Opponents and Others 2023-24

[billhoward]

The smaller cities and smaller arenas may be hungrier for the NCAA's business. Springfield MA is an 8,000-seat arena and Midwest regional site Centene Community Center in Maryland Heights, Missouri [first time I heard the site name I mentally placed in Maryland], I believe the largest of their four rinks is 3,500 (one is outdoors, covered). Syracuse, Binghamton and Glens Falls and have 4,000+ and could bid for NCAA hockey regionals. Or Lake Placid.

[redice]

The smaller cities and smaller arenas may be hungrier for the NCAA's business. Springfield MA is an 8,000-seat arena and Midwest regional site Centene Community Center in Maryland Heights, Missouri [first time I heard the site name I mentally placed in Maryland], I believe the largest of their four rinks is 3,500. Syracuse, Binghamton and Glens Falls and have 4,000+ and could bid for NCAA hockey regionals. Or Lake Placid.

Don't forget Elmira...   I believe their rink is approx 4K.

[chimpfood]

On the CHN podcast today Adam said that he supports teams being able to host regionals in their own rinks but should only play there if they are a one or two seed. To me, this makes no sense to not just do home games for the first two rounds. Firstly, it shows that he has no issue with schools hosting NCAA games in their home rink and this system doesn't eliminate home advantage, it just only gives it to schools that are willing to pay. Also, it contradicts a point that he previously centered his argument around, that the pairwise is not good enough to decide who gets home games. And yet, in his new ideal system, only one and two seeds would be able to play in their home regional, so home games would be decided by the pairwise. It seems like all logic eventually leads to the fact that home games in the tournament are the way to go and with the points that he is making and the opinions he is sharing I'm genuinely confused why he still opposes this. I don't think he has any malicious intent at all I am just lost on how he could be so well informed on college hockey and be making the same arguments that support the home games, yet stand against them.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Now that they're doing the regionals on Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Sunday, couldn't one site bid to host both regionals?

This is actually brilliant.

Only downsides I can imagine  would be finding enough practice facilities for 8 teams plus enough hotel blocks

Good point.  They used to do it with six teams (over two days) back in the 90s.

Although they seemed to limit the locations to New England and the upper midwest (Mich, Minn, and ND).

Albany could handle it with Union and RPI being local. Worcester would also work, as you've got Holy Cross there and a lot of schools within 45 minutes (Providence, Brown, BC). Even UNH is only a two hour drive away. Both locations are relatively easy to get to for most eastern programs. And for western teams, flying to to Boston and getting to Worcester is probably about as easy a trip as you'll get without being in a major city.

It would restrict regionals to a few sites, but as a fan, there are advantages to cycling through a few regular places.

My point was that although they could pull it off in New England or the upper midwest, it would be much more difficult to expand the footprint of the tournament beyond the same few sites.

[marty]

On the CHN podcast today Adam said that he supports teams being able to host regionals in their own rinks but should only play there if they are a one or two seed. To me, this makes no sense to not just do home games for the first two rounds. Firstly, it shows that he has no issue with schools hosting NCAA games in their home rink and this system doesn't eliminate home advantage, it just only gives it to schools that are willing to pay. Also, it contradicts a point that he previously centered his argument around, that the pairwise is not good enough to decide who gets home games. And yet, in his new ideal system, only one and two seeds would be able to play in their home regional, so home games would be decided by the pairwise. It seems like all logic eventually leads to the fact that home games in the tournament are the way to go and with the points that he is making and the opinions he is sharing I'm genuinely confused why he still opposes this. I don't think he has any malicious intent at all I am just lost on how he could be so well informed on college hockey and be making the same arguments that support the home games, yet stand against them.

The way I read it he was against giving teams like UMass a home advantage because they are 4 seeds.  He was in favor,  I think,  of giving home ice advantage to hosts only if they were 1 or 2 seeds for any regional.  That is,  if they were in the top 8 of the total 16 field.  But this argument was for the current 4 neutral sites with 16 teams in the field.

If he has other more current ideas not expressed on eLynah,  I've not read those.

[Trotsky]

On the CHN podcast today Adam said that he supports teams being able to host regionals in their own rinks but should only play there if they are a one or two seed. To me, this makes no sense to not just do home games for the first two rounds. Firstly, it shows that he has no issue with schools hosting NCAA games in their home rink and this system doesn't eliminate home advantage, it just only gives it to schools that are willing to pay. Also, it contradicts a point that he previously centered his argument around, that the pairwise is not good enough to decide who gets home games. And yet, in his new ideal system, only one and two seeds would be able to play in their home regional, so home games would be decided by the pairwise. It seems like all logic eventually leads to the fact that home games in the tournament are the way to go and with the points that he is making and the opinions he is sharing I'm genuinely confused why he still opposes this. I don't think he has any malicious intent at all I am just lost on how he could be so well informed on college hockey and be making the same arguments that support the home games, yet stand against them.

