Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attendance at Regionals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Attendance at Regionals

    Originally posted by CLS View Post
    Not trying to be a wise-***, but given that we’re discussing change to an existing system, I’d say the question really is are the Western crowds really so bad to establish the necessity for change. It’s clear that many folks do, or we wouldn’t have this discussion.
    This statement seems unfair. In the last 10 years the six most attended regionals were in Grand Forks (22,645 in 2006), Denver (22,388 in 2007), St. Paul (20,360 in 2012), Madison (19,784 in 2008), Minneapolis (19,176 in 2003), and Minneapolis (18,637 in 2005). The most attended eastern regional was Manchester (18,543 in 2004). The problems stem from having the regionals in places like Toledo, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Green Bay. I personally don't think the NCAA should have gone away from on campus regionals. I'd rotate between St. Paul/Minneapolis, Omaha, Denver, Madison, Grand Forks, and Ann Arbour for the western regionals. (Other locations could evolve.) I'm confident those regionals would be very well-attended compared to the eastern regionals. Attendance issues would be solved for western regionals. Drawing the best that the eastern regionals have drawn would be a disappointment in those places--except Ann Arbour (which drew over 13,000 in 2003). It's also kind of absurd to say we can't have on campus regionals (eliminating several good locations from hosting)--yet we have regionals that are literally minutes from a campus that are considered neutral sites. I'm not against that. I'm all for on campus regionals, but let's get rid of the hypocrisy. Replacing Toledo, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Green Bay with Madison, Omaha, Grand Forks, and Ann Arbour and replacing Albany with an eastern on campus site would take care of any attendance issues. No other changes would be necessary. I'm not sure it will happen, but more years of regional attendance = 5,000 might change the NCAA's minds.

    http://inchwriters.files.wordpress.c.../04/attend.pdf
    Last edited by TheEagle; 04-07-2013, 01:45 AM.
    University of North Dakota

    National Championships: 8
    Frozen Fours: 22
    Conference Titles: 17
    14 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances

    Comment


    • Re: Attendance at Regionals

      Originally posted by TheEagle View Post
      This statement seems unfair. In the last 10 years the six most attended regionals were in Grand Forks (22,645 in 2006), Denver (22,388 in 2007), St. Paul (20,360 in 2012), Madison (19,784 in 2008), Minneapolis (19,176 in 2003), and Minneapolis (18,637 in 2005). The most attended eastern regional was Manchester (18,543 in 2004). The problems stem from having the regionals in places like Toledo, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Green Bay. I personally don't think the NCAA should have gone away from on campus regionals. I'd rotate between St. Paul/Minneapolis, Omaha, Denver, Madison, Grand Forks, and Ann Arbour for the western regionals. (Other locations could evolve.) I'm confident those regionals would be very well-attended compared to the eastern regionals. Attendance issues would be solved for western regionals. Drawing the best that the eastern regionals have drawn would be a disappointment in those places--except Ann Arbour (which drew over 13,000 in 2003). It's also kind of absurd to say we can't have on campus regionals (eliminating several good locations from hosting)--yet we have regionals that are literally minutes from a campus that are considered neutral sites. I'm not against that. I'm all for on campus regionals, but let's get rid of the hypocrisy. Replacing Toledo, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Green Bay with Madison, Omaha, Grand Forks, and Ann Arbour and replacing Albany with an eastern on campus site would take care of any attendance issues. No other changes would be necessary. I'm not sure it will happen, but more years of regional attendance = 5,000 might change the NCAA's minds.

      http://inchwriters.files.wordpress.c.../04/attend.pdf
      First, thanks for the table of attendance figures.

      As for whether or not my comment was unfair, note the context. I was commenting on a proposal that would scrap the current regional structure and instead have the first round games at the home rink of the higher seed, then have the quarterfinals at neutral sites. I said that the current structure works reasonably well in the east, and the question was posed “Is the attendance in the eastern regionals so good that the current system couldn’t be changed.” I responded the way I did because if someone is proposing a change, I think it’s incumbent on them to establish the need for the change, not on the proponents of the current system to establish that it shouldn’t be changed.

