Attendance at Regionals

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

No wonder. What arena wants to be a loss leader for this event?

This will open Pandora's box... sorry... if it is good enough to be played at Compton, it is good enough to be played at Yost or Munn or any other on campus site that can provide some basic criteria.

BC's athletic director strongly hinted at an event the other day that BC may be considering hosting regionals at Conte in the future.

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

d) they know where they're going to be playing more than one week in advance
e) they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money to get tickets when they just spent a solid chunk on conference tourneys the week before

Those are my dilemmas every year, especially the money issue after a conference tournament. And they do charge an absurd amount of money. I know this is simple economics but if they charged a lot less and maybe gave student discounts, they would fill more seats and make money that way.

I admit going to Fargo has its attraction just because it's Fargo and that might be fun. But Cincinnati has nothing about it that says "hockey" to me.

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

No wonder. What arena wants to be a loss leader for this event?

This will open Pandora's box... sorry... if it is good enough to be played at Compton, it is good enough to be played at Yost or Munn or any other on campus site that can provide some basic criteria.

I would imagine that unless the NCAA decides to go back to having high seeds host preliminary rounds leading up to the FF (and the commentary piece CLS linked to on USCHO makes it sound like that possibility is certainly growing) Yost and Munn are and any other arena that can handle 4 teams are probably back in play to host predetermined site regionals.

For the record despite the fact my arena is hosting, I don't like it. Either go back to having all the higher seeds host first and second round games/series, or keep the first and second round games in -- at the very least -- neutral buildings. I maintain the NCAA spends too much time trying to serve two masters here. They want atmosphere and attendance, but they also want neutral sites and strict adherence to a seeding process. We've seen you can't do both, especially out here in the "west," yet they continue to try.

[Runsub5]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

......... I maintain the NCAA spends too much time trying to serve two masters here. They want atmosphere and attendance, but they also want neutral sites and strict adherence to a seeding process. We've seen you can't do both, especially out here in the "west," yet they continue to try.

Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

But Cincinnati has nothing about it that says "hockey" to me.

Maybe not, but downtown Cincinnati has grown quite a bit in recent years especially near the river (partially thanks to 3 new sporting venues) and it's a pretty fun town. Also it's about as central as you can get for any teams placed there from MN/WI/ND and NY/MA/CT (albeit slightly further for the folks out east) and obviously is quite close for several other schools. In that part of the country you could certainly do worse.

[streaker]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I would imagine that unless the NCAA decides to go back to having high seeds host preliminary rounds leading up to the FF (and the commentary piece CLS linked to on USCHO makes it sound like that possibility is certainly growing) Yost and Munn are and any other arena that can handle 4 teams are probably back in play to host predetermined site regionals.

For the record despite the fact my arena is hosting, I don't like it. Either go back to having all the higher seeds host first and second round games/series, or keep the first and second round games in -- at the very least -- neutral buildings. I maintain the NCAA spends too much time trying to serve two masters here. They want atmosphere and attendance, but they also want neutral sites and strict adherence to a seeding process. We've seen you can't do both, especially out here in the "west," yet they continue to try.

Well, it certainly isn't an indictment on the Irish. Good for them for being able to host. I certainly have no beef with your logic, either. I really question what the NCAA accomplishes with these wishy-washy decisions on site selection, seedings etc. vs. attendance.

[FredDavenport]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Congrats to the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for considering to re-look at the sites for the regionals.

Like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA and many others the high seeds have earned the right to host post-season and if the NCAA is looking to increase $$$, decrease expenses and triple the atmosphere this is the only way to go.

Thank You NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for looking at this

[FredDavenport]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Congrats to Quinnipiac Men's Ice Hockey's Connor and Kelen Jones, the ECAC and of College Ice Hockey for the nice mention in Sports Illustrated's "Faces in the Crowd"

http://www.quinnipiacbobcats.com/spo...201312183f9ol5

[Fishman'81]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.

Makes me scratch my head, too, although I go there every time they host.

Regional attendance is a complicated problem, but ticket pricing is a huge component therein... The casual local fan just isn't going to pony-up $80 for a "session" pass, to see four teams from out of the area.

It would make a whole lot more sense to me to promote these games locally as "family-friendly", and have twice the attendees paying half the price, resulting in more posteriors in the seats, and the same revenue.

That's how you "grow the sport", IMO.

[MplsSioux]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

[kingdobbs]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.

Albany's last appearance was in 2010, so it's not as though, if they were truly "out of play", that they were out of it for too long.

[Slap Shot]

I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

Well said.

[The Rube]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Well said.

This. Now, after agreeing with a Whioux fan, I have about 10 gallons of bleach to get ready for my bath.

[Fishman'81]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.

I tend to agree. I think the NCAA is a little worried about, say, a Union getting a top-four seed and hosting in a 2,225 seat arena, but I could live with it.

I do object vigorously to any team hosting on-campus when that team hasn't earned a #1 seed, however... That scenario is an embarrassment to our sport.

Fair siting is much more important to me than attendance, hands-down. (And we've generally gotten much better seats at the Times-Union than TicketBastard allowed us, simply by taking our pick of the 7,000 unsold ones.)

[MplsSioux]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I tend to agree. I think the NCAA is a little worried about, say, a Union getting a top-four seed and hosting in a 2,225 seat arena, but I could live with it.

I do object vigorously to any team hosting on-campus when that team hasn't earned a #1 seed, however... That scenario is an embarrassment to our sport.

Fair siting is much more important to me than attendance, hands-down. (And we've generally gotten much better seats at the Times-Union than TicketBastard allowed us, simply by taking our pick of the 7,000 unsold ones.)

Yeah I'm absolutely ok with Union hosting if they earn the #1 seed. A sold out 2,300 person arena is better than a 10,000 seat arena that is 20% filled. I say that team earned the seed so let them enjoy the "easiest" potential path to the Frozen Four. I don't even see the argument that it's an unfair advantage because we all know any given team can lose on any night in college hockey but the home arena gives them that little edge they earned and deserve. I was at the 2006 regional at The Ralph in Grand Forks with the Sioux, Gophers, Holy Cross, and Michigan and it was probably one of the best sporting events I've ever been at. The arena was packed with 12,000 people for every game and was on the edge of their seats the whole time. Also, I would be much more inclined to travel for an away regional if I knew I could visit an away team's on-campus arena that I've never been to. It's cool to see all character and history of college hockey arenas and you don't get that with neutral sites.