Stage 1: That's crazy.
Stage 2: That's unfair.
Stage 3: That will never work.
Stage 4: It was my idea all the time.

Adam is at about Stage 3.2

[upprdeck]

if regionals were best of 3 I bet more places would try to host it.

that would add an extra week as well to the whole thing

best of 3
best of 3
final 4

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

if regionals were best of 3 I bet more places would try to host it.

that would add an extra week as well to the whole thing

best of 3
best of 3
final 4

It would also increase the conflicts with their "normal" activities.

[upprdeck]

what normal activities, school?

best of 3. thur-sat. fri-sun miss no more time than bball schools will

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

what normal activities, school?

best of 3. thur-sat. fri-sun miss no more time than bball schools will

I meant the normal activities held in the arenas / training facilities.

[abmarks]

for all this talk of smaller rinks wanting regionals more, if memory serves, there's been decent to excellent ticket historically for regionals in Manchester, Providence and Worcester, all of which are well north of the 5k seat mark.   Granted attendance would vary depending upon how many of the local schools are playing there, but those have to be better venue choices than 3k-5k seat rinks, and better choices than rinks the size of Albany or larger.

[Iceberg]

On the CHN podcast today Adam said that he supports teams being able to host regionals in their own rinks but should only play there if they are a one or two seed. To me, this makes no sense to not just do home games for the first two rounds. Firstly, it shows that he has no issue with schools hosting NCAA games in their home rink and this system doesn't eliminate home advantage, it just only gives it to schools that are willing to pay. Also, it contradicts a point that he previously centered his argument around, that the pairwise is not good enough to decide who gets home games. And yet, in his new ideal system, only one and two seeds would be able to play in their home regional, so home games would be decided by the pairwise. It seems like all logic eventually leads to the fact that home games in the tournament are the way to go and with the points that he is making and the opinions he is sharing I'm genuinely confused why he still opposes this. I don't think he has any malicious intent at all I am just lost on how he could be so well informed on college hockey and be making the same arguments that support the home games, yet stand against them.

I'm sure there's some more context given the situation this year, but the brother Wodon will explain his reasoning in due time here as he typically does

[BearLover]

On the CHN podcast today Adam said that he supports teams being able to host regionals in their own rinks but should only play there if they are a one or two seed. To me, this makes no sense to not just do home games for the first two rounds. Firstly, it shows that he has no issue with schools hosting NCAA games in their home rink and this system doesn't eliminate home advantage, it just only gives it to schools that are willing to pay. Also, it contradicts a point that he previously centered his argument around, that the pairwise is not good enough to decide who gets home games. And yet, in his new ideal system, only one and two seeds would be able to play in their home regional, so home games would be decided by the pairwise. It seems like all logic eventually leads to the fact that home games in the tournament are the way to go and with the points that he is making and the opinions he is sharing I'm genuinely confused why he still opposes this. I don't think he has any malicious intent at all I am just lost on how he could be so well informed on college hockey and be making the same arguments that support the home games, yet stand against them.

I'm sure there's some more context given the situation this year, but the brother Wodon will explain his reasoning in due time here as he typically does

The couple of times I've listened to the CHN podcast recently, I've been very impressed with how smart and eloquent the coaches who were guests on the podcast have sounded: first Carle of Denver and now Mayotte of CC.

[marty]

for all this talk of smaller rinks wanting regionals more, if memory serves, there's been decent to excellent ticket historically for regionals in Manchester, Providence and Worcester, all of which are well north of the 5k seat mark.   Granted attendance would vary depending upon how many of the local schools are playing there, but those have to be better venue choices than 3k-5k seat rinks, and better choices than rinks the size of Albany or larger.

If attendance is low Albany doesn't use the upper deck.  The facility is fine for regional play.

Women's NCAA bball is there this weekend.

[Al DeFlorio]

for all this talk of smaller rinks wanting regionals more, if memory serves, there's been decent to excellent ticket historically for regionals in Manchester, Providence and Worcester, all of which are well north of the 5k seat mark.   Granted attendance would vary depending upon how many of the local schools are playing there, but those have to be better venue choices than 3k-5k seat rinks, and better choices than rinks the size of Albany or larger.

If attendance is low Albany doesn't use the upper deck.  The facility is fine for regional play.

Women's NCAA bball is there this weekend.

Works for me, Marty.