Regionals attendance

[beaverhockeyfan]

Re: Regionals attendance

You need to realize that the NCAA does NOT set regional ticket prices, the host does that. The NCAA puts out a request for bids for the regionals and awards them based on criteria and money that they will receive. It is then up to the host to set up the ticket prices based on covering their costs, including what they promised the NCAA, and then hope to make a profit.

[LTsatch]

Re: Regionals attendance

Check who purchased the tickets for Bridgeport. I think that you may find most of those tickets, since they sell packages and not individual games, were purchsed by Quinnipiac and UVM fans. They have larger followings than PC and Union.

Bottom line is the regional set-up needs an overhall. Cities like Worcester and Bridgeport, with small college hockey fan bases, need to be taken out of the mix, at least for awhile. Providence, Albany, Syracuse and Rochester would be better sites. They have large college hockey fan bases and have done well with NCAA events in the past.

I'm not as familiar with teh history in the mid-west, but I don't get why cities like Cincinnati keep getting the events. Pick places with built in crowds and/or great entertainment options and hotels near the arena - like Providence - with buildings that hold fewer than 15,000. If that means that sometimes you have a regional in or near a campus site like Madison, Ann Arbor, Albany, or Grand Forks, so be it. I would prefer to see a building near capacity and rocking, than less than half-full. Improve the atmosphere and build demand and then go back to larger buildings.

Unfortunately, your first two paragraphs are completely false. I attended both sessions in Bridgeport and if I had to rank attendance by fanbase it Would probably be Union, Quinnipiac, Providence and VT in that order. Single day tickets were available for the east region as well. The Connecticut fanbase is actually large and avid, with a good amount of local walk-up sales. I think the problem is that with the regional setup, you are not going to fill the large barns, there is really no demand. I would rather see close to 7K folks in an 8.5K facility like Bridgeport, rather than a 17K pro barn which is half full. Also, the NCAA should allow beer and also allow re-entry between games.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Regionals attendance

But I think this is an example of the organizers being powerless. As much as they might like to move the event to NBC Sports, NHL Network, or someone (anyone) who actually has a cent invested in promoting the game and would air at appropriate times, hockey is probably an infinitesimal piece of a negotiation driven by football and basketball considerations and relationships between people who rarely, if ever, sat in a rink. So it is what it is. I continue to wonder what the purpose of College Hockey Inc. is if not to exert some kind of influence on these matters, but I digress.

The TV contract for hockey isn't "negotiated" individually. ESPN owns the rights to every NCAA conducted championship at the Division 1 level save for Men's basketball. They do with them what they please, whether that means showing the games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or one of their online platforms, as well as whether they see the light of day as live broadcasts or tape delayed ones. Or even showing them at all.

As much as I hate ESPN and how it has driven sports only towards a fatter bottom line, it is nice to know that virtually anyone with either an internet connection or cable/satellite TV can see any game they want to live. As recently as 10 years ago -- when Notre Dame finally made an appearance in the NCAA tournament -- the only way to ensure seeing the game played live was to be at the arena. Now I didn't have to make the 7 hour drive to St Paul and spend 100 bucks. Of course TV may be one huge reason we sometimes see tiny dead crowds, but there are always going to be tradeoffs.

You need to realize that the NCAA does NOT set regional ticket prices, the host does that. The NCAA puts out a request for bids for the regionals and awards them based on criteria and money that they will receive. It is then up to the host to set up the ticket prices based on covering their costs, including what they promised the NCAA, and then hope to make a profit.

Actually the NCAA does have a large hand in setting the ticket prices, in that they mandate a floor and a ceiling. The entities who then are awarded a bid are free to set a price within those parameters as they see fit.

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Regionals attendance

When a great hockey market like St Paul can only draw 8800 people with two local teams competing for a spot in the FF you have a problem. I agree with other posters that the NCAA needs to re-evaluate ticket prices and look to move into smaller venues to start creating a demand again.

Agreed, and with Meehan Popcorn Guy. Nobody wants to go to a boring party. The NCAA IMO needs to drop the "no home ice" rule and go back to on campus facilities (not best of 3) but on-campus facilities for a while. Same regional format but facilities that will be more full and generate energy and fun. Western bias here...but Engelstad (sp?) Mariucci or Denver's Magness arena (not the Pepsi Center), and the new place in Duluth would be great facilities and about the right size. Resch Center in Green Bay (about 8,000) works well with the right teams. I know I'm western bias here but I don't know the eastern rinks as well.

[The Zlax45]

Re: Regionals attendance

Agreed, and with Meehan Popcorn Guy. Nobody wants to go to a boring party. The NCAA IMO needs to drop the "no home ice" rule and go back to on campus facilities (not best of 3) but on-campus facilities for a while. Same regional format but facilities that will be more full and generate energy and fun. Western bias here...but Engelstad (sp?) Mariucci or Denver's Magness arena (not the Pepsi Center), and the new place in Duluth would be great facilities and about the right size. Resch Center in Green Bay (about 8,000) works well with the right teams. I know I'm western bias here but I don't know the eastern rinks as well.

