NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[alslammerz]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

gotcha, sorry for the confusion.

I would think if you put it a campus site, doesn't matter where it is there shouldn't be attendance issues. As for travel, the same thing goes. You wouls be making more money at the regionals and you would only have to travel 3 instead of 4 teams so you would save money in the long run.

Shouldn't be for attendance, I agree. But looking at the USCHO story, they agreed with my initial guess that Alaska and RIT would have been switched, at the very least, to prevent both teams from traveling cross country. So I still think if the NCAA does this, travel will be something they take into account when they assign first round match-ups, and that to me defeats the point.

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Total goals is not contrived, IMHO. It worked well for years in the 70s and 80s and very few complained. Players play the same game night routine they've had all season - 60 minutes of hockey per night. And more bounus hockey on the second night if they are still tied. And you get the series done in the same two-day weekend footprint with far less travel hassle, and no tired-out third game in three days, when players get hurt and fans are tired of hockey. The big downside to me is that the NCAA makes less money, but it's much fan-friendlier then three games in three days.

It worked well because there wasn't 3 national web sites and this message board screaming to the powers that be how ridiculous they were.

I'd rather see the 3rd game be a bubble hockey contest than see a total goals series. That is just 10 tons of awfulness.

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Like puck swami said having DU go play RIT next to RIT and UND go play yale next to Yale is a disavantage for them for having a good record all year. not saying that is why they lost just replying to post..

I don't see it as a disadvantage. Having 1,000 RIT fans in a 14,000 seat arena did not lead to Denver's loss.

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't see it as a disadvantage. Having 1,000 RIT fans in a 14,000 seat arena did not lead to Denver's loss.

Perhaps not so much that time, but can assure you that when DU was top seeded and had to go play lower seeded Michigan on its home ice in 2002, is was a huge advantage for Michigan. And ditto in 2008, when higher seeded Denver had to go to Madison to play lower seeded Wisconsin on its home ice, it was a big advantage for the Badgers.

This new format would give the advantage to the higher seed, who has earned it.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Shouldn't be for attendance, I agree. But looking at the USCHO story, they agreed with my initial guess that Alaska and RIT would have been switched, at the very least, to prevent both teams from traveling cross country. So I still think if the NCAA does this, travel will be something they take into account when they assign first round match-ups, and that to me defeats the point.

I totally agree. What is the difference if Alaska flies to Boston or Denver. A flight is a flight, isn't that what they say? Yes RIT would now have to fly but Denver doesn't. If they do this and still follow their bracket integrity theory then I think it should be fine. The added money they make on the campus regional sites will out weigh the additional (if there is any) flights.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

It worked well because there wasn't 3 national web sites and this message board screaming to the powers that be how ridiculous they were.

I'd rather see the 3rd game be a bubble hockey contest than see a total goals series. That is just 10 tons of awfulness.

oo oo, how about we just do a shoot out instead!!!

[mookie1995]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This new format would give the advantage to the higher seed, who has earned it.

how we seeding??

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Actually, I think it is it's the opposite. It's important for college hockey's "mealticket" programs to stay strong,

Come on, seriously? If they get upset once in a while, it's not the end of the world. If they get to host a best-of-three series, the chances of an upset drop precipitously. It's not like they're regularly getting beaten by the winds of chance.


Powers &8^]

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Not if you play it on a Friday night. Men's FF is Saturday-Monday, women's is Sunday-Tuesday.

The only problem with a Friday is that you have to either play the early game while everyone is still at work or the late game after many have gone to bed - bad for ratings either way.

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Total goals is not contrived, IMHO. It worked well for years in the 70s and 80s and very few complained. Players play the same game night routine they've had all season - 60 minutes of hockey per night. And more bounus hockey on the second night if they are still tied. And you get the series done in the same two-day weekend footprint with far less travel hassle, and no tired-out third game in three days, when players get hurt and fans are tired of hockey. The big downside to me is that the NCAA makes less money, but it's much fan-friendlier then three games in three days.

The total goals is potentially exciting, but as was posted earlier could lead to either a hightly anti-climactic game #2 if one team gets a big win the first night, or a similar finish to game # 2 if the team that "wins" game # 1 by a couple goals gets an early 2 or 3 goal lead in game # 2.
If the desire would be to eliminate the uncertainty of a potential game # 3, they could always use the old D-III method of the "Best of 2" that was used for many years. Basically it rewards the team with the most points in two games (2 points for win, 1 for tie with either limited or no overtime). If both teams have 2 points at the end of the two games, they play a full 15 or 20 minute Mini-game, winner take all. If the mini-game is tied, play sudden death periods until there's a winner. It wasn't ideal, but it did get rid of the possible Sunday game # 3.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The only problem with a Friday is that you have to either play the early game while everyone is still at work or the late game after many have gone to bed - bad for ratings either way.

