College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

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!

I wasn't condoning they do it all the time. I was simply stating that the selection of these cities had nothing to do with sticking it to their sports fan base.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

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.

Actually Minnesota would be hurt by hosting at home. Capacity is only 10k at Mariucci. They could sell a lot more seats if played at the Xcel Energy Center.

North Dakota would probably be OK with 12k at home. I am not sure how many they would get being the sole host at the X.

 

[LTsatch]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I grew up 15 minutes from BPT, it's not NYC area. That's like saying Springfield, MA is Boston area.

Also could someone explain to me having the NE regional final at 8:00 EST while the Western is at 5:00? It would seem so easy to switch the 2 and have them both start at 5 locally.

I guess that all the train stations in every city between New Haven and NYC are there for people to get to Stamford I picked up the tix today and it was actually $60 per seat for all three games. That's cheaper than some college regular season prices.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Actually Minnesota would be hurt by hosting at home. Capacity is only 10k at Mariucci. They could sell a lot more seats if played at the Xcel Energy Center.

North Dakota would probably be OK with 12k at home. I am not sure how many they would get being the sole host at the X.

10,000 Minnesota fans vs. 15-20k split fans, yes, that would reduce capacity--but you're forgetting that you are turning one 19,000 seat location into 2 10k + locations that are as close (Minnie) or much closer (NoDak) to their fan bases. I'm pretty sure both would sell out, and be much louder than your standard regular season game. So you have 22,000 home fans there. The X cannot physically match that--and this is a <b>best-case home regional</b> we're talking about.

 

[Eph72]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I kinda like it. Atmosphere would be great. I suppose a minor tweak might be that a school like Union, playing in a small building, could consider moving the game to a bigger local arena (for example, Times Union Center) if they wanted to...

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.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

10,000 Minnesota fans vs. 15-20k split fans, yes, that would reduce capacity--but you're forgetting that you are turning one 19,000 seat location into 2 10k + locations that are as close (Minnie) or much closer (NoDak) to their fan bases. I'm pretty sure both would sell out, and be much louder than your standard regular season game. So you have 22,000 home fans there. The X cannot physically match that--and this is a <b>best-case home regional</b> we're talking about.

Oh, we are running on the assumpion that the regional is 1 ticket for both games?

 

[Almington]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

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.

The higher seed hosts is great in theory, but for schools that have multi-tenant facilities or use non-school facilities reserving the arena for two weekends for games that are not likely is going to run into issues with regards to the costs of reserving 58 arenas for 2 weeks so that 8 can be used one week and 4 the next.

Moving the F4 later in the year is also going to be a non-starter since the f4 already nearly at the last week of the NHL regular season and none of the NHL arenas would be available until after the home team has been eliminated from the playoffs.

 

[Alton]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

The higher seed hosts is great in theory, but for schools that have multi-tenant facilities or use non-school facilities reserving the arena for two weekends for games that are not likely to not occur is not a great option considering the costs that would be involved.

This is not a problem in the first round of the conference tournament; teams make their buildings available or find a building that is available. This is not a problem in any other NCAA sport that has an on-site first round to the tournament decided on selection day (baseball, softball, tennis, soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.). If a team can't host, then they will play the first round on the road. If they don't want to play on the road, then they need to put in a bid to host and finish in the top 8.

This isn't complicated; every team sport except hockey and basketball plays the first round(s) at campus sites selected when the teams are selected. Basketball has neutral sites because they can do it and still sell the buildings out. Hockey has neutral sites because the committee made a big mistake 20 years ago and they aren't willing to fix it.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I tend to agree with Caustic Undertow...

Home sites for the first and second round would be ideal. I would also extend it to playing best of 3 series. The higher seeds would then host the second round (keeping it in the same brackets, although not necessary) the following weekend, skip the off week before the Frozen Four, and play that Friday/Sunday.

For Example: (West Regional)
Friday/Saturday/Sunday - March 23-25
Western Michigan @ North Dakota - (guaranteed to sell 22-36k tickets) North Dakota wins series
Boston University @ Minnesota - (guaranteed to sell 20-30k tickets) Minnesota wins series

Friday/Saturday/Sunday - March 30-April 1
Minnesota @ North Dakota - (guaranteed to sell 24-36k tickets)

You've just sold around 66-102k tickets...that would probably be more than this entire weekend sells.

