Harvard 6 Cornell 1 ECAC post-game & site critique

[Ronald '09]

What would be so wrong with changing the whole tournament, so only the top 8 teams make it, there's 3 weekends of best of 3 series, and they're all at the home of the higher seed?  You would be more likely to actually have the best teams make it further, and having a home team would probably increase attendance for almost all of the games.

I know it takes out the "Cinderella" but wouldn't having the 11-seed Brown somehow make it to the NCAA tourney 2 years ago have just embarrassed the league?  Not that some of the teams that have been at the top of our league haven't done the same.

I don't see how that kind of drastic change would ever happen, so I think I agree with Kyle the biggest thing the ECAC could do is improve the product on the ice.  As college hockey has more and more big schools and big money involved, however, that becomes less and less likely.  Likely, we just have to live with the fact that we're in a third-rate league and I guess just be grateful that a benefit of the low attendance is we can decide last-minute on travel plans and still have pretty easy access to tickets.  Because I don't see what we can do about it.

[Rosey]

I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament

I wonder how much of that is the Boston area connection, where college hockey is prominent and lots of fans have six degrees of separation connections via having grown up with players, coaches, etc.

That doesn't seem to help Harvard or Northeastern. Casual fans go to see the nationally-competitive teams, not the crappy ones. I think you need to stop looking at this as a location problem.

[css228]

What would be so wrong with changing the whole tournament, so only the top 8 teams make it, there's 3 weekends of best of 3 series, and they're all at the home of the higher seed?  You would be more likely to actually have the best teams make it further, and having a home team would probably increase attendance for almost all of the games.

I know it takes out the "Cinderella" but wouldn't having the 11-seed Brown somehow make it to the NCAA tourney 2 years ago have just embarrassed the league?  Not that some of the teams that have been at the top of our league haven't done the same.

I don't see how that kind of drastic change would ever happen, so I think I agree with Kyle the biggest thing the ECAC could do is improve the product on the ice.  As college hockey has more and more big schools and big money involved, however, that becomes less and less likely.  Likely, we just have to live with the fact that we're in a third-rate league and I guess just be grateful that a benefit of the low attendance is we can decide last-minute on travel plans and still have pretty easy access to tickets.  Because I don't see what we can do about it.

Totally in favor of the last 4 having no shot at it. If you're bad enough to be 9-12 you really don't deserve a shot at going to the national tourney.

[Rosey]

Totally in favor of the last 4 having no shot at it. If you're bad enough to be 9-12 you really don't deserve a shot at going to the national tourney.

s/4/8/ IMO: if you can't finish the RS in the top third of the league, you should stay home.

[scoop85]

Indeed, my only quibble with Bill's post is that the biggest draw in Albany is indubitably the Clarkson, Cornell, RPI, and Union foursome, preferably with Cornell and Clarkson coming in as #1 and #2 so that fans have a bit more time to consider making the trip.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that what is really needed is more success at a national level so more casual fans give a crap. Seriously, the ECAC is rightly viewed as the also-ran of D1 hockey: last national championship in 1989, last title game appearance 1990, last frozen four appearance 2003. Trying to hunt for higher attendance by moving the tournament around is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, when what is needed is a course change. I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament; by comparison, I barely know anyone lacking an ECAC association who even knows what the ECAC is, much less who would bother going to a tournament featuring teams that seem to be content competing in a walled garden.

I think that nails it, along with the fact that many of the ECAC schools are on the smaller side and just don't have as large a following as many of the schools in the other conferences. There seems to be a steady but precipitous decline since 2003, for example, when Albany was really rocking.  The only exception was 2010 when we played Union, and there was some real juice in the building.  The last two years in AC have been pathetic.

[Trotsky]

I don't see how that kind of drastic change would ever happen, so I think I agree with Kyle the biggest thing the ECAC could do is improve the product on the ice.  As college hockey has more and more big schools and big money involved, however, that becomes less and less likely.

Even if there were big changes to the tournament league success is still the only way to draw crowds and generate excitement both on campus and in the communities.

The big systemic challenges for the ECAC are:

(1) The schools are very hard to get the best athletes into.
(2) The schools are very expensive for the athletes' families.
(3) The administrations resist actively marketing athletics.
(4) The locations are relatively rural.

These challenges can all be addressed, but we should maintain a balance so that the ECAC actually continues to correctly prioritize sports as an incidental part of the academic mission.

(1) can be addressed with, ahem, creative admissions for athletes.  To some extent that is already done.
(2) can be addressed by expanding the need qualification.  A lot of improvements have already been made.
(3) is simply something the Ivies in particular need to get over.  You can market sports without losing your soul.
(4) can only be addressed by expanding into bigger markets.  Buffalo comes to mind.  Perhaps some day expansion into Philly, Baltimore, DC, or points south?  If there are programs on the design board at Syracuse, or Navy, or some ACC school, we should elbow to the front of the welcome line.

