More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is...

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

You're making comparisons to places that have poor enough public transportation so that having a car is necessity.

NO...I'm making comparisons to MOST places in the United States. Most of us don't live in the middle of a large metropolitan area and use public transportation to go everywhere. But again, this just shows how insular people in the middle of Boston are. Most have no clue what goes on outside 128 (I'll say it again). And for those "outsiders," 128 is the highway that circles Boston a 10 mile radius out.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Different gender and a different sport I know, but if the NCAA hockey regionals are failures I don't think they've invented a word to describe the situation for women's basketball. There cannot be 2000 people at the RBC Center (or whatever they call it this month) and that place has nearly 20,000 seats for basketball. And this is in a state (North Carolina) that has some fondness for the sport and two teams who spent the entire season in the top 10 (top 3 for Notre Dame).

ETA: Final attendance, 2621. Nearly as many empty seats in this one arena (17101) for one basketball regional final as there were in all 4 arenas (23724) for 4 hockey regional finals. This isn't just a hockey problem.

There are all sorts of reasons people don't go. But however we "fix" it, we'll just cause the other half of us to see other problems. Some of us see the lack of atmosphere as such a huge problem we are willing to give home ice to 4 teams or half the teams despite the fact that just as many others see that as an unfair -- perhaps even unearned since the system is flawed at best -- advantage. Others of us think that no matter what, home ice in a playoff without having to take the ice at the other guy's rink is not the right way.

We probably can't have both atmosphere/sold out arenas and neutral locations given the current level of interest in the sport and some of the other factors. But let me ask this. If we could have great crowds and great college atmospheres at neutral location do most agree that would be the best situation? Or do those who support playing these games at home sites also think that is fair, given that those teams may well have earned home ice and a system that works that way isn't inherently unfair? My belief is neutral locations are the right way to crown a playoff champion and before we give up on the idea, explore some ways to make it work.

We already know some ways to screw it up, including ticket price increases that triple the rate of inflation over the last few years. I keep going back to that regional final ticket I bought in 2004 for $20. I bet no one paid $24 for one last weekend. I find it hard to believe that a price like that would have resulted in the same paltry crowds we saw. Maybe not sellouts, but come on, would the X have been half full if the ticket was less than half what people actually did have to pay?

 

[jonnyquest]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

How about an 8-team national tournament over the course of three weekends? Keep the autobids and pairwise in place. The quarterfinals and semifinals would be in the home rinks of the higher seed, best-of-three (Fri, Sat & Sun). Have the national championship at a predetermined neutral site with the same best-of-three format. This would satisfy the atmosphere argument and create something similar to the major juniors.

I'm perfectly content with the status quo, but this model has something for all the different factions on this thread. Of course, Minnesota and UMD wouldn't have earned at-large bids under this model (bounced by AFA and WMU), which would force the conversation to regress to the pre-2003 whining about getting snubbed from the tournament field. I suppose this model could be altered into a 12-team field with byes for the top four seeds.

Also, I have never fully bought into the argument where the NCAA doesn't want the Final Four overlapping with the Frozen Four. The Final Four is played on Saturday with the national championship on Monday. Why can't the Frozen Four be scheduled on Friday with the national championship on Sunday? I doubt anyone at the NCAA was concerned this weekend about the two hockey regionals in Worcester and Bridgeport compromising the attendance at the Boston Garden for the sweet sixteen.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

I'm perfectly content with the status quo, but this model has something for all the different factions on this thread. Of course, Minnesota and UMD wouldn't have earned at-large bids under this model (bounced by AFA and WMU), which would force the conversation to regress to the pre-2003 whining about getting snubbed from the tournament field. I suppose this model could be altered into a 12-team field with byes for the top four seeds.

