What's new
By:
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 Hockey - 2023/24 **Insert Witty Tagline**

Bronco said:
If the NCAA gets rid of regionals I can see why coaches would be behind it. It would have been fun if WMU hosted the regional when we were the 1 seed. That doesn't do much for the crowd that wants larger attendence numbers, since Lawson squeezes in less than 4k with SRO. What I have a problem with is what I mentioned. WMU getting the 1 seed but because we didn't bid then we head to B10 arena because money.
Click to expand...

Instead we went to Massachusetts with 3 and 4 seeds from that state. Whee.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
I think the closest sport for reference to what they want is the soccer tournament. Every single game there is hosted by the higher seed until the College Cup semifinals where it goes to a neutral site.

Just listened to the podcast and DU’s coach doesn’t want it to be like baseball/softball/women’s basketball where the one seed gets to bring the whole region to their building. As he said, that doesn’t get rid of the attendance issue in the first round for the 2/3 game when the host isn’t playing or the second round if the host loses. He wants round one to be eight sites hosted by the higher seed. Second round is the next weekend, replacing the current bye week, hosted by the remaining higher seeds. And then the Frozen Four.
Click to expand...

I'm good with this system, I think.
 
Slap Shot said:
The GPL podcast will be sublime if they can get the coach from Cornell to join in.
Click to expand...

Someone earlier posted that they thought the only coaches that should or would strongly lobby for this are from programs regularly finishing in the top 8. I tend to think that it is more likely it's really only the coaches from those programs that regularly finish say 8-20 who are really strongly against campus sites.

Those regularly finishing in the top 10 will see the obvious advantage of campus sites and should support it.

Those who regularly finish 20-64 are probably like the Sacred Heart coach -- they'll play anywhere, even in your backyard. They just want to get in the tournament.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I mean obviously, if you're a fan of a big-spending "hockey factory" you want to return to campus sites, since your school will be a host more often than not and the building will be a sellout. Having attended a couple of the Midwest regionals in recent years and seen how pathetically thin the crowds were, even though my school is a relative member of the poorhouse these days, I'm inclined to agree that something has to change.
Click to expand...

I hate the factory schools and I think it's a great idea.

Since 1996, Cornell would have had been on the road 8 times, home ice in the first round 6 times, and a home path to the F4 3 times. Is that "regularly assured of top 8"? \_(ツ)_/
 
Last edited:
I'll take campus sites even as a team who is gonna be a 9-16 seed when they make the tournament once every 5-10 years. No point in playing a game in a moselium.
 
Bronco said:
Didn't listen to the podcast, but I'm surprised that most coaches are fine and will have zero complaints when they are the 1 seed and head to the 4th seed's home arena. Because that's what you are asking for. I remember the outrage Michigan got when they hosted as a lower seed, and I'm sure many examples of that are why it was changed in the first place. Just shows that everything old is new again.
Click to expand...
The lower seed Michigan beat SCSU in Yost. That was about 20 years ago and still frustrating.

Correction, SCSU was the 5, Michigan 4. They knocked out DU, which was the number 1 seed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NCAA_Division_I_men's_ice_hockey_tournament
 
Last edited:
St. Clown said:
The lower seed Michigan beat SCSU in Yost. That was about 20 years ago and still frustrating.

Correction, SCSU was the 5, Michigan 4. They knocked out DU, which was the number 1 seed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NCAA_Division_I_men's_ice_hockey_tournament
Click to expand...

That's the one I'm pretty sure. There was a 2 or 3 year stretch where Michigan hosted at Yost and people were talking about the fairness of it.

Now we just need to get the Frozen Four in Detroit again...
 
I haven't listened to Adam before, but I had read both Brad's article and Adam's followup one.

David clearly dominated the interview with reason and ideas that honestly made Adam seem like he knew nothing.

The biggest takeaway I had was that David laid out the best-case future scenario and then Adam would kind of agree but keep bringing up this notion that Brad recommends a best of 3 war the way to go.

That's completely untrue as Brad and David have the same idea of single game at top 8 seeds. Then, the next weekend a single game at the top 4 seeds.

So, it just turned into Adam saying over and over "well yeah, that's better than the 3 game idea."

He may be a great debater but as others have said, he had nothing to stand on in this interview. It was a bit embarrassing honestly and considering this was the first entry too his show for a lot of fans, it's likely his position and inability to directly offer better alternatives will limit how much those people tune in.
 
Personally, if they’re going to go to full weekends for a single round I’d rather it be best of 3, but it seems like a lot of coaches aren’t on board with that. And I’d rather have a single game than two game aggregate.
 
I love campus sites but I want single elimination. It preserves the advantage but flattens it, and it is easier logistically for everybody. The unknows of a game three are extremely disruptive.
 
I look at the 16 team tournament at neutral sites as a good faith experiment that some people foolishly believed would "grow" the sport. It didn't and that ship has sailed. It would be nice if the powers that be would do what is best for the sport, admit they were misguided, and go to higher seeds hosting. Single game elimination at 1-8, re-seed and do the same with 1-4 the next weekend, and then a neutral site final four.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top