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

[Numbers]

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

The complaint was addressed, among other places, in an earlier thread entitled "College Hockey's Playoff Problem."

And the point is that the regionals take the most important games of the year to that point and place them in antiseptic, unattended arenas that are among the most pathetic venues the partipants have played in all season long.

"There are simply not enough college hockey fans to generate the kind of atmosphere that real fans want to see." (edited for noise)

Sure there are, in the home towns of the teams. Have you ever heard of the "Molly Game?"

"There are lots of fans who only care about games involving their own team."

Quite true, all the more reason to simply play the games at someone's home. And if that means the game is at Clarkson, tough rocks; if Clarkson earned a higher seed, good for them. If they shouldn't have earned it but got it because the ECAC gets bonus treatment from the PWR, change the PWR. Your presented scenario doesn't make a good argument, to me; you seem to be saying, "what if they play Clarkson? Then none of my team's fans will get to see them play." Regretable, but alas, unless your team was Minnesota or North Dakota, nobody saw them play this year anyway.

I think I see your point Caustic. However, I have a question: What makes a rink 'antiseptic'? In other words, is a full-lowerbowl Xcel Center more anti-septic than a totally full Ferris State home rink? Or (and I admit I have no idea how many people Toledo holds), a 60% crowd that numbers 7000 at Toledo. Is that 'antiseptic' compared to Cornell's home rink full (which would be many fewer tickets sold, right?)?

Or, are 9000 lower bowl fans who are mostly quiet because they are not active BU or WMU fans, but they are in the seats anyway, more antiseptic than Lowell's arena full?

I know you were trying to add numbers earlier. I get that. And, that you are thinking that moving to campus sites wouldn't cut the # of tickets sold. I get that. I guess I am trying to figure out exactly what 'antiseptic, unattended arenas that are among the most pathetic venues' means.

And, forgive me if I am dense, and should understand already.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

What do either of these comments have to do with the ridiculous notion that the tournament should be structured to encourage "upsets"?

If you want to protect better teams, then the first step is to use a better ranking system (KRACH). The second step might be to make it a best-of-whatever format, which would minimize upsets. Hopefully, that part is obvious; I don't have the energy to explain why that is.

What does "the best team" even mean? Could there be a best team in the country that didn't also win its conference? Its conference tournament? That concept is waaaay too slippery.

The tournament isn't about carefully identifying the best team. It's about identifying a winner.

Those of us who aren't fans of cognitive dissonance usually just decide that you can't be the best team if you didn't win the tournament, rendering the entire discussion moot.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

The first part of your post asked why attendance was a concern, and explained that despite attendance great accomplishments and moments still occur.
The part I bolded stated you'd like to see attendance improved, within reasonable steps.

A trivial contradiction and not one I'd really care to debate. I should have perhaps not even said anything.

I wasn't upset -- just curious.

I was confused because I didn't see any conflict. My basic thinking is that good attendance is a good thing. . . .but it isn't a necessary thing.

 

[Numbers]

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

What do either of these comments have to do with the ridiculous notion that the tournament should be structured to encourage "upsets"?

Nothing. They have everything to do with the idea you mentioned that the purpose of the tournament is to "determine the best team in the nation - or words to that effect"

And, forgive me anyway if I was placing too much emphasis on that particular part. If you intended to say, "the purpose is not to create a better chance of upsets. The purpose is to have a tournament, and see who wins each game, and have a relatively level playing field" Then I agree totally. Engineering upsets is not the best way to do anything.

 

[Almington]

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

False.

The X was not near capacity. They would have sold those tickets if necessary (just happened in basketball when they opened up a Regional's upper deck due to demand. That was in a dome).

Perhaps more people would have come if they could have paid half price for just a Minnesota ticket, but not enough to double attendance. Meanwhile, regionals like Green Bay would see zero change in attendance (and possible declines).

