Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

[davyd83]

I think that the Regionals will always struggle for attendance, but it could be a lot better if you could find ways to get locals to go. Such as in St Paul.

I'm also in favor of trying something like Windsor, Ontario. I know, I know,... but really you do not need a passport, only a birth certificate and if it makes for a good atmosphere, expands the publicity the college game gets, and protects neutrality, I'm all for it. It might seem like a huge obstacle to some, but it's not.
Windsor is a nice facility, is easy to get to, close to a lot of schools, and would be full or nearly so. And if no fans go anyway, why are we all upset it's not accessible?

As I said, the NCAA needs to make every effort to make neutral site Regionals successful before going to campus sites. I don't think they have done enough homework.

Windsor has the Spitfires. They don't care much about US College hockey. You don't get many from the Canadian Soo to Lake Superior State games unless they know someone that's playing.

[UMICH]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

3 weeks. First round best-of-3 at the higher seed. Second round at predetermined neutral regional sites (1 east and 1 west). Third round the typical Froze 4 we are accustomed to.

Hmmmm, the now defunct CCHA sort of did it like that (and yes most likely for monetary reasons). Actually, the first two rounds were at campus sites and the last round always being held at the traditional site (Joe Louis Arena). However, you also see where that got them? The CCHA is no more, However I attribute that to both UM and sparty going to the B1G and those two schools carried the league. After UM and sparty left you had 9 schools (Notre Dame being the major calling card, 2 smaller schools with decent but not consistent hockey programs in Western and Ferris, and then 6 schlubs, yes ohio you count as a schlub because no one in ohio cares about hockey outside of the few posters here). You can't run a league based on that, the CCHA was destined to fail. We've known it for over a decade, for crying out loud they put a sparty (who has no idea what he is doing) in as commissioner years ago. That said sparty is now the hockey coach at sparty, LOL he's running that program into the ground as well.

[UMICH]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Windsor has the Spitfires. They don't care much about US College hockey. You don't get many from the Canadian Soo to Lake Superior State games unless they know someone that's playing.

Precisely, Taffy Abel arena only holds 3,880 people and still never sells out...

They struggle to fill that too (although LSSU is a small school in a rural area).

http://www.stadiumjourney.com/stadiu...e-arena-s1360/

[davyd83]

Hmmmm, the now defunct CCHA sort of did it like that (and yes most likely for monetary reasons). Actually, the first two rounds were at campus sites and the last round always being held at the traditional site (Joe Louis Arena). However, you also see where that got them? The CCHA is no more, However I attribute that to both UM and sparty going to the B1G and those two schools carried the league. After UM and sparty left you had 9 schools (Notre Dame being the major calling card, 2 smaller schools with decent but not consistent hockey programs in Western and Ferris, and then 6 schlubs, yes ohio you count as a schlub because no one in ohio cares about hockey outside of the few posters here). You can't run a league based on that, the CCHA was destined to fail. We've known it for over a decade, for crying out loud they put a sparty (who has no idea what he is doing) in as commissioner years ago. That said sparty is now the hockey coach at sparty, LOL he's running that program into the ground as well.

Thanks for defining the rest of us as "schlubs." Who the he** made you so high and mighty? In my lifetime, I see Michigan Tech with as many titles as your exalted program, Lake State has more and NMU and Bowling Green are just one behind. Now your program is indeed one of the best supported in the NCAA. They have one of the top budgets, a hall of fame coach, a historic arena and one of the most prestigious institutions in not only college hockey, but all of sports. Now how many times have they taken that victory lap in the last 15 years? Hint: the Detroit Lions have raised the Lombardi Trophy just as many times. It's funny you don't see the same level of arrogance from Wisconsin or Minnesota even though they've got more titles over the same period. MSU has just as many and they don't act that way. Only the boys from Weasel Gulch do. If I were to define "schlubs" I'd have to give it to the one who has among the most resources year in and year out, yet doesn't get it done at the end. Kinda like your football team. Start out unbeaten in September, only to end up in the Who Gives a Darn Bowl. But you can't blame hockey on the King of all schlubs, Rich Rod!

[CLS]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

The point made by Jaws and seconded by Race Boarder is 100% legitimate. Personally I used to attend regionals, but have mostly stopped going, based on similar reasoning. My belief is that a large percentage of college hockey fans are doing the same. Even the great fans who do attend, like wT, candidly acknowledge that they are the exception to the general rule.

