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?

Good stuff; was just too busy yesterday to get on the board...

Well, kinda. Your absolute is atmosphere. As I understand it, it’s not home rinks for the first round, and if there were some other way of achieving atmosphere, you’d be OK with it. If your absolute is higher seed home ice for at least the first round, then we do have a clash of absolutes. To me, that’s what manurespreader was asking you; is your absolute atmosphere, or is it really home ice? To use a metaphor (more on that below), is home ice the “wolf” and atmosphere the “sheep’s clothing”?

My absolute is satisfactory atmosphere. If that could be accomplished without returning to campus sites, I'd be good to go.

The two issues are intertwined, at least in the West, because I'm extremely skeptical that anything other than a return to campus sites will fix the first round. Others go further, arguing that the only way to fix the first two rounds is have them on campus. I continue to believe that the 2nd Round could be successfully staged on neutral ice, whether you used 1 site (Great Eight) or 2 sites. I also continue to believe that my position is meaningfully different than the proposals that give the highest seeds two home games.

Quick clarification on "satisfactory." I'd be happy to stipulate that the Eastern Regionals are functioning at a C+/B- level. If all 4 regionals were performing at least that well, I'd certainly entertain the option of keeping things as they are. The trouble is, the Western regionals are frequently performing at the D or F level. The pattern is unmistakable. It's not limited to one or two cities; it's been happening for years. That's what's unacceptable. Something, anything, has to be done.

There are ways of preserving neutrality, and probably (as Stauber points out, there are no guarantees) improving atmosphere. But most or all of them that at least I can think of violate some other preferred feature that we’ve agreed on previously. If neutrality and atmosphere really are absolutes, then maybe we should revisit some of them, recognizing we aren’t as constrained by practicalities as the NCAA is.

For example, say to the NCHC, B1G, and WCHA (collectively the “West”) and to the ECAC, AHA, and HE collectively the “East”, “You have two slot in the Frozen Four. Determine them however you want.” This is how it was way back in the dark ages. The East could then continue to have their neutral sites, and the West could go to higher seed home rink first rounds or even regionals. Of course this presumes that “West” and “atmosphere” folks are the same and that “East” and “neutral” are the same, which may not be true. It also violates what I think many of us hold dear, the concept of a national tournament that has the same rules for everyone, but if neutrality and atmosphere are indeed absolutes and both sides would be willing to give on the “same rules” concept, maybe it should be explored.

I've thought of this, and speaking only for myself, I'd consider it. But I'd only go that route if both semi-finals were East/West match-ups. If the "wolf" in this scenario is an attempt to guarantee an East/West title game, that's an absolute deal breaker.

Overall, I'd view this as a retreat. The East vs. West match-ups are generally the most interesting games of the tournament. Capping the number of those games at two is a problem. Strictly limiting it to the championship game is unacceptable.

Don’t want to put words in your mouth, but one concept that’s been mentioned by “atmosphere” advocates is that it’s not only the size of the crowd, but the size of the crowd relative to the venue. So a crowd of 3,000 isn’t necessarily a bad thing per se but it’s a bad thing if it’s in a 10,000 seat venue. It’s OK in a 3200 seat venue (or a 2900 seat venue, but we have a different issue there). So why not suggest 3000 seat neutral site venues for the regionals? I don’t know if such places exist; Red Cows suggested some 4,000 seat sites in the Midwest and it was greeted with skepticism, but maybe it deserves a second look. In any case I don’t know why the NCAA required a 5,000 seat capacity for regional bids, when, at least in the Midwest, there wouldn’t be anywhere near 5,000 people there.

Conceptually I agree. But I'd need to know what buildings we're talking about before I could decide if this is a viable option. At an even more basic level, we wouldn't be addressing the problem of fans refusing to travel on short notice to the regionals. Whether the venue has 3,000 seats, 5,000 seats or 17,000 seats, a turnstile count of 500 is a major problem.

Or here’s another one. Put on-campus rinks back in the mix for regionals. Instead of four pre-determined regional sites, have, say, eight contingent sites and establish a rule that nobody gets to play on their home rink.

