Attendance at Regionals

[Alton]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I've said it before, etc...

The NCAA doesn't care about...

They don't care about money either...at least not hockey money, which essentially rounds to zero in the grand scheme of things.

There are a lot of different groups of people who get called "The NCAA" in different contexts. These groups care about very different things. The NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Committee is made up of college hockey people, and cares very much about the public perception of their sport. The NCAA Division I Championships and Competition Cabinet is made up of mostly athletic administrators, and cares mostly about the consistent application of principles in creating the different Division I tournaments. The NCAA Division I Administrative Council cares about money and will consider any proposals based on how much it will cost and how much it will save (and doesn't really consider TV money in the debate for minor sports). The first committee will propose any rule changes, the second and third committees will approve or reject any proposals, and anybody else who is called "The NCAA" either will rubber stamp the decision or has no say at all.

So the question returns: pre-determined sites for the first round like Division I basketball, or home sites for the first round like every other sport the NCAA sponsors in every division?

I'm amazed that this is even a debate. Do NCAA tennis fans argue about whether the first round of the tennis tournament should be at a neutral site, instead of the top 16 seeds? I kind of follow NCAA softball, and I've certainly never heard it suggested that the regionals or super-regionals should be on neutral softball fields. But it comes up in hockey, because the committee made a bad decision two decades ago and the current committee can't find it in their hearts to admit that their predecessors were wrong, wrong, wrong.

I posted it several months ago, but the problem remains: for the casual fans (not the over-rabid fans like us who are reading this board in June):
* People only want to see their own team in the regionals, and don't care about other teams.
* People will travel to see their teams in regionals, but not too far: they won't fly and they mostly won't spend even one night in a hotel room to do it.
* People don't think they should be spending much more than they spend for a regular-season ticket.

Neutral regionals can't work within the context of the facts above, at least they can't work unless you have 20 teams in a 200-mile radius. The 16-team format used by lacrosse works for that sport, and it has probably the same constraints that I listed above. There's no reason that format can't work for hockey too. One of the best features of our sport is the enthusiasm of the fans. Let's bring that enthusiasm back to where it belongs in the most important games of the season.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

How much are regional tickets? I went to a Crunch playoff game this past weekend (conference finals, i.e. the step before the Calder Cup final), and an at-the-door ticket was $28, which is about the price of the nosebleeds during value or bronze at Sabres games. That's not too bad. Equate that to $56 for two games per seat ($84 for three games), make an adjustment for the level of play, city, and atmosphere; the NCAA should be comparable.

[Patman]

With all due respect, I hated that format, because there always seemed to be an auto-bye for an undeserving team. (Usually Clarkson.)

Perhaps if the NCAA used the PWR to seed the teams, vs. gifting the auto-bids, it wouldn't be so bad.

I still maintain that it's all about the national TV exposure, though. As long as college hockey has that, it really doesn't matter much if people attend the games... The sport will grow in spite of itself.

That wasn't the format's fault but the double autobid system and its seeding presumptions.

This year it was Quinny, Minny, Lowell, and Miami(?). Three of those lost to the national champion. I don't think it'd be that bad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to 12 but the crowds were usually very good in the east.

[Alton]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

How much are regional tickets?

At Toledo, they were $45 for the semifinals, $45 for the final, $75 for the entire package.

Reference: an article in the Toledo Blade where arena officials brag about the adequacity of the attendance (2,988 for the semifinals and 2,460 for the final).

http://www.toledoblade.com/sports/20...officials.html

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

At Toledo, they were $45 for the semifinals, $45 for the final, $75 for the entire package.

Reference: an article in the Toledo Blade where arena officials brag about the adequacity of the attendance (2,988 for the semifinals and 2,460 for the final).

http://www.toledoblade.com/sports/20...officials.html

OK, going from $84 to $75 in two cities that I'd assume are fairly similar (Toledo's metropolitan area is probably a bit bigger). The level of competition is comparable. Must be atmosphere that is the problem where tickets can't be sold.

[Alton]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

OK, going from $84 to $75 in two cities that I'd assume are fairly similar (Toledo's metropolitan area is probably a bit bigger). The level of competition is comparable. Must be atmosphere that is the problem where tickets can't be sold.

I think it's not so much the "atmosphere" as the fact that people won't fly (or spend the night in a hotel room) for regionals, and fans might spend $75 to root for their favorite team twice but locals won't spend that kind of money to watch teams when they don't have a rooting interest.

[WiscDC]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I think it's not so much the "atmosphere" as the fact that people won't fly (or spend the night in a hotel room) for regionals, and fans might spend $75 to root for their favorite team twice but locals won't spend that kind of money to watch teams when they don't have a rooting interest.