Obviously there are roadblocks preventing this, and it is unlikely to happen, but I do agree that this would bring in the most $$$, is probably the fairest way to reward play from the Regular Season (including Conference Tournaments), and is the most exciting for the fans and players.

 

[giwan]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

This is not a problem in the first round of the conference tournament; teams make their buildings available or find a building that is available. This is not a problem in any other NCAA sport that has an on-site first round to the tournament decided on selection day (baseball, softball, tennis, soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.). If a team can't host, then they will play the first round on the road. If they don't want to play on the road, then they need to put in a bid to host and finish in the top 8.This isn't complicated; every team sport except hockey and basketball plays the first round(s) at campus sites selected when the teams are selected. Basketball has neutral sites because they can do it and still sell the buildings out. Hockey has neutral sites because the committee made a big mistake 20 years ago and they aren't willing to fix it.

Basketball does NOT sell out the neutral sites in the first round. It's just the TV money. Even some 2nd round games are empty. An all inclusive tournament would be interesting with the regular season just for seeding purposes.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

An idea I've kicked around is placing each team in the regional they are closest too in order of seed. It would completely do away with bracket integrity (other than the luck of the draw) but all 1 seeds would play a 4 and all 2 seeds would still play one of the three seeds. A strict 1-16, 2-15 etc is mattering less and less, as any fan of Minnesota, Michigan or Notre Dame can attest to.

In this scenario I would not have a rule to prohibit first round conference re-matches. Don't see much difference between one in a first round or second round game anyway. The sport is small enough and insular enough that I don't care about that. You still would likely have to account for host teams because bracketing this way would not have Minnesota in St Paul this season.

It seems to me if you want to get more people to go the regionals you have to do two things. Make them as easy as possible to get to, and charge reasonable prices for tickets.

I imagine this isn't a set up that appeals to most people. I get the sense that most would either leave it pretty much as it is, and the rest would like to see a return to campus sites before the FF.

Does anyone have attendance numbers handy from the last few 6 team regionals? People seem to think those were better attended since 6 sets of fans came to one venue instead of 4. In 2012 and going forward I don't think this would matter. One thing I am seeing more and more is people have less interest in watching someone elses game. Even if they paid for it. That's something I've noticed at every conference or NCAA tourney game I've been to since 2004. It is much less the case at the 2 FFs I attended, but the Joe and Van Andel have generally not had fans in the building for the games their teams were not involved in. I don't think regionals with 8 teams would have an atmosphere any better than the 4 team ones.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

I think the biggest changes that could be made is changing the bye week from next weekend to this weekend. The Frozen Four is a sellout or near sellout every year. The location and dates are known well in advance and people plan their travel and everything months ahead of time. The regionals struggle because no one knows for sure when and where they are playing until Sunday just 5 days before the first games occur. If you moved the bye week to this coming weekend and didn't have the regionals until March 30-April 1, you'd have much better attendance.

Another suggestion, go back to a super-regional type event where there are only 2 sites for regionals, one in the east and one in the west. Have 2 games each day at the venues over the course of 3 days.
Super Regional 1 in Bridgeport:
Friday: "East" Semifinals
Saturday: "Northeast" Semifinals
Sunday: both "East" and "Northeast" Finals

Super Regional 2 in Minneapolis:
Friday: "West" Semifinals
Saturday: "Midwest" Semifinals
Sunday: both "West" and "Midwest" Finals

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

`2

Does anyone have attendance numbers handy from the last few 6 team regionals? People seem to think those were better attended since 6 sets of fans came to one venue instead of 4.

USCHO does. Just look at the box scores from teams' schedule & results archive. Here's an example from 99.
http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/1999/03/27/michigan-vs-new-hampshire/

That may be misleading, because UNH is very close to Worcester. Which is a stroke of luck for attendance.