Except some in this thread, including me, are still opposed to home ice in a playoff. This isn't the pro game where both teams get a chance to play before their own fans. Regardless of the size of the tournament, I think there are too many flaws in the pairwise to give the 4 seed exclusive home ice over the 5 seed (or the 8 over the 9). I think the unfairness of home ice is worse than the drawbacks of the diminished atmosphere with the current regional setup.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Except some in this thread, including me, are still opposed to home ice in a playoff. This isn't the pro game where both teams get a chance to play before their own fans. Regardless of the size of the tournament, I think there are too many flaws in the pairwise to give the 4 seed exclusive home ice over the 5 seed (or the 8 over the 9). I think the unfairness of home ice is worse than the drawbacks of the diminished atmosphere with the current regional setup.

I agree... And the XCel is essentially home-ice for MN.

If the attendance is so-so, I see no reason to hold regionals there, even when employing the NCAA's cynical logic.

Fannies in the seats are no longer an issue, as long as ESPN shows every game on the tube. That's where the future of our sport lies.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

I agree... And the XCel is essentially home-ice for MN.

If the attendance is so-so, I see no reason to hold regionals there, even when employing the NCAA's cynical logic.

Its already been stated that the X is a very different arena than its home ice...which makes distance to the U the only remaining 'benefit'. X is maybe 30 minutes away from the U. So what is the line in the sand for 'home ice'? Is it everywhere within an hour and a half? Well with programs like Princeton, that means Tampa will be getting a lot more business. Then the regional system will definitely be a disaster.

I have no problems with the NCAAs 'greedy' stance, because its not the NCAA behind this. Its the Universities and not the NCAA that are the driving the financials. See the numbers:

96 percent of NCAA revenue benefits the membership through distributions or services

The 96 percent figure includes:

• Division I distributions (60 percent)

• Championships (13 percent)

• Programs and national office services (19 percent)

• Other services (such as the Eligibility Center) (4 percent)

To be clear, the 96 percent includes much of the national office’s expenses (including salaries), which are housed in programmatic budgets. The 4 percent that remains is for central services, such as building operations and salaries not related to particular programs.


The NCAA like any other industry organization is doing everything it can to satisfy its members which are really its customers. And universities want this funding (along with alumn donations) to improve their ability to deliver education.

 

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

If we could have great crowds and great college atmospheres at neutral location do most agree that would be the best situation?

Yes! Of COURSE it would be the best situation? BUT.........you can't have "great crowds" when you make the schools that typically bring the great crowds travel long distances. I can think of a couple of examples from this year: Michigan (which has always brought good crowds, as least when I've gone) and Miami are two that come to mind. I was at the FF in DC in 2009 and Miami had WAY MORE fans than BU. They should have been left in the Midwest. Forget bracket "integrity." It wouldn't make much difference if you swapped teams one position apart. I'm not going to rehash the pairings, but you didn't need to move Michigan and Miami east and BU and Cornell west. There's not much you can do about Maine, because the school is fairly "isolated" (as Eastern schools go). Even if you had a regional in Portland, ME you are still three hours away, and there has never been one there to my knowledge. So the closest place for them is Manchester, which is around four hours. Now I understand that compared to the West that's still a relatively short distance. And this was my point in previous posts. It DOES make sense to play in neutral locations in the East, AS LONG AS you keep the Eastern schools there (make the regionals truly "regional"). I'm sorry, but it's either one or the other. Either you have good crowds or you have a "perfect bracket." You are NOT going to have it both ways. When North Dakota was in Worcester and Albany, they brought about 200 - 500 fans (and I was at all of those games). Not to pick on them, but they have been there more than the other schools, many of whom have only been "back East" (as they say) only once or twice.

OF COURSE I would lower ticket prices. But there are reasons why this won't happen. First: MONEY
I would go back to "regional" regionals. My example above is why. Does anyone want to dispute that North Dakota brought more fans to St. Paul than they did to Worcester? (or Albany in 2001)? Does anyone want to dispute that BU brings more fans to Worcester, Bridgeport, Albany, Providence or Manchester than they do to Milwaukee? And this is not to appease ME. I would have gone to St. Paul but I could not get the time off from work. So this is not some grand "scheme" designed to advocate having a game close just so that I can attend. This is about the majority of the fan base.