      Quite frankly, the position you’re taking seems to me to be more similar to the current system than to the proposal that was being discussed. You appear to be saying keep the current regional structure, but allow for pre-assigned on-campus regional sites in the west. I personally don’t like on-campus venues, but that’s a point of view worth debating. One thing I don’t see is why Albany needs to be replaced with an on-campus location, when there are off-campus sites in the east that work reasonably well.

      It appears to me the perfect western regional site – the one that nobody would object strongly to – would be a 9 – 10,000 seat arena in the Twin Cities area, but not on the UMTC campus. For some the Xcel is too big, and some object to Mariucci because it is a home rink.

      Comment


      • Re: Attendance at Regionals

        Originally posted by Fishman'81 View Post
        All you naysayers should hit your knees and thank JCA that ESPNU exists; otherwise, there'd be no chance whatsoever to expand the fan-base.
        Do you truly believe the "fan base is expanding" because ESPNU is televising a game on a Friday afternoon at 2pm with nobody there and that nobody is watching at home? Seriously?

        Comment


        • Re: Attendance at Regionals

          It's a chance. Not a good chance by any means, but there is a chance. That being said, an article came out a couple months ago, and it rings so true:



          http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/41810720/
          Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
          Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

          Comment


          • Re: Attendance at Regionals

            Originally posted by Brenthoven View Post
            It's a chance. Not a good chance by any means, but there is a chance.
            The movie "Slap Shot" (those of us who ACTUALLY know the game know that it was pretty much a satire) did MORE damage to hockey than 1,000,000 ESPN telecasts will boost it. The reality is, I can't tell you how many of my "friends" who hate hockey cite that movie and actually think that's what every hockey game is like. No matter how much you try to explain that football, for example, is 100 times more violent, they just have this image in their head that they can't get rid of. Then you have the late night morons always cracking jokes like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." We disregard that stuff because we love hockey and understand what the game really is, but you don't realize how much damage that does to the average person who just didn't grow up in an area where they play the game and thus never had a chance to appreciate it or learn anything about it. And do you think that NBC or ESPN do hockey any favors when they run their open and it features 30 seconds of nothing but people smashing into each other and sending someone flying? Instead of focusing on the skills, they focus on the violence. What do you expect someone who has never seen the game to think??? You are NEVER going to "grow the game" because unless people grew up with it, they just have a completely closed mind. Next to politics, I have need seen such obstinate reactions when it comes to people's opinion about something.
            Last edited by chickod; 04-08-2013, 08:34 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Attendance at Regionals

              In order to catch up, I'll reply to two of your posts at the same time:

              Originally posted by CLS View Post
              Not trying to be a wise-***, but given that we’re discussing change to an existing system, I’d say the question really is are the Western crowds really so bad to establish the necessity for change. It’s clear that many folks do, or we wouldn’t have this discussion.
              Originally posted by CLS View Post
              As for whether or not my comment was unfair, note the context. I was commenting on a proposal that would scrap the current regional structure and instead have the first round games at the home rink of the higher seed, then have the quarterfinals at neutral sites. I said that the current structure works reasonably well in the east, and the question was posed “Is the attendance in the eastern regionals so good that the current system couldn’t be changed.” I responded the way I did because if someone is proposing a change, I think it’s incumbent on them to establish the need for the change, not on the proponents of the current system to establish that it shouldn’t be changed.
              In other words, there's an issue as to who has the burden of proof. In rhetorical terms, that's a pretty clever point. I hadn't previously thought of it in that way. From my vantage point, however, the argument that the current system is broken seemed established beyond any reasonable doubt. Arguing that crowds at the Eastern regionals were good enough to justify the status quo, regardless of the problems in the West, felt like an affirmative defense. When asserting an affirmative defense, one bears the burden of proof. But as your comments show, there's more than one legitimate way to characterize the issue.

              While it's an interesting question to us, if we focus on burden of proof we're going lose everyone else pretty quickly. We're better off just trying to identify the "best" system.