By having contingent venues, you could even establish a rule that the site has to be at least as convenient for the top seed as it is for anyone else. That would prevent, for example, Miami having to go to Providence; they might instead go to South Bend, while Mankato goes to, say, Mariucci, and making it reasonably convenient for at least one team would probably be beneficial for crowd size and atmosphere. Can’t speak for any of the other neutrality advocates, but it would satisfy me. Yes, this is kind of hare brained, but I bring up these to repeat the question. Is your absolute atmosphere, or home ice?

I'd consider contingent venues; this is actually pretty appealing. There are issues with it, however. For one, the "jilted" venues would be quite unhappy. A lot of schools take out their ice as soon as their team's season concludes. For a guaranteed event, on the right terms, I'm sure they'd leave in the ice for another week or two. For the possibility of home team games, the same. But the mere possibility of being a neutral site? I wonder.

I also have to question if the cost exceeds the benefit. Fargo was certainly a success in terms of atmosphere and at the gate. But there was a huge home crowd advantage for UND; the payoff in terms of neutrality was nominal IMHO. Still, trying to find more Fargos is a coherent strategy. Allowing campus sites back into the mix would make the search a lot easier. And I take it your position is that Fargo did offer a meaningful trade-off in terms of neutrality.

In any event, the Fargo example does do a good job of illustrating that atmosphere is the key for me. Fargo instead of Grand Forks isn't a deal breaker. But are there enough Fargos out there, even with campus sites once again available? And if a host school does qualify for the tournament, isn't there going to be an overwhelming temptation to let them play at home rather than exercising one of the contingencies?

Well played!

Ah, the battle of metaphors (which admittedly I started, quite clumsily). Always a perilous exercise, because there will always be arguments about how well the metaphor fits the situation. But in the spirit of the academic exercise, let me offer this one:

Enjoyed the restaurant metaphor; it really deserves a comparable response. But a quick, condensed reply:

Eating at a well-functioning, half-full, 2 Star restaurant is all well and fine. But insisting that others must eat at about-to-go-bankrupt restaurants is neither fair or acceptable. And when a restaurant is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, the food quality is quite likely to suffer.

[ericredaxe]

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

If the goal is to improve the atmosphere at the regional, higher seed hosting is reall the only option. I think there are too many people whose criteria for attending a regional are:

1. Proximity is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
2. Game time is such that taking time off from work is not required.
3. Price point of the ticket feels like college hockey pricing.

Fix those three items for a large number of people and atmosphere at the regionals will improve.

[LtPowers]

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

Good stuff; was just too busy yesterday to get on the board...My absolute is satisfactory atmosphere. If that could be accomplished without returning to campus sites, I'd be good to go.

Considering that the goal of the tournament is to determine the best team, shouldn't competitive fairness be the primary concern?


Powers &8^]

[The Freds]

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

If the goal is to improve the atmosphere at the regional, higher seed hosting is reall the only option. I think there are too many people whose criteria for attending a regional are:

1. Proximity is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
2. Game time is such that taking time off from work is not required.
3. Price point of the ticket feels like college hockey pricing.

Fix those three items for a large number of people and atmosphere at the regionals will improve.

For me this hits the nail on the head. I'm even open to the overnight stay if I can drive to it. Booking a flight with a few days notice generally puts the total cost of the trip out of reach for me, especially with the Frozen Four to follow two weeks later. I will go even if my team is not playing if the price is reasonable and the timing works.

[pgb-ohio]

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

Considering that the goal of the tournament is to determine the best team, shouldn't competitive fairness be the primary concern?

Obviously this is a complex conversation, and it's just not possible to mention every variable in every post. But sure -- competitive fairness should be one of the core concerns.

That said, I don't think anybody's talking about a format that's so unfair that you'd refuse to participate on principle. Due to the imperfection of the pairwise system, it can't be claimed that there's one -- and only one -- fair way to set up the bracket. On the bright side, that does allow for some wiggle room.

