USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
NCAA Change the Tourney
- Thread starter steve66
- Start date
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I think you could still treat it as two divisions with the semi's of one on one night, the other the next and both finals on the same day (separate tickets though). This would allow you to attend only what you are interested in while allowing for some cross-pollination of fans if you will.
northeastern
Registered User
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
actually the Texas Longhorns do have hockey ..
http://www.texasicehockey.com/ ..
it isn't D1 (yet)..
I agree with you all on the sensibility of holding the regionals closer to the schools/ campuses. I was pointing to what i felt the NCAA was trying to achieve.
With Penn State & hopefully theBig Ten adding more schools to the sport.. i think there will be ( there's bound to be) a snowball effect for the sport. My thinking is the NCAA is trying to play into that & showcasing the sport wherever to see what sticks.
I agree with the premise of improving the TV deals first (with the traditional, fuller arenas)... then going out & hosting in non-traditional markets.
Finally through this all, some sites clearly work better than others, no question.
I have a feeling the NCAA might be getting the ice for free at some of these venues.. & the host sites hoping to make something on the concession side of things.. (of course i could be wrong).
actually the Texas Longhorns do have hockey ..
http://www.texasicehockey.com/ ..
it isn't D1 (yet).. I agree with you all on the sensibility of holding the regionals closer to the schools/ campuses. I was pointing to what i felt the NCAA was trying to achieve.
With Penn State & hopefully theBig Ten adding more schools to the sport.. i think there will be ( there's bound to be) a snowball effect for the sport. My thinking is the NCAA is trying to play into that & showcasing the sport wherever to see what sticks.
I agree with the premise of improving the TV deals first (with the traditional, fuller arenas)... then going out & hosting in non-traditional markets.
Finally through this all, some sites clearly work better than others, no question.
I have a feeling the NCAA might be getting the ice for free at some of these venues.. & the host sites hoping to make something on the concession side of things.. (of course i could be wrong).
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I also generally try to do whatever will make me the most money, but I don't bother bending over to pick up a penny that I see on the sidewalk, and that's what we are talking about here. "The NCAA" takes no notice of money made and lost in the hockey regionals, because it is a molecule in a drop in a bucket in Lake Superior compared to their overall budget.
The people on the NCAA Men's Division I Ice Hockey Committee do care about hockey, and seem to have its best interests in mind within the overall structure set up for them by the NCAA as a body. They did float the lacrosse-style tournament (first round at campus sites, quarterfinal doubleheaders at 2 neutral sites, frozen four) as a trial balloon last summer. They have not selected regional hosts past 2012, and I am optimistic enough to think that means they are finally going to give up on the regionals and go back to campus sites for the first round. We can hope, at least.
I also generally try to do whatever will make me the most money, but I don't bother bending over to pick up a penny that I see on the sidewalk, and that's what we are talking about here. "The NCAA" takes no notice of money made and lost in the hockey regionals, because it is a molecule in a drop in a bucket in Lake Superior compared to their overall budget.
The people on the NCAA Men's Division I Ice Hockey Committee do care about hockey, and seem to have its best interests in mind within the overall structure set up for them by the NCAA as a body. They did float the lacrosse-style tournament (first round at campus sites, quarterfinal doubleheaders at 2 neutral sites, frozen four) as a trial balloon last summer. They have not selected regional hosts past 2012, and I am optimistic enough to think that means they are finally going to give up on the regionals and go back to campus sites for the first round. We can hope, at least.
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Absolutely agree. Expanding beyond the 2 regionals dilluted the field and made attending a regional less of an event -- less teams there, less games, yet ticket prices were the same. The "product" wasn't as appealing as it was before.
Absolutely agree. Expanding beyond the 2 regionals dilluted the field and made attending a regional less of an event -- less teams there, less games, yet ticket prices were the same. The "product" wasn't as appealing as it was before.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Yes, 8 regionals, each at the higher seeded team. The problem is not that fans are saying, "I would go, but there just aren't enough teams playing." They are saying, "I can't drive 9 hours and spend 2 nights in a hotel room just to see my team play 1 or 2 games." Reducing the number of regionals increases the amount of travel, and travel is what is keeping fans away right now.
