What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

I'm guessing that the big problem here is attendance? You don't want to see empty seats when your watching on tv? What happens when the host school loses in round one? Empty arena for the final.

I'm guessing the big problem here is that you haven't read the rest of the thread. Or maybe you simply ignore everything you disagree with. Yes, the idea of having two rounds on campus sites was one of many ideas discussed. But most on this thread were talking about having just the first round on campus. That would fully address the issue you raise. It would also lessen the advantage given the higher seeds.

How about this?.... since teams 5-16 PWR suck (you know, it was decided on the ice during conference championships), and usually at least one conference champion sucks (AHA)... take the top four PWR and send them to the FF. Done deal... no attendance issues and lots of happy folks here at the USCHO fan Forum.

I'd be strongly against having the pairwise eliminate a conference champ, AHA or otherwise. Still, it might actually be preferable to the status quo in the West...

I get that your comment was sarcastic, something you thought no one in their right mind would agree with. You got a serious reply as one last attempt to convey to you what a huge problem the regionals have been in the West. If you come to these threads with an open mind, you might actually learn something. I certainly have. At the top of the list is that regionals in the East are working a bit better than I thought. A close second is that the coaches like the status quo more than I thought. Those insights mean it's time to reconsider, not shut up. An open mind. You might try it.

My opinion... I enjoy watching the games live, whether the building is full or not. I enjoy watching a #15 team taking on a #2. Not much difference in the talent levels anymore in the tournament. Good hockey. I get the chance to see good hockey at a regional that has been announced a year or two in advance. I am more than likely locked out at a campus site. College hockey already has it's issues with a limited fan base. Locking out diehards is not a way to endear their loyalty.

I certainly respect that opinion, at least as a guiding principle. I'm a diehard fan too. Trouble is, the idea that anyone would be locked out of a Western regional under the current format is LOL funny. As the Eagles might put it, the diehard fans are "already gone" from the Western regionals.

Of the tweaks I just suggested, only the "community based rinks" would raise this issue. But for me, it's still a manageable problem. No matter how small the venue, a limited number tickets could be made available to those willing to purchase well in advance. If a shortage of advance tickets actually arose, then you move to larger facilities going forward. To take this possibility seriously, I'd only award regionals one year at a time. That way, if the problem actually occurred, the damage could be limited to a single season.

And even more to the point, nothing needs to change in the East. If the buildings currently in use suit the purpose, fine. Keep doing exactly what you're doing. For 2, 3 or even all 4 regionals. But only a lemming would continue to schedule regionals in places like Toledo and Fort Wayne.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Conference champs only. Want the regular season to matter? Don't send all teams to the playoffs. The two leagues that have the teams who last won the Frozen Four (this year ECAC and Hockey East; drop ECAC the next year if the winner doesn't come from one of those two leagues) get an automatic berth to the Frozen Four, while the other two play in.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Conference champs only. Want the regular season to matter? Don't send all teams to the playoffs. The two leagues that have the teams who last won the Frozen Four (this year ECAC and Hockey East; drop ECAC the next year if the winner doesn't come from one of those two leagues) get an automatic berth to the Frozen Four, while the other two play in.

Could work! Would the play-in games be the previous weekend?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Could work! Would the play-in games be the previous weekend?

How did it work when five teams were invited? Let's do something similar.

[johnk]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Really want to make the regular season matter. Drop the conference tournaments. Regular season champs get autobid. I bet attendance would increase simply because people wouldn't have to travel to the conference championships and tie up 2 straight weekends, not to mention the money!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Really want to make the regular season matter. Drop the conference tournaments. Regular season champs get autobid. I bet attendance would increase simply because people wouldn't have to travel to the conference championships and tie up 2 straight weekends, not to mention the money!

And what is the benefit for the conference? Remember that the tournament is how they make money.

[CLS]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

...Trouble is, the idea that anyone would be locked out of a Western regional under the current format is LOL funny. ...

pgb, in fairness, he did say

I am more than likely locked out at a campus site.

(emphasis mine)

and that could very well be an accurate prediction. I understand we’re not talking about the pros and cons of an on-campus first round, but that could very well be a problem, not only at Union and Quinnipiac, but also at places you wouldn’t expect – like Mariucci and Englestad.

... Anyhow, if it's OK with everyone else, here's another round of brainstorming:


2. Drop the geographic designations from these tournaments. I still don't buy that ANY of the regional sites are performing at an ideal level. But if there really are four sites that can be financially solvent and have non-offensive turnstile counts, then OK. If three of the sites are technically in the East in a given year, so be it. If all four of the sites in a given year are in the East, so be it. Better to play against a hostile crowd than in front of empty seats.

I agree with the general point (and I think we've discussed this before), but not necessarily with the last sentence. And I think if you ask Miami-O whether they would have preferred to play in front of empty seats in Fort Wayne or a hostile crowd in Providence, I think they'd pick Fort Wayne. It's clear you (and others) don't agree with me (and others) who put atmosphere low on their list of priorities, but please don't state it like it's a universal truth.

