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

[pgb-ohio]

The Great Eight

Had a few conversations on tournament design while in Boston. Tossed out one possibly new idea for the second round. For now, let's call it the "Great Eight."

Suppose the first round returns to campus sites, as many of us hope. Some have assumed that the second round would also be held at campus venues. Others have imagined two regionals, each of which would produce two FF teams. But I don't recall any previous proposal to have all 4 second round games at the same site.

True, John J. MacInnes helped us understand that an 8 Team Super Regional would be difficult-to-impossible to stage. But remember that would require 2 games for half of the participants. In other words, six games rather than four. The schedule for the Great Eight might look something like this:

Thursday: 2 Practices; 2 Locker Rooms Needed.

Friday: 2 Morning Skates, 4 Practices, 1 Night Game; 6 Locker Rooms Needed.

Saturday: 4 Morning Skates, 2 Practices, 2 Games; 6 Locker Rooms Needed.

Sunday: 2 Morning Skates, 1 Afternoon Game, 2 Locker Rooms Needed.

You might have to hold the two Saturday practices at a back-up facility. Otherwise, the above should be pretty manageable for an NHL or AHL facility.

And wouldn't this be a very appealing event from a fan point of view? 4 games in 3 days, every one of which determines a Frozen Four participant.

Top 10 Reasons The Great Eight Might Just Work:

1. Eight fanbases at the same site would go a long way toward filling up the Arena.
2. With eight teams, odds are good that you'd have some local schools. Again, all the better to fill the arena.
3. With 8 separate fanbases present, it would very difficult for one fanbase to "take over the building."
4. The Great Eight should be held in the "opposite" region of the Frozen Four. Western Frozen Four? Eastern Great Eight. And vice versa. Most fans would have good access to at least one of the two big events.
5. To win a national title, every team would have to travel outside its comfort zone for at least one game.
6. The Great Eight could be held in facilities that are smaller than the FF requires. Wouldn't it be cool to have a Great Eight in Providence or Albany?
7. Compact schedule allows fans to attend most or all of the event, missing little or no work.
8. NCAA only needs to rent 1 off-campus facility, as opposed to the current four.
9. TV only needs to set up at one site; one broadcast crew can cover the whole second round.
10. TV viewers can watch all 4 Quarterfinals with no time shifting/spoilers.

Thoughts/Reactions?

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: The Great Eight

1. Eight fanbases at the same site would go a long way toward filling up the Arena.
2. With eight teams, odds are good that you'd have some local schools. Again, all the better to fill the arena.
3. With 8 separate fanbases present, it would very difficult for one fanbase to "take over the building."
4. The Great Eight should be held in the "opposite" region of the Frozen Four. Western Frozen Four? Eastern Great Eight. And vice versa. Most fans would have good access to at least one of the two big events.
5. To win a national title, every team would have to travel outside its comfort zone for at least one game.
6. The Great Eight could be held in facilities that are smaller than the FF requires. Wouldn't it be cool to have a Great Eight in Providence or Albany?
7. Compact schedule allows fans to attend most or all of the event, missing little or no work.
8. NCAA only needs to rent 1 off-campus facility, as opposed to the current four.
9. TV only needs to set up at one site; one broadcast crew can cover the whole second round.
10. TV viewers can watch all 4 Quarterfinals with no time shifting/spoilers.

Thoughts/Reactions?

Some good ideas (as usual from you) and some things to think about. I especially like the angle of the East/West component of your thoughts and the idea that teams would have to play at least one of their four games outside their home region.

My two main fears are this would be a lot of skating so how well would the surface hold up after the first couple of days. Also even with the 8 fanbases in the city for the event, you would still run the risk of a sterile environment since we all know the vast majority of the 6 groups of fans without a team in the fight for a particular game would stay away until their team was playing. In 2015 I don't think there is a way to keep that from happening for the most part. Some FF have been better than others when it comes to a majority of the four fan bases being present, and some have been pretty bad. With 8 teams dividing up the tickets (so a much smaller representation from any one) this will be magnified.