If you WANT better crowds (something the NC$$ should desire, you would think, because that means more money), you need to play the games where the fans can more easily get to them (and I don't mean downtown Boston for the BC wimps who can't go 35 miles to Worcester, either). If not, that's fine. The NCAA has a choice. And this is NOT just a hockey problem, I agree. I have been ranting about this for years as well with the ridiculous "pod" system the NCAA uses where they "split" the regionals (only playing the semi-finals and finals in the actual area) by playing first and second-round games on Pluto in front of an empty arena.

The thing that frustrates me the most is that do they really WANT to have empty seats? I just don't get it. Name ONE upside to playing in front of empty seats. Regarding hockey, this thing about "growing" the game is old. Why do they think that just because there is an NHL team there (read Anaheim, Tampa) that this would be a good destination for a College Hockey event - especially the signature event of the year? If you are in business, do you hang your best customers out to dry to satisfy a few? Do they REALLY think that if they hold the regional in Flagstaff that suddenly they will "acquire" thousands of new college hockey fans? I don't get it, and that's what frustrates me the most.

 

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Well with programs like Princeton, that means Tampa will be getting a lot more business.

??? Not following here. Are you saying there are no venues within an hour and a half of Princeton (or am I completely misunderstanding)??

The NCAA like any other industry organization is doing everything it can to satisfy its members which are really its customers. And universities want this funding (along with alumn donations) to improve their ability to deliver education.

The last time I checked, no matter WHERE the funding is going, more is better than less. How does this have anything to do with the amount of revenue being raised (regardless of where it goes)? Full arenas mean more concession revenue and lower ticket prices mean more people. Or would they rather have less revenue and less money? I'm not following you here, either.

 

[kdilks]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Except some in this thread, including me, are still opposed to home ice in a playoff. This isn't the pro game where both teams get a chance to play before their own fans. Regardless of the size of the tournament, I think there are too many flaws in the pairwise to give the 4 seed exclusive home ice over the 5 seed (or the 8 over the 9). I think the unfairness of home ice is worse than the drawbacks of the diminished atmosphere with the current regional setup.

You pretty much have the same thing happening now where overall #3/4 has a good chance at being placed in their nearest regional as a 1 seed, and overall #5/6 can be cast to all corners of the college hockey footprint based on avoiding intraconference matchups, bracket integrity, attendance factors, etc. Not to mention the massive inherent unfairness of host schools getting guaranteed home ice no matter what their seed is, and the lesser inherent unfairness of schools with large followings getting placed close to home for attendance.

With the home ice model, there's a very clear sense that you could have improved your position in the tournament by winning more games. In the current regional model, this is practically non-existent. What does BU get for winning the tiebreaker over Maine in the pairwise? Minnesota in St Paul instead of Duluth an hour outside of Boston. If BU had won an extra game and moved up to a #2 seed? Probably still stuck playing Minnesota at the X in a de facto away game, except with last change. If BU had lost another game? They probably lose the tiebreaker with Maine and get to play Duluth in a de facto home game. What did Miami get last year for finishing in 4th? A de facto road game against regional host New Hampshire in Manchester. Had they finished 5th? They would have ended up in St Louis, which was the closest thing they had to a home regional, and no other team in the regional would have been closer. This happens every year. How good your placement is has more to do with how you happen to align with other teams in the bandings when they try and cobble together regional placements than with how high your ranking actual is.

 

[kdilks]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Its already been stated that the X is a very different arena than its home ice...which makes distance to the U the only remaining 'benefit'. X is maybe 30 minutes away from the U. So what is the line in the sand for 'home ice'?

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=M...vg;FYjKrQId1mRz-iEbinRCKYY7uw&t=v&mra=ls&z=13

It's a 10 minute drive if you go faster than 55 on the highway. And since it's the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities with a St Paul campus, you can even say that the X is in the same city as the university.

