Ice Hockey DBoard

The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard 


Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page

email: icehockeydboard@yahoo.com

Junior & College Hockey
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

anon
Anon
anon
Anon
Anon
Tier III, no USA Hockey affiliation, and funded by youth hockey. What a model
Then don\\\\\\\'t have your kid play.

No tuition, good local option so your kid can continue his Northeast education, and you\\\\\\\'re getting exposure to college programs.

USA Hockey affiliation means zero, and who cares who it\\\\\\\'s funded by? You know taxpayers fund NCAA athletic scholarships, right? Do you care, when your kid is the recipient?

Is it the right development option for every kid? No.

Now, if you said they are killing the league by the way they complete the rosters, we can have a meaningful discussion.
As I look at last years rosters, how/why do these teams have 35-40-50 players on rosters?
Pretty typical for juniors.
I think, I may be wrong, but I think alot of the players who didnt play many NCDC games also were rostered on U18, Premier, etc..So they show on both rosters?
You have to be rostered for any team you are active on, even if for one game that you didn't dress.

Premier call-ups would only be one reason.

Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

Anon
Anon
Tier III, no USA Hockey affiliation, and funded by youth hockey. What a model
Then don't have your kid play.

No tuition, good local option so your kid can continue his Northeast education, and you're getting exposure to college programs.

USA Hockey affiliation means zero, and who cares who it's funded by? You know taxpayers fund NCAA athletic scholarships, right? Do you care, when your kid is the recipient?

Is it the right development option for every kid? No.

Now, if you said they are killing the league by the way they complete the rosters, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Don't have my kid play? Ha! Thanks anyhow but his route was Prep/USHL and now DI, but thanks for funding his ride though.

Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

Anon
Anon
Anon
Tier III, no USA Hockey affiliation, and funded by youth hockey. What a model
Then don\'t have your kid play.

No tuition, good local option so your kid can continue his Northeast education, and you\'re getting exposure to college programs.

USA Hockey affiliation means zero, and who cares who it\'s funded by? You know taxpayers fund NCAA athletic scholarships, right? Do you care, when your kid is the recipient?

Is it the right development option for every kid? No.

Now, if you said they are killing the league by the way they complete the rosters, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Don't have my kid play? Ha! Thanks anyhow but his route was Prep/USHL and now DI, but thanks for funding his ride though.
Then why do you care, if it doesn't affect him?

Is that your thing, you dump on other player's experiences because your kid is oh, such a stud?

My kid is skipping NCDC, too, not for any of the bulls#it reasons you cited, by the way, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good alternative.

I hope your kid takes after his mother, 'cause you're the family douchebag.

Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

Anon
Anon
Anon
Anon
Tier III, no USA Hockey affiliation, and funded by youth hockey. What a model
Then don\\'t have your kid play.

No tuition, good local option so your kid can continue his Northeast education, and you\\'re getting exposure to college programs.

USA Hockey affiliation means zero, and who cares who it\\'s funded by? You know taxpayers fund NCAA athletic scholarships, right? Do you care, when your kid is the recipient?

Is it the right development option for every kid? No.

Now, if you said they are killing the league by the way they complete the rosters, we can have a meaningful discussion.
Don't have my kid play? Ha! Thanks anyhow but his route was Prep/USHL and now DI, but thanks for funding his ride though.
Then why do you care, if it doesn't affect him?

Is that your thing, you dump on other player's experiences because your kid is oh, such a stud?

My kid is skipping NCDC, too, not for any of the bulls#it reasons you cited, by the way, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good alternative.

I hope your kid takes after his mother, 'cause you're the family douchebag.
Thanks again for your donation, both in tax money and your cable bill.

Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

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.

Re: I Thought The NCDC Was The Best?

Anon
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.
The person claiming that DI scholarships was funded by tax money was the other guy