I think since a good number of people have made the FF a destination regardless of the teams, you run a much smaller risk of people not showing up or being there when their team is not. The same just has not proven true for the regionals. I can count on my two hands the number of Notre Dame season ticket holders who were at any of the three games in South Bend in March. Some of that is attributable to the fatigue of another disappointing season by Notre Dame but not all of it. People everywhere just do not like to watch games not involving their teams and live sports as entertainment has been a fading proposition for a number of years now. I just don't think we are ever going to have neutral site regionals (like now or in the event of a Super Eight) again where the seats are consistently filled. That ship has sailed and we need to just keep the tournament like it is and accept the sterile atmosphere (I can't imagine minding if my team is winning one or two games) or agree that the sterile atmosphere takes too much away from the games and return all preliminary rounds to the campus of the higher seed.

[johnk]

Re: The Great Eight

Had a few conversations on tournament design while in Boston. Tossed out one possibly new idea for the second round. For now, let's call it the "Great Eight."

Suppose the first round returns to campus sites, as many of us hope. Some have assumed that the second round would also be held at campus venues. Others have imagined two regionals, each of which would produce two FF teams. But I don't recall any previous proposal to have all 4 second round games at the same site.

True, John J. MacInnes helped us understand that an 8 Team Super Regional would be difficult-to-impossible to stage. But remember that would require 2 games for half of the participants. In other words, six games rather than four. The schedule for the Great Eight might look something like this:

Thursday: 2 Practices; 2 Locker Rooms Needed.

Friday: 2 Morning Skates, 4 Practices, 1 Night Game; 6 Locker Rooms Needed.

Saturday: 4 Morning Skates, 2 Practices, 2 Games; 6 Locker Rooms Needed.

Sunday: 2 Morning Skates, 1 Afternoon Game, 2 Locker Rooms Needed.

You might have to hold the two Saturday practices at a back-up facility. Otherwise, the above should be pretty manageable for an NHL or AHL facility.

And wouldn't this be a very appealing event from a fan point of view? 4 games in 3 days, every one of which determines a Frozen Four participant.

Top 10 Reasons The Great Eight Might Just Work:

1. Eight fanbases at the same site would go a long way toward filling up the Arena.
2. With eight teams, odds are good that you'd have some local schools. Again, all the better to fill the arena.
3. With 8 separate fanbases present, it would very difficult for one fanbase to "take over the building."
4. The Great Eight should be held in the "opposite" region of the Frozen Four. Western Frozen Four? Eastern Great Eight. And vice versa. Most fans would have good access to at least one of the two big events.
5. To win a national title, every team would have to travel outside its comfort zone for at least one game.
6. The Great Eight could be held in facilities that are smaller than the FF requires. Wouldn't it be cool to have a Great Eight in Providence or Albany?
7. Compact schedule allows fans to attend most or all of the event, missing little or no work.
8. NCAA only needs to rent 1 off-campus facility, as opposed to the current four.
9. TV only needs to set up at one site; one broadcast crew can cover the whole second round.
10. TV viewers can watch all 4 Quarterfinals with no time shifting/spoilers.

Thoughts/Reactions?

Like it except play all the games in 2 days. 2 Friday night and 2 Sat afternoon. Plenty of time for practice. Thursday and Friday 9-3. Fans more likely to stick around with that scenario.

[manurespreader]

Re: The Great Eight

Had a few conversations on tournament design while in Boston. Tossed out one possibly new idea for the second round. For now, let's call it the "Great Eight."

Suppose the first round returns to campus sites, as A FEW of us hope.

Thoughts/Reactions?

FYP there.

ESPN came right out and said on the radio that if it were on campus sites, they would not cover it except via espn3. So as far as growing the game, well maybe not...

Certainly the atmosphere is not that great in the Mid west, though this year was ok. But in the other regionals it's acceptable to good. So the question ought to be, how can we maintain the neutral sites that coaches prefer, and have a descent atmosphere in the midwest.

In the east, you have the games in a location that allows fans to get to the games of their team within a reasonable drive time and there are so many teams close that you have a good chance of succeeding.

So what if you could find a location for the mid-west games that were close to a larger number of teams,( rather than Grand Rapids or Cincinnati) than you would have a better chance that some of those local teams would get in. So what's to prevent the mid west to be held in say Duluth for a couple of years.

Close to a lot of teams, nice rink that can handle the teams, city big enough to house everyone, descent air connections, and lots of locals who would go. Yes, it mostly shuts out fans from ohio, but they don't go anyway.It would be a similar situation that you had this year at ND except more locals would go.

