NCAA Change the Tourney

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The main issues I see with Alton's concept:

1. It's expanding the length of the tournament by adding another weekend into the pre-existing format -- given the lack of interest in the current regional format (for a variety of reasons we've outlined), I just don't see that being something they'd seriously consider (who knows, but that's just my gut feeling).

2. You are asking fans to devote more time to attending pre-Frozen Four games and likewise pay to support another weekend of playoffs. Even if it's on campus sites and doesn't require travel for the home team, you are still talking about additional time/money being taken into account for everyone. How many fans are going to be interested in attending 3 straight nights in a campus site playoff series, then going again to a neutral site for regionals the following week, THEN the Frozen Four? Add in the conference tournaments the week before the NCAAs start, and the conference quarterfinals the week before that -- even in the current set-up, you can see the need for taking a bye week before the Frozen Four. His concept would add even more clutter to the pre-existing schedule...I mean, if you were to implement his concept, and keep the bye week, you're then talking about having the Frozen Four in the middle of April, when a lot of people are already into the spring time and other sports/interests.

Or look at it this way: he's made the regionals more appealing by having them at only 2 sites (something we all would prefer I believe). But that's going to be off-set by the fact that there's a whole other round of games now before that weekend. I just can't see some fans being interested in attending both sets of pre-Frozen Four NCAA playoff weekends with the FF looming ahead and all the conference playoffs right before it. And if some folks right now in a bad economy don't want to support the regionals because it's not the FF, simply adding more games into the mix (both campus-sites and a regional format as he suggests) isn't going to help any.

3. Logistically it would get less exposure on television. Right now every game is being televised and it is good exposure for the game. There's no chance of televising his proposed first round on a scale like you can now.

So ultimately, as many issues as some folks think there are with a "Super Regional" (and I concede there are logistical issues), I see even more drawbacks with adding a whole round of campus-site games before a regional round. It's good that you're not expanding/contracting the amount of teams in his format but you are extending both the length of the tournament and also the demands on the fans in terms of supporting it with their time/money. Again -- even if the current regional format isn't drawing for a number of factors we can all argue about -- I can't see them considering this given the lack of support for the current format, which only comprises one weekend as it is.

[billmich88888]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

3. Logistically it would get less exposure on television. Right now every game is being televised and it is good exposure for the game. There's no chance of televising his proposed first round on a scale like you can now.

a big time bummer, but maybe this is the small step back the tourney needs at this point. I'm thinking that espn3.com could pick up any and all feeds from 1st round sites. i doubt all 1st round sites would be televised but from the Alton scenario i would conclude that: NoDak (WDAZ-fox college sports) BC (nesn) ; Miami (ONN) Michigan (comcast 900 or fsn detroit); denver (fsn RM/altitude) and union (TW cable sports) would all have the possibility of some sort of local coverage; Im not so sure about yale/afa or Merrimack/WMU coverage

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

You're comparing apples and oranges. Basketball is about 1/3 power teams and 2/3 happy-to-be-theres. Hockey is about 80% power teams and 20% happy-to-be-theres. If you look at the number of at-large bids compared to the teams that would generally be competitive for them assuming a good season, I think the ratios right now are about right for both basketball and hockey. Dropping the hockey tournament back to twelve would be a terrible idea.

The fact that there are so many "power" teams (as you describe them) is a good thing, in my view. I see a 12-team field with 10-11 power teams as an improvement on a 16-team field with . . . 10-11 power teams.

Why?
Because those extra at-larges don't bring anything to the table. They make their fanbases happy, but their effect is a net negative.

Why?
Because a regional with 4-6 power teams is indescribably more appealing than a regional with 1-3 power teams.

You're exactly right that hoops and hockey are different. It's for that very reason that I'm not overly concerned with maximizing the number of happy-to-be-theres. To even approximate the situation in basketball, we'd have to open the hockey tournament to every D1 team.

[billmich88888]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

who are the non power teams , Only ecac and aha teams? Was UNH not a power team due to being a #4 seed this year?

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

a big time bummer, but maybe this is the small step back the tourney needs at this point.

But adding another weekend of NCAA playoff games isn't really a step backwards. It's going to be demanding even more in terms of time/monetary commitment on the part of fans than even the current system.

I think the bottom line is if you want to do campus sites, then do them. If you want to do regionals, then do that. You can't have it both ways. There's not going to be enough overall fan interest IMO to do both as he's proposing.

[Yinka Double Dare]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The main issues I see with Alton's concept:

1. It's expanding the length of the tournament by adding another weekend into the pre-existing format -- given the lack of interest in the current regional format (for a variety of reasons we've outlined), I just don't see that being something they'd seriously consider (who knows, but that's just my gut feeling).

2. You are asking fans to devote more time to attending pre-Frozen Four games and likewise pay to support another weekend of playoffs. Even if it's on campus sites and doesn't require travel for the home team, you are still talking about additional time/money being taken into account for everyone. How many fans are going to be interested in attending 3 straight nights in a campus site playoff series, then going again to a neutral site for regionals the following week, THEN the Frozen Four? Add in the conference tournaments the week before the NCAAs start, and the conference quarterfinals the week before that -- even in the current set-up, you can see the need for taking a bye week before the Frozen Four. His concept would add even more clutter to the pre-existing schedule...I mean, if you were to implement his concept, and keep the bye week, you're then talking about having the Frozen Four in the middle of April, when a lot of people are already into the spring time and other sports/interests.

