Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

[CLS]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I don't like the idea of campus regionals. This would put smaller schools at even more of a disadvantage. I would also be curious how many eastern schools have rinks big enough for fans of 4 teams.

There are two models for having Regionals at home rinks. Which one are you talking about?

In one model, the rink is pre-assigned and has nothing to do with the seedings. In that model, minimum seating capacities probably apply. This model probably does favor the larger schools, because, in addition to seating capacity problems, the smaller schools probably don’t have the logistical and administrative structures that would be necessary to sponsor a Regional, especially one that may not involve their team.

In another model, the higher/highest seed is host. Seating capacity minimums could apply, but don’t have to; if your rink’s too small, you’d just have to put up with the hassles of fans who want to attend, but can’t.

Define minimum. If 3,000 is your floor, then there are a few that do not meet the criteria.

But if the idea is to protect the #1 seeds then I say go for it!

And if it’s not about protecting the #1 seeds? The only recent example we have is the 2015 Midwest Regional. If Notre Dame makes the tournament, but not as one of the top four seeds, some #1 seed will get farked. If Notre Dame makes the tournament as one of the top four seeds, they will have an advantage that none of the other top four seeds have.

And BTW, not to be a wise-***, but he didn't use the term "minimum". I think you mean define "big enough".

 

[MGoBlueHockey]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

No offense to you personally, but the fact that this was posted by a Michigan fan made me throw up in my mouth a little.

We understand. Michigan hosting a regional would be an automatic bid to the Frozen Four.

 

[komey1]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

There are two models for having Regionals at home rinks. Which one are you talking about?

In one model, the rink is pre-assigned and has nothing to do with the seedings. In that model, minimum seating capacities probably apply. This model probably does favor the larger schools, because, in addition to seating capacity problems, the smaller schools probably don’t have the logistical and administrative structures that would be necessary to sponsor a Regional, especially one that may not involve their team.

In another model, the higher/highest seed is host. Seating capacity minimums could apply, but don’t have to; if your rink’s too small, you’d just have to put up with the hassles of fans who want to attend, but can’t.

I don't like higher seeds hosting, If it is predetermined, then at least it is known and a good minimum seating, that is good for attendance I think.

 

[UMICH]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

No offense to you personally, but the fact that this was posted by a Michigan fan made me throw up in my mouth a little.

Was that seriously your "worthwhile" thought? Can't we get a little thought here or do you not want to tax both brain cells?

 

[Jim]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I don't like higher seeds hosting, If it is predetermined, then at least it is known and a good minimum seating, that is good for attendance I think.

I tend to agree with this outlook, though to some extent the east is different from the west and what makes sense in fairly compact New England/New York (mostly at least) might not work as well in a region that extends from Central PA to Colorado. But my view is that there ought to be more effort made at putting teams in their home regions and less concern with balancing the brackets. Even if you do it in a pod system like they use in basketball. So even if UNH and Cornell are the 3 and 4 seed in the west, they still play in Manchester or Albany. Better yet, I'd make the Regionals truly regional. go back to the old days of East vs. West. Then I'd focus on smaller arenas for the regionals. Ideally something in the 5000 to about 8000 seat size unless a place has a strong history of supporting the regionals. Finally, I would insure that the regionals were only played in "hockey areas," Places that have local college teams in the vicinity. Cumberland county Civic Center in Portland Maine? OK. St Louis? Don't call us, we'll call you. In this model I suppose I wouldn't have a huge problem with Conte or Aggannis, htough again in the northeast there are a number of neutral arenas that would and have worked so you might not need to use campus sites. I'm not as sure about the west.

 

[CLS]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

...Better yet, I'd make the Regionals truly regional. go back to the old days of East vs. West. ...

If the Regionals are made more “regional”, the problem kind of goes away, because there’d be no need to have the same system in the East and the West. The current system works fine as is in the East, and the West could go to whatever system works for them, whether it be Regionals at the higher seed, on pre-assigned on-campus Regional sites, or whatever. That’s really not fair to do under the current system because eastern schools get shipped west and western schools get shipped east.

