Re: Attendance at Regionals
In order to catch up, I'll reply to two of your posts at the same time:
Not trying to be a wise-***, but given that we’re discussing change to an existing system, I’d say the question really is are the Western crowds really so bad to establish the necessity for change. It’s clear that many folks do, or we wouldn’t have this discussion.
As for whether or not my comment was unfair, note the context. I was commenting on a proposal that would scrap the current regional structure and instead have the first round games at the home rink of the higher seed, then have the quarterfinals at neutral sites. I said that the current structure works reasonably well in the east, and the question was posed “Is the attendance in the eastern regionals so good that the current system couldn’t be changed.” I responded the way I did because if someone is proposing a change, I think it’s incumbent on them to establish the need for the change, not on the proponents of the current system to establish that it shouldn’t be changed.
In other words, there's an issue as to who has the burden of proof. In rhetorical terms, that's a pretty clever point. I hadn't previously thought of it in that way. From my vantage point, however, the argument that the current system is broken seemed established beyond any reasonable doubt. Arguing that crowds at the Eastern regionals were good enough to justify the status quo, regardless of the problems in the West, felt like an affirmative defense. When asserting an affirmative defense, one bears the burden of proof. But as your comments show, there's more than one legitimate way to characterize the issue.
While it's an interesting question to us, if we focus on burden of proof we're going lose everyone else pretty quickly. We're better off just trying to identify the "best" system.
...A fuller arena would make them better. But I’ll admit that a full arena is less important to me than other things. One example is that I think neutral ice per se is a positive for this tournament. A second example is that I think that having demand for tickets greater than number of seats is worse than empty seats in the arena. I checked the capacities for the Hockey East schools, and there were only two that could have accommodated the crowd in Providence and none that would have accommodated the crowd in Manchester. And that’s just raw numbers; I think that fairness would dictate that you need to allocate some seats to the visiting school(s), which raises the possibility of season ticket holders and students not being able to attend.
The problem in the West isn't "less than full" arenas. The arena at the Tampa FF was less than full. The crowds at many Western Regionals are tiny, far below any rational minimum standard. Even when the raw number of fans is higher in the NHL buildings, the percentage of empty seats is just too high. If two of the four regionals are frequently below minimum standards, that says to me the system is broken and there just has to be a better alternative. And note that as long some Eastern teams are sent West for regional play, this isn't just a Western problem. It potentially affects everyone.
Of course that doesn’t necessarily apply to Alton’s plan, because the regional crowds included the fans of four schools. I checked this year, and I don’t think that there would have been terrible oversold problems in the first round. Most of the would-be hosts have reasonably sized rinks. Quinnipiac might have been a problem if they had been playing a school that was closer and had a larger fan base.
I certainly agree that every school in the NCAA tournament should be guaranteed an allotment of tickets for its game(s), regardless of venue. But that requirement can be incorporated into any of the plans that have been discussed. No visitor's allotment? Do what it takes to create one or you lose the right to host.
Alton's hybrid plan can certainly "include" fans of both schools; it just forces the fans from lower seeds to travel to someone else's home rink in the first round. Then, in the second round, the larger venues should provide plenty of room for all. Your comment on this point is consistent with my belief that Alton's plan best matches the ticket demand that's actually out there. In communities like GB, GR & Toledo, the local demand just isn't there and realistically won't be -- at least in the middle of the college hoops post-season.
Yes, and I remember the uproar over the Yost and Mariucci (and I think once Englestad) host sites when the host was not the top seed. One year they went to the absurdity of making Michigan use the visitors dressing room and the top seed using Michigan’s, which is some indication to me that the NCAA favors neutral sites. (Must’ve been a great atmosphere dressing in a room with big “M”s plastered all over it and pictures of past Michigan national championship teams ). But I’ve noticed that hasn’t happened since some new venues that are appropriate for a regional have come on line (aren’t Green Bay and Toledo relatively new?) so I have to believe that the only reason was that that Yost etc. were the only bids.
Attracting bids is obviously an issue for any neutral site plan. Eliminating campus facilities from the pool of potential bidders aggravates the situation.
But THE problem with choosing campus rinks is that the host school may receive UNEARNED home ice. Under Alton's plan, the host schools have earned their home ice advantage by garnering one of the top 8 seeds. So Alton puts the games where the demand is the greatest, yet doesn't confer an unfair advantage.
Michigan using the Visitors' room at Yost is absurd, though it does make for a good war story. But again, this situation needn't arise under Alton's plan. Just limit the regional finals to neutral venues, which IIRC was his proposal all along.
It appears to me the perfect western regional site – the one that nobody would object strongly to – would be a 9 – 10,000 seat arena in the Twin Cities area, but not on the UMTC campus. For some the Xcel is too big, and some object to Mariucci because it is a home rink.
There'd be objections. Note the upcoming BTHC tournament will alternate between St. Paul and Detroit. If the question was limited to maximizing ticket sales, St. Paul probably would have gotten all of the BT tournaments initially awarded. Again, the geographical considerations in the West are simply different than those in the East.
