What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Have have some questions about moving to top seeds hosting. how much control will the schools have vs the NCAA. Anyone who has attended an NCAA event knows the the NCAA is very strict about advertising and merchandise sales. Who would set the ticket prices? I don't think that host schools would be able to guarantee season ticket holders there regular seats. I cant imagine the NCAA allowing discounted student tickets or an official student section, since they didn't allow those when schools were able to host with their regular arenas. Also, do all these schools have ticket offices that will be able to handle the level of demand over the week, or will it all be farmed out to Ticketmaster (with their extreme add-on fees)

All of your questions are legitimate. But in evaluating the proposal, remember that no one is claiming it's perfect -- just significantly better than the status quo. Consider:

Gotta believe that ticket prices would come down to some extent, given that there would be no need to rent outside facilities. Nevertheless, would the NCAA be the ones to set the prices? Probably, but that can't be worse than it is right now. As far as people not getting their usual seats, that would likely be true, especially if your school sells split season packages. But what if your fanbase had to travel hundreds of miles to get to a neutral site? By comparison, isn't having slightly worse seats in your own building a mere trifle? And wouldn't the gas cost quickly outdistance the Ticketmaster fees?

I also wonder if some people are overestimating the number of tickets that can be sold with just one week notice, particularly for teams 6, 7, and 8 where fans may not have been expecting to host.

Could be. But at least you're selling just the tickets to a local event, not travel packages. Short notice travel packages are much tougher sell.

Again, the proper comparison is with the status quo, not with a hypothetical (but unattainable) perfect system.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

First off the price needs to go down. I wanted to go to the west regional in St. Paul last year but ticket were too expensive. I think the top seed gets the home bracket could work. If the NCAA wants to keep the neutral regional they could try something different and do an Olympic style tournament were round 1 is a round robin. Games could be from Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Sunday. This way if do travel to a regional event you at least get to see your team play three times and the NCAA would not have to worry about conference match ups. Also picking a better regional cities would help no more Toledo or Cincinnati.
Pool A
Minnesota State
Nebraska Omaha
St. Cloud State
Rochester Tech

Pool B
North Dakota
Michigan Tech
Minnesota
Quinnipiac

Pool C
Boston University
Minnesota Duluth
Boston College
Yale

Pool D
Miami
Denver
Harvard
Providence

Top team from each pool would advance to the Frozen Four.

[Almington]

All of your questions are legitimate. But in evaluating the proposal, remember that no one is claiming it's perfect -- just significantly better than the status quo. Consider:

Gotta believe that ticket prices would come down to some extent, given that there would be no need to rent outside facilities. Nevertheless, would the NCAA be the ones to set the prices? Probably, but that can't be worse than it is right now. As far as people not getting their usual seats, that would likely be true, especially if your school sells split season packages. But what if your fanbase had to travel hundreds of miles to get to a neutral site? By comparison, isn't having slightly worse seats in your own building a mere trifle? And wouldn't the gas cost quickly outdistance the Ticketmaster fees?

Could be. But at least you're selling just the tickets to a local event, not travel packages. Short notice travel packages are much tougher sell.

Again, the proper comparison is with the status quo, not with a hypothetical (but unattainable) perfect system.

I'm just asking questions because after reading this thread (and those from previous seasons) I'm not convinced that moving to higher seeds hosting IS better that the current system if you return to allowing on-campus hosting in the West and Midwest regionals, particularly if the price is set by the NCAA at 2 to 3 times more than a regular season game for most schools.

I ask that because the NCAA is going to be driven by what nets them the most revenue, not what sells the most tickets.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

I'm just asking questions because after reading this thread (and those from previous seasons) I'm not convinced that moving to higher seeds hosting IS better that the current system if you return to allowing on-campus hosting in the West and Midwest regionals, particularly if the price is set by the NCAA at 2 to 3 times more than a regular season game for most schools.

