NCAA Change the Tourney

[UMDSimmerdown]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I realize I may get absolutely shelled for proposing this, but I figure its worth a shot in this discussion.

Why not a pool system for each regional? Each team would play three games, six games total for the pool. It would create more games for fans to watch since they are guaranteed to see their team play three games, and would still keep the "one and done" mentality since even one loss could end your season. I know I would be more willing to shell out money to see my team in a regional if I was guaranteed three games. You might even consider keeping teams pooled in their regional area to increase fan support. I would recommend that there not be ties, eliminating the need for goal differential or any other goofy way of determining a winner in the event of a tie besides the head to head outcome. The winner of the pool would be the FF candidate from their regional.

Thoughts? Pros/Cons? Am I totally retarded for thinking this might work?

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I'm afraid Chicago, with little or no local fans of college hockey, is centrally located but would be poorly attended. Unless Wisconsin was there. Fort Wayne is closer to both Miami and Michigan, and their Sunday final there last year was pitiful. There were more Michigan hockey fans at the Frozen Four that year, without Michigan, than there were at the regional with Michigan.

UMDSimmerdown, I won't slam you, but I don't think a World Cup round-robin style system is feasible. Brian at mgoblog.com actually mentioned it a few days ago, but he doesn't think it's realistic either. There are several problems:

You need at least three days reserved, with games on consecutive days. That's a big time commitment, and as discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is difficult for fans who were just at conference championships and hope to go to the Frozen Four to take a four-day weekend (last games on Sunday, many will need Monday off) to attend.

Competitively, it is a non-starter. In the World Cup they use this arrangement and allow two teams to advance, and still there are controversial and bizarre tie-breakers every time. Can you imagine, for example, UMD going 2 and 1 but staying home because of goal differential? About the only time tie-breakers <b>wouldn't</b> be required would be when one team went undefeated. Also, as Brian @mgoblog stated, the last day often has unusual competitive scenarios where ties are advantageous for certain teams. The World Cup deals with this by playing the last games simultaneously, which is impossible with one ice surface. This would be worse than the BCS, something that every college hockey fan is happy that we don't have.

You're thinking outside of the box, but I don't think it would work.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Did you really just compare Chicago and Ft. Wayne?

Maybe you're right. Some folks probably aren't interested in anything more than hockey. :/

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Let's address the 3-game series vs. 1-and-done issue, assuming that both would happen at home rinks. Most of the pro-home-rink crowd here has been focusing on getting the teams out of neutral rinks and to home sites, without discussing the advantages of a series vs. a one-off. Alton and I have both mentioned both as possibilities.

<b>3 game playoff series</b>

<b>Advantages:</b>

*Provides players and fans to experience real, meaningful playoff series more akin to what other levels of hockey experience. Vastly more competitive than conference first-round series that routinely sacrifice bottom-feeders to national powers in two-game sweeps.

*Fans get to experience a full "weekend" of hockey, with all the excitement that entails.

*Increases ticket sales--more games means more tickets. May allow teams to sell tickets for cheaper, making single games more accessible to the average fans.

*Potentially provides galvanizing experiences to whole fanbases, a memorable experience that adds to tradition, increases shared memories, and fortifies the fandom of hundreds or thousands. Cornell's visit to Michigan is the obvious example of this--Michigan lost in the quarterfinals that season, but fans still talk about it.

*A 3-game series provides a much larger, predictable data set and makes it more likely that the "better team" will advance.

<b>Disadvantages:</b>

*A 3-game series means that each individual game is slightly less meaningful. An early goal or two by a road underdog still gives the home team a couple of periods, plus two extra games, to recover.

*Home sweeps wind up being more routine, less dramatic, even if the games themselves are exciting.

*Game 3's, the ultimate "win-or-go-home" game, take place on Sunday, often in front of fewer fans.

*Television coverage is difficult, with 8 different series playing games at roughly the same time.

*Upsets are much less likely. As Handyman said, how often would Michigan or North Dakota lose a home series? If the answer is not "never," it's close.

<b>One game win-or-go-home</b>

<b>Advantages:</b>

*It's unquestionably the most important game of the season, every fan and player will experience massive levels of excitement.

*Tickets should be a cinch to sell.

*Dramatic upsets are much more likely

*Scheduling for television is much easier. You can, for example, play 2 or 3 games on Friday, the rest on Saturday, or even a couple on Sunday, and get them on television.

*Easier to find available arena time, even in places with scheduled events, by moving the game around the entire weekend.

*Road team fans may find it easier to travel to one game than a whole series.