I love the ECAC and there have to be creative ways to save it.  There are a lot of smart and savvy people in the community.  Spread out the decision-making mechanisms of the league, leverage all that intelligence, and have a long-range plan.

[jtn27]

I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament; by comparison, I barely know anyone lacking an ECAC association who even knows what the ECAC is, much less who would bother going to a tournament featuring teams that seem to be content competing in a walled garden.

For what it's worth (and I know one fan doesn't really prove anything), I saw a guy at the final with a UNH sweater.

[RichH]

I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament

I wonder how much of that is the Boston area connection, where college hockey is prominent and lots of fans have six degrees of separation connections via having grown up with players, coaches, etc.

Well, here's a crack at a crackpot theory.  It's about institutional branding.  Specifically, regional magnetism.

Since the explosion of the sports industry in the 1990s (probably at least helped along by the rise of ESPN and 24-hour sports coverage), more and more fans who have little or no attachment to academic institutions have become more and more invested in collegiate athletics.  Who are the casual fans drawn to?  Teams that have a name they can relate to...where they are from.  State and civic pride are remarkably strong.

People from Boston are notoriously provincial.  They'll root for anything with the name "Boston" in it.  Boston College and Boston University get that support that Northeastern and Harvard don't for this reason.  Now expand that to the question you suggest.  Why is it that so many more people are attracted to Hockey East than the ECAC?  Look at the school names.

In Hockey East, I count 4 states and 4 cities (I'll put UMass Lowell in the city category). The remaining two are Merrimack (named for the Merrimack Valley) and Northeastern.

In the ECAC, there is ONE member named after their state or town, and that's Princeton.  When you have that aspect, very few casual fans outside the immediate area are going to even think about supporting those teams.  All you're going to have are these little fiefdoms of Ithaca, Canton, Potsdam, Hamilton, Schenectady, etc.  Cornell gets a little coverage from the Elmira media, but more locals are going to care about Elmira College's teams.  If the University of Maine were instead called "Orono State" or "Walsh College," I'd be willing to bet they would not have as much widespread state support.

Look at the list of NCAA Champions.  The last champion to not have a city or state in their name was Lake Superior State in 1994.  Notre Dame was close a few years ago, but their name recognition is for a different reason altogether.  How many times have we been in a western arena and had to answer "Where the hell is Cornell, anyway??"

If you get local casual fan support, you get media support, which leads to more fan support.  Getting every single yahoo in every corner of your city/region/state following you, especially when they have no prior connection to your University, is the biggest difference between Hockey East and ECAC tournament attendance, IMO.

[Rosey]

Well, here's a crack at a crackpot theory.

Occam's Razor tells me you are overthinking this. Performance is the much simpler explanation.

Going strictly on the number of teams (i.e., assuming there is as much parity as Coach Schafer claims), you would expect an ECAC Frozen Four appearance 4 out of every 5 years and a championship 1 out of every 5 years. Of course, the distribution won't be smooth: you'll occasionally get 2 or 3 years in a row with no appearances, and some years with 2 or 3 teams, with even rarer outliers toward the tails. Contrast this with reality: over the past 20 years there have been 3 appearances, for 0.75 appearances out of every 5 years, and 0 titles, for... (adds, multiplies, exponentiates) roughly 0 out of every 5 years. I really don't think you need to look any more deeply than this.

Solve the performance problem, and attendance will follow. Don't, and deal with the ECAC being a second-tier league. In that case, it's probably time to ditch the tournament weekend altogether and just play the games at the higher-seeded team's rink.

[Greenberg '97]

I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament

I wonder how much of that is the Boston area connection, where college hockey is prominent and lots of fans have six degrees of separation connections via having grown up with players, coaches, etc.

Well, here's a crack at a crackpot theory.  It's about institutional branding.  Specifically, regional magnetism.
...

So you're suggesting we change the name "Cornell" to "Central New York State."  I like it.

Though alumni of Arts/Architecture/Engineering/Hotel may have a problem with it.

[Rita]

I would like to see a rotation among 3 spots: Albany, and a couple from: Providence/Harford/Bridgeport/Worcester. Thus each venue gets the tourney once every three years (helps to reduce the staleness factor) and the sites are still in the heart of the ECAC. The venues could use the off years to bid on hosting something that would likely bring in more money than the ECAC tourney: 1st round men's / women's basketball games, or a NC$$ hockey regional, or the circus.

Just my thoughts based on the complaints of others.

[billhoward]

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that what is really needed is more success at a national level so more casual fans give a crap. Seriously, the ECAC is rightly viewed as the also-ran of D1 hockey: last national championship in 1989, last title game appearance 1990, last frozen four appearance 2003. Trying to hunt for higher attendance by moving the tournament around is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, when what is needed is a course change. I know lots of people with no Hockey East association who go to the HE tournament; by comparison, I barely know anyone lacking an ECAC association who even knows what the ECAC is, much less who would bother going to a tournament featuring teams that seem to be content competing in a walled garden.

Kyle, you nailed it on the head. We're better only than Atlantic Hockey, give or take the unexpected RIT Frozen Four appearance a couple years ago.