As just one example, giving Providence a home crowd advantage at this year certainly wasn't done to promote competitive fairness. The Friars' overall body of work justified letting them into the field, but I doubt there's any sort seeding formula that would have put them in the top band, or even the second band. Still, taking the full range of variables into account, the decision was deemed acceptable by most. Even after the Friars won it all, there wasn't much second guessing of their placement in the regionals.

[CLS]

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

...

I've thought of this [different regional formats in east and west], and speaking only for myself, I'd consider it. But I'd only go that route if both semi-finals were East/West match-ups. If the "wolf" in this scenario is an attempt to guarantee the East a berth in the title game, that's an absolute deal breaker.

Overall, I'd view this as a retreat. The East vs. West match-ups are generally the most interesting games of the tournament. Capping the number of those games at two is a problem. Strictly limiting it to the championship game is unacceptable.

Why?

You’re used the terms “absolute deal breaker” and “unacceptable” relative to suggestions that have very little, if anything, to do with atmosphere. Or are you defining “atmosphere” so broadly that guaranteeing the east (and in fairness, I hope the west) a slot in the finals detracts significantly from atmosphere? Sure, I like the east/west matchups also, but I don’t understand making it an “absolute deal breaker” issue. And I’d also argue with you if you were to try to tell me that an east/west final this year would have created a better atmosphere in Boston, at least as you’ve defined atmosphere in the past. With any other pairing, there would have been empty seats, fewer partisan fans, and less noise.

If there were a proposal that somehow managed to provide regionals with full arenas with screaming fans, but also guaranteed both east and west a spot in the finals would it still be unacceptable?

Hate to bring up another issue now, but I don’t understand this east/west fixation (I laugh every year at the oxymoronic “East All-American” and “West All-American” teams). I know a lot of folks, including me, would have preferred that BU and North Dakota not be matched in the semifinals. I would have preferred a seeded tournament, which I think would have meant North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. But I would have preferred a seeded tournament even if it meant North Dakota/Omaha and BU/Providence. Would you object to a seeded finals, if in some years that guarantees east and west a slot in the finals?

And I take it your position is that Fargo did offer a meaningful trade-off in terms of neutrality.

Yes, I’d call Fargo a neutral site, if that’s what you’re asking. I understand that with any realistic neutral site, it’s going to be more convenient for somebody. While I cringed at Miami having to play Providence in Providence, especially since I don’t believe Providence was the host school, I accepted it as pretty much a worst-case scenario. (After all, it improved the atmosphere, albeit in an unfair way).

In any event, the Fargo example does do a good job of illustrating that atmosphere is the key for me. Fargo instead of Grand Forks isn't a deal breaker. But are there enough Fargos out there, even with campus sites once again available? And if a host school does qualify for the tournament, isn't there going to be an overwhelming temptation to let them play at home rather than exercising one of the contingencies?

Of course Fargo is a useful example only because North Dakota made the tournament as a high seed. If they had made the tournament as a low seed, you'd have the Providence problem. If they did not make the tournament at all, the atmosphere wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. With regard to the first question, my original unthought-out suggestion was really restricting it to on-campus rinks because I’ve assumed that no unafilliated venue would accept a contingent booking. We’ve discussed that in the past when the question of rinks that are too small has come up. And while there might be temptation to let a team play at home, if letting a team play at home were forbidden by the regulations, the temptation would be irrelevant.

Enjoyed the restaurant metaphor; it really deserves a comparable response. But a quick, condensed reply:

Eating at a well-functioning, half-full, 2 Star restaurant is all well and fine. But insisting that others must eat at about-to-go-bankrupt restaurants is neither fair or acceptable. And when a restaurant is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, the food quality is quite likely to suffer.

Glad you didn’t make a longer reply, because it’s really not worth it. You can’t (at least I can’t) metaphorize simply a complex situation. I will say though, I thought about creating another branch of the same restaurant on the west side of town (I could then have called my little allegory “West Side Story”).

[pgb-ohio]

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

Why?