I’d be sad if that happened, because I think it’s fun, when I go to the Regionals, to see teams that I don’t normally see, for example a few years back when North Dakota played UAA/UAF, sorry don’t remember which. And there’s also a possibility that the Regionals could often be repeats of the conference tournaments.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I don't like campus regionals at all. I think it just gives that team far too big an advantage, assuming they make it in.
I don't think the NCAA has exhausted all the options. Before they go to campus sites, which is a cop out if you ask me, they ought to explore other possibilities.
Such as:
1. the east works fine, this is a west problem mostly.
2. don't charge so much.
3. consider super regionals. instead of 4 teams, have 8.
4. make them more stable. in other words, quit moving them around so much.(In the east Bridgeport hosts every other year. do that in the west.)
5. and get more locals.!

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I don't like campus regionals at all. I think it just gives that team far too big an advantage, assuming they make it in.
I don't think the NCAA has exhausted all the options. Before they go to campus sites, which is a cop out if you ask me, they ought to explore other possibilities.
Such as:
1. the east works fine, this is a west problem mostly.
2. don't charge so much.
3. consider super regionals. instead of 4 teams, have 8.
4. make them more stable. in other words, quit moving them around so much.(In the east Bridgeport hosts every other year. do that in the west.)
5. and get more locals.!

While any of these suggestions may seem reasonable, each brings up considerable issues.
1. While it may seem like fixing the west solves the problem, this brings up huge equity issues. Why should Notre Dame (should they make the NCAAs in 2015) get an easier path to a FF simply because neutral site regionals work in the east but not the west? They'd get an advantage the other three teams might not. The system has to be relatively equal for all 16 teams. "Fixing" the west for attendance issues will almost certainly involve campus sites. You simply can't have that for one or two regionals but not the others.
2. This one is the most obvious fix and we'll see one more time if lower ticket prices have a positive effect, since prices in Cincinnati are lower than they've been in years (about what I paid in 2004 for the Van Andel regional). Of course putting the games in an area that is sort of local to just three teams, one of them having little history or following in college hockey and one struggling mightily to revisit their past glory, will mitigate a lot of the positive effect of realistic ticket prices.
3. Won't have much effect at all on in game atmosphere. People's tastes are changing and few actually want to watch any game not involving their team. This is readily evident any time you see a day with two games. 2 sets of fans (sometimes only one if one or both teams are distant) show up for the first game and are mostly gone before the second game starts, and two sets of fans begin to trickle in around the time the first game ends and at no time are more than a little more than half of the people actually in the building. And while possible to accomplish, the logistics for 8 teams to use a facility will be an absolute nightmare, require a supreme effort (and lots of people, most of whom are expecting to be paid, raising the cost of a bid), and will have some horrible ice, rivaling any outdoor game, for many of the contests.
4. I would think Bridgeport (or Manchester) keep hosting because they keep putting in the bids, and there aren't other credible suiters. The only reason Notre Dame was awarded the bid for the 2015 tournament is because no one else bid on the Midwest regional.
5. See #3. Locals won't show up without a team to root for. If Notre Dame lays one of their semi-regular eggs next season instead of this season and misses this thing, JJfP and I will make up a large portion of the crowd. And before you say it is because South Bend is a town that doesn't care about hockey, the same would be true at any other campus site without the host school and is proven true at most of the regionals in the West. Few locals show up in Grand Rapids without MSU or U of M. Toledo was the same thing. People are not willing to pay very much money to watch games not involving teams they don't root for. Those of us on this forum are in no way representative of the typical college sports fan. In fact many people on this board wouldn't think of making any sort of travel at all for games not involving their teams.

In my opinion this is a problem that will not be solved in the West. Unless these games are on campus sites, (or at the X in St Paul should Minnesota be involved) you will continue to see crowds like we've seen over the last few seasons.

 

[The Zlax45]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

In the east, it seems like it is between these five cities all the time. Albany, Bridgeport, Manchester, Worcester, and Providence. I am fine with each of these but some major home ice advantages at many of these facilities for the hosts especially UNH in Manchester, PC or Brown in Providence, Bridgeport for Quinnipiac or Yale, etc...

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I don't like the idea of campus regionals. This would put smaller schools at even more of a disadvantage...

There are two models for having Regionals at home rinks. Which one are you talking about?...In another model, the higher/highest seed is host. Seating capacity minimums could apply, but don’t have to; if your rink’s too small, you’d just have to put up with the hassles of fans who want to attend, but can’t.