I agree that the strongest argument is the atmosphere and appearance of home games, but regionals are not going to compete in the attendance issue; not even close. We have ten years of data on this, and it has only regressed.

So if all the packages that were sold contained 2 tickets for the semis as opposed to 1 ticket, would they not have sold twice as many tickets? That's how the math looks to me.

Sure, more unique people might get to see games under the campus siteplan, because you are doubling the number of sites that are used. It's as valid as any of the other assumptions made.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

When there are clear ways of improving things, I absolutely view that as a problem.

Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Can you improve some things without making other things worse?

The only way that I can see is to encourage lower ticket prices. Apparently, others disagree.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

Nothing. They have everything to do with the idea you mentioned that the purpose of the tournament is to "determine the best team in the nation - or words to that effect"

And, forgive me anyway if I was placing too much emphasis on that particular part. If you intended to say, "the purpose is not to create a better chance of upsets. The purpose is to have a tournament, and see who wins each game, and have a relatively level playing field" Then I agree totally. Engineering upsets is not the best way to do anything.

Cripes, where did we go from preferring the level playing field of a neutral(ish) site to engineering upsets? 'Cause I clearly missed that part.

 

[UMICH]

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

my answer...

NBC Sports Network

You mean the notre dame sports network?

 

[Numbers]

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

Cripes, where did we go from preferring the level playing field of a neutral(ish) site to engineering upsets? 'Cause I clearly missed that part.

Whoops. Sorry ABB. Comes from overreading this line in the prior page:

I'd rather try to work around the edges and improve attendance at a neutral site than deal with the diminished excitement of campus sites. Sure, on a game by game basis, anything can happen. In the bigger picture, though, you have to know that upsets will be less likely than they already are. And isn't that the goal? It's called March Madness. Not March-Organized-to-Maximize-Attendance-and-Revenue-While-Protecting-Higher-Seeds-at-the-Expense-of-Diminished-Unpredictability.

Which, if it's late and your mind isn't working very well, can be read to say "We don't want to tilt the ice even more for the better teams, because what we really want is upsets. They are what makes things exciting."

Again, over analyzing. Sorry.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

one last post:

By the way, there might indeed by a reduction in upsets, but there will still be upsets if these are one-game rounds.

And a lot of big "upsets" wind up having what the victims would consider to be an unfair home fan bias. Consider that Michigan blew through the 2003 Midwest regional as a 3 seed, beating #2 Maine and #1 CC, who for most of the year traded the #1 ranking in the polls. Major upset? Or was it the venue, Michigan's Yost Ice Arena, which was packed to the rafters?

I was at that regional. I remember it well.

I guess I'd put it this way:

I consider lower seeds playing home games to be a very bad problem that used to happen once in a while. But it's also a problem with an easy fix: prefer off-campus venues.

I consider the use of campus sites in general to be a, well, less-bad problem. But still a problem. You propose we guarantee that it happens 8 times a year. I'm not on board.

We can avoid both those problems by using neutral sites.

In doing so, we incur a new problem: low attendance.

My position, simply, is to give lower prices (and an improving economy) a chance to fix the attendance problem, before we intentionally choose to create a new - and in my opinion, more serious - problem.

Anyway, that's enough from me on the subject . . . until we do it all again next year.

 

[Red Cows]

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

But let's forget about that for a second. Let's just look at one moment of a fantastic weekend of hockey:

Ferris State's second goal, scored on a 2-on-1 immediately subsequent to their killing of a 5-minute major penalty that could easily have ended their season. Easily the most important goal in Ferris State hockey history, right? It was witnessed by 3,000 people, most of whom don't care about Ferris at all.

If they played that game at home (and this is a tiny, three-sided home arena that people would hold up as an object lesson why teams shouldn't host in the NCAA tournament) as they should have played it, the roof would have blown off the building. 2500 Ferris fans, many of them long-suffering and loyal, would have gotten to see their team reach the mountain-top.

