USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Attendance at Regionals
- Thread starter FredDavenport
- Start date
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Not hard for me to believe. One of the beauties of wrestling is that is a very low expense sport. Appropriate sized venues should be easy to find, and the only equipment you need is a mat.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Hard to believe indeed. I wonder who is paying whom how much in cases where high seeds host regionals. The D-I FCS Football tournament draws well at the schools involved, so I don't see why that wouldn't make money. In that case, every game except for the championship is played at the higher seed's home stadium. I wonder what the deal is with the baseball tournament, too. I would have thought they'd make some profit off of that.
Hard to believe indeed. I wonder who is paying whom how much in cases where high seeds host regionals. The D-I FCS Football tournament draws well at the schools involved, so I don't see why that wouldn't make money. In that case, every game except for the championship is played at the higher seed's home stadium. I wonder what the deal is with the baseball tournament, too. I would have thought they'd make some profit off of that.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I can't imagine anybody complaining about that; if you know the system going in, and the system says that the top 8 seeds host first round games, than what would be the basis for complaint? The #9 seed in the lacrosse tournament doesn't get to complain that they have to go on the road. They might complain about being #9 instead of #8, but that's because lacrosse doesn't have anything like PWR (and the committee has some really messed up priorities for seeding, but that's a different story for a different sport).
If you have a strict system like hockey does, where the seedings are based on a mathematical system, however flawed, and you grant the top 8 teams home ice, there really isn't any room for anybody to complain without appearing ignorant. It's like fans who complain now when their team doesn't make the tournament: they are easily ignored, because the system in place, for better or worse, is non-arbitrary.
I can't imagine anybody complaining about that; if you know the system going in, and the system says that the top 8 seeds host first round games, than what would be the basis for complaint? The #9 seed in the lacrosse tournament doesn't get to complain that they have to go on the road. They might complain about being #9 instead of #8, but that's because lacrosse doesn't have anything like PWR (and the committee has some really messed up priorities for seeding, but that's a different story for a different sport).
If you have a strict system like hockey does, where the seedings are based on a mathematical system, however flawed, and you grant the top 8 teams home ice, there really isn't any room for anybody to complain without appearing ignorant. It's like fans who complain now when their team doesn't make the tournament: they are easily ignored, because the system in place, for better or worse, is non-arbitrary.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I think in the case of FCS football, all of the travel expenses keep the tournament from making a profit. Every game has 75 or so players & coaches who have to travel (by plane if it's more than 400 miles) and spend 2 nights in hotel rooms. I would think that would eat in to any of the ticket and TV revenues that the tournament receives. Not to mention the fact that most of the schools who regularly make the tournament aren't exactly near a major airport--I'm sure that the cost of transporting 75 people from Missoula, Montana, to Boone, North Carolina, and back is pretty significant.
I think in the case of FCS football, all of the travel expenses keep the tournament from making a profit. Every game has 75 or so players & coaches who have to travel (by plane if it's more than 400 miles) and spend 2 nights in hotel rooms. I would think that would eat in to any of the ticket and TV revenues that the tournament receives. Not to mention the fact that most of the schools who regularly make the tournament aren't exactly near a major airport--I'm sure that the cost of transporting 75 people from Missoula, Montana, to Boone, North Carolina, and back is pretty significant.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
That makes a lot of sense. I would guess that the average distance traveled per game in the postseason is much more than the regular season, as teams may be playing others from across the country.
Does anyone know who decides ticket prices at NCAA tournament games (any sport) when the high seed hosts? (Weirdly, the NCAA wants to run the show, making it like a neutral-site game except one team is clearly the home team.) I remember I bought my ticket to the NCAA women's hockey quarterfinal between Mercyhurst and Wisconsin (2012) from the Wisconsin ticket site, not NCAA. That being said, everything at the Kohl Center was taken over by the NCAA that night.
That makes a lot of sense. I would guess that the average distance traveled per game in the postseason is much more than the regular season, as teams may be playing others from across the country.
Does anyone know who decides ticket prices at NCAA tournament games (any sport) when the high seed hosts? (Weirdly, the NCAA wants to run the show, making it like a neutral-site game except one team is clearly the home team.) I remember I bought my ticket to the NCAA women's hockey quarterfinal between Mercyhurst and Wisconsin (2012) from the Wisconsin ticket site, not NCAA. That being said, everything at the Kohl Center was taken over by the NCAA that night.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
NCAA basesball is a very cumbersome tournament, with 64 teams and a complicated structure, with things like double elimination regionals and best of three series. I checked out a couple of college baseball rosters and found some with 30+ (I don’t know how many of them would get to travel to the tournament) so the lodging expenses might build up.
Of course one response is that people don't travel much for regionals, so you'd expect that they would travel even less for a single first round game.