Isn't Notre Dame hosting next season?

I am NOT for home rinks hosting a regional as it gives teams too much of an advantage especially if they play on Olympic Ice like UNH.

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Regionals attendance

Isn't Notre Dame hosting next season?

I am NOT for home rinks hosting a regional as it gives teams too much of an advantage especially if they play on Olympic Ice like UNH.

They are...if memory serves the NCAA didn't have much choice since no one else submitted a bit for that region, which is telling in itself if the NCAA listens.
And I concur about the ice sheet size. Good point.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Regionals attendance

Isn't Notre Dame hosting next season?

I am NOT for home rinks hosting a regional as it gives teams too much of an advantage especially if they play on Olympic Ice like UNH.

I wouldn't worry too much about that next season in South Bend. Right now I think Notre Dame's chances of being good enough next season are somewhere between slim and none. Perhaps when I am a little further removed from the bitterness about my team losing again to a lower seed or the fashion in which they lost, I'll upgrade my expectations to somewhere between unlikely and slim.

[Happy]

Re: Regionals attendance

Isn't Notre Dame hosting next season?

I am NOT for home rinks hosting a regional as it gives teams too much of an advantage especially if they play on Olympic Ice like UNH.

So, you think it is fine for small ice teams to always have an advantage, even though the teams who put in big ice did it because the NCAA told them too. Nice way to always punish a few teams every year.

[Crimson Faced]

Re: Regionals attendance

Went to the Northeast Finals on Sunday. Liked the timing of the games this year as you could stay home Saturday and watch 6 games; there were only two Sunday, and Minnesota looked like a winner, playing at home against a team that had gone into overtime the night before. The Centrum is a dump, to put it kindly, with continual lines for the men's room, even with no beer sold. Manchester is a much better venue. Worcester has horrible sight lines for hockey also. UML brought a large and vocal crowd, BC brought a decent crowd, but BC fans don't usually make a lot of noise in any case, unless the students are there. UML has a great band.

The attendance was OK, but most of the upper arena was blocked off, which I had never seen in all the years of going there. My wife wondered why they don't hold the regionals at Agganis, which would probably be full and is a great place to watch hockey.

[J.D.]

Re: Regionals attendance

seeing bc advance to another FF but this time via bu's home ice...oh please make that happen

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Regionals attendance

Isn't Notre Dame hosting next season?

I am NOT for home rinks hosting a regional as it gives teams too much of an advantage especially if they play on Olympic Ice like UNH/[or Minnesota].

Coach Schafer is that you?

[Middle Street]

Re: Regionals attendance

The Centrum is a dump, to put it kindly, with continual lines for the men's room, even with no beer sold. Manchester is a much better venue.

I can't even imagine what the lines would be like if that place was actually filled to its total capacity. I sat in section 124 and the men's room closest to my section was actually a ladies room they decided to tape a men's rooms sign over. I prefer Manchester as well.

[LTsatch]

Re: Regionals attendance

So, you think it is fine for small ice teams to always have an advantage, even though the teams who put in big ice did it because the NCAA told them too. Nice way to always punish a few teams every year.

Make the ice smaller, you could have nice little speed skating oval outside the boards

[Madtown]

Re: Regionals attendance

Here's my take for what little it is worth. I am a Badger season ticket holder and like to follow the team as much as possible. Having said that the past 6 years we have always made the trip to St. Paul for the WCHA Final Five and this year the BI6 Tourny. The final five had decent crowds and a good atmosphere. The Big6 was decent this year as well. Taking off Fri to get up to St. Paul and getting back late Sunday afternoon. Going into work Monday to ask for the coming Fri off so I can drive 7 hours and spend another couple hundred is tough. Then throw in the fact that if your team does make it to the Frozen Four, you go into work the next Monday and ask for Wed-Fri off. Drop $500/ person on flights due to less than 2 week lead time, 4 nights hotel, food, drink and couple tickets. Maybe some don't see a problem with that, but in my mind you have to pick and choose out of the 3 weekends. I think in a lot of situations a conference tourney is closer and probably more affordable, and if I'm choosing between the frozen four and the regionals I am going with frozen four. Now with our tourney in Detroit next year I may rethink things. I love hockey but to be in every arena at the end of the year is tough.

[bcarlisle]

Re: Regionals attendance

I just think we need to come to grips that the interest level in Men's college hockey is just not what it used to be. Too many other options for people now. Hockey will continue to be a regional affair and will always play 3rd fiddle to the big two - football and basketball - in terms of revenue and TV coverage. When a great hockey market like St Paul can only draw 8800 people with two local teams competing for a spot in the FF you have a problem. I agree with other posters that the NCAA needs to re-evaluate ticket prices and look to move into smaller venues to start creating a demand again.

Two Words: "Lake" and "Placid"