If, hypothetically, they had played Michigan on the road (Michigan in this home games scenario hypothetically beating Cornell, for sake of argument) fewer Ferris fans are there--but there is the extra thrill of scoring a killer goal and silencing a hostile building, which many athletes agree is one of the great thrills in all of sports.

Instead, the celebrating Ferris players got to rejoice in front of 5,000 empty seats.

Playing the first two rounds at the home sites of the higher seeds will allow more fans to see the most important games of the season. It will be more fair. It will make more money. It will be closer to drive to.

But, mostly, it will just plain be a lot more enjoyable for every party involved. Unquestionably.

I agree with you in principle, but, not fundamentally.

The problem with having regionals at home sites is that it just allows the rich just to get richer since the "brand name" programs are going to be hosting way more of these games than the "non-brand name teams". I think everybody reading this has at least an idea of the teams I am referring to. The "Jack the Giant Killer" scenario you are painting becomes a whole lot harder when you are playing North Dakota at the Ralph and you have almost 12,000 screaming maniac Sioux fans yelling "croak, croak, croak" around your team's hockey death bed. What are your chances of even getting into the building if you are playing them in a regional there? Not very good, unless you want to pay even more than the face value of the tickets, the price of which is already an issue with most posters in this thread. This gives these teams an even bigger advantage than they already have, since, as an aside, I also think think these teams get an advantage from the referees as well. The "brand name" established teams get the calls over less established schools (we can get another thread started on this topic since I almost guarantee there are posters that will take issue with this). I think that issue would be even further exacerbated by playing NCAA games in those team's arenas. College hockey officials, to me, look they they cut their teeth being figure skating officials. And we all know what a "good 'ol boy" pursuit that is.

You start having regionals in participating teams home arenas based on record and teams winning the title, outside of the upper echelon of college hockey, will be a rare occurrence.

Since we play in the 2nd biggest arena in all of college hockey I'll even use us as an example. I don't think it is fair for a team like Ferris State or Union to have to come to Omaha and play in a regional final against UNO in front of 17,000+ screaming UNO fans (what there would be with standing room sales if this happened) less whatever fans these opposing teams could manage to get in to the building. At a neutral site, the fans of these teams that want to see it will be there. And, they will be able to get in since the games won't be played in the pencil box most college hockey teams play in. Why does anybody on this board care if there are empty seats at a regional, anyway? How is this affecting anything other than maybe the perception of the sport?

 

[Numbers]

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

I am trying a little summary:

CU - Current system is bad. Not enough excitement in the bldgs. Put the regions at campus sites over 2 weeks. Higher seed gets to play at home unless impossible for arena conflict. In case of arena conflict, higher seed gets option of arranging alternate site.

Amherst - System is not so bad, really. Sites are close to neutral, and that's more or less fitting. The real problem with attendance is ticket prices. Host arenas need to look more closely at the economics - they might be more profitable with more tickets sold at a lower price.

Others agree with Amherst, some suggesting split tickets for first round games. Some suggesting at least a leave and re-enter policy. Some suggesting tiered pricing.

Other ideas??

And, for the record, I also find it strange that they didn't end up opening the upper portion at the X today.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

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

I think we're having reasonable debate here.

I think I see your point Caustic. However, I have a question: What makes a rink 'antiseptic'? In other words, is a full-lowerbowl Xcel Center more anti-septic than a totally full Ferris State home rink?

This is a false equivalency, Ferris was not at the X. If they were, the lower bowl would either be: 1. Not as full or as energetic; 2. Just as full and energetic, but unfairly subjecting Ferris to a "road" game when they were the higher seed; or 3. Just as full and energetic, but as the lower seed they would not be in position to expect a home game.

But for what it's worth, I've been to Ferris, and I've been to the X, and Ferris for a home playoff game is more lively than a half-full Xcel Energy center. Quantity is not everything (just ask Michigan football fans!)