3. To the well-meaning rink managers from places like Toledo and Fort Wayne: Please, please stop bidding. There's absolutely no reason for you to take a financial bath on this event; no one's coming. The only thing you're accomplishing with your financial sacrifice is propping up a system that desperately needs to change -- even if only small changes are possible. Keep your wallets closed.

I’m loathe to be too critical of places like Toledo and Fort Wayne (and I’m predicting an attendance disaster in Cincinnati next year) for putting in bids (and BTW for their ticket pricing policy). Unlike us, they have real “skin in the game” – money on the line and jobs at stake.

4. Give serious consideration to smaller, community-based rinks as hosts. If finding truly neutral sites means that crowds of 1,000 - 2,000 are the best case scenario in the West, then find buildings that are matched to crowds of that size. The costs of staging the event would be much less than holding it at a mostly empty 10,000 seat building.

...

Not sure what you mean by “community based rinks”, but smaller rinks for sure. For the last round of regional bids, the NCAA required a 5,000 seat minimum. I think we agree that’s dumb in the west. That number should be 2,000 or 3,000, and that might open up some reasonable venues. Farther back in this string, Red Cows suggested USHL rinks, and I think that should be considered. It seems to me those have the most potential for attracting locals who are not fans of the participants.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

pgb, in fairness, he did say
(emphasis mine)

and that could very well be an accurate prediction. I understand we’re not talking about the pros and cons of an on-campus first round, but that could very well be a problem, not only at Union and Quinnipiac, but also at places you wouldn’t expect – like Mariucci and Englestad.

My drafting may not have been perfect. I originally had a couple of sentences acknowledging the potential problem at campus sites, but I deleted those sentences in the belief they were irrelevant. Note that unless the USCHO article is simply wrong, campus sites now ARE irrelevant; the idea has been rejected out-of-hand. I was focusing on the tweaks I thought might be viable, and arguing that the tweaks wouldn't create the "locked out" problem -- with the possible exception of a one year overcorrection.

I agree with the general point (and I think we've discussed this before), but not necessarily with the last sentence. And I think if you ask Miami-O whether they would have preferred to play in front of empty seats in Fort Wayne or a hostile crowd in Providence, I think they'd pick Fort Wayne. It's clear you (and others) don't agree with me (and others) who put atmosphere low on their list of priorities, but please don't state it like it's a universal truth.

Again, we can trouble over whether my drafting was perfect. Also, I do understand that in specific scenarios, a coach might find a mausoleum atmosphere to be advantageous for his club, that weekend. But from the perspective of designing the best possible tournament, having fans is better than not! "Better" was, in fact, the word I used. If it's really necessary, I can add "IMHO"...

EDIT: Post #313 has been changed to include the IMHO...

I’m loathe to be too critical of places like Toledo and Fort Wayne (and I’m predicting an attendance disaster in Cincinnati next year) for putting in bids (and BTW for their ticket pricing policy). Unlike us, they have real “skin in the game” – money on the line and jobs at stake.

Not sure what you're getting at; I'm sure we agree on the bottom line -- they should act in their economic self-interest. You thought my comment was too spirited? I'm not offended, but you're getting a little nit-picky this time...

Not sure what you mean by “community based rinks”, but smaller rinks for sure. For the last round of regional bids, the NCAA required a 5,000 seat minimum. I think we agree that’s dumb in the west. That number should be 2,000 or 3,000, and that might open up some reasonable venues. Farther back in this string, Red Cows suggested USHL rinks, and I think that should be considered. It seems to me those have the most potential for attracting locals who are not fans of the participants.

I didn't want to be too specific because there's so much variation from state-to-state. But sure, the USHL rinks mentioned by Red Cows would be an example. Some communities have rinks run by counties. Others have rinks built by specific suburbs. Still others might be private enterprise. These buildings stand in contrast to "flagship" arenas that are designed to host the biggest events in their market. Using the flagship buildings generally hasn't worked in the West. But if we're willing to consider buildings in the 1,500 - 4,000 range, there would be many new possibilities to consider. I presume St. Paul's Aldrich Arena still exists. Built by Ramsey County, I'm guessing it would hold 4,000. Don't know who originally built the rink complex in Fraser, Michigan, (once known as Belle Tire) but I've got to believe their main rink would hold 2,000 or more. Mentor, an East Side suburb of Cleveland has a nice facility that would undoubtedly satisfy a 1,500 threshold. I have no idea if any of those places would be candidates. My only point here being that such facilities do exist throughout the Midwest.

[FiveHole12]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Assume you are starting a hockey league. You want to run a post season tournament for your new league. You put out invitations for any and all venues to bid to host your tournament.

One arena bids 20k and guarantees it will sell out the 1500 seat arena.
The other arena bids 100k and makes no promises for attendance figures in its 10,000 seat arena.

Which bid do you accept?

[joecct]

Assume you are starting a hockey league. You want to run a post season tournament for your new league. You put out invitations for any and all venues to bid to host your tournament.

