Opponents and Others 2023-24

[adamw]

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.

LOL - I've literally explained how this is not contradictory a dozen times already. I'm not in the mood to explain it again.

[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.

LOL - I've literally explained how this is not contradictory a dozen times already. I'm not in the mood to explain it again.

the podcast was the first time that I personally have heard you support teams playing at their home rinks but only as 1 or 2 seeds. If you have a link to an article or something explaining how this is better than just playing at the higher seeds all the time and doesn't contradict what you said about the pairwise deciding home games I would love to read it, my mind really is open, just right now I don't see how the current regional system (or the one with the reforms you mentioned) is better than just playing at the higher seed.

[adamw]

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.

LOL - I've literally explained how this is not contradictory a dozen times already. I'm not in the mood to explain it again.

the podcast was the first time that I personally have heard you support teams playing at their home rinks but only as 1 or 2 seeds. If you have a link to an article or something explaining how this is better than just playing at the higher seeds all the time and doesn't contradict what you said about the pairwise deciding home games I would love to read it, my mind really is open, just right now I don't see how the current regional system (or the one with the reforms you mentioned) is better than just playing at the higher seed.

Feel free to have your opinion - but what I am saying is not contradictory. There are numerous differences between top 8 teams getting home games, and what I'm proposing.

[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.

LOL - I've literally explained how this is not contradictory a dozen times already. I'm not in the mood to explain it again.

the podcast was the first time that I personally have heard you support teams playing at their home rinks but only as 1 or 2 seeds. If you have a link to an article or something explaining how this is better than just playing at the higher seeds all the time and doesn't contradict what you said about the pairwise deciding home games I would love to read it, my mind really is open, just right now I don't see how the current regional system (or the one with the reforms you mentioned) is better than just playing at the higher seed.

Feel free to have your opinion - but what I am saying is not contradictory. There are numerous differences between top 8 teams getting home games, and what I'm proposing.

Explain please. The only difference that I see is that you want teams to have to pay to have a chance at a home game and with your way we still get worse attendance most of the time.

[jtwcornell91]

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.

LOL - I've literally explained how this is not contradictory a dozen times already. I'm not in the mood to explain it again.

the podcast was the first time that I personally have heard you support teams playing at their home rinks but only as 1 or 2 seeds. If you have a link to an article or something explaining how this is better than just playing at the higher seeds all the time and doesn't contradict what you said about the pairwise deciding home games I would love to read it, my mind really is open, just right now I don't see how the current regional system (or the one with the reforms you mentioned) is better than just playing at the higher seed.

Feel free to have your opinion - but what I am saying is not contradictory. There are numerous differences between top 8 teams getting home games, and what I'm proposing.

Explain please. The only difference that I see is that you want teams to have to pay to have a chance at a home game and with your way we still get worse attendance most of the time.

Well, for one thing, 4-team regionals are different from series at campus sites because you get the mix of fans coming together in a tournament atmosphere.

[CU77]

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.

I don't think any school would bid to host under these conditions.

I like the lacrosse system: round 1 at higher seed, round 2 at 2 regional sites (2 games per site, same day).

[Chris '03]

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.

I don't think any school would bid to host under these conditions.

I like the lacrosse system: round 1 at higher seed, round 2 at 2 regional sites (2 games per site, same day).

That doesn't solve the host home field advantage issue though. It just changes it to a QF problem. A team could be road round one and then be the "road" team at home the next.

The issue is what is the best way to balance competing issues: attendance/atmosphere and fairness being primary.

Maybe the conferences should have to host on a rotating basis. That theoretically shares the cost and responsibilities across member schools. Guarantee the host conference that the team that wins their autobid will be there. It's important to find a way to get away from the same handful of schools hosting because they are the only ones willing or in proximity to willing arena partners.

[adamw]

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.

I don't think any school would bid to host under these conditions.

If they put their mind to it, I'm sure they could come up with conditions under which schools would bid. But having conferences host in the better solution.

[CU77]

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.

I don't think any school would bid to host under these conditions.

I like the lacrosse system: round 1 at higher seed, round 2 at 2 regional sites (2 games per site, same day).

That doesn't solve the host home field advantage issue though. It just changes it to a QF problem. A team could be road round one and then be the "road" team at home the next.

If you win the first game, you have beaten a 1 or 2 seed (in hockey terminology) on the road, and have taken their place. If you buy that, then Adam's criterion is satisfied.

[scoop85]

Among the names in the transfer portal is UCONN's Matthew Wood, a 1st round draftee in the 2022 NHL draft. Rumored to be looking at Minnesota/Wisconsin/NoDak. If he leaves a big loss for a Huskies program trying to gain relevance.

[chimpfood]

2-0 Q just like that.

[scoop85]

After weathering BC's pressure at the end of the 1st period, QU scores twice in 35 seconds to go up 2-0 just 2 minutes into the 2nd period. Please don't tell me they're going to win it again?

[scoop85]

After weathering BC's pressure at the end of the 1st period, QU scores twice in 35 seconds to go up 2-0 just 2 minutes into the 2nd period. Please don't tell me they're going to win it again?

BC scores right away after a phantom penalty call on QU to make it 2-1. Boy did they ever need that.

[chimpfood]

I would be so pissed if I was a Q fan.

[Al DeFlorio]

3-3 Q-BC after 2