Re: Attendance at Regionals
. My bad.
Thanks Alton. I assumed from other posts that this represented a change and didn't check
. My bad.
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
Yeah, I figured that with the recent discussions of the tournament format, people would assume that changes are being made. Unfortunately, I think we're in for a few more years of the same old failed system in the same old arenas.
Thanks Alton. I assumed from other posts that this represented a change and didn't check
Yeah, I figured that with the recent discussions of the tournament format, people would assume that changes are being made. Unfortunately, I think we're in for a few more years of the same old failed system in the same old arenas.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Attendance at Regionals
How about this for an idea for regional locations: Every league picks a spot to have a regional. Whether they use the same location as the league championship, a site where attendance has been terrific, whatever the case may be, so long as it is within NCAA regulation, it's their prerogative. The committee does a run-off to get the sites down from 6 to 4 (preferably 2 from the east, 2 from the west, ideally on a rotation so each league gets an equal chance). Each regional selected has a host of the auto-bid from the corresponding league that bid the site (for example, if ECAC bids Albany, Albany becomes a regional, and RPI wins the ECAC championship, RPI becomes the host at Albany). Then you seed based upon that.
Of course ideally, the national tournament goes to 6 teams, only the auto-bids from each conference. Representatives from the leagues that had the most recent national championship winner (in this case, ECAC and HEA) get byes.
How about this for an idea for regional locations: Every league picks a spot to have a regional. Whether they use the same location as the league championship, a site where attendance has been terrific, whatever the case may be, so long as it is within NCAA regulation, it's their prerogative. The committee does a run-off to get the sites down from 6 to 4 (preferably 2 from the east, 2 from the west, ideally on a rotation so each league gets an equal chance). Each regional selected has a host of the auto-bid from the corresponding league that bid the site (for example, if ECAC bids Albany, Albany becomes a regional, and RPI wins the ECAC championship, RPI becomes the host at Albany). Then you seed based upon that.
Of course ideally, the national tournament goes to 6 teams, only the auto-bids from each conference. Representatives from the leagues that had the most recent national championship winner (in this case, ECAC and HEA) get byes.
beaverhockey
Registered User
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I was with you...until the last two sentences!
I was with you...until the last two sentences!
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Wow, huge steps backwards in the western Regionals for the next two years. One place (Fargo) that's either too far away (if UND isn't there) and may be too small (if UND is there); one place (St. Paul) that's fine as a location but is too big; one place (Cincinnati) that has a potential for being an attendance disaster (small crowd in a large arena) and has a bad history -- albeit fairly ancient -- with an NCAA hockey event; and a pre-assigned on-campus rink, which the NCAA said they were getting away from.
I have to believe that there must have been not many bidders, and the NCAA had to take what they could get.
Eastern Regionals have pretty much stabilized, and I think work fine.
Wow, huge steps backwards in the western Regionals for the next two years. One place (Fargo) that's either too far away (if UND isn't there) and may be too small (if UND is there); one place (St. Paul) that's fine as a location but is too big; one place (Cincinnati) that has a potential for being an attendance disaster (small crowd in a large arena) and has a bad history -- albeit fairly ancient -- with an NCAA hockey event; and a pre-assigned on-campus rink, which the NCAA said they were getting away from.
I have to believe that there must have been not many bidders, and the NCAA had to take what they could get.
Eastern Regionals have pretty much stabilized, and I think work fine.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I'm not sure what the best solution for the western regionals is as far as increasing attendance. As discussed on here, in the East we have the closer geography on our side.
There is a limited pool of college hockey fans and within that pool, I'm sure there are a lot of people (like me) who would pretty much only go to a regional if:
a) the team they cheer for is playing in it
b) the game is within a reasonable drive time (2-ish hours or less) and does not require an overnight stay
c) the game time is at a time that does not require taking the day off from work to attend
I'm not sure what the best solution for the western regionals is as far as increasing attendance. As discussed on here, in the East we have the closer geography on our side.
There is a limited pool of college hockey fans and within that pool, I'm sure there are a lot of people (like me) who would pretty much only go to a regional if:
a) the team they cheer for is playing in it
b) the game is within a reasonable drive time (2-ish hours or less) and does not require an overnight stay
c) the game time is at a time that does not require taking the day off from work to attend
BUPhD
Active member
Re: Attendance at Regionals
d) they know where they're going to be playing more than one week in advance
e) they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money to get tickets when they just spent a solid chunk on conference tourneys the week before
d) they know where they're going to be playing more than one week in advance
e) they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money to get tickets when they just spent a solid chunk on conference tourneys the week before
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Attendance at Regionals
f) They aren't paying the same amount for nosebleeds as the guy front row, center ice. (in other words, absurd amounts of money)
f) They aren't paying the same amount for nosebleeds as the guy front row, center ice. (in other words, absurd amounts of money)
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Interesting.
http://www.uscho.com/2013/12/12/com...nals-open-for-possible-return-to-team-arenas/
Especially this:
They're not even getting credible bids.
Interesting.
http://www.uscho.com/2013/12/12/com...nals-open-for-possible-return-to-team-arenas/
Especially this:
They're not even getting credible bids.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
No wonder. What arena wants to be a loss leader for this event?
This will open Pandora's box... sorry... if it is good enough to be played at Compton, it is good enough to be played at Yost or Munn or any other on campus site that can provide some basic criteria.
No wonder. What arena wants to be a loss leader for this event?