This gets overlooked too often. Fans are much more likely to buy tickets if a team they follow is involved, despite the population (and population of hockey fans) in an area. I think it was earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure - there were people here talking about Hockey East attendance, and it was all about how near Boston, there are several options available, and it seemed like everyone treated it as if half the fans at the games don't care about either team. (e.g. Someone would/should just as soon go to a BC game as a Harvard game, disregarding allegiances.)

Anyway, my point is that you're relying on the fan bases of the teams for the bulk of the attendance, not local people who may be interested. Ticket prices aren't as much of an issue as travel costs (and time).

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

This gets overlooked too often. Fans are much more likely to buy tickets if a team they follow is involved, despite the population (and population of hockey fans) in an area. I think it was earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure - there were people here talking about Hockey East attendance, and it was all about how near Boston, there are several options available, and it seemed like everyone treated it as if half the fans at the games don't care about either team. (e.g. Someone would/should just as soon go to a BC game as a Harvard game, disregarding allegiances.)

Anyway, my point is that you're relying on the fan bases of the teams for the bulk of the attendance, not local people who may be interested. Ticket prices aren't as much of an issue as travel costs (and time).

One thing to also remember, and this is not just in the case of hockey, is that it's not just students supporting the team; you also have community involvement. So many times we see parents taking their 7-12-year-olds to the games, and they're not going to travel with the team to other locations (unless you're a REAL podunk town in which case it might happen).

[WiscDC]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

One thing to also remember, and this is not just in the case of hockey, is that it's not just students supporting the team; you also have community involvement. So many times we see parents taking their 7-12-year-olds to the games, and they're not going to travel with the team to other locations (unless you're a REAL podunk town in which case it might happen).

I wasn't forgetting the fans in the community. Travel issues apply to them as well, as they'd be based in the area of the school. The hardcore fans may find it worth it to go to the Frozen Four if their team is in it, but will stick to watching the regionals on TV.

[MarkEagleUSA]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Ticket prices aren't as much of an issue as travel costs (and time).

Obviously, with Quinnipiac this year, I was going wherever they went just because it was such a great season.

Well, after the ECAC's in Atlantic City, the Providence regional, and the Frozen Four in Pittsburgh, my wallet was well over a grand lighter... and I travelled to all 3 places alone. Hotel's, meals, travel costs... tickets ended up being the least costly items. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, but only if the Q is there. I can see myself attending another FF, but not a regional (except maybe Bridgeport since it's close enough to drive). The non-hockey costs are just too much.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Obviously, with Quinnipiac this year, I was going wherever they went just because it was such a great season.

Well, after the ECAC's in Atlantic City, the Providence regional, and the Frozen Four in Pittsburgh, my wallet was well over a grand lighter... and I travelled to all 3 places alone. Hotel's, meals, travel costs... tickets ended up being the least costly items. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, but only if the Q is there. I can see myself attending another FF, but not a regional (except maybe Bridgeport since it's close enough to drive). The non-hockey costs are just too much.

True that. As much as I enjoy my trips to the west, I'd probably only go to a regional if it were held at the War Memorial. And even then, probably only if RPI were in it. It does get a bit insane on the costs, although I really enjoy the driving journey.

[CLS]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Obviously, with Quinnipiac this year, I was going wherever they went just because it was such a great season.

Well, after the ECAC's in Atlantic City, the Providence regional, and the Frozen Four in Pittsburgh, my wallet was well over a grand lighter... and I travelled to all 3 places alone. Hotel's, meals, travel costs... tickets ended up being the least costly items. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, but only if the Q is there. I can see myself attending another FF, but not a regional (except maybe Bridgeport since it's close enough to drive). The non-hockey costs are just too much.

Just curious -- if you're going to skip one, why not skip the ECAC tournament instead of the regional? I don't have a rooting interest in a specific team. I generally attend either the Hockey East tournament or the regional, but not both. If I can commute to the regional, I prefer that to the conference tournament because I get to see teams I don't ordinarily see.

Anyway, my point is that you're relying on the fan bases of the teams for the bulk of the attendance, not local people who may be interested. Ticket prices aren't as much of an issue as travel costs (and time).

Many people have suggested lower ticket prices as a way to increase attendance. I think that the venues know, or at least believe, that for the ticket prices to be low enough to attract significant local attendance, the overall gate would be less because now you're selling cheap tickets to people who'd be willing to pay more.

I wasn't forgetting the fans in the community. Travel issues apply to them as well, as they'd be based in the area of the school. The hardcore fans may find it worth it to go to the Frozen Four if their team is in it, but will stick to watching the regionals on TV.

