College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

[AFHockeyFan]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

A agree something is wrong. Personally, I will never attend another NCAA tournament after Air Force was sent to Worcester in 2008 when there was a Regional at the World Arena here in the Springs (Especially considering the #4 seed wound up winning it.) I would almost rather see the tournament winners, plus a couple of at-large teams, play an 8-4-2-1 bracket, best 2 out of three, over three weekends. I like the idea of not starting the regular season until November, which would push conference play until after football ends the first week of Dec., and the playoffs until after bouncyball is over and everyone looks around for something else to follow (for me its college baseball, but that may not be for everyone).

The current regional format isn't working, and you would think that even a money-grubbing organization like the NCAA would be able to figure that out.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Random thoughts:

Yes to claver's suggestion that conferences - not schools - host.

Yes to scheduling the occasional FF in an out of the way place. I go every year, and it keeps it interesting. St. Paul and Boston are nice, and I wouldn't want them out of the rotation, but they're old news. I'd rather have the occasional oddball location just to keep things fresh. Provided there is some value to the location as a general destination (sorry Columbus ).

Regionals started to s*** when the NCAA went to 4 of them. Practically speaking, 'm not sure there's anything to be done about this. We bat this around on the board every year. But in my mind the correlation is clear.

 

[SOTA]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I officially became an "un-fan" of the NCAA regional system after the 2009 regionals. And since then, I have become a fan of the idea of a best-of-3 at the higher seeds rink, with a guaranteed percentage of tickets held for the visiting team that's higher than for a usual game. I don't what is normal, but I think anywhere from 20%-30% of tickets to be held for the visiting school. If they go unsold, they can be turned back in for sale by the home school. I think it rewards the higher seed for having a better regular season and I feel a best-of-3 determines a little more "fair" of an outcome with the better team advancing.

One of the biggest problems I see is with venues. You're having to keep an open date for an arena that probably has a higher chance of not happening. It's one thing for a Mariucci to keep an open date as you just don't book ice time, but it's a different thing with an Omaha or Madison, who have hosted NCAA basketball & other events because it's a shared venue. And does the Frozen Four stay the same? You have a regional playoff that's a best of series, but suddently you decide the top 4 team in one & done?

I guess one good thing about the current set up is that it's one & done from the start. But I do agree that I'd like to see something a little different. In my opinion, it seems like the NCAA sees the success & interest level of the basketball tournament and thinks that because it's a great model for that sport that it should work for all other sports as well.

I like the discussion though. I'm sure there are many that don't agree with me as well. Discussion is good.

 

[Eph72]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

...

We need a new system. A system that provides excitement, anticipation, and real fan participation. A system that rewards teams for making the postseason. A system that does not punish high seeds for not having the luck to be hosting their own regional. A system that showcases our sport instead of embarrassing it.

...

Great discussion. Thanks, CU, for starting it with excellent concerns and ideas.

My random 2 cents.

I think the season does start too early. I would prefer a November start with NC games and with conference games starting at or after Thanksgiving. (Come to think of it, that's what the Ivy 6 in the ECAC do...Probably the kiss of death)

We've been talking alot about what to do with the ECAC playoffs and, in particular, finals, on another thread. I kind of like the idea of going back to campus locations in what are generally smaller venues (so they are not empty). At least the local fan base will consider attending...

A major eye-opener for me with respect to the ECAC finals in Atlantic City was the improvement in streaming technology. We all discovered last week that the ECAC powers that be had failed to secure a national tv contract. My first reaction, like everyone else's, was to be outraged. Not only were we showcasing our conference in front of thousands of empty seats in a garbage dump city with no place in the hockey world, there wasn't even any tv. I have to say the excellent streaming video produced by RPI TV totally turned me around on the tv question. The production was excellent, including video quality, camera work, announcers and on screen graphics. It was a seriously excellent production. Yes, I was charged $9 or $9.95 a game, but won't these charges go down if and when subscribers increase and/or advertising is attracted? The only detraction was that I couldn't figure out how to run the picture from my computer to the tv, but isn't this a problem that already has a solution or will soon enough? So I can easily imagine a day coming when every playoff game will be televised (streamed) and league officials will have to consider what this will do to live attendance (especially in remote areas).