              ...A fuller arena would make them better. But I’ll admit that a full arena is less important to me than other things. One example is that I think neutral ice per se is a positive for this tournament. A second example is that I think that having demand for tickets greater than number of seats is worse than empty seats in the arena. I checked the capacities for the Hockey East schools, and there were only two that could have accommodated the crowd in Providence and none that would have accommodated the crowd in Manchester. And that’s just raw numbers; I think that fairness would dictate that you need to allocate some seats to the visiting school(s), which raises the possibility of season ticket holders and students not being able to attend.
              The problem in the West isn't "less than full" arenas. The arena at the Tampa FF was less than full. The crowds at many Western Regionals are tiny, far below any rational minimum standard. Even when the raw number of fans is higher in the NHL buildings, the percentage of empty seats is just too high. If two of the four regionals are frequently below minimum standards, that says to me the system is broken and there just has to be a better alternative. And note that as long some Eastern teams are sent West for regional play, this isn't just a Western problem. It potentially affects everyone.

              Of course that doesn’t necessarily apply to Alton’s plan, because the regional crowds included the fans of four schools. I checked this year, and I don’t think that there would have been terrible oversold problems in the first round. Most of the would-be hosts have reasonably sized rinks. Quinnipiac might have been a problem if they had been playing a school that was closer and had a larger fan base.
              I certainly agree that every school in the NCAA tournament should be guaranteed an allotment of tickets for its game(s), regardless of venue. But that requirement can be incorporated into any of the plans that have been discussed. No visitor's allotment? Do what it takes to create one or you lose the right to host.

              Alton's hybrid plan can certainly "include" fans of both schools; it just forces the fans from lower seeds to travel to someone else's home rink in the first round. Then, in the second round, the larger venues should provide plenty of room for all. Your comment on this point is consistent with my belief that Alton's plan best matches the ticket demand that's actually out there. In communities like GB, GR & Toledo, the local demand just isn't there and realistically won't be -- at least in the middle of the college hoops post-season.

              Yes, and I remember the uproar over the Yost and Mariucci (and I think once Englestad) host sites when the host was not the top seed. One year they went to the absurdity of making Michigan use the visitors dressing room and the top seed using Michigan’s, which is some indication to me that the NCAA favors neutral sites. (Must’ve been a great atmosphere dressing in a room with big “M”s plastered all over it and pictures of past Michigan national championship teams ). But I’ve noticed that hasn’t happened since some new venues that are appropriate for a regional have come on line (aren’t Green Bay and Toledo relatively new?) so I have to believe that the only reason was that that Yost etc. were the only bids.
              Attracting bids is obviously an issue for any neutral site plan. Eliminating campus facilities from the pool of potential bidders aggravates the situation.

              But THE problem with choosing campus rinks is that the host school may receive UNEARNED home ice. Under Alton's plan, the host schools have earned their home ice advantage by garnering one of the top 8 seeds. So Alton puts the games where the demand is the greatest, yet doesn't confer an unfair advantage.

              Michigan using the Visitors' room at Yost is absurd, though it does make for a good war story. But again, this situation needn't arise under Alton's plan. Just limit the regional finals to neutral venues, which IIRC was his proposal all along.

              It appears to me the perfect western regional site – the one that nobody would object strongly to – would be a 9 – 10,000 seat arena in the Twin Cities area, but not on the UMTC campus. For some the Xcel is too big, and some object to Mariucci because it is a home rink.
              There'd be objections. Note the upcoming BTHC tournament will alternate between St. Paul and Detroit. If the question was limited to maximizing ticket sales, St. Paul probably would have gotten all of the BT tournaments initially awarded. Again, the geographical considerations in the West are simply different than those in the East.