One potential problem with moving the first round to home rinks is losing TV coverage. Instead of four predetermined locations, you would have eight locations that are determined at the last minute, some of which may not be suitable for TV.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Just curious -- if you're going to skip one, why not skip the ECAC tournament instead of the regional? I don't have a rooting interest in a specific team. I generally attend either the Hockey East tournament or the regional, but not both. If I can commute to the regional, I prefer that to the conference tournament because I get to see teams I don't ordinarily see.

Many people have suggested lower ticket prices as a way to increase attendance. I think that the venues know, or at least believe, that for the ticket prices to be low enough to attract significant local attendance, the overall gate would be less because now you're selling cheap tickets to people who'd be willing to pay more.

One potential problem with moving the first round to home rinks is losing TV coverage. Instead of four predetermined locations, you would have eight locations that are determined at the last minute, some of which may not be suitable for TV.

One thing that is forgotten is that the amount taken in by a venue is a combination of many factors. An arena will lower their ticket prices, but make up for it by selling concessions and apparel. Obviously sell what people want, such as alcohol and nachos. With the NCAA, alcohol isn't possible, so you've lost about half of your concessions. Yes, I understand they sell other things. So how do you make up the money? You pretty much have to raise the ticket prices.

[CLS]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

One thing that is forgotten is that the amount taken in by a venue is a combination of many factors. An arena will lower their ticket prices, but make up for it by selling concessions and apparel. Obviously sell what people want, such as alcohol and nachos. With the NCAA, alcohol isn't possible, so you've lost about half of your concessions. Yes, I understand they sell other things. So how do you make up the money? You pretty much have to raise the ticket prices.

Yes, it's quite complicated, which is one reason I hesitate to be too critical of the venues (or the NCAA, or a combination of the NCAA and the venues, whichever it is) for keeping the ticket prices where they are. From my point of view, based on the quality of the product compared to, say, the conference tournaments or even a normal hockey game, the ticket prices are quite fair. I also know that I always buy memorabilia at the FF, but I never buy memorabilia at regionals. And since the regionals are a "budget" outing for me that I commute to, I'm probably going to buy only enough food to keep me from starving, and I wouldn't drink much beer even if it were available.

It also makes me wonder why the NCAA can get bids in the west at all. Evidently, they make money hosting regionals, or they wouldn't continue to do it. Grand Rapids has hosted many regionals. A combination of things this year (like no Michigan teams) resulted in an attendance disaster this year. Did they lose money? Will they bid for regionals in the future, figuring this was a "worst case scenario" year? Will Toledo ever bid again?

[Rover]

Yes, it's quite complicated, which is one reason I hesitate to be too critical of the venues (or the NCAA, or a combination of the NCAA and the venues, whichever it is) for keeping the ticket prices where they are. From my point of view, based on the quality of the product compared to, say, the conference tournaments or even a normal hockey game, the ticket prices are quite fair. I also know that I always buy memorabilia at the FF, but I never buy memorabilia at regionals. And since the regionals are a "budget" outing for me that I commute to, I'm probably going to buy only enough food to keep me from starving, and I wouldn't drink much beer even if it were available.

It also makes me wonder why the NCAA can get bids in the west at all. Evidently, they make money hosting regionals, or they wouldn't continue to do it. Grand Rapids has hosted many regionals. A combination of things this year (like no Michigan teams) resulted in an attendance disaster this year. Did they lose money? Will they bid for regionals in the future, figuring this was a "worst case scenario" year? Will Toledo ever bid again?

I don't see the big problem here either. So of the 4 regionals 1 tends to not work too well. Because of that I'd rather not blow up the entire system. As you say, somebody's making money on this since the games are televised and arenas are bigging to host the events.

My view is that the onus is on the host school to get their own fans to the venue. If you can't do that don't host the event. If that means extra costs of busing people there or purchasing tickets and then discounting them for your own fans so be it. You can have co-hosts if needed to better ensure at least one team with a local presence will make the tournament.

Its similar to how football bowls work. Awhile back a local team that shall remain nameless (BC) was complaining about getting worse bowl bids than teams with lesser records. Their AD in a fit of honesty confessed that the problem was the fans don't travel. A good bowl required a 12K committment from a school, and for optics/concessions/economic impact they wanted actual butts in the seats. BC would only bring about 4K and had the $$$ to purchase the rest but it would have been 8,000 empty seats. Request denied.

So with the regionals if Michigan wants to host Grand Rapids, BU in Worcester, Robert Morris on Pittsburgh, Denver in Denver, etc they should commit to bringing around 5K people to the game depending on the venue. No that won't fill up the arena and yes that will be problematic if no local schools make it but that's the chance you take. When I was a student the school would do a lot to get the fans out to the FF (hotel rooms, flights, tix, etc). By 2009 they did none of that and called me two days before the game to tell me they had tickets for me after all (I'd been a season ticket holder for 15 years at the time). That's not going to cut it, but this plan forces athletic departments to step up their game a little bit.