 

[CLS]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

You pretty much have the same thing happening now where overall #3/4 has a good chance at being placed in their nearest regional as a 1 seed, and overall #5/6 can be cast to all corners of the college hockey footprint based on avoiding intraconference matchups, bracket integrity, attendance factors, etc. Not to mention the massive inherent unfairness of host schools getting guaranteed home ice no matter what their seed is, and the lesser inherent unfairness of schools with large followings getting placed close to home for attendance.

With the home ice model, there's a very clear sense that you could have improved your position in the tournament by winning more games. In the current regional model, this is practically non-existent. What does BU get for winning the tiebreaker over Maine in the pairwise? Minnesota in St Paul instead of Duluth an hour outside of Boston. If BU had won an extra game and moved up to a #2 seed? Probably still stuck playing Minnesota at the X in a de facto away game, except with last change. If BU had lost another game? They probably lose the tiebreaker with Maine and get to play Duluth in a de facto home game. What did Miami get last year for finishing in 4th? A de facto road game against regional host New Hampshire in Manchester. Had they finished 5th? They would have ended up in St Louis, which was the closest thing they had to a home regional, and no other team in the regional would have been closer. This happens every year. How good your placement is has more to do with how you happen to align with other teams in the bandings when they try and cobble together regional placements than with how high your ranking actual is.

There is a difference between a literal home game and a de facto home game.

Also, in a home ice system, a team benefits enormously relative to the current system if they move from 9 to 8 (or in a 12 team system into a position where they get a bye). Otherwise, you’re playing craps just like you are in the current system. In your BU example, if BU had been tenth instead of ninth, instead of playing Minnesota at Mariucci, they’d play Duluth at Duluth’s home rink, not much of a difference travel-wise, but probably benefitting overall because at least they’d be playing on an 85 x 200 rink that they’re used to playing on. Under a 1 vs 16 home rink system, Cornell (13 in PWR) would play North Dakota (4), a difficult place to travel to and play in. If they had finished one position worse they’d play Union, a bus ride, and given their fan base probably a de facto home game for them.

And sorry, but the system used to rank the teams matters. There are situations with the PWR where it’s to a team’s advantage to lose. And it’s not just the PWR – the problem with any statistical system is that there are not enough interconference games to make really meaningful comparisons between teams in different conferences.

 

[kdilks]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

There is a difference between a literal home game and a de facto home game.

Also, in a home ice system, a team benefits enormously relative to the current system if they move from 9 to 8 (or in a 12 team system into a position where they get a bye). Otherwise, you’re playing craps just like you are in the current system. In your BU example, if BU had been tenth instead of ninth, instead of playing Minnesota at Mariucci, they’d play Duluth at Duluth’s home rink, not much of a difference travel-wise, but probably benefitting overall because at least they’d be playing on an 85 x 200 rink that they’re used to playing on. Under a 1 vs 16 home rink system, Cornell (13 in PWR) would play North Dakota (4), a difficult place to travel to and play in. If they had finished one position worse they’d play Union, a bus ride, and given their fan base probably a de facto home game for them.

And sorry, but the system used to rank the teams matters. There are situations with the PWR where it’s to a team’s advantage to lose. And it’s not just the PWR – the problem with any statistical system is that there are not enough interconference games to make really meaningful comparisons between teams in different conferences.

There's not much of one.

Actually both of your supposed "examples" are wrong, because I said you do top 6 in the west and top 6 in the east. BU wouldn't be playing in Minnesota, and Cornell wouldn't be playing in North Dakota. I specifically added that so that not only do you get the guaranteed home crowd, but there's also a good chance the away team will also be within driving distance.

With pretty much any system you choose, there's always going be an enormous benefit to being the last team in as opposed to the first team out. Why not have a jump in the middle?

You really think the competitive difference between BU playing @UMN and @UMD due to differing rink size is remotely comparable to the competitive difference between BU playing @UMN and playing UMD in Worcester?

If any statistical model is going to have it's shortcomings, then you might as well agree on one and stick with it. The only fair election is a dictatorship of one person, yet democracies have managed to persevere for a few millenia.