<b>Disadvantages:</b>

*Loses some of the "event" feel that regionals and playoff series have by being just one game for a whole weekend.

*Lower volumes of ticket sales make it much closer to the current sales levels of the regionals.

*With fewer ticket sales, harder to recapture the overhead costs.

*"Better" teams more likely to be done in by one bad game. Still less random than at neutral sites, though.

<b>Conclusion</b>
I think good arguments can be made for both arrangements. I personally prefer the playoff series, but that is partially due to my personal experience of enjoying the 7-game series that you get in the OHL, and this is not the OHL. Shouldn't try to be, either. I also like that it provides a whole weekend of hockey, something to look forward to, for the home teams. But that is available to a lesser extent for one game as well.

Given the evidence, I believe that while I personally prefer the 3-game series, the logistics weight in favor of 1-game home playoffs. If the NCAA goes the 3-game series path, I will not complain.

And for what it's worth, I think the second round should also take place at home sites. No super-regionals.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Did you really just compare Chicago and Ft. Wayne?

Maybe you're right. Some folks probably aren't interested in anything more than hockey. :/

I don't think people are going to choose to go to a regional based on the "destination." Frozen Fours have the extra day to experience the trip, but regionals really are all about hockey. Michigan fans didn't avoid Fort Wayne because it was boring, they avoided it because it was expensive and they had to work on Monday Morning.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

True.

Maybe I was still thinking along the lines of a 3 day regional (going waaaaay back in the thread). Using Alton's method, we have one-day quarterfinals. Not much sightseeing to do when you have a one day event with two games.

But that's the other beauty of the Alton/lax model. You only have to sell tix for one day, and all four teams in the regional are playing with a FF berth on the line. It's not possible to magically make the geography problem disappear, but an Alton-style quarterfinal might be a good start.

Especially if it's in Chicago.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Just as an FYI, the Shillelagh drew 3,580 Friday and 3,545 Saturday (two games per ticket) last year at the Sears Center in Chicago. Now, that is a pre-determined tourney over the holidays, where folks likely planned their vacations around the games.

 

[UMDSimmerdown]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Competitively, it is a non-starter. In the World Cup they use this arrangement and allow two teams to advance, and still there are controversial and bizarre tie-breakers every time. Can you imagine, for example, UMD going 2 and 1 but staying home because of goal differential? About the only time tie-breakers <b>wouldn't</b> be required would be when one team went undefeated. Also, as Brian @mgoblog stated, the last day often has unusual competitive scenarios where ties are advantageous for certain teams. The World Cup deals with this by playing the last games simultaneously, which is impossible with one ice surface. This would be worse than the BCS, something that every college hockey fan is happy that we don't have.

I agree with you that scheduling fans to show up for three straight days of games is a tough sell, especially if you're hoping they then turn around two weeks later and do it again. However, I think many people would say if I'm going to travel and put down the money to do so, I want to get the most out of it. A guaranteed three game round robin would be appealing to those fans. (I won't get into the scenario when a team loses their first two games and has to play the third game just for show, that would obviously be a con.)

You missed the part of my post where I attempted to remove tie-breaker scenarios that would be based on goal differential or any other kind of subjective method by removing in-game ties. All games would be played until there is a winner, meaning the only tie-breaking between pool teams would be based on head-to-head record, for which there would be a clear winner.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

All games would be played until there is a winner, meaning the only tie-breaking between pool teams would be based on head-to-head record, for which there would be a clear winner.

Except when there would be a three-way tie.

 

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Except when there would be a three-way tie.

nothing more exciting than an entire season brought to drawing lots at center ice.

 

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Just as an FYI, the Shillelagh drew 3,580 Friday and 3,545 Saturday (two games per ticket) last year at the Sears Center in Chicago. Now, that is a pre-determined tourney over the holidays, where folks likely planned their vacations around the games.

I know one of the reasons I and others didn't go this year was the difficulty of getting to the arena there. From what I saw on a map, that arena could hardly be called in Chicago. There was no public transportation anywhere near the arena, and is 35+ miles from downtown Chicago.

 

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I get why people like best of 3, I especially get why the NCAA would like it but it seems like a major step backwards if you ask me, a desperate ploy to make sure the "right teams" make it so the NCAA maximizes viewers and ticket sales. That is great for them but I guarantee I will tune out. Maybe I am alone on that, but even though my team is the loser in the biggest upset the tourny has seen (at least to that point) I like that. My team should not be rewarded with a second chance just because they had a great season. They won awards for the season they had, the Tourny is separate, they lost they should go home.