I kinda like the idea of returning to two regional venues with a six game package and two winners.

I don't like the idea so much of non-hockey locales for the Frozen Four, but I am intrigued by Tampa as a choice. There is fairly decent hockey interest in the area (since Lightning won the Cup), there are lots of Canadian snow birds in the area, as well as spring vacationers and college kids on spring break. Air travel to Orlando and Tampa is pretty easy from almost everywhere in the country and fares are pretty competitive. Plus, as mentioned, its not a bad place to plan a vacation around. If properly promoted I can see Tampa being a sweet place to hold the event.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I kinda like the idea of returning to two regional venues with a six game package and two winners.

I'm not used to people agreeing with me on this

I'm inspired to present the 2012 D1 Ice Hockey Regionals (that weren't):

EAST
1. BC (bye)
2. Union (bye)
3. Minnesota
4. Ferris State
5. BU
6. WMichigan

Ferris State v BU -- winner plays BC
Minnesota v WMich -- winner plays Union

WEST
1. Michigan (bye)
2. North Dakota (bye)
3. Miami
4. Minnesota-Duluth
5. Maine
6. Air Force

Miami v Air Force -- winner plays North Dakota
UMD v Maine -- winner plays Michigan

Look at those things. They're stacked. I'd be excited to see either one.

 

[West Texas Wolverine]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I agree with you guys, except for part of what you said.

And I disagree with AFHockeyFan on principle.

 

[SOTA]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I kinda like the idea of returning to two regional venues with a six game package and two winners.

What about two regional sites, but it goes Thursday/Saturday & Friday/Sunday?

Example: St. Paul & Buffalo host. Midwest starts on Thursday, West starts on Friday, and then the Midwest winners play Saturday & the West winners play Sunday. Same thing happens with two eastern regionals in Buffalo. Would probably be a little easier for travel knowing that there are only two potential sites compared to four, people can make a weekend out of it, would be easier to get rid of tickets instead of having to eat them (the Sunday's could be the toughest), and would most likely get better attendance overall.

A huge current problem I see is western venues. Xcel can do well with the right teams, and Denver can do well also. But the others seem to have trouble unless one specific team is in (Wisconsin in Green Bay). I think combining them into one place over a four day period gives you good possibilities of potential bids by schools with NHL venues (St. Paul, Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, St. Louis & Denver would all be good options, and potentially UAH hosting in Nashville?)

I don't know; probably something I'm totally not considering....just tossing out ideas.

 

[Eph72]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

What about two regional sites, but it goes Thursday/Saturday & Friday/Sunday?

...

A possible advantage of Thurs-- Sat and/or Fri--Sun is that fans of the winning semi-finalists who don't attend the early games could still get to the finals (and pick up tickets from the departing losing semifinalists). If ticket resales were computerized, this would be easy to do...

 

[CLS]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

What about two regional sites, but it goes Thursday/Saturday & Friday/Sunday? . . . .

Seems to me a better setup would be three days – Region A semifinals Friday, Region A finals and Region B semifinals Saturday, Region B finals Sunday.

Thursday is too early to start. The teams and fans wouldn’t have time to make travel plans. Also, I think fans may be willing to have the off day for the Frozen four, but I doubt they’d want to spend the time and money for the Regionals.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I'm not used to people agreeing with me on this

I'm inspired to present the 2012 D1 Ice Hockey Regionals (that weren't):

EAST
1. BC (bye)
2. Union (bye)
3. Ferris State
4. Minnesota
5. BU
6. Denver

Ferris State v Denver -- winner plays Union
Minnesota v BU -- winner plays BC

WEST
1. Michigan (bye)
2. North Dakota (bye)
3. Miami
4. Minnesota-Duluth
5. Maine
6. Air Force

Miami v Air Force -- winner plays North Dakota
UMD v Maine -- winner plays Michigan

Look at those things. They're stacked. I'd be excited to see either one.

