Future of NCAA Regionals

With declining attendance at regionals, discussion about returning to campus sites has started percolating. CHN has a piece about it today: [www.collegehockeynews.com]

There's no good answer but the arenas this weekend mostly looked pretty depressing. Not AC levels of terrible but bad.

I tend to think neutral sites are a must. Even Manchester rubs me slightly the wrong way since UNH plays games there regularly.

Would there be anything wrong with going to two 8 team regionals? It won't fix the attendance issues all together but could, theoretically, help them. Play two semis Friday, two semis Saturday, and both finals Sunday. Then you only need to find two good sites each year instead of four, the games all still get televised, there's an increase in attendance, and neutral ice is maintained.

Are sites really neutral now?

You pointed out Manchester; I'll point out our team having to play Minnesota in Minneapolis and Wisconsin in Milwaukee in '05 and '06 respectively.

It's like if we played BU at the Boston/TD Garden. It's a home game for their fans.

I dislike it as a Cornell fan (we'll never get that sort of treatment unless it was at MSG). But it's great for attendance.

I wouldn't mind going down to two eight-team regionals (East and West). Would be a really fun hockey weekend.

Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

Chris '03
With declining attendance at regionals, discussion about returning to campus sites has started percolating. CHN has a piece about it today: [www.collegehockeynews.com]

There's no good answer but the arenas this weekend mostly looked pretty depressing. Not AC levels of terrible but bad.

I tend to think neutral sites are a must. Even Manchester rubs me slightly the wrong way since UNH plays games there regularly.

Would there be anything wrong with going to two 8 team regionals? It won't fix the attendance issues all together but could, theoretically, help them. Play two semis Friday, two semis Saturday, and both finals Sunday. Then you only need to find two good sites each year instead of four, the games all still get televised, there's an increase in attendance, and neutral ice is maintained.

Your super regional idea helps with attendance for the finals but not necessarily for the semifinal days, unless you require attendees to buy the whole weekend as a package (which might tend to decrease attendance by making things more expensive). The stretched schedule for half of the bracket (riday-Sunday) would tend to decrease attendance for fans of those teams, because you'd have to block out three days, not just two.

Not to say this wouldn't work. I'm just noting things that you'd want to consider.

I don't know if it would matter. Even when held at Lynah, the ECAC QFs regularly draw fewer fans than regular season games do. I think the problem with the regionals is that they're regionals. I would never travel a long distance to a regional because even if my team wins... it's only halfway to the prize. Screw that: I'll save my travel money and time for the Frozen Four, thankyouverymuch. The downside of moving regionals back to campus sites is that the top seed can take advantage its fan base, on top of all the other advantages they have with playing in their own barns, but the upside is that the top seed is in a natural position to handle all the logistics for a series of games that just aren't going to draw that much attention. I don't see a serious problem with it.

BMac
Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

They've tried destination locations for the FF (Anaheim) and attendance suffered. I doubt you'd get great attendance in the locations you mentioned. You also need someone to host (do the legwork), which might be challenging.

KeithK

Chris '03
With declining attendance at regionals, discussion about returning to campus sites has started percolating. CHN has a piece about it today: [www.collegehockeynews.com]

There's no good answer but the arenas this weekend mostly looked pretty depressing. Not AC levels of terrible but bad.

I tend to think neutral sites are a must. Even Manchester rubs me slightly the wrong way since UNH plays games there regularly.

Would there be anything wrong with going to two 8 team regionals? It won't fix the attendance issues all together but could, theoretically, help them. Play two semis Friday, two semis Saturday, and both finals Sunday. Then you only need to find two good sites each year instead of four, the games all still get televised, there's an increase in attendance, and neutral ice is maintained.

Your super regional idea helps with attendance for the finals but not necessarily for the semifinal days, unless you require attendees to buy the whole weekend as a package (which might tend to decrease attendance by making things more expensive). The stretched schedule for half of the bracket (riday-Sunday) would tend to decrease attendance for fans of those teams, because you'd have to block out three days, not just two.

Not to say this wouldn't work. I'm just noting things that you'd want to consider.

100% agree. The ticketing gets messy either way and there's no guarantee it moves the needle very far. I don't think you can sell three-day tickets and not have people turn their noses up at the cost. I also don't think you can play four games in one day and not have it be a disaster.