              Comment


              • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                Originally posted by chickod View Post
                The movie "Slap Shot" (those of us who ACTUALLY know the game know that it was pretty much a satire) did MORE damage to hockey than 1,000,000 ESPN telecasts will boost it. The reality is, I can't tell you how many of my "friends" who hate hockey cite that movie and actually think that's what every hockey game is like. No matter how much you try to explain that football, for example, is 100 times more violent, they just have this image in their head that they can't get rid of. Then you have the late night morons always cracking jokes like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." We disregard that stuff because we love hockey and understand what the game really is, but you don't realize how much damage that does to the average person who just didn't grow up in an area where they play the game and thus never had a chance to appreciate it or learn anything about it. And do you think that NBC or ESPN do hockey any favors when they run their open and it features 30 seconds of nothing but people smashing into each other and sending someone flying? Instead of focusing on the skills, they focus on the violence. What do you expect someone who has never seen the game to think??? You are NEVER going to "grow the game" because unless people grew up with it, they just have a completely closed mind. Next to politics, I have need seen such obstinate reactions when it comes to people's opinion about something.
                Well, there are also a substantial number of people who are fans because of the fighting. It has been said many times that NASCAR's popularity is as much about the crashes as it is about the racing.

                Comment


                • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                  Going to have to sign off. Am en route to Pittsburgh already. We’re driving and we decided to spend a couple of days in Pennsylvania Dutch country on the way, so I’ll have only intermittent internet connectivity, and not much time to spend posting.

                  If the current structure, has to be changed, I’d say:

                  The “best” is Alton’s, modified to say that if the top seeds rink is not suitable or unavailable, that the game be moved to a neutral site near the top seed, not to the second seed.

                  Next is a permanent regional (or super-regional) at a place that has good results historically. Though I doubt that we’ll agree on what constitutes acceptable results, I’d say right now that, in the west, it’s St. Paul.

                  The others are non-starters to me.

                  Hope everybody has a great time in Pittsbugh. Here’s to Cinderalla.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                    Originally posted by Hux View Post
                    Well, there are also a substantial number of people who are fans because of the fighting. It has been said many times that NASCAR's popularity is as much about the crashes as it is about the racing.
                    This is true...but we were discussing "growing the sport." In that scenario, I don't think many "new" fans would be too crazy about it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by chickod View Post
                      The movie "Slap Shot" (those of us who ACTUALLY know the game know that it was pretty much a satire) did MORE damage to hockey than 1,000,000 ESPN telecasts will boost it. The reality is, I can't tell you how many of my "friends" who hate hockey cite that movie and actually think that's what every hockey game is like. No matter how much you try to explain that football, for example, is 100 times more violent, they just have this image in their head that they can't get rid of. Then you have the late night morons always cracking jokes like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." We disregard that stuff because we love hockey and understand what the game really is, but you don't realize how much damage that does to the average person who just didn't grow up in an area where they play the game and thus never had a chance to appreciate it or learn anything about it. And do you think that NBC or ESPN do hockey any favors when they run their open and it features 30 seconds of nothing but people smashing into each other and sending someone flying? Instead of focusing on the skills, they focus on the violence. What do you expect someone who has never seen the game to think??? You are NEVER going to "grow the game" because unless people grew up with it, they just have a completely closed mind. Next to politics, I have need seen such obstinate reactions when it comes to people's opinion about something.
                      Did you ever see the "Broad Street Bullies" play? Remember bench clearing brawls? When Slap Shot was made, though it was a bit exaggerated, it wasn't that far off, especially in the minor leagues.
                      "The use of common sense and logic will not be tolerated and may result in fine and/or suspension."- Western Professional Hockey League By-laws. 1999-2000.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                        Originally posted by davyd83 View Post
                        Did you ever see the "Broad Street Bullies" play? Remember bench clearing brawls? When Slap Shot was made, though it was a bit exaggerated, it wasn't that far off, especially in the minor leagues.
                        Of course...and I remember Bill Friday ("Friday is a bum") making the "diving" motion whenever Bill Barber would fall on his face! And toothless "Booby Clarke." And Bernie Parent. And Dave Schultz. And Kate Smith. They beat the Bruins in the finals and I hated them. But that's my point...you have a somewhat "fixed" group of fans who love the game the way it was then. We are talking about (not that I think you necessarily can) "growing" the sport, and in this PC society, where violence is akin to terrorists with guns and school shootings, it just seems like an anachronism. I don't think you'll see the sport gain any popularity if they continue to go down that road. It doesn't matter what "we" like, because we're already fans and have been for a long time.

