What's new
By:
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

Re: Attendance at Regionals

Netman said:
How about cheaper tickets, so the casual fan might do it.
Click to expand...

You know what would help this: I'm not sure if the NCAA is the one that puts on the Icebreaker, but perhaps they should put on a tournament or two in season. Offer an exemption to get teams to go, and the proceeds would go to the same pot as the tournament funds. With that, you might be able to bring down the cost of regionals.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

FlagDUDE08 said:
You know what would help this: I'm not sure if the NCAA is the one that puts on the Icebreaker, but perhaps they should put on a tournament or two in season. Offer an exemption to get teams to go, and the proceeds would go to the same pot as the tournament funds. With that, you might be able to bring down the cost of regionals.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone go to an NCAA-hosted tournament, let alone any tournament that allows the NCAA any portion of the net? The NCAA gets the national tournament at the end of the season and it crowns a champion, so that's "worth it." I don't see it, any other time of the year.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Netman said:
How about cheaper tickets, so the casual fan might do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you... It all boils-down to your point, IMO.

The sport won't grow without recruiting the casual fan, and the casual fan isn't going to fork-over $100/day just out of curiosity. (Hell, I'm a hard-core fan, and I won't do that to see games I can watch for free on TV at my own convenience.)

Anyone who wants to see teams host on their home-ice is living in the sordid past of smoke-filled rooms. No credible NCAA tournament is skewed in that fashion anymore, nor should it be. I'd rather see games played in an empty arena than I would some 3 seed getting sited on their campus, which has happened in the past.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Fishman'81 said:
Anyone who wants to see teams host on their home-ice is living in the sordid past of smoke-filled rooms. No credible NCAA tournament is skewed in that fashion anymore, nor should it be. I'd rather see games played in an empty arena than I would some 3 seed getting sited on their campus, which has happened in the past.
Click to expand...

The lacrosse tournament disagrees with you.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

I follow college lacrosse, and no lower seed has hosted a higher one in recent memory. (Not that my memory is any good.)
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

joecct said:
Not for round 1. It could happen at the QF level as those sites are predetermined.
Click to expand...
And, as has been discussed earlier in the thread, the predetermined sites for the "Round of 8" could certainly be neutral. One attractive possibility: Eastern & Western doubleheaders featuring the first round winners, both on neutral ice.

To Fishman '81 & Others: Agreed, UNEARNED home ice needs to be a thing of the past. But the good elements of the Lacrosse format without can be borrowed violating that principle. Earned home ice in the First Round, neutral ice the rest of the way still sounds good to me.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Higher seed hosts or GTFO.

The cities who pay to host regionals are taking a gamble that their host institution makes it. Last year I bought West Regional tix in advance. And then Michigan had the disaster of 2012-13. Toledo mistakenly picked BGSU to host and the arena was hilariously empty.

You should see the B1G baseball tourney's brilliant idea of playing a college baseball tournament in MLB parks. This is not the south. Current one is at Target Field and there might have been 60 people there. For the Gopher game. Pathetic. Every tournament excluding finals and semis should be hosted by the higher seed. Also excluding bball and football of course.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attendance at Regionals

MGoBlueHockey said:
Higher seed hosts or GTFO.
Click to expand...
Sigh. As is so often the case, it's lonely in the middle.:(

The hybrid plan put forward by Alton is a compromise, drawing on the best elements of the various approaches. It's also something that could at least conceviably be palatable to the college hockey community as a whole. When you insist on all or nothing, you're very likely to wind up with nothing.

I will say this. Having the first two rounds on campus sites would likely produce the highest attendance in the West. So there is some merit to your position. Trouble is, the current format works better in the East than for us, and some Eastern fans have come out in favor of the status quo. Politically speaking, two rounds on campus is a non-starter -- IMHO. Granted, Alton's plan also faces an uphill climb. But it's a much more reasonable goal.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

pgb-ohio said:
Sigh. As is so often the case, it's lonely in the middle.:(

...
Click to expand...
No, on discussion boards, it's lonely when you try to be reasonable.;)

Staying out of the substantive discussion (for now; I’ll probably get sucked in eventually;)), but I’ll mention a couple of points.

1. The bid processes for 2015 and 2016 are out. The minimum seating capacity is 5000; I don’t know whether that’s different than in the past. In light of the poor attendance in Grand Rapids and Toledo, it will be interesting to see who submits bids in the west. Obviously, if there aren’t any acceptable bids, the NCAA will need to do something. If there are acceptable bids, that could mean we’ve got the current system until at least 2016.

