NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[alslammerz]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

]Again, that's the advantage/incentive to finish with a high seed. See my comment above. You finish as a 1 or 2 seed, you don't have to travel. If you can travel and still make the FF - more power too you.

We're arguing the same side of the coin here. I'm saying I think that if the NCAA makes the moves I'm talking about because they are worried about travel distances (a concern they've at times shown) then there's no point, in my eyes, to make the change. If they are willing to commit to keeping bracket integrity for everything but no intraconference games, then I'm on board with the best of 3.

maybe I am missing something (which isn't out of the realm of possibility), but Miami wouldn't be moved. The way it reads to me is the #1 seeds would Host the first round. So the 4 super regional sites would of been Miami, Denver, Wisconsin, and BC. Your attendance issues are solved, every single one of those regionals would be sold out. Granted buildings like Miami only hold 3500-4000, but packing the Kohl center and 15k is tempting rather than a half full xcell center. Even if this is stretched to the higher seed hosting, it still works and the NCAA makes 10x more than they do currently which is what they are all about.

The #1 seeds would host the first round, yes. So in my hypothetical, what if the NCAA took travel concerns into things, the first round game would be at Miami.
But the second round game would be at one of two super-regional sites (IIRC) which I said would most likely be split with an eastern site and a western site, and for the purposes of this example, I said that these would be Albany and St. Paul. Albany and St. Paul would then host two games each- Albany would host the winners of East 1/4 vs. East 2/3 and the winners of Northeast 1/4 vs. Northeast 2/3. St. Paul would host the winners of Midwest 1/4 vs. Midwest 2/3, and West 1/4 vs. West 2/3, and I stated that the NCAA might, using 2010 as an example, move teams to keep them near where the super-regional is going to be played. So I figured the NCAA might flip Miami and Denver- ie., Miami would play the second round in Albany instead of St. Paul and vice versa. My overall point was that if the NCAA decides to take travel into account when switching to this format (a not unreasonable concern money wise I guess), that there would be a lot of mixing and matching, moving teams around in the 1 band, 2 band, etc. And the whole point of my post was that this would be a bad thing.

Or to put it another way, I'm in favor of the best of three series, as long as the NCAA doesn't shuffle the deck for travel concerns (or attendance concerns for that matter.)

Not to beat this point home too much or anything, but USCHO's story on this lists the exact same concern as me...and made some of the same changes, plus extra changes as well.

[Priceless]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The PairWise Rankings from 2002-2010

1	Boston Coll (HE)
2	Denver U (WC)
3	Boston Univ (HE)
4	Michigan (CC)
5	New Hampshire (HE)
6	North Dakota (WC)
7	Minnesota (WC)
8	Cornell (EC)
9	CO College (WC)
10	Miami (CC)
11	Wisconsin (WC)
12	Mich State (CC)
13	Maine (HE)
14	St Cloud (WC)
15	Harvard (EC)
16	Vermont (HE)
---
17	Ohio State (CC)
18	Notre Dame (CC)
19	Minn-Duluth (WC)
20	Northern Mich (CC)
21	Dartmouth (EC)
22	St Lawrence (EC)
23	Ferris State (CC)
24	Mass-Amherst (HE)
25	Mass-Lowell (HE)
26	MSU-Mankato (WC)
27	NorthEastern (HE)

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

My first reaction is I like it. I grew up with the first round in the higher seed's barn and the atmosphere was electric. We all know that the atmosphere at today's regionals are crap. And I very much like the fact that you have to win two games to advance. Higher odds that the better team advances. I really dislike the one-and-done. The result is more like playing craps than hockey.

The super regional weekend is kind of weird, traveling to wherever to only play one game.

Just read the article, haven't read through the thread yet, so I'm looking forward to seeing this idea critiqued as only USCHO posters can.

[mcboozle]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I posted this on GPL earlier today, but I thought I'd share it with rest of you puckheads.

Over the last 7 years, the total average attendance at the four regionals has been 53,623. (approx 4,470/game)

This new format would add a minumum of 8 games to the tournament (possibly 16 if all first round series go 3 games), using an avg. attendance figure of 4500, an additional 36,000-72,000 tickets could be sold.

They could drop the price to $25/game for the first round, keep the $45/day for the super regionals and still take in more ticket revenue ($2.6MM) than the current format ($1.9MM). Make a couple of the below assumptions and the numbers start piling up.

a) avg. attendance will be more than the 4500/game (an increase of 500/game=$290,000)
b) instead of $25, the first round prices are $30-35. ($5 increase=$360,000)
c) some of the series will go 3 games ($112,500/game)
d) they make the second round "best of 3" and/or start charging per game instead of per session.

I will not be surprised to see this format in the near future. Anyone care to analyze the differences in costs/expenses to the NCAA?

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The one tweak I would like to see is play a two-game total goals series rather than a best two out of three. Sunday games are a drag when you are travelling a long distance, and you often miss another day of work.

I agree. You could even do that for the second weekend, so that each surviving team plays two games against their opponent.

[unofan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The one tweak I would like to see is play a two-game total goals series rather than a best two out of three. Sunday games are a drag when you are travelling a long distance, and you often miss another day of work.

Yeah...no. 2-game total goals is contrived bullshiat. Why not just play one game with 40 minute periods instead? That's the same freaking thing. Next I suppose baseball should stop counting individual wins and just go to counting "series wins" - with extra extra innings to decide splits in 2-game or 4-game sets.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Of course for baseball you can lose 4 times and still win the national title; there's essentially 4 "rounds" (regional, super regional, brackets 1/2 in Omaha, and the Championship Series). And were it not for the 10 days of games in Omaha, the tournament would lose money even using campus sites.