Let me offer one more nuance that has influenced my travel decisions: The TV coverage. With all of the regional games on TV, most of them live, it's very tempting to spend that weekend at home. I may be an exception in this specific regard, but I have a genuine interest in watching all 4 Region Finals. That's easier to do at home than the road. In the round of 16, I'm more like the majority: I'll say yes if I have a rooting interest. Otherwise it may take a special match-up to add yet another game to my weekend's viewing.

Each person's take will be slightly different from the rest. But the general pattern is clear: We're voting with our feet against overnight travel to the regionals, particularly the first round. Use campus sites and you'll have a decent chance that local fans with a rooting interest will fill the building. Options requiring overnight lodging, no matter how attractively packaged, aren't likely to succeed.

I wouldn’t even call it a “nuance”. More like a 600 pound gorilla in the living room – to the point that even the mighty NHL is concerned with “competition” between TV and live attendance. I watched all 12 Regional games last year, and enjoyed it so much I was even able to overlook the fact that Barry Melrose was the color analyst for some. For me, though, the TV issue argues for the current system.

If the NCAA goes to eight on-campus first round games, there would definitely be pushback from the broadcasters, whether ESPN or some local outlet. You’re asking them to televise from eight (as opposed to four) different locations that are not known until less than a week before the game, some of which lack suitable facilities for television broadcasting.

And even if you are able to convince, or bribe or arm-twist the broadcasters, the quality would certainly suffer in many locations. I’ve seen a game televised from Quinnipiac (the home rink of a top four seed last year) and it was awful. The lighting was inadequate, the camera angles were terrible, and in general, it reminded me of my son’s youth hockey games that were televised on the community access cable channel.

If the primary mode of watching is TV, why wouldn’t you want to make it as convenient as possible for the broadcasters by ensuring adequate facilities and minimizing the number of broadcast locations? Why jeopardize the one aspect of the Regionals that has been unquestionably improved in the past few years?

[Stauber1]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I wouldn’t even call it a “nuance”. More like a 600 pound gorilla in the living room – to the point that even the mighty NHL is concerned with “competition” between TV and live attendance. I watched all 12 Regional games last year, and enjoyed it so much I was even able to overlook the fact that Barry Melrose was the color analyst for some. For me, though, the TV issue argues for the current system.

If the NCAA goes to eight on-campus first round games, there would definitely be pushback from the broadcasters, whether ESPN or some local outlet. You’re asking them to televise from eight (as opposed to four) different locations that are not known until less than a week before the game, some of which lack suitable facilities for television broadcasting.

And even if you are able to convince, or bribe or arm-twist the broadcasters, the quality would certainly suffer in many locations. I’ve seen a game televised from Quinnipiac (the home rink of a top four seed last year) and it was awful. The lighting was inadequate, the camera angles were terrible, and in general, it reminded me of my son’s youth hockey games that were televised on the community access cable channel.

If the primary mode of watching is TV, why wouldn’t you want to make it as convenient as possible for the broadcasters by ensuring adequate facilities and minimizing the number of broadcast locations? Why jeopardize the one aspect of the Regionals that has been unquestionably improved in the past few years?

Don't care. Let local broadcasters pick up the games if they are so inclined when a school in their area is playing. Let networks redistribute as they fit. Then, let ESPN take the quarterfinal regionals at 2 predetermined sites.

I love watching college hockey, but I don't need to see every game of the tournament. And it's certainly a worthy sacrifice in my opinion if it produces a better tournament format.

To respond to PGB's suggestion that the first round is a single game:
That works. I prefer a series, as a tradionalist as well as a way to maximize revenue, but a one-off seems good enough if they bring these first round games back to home rinks at the higher seed.

I would disagree slightly that it is such a headache for multipurpose facilities. I'll admit that I follow MN, and so my view may be skewed. But with the piarwise, 3 months out you start to get an idea about what is going to be possible, 2 months out that starts to take a bit more shape, and 1 month out you have the majority of teams in college hockey knowing where they will fall for purposes of this issue. There will be a handful of teams with things up in the air, and I have to believe that most arenas will be able and willing to hold those dates open or at the very least schedule some discounted tentative use with a clause should their program end up hosting. But I could be off base on that, I admit.

Last thing I will say about having the top-8 teams host is that it gives a little more weight to these regular season games. A prime example is last weekend in St. Cloud. Barring a massive meltdown, St. Cloud is going to qualify for the NCAA Tournament. Going 0-1-1 last weekend really isn't that meaningful for them. They are going to make the tournament, and whether they are a 4 seed or a 14 seed it doesn't make all that much difference. But if the top-8 seeds hosted, last weekend would have been incredibly important. And I think that makes for a better regular season across the board.