NCAA basesball is a very cumbersome tournament, with 64 teams and a complicated structure, with things like double elimination regionals and best of three series. I checked out a couple of college baseball rosters and found some with 30+ (I don’t know how many of them would get to travel to the tournament) so the lodging expenses might build up.
Alton, not trying to speak for him, but I think he may have been talking about the venue being too small. I don’t think it would happen often, because generally the higher seeds are established programs with pretty large facilities and a lot of lower seeds are small schools with small fan bases. But you might have a “perfect storm” situation in which a high seed is a school with a small facility that’s filled for normal home games (I assume that's true of Bemidji) and the lower seed is a nearby school with a large traveling base (haven't checked the geography, but I know Michigan travels relatively well, and they seem to have alumni all over the place). If you hold back seats for the NCAA and a block of seats for the visitors, it’s possible that demand for tickets might exceed supply by more than you want.
Of course one response is that people don't travel much for regionals, so you'd expect that they would travel even less for a single first round game.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Right, that's what I meant... And I'd have no ethical issue with higher seeds hosting throughout the first two rounds, aside from the very important fact that multi-team Regionals encourage/facilitate comprehensive TV-coverage, while siting the games at a myriad of on-campus rinks would not.
The system is not broken, IMO... In fact, it's about as good as it can get. Most of us have the option of seeing every game one way or the other these days, and I for one watch nearly every minute of each of them.
This era of national-exposure is great for college hockey. (Sure, I suppose it could be better vis-a-vis venue choices,etc., but let's all admit to ourselves that we are enjoying a golden age right now, warts and all... Hell, hockey in general is still a "niche" sport, even at the NHL level. We have it good right now.)
I don't see a real problem here. It seems a little silly to grouse about attendance at local NCAA Regionals, when all you need to do these days is to put your feet up and find the remote to watch whatever game you fancy, if you don't care to make the drive.
Right, that's what I meant... And I'd have no ethical issue with higher seeds hosting throughout the first two rounds, aside from the very important fact that multi-team Regionals encourage/facilitate comprehensive TV-coverage, while siting the games at a myriad of on-campus rinks would not.
The system is not broken, IMO... In fact, it's about as good as it can get. Most of us have the option of seeing every game one way or the other these days, and I for one watch nearly every minute of each of them.
This era of national-exposure is great for college hockey. (Sure, I suppose it could be better vis-a-vis venue choices,etc., but let's all admit to ourselves that we are enjoying a golden age right now, warts and all... Hell, hockey in general is still a "niche" sport, even at the NHL level. We have it good right now.)
I don't see a real problem here. It seems a little silly to grouse about attendance at local NCAA Regionals, when all you need to do these days is to put your feet up and find the remote to watch whatever game you fancy, if you don't care to make the drive.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Given the league typically decides a minimum in the postseason for league playoffs, I would assume that the NCAA decides a minimum for playoff tickets. However, if the venue normally charges more for a ticket for whatever reason, they may go to that higher price. For example, ECAC has a $12 minimum for adults in the postseason, but Cornell normally charges $18 for a game. They will still charge the $18.
Given the league typically decides a minimum in the postseason for league playoffs, I would assume that the NCAA decides a minimum for playoff tickets. However, if the venue normally charges more for a ticket for whatever reason, they may go to that higher price. For example, ECAC has a $12 minimum for adults in the postseason, but Cornell normally charges $18 for a game. They will still charge the $18.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Understood, and I'm OK with that...IF THEY ALLOW RE-ADMISSION. Don't keep me in the arena with no beer, no liquor and only arena food. Like I said, I went to the Providence Regionals in March. Quinnipiac-Canisius and Union-BC. There are literally a hundred bars and restaurants within 1/4 mile of Dunkin' Donuts Center. Federal Hill/Atwells Ave is RIGHT THERE. I've been to 17 hockey games this season between college (12) and NHL (5). Tonight will be #18 at The Gahhden. Obviously a dedicated fan of good hockey. I will not go to the Regionals next year if the NCAA and the hosting arena venues don't change the rules. Great hockey, crap set-up.
Understood, and I'm OK with that...IF THEY ALLOW RE-ADMISSION. Don't keep me in the arena with no beer, no liquor and only arena food. Like I said, I went to the Providence Regionals in March. Quinnipiac-Canisius and Union-BC. There are literally a hundred bars and restaurants within 1/4 mile of Dunkin' Donuts Center. Federal Hill/Atwells Ave is RIGHT THERE. I've been to 17 hockey games this season between college (12) and NHL (5). Tonight will be #18 at The Gahhden. Obviously a dedicated fan of good hockey. I will not go to the Regionals next year if the NCAA and the hosting arena venues don't change the rules. Great hockey, crap set-up.
beaverhockeyfan
Well-known member
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I was under the impression that the ticket price was set by the venue/host of the regional? They bid on the regionals, so the NCAA is getting their money either way. It is up to the venue/host to try and turn a profit after paying the NCAA their agreed to fees. I assumed that is why you saw some discrepancy in ticket prices rather than one set rate across the board.