I don't like higher seeds hosting, If it is predetermined, then at least it is known and a good minimum seating, that is good for attendance I think.

I can understand someone from Atlantic Hockey feeling this way. With insular schedule problem, it's tough for an AH member to crack the Top 8 in the pairwise.

But if we really let the top seeds host, it would create a terrific opportunity for the "have-nots" from the other conferences. If you have a dream season and can crack the Top 8, you might very well get to host a "brand name" school on your campus. It could be a team that might not otherwise agree to schedule a game at your place. And even if you wind up in a #9 through #16 slot, at least you're playing a national game in front of a good crowd. I've just got to believe that, for most athletes, playing against a loud crowd is more motivating than playing in front of a sea of empty seats.

Question for Eastern Fans: Have the regionals really, truly gotten that much better in the last 5-10 years? I was in Worcester in '05. That field included both BC and BU. North Dakota was also there. And the building was never particularly full. Merchandise sales? Some occurred, but sales weren't particularly brisk. I'd allow that the games had a good atmosphere, but I certainly wouldn't say great. And I would have guessed that particular field would be a best case scenario. Why should we settle for something that is merely satisfactory? Or has it really improved to the point where the Eastern Regionals are actually worth defending?

Yes, the problem is worse in the West than in the East. But I still have to wonder, as a general proposition, if there will ever really be a market for the Round of 16 on neutral sites. I do think that the Round of 8 can ultimately do well in neutral buildings. Note that's a total of 4 games beyond the Frozen Four, for a total of 7. That's within the attention span of the average fan, while 15 games really is not.

 

[Stauber1]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

In the east, it seems like it is between these five cities all the time. Albany, Bridgeport, Manchester, Worcester, and Providence. I am fine with each of these but some major home ice advantages at many of these facilities for the hosts especially UNH in Manchester, PC or Brown in Providence, Bridgeport for Quinnipiac or Yale, etc...

That's just it. The vast majority of the time right now, either there is a significant fan advantage for one team or no fans at all. People want to say that playing on-campus is too much of an advantage, but the advantage is there now as it is only it's not tied to seeding.

3 weeks. First round best-of-3 at the higher seed. Second round at predetermined neutral regional sites (1 east and 1 west). Third round the typical Froze 4 we are accustomed to.
Going with only 2 regional sites makes it easier to put them in rinks that have a track record of putting butts in seats, makes travel easier with only 1 game night, and ensures that people use the tickets they buy (if your team is only going to play 1 game no matter what, you don't have a chance to skip town and leave an empty seat should they lose).

I understand people saying that the pairwise can be tight, and can swing on some fairly subjective criteria, so that making a 9th or 10th seed go on the road to a team that was seeded only 1 or 3 higher than them seems pretty brutal. But my contention is that if you can't finish in the top 10% then you haven't really earned the right to be protected in the first place. Someone's gotta host, and by the time you get to the 7th-10th range in seed I see no problem with having things turn on predetermined criteria. We as a community have come to terms with that when it applies to "last team in, last team out" and the same applies in this scenario.

The other options are to have sites with zero atmosphere or sites with real fan/local advantage awarded irregardless of seed.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

3. consider super regionals. instead of 4 teams, have 8.

Super regionals might actually make it worse, because it opens up the possibility for more "not ordinary" game times. At least out east, where getting to these games is a day trip, a lot of people will go to a game that is at 7:00 PM on a Friday, but not a Friday afternoon game because they are not going to take a day off of work.

The regionals are a puzzle for sure for the NCAA if they want to increase attendance (and the western regionals in particular).

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or not, but earlier I posted my criteria for going to an NCAA regional game:

a) The team I cheer for is playing in it.
b) Reasonable drive time / no overnight stay required.
c) The game is at a time of day that does not require taking time off of work to attend.

For me, that pretty much means that I'll go to the regionals if BU is playing in either Manchester, Worcester or Providence on a Friday evening or on a Saturday.

Unfortunately for the NCAA, I think there are a lot of college hockey fans that thing like I do on this.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I'll take a day off for the event, no questions asked.
I've even stayed at a hotel when the regional is in the metro area I live in (30 minute drive to arena, but best in the nation hockey tailgating!).
My team being there is usually key, though.

