Re: Frozen Four ticket location
Priority 14: Section 104 Row 20 (through the NC$$ lottery and not from MN)
Priority 10: Section 103 Row 9
Priority 10: Section 121 Row 23
Welcome back to the FF Lottery Threads, and thanks for the reports!
Very unusual that a lot of lower priority level people are getting lower level.
Yes indeed. The percentage of USCHO applicants in the 2011 lower bowl is extraordinary.
In reply to both you and Craig P., 2002 & 2011 isn't the easiest comparison to make. For one thing, the necessary information from '02 is going to be difficult to come by. As far as I can tell from old notes, we weren't able to definitively decide whether the 2002 bubble level was 2 or 3 (of 5). And as far I can remember, we didn't link priority levels with specific seats in that very first lottery. It's impossible to improve on that information at this late date.
Also, remember that no one knew that they were supposed to be collecting priority points during the 1997-2001 period. The rules were announced after the fact, in connection with the 2002 Lottery. So it's very difficult to know how many applications came in at each level. Just because someone attended every tournament doesn't tell us how many points they earned during those years.
Let's say back in 2002 you were a Level 2 and you got lower bowl seating. Perhaps you got priority lottery seats. Or, maybe you weren't even close to the top group, but got very fortunate in the General Lottery. Putting the question another way: At Level 2, were you high, medium or low priority? It's probably fair to say you weren't at a high level. But medium or low? Very tough to say, but quite relevant. Lower bowl for a medium level applicant wouldn't be a huge surprise, but the same seats for a low level applicant would be.
Although the location is more advantagous to the WCHA fans. This is really first location in three years that would require east coast fans to fly. With the cost of flights and the FFFF fiasco last year, maybe some of those have opted out.
Here is a thought on the lack of 8s and 9s. They would be people who got in just as the formal lottery started (priority 0 in 2002 and 2003), they may have been general lottery (versus priority lottery) people over the years and they never consistently got tickets. Not sure how to validate the theory. pgb-ohio any thoughts based on the historic data?
That's a reasonable place to start the analysis. But before we begin to answer, we have to decide on the question. Are we talking about the applicant pool as a whole, or just USCHO applicants? It's not obvious that USCHO is a representative sample of the larger group. It's possible that there are plenty of 8s and 9s in the larger pool, but for some reason that group is less likely to be part of USCHO. But for the moment, let's gloss over that nuance and assume that there is a shortage of mid-level applicants in the full applicant pool. Why might that be the case? Here are some possibilities:
1. Just as you suggest, a group of applicants that started around 2002 may have lacked the commitment of those who were attending back in the '90s. The 90's attendees were going to the tournament whether East or West, through thick and thin. In contrast, the newly announced lottery mechanism may have caught the fancy of the more casual fan.
Hey, I've got a chance to 'win' something special here, and maybe even make some money. After years of mixed results, that sort of fan would indeed be likely to drop out. As has been previously discussed at great length, those whose
only interest was financial were mostly gone after 2005 in Columbus.
2. But there may be a more specific explanation. Applicants at the medium levels have bounced back and forth between the upper and lower bowls. It's very frustrating to feel like you've achieved the lower bowl by playing by the rules, only to slide back upstairs the following year. Do you remember the
Ten Angry Posters from the DC Frozen Four? I know Craig P. does. This is exactly what happened to them, and it's not a happy experience. OK, I'll allow that Craig wasn't all that angry. But he did share the disappointment of others who were at Level 8 For DC. My thought is that applicants at the middle levels may have tired of being bounced back and forth between levels, and even in and out of the building. The response may be that a good percentage of them have dropped out of the lottery process.
3. Or, maybe it's a mostly a matter of mathematics. If the top group attends every year or nearly every year, it stands to reason that they'll move up the ladder in lock step with one another. In contrast, if medium and lower level applicants only go occasionally, it makes sense that the "gap" between the upper levels and the rest will grow increasingly larger over the years. Perhaps Levels 10 and above represents regulars; and Level 7 and below represents the occasional attendees. Viewed in that way, the gap at Levels 8 & 9 is just an inevitable mathematical result, nothing more.
4. A mixture of all of the above, which is probably the most likely explanation of all.
Any further thoughts?
For better or worse, it is time to call Customer Service. Do call the numbers that others have provided. Double-checking with the Post Office would also be a good idea.