Here's a box from 2000, with Michigan and Maine playing to a crowd of 9k in Albany. Albany is much further from Maine than Worcester is from UNH. Michigan defeated Colgate in front of a nearly equal crowd the day before . . . so it wasn't just a bunch of Mainers making a 6-7 hour drive for day 2.
http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/2000/03/26/michigan-vs-maine/

Not trying to pick on Michigan, Caustic. USCHO only gives you a couple years to choose from. Michigan's fault for making the FF both before and after that window, but not during.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

`2

USCHO does. Just look at the box scores from teams' schedule & results archive. Here's an example from 99.
http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/1999/03/27/michigan-vs-new-hampshire/

Thanks. Never even considered that but it's a pretty good resource.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Another suggestion, go back to a super-regional type event where there are only 2 sites for regionals, one in the east and one in the west. Have 2 games each day at the venues over the course of 3 days.
Super Regional 1 in Bridgeport:
Friday: "East" Semifinals
Saturday: "Northeast" Semifinals
Sunday: both "East" and "Northeast" Finals

Super Regional 2 in Minneapolis:
Friday: "West" Semifinals
Saturday: "Midwest" Semifinals
Sunday: both "West" and "Midwest" Finals

that's a great idea. I'm not a fan of the campus sites to tell the truth as the home advantage is not to my liking. I understand the logic, just not my cup of tea. But the super regional would be great. Never made sense to me why some games were in two eastern cites 100 miles from each other any way.

 

[johnk]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

that's a great idea. I'm not a fan of the campus sites to tell the truth as the home advantage is not to my liking. I understand the logic, just not my cup of tea. But the super regional would be great. Never made sense to me why some games were in two eastern cites 100 miles from each other any way.

Agree that this is the best way to go. Attendance at least for the regional championships would be much better. As far as TV, on Sunday you could do the east games at 12 & 3 and the west at 6 & 9. ESPN only needs to send 2 crews instead of 4 and the NCAA is only renting 2 buildings. Makes too much sense so probably will never happen.

 

[Alton]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

This 8-team regional thing just doesn't make any sense at all to me. The problem is not that there are too many regional sites--just the opposite! The problem is that people don't travel to regionals, and never really have. Back when there were two regionals, the total attendance would be less than 32,000--4 sessions of 8,000 each. Now at least the total attendance approaches 48,000 (8 sessions of 6,000 each).

Here is what it boils down to: people don't fly to regionals, and they don't go to regionals unless their team is playing. The people in the stands at the regionals are fans of one of the participating teams, and they got to the host town by automobile.

You are not going to add to attendance by asking people to buy tickets to 6 games when their team will only play in one or two, and you are not going to add to attendance by adding a day to the weekend and asking people to spend one more night in a hotel (and find something to keep themselves entertained when their team isn't playing). We are different on this board, so don't tell me you fly to regionals and don't tell me you want a 16-team tournament at one site that lasts all week. You are not typical, and the way that I know you are not typical is because you read and post on this message board.

The lacrosse format (8 first round games at home sites followed by quarterfinal doubleheaders the next week at 2 neutral sites, followed by a final four) makes the most sense for their sport, and I don't see why it wouldn't make more sense for our sport than the rather embarrassing "events" that we call regionals.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

The lacrosse format (8 first round games at home sites followed by quarterfinal doubleheaders the next week at 2 neutral sites, followed by a final four) makes the most sense for their sport, and I don't see why it wouldn't make more sense for our sport than the rather embarrassing "events" that we call regionals.

The Lacrosse format actually seems pretty good to me, that way all the neutral site games can be played on a saturday or sunday to easier travel.

 

[FredDavenport]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

The Lacrosse format actually seems pretty good to me, that way all the neutral site games can be played on a saturday or sunday to easier travel.

I agree lacrosse format allows for maximum attendance at half the cost with only one team traveling

 

[Alton]

Re: College Hockey's Playoff Problem.

Here is what the tournament would look like this year using the hockey selection & seeding rules but the lacrosse tournament format and rules for pairing teams:

FIRST ROUND: Friday, Saturday or Sunday, March 23, 24 or 25
Cornell at #1 Boston College
Air Force at #2 Michigan
Massachusetts-Lowell at #3 Union
Michigan State at #4 North Dakota
Denver at #5 Miami
Maine at #6 Ferris State
Western Michigan at #7 Minnesota-Duluth
Boston University at #8 Minnesota

EAST QUARTERFINALS: Saturday, March 31, at Manchester, NH
#1 Boston College/Cornell winner v #8 Minnesota/Boston University winner
#3 Union/Massachusetts-Lowell winner v #6 Ferris State/Maine winner

WEST QUARTERFINALS: Sunday, April 1, at Milwaukee, WI
#2 Michigan/Air Force winner v #7 Minnesota-Duluth/Western Michigan winner
#4 North Dakota/Michigan State winner v #5 Miami/Denver winner