I do think though that if the regionals are somewhat predictable (e.g. east alternates worcester/albany; west grand rapids/green bay) there is potential for some group of fans to commit to that weekend as a hockey holiday the same way many do the same for the frozen four. For many, the frozen four is too costly an endeavor to commit to every year due to travel costs. If you put regionals in reasonable driving distances for enough fans, they might go every year whether their team is there or not.

That then opens the next pandora's box. Do you regionalize the regionals in the name of attendance? I don't like this any more than tournament home games... but, I bet you'd have greater attendance if you knew the site your team was playing well in advance. If all eastern teams are slotted to Albany, then it's easy for fans of teams to get hotel rooms and buy tickets early. No waiting until five days before for last minute hotel deals or flights.

Chris '03
That then opens the next pandora's box. Do you regionalize the regionals in the name of attendance? I don't like this any more than tournament home games... but, I bet you'd have greater attendance if you knew the site your team was playing well in advance. If all eastern teams are slotted to Albany, then it's easy for fans of teams to get hotel rooms and buy tickets early. No waiting until five days before for last minute hotel deals or flights.

And think of the entertainment value of having the Frozen Four always be East vs. West. The USCHO forum would be insane.

BMac
Are sites really neutral now?

You pointed out Manchester; I'll point out our team having to play Minnesota in Minneapolis and Wisconsin in Milwaukee Green Bay in '05 and '06 respectively. It's like if we played BU at the Boston/TD Garden. It's a home game for their fans.

I dislike it as a Cornell fan (we'll never get that sort of treatment unless it was at MSG). But it's great for attendance.

I wouldn't mind going down to two eight-team regionals (East and West). Would be a really fun hockey weekend.

Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

The Frozen Four in 2006 was in Milwaukee, and as we all know, Cornell didn't make it to Milwaukee .

KeithK

BMac
Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

They've tried destination locations for the FF (Anaheim) and attendance suffered. I doubt you'd get great attendance in the locations you mentioned. You also need someone to host (do the legwork), which might be challenging.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I wouldn't have picked Anaheim as a destination, though... I was thinking more a hockey destination.

KeithK

BMac
Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

They've tried destination locations for the FF (Anaheim) and attendance suffered. I doubt you'd get great attendance in the locations you mentioned. You also need someone to host (do the legwork), which might be challenging.

I'm not convinced that the problem with Anaheim wasn't a poorly-chosen destination rather than a problem with the concept of a non-traditional destination. Attendance in Tampa was great and (IMO) a good time was had by all. I could see Montreal being similar.

Josh '99

KeithK

BMac
Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

They've tried destination locations for the FF (Anaheim) and attendance suffered. I doubt you'd get great attendance in the locations you mentioned. You also need someone to host (do the legwork), which might be challenging.

I'm not convinced that the problem with Anaheim wasn't a poorly-chosen destination rather than a problem with the concept of a non-traditional destination. Attendance in Tampa was great and (IMO) a good time was had by all. I could see Montreal being similar.

Fair enough. I just threw out the one example I remembered that fit my point. I guess I could see Montreal being a e destination that's somewhat easy to get to (amjor), a nice town with a good hockey atmosphere. Whether the locals would care about NCAA hockey is a different question.

Lake Placid, OTOH, would be a poor choice for travel reasons alone.

KeithK

Josh '99

KeithK

BMac
Alternate idea: would sticking a regional in a "destination location" work? Montreal, Lake Placid (for those of us who haven't been there), or Atlanti sorry.

They've tried destination locations for the FF (Anaheim) and attendance suffered. I doubt you'd get great attendance in the locations you mentioned. You also need someone to host (do the legwork), which might be challenging.

I'm not convinced that the problem with Anaheim wasn't a poorly-chosen destination rather than a problem with the concept of a non-traditional destination. Attendance in Tampa was great and (IMO) a good time was had by all. I could see Montreal being similar.

Fair enough. I just threw out the one example I remembered that fit my point. I guess I could see Montreal being a e destination that's somewhat easy to get to (amjor), a nice town with a good hockey atmosphere. Whether the locals would care about NCAA hockey is a different question.

Lake Placid, OTOH, would be a poor choice for travel reasons alone.

There would be the other issue of cost and travel related to passports etc. for teams and fans though.

I can't recall any NCAA Tournament events being held outside of the U.S. I believe only American schools are in the NCAA.

dbilmes
I can't recall any NCAA Tournament events being held outside of the U.S. I believe only American schools are in the NCAA.

