Re: Annual thread in which the absurdity of the current regional system is discussed
I think the coaches like the neutral sites BECAUSE there's no attendance. If you know the crowd isn't going to be for you, at least you take comfort in the fact that it's not going to be against you. If that's the case with coaches, why is the NCAA mouthing platitudes about attendance when the coaches don't really want that?
I think a lot of this comes back to not really having a good set of priorities in what we're looking to get out of the regionals. Bracket integrity, minimized travel, maximized attendance, "neutral" sites, host schools, good TV venues...If one is in conflict with another, which one comes out on top? Having no clear answer to that, the NCAA stumbles forward.
Your second paragraph makes good points, points I have made for years. Especially the notion of serving two masters. We can have bracket integrity, or we can place teams as close as possible to the natural fanbases. Rarely can we have both for more than two or three teams of the 16 in the tournament.
I don't know about coaches in general and their secret preferences for smaller crowds, but I do know my coach and his feelings. He HATES it. Jeff Jackson famously decried the awful issues with atmosphere at the 2013 Toledo regional. Some took it as sour grapes because of the pasting his team took in the game, and if nothing else he was guilty of horrible timing, and it may have been a sour grapes issue too. But he was right. It was pathetic, and easily the worst post-season tournament crowd I have ever been in, conference or NCAA. My guess is for each of the four teams, their worst, most apathetic crowd that season was 10 times more energetic than what was in Toledo.
For Jackson it is easy to want higher seeded teams to host, because Notre Dame has a facility where there is not question you can host. Even hosting a 4-team regional is no problem, with ample amenities at the rink, and hotel rooms walking distance away. At most of the bigger name schools this is true. But what of the smaller ones? I think it would be unfair to allow some teams to host, but to say other's don't have the "right" facilities.
That's one reason I like neutral sites. I also think that is the proper way to crown a "champion." But as we've noted every year for at least a decade, there are serious issues with how the NCAA puts these together. The best way to solve that is to eliminate the NCAA's greed. Good luck with that. But if they had reasonable financial criteria for putting on the show, perhaps more teams or venues would bid. Maybe allow a guarantee to the host committee the NCAA won't take all of your cash and leave you hanging in case -- despite best efforts on your part -- your regional performs poorly due to factors outside your control. Like who ends up there. It isn't as if there is not enough profit from the men's basketball tournament to look for ways to grow other tournament profiles. Maybe if a host committee has more room financially to experiment and finds a way to get 6000 or 7000 butts in seats in a 7000 seat building, they'll do it again and again.
One of the issues is even found in the NCAAs mandate on ticket prices. They give both a floor and a ceiling. So even if you wanted to see if you could attract a big crowd with cheap tickets, the NCAA limits that possibility. More butts in seats means more parking and concession revenue. If they come this year and have a great time and feel like they were part of a fun and energetic crowd, they might come back next year. In addition to $$$ thought, the NCAA feeds on control. Sometimes they'd rather leave a dollar on the table and maintain 99.999999% of the control, than collect that dollar but only have control of 99.99% of the event.
Ideally, I'd like to see two or three venues in each "region" (and no Allentown should never be considered one of the "western" regions) rotating the games. That may build local interest if people know exactly where the regional might be every other year. I'd also be willing to tweak the tournament to place the 2 seed banded teams as close to home as possible. I know that messes with bracket integrity but it doesn't completely obliterate it, and it would put two teams in each region as close to home as possible. Some don't like the idea of geographic considerations because it does increase the likelihood of second round repeats of what were probably recent conference tournaments. To combat that, I'd also eliminate the conference tournaments and extend the regular season a week or two. I think until the WCHA and B1G moved to all home ice those tournaments were growing quite stale and attendance was down in all of them in all but the old WCHA.
At any rate, I hope the crowds are better than we expect in the four buildings, and I know the games will deliver more often than not. I'm watching them on TV and I'm glad that I'll be able to watch anyone of the games and most of all of them should I choose to.