I was under the impression that the ticket price was set by the venue/host of the regional? They bid on the regionals, so the NCAA is getting their money either way. It is up to the venue/host to try and turn a profit after paying the NCAA their agreed to fees. I assumed that is why you saw some discrepancy in ticket prices rather than one set rate across the board.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
http://www.uscho.com/2013/06/13/com...f-suggests-lower-ncaa-regional-ticket-prices/
http://www.uscho.com/2013/06/13/com...f-suggests-lower-ncaa-regional-ticket-prices/
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Thanks for the link.
About time the NCAA starts to wonder if they're going to attract the casual local-fans at those prices, whether they allow the venue to set those prices or not... A little pressure imposed to reduce them to "realistic" would be a big step in the right direction.
And the TUC is a silly and redundant construct that needs to go. SOS already factors-in everything meaningful in that regard. Each team should be to be rated on a continuum; there is no reason whatsoever to impose some mandatory cut-off point vis-a-vis post-season relevance.
I would love to see that comparison go away. It makes the PWR ridiculously volatile at times.
Thanks for the link.
About time the NCAA starts to wonder if they're going to attract the casual local-fans at those prices, whether they allow the venue to set those prices or not... A little pressure imposed to reduce them to "realistic" would be a big step in the right direction.
And the TUC is a silly and redundant construct that needs to go. SOS already factors-in everything meaningful in that regard. Each team should be to be rated on a continuum; there is no reason whatsoever to impose some mandatory cut-off point vis-a-vis post-season relevance.
I would love to see that comparison go away. It makes the PWR ridiculously volatile at times.
Last edited:
beaverhockeyfan
Well-known member
Re: Attendance at Regionals
NCAA Site Selection Process and Information for the 2015-2018 Regionals:
http://ncaabids.azurewebsites.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DI-IH-Regional-Bid-Specs1.pdf
Goes pretty in depth into who covers what. One note, looks like smaller, neutral facilities are in play.:
"The facility must be modern, clean and accessible and must have at least 5,000 seats. Playing conditions must meet NCAA regulations and must be of championship caliber."
On the last page is the "Guarantee"
"Guarantee – A minimum financial guarantee of $150,000 is required to host the Men’s Ice Hockey Regionals. After gross receipts are determined, the NCAA will receive the established guarantee, followed by the host/LOC receiving the budgeted expenses or actual expenses, whichever is less. Once both of those obligations have been met, if there are any remaining funds, the NCAA and the host/LOC will split those 80% for the NCAA and 20% for the host/LOC."
NCAA Site Selection Process and Information for the 2015-2018 Regionals:
http://ncaabids.azurewebsites.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DI-IH-Regional-Bid-Specs1.pdf
Goes pretty in depth into who covers what. One note, looks like smaller, neutral facilities are in play.:
"The facility must be modern, clean and accessible and must have at least 5,000 seats. Playing conditions must meet NCAA regulations and must be of championship caliber."
On the last page is the "Guarantee"
"Guarantee – A minimum financial guarantee of $150,000 is required to host the Men’s Ice Hockey Regionals. After gross receipts are determined, the NCAA will receive the established guarantee, followed by the host/LOC receiving the budgeted expenses or actual expenses, whichever is less. Once both of those obligations have been met, if there are any remaining funds, the NCAA and the host/LOC will split those 80% for the NCAA and 20% for the host/LOC."
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Once a new system goes into play, you're going to start complaining about that once teams look to exploit it.
Once a new system goes into play, you're going to start complaining about that once teams look to exploit it.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
sandiegoblkbr
Banned
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I guess that Bangor and Portland, Maine are now in play.
I guess that Bangor and Portland, Maine are now in play.
beaverhockeyfan
Well-known member
Re: Attendance at Regionals
As is the Scheels Center in Fargo. I know some North Dakota fans have been wanting to see a regional put there if seat requirement was lowered.
I think this could open up a lot on interesting possibilities/venues. With it having to be neutral sites, it takes a lot of nice home arenas out of the equation, but opens up some markets that may embrace the event.
I guess that Bangor and Portland, Maine are now in play.
As is the Scheels Center in Fargo. I know some North Dakota fans have been wanting to see a regional put there if seat requirement was lowered.
I think this could open up a lot on interesting possibilities/venues. With it having to be neutral sites, it takes a lot of nice home arenas out of the equation, but opens up some markets that may embrace the event.