Yes, 8 regionals, each at the higher seeded team. The problem is not that fans are saying, "I would go, but there just aren't enough teams playing." They are saying, "I can't drive 9 hours and spend 2 nights in a hotel room just to see my team play 1 or 2 games." Reducing the number of regionals increases the amount of travel, and travel is what is keeping fans away right now.
The Freds
Goin' Up?
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
This is only the second year I'll miss attending the regionals in the last 10 years. Each year the attendance continues to drop. Last year I walked up to the ticket office in at the Times Union Center in Albany and bought front row seats the day of the game. I could count on my hands how many people the were. The best attended regional I remember atteneding was in Manchester a few years back, and of course UNH was choking there. (Sorry couldn't resist) That was the only time I could remember any atmosphere.
No one likes to be at an event where it feels like you are the only one there. To have 1,000 or 2,000 people sitting in an 18,000 seat arena is like being the only one there. I found myself enjoying the round robin of games on TV yesterday rather than going through the hassle of travel and hotel.
I do like the idea of regional sites, but in my opinion the NCAA should simply site them in smaller arenas. There are still some great barns out there that hold about 5,000 - 8,000 people in areas that could generate enough interest, yes even on campus sites. I would, however, advocate dropping the home ice guarantee to a host school, even if it costs ticket sales, because it comprimises the integrity of the tournament.
As for growing the sport, the years of the four regionals have done absolutely nothing to grow the sport. The experiment of siting the Frozen Four in non-college hockey cities has done nothing to grow the sport. Heck in most of those cities, most local people I encountered had no idea the Frozen Four was there.
Put the regionals in smaller venues in smaller cities near where college hockey matters.
This is only the second year I'll miss attending the regionals in the last 10 years. Each year the attendance continues to drop. Last year I walked up to the ticket office in at the Times Union Center in Albany and bought front row seats the day of the game. I could count on my hands how many people the were. The best attended regional I remember atteneding was in Manchester a few years back, and of course UNH was choking there. (Sorry couldn't resist) That was the only time I could remember any atmosphere.
No one likes to be at an event where it feels like you are the only one there. To have 1,000 or 2,000 people sitting in an 18,000 seat arena is like being the only one there. I found myself enjoying the round robin of games on TV yesterday rather than going through the hassle of travel and hotel.
I do like the idea of regional sites, but in my opinion the NCAA should simply site them in smaller arenas. There are still some great barns out there that hold about 5,000 - 8,000 people in areas that could generate enough interest, yes even on campus sites. I would, however, advocate dropping the home ice guarantee to a host school, even if it costs ticket sales, because it comprimises the integrity of the tournament.
As for growing the sport, the years of the four regionals have done absolutely nothing to grow the sport. The experiment of siting the Frozen Four in non-college hockey cities has done nothing to grow the sport. Heck in most of those cities, most local people I encountered had no idea the Frozen Four was there.
Put the regionals in smaller venues in smaller cities near where college hockey matters.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I agree with this one million percent! Let me ask most of you why you like hockey in the first place. I am willing to bet it is because you grew up in an area where you could PLAY - I mean outdoors, not by paying $100 to go to some "organized" program in a rink. Do you think there are any kids shoveling off ponds to play hockey in St. Louis, or Phoenix, or LA? Not only is it a niche sport, it's a REGIONAL sport that will NEVER catch on in areas where kids can't play it. Basketball and soccer are popular because you don't need money for equipment and facilities. Yeah, you can play hockey in warm climates if you have the MONEY to pay for the facility. But how many people will choose that over a sport where they can just go out on a nice day after school with their friends and play? Certainly not enough to "grow" the sport in those areas. What baffles me is why the NCAA even WANTS to grow the sport. The only reason it is even on at all is because ESPN was forced to show it in order to get the contract for the other post-season events. Clearly, based on the decision-making, the powers that be in the NCAA know NOTHING about the sport anyway. Do you know anyone who is in business to lose money? Why would you bid on an event where you will get NO PEOPLE so NO MONEY from concessions? The NCAA can hire me tomorrow if they want and I'll show them how to make money. Until then, I don't know why anyone is surprised at anything they do...