                        EDIT: Did you know that someone in the Rhode Island state legislature (or whatever they call it there) filed a bill to BAN high school football? This is where we are headed. If a sport (or anybody else) can't police itself, the government will step in. I don't see any way that fighting survives in hockey - and it certainly isn't endearing any "new" fans because of it.
                        Last edited by chickod; 04-09-2013, 09:22 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                          Originally posted by chickod View Post
                          Of course...and I remember Bill Friday ("Friday is a bum") making the "diving" motion whenever Bill Barber would fall on his face! And toothless "Booby Clarke." And Bernie Parent. And Dave Schultz. And Kate Smith. They beat the Bruins in the finals and I hated them. But that's my point...you have a somewhat "fixed" group of fans who love the game the way it was then. We are talking about (not that I think you necessarily can) "growing" the sport, and in this PC society, where violence is akin to terrorists with guns and school shootings, it just seems like an anachronism. I don't think you'll see the sport gain any popularity if they continue to go down that road. It doesn't matter what "we" like, because we're already fans and have been for a long time.

                          EDIT: Did you know that someone in the Rhode Island state legislature (or whatever they call it there) filed a bill to BAN high school football? This is where we are headed. If a sport (or anybody else) can't police itself, the government will step in. I don't see any way that fighting survives in hockey - and it certainly isn't endearing any "new" fans because of it.
                          Contact sports was one of the things made illegal in the Demolition Man-ifesto.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                            Cities assume the risk and reap the profits from hosting playoff tournaments. The less cities must spend to host a tournament determines profit. NCAA profits from DI tournament gates (all sports) are insignificant compared to media revenues [and exposure].
                            If the NCAA wants DI college hockey to remain a niche sport it should definitely negotiate for playoffs with cities with the worst April weather, the lowest percentage of income from tourism, and the closest proximity to micro hotbeds of college hockey fanatics.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                              This has been a pretty entertaining thread overall. My opinion focuses on getting more people to see this great sport, particularly live. That being said, seems pretty clear the NCAA doesn't care about the sport much at all as it just doesn't drive revenues for them. Guess I'm just naive to think they should try to figure out a solution for each sport rather than just go cookie cutter and only really work at those that drive tons of revenue. I think/hope we'd all agree that playing the national tournament in front of crowds of 10,000 plus (or thereabouts) would deliver a better experience for the student-athletes first and foremost than what we currently have. I'm for whatever helps make that happen.

                              Related but not completely important question, so why is it that some events with NCAA affiliation (conference tournaments and for another example, football games at the University of Minnesota which is an on campus stadium) can have alcohol and others (like the whole freakin' national tourney) can't? Seems like the rules are pretty unclear. Anybody have the explanation on this one?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Attendance at Regionals

                                Originally posted by SCSU BlackandRed View Post
                                This has been a pretty entertaining thread overall. My opinion focuses on getting more people to see this great sport, particularly live. That being said, seems pretty clear the NCAA doesn't care about the sport much at all as it just doesn't drive revenues for them. Guess I'm just naive to think they should try to figure out a solution for each sport rather than just go cookie cutter and only really work at those that drive tons of revenue. I think/hope we'd all agree that playing the national tournament in front of crowds of 10,000 plus (or thereabouts) would deliver a better experience for the student-athletes first and foremost than what we currently have. I'm for whatever helps make that happen.

                                Related but not completely important question, so why is it that some events with NCAA affiliation (conference tournaments and for another example, football games at the University of Minnesota which is an on campus stadium) can have alcohol and others (like the whole freakin' national tourney) can't? Seems like the rules are pretty unclear. Anybody have the explanation on this one?
                                One is sponsored by the host school, and one is sponsored by the NCAA. In the regular season, the school makes the decision. In the playoffs, the NCAA (or the league) makes the decision.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X