 

[state of hockey]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

This thread should be retitled "Campus regionals coming back, evidently."

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

That's just it. The vast majority of the time right now, either there is a significant fan advantage for one team or no fans at all. People want to say that playing on-campus is too much of an advantage, but the advantage is there now as it is only it's not tied to seeding.

This. Most Emphatically, This.

3 weeks. First round best-of-3 at the higher seed.

Lots of people favor 2 of 3 in the first round, but I don't think it's necessary or even desirable. It also creates a problem, especially for teams playing in multipurpose facilities.

Why unnecessary? One reason for the 2 of 3 format is to generate more revenue. That's probably the main reason the conference tournaments do it. But in NCAA play, the Frozen Four is the moneymaker. As long the 1st Round can more or less break even, we should be fine financially.

Why undesirable? Legitimate concern has been expressed that campus sites give too large an advantage to the home team. Well, if you're the underdog trying to pull the upset, it's easier to grab one win than it is to take 2 of 3. Keep it at one game, keep the underdog's challenge a little more doable. And even in terms of atmosphere, the single game gets the nod. A single winner-take-all tilt yields a packed house with great intensity. Spread the crowd out over three days, and you can't help but lose a little of that.

And the problem is? For a building manager, having to hold three days open -- for games that might not even be played -- is a real problem. All of your regular customers are screwed for an entire weekend. If you run a multipurpose building, you might have to forego a high profit event. Or, you can book normally. Then if your team pulls an upset and breaks into the Top 8, it's your job to explain to your players why they have to play some of the most important games of the season elsewhere. In contrast, single elimination means you're only holding one date open. Friday OR Saturday OR Sunday. Perhaps still an issue. But much, much more manageable.

Even with all that said, I'd happily take your plan, as is. Even without the one change I favor, it would be an enormous improvement over the status quo.

Second round at predetermined neutral regional sites (1 east and 1 west). Third round the typical Froze 4 we are accustomed to.
Going with only 2 regional sites makes it easier to put them in rinks that have a track record of putting butts in seats, makes travel easier with only 1 game night, and ensures that people use the tickets they buy (if your team is only going to play 1 game no matter what, you don't have a chance to skip town and leave an empty seat should they lose).

I understand people saying that the pairwise can be tight, and can swing on some fairly subjective criteria, so that making a 9th or 10th seed go on the road to a team that was seeded only 1 or 3 higher than them seems pretty brutal. But my contention is that if you can't finish in the top 10% then you haven't really earned the right to be protected in the first place. Someone's gotta host, and by the time you get to the 7th-10th range in seed I see no problem with having things turn on predetermined criteria. We as a community have come to terms with that when it applies to "last team in, last team out" and the same applies in this scenario.

The other options are to have sites with zero atmosphere or sites with real fan/local advantage awarded irregardless of seed.

Strongly agreed on all counts.

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Super regionals might actually make it worse, because it opens up the possibility for more "not ordinary" game times. At least out east, where getting to these games is a day trip, a lot of people will go to a game that is at 7:00 PM on a Friday, but not a Friday afternoon game because they are not going to take a day off of work.

The regionals are a puzzle for sure for the NCAA if they want to increase attendance (and the western regionals in particular).

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or not, but earlier I posted my criteria for going to an NCAA regional game:

a) The team I cheer for is playing in it.
b) Reasonable drive time / no overnight stay required.
c) The game is at a time of day that does not require taking time off of work to attend.

For me, that pretty much means that I'll go to the regionals if BU is playing in either Manchester, Worcester or Providence on a Friday evening or on a Saturday.

Unfortunately for the NCAA, I think there are a lot of college hockey fans that thing like I do on this.

I know that I am the exception. My vacation schedule includes 1 day for regionals and 2 days for the Frozen Four. I don't know if my regional 1 day will be the Friday or Monday around regionals, but I plan for having to use it.

I was one of the 300 people at the St. Louis regional in 2011.

I will attend a regional if either of the following is true:
a) My team is playing and I can drive there within a day, ~10 hour driveable radius. (A last minute plane ticket will price me out of a regional)
b) I can attend without needing a hotel room AND ticket prices are affordable, <$40/day.