I agree with this one million percent! Let me ask most of you why you like hockey in the first place. I am willing to bet it is because you grew up in an area where you could PLAY - I mean outdoors, not by paying $100 to go to some "organized" program in a rink. Do you think there are any kids shoveling off ponds to play hockey in St. Louis, or Phoenix, or LA? Not only is it a niche sport, it's a REGIONAL sport that will NEVER catch on in areas where kids can't play it. Basketball and soccer are popular because you don't need money for equipment and facilities. Yeah, you can play hockey in warm climates if you have the MONEY to pay for the facility. But how many people will choose that over a sport where they can just go out on a nice day after school with their friends and play? Certainly not enough to "grow" the sport in those areas. What baffles me is why the NCAA even WANTS to grow the sport. The only reason it is even on at all is because ESPN was forced to show it in order to get the contract for the other post-season events. Clearly, based on the decision-making, the powers that be in the NCAA know NOTHING about the sport anyway. Do you know anyone who is in business to lose money? Why would you bid on an event where you will get NO PEOPLE so NO MONEY from concessions? The NCAA can hire me tomorrow if they want and I'll show them how to make money. Until then, I don't know why anyone is surprised at anything they do...
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
But even there, the Big 10 (or B1g 10 or whatever it is lol) is mostly a regional conference. Even if new programs sprout up because of it, it's still going to be in areas where there already is hockey. So we'll have to see how it shakes down in terms of having any actual effect on the sport.
Thanks for the Texas hockey info too
But even there, the Big 10 (or B1g 10 or whatever it is lol) is mostly a regional conference. Even if new programs sprout up because of it, it's still going to be in areas where there already is hockey. So we'll have to see how it shakes down in terms of having any actual effect on the sport.
Thanks for the Texas hockey info too
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Yeah, the "ice" in Bridgeport looked like it must have been free...
Yeah, the "ice" in Bridgeport looked like it must have been free...
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Who are you speaking for? lol. I don't go because I don't think it's worth my time and money as it currently is constituted. Looks like I'm not alone in that sentiment -- 2 regionals was a more attractive product than how they're doing it now. Going to 8 regionals is never going to happen.
Who are you speaking for? lol. I don't go because I don't think it's worth my time and money as it currently is constituted. Looks like I'm not alone in that sentiment -- 2 regionals was a more attractive product than how they're doing it now. Going to 8 regionals is never going to happen.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
One reason I have no problem with the superregionals is that I have absolutely no problem with a 12-team field. But even if it stays at 16, there's no reason why it automatically follows that all tickets are for the entire weekend.
Granted, you wouldn't do this if ticket sales were strong, but they're not. Obviously. So why not offer a discounted package deal (say 75-80% of face) for the entire superregional, to cater to the fans who do want to go to a college hockey event. Then starting a week or so before the event, start selling daily passes. Maybe $99 for the superregional, or $37.50 for a daily pass. Adjust as necessary to maximize revenue.
eta: If you want to sell college hockey to new fans, that means selling the product to people watching on TV (at first). One way to do that is to sell the traditions, rivalries, crazy fans, etc. At a good Frozen Four, college hockey almost sells itself. When I watched the BC-CC game last night on ESPNU, my God . . . I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that telecast if I'm not an Eagle or Tiger fan. Yawn. No noise, no energy, poorly mic-ed pep band, empty blue plastic seats as far as the eye can see. Bleh.
One reason I have no problem with the superregionals is that I have absolutely no problem with a 12-team field. But even if it stays at 16, there's no reason why it automatically follows that all tickets are for the entire weekend.
