Attendance at Regionals

[CLS]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

But that's not what would happen. There were be certain minimum criteria required to host. If you did not meet the criteria, then they go to the closest neutral site (or maybe the next team down the list hosts at home). I don't think it would be a mistake at all (I feel another rant coming on). I don't know how many times I have to say this before people get that college hockey is a REGIONAL, NICHE sport. STOP comparing it to basketball. And it's not like the old days where you had to play in Watson Rink or some barn at East Overshoe U. Most schools have nice facilities now (and, as I said before, if a school doesn't you find one who does).

Chickod, could you explain who died and left you in charge of determining “what would happen”? The post I responded to said nothing about contingencies. It only said highest seed. So now you’re going to give home ice to, say Minnesota, but not to, say Quinnipiac, which opens up the possibility that’s happened in the past of Michigan playing on the road at Yost? Or force the NCAA to find a “suitable neutral location” or “a nice facility” in one week?

I violently agree with you on the “niche sport” and I made no mention of basketball. Stop throwing in red herrings.

Or do you think it's a better "atmosphere" to have 237 people in Grand Rapids or (insert any other venue from the past 10 years) any other ginormous 20,000 seat arena?

I think neither. I think neutrality and fairness are more important than “atmosphere”, which is far more of an issue for fans than for the players. If they can’t perform well in a half filled neutral site, they don’t deserve to be in the FF.

[chickod]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I care about you.

Thanks. But see my next post... It's not "bias." It's reality. The only reason Manchester had a "large" crowd was because two of the schools are in its backyard. And I don't get your point. You're saying we're spoiled - well then, OK. Where were the billions of fans from the Western schools that are so "used to" traveling? Given that there were probably 24 fans from Minnesota and 23 from North Dakota in Grand Rapids doesn't exactly support the theory that the Western schools are more "comfortable" with traveling long distances. So I guess it wouldn't be better to have had North Dakota host the Regional with 17,000 fans than it would have been to go to Grungy Rapids and have 200 show up???

[chickod]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Surprises me, not that there weren't large contingents from Yale and Niagara. But I thought (maybe hoped) that there might be decent attendance from Minny and North Dakota.

?????? Do you know how far it is from Grand Forks to Grand Rapids? 900 miles Everyone here in the East forgets that the states are small. If you're a UND fan, you're going to fly to Grand Rapids and then possibly again to Pittsburgh in two weeks? The economy is NOT good, people. Put the regionals back on CAMPUSES where at least ONE school's population can be represented. Better than empty arenas...but then see my post above.

[unhpuckfan2001]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Yeah, but for the most part we're not complaining about Manchester. It's the OTHER arenas (like Grand Rapids) where it's basically empty ("two games" or no "two games"). You could have taken everyone from both games and fit them between the blue lines in five rows. Embarrassing. And this is my point about "neutral" sites. You have to remember that New England has a high population density. ALL of the "neutral" arenas around here Hartford, Providence, Springfield, Worcester, Boston, Manchester, Portland are STILL within one to two hours of EVERY school. It's not like that out West. It's ludicrous to be playing a regional where every school has to travel over 500 miles. People just aren't going to go. But as I said last night, clearly WE care more about the attendance than the NCAA does. It's just chump change to them (because if they really cared they'd do something about it). And they don't care about the fans, either. There's only one thing they care about - it's green with pictures of famous Americans on it. This is all driven by REVENUE - mostly from TV. And let's face it - hockey doesn't make money anyway. That's why the TV contracts are tied into the other sports. ESPN AGREED to telecast the hockey as part of their agreement to pick up the "entire" package of sports. So all of this discussion is pointless because as long as they get their revenue up front from contracts, they couldn't care less if 15,000 or 15 people show up. Going back to the campus would be a great atmosphere for the fans, but nobody gives a **** about us...

I care about you.

And . . . I can't resist: Eastern Bias.

But seriously, the eastern fans are spoiled, with the concentration of schools. I remember being "livid" when I found out Notre Dame was joining Hockey East, ruining the bus league.

[chickod]

Re: Attendance at Regionals

I think it's important to remember that the first day of a regional has two games - while I'm sure the folks in Manchester scanned a little over 8,000 tickets - I doubt that all 8,000 of those people were in their seats at the same time. Many UNH probably arrived late to the UML beatdown of Wisco - many bars in the area had the game on TV, and so once it wasn't a close game I'm sure many fans of the later teams chose to have some more libations elsewhere.

Then, as the UNH / DU game went on, you could see the sections of fans where lots of red and blue was worn emptying out. Tough to gauge attendance based on a glance at the TV.

I think tonight's game, because it's a Saturday (as opposed to a Sunday like the BU UNH game) will be around 9,000. Just a completely uneducated guess. But compared to the other regionals, I'd bet that's by far the highest . . .

Yeah, but for the most part we're not complaining about Manchester. It's the OTHER arenas (like Grand Rapids) where it's basically empty ("two games" or no "two games"). You could have taken everyone from both games and fit them between the blue lines in five rows. Embarrassing. And this is my point about "neutral" sites. You have to remember that New England has a high population density. ALL of the "neutral" arenas around here Hartford, Providence, Springfield, Worcester, Boston, Manchester, Portland are STILL within one to two hours of EVERY school. It's not like that out West. It's ludicrous to be playing a regional where every school has to travel over 500 miles. People just aren't going to go. But as I said last night, clearly WE care more about the attendance than the NCAA does. It's just chump change to them (because if they really cared they'd do something about it). And they don't care about the fans, either. There's only one thing they care about - it's green with pictures of famous Americans on it. This is all driven by REVENUE - mostly from TV. And let's face it - hockey doesn't make money anyway. That's why the TV contracts are tied into the other sports. ESPN AGREED to telecast the hockey as part of their agreement to pick up the "entire" package of sports. So all of this discussion is pointless because as long as they get their revenue up front from contracts, they couldn't care less if 15,000 or 15 people show up. Going back to the campus would be a great atmosphere for the fans, but nobody gives a **** about us...