Or (and I admit I have no idea how many people Toledo holds), a 60% crowd that numbers 7000 at Toledo. Is that 'antiseptic' compared to Cornell's home rink full (which would be many fewer tickets sold, right?)?

Or, are 9000 lower bowl fans who are mostly quiet because they are not active BU or WMU fans, but they are in the seats anyway, more antiseptic than Lowell's arena full?

Again, these are not legitimate alternatives, though in each case the home rinks win the atmosphere argument hands-down. Not sure where WMU and BU would play a game against each other that wasn't in Boston that would draw 9,000 fans (if they had won their first round games, Sunday's fans at the X would mostly be disguised as empty seats).

We are not choosing between BU and WMU or Lowell, which was never a higher seed this year. We would be, hypothetically, choosing between BU/WMU at the X and BU/WMU at Agganis this Friday. Between Ferris-Cornell in front of 3,000 neutrals in Green Bay or 2,500 partisans in Big Rapids this Saturday. etc.

I know you were trying to add numbers earlier. I get that. And, that you are thinking that moving to campus sites wouldn't cut the # of tickets sold. I get that. I guess I am trying to figure out exactly what 'antiseptic, unattended arenas that are among the most pathetic venues' means.

And, forgive me if I am dense, and should understand already.

As the season progresses and hockey enters the playoffs, the stakes are higher. The hits are more meaningful. Each faceoff becomes crucial. A big goal doesn't just change a game, but irrevocably alters a whole season.

If you go to your team's home games you know that the feeling is different when the team plays a rival, or when first place is on the line. The players know it; they've grown up dreaming about scoring big goals in front of big crowds, of hearing the roar of their own fans or the beautiful silence of a hostile arena.

Home games are special. Road games are special. The fans, the rinks, the interaction, the history, it all builds together.

One of my all-time favorite moments as a sports fan (any sport) was the 2002 regional at Yost. It was amazing and unforgettable, in no small part because it was at a home venue. I'm not suggesting all home games will be like that, but the contrast between Yost on those two nights and the Resch Friday... I wasn't even watching the same sport. The Resch reminded me of watching Michigan play Northeastern in October in Dayton in 2004 with nobody there; the feeling was almost identical. It reminded me of the Super Six games at the Joe between, say, Alaska and Ohio State, with 2500 people sparsely dotting a 20,000 seat arena. It reminded me of watching midget and peewee hockey games in empty arenas. I've been to regular-season Tuesday-night high school games with more energy.

Playoff games ought to have more energy in the building, not less. They ought to magnify the great moments, not suck the life out of them.

When I lived in Michigan I used to go to Windsor Spitfires games at the old (really, really old) Windsor Arena. The playoff games I attended there were incredible. The crowd was live, the players fed off of it, and the action was terrific. As someone who is a college fan first, it pains me to admit that Major Junior, which is stealing some of our best players, has such an easy sell when you consider the playoffs of the respective sports. Major Junior teams make deep playoff runs in alternatingly hostile and friendly buildings; NCAA players go one-or-two-and-done in front of thousands of empty seats.

The point is that a solution is readily available that will at least partly remedy this issue, and that is to play this incredibly important games in places that will actually reflect the importance of the game.

If you care about NCAA hockey on tv, you care about this because the current tv product looks pitiful. If you care about the Major Junior rivalry, you care about this because it's a major leg up for them. If you care about fairness, you care about this because higher seeds frequently play in hostile arenas because the NCAA does in fact try to put the regionals in places where fans will show up.

It's a bit late, so I'm not able to clarify much better than this.

 

[HarleyMC]

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

And the thing is, it's NOT about money. Because the NCAA could care less about hockey. That's the point. It doesn't make money anyway.

According to Randy L. Buhr, associate director of NCAA D1 championships, the FF is ranked #3 in revenue producing championship events.