 

[Almington]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

There's not much of one.

No, even when MN plays at the X, the crowd may be pro-gophers, but that doesn't change the fact that the X isn't the ice that they practice on every day, that it is NHL and not Olympic sized, they don't know exactly how the boards will respond, they don't get to use their everyday locker room. They may have an advantage, but no where near the advantage that they would get playing the game at Marriuci.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

The last time I checked, no matter WHERE the funding is going, more is better than less. How does this have anything to do with the amount of revenue being raised (regardless of where it goes)? Full arenas mean more concession revenue and lower ticket prices mean more people. Or would they rather have less revenue and less money? I'm not following you here, either.

Maybe I misunderstood your point about revenues...as the NCAA push to increase revenues is a good thing for schools. Must have been the word 'cynical'.

??? Not following here. Are you saying there are no venues within an hour and a half of Princeton (or am I completely misunderstanding)??

To clarify the balance...you were claiming that the X is home ice advantage...I'm assuming due to its proximity. I asked what is an acceptable proximity...is it an hour and a half away? If so, universities are spread all over the NE...making it impossible to find a venue that is over an hour and a half away. Hence the need to force playoffs to some distant place like FL.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=M...vg;FYjKrQId1mRz-iEbinRCKYY7uw&t=v&mra=ls&z=13

It's a 10 minute drive if you go faster than 55 on the highway. And since it's the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities with a St Paul campus, you can even say that the X is in the same city as the university.

30 minutes most time of day (Google's times reflect no other cars on the road). Good luck with that 10 mn drive from either campus at 3pm.

Now can you pls go pick at secondary details in someone elses post?

 

[bronconick]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Just as a practical matter, even if the NCAA wanted to go back to home series (which they won't because they'd get less money out of the bidding personally, regardless of what profit or loss is made by everyone else) they aren't going to consider it until North Dakota bends on their name. It creates a massive unnecessary headache if you're awarding home ice to higher seeds.

 

[Numbers]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

I would like to add one little note about the ranking systems. This note is simply meant to inform everyone about how tightly bunched the teams are in any ranking system. I do not mean to imply by this that home series are bad, nor anything else.

That being said, the teams are tightly enough bunched that if you wish play the 'change one result and see what happens' game, then change the Minn/ND result at the Final 5. Minny likely wins the title as well (Denver on very tired legs, with injuries), and then Minny ends up with a #1 seed, ND somewhere in the 8 or 9 range.....

And, do you know something? That holds true not only in the PWR, but also in the KRACH rankings.

So, the facts are that we are really trying to split hairs with any ranking system. So, to further comment on that: We need a ranking system - we can't have subjectivity deciding who is in or out.

Now, the rest is my opinion. Flame away if you want. After it is decided which 16 teams are in, it doesn't make as much sense to go strictly by the PWR. Especially if we are using neutral sites. And, we need to use neutral sites. The teams are too tightly bunched to feel there is any meaningful difference by which to decide who gets to play on campus.

How about this Top 2 teams in the west (WCHA, CCHA - or NCHC and Big 10 in a couple years) get the #1s in the the West and Midwest. Top 2 teams in the east (HE, ECAC, AHA) get the #1s in the east. That give you your top seeds. The #2s would go by geography, too, except that we avoid repeats of conference title games (not playoff matchups - only title games) in potential regional finals. This year, we would have, so far:
Worcester - BC, BU
Bridgeport - Union, Maine
Green Bay - Mich, Ferris
St Paul - UND, Miami
Now, the #3s and 4s go where they need to to fill the bracket, avoiding 1st round conf matchups, and avoiding Conf Title rematches in all regionals.
Worcester - BC, BU, UMD, AHA
Bridgeport - Union, Maine, Denver, MSU
Green Bay - Mich, Ferris, Lowell, Cornell
St Paul - UND, Miami, Minn, WMU

Now, I would call those "regionals." The committee may choose to give itself leeway to call UMD the #2 in Worcester - for the sake of last change. But, otherwise, not bad. Better yet if you swap Denver with Cornell.

