NCDC
- Thread starter Mr Sniper
- Start date
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
NCDC isn't that much different than the old Premier division. Just looking at the commits page shows a pretty clear trend in a lot of players choosing to play NCAA D3, albeit some of those schools with NCDC commits are pretty close to D1 hockey, like Norwich, Endicott, Geneseo, Utica and other high end teams with some D1 transfers. I think it's the draw of increased or more stable playing time for four years, in front of still packed houses, and at cheaper schools pulling the kids in and there's certainly been a massive increase in quality of D3 hockey over the last decade.
For expansion, the NCDC announced for next year is growing to add the New Hampshire Monarchs, probably a prearrangement made with their switch from EHL to USPHL. Assuming no NAHL teams fold or get added (and the one that is dormant returns), that will make 24 NAHL vs 12 NCDC teams. I doubt the NAHL will expand, although look for them to relocate their East Coast franchises to places where people actually will watch junior hockey.
Trying to compare the two is asking for trouble since their turf war is heating up. The measuring stick is and always will be "how many commitments and where." Having watched both leagues, the NAHL-NCDC are pretty comparable: they both are watered down from competition with each other and Canadian tier 2, have kids on the ice who aren't as good because of daddy's connections, and have massive drop-offs in talent from the top to bottom of the leagues. That being said, I have to give the NAHL has the upper hand (at least for the first year of free-to-play competition) with the NAHL edging out the NCDC simply because they commit more kids to D1 schools per team.
It's a shame that since war was declared the NCDC will probably never rejoin USA Hockey and have both leagues under the tier 2 umbrella. I'd pay money to see an annual 4 team national championship between the champion and runner-up teams from each league.
For expansion, the NCDC announced for next year is growing to add the New Hampshire Monarchs, probably a prearrangement made with their switch from EHL to USPHL. Assuming no NAHL teams fold or get added (and the one that is dormant returns), that will make 24 NAHL vs 12 NCDC teams. I doubt the NAHL will expand, although look for them to relocate their East Coast franchises to places where people actually will watch junior hockey.
Trying to compare the two is asking for trouble since their turf war is heating up. The measuring stick is and always will be "how many commitments and where." Having watched both leagues, the NAHL-NCDC are pretty comparable: they both are watered down from competition with each other and Canadian tier 2, have kids on the ice who aren't as good because of daddy's connections, and have massive drop-offs in talent from the top to bottom of the leagues. That being said, I have to give the NAHL has the upper hand (at least for the first year of free-to-play competition) with the NAHL edging out the NCDC simply because they commit more kids to D1 schools per team.
It's a shame that since war was declared the NCDC will probably never rejoin USA Hockey and have both leagues under the tier 2 umbrella. I'd pay money to see an annual 4 team national championship between the champion and runner-up teams from each league.
Last edited:
If anything I'd say the NCDC is probably weaker than the Premier was for the first three seasons, but not by a ton. Like Outback said, the NA and NCDC are both watered down from taking players from each other. The NA is a better league overall but the NCDC's top teams are 100% capable of competing at the top of the NAHL
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
NCDC definitely took in some teams that were far too weak to be a part of a free to play league, but then again there is Kenai. Top 5 teams in each league are certainly on par and there isn't much to differentiate them.
As long as the USPHL-USA Hockey ego contest continues, there will be a watered down product. Usually competition breeds innovation, but it'll just turn into more of a gongshow.
As long as the USPHL-USA Hockey ego contest continues, there will be a watered down product. Usually competition breeds innovation, but it'll just turn into more of a gongshow.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
USHL did the same thing this past year reducing the number of overagers (simply any players who are aging out) to 4 not counting goalies. Great idea for development, should do a lot to help them give spots to younger players within their own organizations who are better but aren't playing in favor of older guys.
alko
Registered User
This league (looking to their schedule) seems to start, as there isnt issues with COVID-19. Why can they do that?
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
It is because they are funded entirely by player fees from pay-to-play USPHL teams rather than by ticket revenue. It is the entire reason why they left USA Hockey and are having a turf war with the NAHL.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,016
- 8,538
Although USA-Hockey affiliated teams in the NAHL are switching to the model of having a pay to play team fund some of the operation. So they've definitely relaxed on their own morals despite keeping the war going.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Teams in the NAHL are pay-to-play? When did this happen?
The NAHL and USA Hockey have had relaxed and no morals through most of their history. There have been many times when they clearly allow things to happen that are wrong.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,016
- 8,538
Well I might by NAHL teams operating NA3HL teams and using that money to fund operations. Similar to how lower USPHL teams fund the NCDC in a lot of those organizations. No NAHL team is pay to play.
3 Minute Minor
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2009
- 5,183
- 831
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pelicans Lahti @ Tappara Tampere - Tappara leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $14,588.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