[UMICH]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Thanks for defining the rest of us as "schlubs." Who the he** made you so high and mighty? In my lifetime, I see Michigan Tech with as many titles as your exalted program, Lake State has more and NMU and Bowling Green are just one behind. Now your program is indeed one of the best supported in the NCAA. They have one of the top budgets, a hall of fame coach, a historic arena and one of the most prestigious institutions in not only college hockey, but all of sports. Now how many times have they taken that victory lap in the last 15 years? Hint: the Detroit Lions have raised the Lombardi Trophy just as many times. If I were to define "schlubs" I'd have to give it to the one who has among the most resources year in and year out, yet doesn't get it done at the end. Kinda like your football team. Start out unbeaten in September, only to end up in the Who Gives a Darn Bowl. But you can't blame hockey on the King of all schlubs, Rich Rod!

Evidently you are one of those bitter people from the UP. It is known that each and every person who attends Northern is extremely envious of UM. And FYI, Michigan last won the NCAA Hockey Championship in 1998. Wow, 16 years, that's a big difference. Oh you want to go back to the second most recent National Championship? Ok, that was 1996, so now we're up to 18 years. Over the last 20 years Michigan has two National Championships and 19 trips to the NCAA tournament. What does Northern have? 0 National championships, and two measly Tournament berths. Schlub... You also did not win a regular season conference title OR tournament conference title. Double-schlub... Michigan has 9 Frozen Fours over that time-span, Northern couldn't find tickets. Triple-schlub... Michigan has nine CCHA regular season championships over the last 20 years, Northern has zero. Quadruple-schlub... Michigan has eight CCHA tournament championships over that time, Northern zero (but you did lose twice in the championship game, but Michigan even has you there eight). Infinite schlub...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norther...9;s_ice_hockey

I tried being nice and didn't call out Northern by name but then you whined and cried so there's your acknowledgement.

[davyd83]

Evidently you are one of those bitter people from the UP. It is known that each and every person who attends Northern is extremely envious of UM. And FYI, Michigan last won the NCAA Hockey Championship in 1998. Wow, 16 years, that's a big difference. Oh you want to go back to the second most recent National Championship? Ok, that was 1996, so now we're up to 18 years. Over the last 20 years Michigan has two National Championships and 19 trips to the NCAA tournament. What does Northern have? 0 National championships, and two measly Tournament berths. Schlub... You also did not win a regular season conference title OR tournament conference title. Double-schlub... Michigan has 9 Frozen Fours over that time-span, Northern couldn't find tickets. Triple-schlub... Michigan has nine CCHA regular season championships over the last 20 years, Northern has zero. Quadruple-schlub... Michigan has eight CCHA tournament championships over that time, Northern zero (but you did lose twice in the championship game, but Michigan even has you there eight). Infinite schlub...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norther...9;s_ice_hockey

I tried being nice and didn't call out Northern by name but then you whined and cried so there's your acknowledgement.

So how do you rank against teams with similar resources? Oooh, you top the D2 teams. Against the other Big 10 teams, you're middle of the pack at best. When was your last title compared to Wisconsin, Minnesota or even Michigan State? At least Penn State hasn't topped you...yet..

[Jimjamesak]

Evidently you are one of those bitter people from the UP. It is known that each and every person who attends Northern is extremely envious of UM. And FYI, Michigan last won the NCAA Hockey Championship in 1998. Wow, 16 years, that's a big difference. Oh you want to go back to the second most recent National Championship? Ok, that was 1996, so now we're up to 18 years. Over the last 20 years Michigan has two National Championships and 19 trips to the NCAA tournament. What does Northern have? 0 National championships, and two measly Tournament berths. Schlub... You also did not win a regular season conference title OR tournament conference title. Double-schlub... Michigan has 9 Frozen Fours over that time-span, Northern couldn't find tickets. Triple-schlub... Michigan has nine CCHA regular season championships over the last 20 years, Northern has zero. Quadruple-schlub... Michigan has eight CCHA tournament championships over that time, Northern zero (but you did lose twice in the championship game, but Michigan even has you there eight). Infinite schlub...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norther...9;s_ice_hockey

I tried being nice and didn't call out Northern by name but then you whined and cried so there's your acknowledgement.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I wouldn’t even call it a “nuance”. More like a 600 pound gorilla in the living room – to the point that even the mighty NHL is concerned with “competition” between TV and live attendance. I watched all 12 Regional games last year, and enjoyed it so much I was even able to overlook the fact that Barry Melrose was the color analyst for some. For me, though, the TV issue argues for the current system.