You’re used the terms “absolute deal breaker” and “unacceptable” relative to suggestions that have very little, if anything, to do with atmosphere. Or are you defining “atmosphere” so broadly that guaranteeing the east (and in fairness, I hope the west) a slot in the finals detracts significantly from atmosphere? Sure, I like the east/west matchups also, but I don’t understand making it an “absolute deal breaker” issue. And I’d also argue with you if you were to try to tell me that an east/west final this year would have created a better atmosphere in Boston, at least as you’ve defined atmosphere in the past. With any other pairing, there would have been empty seats, fewer partisan fans, and less noise.

Your first reaction is correct; seedings at the FF have little or nothing to do with atmosphere at the regionals. By proposing the fully segregated regionals, you inadvertently raised another issue I feel strongly about. This has mostly to do with the Women's D-1 tournament set-up; there's no need to fully hash this out on the Men's Board. But for clarification's sake, here's the short version: On the Women's side, there's relatively little East/West play in the regular season. The NCAA field consists of 8 teams. To save travel expenses, the NCAA goes out of its way to avoid East/West matchups in the Round of 8. Then oftentimes the Women's FF itself is West/West and East/East in the semis. So it's distinctly possible to win a national title playing only a single game against the other region all year long. That really bothers me; I hope the Men's tournament never regresses to that state of affairs. If it did, then I'd say the solution is just as bad as the original problem. But again, this concern is relevant to just one of your suggestions.

If there were a proposal that somehow managed to provide regionals with full arenas with screaming fans, but also guaranteed both east and west a spot in the finals would it still be unacceptable?

Yes, and you've already provided a clear example as to why. In hindsight, BU/PC was the best title game match-up. So at least for this year, the "wolf" would have been a solution in search of a problem. In contrast, guaranteeing East/West semis makes sense as a way countering the impact of segregated regionals. And that was the format in the 70's and earlier. At the same time, notice that this latter approach preserves the possibility of two teams from the same region playing for the title. It's not rare for the two best teams to come from the same region, as occurred this year.

Hate to bring up another issue now, but I don’t understand this east/west fixation (I laugh every year at the oxymoronic “East All-American” and “West All-American” teams). I know a lot of folks, including me, would have preferred that BU and North Dakota not be matched in the semifinals. I would have preferred a seeded tournament, which I think would have meant North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. But I would have preferred a seeded tournament even if it meant North Dakota/Omaha and BU/Providence. Would you object to a seeded finals, if in some years that guarantees east and west a slot in the finals?

No. When the particular slots are earned on the ice, I don't have a problem with it. The issue arises when the tournament format is Gerry-rigged to maximize the chances of that result, regardless of the on-ice resumes. There's simply no need to use "affirmative action" to guarantee each region a berth in the last game. IMHO it's both unnecessary and wrong.

Yes, I’d call Fargo a neutral site, if that’s what you’re asking. I understand that with any realistic neutral site, it’s going to be more convenient for somebody. While I cringed at Miami having to play Providence in Providence, especially since I don’t believe Providence was the host school, I accepted it as pretty much a worst-case scenario. (After all, it improved the atmosphere, albeit in an unfair way).

Of course Fargo is a useful example only because North Dakota made the tournament as a high seed. If they had made the tournament as a low seed, you'd have the Providence problem. If they did not make the tournament at all, the atmosphere wouldn't have been anywhere near as good.

All true. But I'd say those are arguments for the campus sites, not neutral sites. Remember that, for me, Fargo is an example of what's acceptable, not what's ideal.

With regard to the first question, my original unthought-out suggestion was really restricting it to on-campus rinks because I’ve assumed that no unafilliated venue would accept a contingent booking. We’ve discussed that in the past when the question of rinks that are too small has come up. And while there might be temptation to let a team play at home, if letting a team play at home were forbidden by the regulations, the temptation would be irrelevant.

If the NCAA was really willing to adopt the zero tolerance rule, yes. They do enforce such a rule for the Men's Hoops tourney; so maybe they'd do the same for Men's Hockey. But my suspicion is that it's much more likely that they'd leave some discretion in the hockey committee's hands -- and thus the relevance of the temptation.

Glad you didn’t make a longer reply, because it’s really not worth it. You can’t (at least I can’t) metaphorize simply a complex situation. I will say though, I thought about creating another branch of the same restaurant on the west side of town (I could then have called my little allegory “West Side Story”).