Anyway, it's a more subjective system.

Mainly, I have 2 points:
1) Any ranking system leaves teams very closely bunched. This is inarguable.

2) And, this is arguable. Because of 1 - Neutral sites are the way it has to be.
3) Also, arguable. It may be best to give the committee more leeway in creating the bracket; although the 16 teams in the field need to be from what Scooby calls "Simple Math" in one way or another.

 

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=M...vg;FYjKrQId1mRz-iEbinRCKYY7uw&t=v&mra=ls&z=13

It's a 10 minute drive if you go faster than 55 on the highway. And since it's the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities with a St Paul campus, you can even say that the X is in the same city as the university.

It's 30 minutes if you take the T

 

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

yet democracies have managed to persevere for a few millenia.

Not much longer, unfortunately...

 

[chickod]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Worcester - BC, BU
Bridgeport - Union, Maine
Green Bay - Mich, Ferris
St Paul - UND, Miami
Now, the #3s and 4s go where they need to to fill the bracket, avoiding 1st round conf matchups, and avoiding Conf Title rematches in all regionals.
Worcester - BC, BU, UMD, AHA
Bridgeport - Union, Maine, Denver, MSU
Green Bay - Mich, Ferris, Lowell, Cornell
St Paul - UND, Miami, Minn, WMU

Now, I would call those "regionals."

NOW we're getting there! My whole point (and maybe I said I thought that the X was "home ice" - I don't recall that - my objection was more about the travel) is that the ATTENDANCE would be better if we kept MORE TEAMS closer to home. And I think that your point #1 (teams are tightly bunched no matter which system you use) only serves to bolster my argument. As I have said all along, the "bracket integrity" argument is bunk. Swapping a couple of places here and there won't make a dramatic difference in "fairness." It's not like you're moving BC down to #8 or Air Force up to #4! Keeping Cornell and BU in the East and keeping Michigan and Miami in the West, to me, makes a HUGE difference in addendance and, hence, atmosphere.

Maybe it's just a personal thing with me. I don't really enjoy going to games in empty arenas. But when you put three "out of town" teams in the same regional, just who do you expect to attend? Especially with the economy right now, people don't have the money to spend to go to a game where they have no rooting interest. There aren't that many "I just like to follow the game" people - or not as many as one might think.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: More proof that the Regional system is a disaster: Today's attendance at the X is

Mainly, I have 2 points:
1) Any ranking system leaves teams very closely bunched. This is inarguable.

2) And, this is arguable. Because of 1 - Neutral sites are the way it has to be.
3) Also, arguable. It may be best to give the committee more leeway in creating the bracket; although the 16 teams in the field need to be from what Scooby calls "Simple Math" in one way or another.

This is what I have been saying, more or less, for a few years now. Flawed or not, I don't really mind the current way the teams are selected, because it is a thousand times better than the BCS, and the virtual transparency of the process makes it better than the NCAA basketball tourney. But placing the teams, among other things, are what harms the process from the get-go.

It seems like a lot of posters are looking at this like perfect is the enemy of the good. We cannot make it perfect. Someone will always think a more deserving team than the last one selected is actually better. In most seasons, some team will have to be sent to a location it's fans find impossible to get to. We can't give the tickets away for free. But we can place most of the teams in the region they are closest to without making Boston College play Michigan in the first game. We can charge reasonable prices for tickets. The NCAA, with a true behemoth of a marketing system, can better spread the word about how good college hockey can be.

Most agree that aside from the occasional clinker the Frozen Four has been handled well. DC got rave reviews despite being a fair distance away from a truly close NCAA team. Despite the fact my team failed to get passed Thursday last year, I had a blast in St. Paul and I think the X and St. Paul are a perfect place for another FF. Why raise the white flag on a system with basically neutral ice (and I agree with people who say the X was NOT a "home" game for Minn) when we have done nothing to try and make it work better since the field expanded to 16 teams and 4 regionals in 2003?