[TUSCHWI]

Re: The Great Eight

FYP there.

ESPN came right out and said on the radio that if it were on campus sites, they would not cover it except via espn3. So as far as growing the game, well maybe not...

Certainly the atmosphere is not that great in the Mid west, though this year was ok. But in the other regionals it's acceptable to good. So the question ought to be, how can we maintain the neutral sites that coaches prefer, and have a descent atmosphere in the midwest.

In the east, you have the games in a location that allows fans to get to the games of their team within a reasonable drive time and there are so many teams close that you have a good chance of succeeding.

So what if you could find a location for the mid-west games that were close to a larger number of teams,( rather than Grand Rapids or Cincinnati) than you would have a better chance that some of those local teams would get in. So what's to prevent the mid west to be held in say Duluth for a couple of years.

Close to a lot of teams, nice rink that can handle the teams, city big enough to house everyone, descent air connections, and lots of locals who would go. Yes, it mostly shuts out fans from ohio, but they don't go anyway.It would be a similar situation that you had this year at ND except more locals would go.

I'm going to toss my 2-cents worth in. I'm like most and hate seeing empty rinks. Given that ESPN apparently wouldn't cover campus sites, then I would like to see the NCAA follow (at least in the West or Mid-West) the Fargo model more, or Green Bay, mid-sized arenas (8,000 ish) that have good hockey fan bases and that are relatively close to many teams that could make the tournament. Seeing Fargo filled to the brim with great fans was fantastic. Green Bay has done that and could again especially with the resurgence of Tech and and NCHC teams, Minnesota, Michigan and the eventual resurrection of Wisconsin. I mean no disrespect to South Bend or Cincinnati, but for whatever reason those places just don't draw well, even if the local teams playing there.

And lower the ticket prices NC$$. Anyone who's taken Econ 101 knows that if the demand isn't there (and there is plenty of supply) you have to lower the price point to generate the demand. But I know that will go in one NC$$ ear and bounce right back out :-)

I do like the idea of a Super-8 regional. I would actually like to see the B1G and NCHC do that in Minneapolis - a monster conference tournament which would pack whatever facility they play in. But that's another thread.

Thanks for letting me rant.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: The Great Eight

I mean no disrespect to South Bend or Cincinnati, but for whatever reason those places just don't draw well, even if the local teams playing there.

And lower the ticket prices NC$$. Anyone who's taken Econ 101 knows that if the demand isn't there (and there is plenty of supply) you have to lower the price point to generate the demand. But I know that will go in one NC$$ ear and bounce right back out :-)

A nit with one of your overall points. In fact, Notre Dame drew in excess of 4500 per game this season, and that was with a boring home schedule and a mediocre team. Had Notre Dame made the NCAAs the CFIA would have been packed because the vast majority of the 2500 season ticket holders who were forced to buy tickets to the games would have been there. There is no doubt in my mind that the atmosphere for the CFIA with a Notre Dame team playing one or both days would have been as good as any regional environment in recent memory. Also Cincinnati actually had decent crowds last year despite the fact Wisconsin and Ferris, the two "close" teams were hardly an easy drive away. Outside of the Fargo regional this season, the crowds in Cincy were the closest to being actually what the boxscore said they were that I have seen in a decade. One reason was because of your later point about ticket prices. Cincinnati charged less for tickets for their regional last season than any in recent memory, with tickets being the same price as for the 2004 Midwest regional in Grand Rapids. Ticket prices are clearly one reason why a regional is empty or has at least a decent number of butts in seats. Nearly every season since the field expanded in 2003 ticket price increases each year have faaaaaaaaar outpaced inflation in almost every regional held.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: The Great Eight

I think since a good number of people have made the FF a destination regardless of the teams, you run a much smaller risk of people not showing up or being there when their team is not. The same just has not proven true for the regionals... That ship has sailed and we need to just keep the tournament like it is and accept the sterile atmosphere (I can't imagine minding if my team is winning one or two games) or agree that the sterile atmosphere takes too much away from the games and return all preliminary rounds to the campus of the higher seed.

My first thought was that the Great Eight would be the best chance to create a "regional" that would be a destination for fans, regardless of teams. Would it still fall short of an ideal turnout? Quite possibly. Would it take a period of years to get established? Definitely. But again, it's the best chance for success at a neutral site, IMHO.