Granted, you wouldn't do this if ticket sales were strong, but they're not. Obviously. So why not offer a discounted package deal (say 75-80% of face) for the entire superregional, to cater to the fans who do want to go to a college hockey event. Then starting a week or so before the event, start selling daily passes. Maybe $99 for the superregional, or $37.50 for a daily pass. Adjust as necessary to maximize revenue.
eta: If you want to sell college hockey to new fans, that means selling the product to people watching on TV (at first). One way to do that is to sell the traditions, rivalries, crazy fans, etc. At a good Frozen Four, college hockey almost sells itself. When I watched the BC-CC game last night on ESPNU, my God . . . I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that telecast if I'm not an Eagle or Tiger fan. Yawn. No noise, no energy, poorly mic-ed pep band, empty blue plastic seats as far as the eye can see. Bleh.
Last edited:
cg_siouxfan
Registered User
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
This may have been true 20-25 years ago, but I played inside before I ever played outdoors. I love playing outside, but it's not how kids are introduced to hockey anymore.
People usually play hockey because a parent played the game, or because it's part of the culture where they live.
This may have been true 20-25 years ago, but I played inside before I ever played outdoors. I love playing outside, but it's not how kids are introduced to hockey anymore.
People usually play hockey because a parent played the game, or because it's part of the culture where they live.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
But that's my point. It's not "part of the culture" when only a tiny percentage of the population actually plays it. Maybe YOU had the money to play indoors, but in order for a sport to "latch on," it has to be available to EVERYONE. I know you're not being "elitist," but that's almost what it would sound like to some poor kid who doesn't have the means to play. How many NBA or soccer players grew up wealthy? If you don't have the numbers, it will never get into the mainstream. It's part of the CULTURE where they live because EVERYONE CAN PLAY!!!
But that's my point. It's not "part of the culture" when only a tiny percentage of the population actually plays it. Maybe YOU had the money to play indoors, but in order for a sport to "latch on," it has to be available to EVERYONE. I know you're not being "elitist," but that's almost what it would sound like to some poor kid who doesn't have the means to play. How many NBA or soccer players grew up wealthy? If you don't have the numbers, it will never get into the mainstream. It's part of the CULTURE where they live because EVERYONE CAN PLAY!!!
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Absolutely disagree with this whole premise. 2 sites with 8 teams is the way to go. More fans with less cost and you can keep it to major college hockey sites unlike St. Louis every year. The finals at each region with 4 teams vying for 2 Frozen Four slots would be very exciting and you would feel you ae getting your moneys worth. If I'm going to travel I want more games not less.
Absolutely disagree with this whole premise. 2 sites with 8 teams is the way to go. More fans with less cost and you can keep it to major college hockey sites unlike St. Louis every year. The finals at each region with 4 teams vying for 2 Frozen Four slots would be very exciting and you would feel you ae getting your moneys worth. If I'm going to travel I want more games not less.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I am speaking for the 30,000 fans of Michigan, UNO, Colorado College and Boston College who could have filled the seats in St. Louis twice over but didn't.
Why won't 8 regionals happen? I guess calling them "regionals" is confusing people--I am talking about a first round best-of-3 series at the higher seed to go from 16 teams to 8, followed by a quarterfinal round the next weekend to go from 8 teams to 4. If a change is made, this is the change that will be made.
An 8-team regional is logistically impossible (ice time for participating teams could not be accommodated). The travel is too much with 4 regionals, the answer is not taking the number down to 2.
I am speaking for the 30,000 fans of Michigan, UNO, Colorado College and Boston College who could have filled the seats in St. Louis twice over but didn't.
Why won't 8 regionals happen? I guess calling them "regionals" is confusing people--I am talking about a first round best-of-3 series at the higher seed to go from 16 teams to 8, followed by a quarterfinal round the next weekend to go from 8 teams to 4. If a change is made, this is the change that will be made.
An 8-team regional is logistically impossible (ice time for participating teams could not be accommodated). The travel is too much with 4 regionals, the answer is not taking the number down to 2.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
The issue is the places bidding for the regionals and frozen four. It isn't just the NCAA deciding. The locations have to bid for them. If they don't bid the NCAA either has to go with one of the bidders or solicit one to bid (which I don't know if they are allowed to do). Are there times when optimal locations are bidding and are not chosen I am sure but I don't think this happens too much. I say this because of how often some of the regionals turn up at the same places. I think a lot of the problem here is the better locations aren't bidding.