1. Mens D1 Basketball Final Four

2. Mens College World Series & Regionals

3. Mens Frozen Four in Hockey

4. Mens D1 Wrestling Championships.

Keep in mind, unlike football, where the schools receive the money from TV and advertising the revenue raised for NCAA wrestling, basketball, hockey and baseball tournaments, goes directly to the NCAA, not the schools.

 

[Numbers]

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

CU - Thanks for the above long post. My earlier questions were not intended for debate. I simply wanted to understand more clearly what your ideals are. This post explains them well.

Points taken. Not necessarily agreed to, but taken.

Enough for now. I think I might be back later this week, if I happen to come up with something worth adding...

 

[kdilks]

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

Every NCAA basketball tournament game Duke has ever played has been in a pathetically antiseptic arena (when compared to their home environment @ Cameron indoor).

It's the nature of the beast. I just don't see it as a problem.

Basketball games are long enough relative to the rate of scoring that they do a reasonably good job of predicting who the better team was. I believe I remember reading that for basketball games to be as equally unpredictable as hockey games, they would have to last only 22 minutes. So if you really want to compare the basketball and the hockey tournament, you have to imagine what the basketball tournament would be like if you only played the first half. This is why it makes sense to have some built-in competitive advantages for hockey teams that have earned them over the season.

It's not impossible to put in some best-of-three's without lengthening the season (timewise). Say you had 6 East teams and 6 West teams, ranked 1-6. 3 hosts 6 and 4 hosts 5 the weekend we currently do regionals in a best-of-three. 1 and 2 host the winners during what is currently a bye week in a best-of-3. Frozen Four stays the same.

 

[HarleyMC]

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

If you care about NCAA hockey on tv, you care about this because the current tv product looks pitiful.

What current product are you looking at and could it be that you're bias in your report?

If you care about the Major Junior rivalry, you care about this because it's a major leg up for them.

Other covariates are significant in MJs, where do you see the correlations here?

If you care about fairness, you care about this because higher seeds frequently play in hostile arenas because the NCAA does in fact try to put the regionals in places where fans will show up.

Frequently? Can you verify that please?

 

[FRICKER]

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

It's too bad that Minny and the Fighting Sioux had to play each other in the Regional Final game after playing
each other 6 times during the year. Fortunately, that didn't happen in the East Regional (BC - Maine) or the
Midwest Regional (Michigan - Ferris) but it could have. The very first thing they should do in seeding the Regionals is to make sure, to the best of their ability based on the number of teams per league that are picked, that two teams from the same league don't play each other. One of the neat things about a national tournament is that you don't see the same teams as you've seen all year.

 

[HarleyMC]

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

It's too bad that Minny and the Fighting Sioux had to play each other in the Regional Final game after playing
each other 6 times during the year. Fortunately, that didn't happen in the East Regional (BC - Maine) or the
Midwest Regional (Michigan - Ferris) but it could have. The very first thing they should do in seeding the Regionals is to make sure, to the best of their ability based on the number of teams per league that are picked, that two teams from the same league don't play each other. One of the neat things about a national tournament is that you don't see the same teams as you've seen all year.

Easier said than done. It appears the committee looked at 10-15 scenarios while trying to maintain bracket integrity and secondly, attendance issues.

Each committee has its own standards of deviation from the precise mechanical nature of the process, and sometimes it's just 50/50 about which direction a necessary flip-flop should go.

"Our No. 1 deal is about trying to make sure we keep the integrity of the bracket," said NCAA men's ice hockey committee chair Sean Frazier. "There's a lot of stuff we can do, or things we can do relative to keeping attendance strong in the various sites, but I'm a traditionalist and purist when it comes to that."

Since 2003, when the field went to 16 teams, the committee has followed the Pairwise strictly, in 1-16 order. The Pairwise is the system of comparing one team to every other team by a set of criteria. The comparison "wins" are then totaled up, and put in Pairwise standings form. The committee, at one time, didn't use the comparisons in a standings form — it merely looked at each comparison individually, which could lead to differences. But with the Pairwise, as published at various online places, becoming so popular, the committee just started going with that too.