Last year I went to the Grand Rapids regional, despite my team not being there, knowing I could easily get a ticket and probably sit wherever I wanted.

Geography helps the East and hurts the West. Outside of always having a regional in the Twin Cities where there are lots of hockey fans, and plenty of fanbases that would consider that a drivable distance, I'm not sure what can be done.

Grand Rapids or Toledo would be a good location if and only if Michigan, Michigan State, aOSU, or Notre Dame get placed there.


If Notre Dame got the MidWest regional because they were the only bidder, that is not surprising. The Midwest region has probably had the most attendance issues. I'd guess St. Louis in 2011 and Grand Rapids last year lost money on those bids. Maybe even Ft. Wayne in 2010, even with both Michigan and Miami there, there were lots of empty seats. Why bid on a potential money loser? Although Grand Rapids would have been safe with Michigan as the host school, had Michigan made the tourney.

What I believe would be the key to neutral site attendance woes is to market to the local population. Those that can plan on being there ahead of time no matter the teams. However, with current prices, it is hard to attract those locals that could spend their entertainment money elsewhere on something that is a known value for them.

 

[Patman]

In the east, it seems like it is between these five cities all the time. Albany, Bridgeport, Manchester, Worcester, and Providence. I am fine with each of these but some major home ice advantages at many of these facilities for the hosts especially UNH in Manchester, PC or Brown in Providence, Bridgeport for Quinnipiac or Yale, etc...

You aren't getting around that ever

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

Grand Rapids or Toledo would be a good location if and only if Michigan, Michigan State, aOSU, or Notre Dame get placed there.

I think recent evidence is even with local teams, this hasn't been true. Notre Dame and MSU played a regional final in GR in 2007 and boxscore attendance was less than half a house and there were actually about 4000 there, fairly evenly divided between MSU and ND fans. Not a horrible crowd, but certainly not great. But that was 6 years ago. Things are getting worse and the casual fan is disappearing. Last year Toledo was a huge disaster in terms of people in the building and atmosphere, despite both Notre Dame and Miami being there. At no time on Saturday were there more than 1500 in the building. And while boxscore attendance indicated 2400 people for the regional final, in reality there were fewer than 1500 in the building for that game as well.

The times have changed radically since 2003 and the first year of the current format. Fans won't bother watching other teams, so even if your team makes the NCAAs and you go, the vast majority just go to "their" game, which tamps down the atmosphere. And the fact is, live sports are rapidly losing steam as an entertainment choice for a lot of people. Increases in ticket prices that made no sense given economic principles like inflation and economic realities like a horrible economy drove a lot of people away. It is hard to get those people to come back. And for people under 30, and especially people traditional college age and younger, live sports have very little of the appeal that they did in previous generations. When I was 18 a couple (or 30) years ago the idea of a road trip to the Twin Cities or Detroit to watch my team play some hockey was a great adventure and I couldn't wait. In 2013 good luck finding an 18 year old with the same enthusiasm.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Campus Regional's coming back maybe?

I think that the Regionals will always struggle for attendance, but it could be a lot better if you could find ways to get locals to go. Such as in St Paul.

I'm also in favor of trying something like Windsor, Ontario. I know, I know,... but really you do not need a passport, only a birth certificate and if it makes for a good atmosphere, expands the publicity the college game gets, and protects neutrality, I'm all for it. It might seem like a huge obstacle to some, but it's not.
Windsor is a nice facility, is easy to get to, close to a lot of schools, and would be full or nearly so. And if no fans go anyway, why are we all upset it's not accessible?

As I said, the NCAA needs to make every effort to make neutral site Regionals successful before going to campus sites. I don't think they have done enough homework.

 

[ericredaxe]

What I believe would be the key to neutral site attendance woes is to market to the local population. Those that can plan on being there ahead of time no matter the teams. However, with current prices, it is hard to attract those locals that could spend their entertainment money elsewhere on something that is a known value for them.

As you mentioned, that will be really tough to do, especially at the current price points. College hockey is such a niche thing that I have a hard time giving away my BU seats to games when I can't go... Most people who are Boston Bruins fans and not college hockey followers won't even take a free pair of tickets to a college game and use them.... Forget about paying $60 to go to the ncaa regionals.