Not true any more. Simon Frasier University in BC is an NCAA member (D2) as of last September.
[www.ncaa.org]

I would prefer to go back to best-of-three at campus sites for the First Round and QF, with a straight 1-16 seed according to PWR and then reseeding the remaining 8. It would reward the top-seeded teams, make it far more likely the best teams in the country would meet in the Frozen Four, and make the Frozen Four unique in being the only neutral national tournament site (analogous to the conference tournaments). And, obviously, it would ensure attendance and atmosphere.

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

BMac
Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF. Just like the ECACs. (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8. I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Trotsky

BMac
Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF. Just like the ECACs. (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8. I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

BMac
Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF. Just like the ECACs. (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8. I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

And with this you could have the QF east and the Frozen Four west, and the next year move QF west and FF east.

dbilmes
I can't recall any NCAA Tournament events being held outside of the U.S. I believe only American schools are in the NCAA.

Damn! This cheap map I bought says Montreal is in America. In fact, it shows most of Canada in America. Mexico too! I suppose I'll have to return it.

marty

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

BMac
Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF. Just like the ECACs. (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8. I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

And with this you could have the QF east and the Frozen Four west, and the next year move QF west and FF east.

I like it.

BMac
Are sites really neutral now?

You pointed out Manchester; I'll point out our team having to play Minnesota in Minneapolis and Wisconsin in Milwaukee in '05 and '06 respectively.

It's like if we played BU at the Boston/TD Garden. It's a home game for their fans.

Yeah - but I don't think it's quite the same. First off, they've stopped awarding Minnesota regionals in their home arena - which takes away the effect of having the large ice sheet. When Minnesota gets regionals now, it's at Xcel Center - which is better.

I don't think they can get quite around the host region thing - and I don't think it's a big issue in Manchester. Certainly hasn't helped UNH. And there's so many other schools close by that can draw. This year, Lowell was equidistant from Manchester as Durham is - so the crowds were equal.

The regional has to be somewhere, and it's going to be close to someone.

And I don't think BU would have that much bigger a crowd in Boston Garden than Cornell would - not that a Regional would ever be there.

The biggest issue I have with going by to campus sites - as I'll be expounding upon shortly - is the unfairness.

You want to go by Pairwise 1-16 - but the Pairwise is too imprecise a thing to put that much weight on it. It's better than human guesswork, but not worthing placing that kind of importance on it. What's the difference between the 8-9 seeds? Between 7-10? Is it a good idea to give those "higher" seeds such a big advantage just in the name of higher attendance?

Think about it from this perspective too ... Teams that play many more home games than road, already get an advantage in the Pairwise. For example, the Big Ten schools - a dynamic that will only get worse. So now you want, e.g., Yale, which has to play almost all of its Non-Conference games on the road (thus hurting their Pairwise) to go to the home arena of a team that had a big advantage already (e.g. Minnesota) - play on their big ice again?

The deck is too stacked in those kind of situations.

Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

adamw

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

I don't think my reference to vague had anything to do with site hosts being "home"

And I addressed that point earlier.

adamw

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

I don't think my reference to vague had anything to do with site hosts being "home"

And I addressed that point earlier.

You said campus sites would introduce unfairness into the system. I don't agree with that, however I was pointing out at least one (significant) source of unfairness that would be removed from the system.

If there was a way to make regionals tenable without the host crutch I would be more in favor of them, but they are already doing poorly despite it.

I think regionals are like Atlantic City. Props to NCAA hockey for trying something new, however we now have enough of a track record to admit it didn't work.

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

But you can't imrpove PWR. Not enough anyway. Even if you to KRACH or KPWR or something you're still stuck with an imprecise method becuse your sample sizes are so small. I did a study once upon a time looking at how much uncertainty there is among the rankings in KRACH and it's easily several places.

As Adam said, you need a system for bids so we use the one that we've got imperfections and all. I don't have a much of a problem with small differences deciding who gets te last at large bid or two because a team that is on the margins like that doesn't have much of an argument for playing for the national title anyway (with a 16 team field).

But once you're in the tournament the field should be as fair as possible. IMO, teams should largely be treated as equals once they're in. Sure, you give the higher seed last change because someone has to have it. But adding home ice is a much bigger deal, IMO.