I guarantee you go to best of 3 at home sites and the divide between the "Power" and "Non-Power" schools will grow exponentially.

First round home games I can deal with, best of 3 is archaic and just continues to reward a team for a good regular season. Would Michigan ever lose a series at Yost? Would UND lose a series at REA? I think we know the answer to those questions.

edit: I know I said NCAA and make it sound like they are the driving force, that isnt how I meant it.

While home ice is a reward that is tough to give, I see no problem with best-of-3... at the end of the year, if you happen to be a better team then one should advance on through... I don't see upsets necessarily as a virtue and hockey is a sport where good teams lose more often... not nearly as bad as baseball, but close. Heck, I've given half thoughts to double-elimination, but I don't think that arena reservations, etc, could handle that.

I don't see necessarily upsets being a virtue of the sport... even then best-of-3 isn't overwhelmingly better than a single game elimination in terms of the ability to separate teams. If you have a 60% chance of winning a game you have a 65% chance of winning a best-of-3.

Fact of the matter is, winning needs to be worth something, it can't be completely random, otherwise what are you proving? As one of the "non-power" schools, I see no problem in this.... i think you risk credibility if RIT manages to find a way to the Frozen Four every 3rd year w/o dominating their schedule.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I know one of the reasons I and others didn't go this year was the difficulty of getting to the arena there. From what I saw on a map, that arena could hardly be called in Chicago. There was no public transportation anywhere near the arena, and is 35+ miles from downtown Chicago.

You missed out then. Metra, the heavy rail commuter line goes to Elgin and can get you to within 4 miles and I'm 90% sure you can take Pace, the Chicago area bus service to the Sears Center from there (I know Pace operates out of Elgin, but I've neer looked into getting from there to the rink)...

 

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

You missed out then. Metra, the heavy rail commuter line goes to Elgin and can get you to within 4 miles and I'm 90% sure you can take Pace, the Chicago area bus service to the Sears Center from there (I know Pace operates out of Elgin, but I've neer looked into getting from there to the rink)...

Point is still, this is not really "easy" by any means to get to from chicago, and I doubt many people will want to be staying in bustling Hoffman Estates. The point of hosting a regional in Chicago would be to host it in Chicago in a venue appropriately sized for a regional.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Point is still, this is not really "easy" by any means to get to from chicago, and I doubt many people will want to be staying in bustling Hoffman Estates. The point of hosting a regional in Chicago would be to host it in Chicago in a venue appropriately sized for a regional.

Gotta love folks from out east that want public transit to pick them up at their hotel and drop them off at the front door of where they're going. Really, the transit I described isn't rocket science (or rocket engineering as my Huntsville-area friend apparently would prefer )

Honestly, I never suggested Chicago for a regional - Rover did, and asked if there were rinks besides the United Center that it could be held in, and I supplied 4 alternatives, with no comment at all to their viability. You then said the Sears Center had "no public transportation anywhere near the arena," and I showed that you were wrong. Truth be told, I'd rather see Chicago and the United Center host a Frozen Four, but if it were to hold a regional, there are certainly worse western venues (Ft. Wayne, St. Louis to name a couple) out there than the Sears Center (or UIC Pavilion), IMHO.


edit - FYI, I grew up outside Chicago in Downers Grove, so know the area and would love to see the FF there so I could go, see friends and family and maybe catch Cubs opening day...

 

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I get why people like best of 3, I especially get why the NCAA would like it but it seems like a major step backwards if you ask me, a desperate ploy to make sure the "right teams" make it so the NCAA maximizes viewers and ticket sales.

You nailed it. The main problem with the Best of 3 campus site scenario is that it's "been there, done that." They already tried that format and they changed it for a reason. I don't see them ever going back to it, and I agree with you, it would be a step backwards. As much as we've been looking at things mostly from a profit/attendance perspective, there is an issue of fairness in terms of how the games are played out that has to be examined as well. There is a fundamental fairness inherent with teams playing games in neutral sites and not in the home rink of each season's higher seeds, which would often be an annual mix of BC, North Dakota, Michigan, etc etc. Beating those squads in 1 game is one thing -- having to do it in a multi-game series on their home ice is obviously far more difficult. Ultimately that system would only make it even easier for higher seeded teams and teams that typically finish in the upper tier of their conference to advance (the "right teams" as you call them).

Variety and diversity among your Frozen Four participants would almost certainly diminish as a consequence. IMO that's not at all something they will want to encourage -- the sentiment that "the same teams make it every year" will only be pushed even further in that direction if you back to campus site QF multi-game series.