As a preliminary matter, a big thumbs up to your dedication. I consider myself "all in" for college hockey, but I've never viewed all 12!

One thing to keep in mind is that most of us who favor a return to campus sites** envision that the first two rounds would played over the course of two weekends. So for the round of 16, you'd have 8 games spread out over 3 days. If TV cooperates -- and I understand that's an if -- you might be able to see all 8 games live. Under the current format, some time shifting is inevitable. So there's at least a potential improvement in coverage. Under the current set-up, if you have a rooting interest in one of the time shifted games, it's virtually impossible to avoid spoilers. OK, you could skip every other game prior to your broadcast. But even that might not work as OT games can shift start times.

**Credit where credit is due. Alton's plan, presented on multiple previous threads, was the best developed of the group.

If the NCAA goes to eight on-campus first round games, there would definitely be pushback from the broadcasters, whether ESPN or some local outlet. You’re asking them to televise from eight (as opposed to four) different locations that are not known until less than a week before the game, some of which lack suitable facilities for television broadcasting.

And even if you are able to convince, or bribe or arm-twist the broadcasters, the quality would certainly suffer in many locations. I’ve seen a game televised from Quinnipiac (the home rink of a top four seed last year) and it was awful. The lighting was inadequate, the camera angles were terrible, and in general, it reminded me of my son’s youth hockey games that were televised on the community access cable channel.

Legitimate concerns, to be sure. Like Stauber1, I believe the potential benefits outweigh the downside risk. But reasonable people can certainly differ on the point.

If the primary mode of watching is TV, why wouldn’t you want to make it as convenient as possible for the broadcasters by ensuring adequate facilities and minimizing the number of broadcast locations? Why jeopardize the one aspect of the Regionals that has been unquestionably improved in the past few years?

Solid big picture question, but I have a big picture answer: The in-house atmosphere desperately needs to be improved, even if it damages the TV viewer, even if it damages me personally.

Note, of course, that my position may not be all that unselfish. If we really go to two weekends, I'd likely see more of the tournament than I do now. Agreed, I could Spin the Wheel and hit a Bankrupt. Suppose OSU makes a future tournament, gets sent to Quinnipiac and TV refuses to cover the game. Could happen. If so, my options would be to travel or listen to the radio broadcast. Or, maybe there'd be a webcast. Not an ideal scenario, but also a familiar dilemma. I'm willing to assume the risk.

Last but not least, doesn't a large, loud crowd make for better TV than the alternative?

Don't care. Let local broadcasters pick up the games if they are so inclined when a school in their area is playing. Let networks redistribute as they fit. Then, let ESPN take the quarterfinal regionals at 2 predetermined sites.

I love watching college hockey, but I don't need to see every game of the tournament. And it's certainly a worthy sacrifice in my opinion if it produces a better tournament format.

Agreed as noted above.

To respond to PGB's suggestion that the first round is a single game:
That works. I prefer a series, as a tradionalist as well as a way to maximize revenue, but a one-off seems good enough if they bring these first round games back to home rinks at the higher seed.

I would disagree slightly that it is such a headache for multipurpose facilities. I'll admit that I follow MN, and so my view may be skewed. But with the piarwise, 3 months out you start to get an idea about what is going to be possible, 2 months out that starts to take a bit more shape, and 1 month out you have the majority of teams in college hockey knowing where they will fall for purposes of this issue. There will be a handful of teams with things up in the air, and I have to believe that most arenas will be able and willing to hold those dates open or at the very least schedule some discounted tentative use with a clause should their program end up hosting. But I could be off base on that, I admit.

The biggest problem here at OSU is that we share the Schottenstein Center with the High School Wrestling Tournament and both High School Basketball tournaments. That created an almost intolerable problem with CCHA playoff format. I believe Wisconsin has the same issue with Kohl Center. I've got to believe that this was a major reason behind the B1G's decision to dispense with a play-in round and send everyone directly to St. Paul for the conference playoffs. Still, it must be conceded that the dates for the hockey regionals may come up after that run of events is complete.

Now, about those smaller accounts. Both personally and as a parent, I'm a consumer of ice time on the weekends. In general, if a rink needs to be held for one college game, the numbers affected are small and rescheduling might be possible. But block out a whole weekend? Quite a few groups are impacted and rescheduling becomes pretty much impossible. In absolute terms, the dollars aren't huge. But to those participating, every practice and game is important. Ice time is a sacred thing.