If the point is to make sure that the best teams in the country are the ones who get to the FF then lets stop letting 16 teams into the tournament.

Here's a random thought. If you go to campus sites for the first round or two, how about giving the visiting team the last change to compensate?

KeithK

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

But you can't imrpove PWR. Not enough anyway. Even if you to KRACH or KPWR or something you're still stuck with an imprecise method becuse your sample sizes are so small. I did a study once upon a time looking at how much uncertainty there is among the rankings in KRACH and it's easily several places.

As Adam said, you need a system for bids so we use the one that we've got imperfections and all. I don't have a much of a problem with small differences deciding who gets te last at large bid or two because a team that is on the margins like that doesn't have much of an argument for playing for the national title anyway (with a 16 team field).

But once you're in the tournament the field should be as fair as possible. IMO, teams should largely be treated as equals once they're in. Sure, you give the higher seed last change because someone has to have it. But adding home ice is a much bigger deal, IMO.

If the point is to make sure that the best teams in the country are the ones who get to the FF then lets stop letting 16 teams into the tournament.

Well, to be honest I'd be happier with an 8 team field with 5 auto bids and 3 at large. If for no other reason than to make USCHO explode.

I think my rational argument comes down to I never liked the regionals and therefore everyone should suffer.

Trotsky

KeithK

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

But you can't imrpove PWR. Not enough anyway. Even if you to KRACH or KPWR or something you're still stuck with an imprecise method becuse your sample sizes are so small. I did a study once upon a time looking at how much uncertainty there is among the rankings in KRACH and it's easily several places.

As Adam said, you need a system for bids so we use the one that we've got imperfections and all. I don't have a much of a problem with small differences deciding who gets te last at large bid or two because a team that is on the margins like that doesn't have much of an argument for playing for the national title anyway (with a 16 team field).

But once you're in the tournament the field should be as fair as possible. IMO, teams should largely be treated as equals once they're in. Sure, you give the higher seed last change because someone has to have it. But adding home ice is a much bigger deal, IMO.

If the point is to make sure that the best teams in the country are the ones who get to the FF then lets stop letting 16 teams into the tournament.

Well, to be honest I'd be happier with an 8 team field with 5 auto bids and 3 at large. If for no other reason than to make USCHO explode.

I think my rational argument comes down to I never liked the regionals and therefore everyone should suffer.

I like both of your arguments. Just one question: In your 8 team scenario, which confierence doesn't get an auto bid? Ooooooh, let's exclude the Big Ten for making such a mess of the colege hockey landscape! That would really get heads exploding.

KeithK

Trotsky

KeithK

Trotsky
Then by all means, improve PWR. But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

But you can't imrpove PWR. Not enough anyway. Even if you to KRACH or KPWR or something you're still stuck with an imprecise method becuse your sample sizes are so small. I did a study once upon a time looking at how much uncertainty there is among the rankings in KRACH and it's easily several places.

As Adam said, you need a system for bids so we use the one that we've got imperfections and all. I don't have a much of a problem with small differences deciding who gets te last at large bid or two because a team that is on the margins like that doesn't have much of an argument for playing for the national title anyway (with a 16 team field).

But once you're in the tournament the field should be as fair as possible. IMO, teams should largely be treated as equals once they're in. Sure, you give the higher seed last change because someone has to have it. But adding home ice is a much bigger deal, IMO.

If the point is to make sure that the best teams in the country are the ones who get to the FF then lets stop letting 16 teams into the tournament.

Well, to be honest I'd be happier with an 8 team field with 5 auto bids and 3 at large. If for no other reason than to make USCHO explode.

I think my rational argument comes down to I never liked the regionals and therefore everyone should suffer.

I like both of your arguments. Just one question: In your 8 team scenario, which confierence doesn't get an auto bid? Ooooooh, let's exclude the Big Ten for making such a mess of the colege hockey landscape! That would really get heads exploding.

I'm for upping the NCAA requirement to 12-team conferences. ECAC vs Hockey East every year. Let the rest play in the AHL.

The thread continues. No one has posted the actual attendance #s and building capacities. But it sure did look empty.

In the East / Northeast, it's more possible for fans to travel by car. Anyone remember the lax regional QF games at Princeton when the stadium was half full and the NCAA? Princeton? pushed all the fans to the side opposite the press box and TV cameras for the good of the game?