Did you really just bring up ratings? As if college hockey has any ratings.

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Did you really just bring up ratings? As if college hockey has any ratings.

Point taken.
So instead of a potential 0.02 rating, they'd only get a 0.01 rating.
I just want to be able to watch, myself. I really don't care who else is watching.

[Stauber1]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I am truly ecstatic that this is being proposed. It would immediately remedy the poor attendance and lack of buzz that has been growing progressively worse at the regionals.
I even wouldn't mind seeing a total goals series implemented.
I'm sick of people suggesting that college hockey should be, and the NCAA attempting to make college hockey, a main stream sport with national appeal. This is college hockey, and screw trying to make it fit into that "tried and true" mold of college basketball. If people don't get turned on by the excitement, intensity, and electric arenas, then I really don't care if they take no interest in "our" sport.
Certainly, it will be more difficult for the games to be nationally televised in this format. But so what? I would trade being able to watch every single game for being able to watch a few games in packed, rowdy houses. That's what gets people hooked on the sport anyway.

I also really agree with the folks who tout this as a way to reward the teams that have put together a quality regular season. College hockey is more prone to underdog wins than any other sport I have witnessed. When you couple that with the fact that over 1/4 of all teams get to play in the national tournament, it makes the regular season seem a bit insignificant.

Although can you imagine the *****ing that will go on when DU, Wisco, UND, or MN finish 9th in the PWR and Cornell finishes 8th

[mcfarljd]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This certainly seems like an interesting idea, but there is a trade off. I would assume that attendance would be even less for the "super regional" games, as they would be even further from most schools (for instance, if Fort Wayne and Albany were eliminated this year, that is an extreme distance between Minnesota and Massachusetts), plus you would only be going to see your school for one game. I know that theoretically that is all you are guaranteed even in todays format, but everyone still hopes that they get to see their team twice. I'd gladly welcome teams to Oxford as long as they aren't named BC or BU, but I'm not a fan of the round of 8 potential right now.

[LynahFan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This certainly seems like an interesting idea, but there is a trade off. I would assume that attendance would be even less for the "super regional" games, as they would be even further from most schools (for instance, if Fort Wayne and Albany were eliminated this year, that is an extreme distance between Minnesota and Massachusetts), plus you would only be going to see your school for one game. I know that theoretically that is all you are guaranteed even in todays format, but everyone still hopes that they get to see their team twice. I'd gladly welcome teams to Oxford as long as they aren't named BC or BU, but I'm not a fan of the round of 8 potential right now.

I agree - attendance at the round of 8 would be horrible, and the NCAA surely must know this. The question is whether the benefits to the round of 16 outweigh that negative side.

Although can you imagine the *****ing that will go on when DU, Wisco, UND, or MN finish 9th in the PWR and Cornell finishes 8th

This alone is enough to make me support this idea. The idea that MN, not to mention UM, might actually have to -gasp- travel east is priceless.

I posted this on GPL earlier today, but I thought I'd share it with rest of you puckheads.

Over the last 7 years, the total average attendance at the four regionals has been 53,623. (approx 4,470/game)

This new format would add a minumum of 8 games to the tournament (possibly 16 if all first round series go 3 games), using an avg. attendance figure of 4500, an additional 36,000-72,000 tickets could be sold.

They could drop the price to $25/game for the first round, keep the $45/day for the super regionals and still take in more ticket revenue ($2.6MM) than the current format ($1.9MM). Make a couple of the below assumptions and the numbers start piling up.

a) avg. attendance will be more than the 4500/game (an increase of 500/game=$290,000)
b) instead of $25, the first round prices are $30-35. ($5 increase=$360,000)
c) some of the series will go 3 games ($112,500/game)
d) they make the second round "best of 3" and/or start charging per game instead of per session.

I will not be surprised to see this format in the near future. Anyone care to analyze the differences in costs/expenses to the NCAA?

Clearly one big cost that goes away is rental of two regional facilities (4 currently down to 2 in the new format), plus only having to rent the Superegional facilities for 1 day instead of 2. Or, to put it another way, the current format requires rental of 8 arena-days, whereas the proposed format only requires 2 arena-days. So even if attendance (and therefore revenue) dropped by 25% or more from the current regionals, the NCAA still comes out ahead.

Facility rental has to be *the* major expense for the tournament as a whole, so this would have a significant impact. Yes, I know that technically the organizing committees rent the facilities and pay the NCAA out of their revenues, but at the end of the day, if that cost weren't there, then the NCAA's cut would go up.