Now on this latter point, the Schottenstein Center is not at issue. Smaller groups don't get to rent that facility. But this does come into play if the Varsity games are pushed into the OSU Ice Rink, as has happened several times in the recent past. And certainly the issue arises at the single purpose facilities. Good ice times on the weekends are especially sacred.

Last thing I will say about having the top-8 teams host is that it gives a little more weight to these regular season games. A prime example is last weekend in St. Cloud. Barring a massive meltdown, St. Cloud is going to qualify for the NCAA Tournament. Going 0-1-1 last weekend really isn't that meaningful for them. They are going to make the tournament, and whether they are a 4 seed or a 14 seed it doesn't make all that much difference. But if the top-8 seeds hosted, last weekend would have been incredibly important. And I think that makes for a better regular season across the board.

Again, agreed.

[CLS]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

... But reasonable people can certainly differ on the point. ...

Yes, reasonable people can differ, and rather than respond to your other arguments, I’ll leave it at that; we’d just be retreading old territory.

What is very different this go-round of the discussion is that the NCAA has a regional problem that is no longer just academic (in the logic sense). It’s real. The 2015 Midwest regional is on-campus; they haven’t done that for many years, and (can’t provide a quote, but I believe it’s true) that they don’t like on-campus venues. They’ve pretty much said they had to put it there. And the fact that they didn’t announce the regional sites along with the FF sites could very well mean that they didn’t get any non-campus bids at all for the western regionals in 2016 and 2017. So regardless of whether I like neutral sites or not, or they are conceptually “better”, it may be impossible to maintain them in the west. So if the current system can’t survive, what replaces it?

I can think of a lot of possibilities but the one I dislike the least is the “Alton Plan”. Which is probably why I’m so bummed out at this point. Since atmosphere is much lower on my priority list than for others, if any change is made to the current structure, it will be a step backwards, and will entail risks (TV coverage) that I’d rather not take.

With regard to the Alton Plan, I disagree with you on one point. If the current neutral venue Regional system doesn’t work, I don’t think a neutral venue second round system will work, either. The hard core hockey fans who will attend games even if their favorite team isn’t playing would get at most two games, depending on whether there are two second round sites or four, and the follower of a specific teams would only get one. In most cases it would still involve the inconvenience and expense of travel and lodging, albeit possibly for one less night. In most cases, you’d be trying to capture fan interest for four consecutive weekends, counting conference tournaments. The conference tournament and the FF you can plan for and the first round is a home game for many of the fans, so the second round game would be the one that’s easiest to skip.

[RaceBoarder]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

This plan would also mean that the NCAA Hockey tournament would have to to head to head with the BouncyBall Final Four weekend... It would eliminate the off week, which I believe helps people make Frozen Four plans...

[Stauber1]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Yes, reasonable people can differ, and rather than respond to your other arguments, I’ll leave it at that; we’d just be retreading old territory.

What is very different this go-round of the discussion is that the NCAA has a regional problem that is no longer just academic (in the logic sense). It’s real. The 2015 Midwest regional is on-campus; they haven’t done that for many years, and (can’t provide a quote, but I believe it’s true) that they don’t like on-campus venues. They’ve pretty much said they had to put it there. And the fact that they didn’t announce the regional sites along with the FF sites could very well mean that they didn’t get any non-campus bids at all for the western regionals in 2016 and 2017. So regardless of whether I like neutral sites or not, or they are conceptually “better”, it may be impossible to maintain them in the west. So if the current system can’t survive, what replaces it?

I can think of a lot of possibilities but the one I dislike the least is the “Alton Plan”. Which is probably why I’m so bummed out at this point. Since atmosphere is much lower on my priority list than for others, if any change is made to the current structure, it will be a step backwards, and will entail risks (TV coverage) that I’d rather not take.

With regard to the Alton Plan, I disagree with you on one point. If the current neutral venue Regional system doesn’t work, I don’t think a neutral venue second round system will work, either. The hard core hockey fans who will attend games even if their favorite team isn’t playing would get at most two games, depending on whether there are two second round sites or four, and the follower of a specific teams would only get one. In most cases it would still involve the inconvenience and expense of travel and lodging, albeit possibly for one less night. In most cases, you’d be trying to capture fan interest for four consecutive weekends, counting conference tournaments. The conference tournament and the FF you can plan for and the first round is a home game for many of the fans, so the second round game would be the one that’s easiest to skip.