Or look at it this way: he's made the regionals more appealing by having them at only 2 sites (something we all would prefer I believe). But that's going to be off-set by the fact that there's a whole other round of games now before that weekend. I just can't see some fans being interested in attending both sets of pre-Frozen Four NCAA playoff weekends with the FF looming ahead and all the conference playoffs right before it. And if some folks right now in a bad economy don't want to support the regionals because it's not the FF, simply adding more games into the mix (both campus-sites and a regional format as he suggests) isn't going to help any.

3. Logistically it would get less exposure on television. Right now every game is being televised and it is good exposure for the game. There's no chance of televising his proposed first round on a scale like you can now.

So ultimately, as many issues as some folks think there are with a "Super Regional" (and I concede there are logistical issues), I see even more drawbacks with adding a whole round of campus-site games before a regional round. It's good that you're not expanding/contracting the amount of teams in his format but you are extending both the length of the tournament and also the demands on the fans in terms of supporting it with their time/money. Again -- even if the current regional format isn't drawing for a number of factors we can all argue about -- I can't see them considering this given the lack of support for the current format, which only comprises one weekend as it is.

I don't know, I think folks in Grand Forks, Ann Arbor, and the like that routinely can put butts in the seats in their rink would rather have their team at home for a first round series if they earn it, and would pack the place for all two/three nights. Even teams that might not sell out probably would for such a series. If the fans aren't going to travel to the regionals in a "super regional" final 8 format because it's too far on short notice or in a stupid location, they probably weren't going to go to the current regional setup where they are often too far and/or in a stupid location.

And let's be honest, televised games from Englestad, Yost, and other such rinks with a loud, sellout crowd would look way better on TV to a casual fan than a dead crowd in, say, St Louis, which makes the casual fan think no one gives a crap. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind the round of 8 being another best-of-3 at the site of the better seed too, but the NCAA probably doesn't want to go that far. But there is definitely a reason that they have not announced regional sites beyond next year, and I think that reason is that they must be strongly considering changing the format.

[Alton]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The main issues I see with Alton's concept:

...

These are legitimate concerns, but let me address them...

(1) The length of the tournament is not changed. Right now, it has 3 weekends--this last weekend, with the first two rounds, next weekend, with no games, and the weekend after next, with the last 2 rounds. The only change I am making is spreading out the first two rounds over two weekends.

(2) Yes and no. If the first two rounds are single-elimination, one game each weekend, the fans will not have to spend a night in a hotel as long as the sites are nearby. I think it would be cheaper for most fans, especially of the top 8 seeds, to follow their teams through the first two rounds.

(3) There's a work-around where you could get all 8 first-round games on ESPNU...here's an example of the schedule:
Friday 7:00 ET--Colorado College at #1 Yale
Friday 7:30 MT--Air Force at #7 Denver
Saturday 3:30 ET--New Hampshire at #8 Union
Saturday 6:00 ET--Rensselaer at #3 Boston College
Saturday 7:30 CT--Notre Dame at #2 North Dakota
Sunday 2:00 ET--Western Michigan at #6 Merrimack
Sunday 4:30 ET--Nebraska-Omaha at #4 Miami
Sunday 7:00 ET--Minnesota-Duluth at #5 Michigan

And the second-round games could be played as doubleheaders on Saturday (4:00 & 7:30 CT in Milwaukee) and Sunday (1:30 & 5:00 ET in Manchester). All 12 games would be on ESPNU...just like men's lacrosse, which gets all 12 of its first and second round games broadcast on ESPNU in a similar format. I'm not sure I'm completely in favor; I think of hockey as a night sport and not an afternoon one, but obviously that can be cast aside to get games on TV.

As far as Rover's concern about accommodating fans of the visiting teams in the first round, I'm all for requiring hosts to make 500-1,000 tickets available for the visiting team to purchase and sell to its own fans.

[bronconick]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The fact that there are so many "power" teams (as you describe them) is a good thing, in my view. I see a 12-team field with 10-11 power teams as an improvement on a 16-team field with . . . 10-11 power teams.

Why?
Because those extra at-larges don't bring anything to the table. They make their fanbases happy, but their effect is a net negative.

Why?
Because a regional with 4-6 power teams is indescribably more appealing than a regional with 1-3 power teams.

You're exactly right that hoops and hockey are different. It's for that very reason that I'm not overly concerned with maximizing the number of happy-to-be-theres. To even approximate the situation in basketball, we'd have to open the hockey tournament to every D1 team.

1 seeds are 11-9 in their first round games over the last 5 tournaments. Atlantic Hockey has two first round wins (Air Force over Michigan, RIT over Denver) in that time period. Where exactly are you finding these "just glad to be here" schools?

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The length of the tournament is not changed. Right now, it has 3 weekends--this last weekend, with the first two rounds, next weekend, with no games, and the weekend after next, with the last 2 rounds. The only change I am making is spreading out the first two rounds over two weekends.