[RichH]

Well, here's a crack at a crackpot theory.

Occam's Razor tells me you are overthinking this.

Oh, most definitely.  It's what I do. It's what a lot of us here do. My point is when you give a institutions of parallel conference broader geographic influences, you will have a much more profound effect of attendance increase with increased success.  I'm not saying it's the primary factor, but it's a distinct advantage.

Also, if you have everyone in New Hampshire buying UNH jerseys, hats, foam wildcat claw fingers, (instead of say...Dartmouth stuff), it drives everything surrounding the program that's important to fans.  From ticket sales to advertising to TV contracts, it all helps feed, ultimately, Athletic Department budgets.  ADs can then reinvest in things like recruiting trips, training facilities, athletic housing, booster banquets, etc.

Schools with state branding have that as a built-in advantage, which is why it's always shocking when a Gonzaga, George Mason, Davidson, Valparaiso, or Butler run happens.  Very seldom do you see a school described as a "Jock Factory" not have a state name.  And when you do, it's usually a highly respected academic institution like Duke, Notre Dame, or Stanford.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Well, here's a crack at a crackpot theory.

Occam's Razor tells me you are overthinking this. Performance is the much simpler explanation.

Going strictly on the number of teams (i.e., assuming there is as much parity as Coach Schafer claims), you would expect an ECAC Frozen Four appearance 4 out of every 5 years and a championship 1 out of every 5 years. Of course, the distribution won't be smooth: you'll occasionally get 2 or 3 years in a row with no appearances, and some years with 2 or 3 teams, with even rarer outliers toward the tails. Contrast this with reality: over the past 20 years there have been 3 appearances, for 0.75 appearances out of every 5 years, and 0 titles, for... (adds, multiplies, exponentiates) roughly 0 out of every 5 years. I really don't think you need to look any more deeply than this.

Solve the performance problem, and attendance will follow. Don't, and deal with the ECAC being a second-tier league. In that case, it's probably time to ditch the tournament weekend altogether and just play the games at the higher-seeded team's rink.

Ironic from someone who argues on most media threads that college hockey is a niche sport that can hope for little more than coverage on a reliable and high-quality internet stream. You think that theses passersby who you want to attend these events on a whim with happening to discover that NCAA Division I hockey is being sponsored will know anything about which programs have been successful recently or which teams/conferences have the most recent Frozen Four appearances? It does not follow logically. If it is so niche that the general public does not follow it and it deserves not general television coverage (an argument you made earlier this season on another thread), what are the odds that these people who you want to attend these events to boost attendance will have any clue which programs are good and which programs have recent NCAA success? The passerby with no knowledge of college hockey will see a name and be interested. Success of the conference or team is almost entirely irrelevant to the passerby who attends on a whim. Those facts are alien and often entirely unknown to him. It is true that success of the conference will increase attendance of fair-weather fans who are initiated already in the ways of college hockey, but it won't increase drive-by attendance as you imply. The former is the only effect that I can see that success of the conference will have upon attendance.

Branding and name association is what the ECAC needs. Yes, success gains television exposure which is integral to rebranding at lower costs, but it is the brand that people need to recognize. I agree with RichH's premise that it is due to locality and personal connection or perceived personal connection to an institution. Public universities that are named in such a way that associates them with their state have this connection built in for passerby attendees. The location of the ECAC Tournament does not help. It is the only conference tournament that is held without the conference footprint of the conference for which the championship is being played. Atlantic Hockey in Rochester, Hockey East in Boston, CCHA in Detroit, and WCHA in Saint Paul are all in locations where passerby attendance is expected because someone in those locations who might be visiting or a resident recognizes quickly the teams and often have a built-in affinity like RichH mentioned in his post.

The ECAC needs to rebrand itself with both success on the ice and effective marketing. The former will increase the attendance of fair-weather fans, the latter will grow the fanbase of ECAC hockey beyond the host cities of the institutions in the conference and their alumni bases. Cornell has the opportunity to begin the former type of rebranding on Friday.

[RichH]

So you're suggesting we change the name "Cornell" to "Central New York State."  I like it.

Though alumni of Arts/Architecture/Engineering/Hotel may have a problem with it.

Personally, I would hate that (being an Engineering alumnus as you say), but it would create a better halo-effect of regional interest.  The decentralized nature of the SUNY system (and the overall DIII nature of their athletic programs) sets NYS as one of the quirky exceptions.  A huge portion of Upstate NY gravitates to Syracuse as a surrogate because that's a big focal city in the "where I'm from" argument, especially among the few options for BCS football or NCAA BB tournaments.

Rutgers is an interesting example, as it is the State University of NJ, as everyone from NJ knows, but I wouldn't expect the folksy folks of Iowa to be aware of that.  They would probably get a big boost in revenue by going to an UNJ (or some such permutation) moniker.  

UC-Berkeley is almost always referred to as "Berkeley" academically, but their athletic teams are always branded "California" or "Cal" being the first UC.  Smart.