I firmly believe that 2 quarterfinal neutral sites would be easier to make successful than the current 4-site 1st and 2nd round format. Not only because it prevents having to scrape around looking for suitable hosts in the west, but because I think a good number of fans would (and currently do) choose to only attend games that "their" team is playing in. If games were sold 1 ticket per 1 game rather than as a session pass, that means the food, lodging and ticket expense for the average fan is cut in half. In some situations, there could even be fans who choose to make a long day of it and avoid lodging costs all together (your team plays at 2pm? You could do a long drive both ways the day of). If you really wanted to, it would even be possible to schedule all quarterfinal games on a Saturday to help traveling fans while still allowing all the games to be televised with little to no overlap (1pm and 6pm eastern time, 3pm and 8pm central).

On a side note, I've never checked prices for competing regional tickets in the past. When I just looked now, I saw that Cinci tickets are only $40 for the 2-day session; as opposed to $90 for St. Paul, $83 for Worcester, and $65 for Bridgeport (not including taxes and fees). That's a pretty large spread. Has that disparity in pricing always been so large? Can you imagine what the attendance would have been like at Xcel for that regional a couple years ago with MN and UND had tickets been priced at $40 for the 2-day pass?

I'm also pretty curious to see how Fargo does next year. If UND is playing the place will be bursting at the seams, but even if UND isn't there it could be a relative success. There are a lot of hockey-crazed folks in that neck of the woods. If prices are reasonable I could foresee a pretty good turnout even if UND isn't there.

[FreshFish]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I think that the Regionals will always struggle for attendance, but it could be a lot better if you could find ways to get locals to go.

Hmm...I thought I posted this idea earlier, but it doesn't seem to be here now.....

anyway, here's an idea that is designed to increase attendance by visitors as well as encourage locals to attend: instead of having a school or an arena be the sole host, have the school / arena and the local Chamber of Commerce (and perhaps State Dept of Tourism) be co-host. Then set up all sorts of tie-ins between the game and local businesses.
-- maybe you get a discount on the hotel, or a package that includes meals or a trip to the day spa or whatever (from inflated prices, sure, but still)
-- local skating rinks, perhaps (or in Bridgeport, the dog races, if it is still open),
-- meals, restaurants, other activities.
-- put together a vacation package for a bundle of events centered around the game but also to include lots of other stuff.

Under this model, having the arena empty out after the first game and then fill up again before the second game is a good thing, as it brings that many more people so spend money in the local area, especially if many parts of the package are paid for in advance (like you get coupons to different places ahead of time).

Might not be feasible today, but as marketing gets more sophisticated and personalized, I could see people having a menu of 20 choices and being able to pick as many or as few as they want and then have a bundled price for the entire deal. Could even tie in bus or train or plane schedule in a few years so that those people who aren't inclined to make travel plans can have it all done for them.

[Stauber1]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Hmm...I thought I posted this idea earlier, but it doesn't seem to be here now.....

anyway, here's an idea that is designed to increase attendance by visitors as well as encourage locals to attend: instead of having a school or an arena be the sole host, have the school / arena and the local Chamber of Commerce (and perhaps State Dept of Tourism) be co-host. Then set up all sorts of tie-ins between the game and local businesses.
-- maybe you get a discount on the hotel, or a package that includes meals or a trip to the day spa or whatever (from inflated prices, sure, but still)
-- local skating rinks, perhaps (or in Bridgeport, the dog races, if it is still open),
-- meals, restaurants, other activities.
-- put together a vacation package for a bundle of events centered around the game but also to include lots of other stuff.

Under this model, having the arena empty out after the first game and then fill up again before the second game is a good thing, as it brings that many more people so spend money in the local area, especially if many parts of the package are paid for in advance (like you get coupons to different places ahead of time).

Might not be feasible today, but as marketing gets more sophisticated and personalized, I could see people having a menu of 20 choices and being able to pick as many or as few as they want and then have a bundled price for the entire deal. Could even tie in bus or train or plane schedule in a few years so that those people who aren't inclined to make travel plans can have it all done for them.

That's a good idea, but there are a lot of logistics to work out in getting something like that set up and off the ground. I'm not sure the NCAA or bidding arenas or local government are going to be prepared to invest the resources needed to coordinate and make it happen, especially for an event that is only going to draw 8,00-10,000 (on a good day).

Ultimately, I think the most successful route would be to make it easier to attend the games and spend less money with less disruption to regular work-life, as opposed to making it a destination to spend more time and money.