Hmmm; Jets vs. Sharks? Does sound like a hockey game.

[LtPowers]

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

Obviously this is a complex conversation, and it's just not possible to mention every variable in every post. But sure -- competitive fairness should be one of the core concerns.

That said, I don't think anybody's talking about a format that's so unfair that you'd refuse to participate on principle. Due to the imperfection of the pairwise system, it can't be claimed that there's one -- and only one -- fair way to set up the bracket. On the bright side, that does allow for some wiggle room.

As just one example, giving Providence a home crowd advantage at this year certainly wasn't done to promote competitive fairness. The Friars' overall body of work justified letting them into the field, but I doubt there's any sort seeding formula that would have put them in the top band, or even the second band. Still, taking the full range of variables into account, the decision was deemed acceptable by most. Even after the Friars won it all, there wasn't much second guessing of their placement in the regionals.

I think we can all accept that sometimes a team is going to get a home regional, and that does sometimes affect competitive fairness. But where you see a foot in the door, I see a slippery slope. Forcing teams 9-16 to go into a hostile arena every time, every year, without fail, is going to severely reduce their chances of making it to the next round, when they already have disadvantages stacked against them. Sure, first round upsets will still happen, but not nearly as often as they've happened the last 6 or 7 years.

And while this may not apply to you, I have a feeling many proponents of campus sites for the tournament have exactly that as their primary motivation.


Powers &8^]

[CLS]

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

...By proposing the fully segregated regionals, you inadvertently raised another issue I feel strongly about....

Thanks for the clarification. I’m wasn’t really taking issue with your not wanting a “guaranteed” slot for east or west; it’s just that I took your “deal breaker” to be a new wrinkle thrown in late in the game, and, especially when you specified "east" but not "west", it (surprisingly to me, coming from you) smacked of some of the paranoid rants I occasionally used to see on this board complaining about the nefarious NCAA (often in cahoots with ESPN) rigging the matchups to screw the old WCHA or Hockey East when all the NCAA had done was pretty much follow a formula so rigidly that USCHO and several posters easily predicted the matchups on the nose. My hypotheticals were to find out exactly what your problem was. I agree that that rigging the tournament for the purpose of guaranteeing a slot to east or west is a bad thing, especially when no [other] desirable result is achieved by doing so.

Also, I didn’t necessarily mean to propose fully segregated regionals; only that they would be run differently. To be sure if they weren’t fully segregated, that would create another set of undesirable situations.

...

[G]uaranteeing East/West semis makes sense as a way countering the impact of segregated regionals. And that was the format in the 70's and earlier. At the same time, notice that this latter approach preserves the possibility of two teams from the same region playing for the title. It's not rare for the two best teams to come from the same region, as occurred this year.

No [I wouldn't object to a seeded finals even if that resulted in a guaranteed slot for east or west in the finals]. When the particular slots are earned on the ice, I don't have a problem with it. The issue arises when the tournament format is Gerry-rigged to maximize the chances of that result, regardless of the on-ice resumes. There's simply no need to use "affirmative action" to guarantee each region a berth in the last game. IMHO it's both unnecessary and wrong. ...

I also agree that east/west matchups in the semis are a good thing. The one non-deal breaking suggestion I’d have is that I’d make the matchups Higher West Seed vs. Lower East seed and Higher East Seed vs. Lower West Seed. There’s no need that I can see to pre-establish which east regional winner will play which west regional winner. So this year it would have been North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. Especially since the games were being played in a neutral (at least in my terms) site, BU and North Dakota had earned the right to play a lower seed, and Providence and Omaha, plucky and overachieving as they were, had not.

[John J. MacInnes]

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

One more thing to consider in terms of home sites in the regional round.

In the late 1980's and into the early 1990's, Munn Ice Arena had one of the best atmospheres in college hockey. The Spartans were in the midst of a sellout streak that would reach over 200 games, but with a notable disclaimer that will be explained as you read on.