If the games are on campus:
* Does the NCAA require a minimum 3,000? 3,500 seats? else you have to use the nearest civic center? So RPI could host but Union would have to use the Albany Civic Center (or RPI?). Assuming the Civic Center is willing to hold the arena available, which they probably wouldn't.
* Does the NcAA require the venue set aside 1/3 of the tickets? 1,000 tickets? for the visiting team?

Is it really wrong if the NcAA first two rounds of hockey are played regionally and attendance is light? With most games televised, casual if not fanatic fans are served. Maybe the solution is single-price seating and everyone is in the lower bowl.

billhoward
If the games are on campus:
* Does the NCAA require a minimum 3,000? 3,500 seats?

Nope, the NCAA can suck it. If a team plays in a 1500 seat barn then that's what they get. The only NCAA regulation should be a minimum percentage set aside for the visitor, like 5%.

Hakstol video on the Regionals.

The answer to the question of attendance is in the article:

The off-ice talk of this past weekend was the lack of energy and attendance at the NCAA hockey regionals. Outside of the East and Northeast regionals, not a single game was played before more than 3,000 fans.

The Northeast regional was played in New Hampshire and the field featured the University of New Hampshire so attendance figures were okay. Over the course of three games, the average attendance per game was 8,200. This takes into account that opening round games share the same attendance numbers, as tickets are sold as part of a “session.”

In the East, Boston College was playing less than an hour away from campus in Rhode Island. The three game average in Providence was about 5,600.

In the West, played in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the regional in which UND and Minnesota were placed, the three-game average was 2,103.

In Toledo, Ohio, home of the Midwest regional, the average attendance was 2,724.
The popular reason for blame is that the NCAA does not allow NCAA hockey tournament games to be played at on-campus facilities, where attendance figures would skyrocket.

UND head coach Dave Hakstol addressed that on Tuesday.

It's clearly just evidence that western hockey sucks.

KeithK
It's clearly just evidence that western hockey sucks.

They only have 1 team in the F4. Of course they suck.

Jim Hyla
Hakstol video on the Regionals.

The answer to the question of attendance is in the article:

The off-ice talk of this past weekend was the lack of energy and attendance at the NCAA hockey regionals. Outside of the East and Northeast regionals, not a single game was played before more than 3,000 fans.

"Outside of the East and Northeast regionals" could also be described half the regionals drew well and half didn't. The two in the East did. It would be nice if the NCAA reported turnstile admissions not tickets sold where you're forced to buy the package.

Did not U of Miami (Oxford, Ohio) play in Toledo? That's a three-hour drive.

Maybe what's best for the game is not maximizing attendance.

Personally, I like the idea in the original post of this thread.

Chris '03
Would there be anything wrong with going to two 8 team regionals? It won't fix the attendance issues all together but could, theoretically, help them. Play two semis Friday, two semis Saturday, and both finals Sunday. Then you only need to find two good sites each year instead of four, the games all still get televised, there's an increase in attendance, and neutral ice is maintained.

1) It would lend itself to create more of a "hockey festival" having eight groups of fans descending on an arena area. It would be easier for fans to make and/or cancel advance bookings as Jim Hyla does, I believe.

2) Consolidation of resourses needed to run two regionals rather than four.

3) Campus sites would decrease the chances of keeping all the games on major cable outlets. Can you see the reactions of ESPNU (or similar network) knowing they have 8 sites (often in small hard-to-reach towns) to deploy instead of four? (or two?) And we all know how much revenue hockey broadcasts pull in for the networks what with all the repetitive ear-vacuum and Aubuchon Hardware commercials.

4) I dislike national tournaments that change from a best-of to a one-and-done format in the middle.

5) Benefit for the teams: experience playing in a much larger space. Both making some of these kids feel like they made it to a Big Event, and giving everyone exposure to such facilities before being thrown into an NHL arena for the FF.

I've been to Grand Rapids twice now in different formats (6 and 8 team regionals). So what if the atmosphere wasn't electric? I had a blast.

To my mind, the image below, a map of interest in the search term "college hockey" by metro area on Google Trends, tells you all you need to know about why regionals in the east succeed and why those in the west don't:



Take a look at that big mess of blue in New England. (Take a look at the Syracuse area's interest... yeah, you know who that is.) Take a look at that other mess of blue in Minnesota.