Poor Western Michigan. They win the CCHA Auto-bid and then get left out of the tourney...all the while Air Force gets a bid.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Poor Western Michigan. They win the CCHA Auto-bid and then get left out of the tourney...all the while Air Force gets a bid.

Oops.
Fixed. Swapping Ferris and Minnesota wasn't ideal, but swapping Denver for Western Michigan created a bit of a mess.

 

[Jaws]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

But it's also more expensive and harder to get there (Anaheim certainly was for someone on the east coast). I look at weather as being less a consideration when you get into early April. The other day it was warmer in the Northeast and Midwest than it was in Florida. If it's the middle of winter that's one thing, but going to a "warm weather city" by the time you get into spring isn't that big of an enticement to me. I think the NCAAs ought to stick to traditional northeast/midwest cities and leave it at that personally; give one fanbase a break most years by having it within driving distance for a fair amount of fans.

I"m with you. I'm from the midwest and I went to Anahiem and I'm going to Tampa. But if I had a choice, I wish it was in Boston, a great city to visit. Especially with the FF staying out East for two more years.

 

[lord k]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

It's the regional tournaments that stink. There are no fans at the games. Many fans hold out because they all like to go to the conference tourny at the end of the season. To add 2 more weekends of travel(regions/frozen 4) is just too expensive for most people so they skip the region and pray their team makes the Frozen 4.

The players play in packed rinks all year long then they get on the big stage and there are no fans there.

The whole national tournament should be 8 teams, 1 weekend, 1 site. Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Win 3 games and you are the champion.
Sure less teams get in but does it really matter. It puts more emphasis on doing well in the regular season.

The only other option would be to have the top seeds host the regional and keep the same system.

 

[Jaws]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Going to a "warm weather city" once a decade doesn't seem like that big of deal to me. Given that the F4 requireds an NHL sized (18k+) you are down to maybe 30 or 35 arenas where it can be held (unless you want to go with the football stadium again). Cut out anything that isn't in the US hockey footprint and you have maybe 15 locations that will work: Boston, NYC area, Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Denver, St. Paul, Chicago would be the best. Also have Buffalo, Columbus, St. Louis, Washington DC, Nashville, Milwaukee which would work but either push the geographic bound or are not the most exciting locations for non-hockey activities on a regular basis.

Good breakdown of possible cities. By all means, lets go to New York and Chicago. Milwaukee has done a good job with the 2 FF's they have had. Columbus would be okay if they play it downtown and not at the Schott.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

A agree something is wrong. Personally, I will never attend another NCAA tournament after Air Force was sent to Worcester in 2008 when there was a Regional at the World Arena here in the Springs (Especially considering the #4 seed wound up winning it.)

The # 4 seeds are basically at the mercy of how the top teams' locations/matchups shake out. I don't think they would ever go out of their way to accomodate a # 4 seed. In 2010, RIT got real lucky how it worked out while in 2008, Air Force certainly did not. I don't believe either was on purpose.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I like the idea of not starting the regular season until November, which would push conference play until after football ends the first week of Dec., and the playoffs until after bouncyball is over and everyone looks around for something else to follow (for me its college baseball, but that may not be for everyone).

That may push things too far into the Spring sports season. I thought I had read somewhere that there are NCAA rules about the earliest and latest each season's sports can be played. I'm guessing hockey is already pushing the limit on that.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

The purpose of my rather long OP was to illustrate the <b>problem</b> that the current system presents. And yes, that is in large part to start discussion, which people have provided. There are, however, some potential solutions.

http://www.collegehockeyprospective.com/2012/03/03/saturday-musings-columnist-michael-spath-2/
Michael Spath cooked this one up. I disagree with it for a lot of reasons, but it is reasonably well-thought and intriguing.

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?95630-NCAA-Change-the-Tourney
This thread is the conversation we had about this issue last year, and is I think one of the best debate threads I've ever seen on this board. Alton and I were two of the leading promoters of a home site system, my version of which I will now briefly sum up:

Top 8 seeds host the first round games in their building. I now believe the best option is for it to be a one-game round, with the games spread over the weekend. You'd get two games (staggered starts) on Friday, four on Saturday, two on Sunday, or some other combination. Games can be moved slightly to avoid arena conflicts.