In 1988, Michigan State hosted Harvard in the opening round of the then 8 team NCAA tournament and the building was packed for two very good games. That 2 game total goals series was played on March 18-19, which was the last week before the university started spring break. Both games sold out.

In 1989, Michigan State hosted Boston College in the second round of the then 12 team NCAA tournament and the building was about 3/5 full. That best-of-3 series was played on March 24-26, which was during the university's spring break. There were more fans for game 3 on Sunday as the students arrived back on campus, but none of the games were sellouts. That led to the announced disclaimer that the sellout streak was counted in the regular season only.

In 1990, Michigan State hosted Boston University in the second round of the then 12 team NCAA tournament and the building was again about 3/5 full. That best-of-3 series was played on March 23-25, which was during the university's spring break. The Sunday crowd was similar to the first two games despite the return of the students.

Timing is going to be essential for making a lot of venues provide the atmosphere that most people are advocating the home sites are depending upon. The students are the obvious portion of the crowd that would be absent, but spring break also takes families out of town as well. And don't think for a hot second that the NCAA would ever consider changing the dates of the tournament, since it would conflict with the bouncy-ball.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Great Eight

There is no question moving the first and second rounds to campus sites and making them multiple game series, like were done back in the '80's, will favor the higher seed (home team). I think the percentage of time the host team advanced to the next round, both under the total goals and the best 2 of 3 formats, was something in the neighborhood of .780 from the '81 tournament through the '91 tournament. Under the "neutral" regional format (first, east and west regional, ultimately 4 regionals), the higher seed advances just over 60% of the time.

Is that good or bad? I think reasonable arguments can be made for both. It certainly adds a sense of randomness to the tournament, and makes the underdog story more likely. But does that make the tournament "better"?

In my opinion, the move to 16 teams, coupled with a move away from home campus games, has diluted the quality of the hockey games we see at the Frozen Four, although it has certainly opened up opportunities for championships to a broader selection of teams.

Since going to the 16 team format (13 seasons), all of which have used the 4 neutral site regionals, the average margin for victory in the Frozen Four games, and in the championship game as been around 2.5 goals. There have also been a total of 4 overtime games in the Frozen Four under that format.

You go back the previous 20 years or so to about the time HE was formed, and when there were only 8 teams, and then 12 teams in the tournament, with games played on campus for a period of time, the average margin of victory was closer to 2 goals per game, and in the championship game it was even lower, down around 1.9 goals per game. And that includes the absurd 8 goal margin in the '94 championship game. You take that out and it's 1.5 goals a game. That's a goal per game difference in the championship game. We also had 17 overtime games in those years in the Frozen Four. That's about 1 per year.

I'm not saying it's necessarily worse to see one of the last 3 or 4 teams in the tournament end up winning it. But I do think the quality of the product we get to see has been diluted somewhat.

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

This has been/is a great thread. We've revisited this topic on an annual basis for quite a few years now and it generally is full of thoughtful, articulate comment, and often some innovative ideas as well. This year's is no exception. Over 50 different posters have commented in this thread, and I think just about every single post has added something positive to the discussion. Even those posters who think much of what has been discussed here might not make for an improved experience (and may even take some things backwards like the potential for diminished TV coverage) have been expressed those thoughts in rational and mature ways and have tried to offer logical reasoning as to why they see things that way. What a shame that none of us have an opportunity to play a part in changes (if any) the NCAA may soon make to the format of the tournament. The powers that be in the hockey committee should be poring over this thread and mining it for the many good ideas contained within.

[pgb-ohio]

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

I think we can all accept that sometimes a team is going to get a home regional, and that does sometimes affect competitive fairness. But where you see a foot in the door, I see a slippery slope. Forcing teams 9-16 to go into a hostile arena every time, every year, without fail, is going to severely reduce their chances of making it to the next round, when they already have disadvantages stacked against them. Sure, first round upsets will still happen, but not nearly as often as they've happened the last 6 or 7 years.

And while this may not apply to you, I have a feeling many proponents of campus sites for the tournament have exactly that as their primary motivation.

