PDA

View Full Version : Attendance at Regionals



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28

kingdobbs
12-19-2013, 09:32 AM
Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.

Albany's last appearance was in 2010, so it's not as though, if they were truly "out of play", that they were out of it for too long.

Slap Shot
12-19-2013, 05:09 PM
I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

Well said.

The Rube
12-19-2013, 07:03 PM
Well said.

This. Now, after agreeing with a Whioux fan, I have about 10 gallons of bleach to get ready for my bath.

Fishman'81
12-19-2013, 10:06 PM
I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

I tend to agree. I think the NCAA is a little worried about, say, a Union getting a top-four seed and hosting in a 2,225 seat arena, but I could live with it.

I do object vigorously to any team hosting on-campus when that team hasn't earned a #1 seed, however... That scenario is an embarrassment to our sport.

Fair siting is much more important to me than attendance, hands-down. (And we've generally gotten much better seats at the Times-Union than TicketBastard allowed us, simply by taking our pick of the 7,000 unsold ones.)

MplsSioux
12-20-2013, 08:16 AM
I tend to agree. I think the NCAA is a little worried about, say, a Union getting a top-four seed and hosting in a 2,225 seat arena, but I could live with it.

I do object vigorously to any team hosting on-campus when that team hasn't earned a #1 seed, however... That scenario is an embarrassment to our sport.

Fair siting is much more important to me than attendance, hands-down. (And we've generally gotten much better seats at the Times-Union than TicketBastard allowed us, simply by taking our pick of the 7,000 unsold ones.)

Yeah I'm absolutely ok with Union hosting if they earn the #1 seed. A sold out 2,300 person arena is better than a 10,000 seat arena that is 20% filled. I say that team earned the seed so let them enjoy the "easiest" potential path to the Frozen Four. I don't even see the argument that it's an unfair advantage because we all know any given team can lose on any night in college hockey but the home arena gives them that little edge they earned and deserve. I was at the 2006 regional at The Ralph in Grand Forks with the Sioux, Gophers, Holy Cross, and Michigan and it was probably one of the best sporting events I've ever been at. The arena was packed with 12,000 people for every game and was on the edge of their seats the whole time. Also, I would be much more inclined to travel for an away regional if I knew I could visit an away team's on-campus arena that I've never been to. It's cool to see all character and history of college hockey arenas and you don't get that with neutral sites.

MplsSioux
12-20-2013, 08:16 AM
This. Now, after agreeing with a Whioux fan, I have about 10 gallons of bleach to get ready for my bath.

haha I'm honored, there's a first time for everything I guess

USAFA Bulldog
12-20-2013, 08:36 AM
I tend to agree. I think the NCAA is a little worried about, say, a Union getting a top-four seed and hosting in a 2,225 seat arena, but I could live with it.

I do object vigorously to any team hosting on-campus when that team hasn't earned a #1 seed, however... That scenario is an embarrassment to our sport.

Fair siting is much more important to me than attendance, hands-down. (And we've generally gotten much better seats at the Times-Union than TicketBastard allowed us, simply by taking our pick of the 7,000 unsold ones.)

Yes. Time to give home ice to #1 seeds.

Fishman'81
12-24-2013, 01:44 AM
Yes. Time to give home ice to #1 seeds.

The arguments you usually hear against that idea are usually along the lines of any given school being hard-pressed to get their venue ready to meet the NCAA's lofty standards for same on short notice... Personally, I consider that to be a crock.

I'm confident that any school that earns home-ice would be delighted to cover-up any forbidden ads along the boards, and to instruct their PA guy not to impart any inflection to his voice, just for the opportunity to have its rink on national TV.

A week is enough time to get that all arranged, FCS.

Shirtless Guy
12-24-2013, 09:58 AM
The arguments you usually hear against that idea are usually along the lines of any given school being hard-pressed to get their venue ready to meet the NCAA's lofty standards for same on short notice... Personally, I consider that to be a crock.

I'm confident that any school that earns home-ice would be delighted to cover-up any forbidden ads along the boards, and to instruct their PA guy not to impart any inflection to his voice, just for the opportunity to have its rink on national TV.

A week is enough time to get that all arranged, FCS.I think its more about keeping facilities on hold for possible regional,not to mention hotels, locker rooms for 4 teams, etc.

Goon
12-24-2013, 10:22 AM
Yes. Time to give home ice to #1 seeds.
It's a great idea. Or giving the top-eight seeds home games for the first round of the NCAA tourney.

Goon
12-24-2013, 10:24 AM
I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

Coach Hakstol said the same thing last spring as well.

SJHovey
12-24-2013, 10:51 AM
I personally would like to see the NCAA go back to the way they did it for three years, 1989-1991. Play the first two rounds at the home of the higher seed, best 2 out of 3. In 1988 it was similar, but instead of best 2 out of 3 they played two games, total goals.

At the time only 12 teams were in, so four teams received first round byes before hosting the first round winners the following weekend.

It worked fine. No problems having rinks available.

A pretty decent advantage for the home teams. They went 41-16 in the games, and 19-5 in the series.

It should be noted that if those "series" had just been one game single elimination, the home team advantage slipped slightly to 16-8.