One arena bids 20k and guarantees it will sell out the 1500 seat arena.
The other arena bids 100k and makes no promises for attendance figures in its 10,000 seat arena.

Which bid do you accept?

You take the money and run away from Atlantic City.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

You'd likely start out by accepting the higher dollar figure in Year 1. Then after each year's results are in, you evaluate them with an open mind. All variables are considered. $$ may be at the top of the list. But whether the service being provided is a good fit matters too.

You're also smart enough to understand that if your business partner lost a boatload of cash in Years 1-3, he likely won't be bidding from Year 4 Forward.

[gfmorris]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Not sure what you mean by “community based rinks”, but smaller rinks for sure. For the last round of regional bids, the NCAA required a 5,000 seat minimum. I think we agree that’s dumb in the west. That number should be 2,000 or 3,000, and that might open up some reasonable venues. Farther back in this string, Red Cows suggested USHL rinks, and I think that should be considered. It seems to me those have the most potential for attracting locals who are not fans of the participants.

The CHA had their tournament in 2003 and 2004 in Kearney, Neb., host of the Tri-City Storm. Without a doubt, these things are true:

1. The CHA was a weird league with no marquee teams in it. You weren't likely to see scads of walk-up for a Wayne State-Bemidji State championship gate in 2003.
2. The city, arena, and Storm did a good job of promoting the games to their season-ticket holders, who didn't exactly come out in droves. That was proof of the axiom that most local fans are fans of the local team far more than they are of hockey in general.
2a. The SECHC regularly plays games, and has played tournaments, here in Huntsville. Huntsville has a semi-pro team. I don't go to those games.
3. The Tri-City area isn't a destination city.

In my mind, the best CHA tournaments were those held on-campus, but even those were sparsely-attended when the home team wasn't playing (e.g., 2002 in Niagara). I think that even the Bemidji fans didn't come out in droves when the tournament was in Grand Rapids, Minn., and the Beavs weren't playing.

I present one data point, fully caveated.

GFM

[CLS]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Not sure what you're getting at; I'm sure we agree on the bottom line -- they should act in their economic self-interest. You thought my comment was too spirited? I'm not offended, but you're getting a little nit-picky this time...

Yes, fair enough. It was a tangent, and one that I won’t waste any more bandwidth on. If it’s true that Fort Wayne and Toledo regarded their hosting of the regionals as failures, then they won’t be putting bids in again anyway. In fact I’m assuming that and on-campus venue hosted this year is that the Fort Waynes of the world have stopped bidding. And if I interpret your point correctly, you’re saying that even if Fort Wayne puts in a bid, you’d hope that the NCAA awards the regional to a smaller venue.

So to get back to your talking points:

(1) Time slots. Agree. I have no idea why the game was scheduled for 2:00 in Manchester. Did they just want to be sure that in case the first game went to overtime (which it did) that they could still get the second game in? TV doesn’t seem logical because the same folks who can’t come because they’re at work also can’t watch TV because they’re at work. I live about an hour and a half from Manchester. I assumed that it would be easy to get to the arena and park. But I got nervous when the traffic jam extended to the interstate, a good two miles from the arena. Turns out the problem was traffic lights and the fact that a lot of the parking lots were closed or already filled with people at work.

(2) Geographic designations. Whether we have them or not, I’d try to find acceptable venues in the Midwest before I started putting three “regionals” in the east.

(3) No bids from the Fort Waynes of the world. Discussed above. I think this is self-correcting. But maybe we can add a point to say that if there is a bid from a 3,000 seat facility and a 10,000 seat facility, the 3,000 seat facility should get the bid because its capacity is more matched to the expected crowd.

(4) Smaller Rinks. Agree. This is #1 in my book, in fact I think it’s a necessity. One thing that occurs to me though is that a lot of the smaller rinks are not suited (e.g. insufficient concessions) to folks who have to sit through two games. I believe in addition to the size requirement, the NCAA has a amenities requirement of the venues.

(5) Lower ticket prices. While I think this should be the province of the venue I agree, that should happen with smaller rinks. Perhaps they should experiment with separate admission. This would mean that the concession problem wouldn’t be as bad, but it would also be a risk for the venue and would conflict with trying to get two games completed in a reasonable time window.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

and I’m predicting an attendance disaster in Cincinnati next year

Cincinnati wasn't an attendance disaster in 2014. The official boxscores there also more closely resembled the actual crowd than recent regionals in Fort Wayne, Toledo, Grand Rapids and Notre Dame. I believe the two day total exceeded 11,000 based on the boxscores, and there were just about that many butts in the seats the two days. Ticket prices for that regional were also the lowest at any regional in a decade. I believe an all session pass could be purchased for under $50. I see a definite parallel between the number of people in the place in a city that is far from a college hockey hotbed and the price of a ticket.

[FiveHole12]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

It is my understanding that the Fargo and South Bend regionals both sold out.
Were these West and MidWest regionals failures?