Now single-game elimination on campus sites -- as a prelude to a weekend of 2 regional sites -- that makes a little bit more sense, yet I still don't know if things are such a mess that they'd go there. Alton and I disagree that adding another weekend of games to the current set-up won't tax the fan further in terms of their time/monetary investment in pre-Frozen Four hockey -- to me it'd be like expanding the tournament even though the amount of teams remains the same (yes I know there is a bye week now -- it's not a week in which the NCAA is asking fans to pay to see more games which it would under Alton's three-week playoff system). The bottom line to their proposed concept is that-- no matter where you do it -- you'd be adding another weekend of NCAA games to the current set-up, and given the current attendance issues, that just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Yes it solves some things but it adds other issues as well.

I think overall it's a question of improving what they're doing now, making smarter choices in terms of venue and team seeding, and finding a way to make the current "package" more appealing to consumers while balancing the fairness issue -- not going backwards to an old concept like campus site quarterfinal series (then again, who knows, maybe they'll be desperate!).

I have enjoyed the conversation big time because I think we all agree they've got to do something...just will be interesting to see what they do because one way or another, something's got to give.

 

[AFHockeyFan]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

AHA teams are not, absent an exceptional season, playing for an at-large bid.

The AHA champion has finished in the Top 16 of the Pairwise 2 of the last three years, and has won three tournament games in that span.
The disrespect is reaching Boisesque proportions.

 

[billmich88888]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

My issue with the AHA isn't the top of the conference, it's at the middle and bottom of the conference. Look at NCAA team rankings and you will see that the bottom 10 teams have a very large proportion of AHA members.

I would also step up my level of respect if AHA got 2 teams in with an at-large bid (as Bemidji did last season). Having more games on tv (cbs cs/espnu) would also help fans like me to see these teams before tourney time.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

. . .
I think overall it's a question of improving what they're doing now, making smarter choices in terms of venue and team seeding, and finding a way to make the current "package" more appealing to consumers while balancing the fairness issue -- not going backwards to an old concept like campus site quarterfinal series (then again, who knows, maybe they'll be desperate!).

I have enjoyed the conversation big time because I think we all agree they've got to do something...just will be interesting to see what they do because one way or another, something's got to give.

Great post.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion as well, especially since despite some strong opinions it’s managed to stay remarkably civil, somewhat rare for a string that’s getting close to 200 posts.

I’m in the camp that thinks that the current system isn’t perfect, maybe not even good, but it’s better than any of the alternatives. For sure the NCAA should learn from its mistakes – and a regional in an NHL sized arena in a region with no hockey presence was a mistake – but that doesn’t mean the whole system should be scrapped.

If the current system fails, it will be because no reasonable venues make bids. I don’t know precisely how the finances work – i.e. who takes the financial bath – but if the regionals continually lose money, the NCAA will have to find an alternative. Maybe it’s a radical change, like some of the proposals in here. Maybe it’s something tinkering, like allowing intraconference matchups in the first round.

 

[chickod]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

While home ice is a reward that is tough to give, I see no problem with best-of-3... at the end of the year, if you happen to be a better team then one should advance on through... I don't see upsets necessarily as a virtue and hockey is a sport where good teams lose more often... not nearly as bad as baseball, but close. Heck, I've given half thoughts to double-elimination, but I don't think that arena reservations, etc, could handle that.

I don't see necessarily upsets being a virtue of the sport... even then best-of-3 isn't overwhelmingly better than a single game elimination in terms of the ability to separate teams. If you have a 60% chance of winning a game you have a 65% chance of winning a best-of-3.

Fact of the matter is, winning needs to be worth something, it can't be completely random, otherwise what are you proving? As one of the "non-power" schools, I see no problem in this.... i think you risk credibility if RIT manages to find a way to the Frozen Four every 3rd year w/o dominating their schedule.

Well, this brings up another issue (I know I might be opening a can of worms). Existentially speaking, why do we have a tournament in the first place? Seriously. The answer is to "crown the NCAA champion." Nothing more...nothing less. The first premise is that we have to dispel this notion that the "best team should win." That's not the way it works...that's what the regular season is for. A tournament is just that...a tournament. We all know that the "best" teams DON'T ALWAYS WIN the championship. We've seen this is every sport. So once we stop trying to "manipulate" it so that "this is prevented" and "that is guaranteed" and "the other thing is assured," then we can just see it for what it is. The whole POINT is that you DON'T have a "series" of games for anything. It SHOULD be one and done. That is the fun of the tournament and what gives it that "edge." It's only a game...a game that we may love, but let's not make it more than what it is.