This will open Pandora's box... sorry... if it is good enough to be played at Compton, it is good enough to be played at Yost or Munn or any other on campus site that can provide some basic criteria.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Attendance at Regionals
BC's athletic director strongly hinted at an event the other day that BC may be considering hosting regionals at Conte in the future.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Those are my dilemmas every year, especially the money issue after a conference tournament. And they do charge an absurd amount of money. I know this is simple economics but if they charged a lot less and maybe gave student discounts, they would fill more seats and make money that way.
I admit going to Fargo has its attraction just because it's Fargo and that might be fun. But Cincinnati has nothing about it that says "hockey" to me.
Those are my dilemmas every year, especially the money issue after a conference tournament. And they do charge an absurd amount of money. I know this is simple economics but if they charged a lot less and maybe gave student discounts, they would fill more seats and make money that way.
I admit going to Fargo has its attraction just because it's Fargo and that might be fun. But Cincinnati has nothing about it that says "hockey" to me.
IrishHockeyFan
Still outranks his daughter
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I would imagine that unless the NCAA decides to go back to having high seeds host preliminary rounds leading up to the FF (and the commentary piece CLS linked to on USCHO makes it sound like that possibility is certainly growing) Yost and Munn are and any other arena that can handle 4 teams are probably back in play to host predetermined site regionals.
For the record despite the fact my arena is hosting, I don't like it. Either go back to having all the higher seeds host first and second round games/series, or keep the first and second round games in -- at the very least -- neutral buildings. I maintain the NCAA spends too much time trying to serve two masters here. They want atmosphere and attendance, but they also want neutral sites and strict adherence to a seeding process. We've seen you can't do both, especially out here in the "west," yet they continue to try.
I would imagine that unless the NCAA decides to go back to having high seeds host preliminary rounds leading up to the FF (and the commentary piece CLS linked to on USCHO makes it sound like that possibility is certainly growing) Yost and Munn are and any other arena that can handle 4 teams are probably back in play to host predetermined site regionals.
For the record despite the fact my arena is hosting, I don't like it. Either go back to having all the higher seeds host first and second round games/series, or keep the first and second round games in -- at the very least -- neutral buildings. I maintain the NCAA spends too much time trying to serve two masters here. They want atmosphere and attendance, but they also want neutral sites and strict adherence to a seeding process. We've seen you can't do both, especially out here in the "west," yet they continue to try.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.
Same thing in the east. The Times Union in Albany does not draw fans either, and it is back "in play" as a host site for a regional.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Maybe not, but downtown Cincinnati has grown quite a bit in recent years especially near the river (partially thanks to 3 new sporting venues) and it's a pretty fun town. Also it's about as central as you can get for any teams placed there from MN/WI/ND and NY/MA/CT (albeit slightly further for the folks out east) and obviously is quite close for several other schools. In that part of the country you could certainly do worse.
Maybe not, but downtown Cincinnati has grown quite a bit in recent years especially near the river (partially thanks to 3 new sporting venues) and it's a pretty fun town. Also it's about as central as you can get for any teams placed there from MN/WI/ND and NY/MA/CT (albeit slightly further for the folks out east) and obviously is quite close for several other schools. In that part of the country you could certainly do worse.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Well, it certainly isn't an indictment on the Irish. Good for them for being able to host. I certainly have no beef with your logic, either. I really question what the NCAA accomplishes with these wishy-washy decisions on site selection, seedings etc. vs. attendance.
FredDavenport
Registered User
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Congrats to the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for considering to re-look at the sites for the regionals.
Like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA and many others the high seeds have earned the right to host post-season and if the NCAA is looking to increase $$$, decrease expenses and triple the atmosphere this is the only way to go.
Thank You NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for looking at this
Congrats to the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for considering to re-look at the sites for the regionals.
Like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA and many others the high seeds have earned the right to host post-season and if the NCAA is looking to increase $$$, decrease expenses and triple the atmosphere this is the only way to go.
Thank You NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee for looking at this
FredDavenport
Registered User
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Congrats to Quinnipiac Men's Ice Hockey's Connor and Kelen Jones, the ECAC and of College Ice Hockey for the nice mention in Sports Illustrated's "Faces in the Crowd"
http://www.quinnipiacbobcats.com/sports/mice/2013-14/releases/201312183f9ol5
Congrats to Quinnipiac Men's Ice Hockey's Connor and Kelen Jones, the ECAC and of College Ice Hockey for the nice mention in Sports Illustrated's "Faces in the Crowd"
http://www.quinnipiacbobcats.com/sports/mice/2013-14/releases/201312183f9ol5
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Attendance at Regionals
Makes me scratch my head, too, although I go there every time they host.
Regional attendance is a complicated problem, but ticket pricing is a huge component therein... The casual local fan just isn't going to pony-up $80 for a "session" pass, to see four teams from out of the area.
It would make a whole lot more sense to me to promote these games locally as "family-friendly", and have twice the attendees paying half the price, resulting in more posteriors in the seats, and the same revenue.
That's how you "grow the sport", IMO.
Makes me scratch my head, too, although I go there every time they host.
Regional attendance is a complicated problem, but ticket pricing is a huge component therein... The casual local fan just isn't going to pony-up $80 for a "session" pass, to see four teams from out of the area.
It would make a whole lot more sense to me to promote these games locally as "family-friendly", and have twice the attendees paying half the price, resulting in more posteriors in the seats, and the same revenue.
That's how you "grow the sport", IMO.
Re: Attendance at Regionals
I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.
I would rather have my team(the Sioux) playing in a packed, hostile #1 seed's arena(assuming we didn't get the #1 seed) rather than playing in Random City, Ohio in front of 800 fans. From what I've heard from coaches they would prefer that as well. So what are the negatives that could outweigh having the seats packed? The arguments against it that I've heard so far are underwhelming.