Of the multiple legitimate concerns, this one is at the top of the list. It can't be said often enough: The college hockey fan base as a whole has a serious problem with the ticket prices that have been charged at regionals.

I ask that because the NCAA is going to be driven by what nets them the most revenue, not what sells the most tickets.

Forgive a little play on words, but the NCAA will ultimately be concerned with net revenue, not the dollar amount in the till.

To state the obvious, unsold tickets produce no revenue at all. The NCAA will be slow to react -- as any large, cumbersome bureaucracy would be. But if reducing prices will improve the net, that will eventually happen. Call it greed, call it good business, or anything in between. But moving the Round of 16 back to campus would give the NCAA a real opportunity to implement a lower sticker price/larger net revenue strategy -- a win-win.

In your previous post, you noted the NCAA would try to exploit merchandise sales at the campus sites, and I agree with you. The same general principle applies here as well. Empty chairs don't buy T-shirts. Both no-shows and unsold tickets represent a lost opportunity to sell memorabilia. As such, I have "faith" that the NCAA will take actions designed to sell more merchandise, not less.

There is a huge irony here. A big reason the current regionals are such a mess is the NCAA moved regional games off-campus in response to non-economic concerns. A large portion of the hockey community became extremely concerned that campus sites were conferring an unfair home ice advantage. The NCAA's response was essentially: OK, we'll move you off-campus as long as it doesn't affect net revenue. Giving up hard sellouts at the Yosts and Mariuccis left the NCAA with some ground to make up. Answer: Persuade off-campus venues to share the risk of lower net revenue. For a period of years, it worked. But it also led to higher ticket prices, as the venues tried to meet their guarantees, while still making a profit. Now that the venues, at least in the West, have begun refusing to participate, the formula is falling apart. As much as anything, that is why change is a real possibility at this juncture.

Now, if we transition back, will the NCAA quietly try to keep a larger piece of the pie for itself as part of the deal? Oh, probably. But if ticket prices go down at least some, and the number of fans who get to participate improves greatly, isn't that better than the status quo?

Last but not least, it's important to remember that the NCAA doesn't get its hands on the gas money or air fares fans spend to get to the remote venues. So they won't mind if those dollars aren't spent. But the savings to fans who don't have travel nearly as far? Those savings will be real enough.

[Almington]

Of the multiple legitimate concerns, this one is at the top of the list. It can't be said often enough: The college hockey fan base as a whole has a serious problem with the ticket prices that have been charged at regionals.

Forgive a little play on words, but the NCAA will ultimately be concerned with net revenue, not the dollar amount in the till.

To state the obvious, unsold tickets produce no revenue at all. The NCAA will be slow to react -- as any large, cumbersome bureaucracy would be. But if reducing prices will improve the net, that will eventually happen. Call it greed, call it good business, or anything in between. But moving the Round of 16 back to campus would give the NCAA a real opportunity to implement a lower sticker price/larger net revenue strategy -- a win-win.

In your previous post, you noted the NCAA would try to exploit merchandise sales at the campus sites, and I agree with you. The same general principle applies here as well. Empty chairs don't buy T-shirts. Both no-shows and unsold tickets represent a lost opportunity to sell memorabilia. As such, I have "faith" that the NCAA will take actions designed to sell more merchandise, not less.

There is a huge irony here. A big reason the current regionals are such a mess is the NCAA moved regional games off-campus in response to non-economic concerns. A large portion of the hockey community became extremely concerned that campus sites were conferring an unfair home ice advantage. The NCAA's response was essentially: OK, we'll move you off-campus as long as it doesn't affect net revenue. Giving up hard sellouts at the Yosts and Mariuccis left the NCAA with some ground to make up. Answer: Persuade off-campus venues to share the risk of lower net revenue. For a period of years, it worked. But it also led to higher ticket prices, as the venues tried to meet their guarantees, while still making a profit. Now that the venues, at least in the West, have begun refusing to participate, the formula is falling apart. As much as anything, that is why change is a real possibility at this juncture.