My second thought was that this was a true compromise, meaning that the overall design would strike a balance between the competing concerns. Crowd & atmosphere is emphasized in the first round; neutral sites from the second round forward. Don't want to play in front of a hostile crowd in the NCAA's? Finish in the top 8. My plan avoids the scenario where a Ferris State finishes in the Top 8, yet still has to beat Minnesota in Mariucci, in the second round, to get to the FF. (2003)

Like it except play all the games in 2 days. 2 Friday night and 2 Sat afternoon. Plenty of time for practice. Thursday and Friday 9-3. Fans more likely to stick around with that scenario.

Oh, as a fan I'd certainly prefer that. Very friendly amendment. I just wanted to address the Game Management concern about too many games/too short a time frame right up front. But if Game Management can make your schedule happen, I'm in.

It does seem to me that the participating teams could survive with one turn on the main ice sheet, rather than two. But again I was trying to take into account the expressed need for both a practice and a separate morning skate prior to competing.

FYP there.

Well, I could play along and re-fix my post. But let's just cut to the chase and acknowledge that there's clearly a difference of opinion here between East and West. The idea that there's only a few people who think the status quo is a problem is silly. But yes, "survey numbers" would look quite different in an East/West comparison.

ESPN came right out and said on the radio that if it were on campus sites, they would not cover it except via espn3. So as far as growing the game, well maybe not...

Disappointing to hear, but that would be a price I'm willing to pay. Yes, the Western regionals have been that bad. Or, in the case of Fargo, utterly un-neutral.

Under these circumstances, I would hope that ESPN would be willing to sell the ESPN3 feed to local broadcasters. Also, one would hope the games would at least be available on the regular channels on tape delay basis. Note that under the status quo, some of the first round games are only available on tape delay.

Certainly the atmosphere is not that great in the Midwest, though this year was ok.

Simply not true. Overwhelming home ice advantage at one, mausoleum atmosphere at the other. Not working, period.

But in the other regionals it's acceptable to good. So the question ought to be, how can we maintain the neutral sites that coaches prefer, and have a descent atmosphere in the midwest.

Again, my intent was to offer a compromise package, taking both of the main factors into account. If you reject my compromise, I certainly respect that.

In the east, you have the games in a location that allows fans to get to the games of their team within a reasonable drive time and there are so many teams close that you have a good chance of succeeding.

So what if you could find a location for the mid-west games that were close to a larger number of teams,( rather than Grand Rapids or Cincinnati) than you would have a better chance that some of those local teams would get in. So what's to prevent the mid west to be held in say Duluth for a couple of years. Close to a lot of teams, nice rink that can handle the teams, city big enough to house everyone, descent air connections, and lots of locals who would go.

Since it's UMD's home ice, it's blackballed under the current system.

Yes, it mostly shuts out fans from ohio, but they don't go anyway. It would be a similar situation that you had this year at ND except more locals would go.

A bit rudely put; but I'm on the record as agreeing with you location-wise. A fan of the sport, I believe it's urgently important to put the first two rounds in places where fans will actually attend. IMHO, there isn't a market here for the first two rounds -- unless Ohio State, Miami or BG team is playing at home.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: The Great Eight

My first thought was that the Great Eight would be the best chance to create a "regional" that would be a destination for fans, regardless of teams. Would it still fall short of an ideal turnout? Quite possibly. Would it take a period of years to get established? Definitely. But again, it's the best chance for success at a neutral site, IMHO.

It would be nice to see something like this tried, and also as you say to give it a while to get its footing. We've given the current system 12 seasons now, nearly as long as the previous format, which went 15 seasons. 12 and 3 if you separate at the point they started scheduling "neutral" site regionals. If they are going to try something new, give it at least 2 seasons to work out the kinks and at least another 2 or 3 to see if the format indeed creates a second destination for fans.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Great Eight

It would be nice to see something like this tried, and also as you say to give it a while to get its footing. We've given the current system 12 seasons now, nearly as long as the previous format, which went 15 seasons. 12 and 3 if you separate at the point they started scheduling "neutral" site regionals. If they are going to try something new, give it at least 2 seasons to work out the kinks and at least another 2 or 3 to see if the format indeed creates a second destination for fans.