So, if you're going to do eight-team regionals, do them in New England (somewhere) and Minneapolis, period. If you're going to continue with four-team regionals, stick to those areas as well. In the east, rotate the regionals between Manchester, Worcester, Providence, Bridgeport, and Albany; make a rare foray to Buffalo or Rochester to placate the Ohioans, and try out Brooklyn at least once. In the west, locate the West regional, permanently, in Minneapolis; locate the Midwest regional, generally, in Chicago; make an occasional foray to Milwaukee or Grand Rapids.

Despite the dearth of teams, there is great interest in college hockey in Chicago, and I continue to be baffled as to why we've never had a regional (say, at the Wolves arena out near O'Hare) or Frozen Four in Chicagoland. For the Big Ten types, it's like Boston—everybody knows someone there to crash with. For the Michigan folk, it's unfathomably simple to get to by train or bus, and who wouldn't want a short respite from the hell that is Michigan?

Scersk '97
To my mind, the image below, a map of interest in the search term "college hockey" by metro area on Google Trends, tells you all you need to know about why regionals in the east succeed and why those in the west don't:

2yys6eb.jpg

Take a look at that big mess of blue in New England. (Take a look at the Syracuse area's interest... yeah, you know who that is.) Take a look at that other mess of blue in Minnesota.

So, if you're going to do eight-team regionals, do them in New England (somewhere) and Minneapolis, period. If you're going to continue with four-team regionals, stick to those areas as well. In the east, rotate the regionals between Manchester, Worcester, Providence, Bridgeport, and Albany; make a rare foray to Buffalo or Rochester to placate the Ohioans, and try out Brooklyn at least once. In the west, locate the West regional, permanently, in Minneapolis; locate the Midwest regional, generally, in Chicago; make an occasional foray to Milwaukee or Grand Rapids.

Despite the dearth of teams, there is great interest in college hockey in Chicago, and I continue to be baffled as to why we've never had a regional (say, at the Wolves arena out near O'Hare) or Frozen Four in Chicagoland. For the Big Ten types, it's like Boston—everybody knows someone there to crash with. For the Michigan folk, it's unfathomably simple to get to by train or bus, and who wouldn't want a short respite from the hell that is Michigan?

Eventually the "grow the game" scam will be crushed by its (probably literal) bankruptcy and they will be forced to follow your sensible advice. Until then, at least the weather's better in Nashville or Tampa.

Scersk '97
Despite the dearth of teams, there is great interest in college hockey in Chicago, and I continue to be baffled as to why we've never had a regional (say, at the Wolves arena out near O'Hare) or Frozen Four in Chicagoland. For the Big Ten types, it's like Boston—everybody knows someone there to crash with. For the Michigan folk, it's unfathomably simple to get to by train or bus, and who wouldn't want a short respite from the hell that is Michigan?

"train or bus"? Aren't those fightin' words in Michigan?

I've heard people speculate about Chicago as a possible Frozen Four destination that's accessible for pretty much everyone and a city that actually knows what hockey is, but counter-speculate that the lack of beer sales might put the United Center off from bidding.

Josh '99
I've heard people speculate about Chicago as a possible Frozen Four destination that's accessible for pretty much everyone and a city that actually knows what hockey is, but counter-speculate that the lack of beer sales might put the United Center off from bidding.

Ah, good point. If you consider beer sales as part of the "gate," the whole affair might not be attractive for some high-demand arenas.

The clear answer here is to let them sell beer. Or, if BC is there, allow them to sell copious amounts of liquor.

RichH
I've been to Grand Rapids twice now in different formats (6 and 8 team regionals). So what if the atmosphere wasn't electric? I had a blast.

Rich: You getting out enough?

CHN iPhone users for this season. Fairly similar trend.

CowbellGuy
CHN iPhone users for this season. Fairly similar trend.

Rita?

RichH

CowbellGuy
CHN iPhone users for this season. Fairly similar trend.

Rita?

Not me. I still have a dumb phone. I guess the question to ask is when were those hits from Florida? I bet a lot of them were from Dec. 28th/29th and originated from Germain Arena. The others probably are from technologically advanced snowbirds (there are lot from the northeast, MN, WI on the gulf coast side and some of them follow college hockey).

Scersk '97

Josh '99
I've heard people speculate about Chicago as a possible Frozen Four destination that's accessible for pretty much everyone and a city that actually knows what hockey is, but counter-speculate that the lack of beer sales might put the United Center off from bidding.

