is the goaltending room. The Engineers currently only have 3rd stringer Carson Dorfman on the roster. The odds are probably high that Lang wants to address this before the season begins! Jokes aside, having a blank slate in the goaltending room is not the worst thing in the world. Goalie may be the only position that you can land a player that is out of your proverbial league simply with the pitch of playing time. Coach Lang has the chance to grab a very solid goalie with a few years of eligibility from the portal based on the playing time he has to offer. Patriks Berzins from Maine could be an option through the Latvian connection. He was teammates with Rainers Rullers in Madison in 23-24 and is in the portal now. Chase Clark started at AIC this year, so he is also an option but would have to be graduating early to get into RPI as a transfer. We would still absolutely like to see Nathan Krawchuk come as well as stated above since he looks to be a good goalie from Sudbury in the OHL. Regardless, this is a position that needs to be filled out very quickly this offseason.

For the rest of the holes, there are not many players from AIC that are worth bringing over as essentially all the best players have committed elsewhere now. It is especially difficult with RPI’s transfer rules, but Lang will have spots to fill. This team graduated 11 players and lost 5 to the portal already. RPI has lost its entire top 4 on defense, both goalies that played, and 7 of its top 10 forwards counting Muzzatti who missed the end of the season. There’s lots of playing time to go around. Here’s what he has to work with right now:

? - Tinling - Tapper
? - Kyrkostas - ?
? - Rullers - Ziliotto?
Bourgault - McNeil - Payant
Sullivan, Janus, Oakenfold

Lemieux - ?
Klassek - Goffredo
Ozolins - Hilditch?
Adrian?
Maguire, Matta

? Krawchuk Dorfman

That’s 6 spots that are totally empty, all in key roles in the lineup, and keep in mind that this assumes that no one else enters the portal or decommits and assumes Coach Lang chooses to keep everyone and doesn’t delay Ziliotto, Hilditch or Adrian. There’s a good chance there will be more spots to fill than just what we have laid out there. Unfortunately, the hiring process took longer than it probably should have, so a good chunk of talent is off the board from the portal. However, there’s still enough to find players from the portal, and there’s probably still some CHL players who can come in and contribute as freshmen. With Lang’s reputation, we bet he can convince some solid players to join the fold early on with the minutes he has to offer, especially younger players who can be sold on being centerpieces of a rebuilding program.

4. Finalize the Coaching Staff

Per sources, we can report that Mathias Lange and Karlis Zirnis will be retained on the staff, leaving one assistant spot open for Coach Lang to fill. Luckily that is much easier to manage, and that should help a lot with the transition. It should also ideally help to keep the rest of the roster and the incoming recruiting class intact. We said before in previous articles that we’d like for Coach Lang to hire a recruiting specialist type of assistant, and that remains the same now. With his reputation in the hockey world, we have no doubt that there will not be a shortage of coaching talent interested in joining the staff.

5. Engage Alumni and Fans

Lang will have some very practical roster building questions to address first, but once he gets the chance to catch his breath, I suspect he will spend a lot of the summer drumming up new interest in the program. Matt Murley of Spittin Chiclets has been helping out a lot, and other prominent hockey alumni have voiced desire to help right the ship. Lang is a smart guy who comes from a situation that lacked resources. He would be wise to draw into RPI Hockey’s history with the alumni and local fans to gain momentum early in his tenure. I would like to see the university get the students more involved as well, which I am sure he and Dr. Bowers will work closely on. Hiring a new coach can reinvigorate a fan base and a recruiting pipeline too. I am sure the athletic department and Coach Lang will be eager to catch a wave of momentum and run with it. A big part of that will be getting as many prominent hockey alumni and donors as possible involved in the program.

Welcome Coach! We are excited for this new chapter of RPI Hockey!

Per Ken Schott, Eric Lang is set to be named Head Coach of the RPI Engineers. Lang comes to RPI from AIC where he totally turned that program around. Despite having very little university or financial support, Lang led the Yellow Jackets to 4 straight league titles and 3 straight NCAA tournament appearances. Up until this year, they had 6 straight winning seasons.