Very true, but you would have to think if the top seeds hosted they would be sold out and would be money makers. Moreso than the regionals now which are half full at best...

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Yeah...no. 2-game total goals is contrived bullshiat. Why not just play one game with 40 minute periods instead? .

Total goals is not contrived, IMHO. It worked well for years in the 70s and 80s and very few complained. Players play the same game night routine they've had all season - 60 minutes of hockey per night. And more bounus hockey on the second night if they are still tied. And you get the series done in the same two-day weekend footprint with far less travel hassle, and no tired-out third game in three days, when players get hurt and fans are tired of hockey. The big downside to me is that the NCAA makes less money, but it's much fan-friendlier then three games in three days.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I would be a huge fan of this if I was associated with a perennial power. Lets face it, it decreases the probablility that those strong programs will be embarassed by an upstart. The handful of teams that have won championships over the last decade or so will be the only ones to win in the future. The programs in power will stay in power, with almost no chance for any other programs to grow. Might as well accelerate the contraction of NCAA hockey now........

So your saying your hot goaltender couldn't of done it? He won two games in a row against the big boys in the regional as it is. I don't think this would truly eliminate the cinderellas. I don't think they will be as frequent, but look at what montreal did. Halak won that series in a best of 7 for them. It is possible for a 4 to upset a 1 on their home ice. It happens in the conference tournament so I don't see why it is so far fetched to believe it wouldn't happen in a new format. A hot goaltender can win any series, I think this change would help with attendance issues first and then may help us truly get the best 4 teams in the FF. But if a 4 seed gets there they truly would of earned it, as would any team that does.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

RIT notwithstanding, the BSU/Maimi game last year was 2-1 at the half-way mark, and was just 3-1 until there were 2 minutes left...

and both followed up that run with solid performances this season.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Not sure what you mean by "works in baseball". That's how they do it? Works well? I don't know the history, but I'm guessing that either it's always been done that way, so who's to know whether some other sysetm would produce a better result? And what do you consider a better result?

And no I wouldn't buy the top seed hosting the super regional or the first round game even if it weren't two out of three. But like I said, I'm a competitive purist and if given the choice between a system that produces what I perceive as an unfair advantage, and a system that has games in empty buildings, I'd pick the empty buildings.

Baseball plays a double elimination, there for you have to win more than 1 game to advance. Fresno was a #4 seed (or #16 equivilant in basketball) and they won it, no debate on whether they were worthy because they had to beat the top teams more than once.

I guess I am merely looking at this in terms of attendance and atmoshphere. That and I think the top teams should be rewarded. I don't think its fair Denver was shipped so far away when they were the top team all year. This would also mean that a lower seed such as Wisconsin a few years back plays on their home ice as a lower seed in the regional.

[joecct]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Assuming they keep the same start date for the regionals, that means that the super regional weekend goes head-to-head with the NCAA men's and women's D1 Finals Four. Anyone want to guess what the TV ratings will be for the super regionals??

The NCAA will have to give the product away and maybe all the games will be on CBSC or ESPN3 instead of ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

We're arguing the same side of the coin here. I'm saying I think that if the NCAA makes the moves I'm talking about because they are worried about travel distances (a concern they've at times shown) then there's no point, in my eyes, to make the change. If they are willing to commit to keeping bracket integrity for everything but no intraconference games, then I'm on board with the best of 3.



The #1 seeds would host the first round, yes. So in my hypothetical, what if the NCAA took travel concerns into things, the first round game would be at Miami.
But the second round game would be at one of two super-regional sites (IIRC) which I said would most likely be split with an eastern site and a western site, and for the purposes of this example, I said that these would be Albany and St. Paul. Albany and St. Paul would then host two games each- Albany would host the winners of East 1/4 vs. East 2/3 and the winners of Northeast 1/4 vs. Northeast 2/3. St. Paul would host the winners of Midwest 1/4 vs. Midwest 2/3, and West 1/4 vs. West 2/3, and I stated that the NCAA might, using 2010 as an example, move teams to keep them near where the super-regional is going to be played. So I figured the NCAA might flip Miami and Denver- ie., Miami would play the second round in Albany instead of St. Paul and vice versa. My overall point was that if the NCAA decides to take travel into account when switching to this format (a not unreasonable concern money wise I guess), that there would be a lot of mixing and matching, moving teams around in the 1 band, 2 band, etc. And the whole point of my post was that this would be a bad thing.

Or to put it another way, I'm in favor of the best of three series, as long as the NCAA doesn't shuffle the deck for travel concerns (or attendance concerns for that matter.)

Not to beat this point home too much or anything, but USCHO's story on this lists the exact same concern as me...and made some of the same changes, plus extra changes as well.

gotcha, sorry for the confusion.

I would think if you put it a campus site, doesn't matter where it is there shouldn't be attendance issues. As for travel, the same thing goes. You wouls be making more money at the regionals and you would only have to travel 3 instead of 4 teams so you would save money in the long run.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Assuming they keep the same start date for the regionals, that means that the super regional weekend goes head-to-head with the NCAA men's and women's D1 Finals Four. Anyone want to guess what the TV ratings will be for the super regionals??

The NCAA will have to give the product away and maybe all the games will be on CBSC or ESPN3 instead of ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU.

Not if you play it on a Friday night. Men's FF is Saturday-Monday, women's is Sunday-Tuesday.

[Priceless]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Yeah...no. 2-game total goals is contrived bullshiat. Why not just play one game with 40 minute periods instead? That's the same freaking thing. Next I suppose baseball should stop counting individual wins and just go to counting "series wins" - with extra extra innings to decide splits in 2-game or 4-game sets.

Or we could just do like Europe and have away goals count extra