Now, if we transition back, will the NCAA quietly try to keep a larger piece of the pie for itself as part of the deal? Oh, probably. But if ticket prices go down at least some, and the number of fans who get to participate improves greatly, isn't that better than the status quo?

Last but not least, it's important to remember that the NCAA doesn't get its hands on the gas money or air fares fans spend to get to the remote venues. So they won't mind if those dollars aren't spent. But the savings to fans who don't have travel nearly as far? Those savings will be real enough.

I agree that reducing the overall cost of attending and increasing the number of fans who get to attend NCAA games would likely result from moving back to campus locations and are worthy goals.

My (likely unanswerable) question then becomes: what does the ticket prices need to be so that 1.) the costs of running the event are covered for the school and 2.) the NCAA ends up with the same net revenue (after accounting for any increased costs) as they do under the current system.

Does that result in minimum ticket prices of $10 or $30? And do you allow schools to charge different prices?

[LtPowers]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

And how do you solve the problems the neutral sites were intended to prevent?


Powers &8^]

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

And how do you solve the problems the neutral sites were intended to prevent?

Eliminate all at-large bids. The six autobid winners go to the Frozen Four city and play down to a champion.

Am I in favor of that rhetorical answer? Of course not. Any system that any of us would actually want to try is going to involve some compromises.

A more serious answer? Whatever the new system winds up being, all home ice advantage must be earned by winning hockey games.

...My (likely unanswerable) question then becomes: what does the ticket prices need to be so that 1.) the costs of running the event are covered for the school and 2.) the NCAA ends up with the same net revenue (after accounting for any increased costs) as they do under the current system.

Does that result in minimum ticket prices of $10 or $30? And do you allow schools to charge different prices?

Face value of the tickets under the proposed system? That is unanswerable, at least for an individual poster. My honest beliefs are: The NCAA would want to "get it right"; they'd fall short in some respects leaving many dissatisfied; and that the overall cost of attending for most would be more favorable than now. But I have no basis for proposing a specific price.

As for the different prices, I certainly think that would be possible. The current system allows for different prices between the various sites. My question for you is: Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

From an economic point of view, it makes sense that variations in demand for tickets; supply of seats; local cost of living; and overhead would lead to different prices from one venue to another. On the other hand, if there wasn't a set national price, identical at all sites, there will be those who scream bloody murder. If it were my call, I'd probably try to find a middle ground where small variations in price were permitted. With large variations, those at the expensive venues would be the ones screaming. If no variations were permitted, people at some sites would complain they were subsidizing others. The best you can do is try to find the sweet spot where everybody is grumbling a little, but no one has a major grievance.

[SJHovey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

And how do you solve the problems the neutral sites were intended to prevent?


Powers &8^]

The neutral sites were intended to prevent situations like 1998, where UND was a top seed but had to go to Yost to play the regional, where Michigan also happened to be placed. That's not the only example, obviously, but it was one of them.

I'm of a mixed view. I remember going to home site NCAA quarter final games in the 1980's. Big advantage to the home team, but candidly, they earned it through their play in the regular season. There were a few upsets, but not to the extent we see at the neutral sites.

The atmosphere, though, was a hundred times better.

Some people believe it's better to have upsets, have #4 seeds make it to the Frozen Four. I can see that.

Personally I would prefer (as a fan) to see the four best teams in the Frozen Four each year. I just think it makes for outstanding hockey. It's great to see Butler make a run to the championship basketball game, but they don't ever win.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

If the NCAA wants to keep the neutral regional they could try something different and do an Olympic style tournament were round 1 is a round robin. Games could be from Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Sunday. This way if do travel to a regional event you at least get to see your team play three times and the NCAA would not have to worry about conference match ups. Also picking a better regional cities would help no more Toledo or Cincinnati.