The second round takes place the next weekend at the home sites of the top 4 remaining seeds. This replaces the bye week before the Frozen Four; makes travel tricky, but I think it's worth the sacrifice. The winners obviously advance.

Simple. Home arenas, guaranteed attendance. Home games are earned by having higher seeds. The atmosphere of each game is incredible. Ticket sales are still going to be as good or better than the current system.

It would work. It would be easy to implement. It would be outstanding, and it would be fair. And what it lacks in multi-game-series drama, it gains in anything-can-happen thrills.

All I know is that I've been to four "home" NCAA tournament games at Yost. Michigan was the lower seed in three of them, so it was grossly unfair. But they were the most fun I've ever had at a hockey game <b>by a wide margin</b>. And it simply can't happen properly in the current system.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Thumbing your nose? I'd think Tampa and Anaheim would be enticing locations from a weather standpoint, especially for hockey fans who are generally in cold weather cities. A mini-vacation and a hockey tournament sounds like a good deal, not thumbing their nose.

But haven't Anaheim and now Tampa proven that this thinking didn't play out as planned? Attendance in Anaheim was awful, as we all remember. And from the looks of it, Tampa may be the first in a long time that didn't actually sell out, not counting Detroit (they were still advertising ticket sales this weekend at the AHA tournament). Add to that the complete lack of "College Hockey Atmosphere" in these cities and the Zero chance of anyone driving in at the last minute for "secondary market" (i.e. scalper) tickets, and you have a stale, uninspired event. But hey, at least it's warm!

 

[Eph72]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

It's the regional tournaments that stink. There are no fans at the games. Many fans hold out because they all like to go to the conference tourny at the end of the season. ...

The regional tournament structure may well have problems, but I don't think its because the conference championships are so well supported.

Here are the reported attendance figures for the CCHA, ECAC and AHA conference finals this past weekend.

Reported attendance for the Air Force/ RIT game (in Rochester!) at the Blue Cross Arena was 2,433. Capacity is 11,200.

Reported attendance for the Harvard/Union game at Boardwalk Hall was 4,131. Capacity is 11,200.

Reported attendance for the Western Michigan/ Michigan game (in Detroit, Michigan!) at the Joe Louis Arena was 10,421. Capacity is over 20,000.

In every case reported attendance was almost certainly greatly exaggerated by reason of no-shows (even if figures do accurately reflect paid ticket sales).

I think there is also a major problem with (some of) the conference tournaments, but I'm an ECAC fan so perhaps its understandable.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Here's what the first round could look like this year, using match ups already made for regionals.

<b>Friday, March 23</b>

7pm EDT, at the Achilles Center in Schenectady:
Union vs. Michigan State

8pm, CDT, at the Amsoil Arena in Duluth:
UMD vs. Maine

<b>Saturday, March 24</b>

1pm EDT, at the Conte Forum in Chestnut Hill:
BC vs. Air Force

3pm CDT, at the Ralph Englestad Arena in Grand Forks:
North Dakota vs. Western Michigan

7pm, EDT, at Yost Ice Arena in Ann Arbor:
Michigan vs. Cornell

8pm, CDT, at Mariucci Arena in Minneapolis:
Minnesota vs. Boston University

<b>Sunday, March 25</b>

2pm, EDT, at Ewigleben Arena in Big Rapids:
Ferris State vs. Denver

4pm, EDT, at the Goggin Ice Center in Oxford:
Miami vs. Lowell

These game times are obviously flexible. All 8 games could be played Friday and Saturday if that worked better logistically. The point is that, instead of few people seeing a couple of great games in Green Bay, more people will see Michigan-Cornell in Ann Arbor (a repeat of the 1991 matchup that launched Yost as a college hockey hotbed) and Ferris-Denver in Big Rapids. They won't get a huge number of fans (due to low capacity), but all the fans there will care. Even the best attended region, likely St. Paul, won't be hurting as both North Dakota and Minnesota would host intense matchups at their sparkling home facilities.