Lang will inherit a rebuild at RPI with the majority of the best players either graduating or in the portal. It’ll likely take a few years, but given his track record, he has a great chance to turn things around here. This is an absolute homerun hire. We will have more to come later!

Yesterday afternoon, a new report dropped naming two more finalists for the next RPI men’s hockey coach. They are Dartmouth Associate HC Jason Tapp and Clarkson Associate HC Chris Brooks. The original report naming Eric Lang, Dan Jewell, and Jim Doyle the finalists was erroneous, which will be discussed more in a bit.

This new list makes a lot more sense. Both Tapp and Brooks were coaches that were on our radar when we wrote about potential candidates since they are both ECAC assistants with national titles on their resumes. They both seem like better fits than Doyle, and they both are more experienced than Jewell. Frankly, it relieves me that these are the type of candidates RPI can draw, as opposed to what the first list looked like.

Tapp was a longtime assistant and associate HC at Union where he helped build and win the national championship in 2014. He joined Reid Cashman at Dartmouth 5 years ago, and he has been the top assistant there and a big part of their rise. As a former goaltender who has been working with the goalies there, he developed both Clay Stevenson and Cooper Black into goalies who earned NHL contracts. He can point to his familiarity with the area, experience in the ECAC, and revival at Dartmouth as reasons he deserves this job.

Brooks built UW-Stevens Point into a D3 powerhouse and won a national championship as the head coach there. Since then, he has done good work with both Michigan Tech and Clarkson. He had numerous NCAA tournament appearances at Michigan Tech, and while Clarkson had a brief dip his first two years there, they rebounded this year and appear on the right track once again. It helps that both are smaller tech schools with good academics as well. He should have some familiarity with what type of kids he can recruit.

Now, talking about where the search stands and getting into the erroneous report. The initial report was clearly wrong: the finalists were not Lang, Jewell, and Doyle. Tapp and Brooks being in the picture now doesn’t mean those 3 aren’t finalists, but the list was not just those 3 as first reported. That being said, I would be shocked if all 5 of these coaches are finalists; it’s just way too big of a list to have for your final round when you’re bringing them all to campus. It’s either a list of 3 or 4, and either Jewell or Doyle or both are not finalists.

It is frustrating to receive a report of finalists stated as fact that is now clearly not the status of the situation. We have heard some rumors the past couple of weeks, but didn’t report any of them without full confirmation. Certainly, these situations can be fluid, but this wasn’t reported on like it was rumor. Lang is the only one definitely correct from the initial report.

So, you may be asking why we can trust this new report if the first one was so incorrect. I had that same question myself, so I sought out to confirm it myself privately. Lang, Tapp, and Brooks are confirmed finalists. It’s not clear what the status of Jewell and Doyle’s candidacies are.

Here is my gut feeling based on what I’ve heard, but I want to make it clear that this information is not confirmed. It appears to me that neither Jewell nor Doyle are finalists. It’s possible that one of them is, but there’s practically no chance that both are as I stated above. That would be too many to bring to campus and cause the process to extend into next week.

One random note that bodes well for those who want Lang to be pick is that the transfer portal showcase he is running was postponed. As I said on Twitter, I think this is mostly related to the RPI coaching search. The date of the portal opening was known well in advance as was the fact the season wouldn’t be fully over. The only thing that has changed since it was scheduled is that Lang is a finalist for the RPI coaching job. What does that mean? Well, in a best-case scenario mindset (if you want Lang of course), he thinks he’s getting the job either late this week or early next week and doesn’t want this event to interfere with that. In the worst-case, it probably was just too much to handle interviewing seriously for the job while trying to administratively put the event together.

With the two new candidates, we would tier them as follows.

1. Eric Lang

2. Jason Tapp and Chris Brooks

3. Dan Jewell

4. Joe Doyle

For the big picture with the process, I expect that the new coach will be named by the Frozen Four at the latest. All the on-campus interviews will take place this week, and it shouldn’t take too long after that. At the earliest, it could be announced Thursday if the interviews were Monday-Wednesday. In actuality, I think it’ll be sometime between Friday and Tuesday. Stay tuned.