Not sure if I have seen this particular proposal before in one of these threads. It would be interesting to consider something like this maybe. I'd make a slight change though. How about first round games on the campus of the higher seeds, followed by two second round regionals in neutral buildings, round-robin style or perhaps double elimination style, top two from each building advancing to the FF. My thought on this is having number one seeds host 4 team regionals -- especially on short notice -- might be impossible for some schools for all the reasons we have talked about; seating availability, the ability to even host three other teams (2 of three times Notre Dame was a top seed we played at the Joyce, hosting 3 other teams there was not a viable option), hotel availability in some towns on one week's notice.

Correct me if I am wrong, but would round robin work since it is possible it would include games on the third day that were meaningless if the same two teams win on both the first and second nights? A double elimination style takes care of this as all teams would get at least two games and two would get a third.

I like an idea like this since it gives up opening round games that would be played before full buildings almost every year, and it gives more incentive for folks to travel to a neutral site (assured of two games for your troubles) and shakes up the tournament format, which almost everyone who follows the sport closely agrees is needed.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

FWIW, basketball regionals can be done at campus sites, but are never allowed to be "home games" until the Final Four. They theoretically could do the same thing, although I'm not sure how much attendance would be affected...

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

The neutral sites were intended to prevent situations like 1998, where UND was a top seed but had to go to Yost to play the regional, where Michigan also happened to be placed. That's not the only example, obviously, but it was one of them.

There are quite a few such examples, but the one you've named is probably the most notorious.

Note that the neutral site system hasn't fixed this. Not forgetting there is a genuine difference between home ice and home crowd. But unearned home cooking reared its head over the weekend. The NCAA succumbed to the temptation to place PC in Providence, and the home folk helped get the bottom seed to the Frozen Four. I don't mean to disrespect the great effort put forth by the Friars. But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

FWIW, basketball regionals can be done at campus sites, but are never allowed to be "home games" until the Final Four. They theoretically could do the same thing, although I'm not sure how much attendance would be affected...

I've considered this, and think it would genuinely help, at least in the West. As one example, I think a number of schools not named Michigan would do OK hosting at Yost. Another example, though not a perfect analogy: Many years ago UMD hosted a home WCHA playoff series against UND at the Gophers' home rink because the DECC was unavailable. They got a solid turnout at the gate. It can work. But if the goals of maximizing attendance, atmosphere and revenue are important, the results would fall well short of letting the top 8 teams host on campus.

EDIT: The local university would undoubtedly inherit most or all of the administrative duties of holding the event. The "hosting away from home" idea is that the location would be convenient to the highest seed, but would satisfy the desire to keep the game off the higher seed's campus. Tweaking the current system in this way would allow a number of great hockey buildings back into the mix for regional play. Right now they're blackballed because they're on somebody's campus...

[LtPowers]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Personally I would prefer (as a fan) to see the four best teams in the Frozen Four each year. I just think it makes for outstanding hockey. It's great to see Butler make a run to the championship basketball game, but they don't ever win.

Then why have sixteen teams in the tournament? Just go with the four teams with highest PWR and let them go at it.


Powers &8^]

[LtPowers]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just because it doesn't eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth mitigating the problem.


Powers &8^]

[SJHovey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Then why have sixteen teams in the tournament? Just go with the four teams with highest PWR and let them go at it.


Powers &8^]

I'm not opposed to upsets, or for that matter, giving teams a chance to upset a better team. But for all sports, just from a fan's perspective, I really enjoy it when the two very best teams meet for the championship. But underdog stories are always fun, and again, I'm certainly not opposed to taking away the possibility.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

There are quite a few such examples, but the one you've named is probably the most notorious.

Note that the neutral site system hasn't fixed this. Not forgetting there is a genuine difference between home ice and home crowd. But unearned home cooking reared its head over the weekend. The NCAA succumbed to the temptation to place PC in Providence, and the home folk helped get the bottom seed to the Frozen Four. I don't mean to disrespect the great effort put forth by the Friars. But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

Too bad the Frozen Four isn't in a far enough away location that, if Providence makes it to the championship, the other team's mascot grabs a Boston school's flag and skates around the arena with it.