Powers &8^]

Thanks for the clarification. I’m wasn’t really taking issue with your not wanting a “guaranteed” slot for east or west; it’s just that I took your “deal breaker” to be a new wrinkle thrown in late in the game, and, especially when you specified "east" but not "west", it (surprisingly to me, coming from you) smacked of some of the paranoid rants I occasionally used to see on this board complaining about the nefarious NCAA (often in cahoots with ESPN) rigging the matchups to screw the old WCHA or Hockey East when all the NCAA had done was pretty much follow a formula so rigidly that USCHO and several posters easily predicted the matchups on the nose. My hypotheticals were to find out exactly what your problem was. I agree that that rigging the tournament for the purpose of guaranteeing a slot to east or west is a bad thing, especially when no [other] desirable result is achieved by doing so.

Got it. I'd only add that, pre-clarification, you caught my reference but missed my drift. Beyond the actual problem in the Women's tournament, I was indeed referring to the rants. But I never believed that you, personally, had a hidden wolf in your proposal. Similarly, Lt. Powers exempted me from having a hidden wolf in mine. (see above) But those suspicions are out there, on all sides. And they do make it considerably more difficult to reach consensus on issues like this.

EDIT: I did revise the phrasing back in Post #271. It now reflects opposition to a "guaranteed East/West title game," as opposed to singling out the East.

Also, I didn’t necessarily mean to propose fully segregated regionals; only that they would be run differently. To be sure if they weren’t fully segregated, that would create another set of undesirable situations.

No kidding!

Hypothetical tournament: 8 Eastern teams, 8 Western teams. 6 Eastern teams play within commuting distance of their campuses on neutral ice. The other two are sent to Ann Arbor and Minneapolis. The screams of moral indignation on behalf of the two exiled Eastern teams would be plainly audible in Fairbanks. As for the two Western exiles sent East, the screams would be more muted because they'd be trading away Visitor status for neutral ice. But I'm sure someone would find a way to claim unfairness in that situation as well.

I also agree that east/west matchups in the semis are a good thing. The one non-deal breaking suggestion I’d have is that I’d make the matchups Higher West Seed vs. Lower East seed and Higher East Seed vs. Lower West Seed. There’s no need that I can see to pre-establish which east regional winner will play which west regional winner. So this year it would have been North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. Especially since the games were being played in a neutral (at least in my terms) site, BU and North Dakota had earned the right to play a lower seed, and Providence and Omaha, plucky and overachieving as they were, had not.

Exactly. That's how it was done back in the 70's; that's how you'd want to do it now if we went back to that system.

This has been/is a great thread. We've revisited this topic on an annual basis for quite a few years now and it generally is full of thoughtful, articulate comment, and often some innovative ideas as well. This year's is no exception. Over 50 different posters have commented in this thread, and I think just about every single post has added something positive to the discussion. Even those posters who think much of what has been discussed here might not make for an improved experience (and may even take some things backwards like the potential for diminished TV coverage) have been expressed those thoughts in rational and mature ways and have tried to offer logical reasoning as to why they see things that way. What a shame that none of us have an opportunity to play a part in changes (if any) the NCAA may soon make to the format of the tournament. The powers that be in the hockey committee should be poring over this thread and mining it for the many good ideas contained within.

Appreciate this post, and very much agree with the sentiment. Sincere thanks to all who have posted.

One lesson I take from all of this, that some may find surprising: I find myself feeling a great deal of compassion for the members of the NCAA Hockey Committee. This issue is truly a game of Wack-A-Mole. Every time you think you've successfully addressed one concern, another legitimate concern pops up. The committee is pretty much faced with a mission impossible. No matter what they do, a large percentage of our community is going to be left unsatisfied. Yes, on one level it would be nice to "have an opportunity to play a part in the changes." But on another level, I'm kind of glad it's their job to make the decision, not ours.

[The Freds]

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

Well the coaches have expressed their opinion: ‘Overwhelming majority’ of coaches don’t want change for NCAA regional system/

[ericredaxe]

Well the coaches have expressed their opinion: ‘Overwhelming majority’ of coaches don’t want change for NCAA regional system/

Nothing like a game at a 35% full arena!