Future of NCAA Regionals

[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.

[KeithK]

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.

[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.

[billhoward]

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.

[Trotsky]

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%.

[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.

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.

[KeithK]

It's clearly just evidence that western hockey sucks.

[Trotsky]

It's clearly just evidence that western hockey sucks.

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

[billhoward]

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.

[RichH]

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

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.

[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:



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?

[Trotsky]

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?

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

[Scersk '97]

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.

[billhoward]

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?