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!
As much as I'd like to see it at high seed campus site, what do we do with the second round? The NCAA likes the frozen four so they aren't going to turn that into an 8 team tournament? You can't expect every arena to hold 3-4 weekends open for the possibility of 2-3 hockey games to be played in their buildings. One of the biggest pushers for the B1G conference tournament to just be one weekend with all 6 teams going straight to the "neutral" site was so that schools like Wisconsin (pushed hard) can use the Kohl Center for High School Basketball, Volleyball, Wrestling or whatever instead of having it reserved for college hockey to appease Wisconsinites. Ohio State has also had the same problem when hosting conference playoff games, getting bumped to their old building because of Wrestling (I think?). As for your assessment of pricing, I don't really think it needs to be single digits. I think $15-20 a game could work fine, you could also offer family four packs or not have 1 tier for the whole building (a huge pet peeve of mine). I think the NCAA is very narrowminded in their approach to solving this problem. There are a ton of options. They just refuse to adjust their plans and think eventually it will improve and turn into the a smaller version of the Basketball tournament.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the pre-determined site regionals haven’t worked or that it’s a 20+ year experiment that has obviously failed. I think they’ve worked fine in the east, but then I fully admit that I think having tournament games at a neutral site is a positive factor, even if it means a less than full arena. There’s a problem in the west, though I certainly wouldn’t use “haven’t worked” or “failed” to describe the situation. On what basis do you use those terms? Attendance alone? Attendance vs. capacity alone?
If we switch to top seed hosts, some schools might not be too happy about having to keep another weekend open for hockey games, especially at schools that have multipurpose arenas like UNO, UW, OSU, etc.
There are at least two important differences between the conference tournaments and NCAA play:
Appreciate your perseverance on this issue. I continue to agree with you that a Lacrosse-type format is the way to go, and hope someday that the patience will be rewarded.
IMHO, having the first round on campus and the quarterfinals at neutral sites strikes a nice balance among the competing considerations. And with just a little bit of careful marketing, those quarterfinals could become a very attractive event.
DTW (Detroit metro airport) is 50 miles from the Huntington Center in Toledo. Heck, I've always joked that flying into DTW you land in Toledo and taxi to Detroit. While some may think 50 miles is far; the Toledo airport is 20 miles from Huntington Center. Or look at many metros where the airport is far from downtown (Denver is 25 miles for example).
I agree that no beer isn't a reason for the meager crowds, but it could be a reason for a potential host site to consider. If we want large cities with bigger populations to draw from, then we are looking at host sites that can get a variety of events where they can sell more tickets and more concessions and sell alcohol. If I own a facility and have a choice between NCAA hockey which I can sell 2000 tickets and can't sell beer or a concert I can sell 10,000 tickets and sell alcohol, I'm picking the concert. Heck, I'll even take Disney on Ice over a 2000 ticket hockey game. All those whiney brats can get there parents to buy them slushies and popcorn.
I know I'm an exception, but I enjoy making a vacation out of a regional. The problem has been finding things to do in some towns. Like Bridgeport, or Ft. Wayne (we played indoor mini golf and watched bouncyball on tv 'cause we didn't know what else to do). Somewhere like Green Bay, I toured Lambeau, but having done that once, I don't know what I'd do if I went there again.
Yup; exactly what I had in mind. One site's Quarterfinals on Saturday; The other site's Quarterfinals on Sunday. Pair of games on each day. Should have been more specific.
You may jeopardize televising of the first round games entirely. At a minimum you’d get strong pushback from ESPN, who doesn’t really want to televise the firsts round games as it is. Now you’re asking them to televise single games from eight sites, on short notice, and in some cases, from a venue that is not well suited for television. I remember watching one Quinnipiac game on TV. I don’t remember whether it was at Quinnipiac or not, but the broadcast reminded me of watching youth hockey games on a VCR. The lighting and camera angles were awful.
Absolutely notbeaverhockey said:
. The problem may not be selling the place out; it may be not enough seats. This year, for example, you’d have tried to cram the Providence Regional (which drew 6,000+) into Quinnipiac’s rink, which seats 3,000. Or you could have said sorry, Quinnipiac, you’re not big time enough, your #1 seeding earns you a trip to BC. Totally unfair to Quinnipiac, and the conspiracy theorists who were already accusing the NCAA of giving BC an easy run to the FF would have had apoplexy (though maybe that would be a good thing).