Since doing that, the committee has made it a priority to then sort the teams 1-16, and try to create "bracket integrity," by placing 1-16-8-9 together in a regional, and 2-15-7-10 in another, an so on. Things need to be tinkered with, however, when a certain team needs to be placed in a certain regional, or intra-conference first-round matchups need to be avoided.

That was the case this year for Minnesota, which is No. 8 overall and needs to be in St. Paul, as the host. The problem, if you will, is that the No. 1 seed in that region, North Dakota, is the No. 4 overall — so having 4-8 matched up in a potential second round is not perfect bracket integrity. However, getting it perfect would've meant putting No. 1 overall seed Boston College there, which the committee is not going to do.

Furthermore, No 4. (North Dakota) could not play No. 13 (Cornell), the natural pair. That's because No. 2 Michigan had to play No. 13 Cornell. That's because No. 15 and No. 14 were both CCHA teams, as is Michigan, so they could play each other. Michigan, as a 1 seed, must play one of the 4 seeds, but 14 and 15 were not possible, and 16 (Air Force) was paired with Boston College. So that left Cornell.

The committee could've flipped 15 and 16 and had BC play Michigan State, and Michigan play Air Force, and kept 13-14 with 3-4, but decided against that.

"We have to protect the body of work," Frazier said. "Boston College deserves to be protected, so we make sure the No. 16 (Air Force) gets (in BC's bracket)."

So that all created a trickle down effect. The main site bracket projection had it wrong, figuring that 13 and 15 would just be flipped, and Union would just be left with its natural opponent at 14. Instead, the committee just slid each team down, so that 3 (Union) faced 15, and 4 (North Dakota) faced 14.

Frazier said that was to ensure that Union faced the lower remaining 4 seed compared to North Dakota.

The only other spot of note came with Boston University going West to face Minnesota in the 8-9 matchup. Normally, 1-8 would be grouped, and 1-16, 8-9 playing each other in the first round. But 8 (Minnesota) had to be in St. Paul, and the committee wasn't going to move No. 1 Boston College with the Gophers out there. The main site projection reasoned that 9 (BU) would just stay put, but instead the committee kept 8-9 together in St. Paul, leaving 7-10 to flip to Worcester.

Again, you could keep 2-7 grouped, Michigan and Duluth, and had 7-10 play in Green Bay. But that would've grouped Boston College with the No. 6 (Ferris State) potentially in the second round, and the committee thought that was unfair to BC.

"It's not a perfect science," Frazier said. "We made it a point that higher seeds deserved a certain level of consideration with the lower seed. We look at the body of work. We make sure it's not like 5 vs. 9, because that's where we get jammed up. ... A team worked their butts off to get a higher seed, so you got to protect the body of work."

"We went through like 10-15 different brackets."

Then there's attendance factors. The committee keeps an eye on that, but in most years, doesn't use that as a major consideration. There have been years where it has given attendance more of a weight than other years, which has thrown off prognosticators.

"There's always concern about the fan base and what it's going to look like (at a Regional), especially in Green Bay," Frazier said. "I have some concerns about that.

"We played with Lowell and Maine, flipping that to do more for Bridgeport. But how does that hurt Duluth? And how does that affect Miami? We could've debated that and still been on the phone right now. But it's all about the integrity of the bracket."

 

[giwan]

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

According to Randy L. Buhr, associate director of NCAA D1 championships, the FF is ranked #3 in revenue producing championship events.
1. Mens D1 Basketball Final Four
2. Mens College World Series & Regionals
3. Mens Frozen Four in Hockey
4. Mens D1 Wrestling Championships.
Keep in mind, unlike football, where the schools receive the money from TV and advertising the revenue raised for NCAA wrestling, basketball, hockey and baseball tournaments, goes directly to the NCAA, not the schools.

Did this include women's sports?