I realize that, and that's exactly one of the major problems I think there is with your concept. Instead of asking fans to be involved with 2 pre-Frozen Four NCAA playoff weekends, you're asking them to be involved with 3 of them. That means both more of a commitment of their time -- since you are spreading the games out -- and also likely money as well since there's another weekend where games are actually being played (as opposed to the bye weekend where there is no commitment of their time/money; and IMO I think both fans and teams need it heading into the Frozen Four).

If the first two rounds are single-elimination, one game each weekend, the fans will not have to spend a night in a hotel as long as the sites are nearby.

If you're talking single-elimination, that's a whole other ball game...but saying fans won't have to spend a night in a hotel means you're going to have to seed and place teams primarily on geographic location. That's a whole other can of worms.

I think a better idea is finding some way of taking the 4 regional sites and moving to 2 locations. We both agree consolidating the regional sites is probably a way they will go -- making it a logistic possibility is probably the argument we ought to be having. I just can't see them expanding the length of the current tournament and doing both campus sites AND a regional round. It's one or the other, most likely, given the feeble support the current system is generating.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

1 seeds are 11-9 in their first round games over the last 5 tournaments. Atlantic Hockey has two first round wins (Air Force over Michigan, RIT over Denver) in that time period. Where exactly are you finding these "just glad to be here" schools?

It was Craig's phrase, not mine. It was easier to just run with it than to quibble over wording.

My point is that there is a finite number of teams that are both compelling and deserving. A 12-team field maximizes the proportion of entrants that meet both of those criteria. I have no problem excluding potentially compelling teams that just aren't deserving (sorry Maine, Wisconsin). Nor would I have a problem excluding a team that, frankly, isn't very compelling and is only marginally deserving. Give me the top-12. If you're not in the top 12 (out of 58) overall, and you fail to take advantage of the opportunity for an autobid, then I can't muster up any sympathy over your exclusion.

The bottom line for me (and it almost appears as if there is a consensus developing) is that the current 4-team regionals are not interesting. Unless teams are playing at home. What I take from that is: whatever the marginal benefit of including teams #13-16, if that necessitates a move from 2 to 4 regionals, then the marginal cost is even greater.

Does that mean that an underdog can't win a game? Of course not. Especially in a sport like hockey, where a goalie can have the game of his life. But including a bunch of extra teams just because it's not inconceivable that they could pull off an upset doesn't make the tournament better.

I've looked at this entire discussion from one perspective: "how to make the regionals not suck so much." My feelings about that are clear, so I'll leave it at that.

[Alton]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Yeah, we're just going to have to differ on that, HM2K. The 2 regionals of 8 teams each keeps everything that's wrong with the current system and makes a few of those things even worse--the regionals would have to last 3 days instead of 2; that's not going to encourage the fans who don't travel now, because those people just wouldn't sit in an arena for 6 hours watching hockey if their team isn't playing.

I think the only improvement that could be made to the lacrosse-style system would be to make the quarterfinal round at home sites, but I think there would be enough fan support for neutral-site quarterfinals.

[AFHockeyFan]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

"Happy to be there" is AHA.

For the record, Air Force wasn't just "happy to be there."
http://www.gazette.com/sports/ramsey...drew-torf.html

[JW Tigers]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

For the record, Air Force wasn't just "happy to be there."
http://www.gazette.com/sports/ramsey...drew-torf.html

Yeah, given the play of AFA and of course RIT of late, there is no "happy to be there". The AHA (and the CHA before folding) have proven they can play with the elite, auto-bid or not.

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

One way a super-regional could work would be to hold them at places in which there are enough rinks of appropriate size within close enough commuting distance that the semi-finals for the two regionals could be played at different rinks. For example, one region could semi-finals at Matthews Arena in Boston, while the other regional has semi-finals at Agganis Arena at BU (and I wouldn’t have any trouble saying that if BU makes the tournament, they have to play at Matthews or if Northeastern made the tournament that they have to play at Agganis). The regional finals could be at one or the other, or even a third venue if there's one that makes sense.

Of course, there may not be too many places that this could be done. Maybe Detroit or the twin cities?

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

One way a super-regional could work would be to hold them at places in which there are enough rinks of appropriate size within close enough commuting distance that the semi-finals for the two regionals could be played at different rinks. For example, one region could semi-finals at Matthews Arena in Boston, while the other regional has semi-finals at Agganis Arena at BU (and I wouldn’t have any trouble saying that if BU makes the tournament, they have to play at Matthews or if Northeastern made the tournament that they have to play at Agganis). The regional finals could be at one or the other, or even a third venue if there's one that makes sense.

Of course, there may not be too many places that this could be done. Maybe Detroit or the twin cities?

But out west, where would this be the case? DU and CC and MN-St.Cloud-Mankato are the only ones I can think of, and even still, that's not exactly like playing at Matthews one night and Agganis the next. That means two different hotels, packing up, moving to another hotel after game one, I can't see it happening. I imagine the coaches would be heavily against the idea of having to travel in between two single elimination tournament games any distance that's farther than a couple of miles to the hotel.