MCgrad07
12-24-2013, 11:48 AM
I would have the top seeds be the host. Keep it single elimination. Rank teams one through sixteen and keep bracket integrity. However, I would give all four one seeds the option of picking what rink they host it in. For example, say UNH is a one seed and rather play in Manchester, then they can. Before every year all teams need to secure the arena they select and give it to the NCAA by September

MCgrad07
12-24-2013, 11:51 AM
Also tickets should be sold by game. $20 per game or $50 for the whole weekend. After the first game clear the place out, allowing us a beer or two and then re entry.

Fishman'81
12-26-2013, 12:33 AM
I personally would like to see the NCAA go back to the way they did it for three years, 1989-1991. Play the first two rounds at the home of the higher seed, best 2 out of 3. In 1988 it was similar, but instead of best 2 out of 3 they played two games, total goals.

At the time only 12 teams were in, so four teams received first round byes before hosting the first round winners the following weekend.



I remember that "total-goals" thing, and it was an interesting concept... Teams could never afford to quit playing then -at least in Game One- no matter how lopsided the score.

As for the four byes back then, the problem with that was they all were AQ's, and not necessarily deserving of byes... (See: Clarkson.)

Rover
12-26-2013, 09:32 AM
You guys seem to be taking a Western perspective on this, which is fine. However, as a BU fan, I don't want to be going to Maine or BC to play in the regionals. Or even the Q or Yale. I don't think that works, and in Maine or BC for example you'd be completely shutting out the opposing teams' fans.

The problem seems to be with the 4th regional, the two eastern ones and one of the mid-western ones are okay. That 4th one is always going to be a crapshoot, but I would hold it in a handful of key cities and hope a local team or teams ended up making it (Denver, somewhere in Michigan, etc). Yes, if you had it in Colorado and no AF, CC or DU made it you'd be in trouble, but that's the chance you take. I can't speak for every program, but in BU's case at least the athletic department needs to do a better job of coordinating getting fans to the games.

ericredaxe
12-26-2013, 09:44 AM
You guys seem to be taking a Western perspective on this, which is fine. However, as a BU fan, I don't want to be going to Maine or BC to play in the regionals. Or even the Q or Yale. I don't think that works, and in Maine or BC for example you'd be completely shutting out the opposing teams' fans.

What if each home team was required to hold a certain percentage of tickets for the opposing teams fans to have first dibs? Something somewhat substantial, like 1800 tickets or 25% of the arena, whichever is smaller? I think the atmosphere could be phenomenal at the home teams rink… especially if the visiting team is a reasonable travel distance away?



I can't speak for every program, but in BU's case at least the athletic department needs to do a better job of coordinating getting fans to the games.

Agreed… BU could do a better job with this…

Rover
12-26-2013, 10:36 AM
What if each home team was required to hold a certain percentage of tickets for the opposing teams fans to have first dibs? Something somewhat substantial, like 1800 tickets or 25% of the arena, whichever is smaller? I think the atmosphere could be phenomenal at the home teams rink… especially if the visiting team is a reasonable travel distance away?





That would work at BC lets say as its a large arena on the outskirts of the city. However, for Maine, Yale or the Q, I'm not sure people are going to travel all that way (or Vermont for that matter) for what is essentually an away game.

My main point is that for the East the regionals work fine. Its not that bad for most people to get to Worcester, Manchester, Providence, etc. I do have sympathy for the western fans though and don't have a good solution for them frankly aside from the aforementioned schools doing a better job of getting fans to games if they don't do that already.

MplsSioux
12-26-2013, 03:53 PM
That would work at BC lets say as its a large arena on the outskirts of the city. However, for Maine, Yale or the Q, I'm not sure people are going to travel all that way (or Vermont for that matter) for what is essentually an away game.

My main point is that for the East the regionals work fine. Its not that bad for most people to get to Worcester, Manchester, Providence, etc. I do have sympathy for the western fans though and don't have a good solution for them frankly aside from the aforementioned schools doing a better job of getting fans to games if they don't do that already.

I'm not sure what you mean when you state that for Maine, Yale, or QU it would essentially be an away game. Do you mean it would be an away game for yourself as a BU fan? Because that's exactly the point of putting it at the #1 seed's school. They earned the #1 seed which means they have the benefit of the regionals having that "home atmosphere" and all other seeds would have to travel since their team did not earn that top seed. Why would BU fans having to travel have to be equated into that as they did not earn the #1 seed in that scenario?

I'm sure the Regionals are working great for Eastern schools where population is compressed in comparison and you have a good amount of hockey schools in close proximity to each other. However, it is not working for the Western schools which is why the converstion is happening.

Again, not sure if I'm misunderstanding your post but that's what I got out of it.

HockeyMan2000
12-26-2013, 07:14 PM
I remember that "total-goals" thing, and it was an interesting concept... Teams could never afford to quit playing then -at least in Game One- no matter how lopsided the score.

Total goals was a disaster. One team would go out the first night and win by a decisive margin -- that would immediately reduce the interest in the second game. It also confused fans going in who missed the first game...definitely don't see that ever coming back. Like disco, it was a fad of its era but it went away for a reason.