Ah, good point. If you consider beer sales as part of the "gate," the whole affair might not be attractive for some high-demand arenas.

The clear answer here is to let them sell beer. Or, if BC is there, allow them to sell copious amounts of liquor.

Hey, it's not just BC that would enjoy copious amounts of liquor.

Josh '99

Scersk '97

Josh '99
I've heard people speculate about Chicago as a possible Frozen Four destination that's accessible for pretty much everyone and a city that actually knows what hockey is, but counter-speculate that the lack of beer sales might put the United Center off from bidding.

Ah, good point. If you consider beer sales as part of the "gate," the whole affair might not be attractive for some high-demand arenas.

The clear answer here is to let them sell beer. Or, if BC is there, allow them to sell copious amounts of liquor.

Hey, it's not just BC that would enjoy copious amounts of liquor.

I think the insinuation is that everybody else would NEED copious amounts of liquor to cope with BC and the superfans.

RichH

Josh '99

Scersk '97

Josh '99
I've heard people speculate about Chicago as a possible Frozen Four destination that's accessible for pretty much everyone and a city that actually knows what hockey is, but counter-speculate that the lack of beer sales might put the United Center off from bidding.

Ah, good point. If you consider beer sales as part of the "gate," the whole affair might not be attractive for some high-demand arenas.

The clear answer here is to let them sell beer. Or, if BC is there, allow them to sell copious amounts of liquor.

Hey, it's not just BC that would enjoy copious amounts of liquor.

I think the insinuation is that everybody else would NEED copious amounts of liquor to cope with BC and the superfans.

This.

Rita

RichH

CowbellGuy
CHN iPhone users for this season. Fairly similar trend.

Rita?

Not me. I still have a dumb phone. I guess the question to ask is when were those hits from Florida? I bet a lot of them were from Dec. 28th/29th and originated from Germain Arena. The others probably are from technologically advanced snowbirds (there are lot from the northeast, MN, WI on the gulf coast side and some of them follow college hockey).

Pretty good distribution throughout the state with one big outlier. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa are 2-4, but with about 8x Miami's sessions is Hialeah. Feel free to try to explain that.

CowbellGuy

Rita

RichH

CowbellGuy
CHN iPhone users for this season. Fairly similar trend.

Rita?

Not me. I still have a dumb phone. I guess the question to ask is when were those hits from Florida? I bet a lot of them were from Dec. 28th/29th and originated from Germain Arena. The others probably are from technologically advanced snowbirds (there are lot from the northeast, MN, WI on the gulf coast side and some of them follow college hockey).

Pretty good distribution throughout the state with one big outlier. Miami, Orlando, and Tampa are 2-4, but with about 8x Miami's sessions is Hialeah. Feel free to try to explain that.

Well, Hialeah is known for fraud, especially for elections/absentees ballots. Was CHN running any contests or polling? So maybe those numbers are a bit inflated? Anybody getting kickbacks for the number of hits?

This year I received multiple email announcements that Frozen Four tickets were available, the most recent in December. The Red Sox home attendance was worse in their 2013 championship year than in 2012 when they had an off year. I know there has been moaning concerning the fact that Lynah doesn't consistently sell out and now this:

Potential woes for NFL

The attendance bug is showing up all over. I have to think this is a problem with multiple causes, disposable cash and big screens being two,

Then in counterpoint:

Hail to the big crowds in a fiscally depressed region

marty
This year I received multiple email announcements that Frozen Four tickets were available, the most recent in December. The Red Sox home attendance was worse in their 2013 championship year than in 2012 when they had an off year. I know there has been moaning concerning the fact that Lynah doesn't consistently sell out and now this:

Potential woes for NFL

The attendance bug is showing up all over. I have to think this is a problem with multiple causes, disposable cash and big screens being two,

Then in counterpoint:

Hail to the big crowds in a fiscally depressed region

I blame the drop in attendance at pro sports on a few things. Money, TV coverage, and (for some) fan indifference. Of those three, the fan indifference the one that is most likely carried over into Lynah. There probably are some students having problems scraping up the money for season tix. But, if demand was there, there would be others to step in. And, that's not happening.

And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, the many late arrivals for each game show that fan indifference is a huge factor at Lynah these days.

In summation, there's not enough people who give a shit about Cornell Hockey!!