It was tried. From the 1991-92 season to the 2001-02 season there were just two regionals, designated "East" and "West". Each had 6 teams, not 8, since it was a 12 team field back then.

Attendance sucked. NCAA attendance records show that the two regionals combined normally drew between 33,000 and 38,000 annually. I think that's even below today's numbers.

I'm not even sure putting the regional in the home of the top seed would work. I think it was about 1994 when East Lansing hosted, and Mich St. was there, and attendance still sucked.

I remember walking into Dane County Coliseum in 1999 for the West regional and sitting center ice, and thinking how sad it was since that arena was normally. crazy.

Edit: Attendance history for those interested. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/frozen...Attendance.pdf

[stuckinwi]

Re: The Great Eight

I like the Great 8 idea, another bonus for it is the fact that the site is predetermined for all participants. You can plan for it much more easily than the current regional system. And you don't have to worry about bracket integrity at all, that problem is gone.

One of the biggest things I like about the regionals is seeing teams you don't normally see. Granted this year, I got to see UND and St, Clooud again, but Quinnipiac (I'm wearing my new hoodie so I can spell it) was a new team for me, the "great 8" would be an event I'd love to attend to see more teams.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: The Great Eight

It was tried. From the 1991-92 season to the 2001-02 season there were just two regionals, designated "East" and "West". Each had 6 teams, not 8, since it was a 12 team field back then.

While there would be similarities, I strongly disagree that "it was tried." Consider:

1990's Format: 6 teams; 4 games; 2 Frozen Four teams chosen; Only teams from outside the region were seeded 5 & 6.

Great Eight Format: 8 teams, 4 games, 4 Frozen Four teams chosen; Top teams from both regions present.

IMHO, the Great Eight format would be a much better value for the neutral fan.

Attendance sucked. NCAA attendance records show that the two regionals combined normally drew between 33,000 and 38,000 annually. I think that's even below today's numbers.
I'm not even sure putting the regional in the home of the top seed would work. I think it was about 1994 when East Lansing hosted, and Mich St. was there, and attendance still sucked.

I'll respond to the qualitative judgment this way. I went to regionals at Munn, Yost and Mariucci with the six team format, and had a great time at all three sites. Munn wasn't sold out the year I went, but the atmosphere was clearly better than we've been getting at Toledo, Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids, etc.

I remember walking into Dane County Coliseum in 1999 for the West regional and sitting center ice, and thinking how sad it was since that arena was normally. crazy.
Edit: Attendance history for those interested. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/frozen...Attendance.pdf

Wasn't at Dane, so I can't comment on that. Was the problem the participating teams? Regardless, I would still choose the crowds of the 1990's over the current situation in West, and am surprised anyone would even call that into question.

On the quantitative side, I'm guessing you'd hit your 33,000 mark after the first round games at campus sites. So in that sense, crowds drawn by the Great Eight would be gravy. But of course the real goal is to put energized fans into the seats at all stages of the tournament. I'd go this far. If the Great Eight was given a fair trial and it failed to produce, then the fallback position is campus sites for both the first and second round. I can easily understand that a UND fan would be salivating at the prospect of having two rounds played at the Ralph. But work with me here. I'm trying to reach out to those who are sincerely worried about fairness if all games outside of the FF are played in campus rinks. If we can sell the package deal and get the first round back on campus, wouldn't you be much better off than you are now, at least in a normal year?

[The Zlax45]

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

The biggest issue with on campus regionals is the fact the last three national champions each play in small facilities which would never host.

[manurespreader]

Re: The Great Eight

Since it's UMD's home ice, it's blackballed under the current system.
[/QUOTE]

No not true, not any more black-balled than South Bend was this year.

What I hear you saying here is that, regardless if the atmosphere concerns could be mitigated, regardless of the issues with some teams unable to host because they do not own the rink, regardless of the neutrality issues and the advantages a host team might have, (in particular an olympic rink team at high altitude like CC, which would be a significant advantage), regardless of the TV coverage issues, you are STILL, against the regional system.

It would be interesting to speculate on which teams in this years field would have been there had it been in Duluth.

[ericredaxe]

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

OK, here is my idea:

First round: campus sites. 1 hosts 16; 2 hosts 15 etc. I'd think ESPN would fall in, once they realize that many campus sites are better arenas than the current regional sites... So maybe the nicer arenas get ESPN.

