The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard
Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page
Where is the NCDC?
Looking at last 12 months, the top sources of DI players per @collegehockey are:
1. USHL 192 (players)
2. NAHL 154
3. BCHL 104
4. NE Prep 94
5. AJHL 48
6. MN HS 43
7. NTDP 33
8. OJHL 29
9. IND HS/Prep 26
10. CCHL 25
I saw this data cited somewhere else today, tried to find it on their website and on Twitter.
I assume they are using the league the individual committing in the past year last played in. So, it makes sense that it's going to be the higher levels. It also means it may include some players that played in the NCDC in 2018/19 but committed before the season started.
I don't think anyone ever said NCDC was "the best." It's an alternative. A rung on the ladder. I don't think it's surprising they had less than 25 commits in the last 12 months. it doesn't mean that players that actually play D-I in a few years won't have NCDC on their resumes.
Not saying it's attractive to us. The teams have their warts. They all do. That doesn't mean it's a bad choice, versus other choices a particular family may have.
It was tweeted out by AMHockey, some real good info on the pages tweeted out.
"BEST COACHING. BEST COMPETITION. BEST LEAGUE"
Can’t be that bad it looks like the Generals drafted like 6 kids from the NCDC.
Tier III, no USA Hockey affiliation, and funded by youth hockey. What a model
Welcome to junior hockey. Kids get cut, traded and even quit. Check out any tuition free league and you will see the same thing.
Somebody claims their kid plays D1 hockey but doesn't understand how scholarships are funded. Taxpayers do not fund D1 athletic departments. College athletic departments fund their scholarships through donations, endowments, revenue from TV, ticket sales, concessions, corporate sponsorship, and other revenue sources. Now, one of those revenue sources can be direct institutional support which come in the form of student activity fees, so one could claim the school is paying for athletics, but it is a stretch to say taxpayer funds from the state house go directly to athletics.
What people need to understand about college athletics is that it is, for many, the window through which they perceive the school. Think of it as one of the marketing arms of the institution. It's no coincidence that after a major D1 school exhibits athletic success like, say, a program wins a football championship, like a Clemson or Alabama, that the school experiences a spike in applications to the university. Athletic success increases the profile of the school and leads to increased applications and enrollment. Viewed that way, direct institutional support can be justified if it is part of a comprehensive plan to increase the profile of the school.