Re: Attendance at Regionals
My solution would be:
A. keep rounds 1 and 2 on neutral ice but in smaller venues. Nothing over 10,000 seats, and preferably something around 5000 to 8000. You might have to take a chance that a team gets to play in its home venue sometimes. I'd rather not, but I could live with it. This is an easier issue to deal with in the East. If Conte, for example was a site in boston, BC might grumble but they'd still draw well if sent to Manchester or someplace.
B. keep the early rounds in hockey friendly cities. Roughly the I-95 corridor from Portland Maine to Bridgeport in the East. I can't say I know exactly where the Western sites can be but I would say forget about your St Louises and Toledos.
C. I know everyone disagrees but I'd keep teams as close to home as possible even at the expense of seeding. Or you could even take a page from basketball where the 1st round games are played near home even if a team is technically in the opposite region if the numbers work out that way.
D. I'd skip the seeding beyond making 4 teams #1s, 4 #2's and so forth. That gives more flexibility in deciding where to send teams.
E. There are a few teams that can go either way. Niagara is an example. Those teams give you some flexibility when they qualify. Probably a push sending them to Providence or say Ann Arbor just as an example.
My solution would be:
A. keep rounds 1 and 2 on neutral ice but in smaller venues. Nothing over 10,000 seats, and preferably something around 5000 to 8000. You might have to take a chance that a team gets to play in its home venue sometimes. I'd rather not, but I could live with it. This is an easier issue to deal with in the East. If Conte, for example was a site in boston, BC might grumble but they'd still draw well if sent to Manchester or someplace.
B. keep the early rounds in hockey friendly cities. Roughly the I-95 corridor from Portland Maine to Bridgeport in the East. I can't say I know exactly where the Western sites can be but I would say forget about your St Louises and Toledos.
C. I know everyone disagrees but I'd keep teams as close to home as possible even at the expense of seeding. Or you could even take a page from basketball where the 1st round games are played near home even if a team is technically in the opposite region if the numbers work out that way.
D. I'd skip the seeding beyond making 4 teams #1s, 4 #2's and so forth. That gives more flexibility in deciding where to send teams.
E. There are a few teams that can go either way. Niagara is an example. Those teams give you some flexibility when they qualify. Probably a push sending them to Providence or say Ann Arbor just as an example.