2nd round: 2 regional sites one east, one west. Two games, one weekend day. Ticket is good for both games. Remaining 8 teams are first regionaly grouped then reseeded for this round... Eastern teams play in the east, western teams in the west. (Highest remaining east team plays lowest east team) If there are not 8 of each, lowest seeds travel.

Frozen four: As usual, but teams are again reseeded so highest remaining seed plays lowest.

[CLS]

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

My two main fears are this would be a lot of skating so how well would the surface hold up after the first couple of days. Also even with the 8 fanbases in the city for the event, you would still run the risk of a sterile environment since we all know the vast majority of the 6 groups of fans without a team in the fight for a particular game would stay away until their team was playing.

Both well taken. It appeared to me that even at the TD Garden that the ice was crap in the second semi-final. Seemed to be a lot of losing edges (or as some announcers like to say “blowing a tire”), and funny bounces. Of course (somebody correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t quote a source) the TD Garden doesn’t have a great reputation as an ice surface in the NHL, so maybe that’s it and maybe my observations and conclusions are wrong. As for the other, maybe the solution is smaller venues (3-4,000ish), and sell tickets for single games, with perhaps a package discount for someone who wants to see all the games.

While an event like this may appeal to college hockey junkies, I don’t think that there are very many of us. And speaking for myself, I would attend an event like this only if I could drive (I wouldn’t stay overnight). As for the non-local fans of the teams, you’re asking them to travel for a maximium of one game involving their team. I don’t think many would do that.

ESPN came right out and said on the radio that if it were on campus sites, they would not cover it except via espn3. So as far as growing the game, well maybe not...

Disappointing to hear, but that would be a price I'm willing to pay. Yes, the Western regionals have been that bad. Or, in the case of Fargo, utterly un-neutral.

We may be once again just talking and east/west difference, but if that’s true, it’s a price I would not be willing to pay. The TV audience may be miniscule by TV standards, but I’ll bet that you lose more spectators (and yes, I understand there’s a difference between a live viewer and a television viewer) by not televising than you do by retaining the current setup. At least the fans of the visiting team get to watch the game on TV in the current setup, if they don’t have the time or resources to travel to a regional (or if there’s not enough room for them in an on-campus regional).

Don't want to play in front of a hostile crowd in the NCAA's? Finish in the top 8.

pgb, I hope we’ve had enough civil encounters that I can say this without sugar coating it and avoid setting off a flame war, but that comment strikes me as insulting and disingenuous. In today’s environment, what you’re really saying is: “Don’t want to play in front of a hostile crowd in the NCAA’s? Be a B1G, HE, or NCHC team.” Because that’s where the top 8 are going to come from. Oh sure, a Mankato might sneak in (and when they do, they may only be showing that they were a quirk of the PWR), or a Michigan Tech (if one of the power conferences, like the B1G this year, has an off year). The odds are already stacked against you, because you’re dramatically outsourced and in order to get a game with a power conference team you’ll have to play there two or three times there in order to get one game at home, if at all. Now we’ll stack them some more by sending you to Minneapolis or Grand Forks for the first round.

I understand that this is a matter of taste, but I think it’s a good thing that RIT beat Mankato (though I would have liked it more if it had been a traditional power rather than Mankato) or that Holy Cross beat Minnesota, or that Yale or Providence wins the FF. And I think all of these would have been much less likely to happen if the first round had been on-site.

…So the question ought to be, how can we maintain the neutral sites that coaches prefer, and have a descent atmosphere in the midwest.

Again, my intent was to offer a compromise package, taking both of the main factors into account. If you reject my compromise, I certainly respect that.

In my mind, manurespreader accurately summarized the compromise, and I guess, pgb, I’m wondering who you are aiming your compromise proposal at. The more I read about this issue, the more I think that the real parties in interest are (A) The part of the NCAA, mainly image conscious and financial, I think, that is concerned with the fact that they’re not getting suitable bids for neutral site regionals from the west (you and the folks to whom atmosphere are important are aligned with this group); and (B) the coaches, who I think if a vote were taken would vote for neutral site regionals.

If you or I could come up with some magic argument so that everyone on the USCHO message board agreed, what difference would it make? Not much, really.