2. There has been some discussion of this topic on this website and others recently. There have been a couple of references to something like Alton’s suggestion (I don’t remember if he suggested best of three or not), but no indication as to whether it’s got any “legs”.

http://www.uscho.com/2013/05/10/com...gionals-ncaa-selection-but-consensus-lacking/

Changes to the selection criteria and regional sites were never going to be decided at the coaches’ meetings, but NCAA committee members were listening and have some more information to take into their sessions next month.

Some in the coaching fraternity have argued that it’s time to take first-round games back to campus sites, where fans of at least one of the teams can attend without significant travel.

This season, the combined attendance for the four regionals was 37,321, down 48 percent from 2012. The Yale-North Dakota regional final in Grand Rapids, Mich., drew only an announced 1,918 fans.

Other coaches are uncomfortable with the idea of giving an advantage to schools that would host opening-round games.

One proposed format included eight best-of-three series feeding into two regional sites.

Regionals have already been selected for the 2014 tournament, so any changes in tournament format that the NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey committee wouldn’t take effect for two seasons.

“What we’re trying to do as a committee is trying to think of what’s the best format for the tournament, what makes the tournament the best,” outgoing committee chair and Notre Dame senior associate athletic director Tom Nevala said. “And so that’s what we have to continue to debate. I think if we look at whether it’s our options for locations for regionals, ticket pricing, attendance, all the things over time, we’d realize that it can be better than it is today. And we’ve got to figure out how to make it better.”
Click to expand...

Editorial comment: IMO, the "down 48%" comment is misleading. The attendance at the eastern regionals was actually better than last year, and 2012 included a regional in St. Paul, with Minnesota playing there. It would be better to focus on the raw numbers from Grand Rapids (which is mentioned) and Toledo.

http://rinkandrun.areavoices.com/20...commissioner-wchas-new-web-site-sharks-sweep/

The plight of NCAA regional tournaments was discussed during NCAA meetings in Florida. And while it is unlikely that NCAA would ever go back to teams hosting at campus sites in the first round, it was talked about, said UMD coach Scott Sandelin. One plan had eight best-of-three first-round series with the eight winners advancing to two Super Regionals.

However, there is no movement to change the present format. Reducing ticket prices and being vigilant about choosing hockey-friendly regional sites were among the main talking points, said Sandelin.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

The entire attendance-issue could well be moot right now,as long as ESPN shows nearly all the games nationally.

The TV money is there, as well as the national exposure, and can you imagine how embarrassed The World Wide Leader would be, trying to explain why some team like Michigan snuck-in as a 4 seed, and played on campus, just for the sake of filling the bleachers during an event that they were hyping?

Hell, they have trouble selling the PWR, never mind rationalizing the manipulation of attendance... This situation is as good as it's gonna get for the time being.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Fishman'81 said:
The entire attendance-issue could well be moot right now,as long as ESPN shows nearly all the games nationally.

The TV money is there, as well as the national exposure, and can you imagine how embarrassed The World Wide Leader would be, trying to explain why some team like Michigan snuck-in as a 4 seed, and played on campus, just for the sake of filling the bleachers during an event that they were hyping?
Click to expand...
Like they'd even mention it.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Fishman'81 said:
The entire attendance-issue could well be moot right now,as long as ESPN shows nearly all the games nationally.

The TV money is there, as well as the national exposure, and can you imagine how embarrassed The World Wide Leader would be, trying to explain why some team like Michigan snuck-in as a 4 seed, and played on campus, just for the sake of filling the bleachers during an event that they were hyping?

Hell, they have trouble selling the PWR, never mind rationalizing the manipulation of attendance... This situation is as good as it's gonna get for the time being.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's been said, but I can't see them going to a home-bid regional system... that would tick off WAY too many people.

Sigh... the 12 team set up was great... I'm not asking for a return, but the casual fan was guarenteed 4 games and 6 teams. I know attendance in the east always did real well.
 
Re: Attendance at Regionals

Patman said:
I don't know what's been said, but I can't see them going to a home-bid regional system... that would tick off WAY too many people.

Sigh... the 12 team set up was great... I'm not asking for a return, but the casual fan was guarenteed 4 games and 6 teams. I know attendance in the east always did real well.
Click to expand...

And again (and I know you know this), the east benefits with much less travel time on average, no matter how you cut it. Yes, it makes a HUGE difference. Heck, even the B1G teams' fans I know are dialing back on road trips next year b/c of travel time/cost for regular season games. And those are set matchups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top