As for the frozen four, I think the non-traditional sites have actually helped the exposure of college hockey but only slightly. The Big Ten conference is going to be another step, in the right or wrong direction still remains to be seen and I know this can be debated at length (see other boards for it, please don't get into this here).
As for changing the structure, I agree that one vital element that has to remain is keeping the off week for travel plans. The biggest expense / deterrent for fans attending is the cost (both time off and money). Travel/hotel tends to trump the tickets so having additional time is vital for attendance. I didn't attend a regional this year despite having attend 4 of the last 10. The reason? Expense and I don't think much of St. Louis as a city based upon my one trip there. It looks like others felt the same way.
The issue is the places bidding for the regionals and frozen four. It isn't just the NCAA deciding. The locations have to bid for them. If they don't bid the NCAA either has to go with one of the bidders or solicit one to bid (which I don't know if they are allowed to do). Are there times when optimal locations are bidding and are not chosen I am sure but I don't think this happens too much. I say this because of how often some of the regionals turn up at the same places. I think a lot of the problem here is the better locations aren't bidding.
As for the frozen four, I think the non-traditional sites have actually helped the exposure of college hockey but only slightly. The Big Ten conference is going to be another step, in the right or wrong direction still remains to be seen and I know this can be debated at length (see other boards for it, please don't get into this here).
As for changing the structure, I agree that one vital element that has to remain is keeping the off week for travel plans. The biggest expense / deterrent for fans attending is the cost (both time off and money). Travel/hotel tends to trump the tickets so having additional time is vital for attendance. I didn't attend a regional this year despite having attend 4 of the last 10. The reason? Expense and I don't think much of St. Louis as a city based upon my one trip there. It looks like others felt the same way.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
It is if you realize that a 16-team field is a failure.
edit:
insert mandatory "it isn't good like it used to be" "get off my lawn" old man grumble.
It is if you realize that a 16-team field is a failure.
edit:
insert mandatory "it isn't good like it used to be" "get off my lawn" old man grumble.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
You are not a typical fan. I guarantee that nobody on this board is a typical fan. People who follow their team are following their team, and are indifferent or mildly interested in the other games. They don't want to buy a ticket to 6 games, spend 2-3 nights in a hotel room, and buy a plane ticket or drive 9 hours to watch their team lose game 1 when there isn't even a champion crowned at the end of the weekend. Picture this--
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL
Friday--Michigan v Nebraska-Omaha, Boston College v Colorado College
Saturday--North Dakota v Rensselaer, Denver v Western Michigan
Sunday--Friday winners, Saturday winners
Now...of the 7,000 or so Michigan fans who watched a majority of the team's games this year, how many do you think would have showed up to St. Louis for this format? I think the answer is obviously, "not as many the 2,000 or so Michigan fans that were there for the actual St. Louis Regional yesterday." How many of those Michigan fans show up for the games Saturday? Sorry, this doesn't fly. How does this format increase attendance? It reduces attendance! I would be much more interested, but everybody I know whose lives don't revolve around college hockey for 5 months a year would be much less interested.
You are not a typical fan. I guarantee that nobody on this board is a typical fan. People who follow their team are following their team, and are indifferent or mildly interested in the other games. They don't want to buy a ticket to 6 games, spend 2-3 nights in a hotel room, and buy a plane ticket or drive 9 hours to watch their team lose game 1 when there isn't even a champion crowned at the end of the weekend. Picture this--
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL
Friday--Michigan v Nebraska-Omaha, Boston College v Colorado College
Saturday--North Dakota v Rensselaer, Denver v Western Michigan
Sunday--Friday winners, Saturday winners
Now...of the 7,000 or so Michigan fans who watched a majority of the team's games this year, how many do you think would have showed up to St. Louis for this format? I think the answer is obviously, "not as many the 2,000 or so Michigan fans that were there for the actual St. Louis Regional yesterday." How many of those Michigan fans show up for the games Saturday? Sorry, this doesn't fly. How does this format increase attendance? It reduces attendance! I would be much more interested, but everybody I know whose lives don't revolve around college hockey for 5 months a year would be much less interested.