NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Sure he is. And so was I.

Replies:

1. 4000 fans in an NHL sized venue is poor crowd. 4000 in a 10,000 seat building is mediocre. 4000 fans in a 4000 seat venue can be a great crowd.

2. OK, 8 first round games at campus sites might cause some loss of revenue. Maybe. But if so, it's at the margins. The Frozen Four is the breadwinner, whatever the regional format. I also have to believe that having the first round on campus would reduce costs in terms of travel, hotels & facility overhead.

3. Lack of seating capacity on campus? You seem to ignore the obvious fact you'd be working with 8 buildings rather than 4. I'll buy that the AHL buildings currently in use are twice as big as many campus arenas. But if you added up the chairs in 8 smaller buildings, I'll bet the total would be quite similar to the sum of the chairs in 4 AHL buildings. And even if the AHL total is slightly higher, how is that an advantage? The current reality is that the surplus chairs will just sit empty, even at the so-called "successful" regionals.

4. Lodging & Logistics are an argument against? Seriously? It's much easier to host one traveling team than the four required by the current set-up. And if Mr. MacInnes shows up to chat, he'll acknowledge that my format avoids a lot of locker room logistical problems caused by multi-team tournaments.

5. Lead time is a legitimate issue. But if the biggest concern is less branding/commercialism in the first round, I find myself almost wishing for that result.


One more point; this one isn't a direct reply. But I feel compelled to remind you that the Midwestern & Western Regionals have been mostly failures at the gate for many years. Recently they've been a little better due to:

1. The Success of the Dakota Regionals; and
2 Pretending that Eastern Pennsylvania is part of the Midwest.

While I applaud the results achieved at those sites, I certainly don't think we've found a permanent solution with these locations.

1. Sure. And it sucks that what I’m about to remind you of is true, but it’s an immutable fact: the NCAA wouldn’t last long, and neither would any theoretical replacement or other sports league, if they willingly gave up money for something that was cool. This will never <ever> be a reason that any sports league ever does anything.

2 & 4. You think travel to Mankato or Potsdam or (god forbid) Houghton is going to be a snap on a weeks notice? What about NCAA and ESPN’s logistics? There are a good 20 pages of requirements for hosting a regional, and having a year to prepare and plan is per of what makes them operate as efficiently as they do.

Not sure how well balancing logistics on a week’s time is going to go. Or are we going to tell every team in the nation to hold rooms and all the other logistics for a year, after they already have to do that (and have possible issues with blank venue dates or other conflicts), when they already have to do that for conference tourneys.

Also: the FF making more money isn’t a reason to let the first rounds potentially make less money. Unless we’re counting on only top level big ticket programs winning conferences every year (let’s look at this season as evidence that that is a bad call).

3. Those 4 venues host two games each in the first round. And your ticket prices reflect it. 4x2 is 8.

 

[Iwearpurple]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

Visitors would get an allotment, and any unsold would be sent back a couple days before to be sold.

Not treading new waters here

I get how that works. That was not my point.

For example, if we were playing in Arizona, I would guess at minimum, we would have 100 fans going. Clearly at any venue, every team gets at least 100 tickets.
Would Arizona State want 20% of fans from Minnesota State in the building, and they have to turn hundreds of their fans away. I don't think so.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

4. Lodging & Logistics are an argument against? Seriously? It's much easier to host one traveling team than the four required by the current set-up. And if Mr. MacInnes shows up to chat, he'll acknowledge that my format avoids a lot of locker room logistical problems caused by multi-team tournaments.

I see my reputation in this area precedes me.

There's an easy way to guard against unsuitable buildings to receive the bids, the same way that the NCAA is now dealing with home sites in the women's D-1 basketball tournament. Each venue still has to apply and be vetted as a potential host well prior to the tournament, and if they meet the requirements they are in the pool of potential host sites. If your team is in position to host and you're pre-approved, congratulations you're a host school. If your rink did not make the grade, sorry but them's the breaks. As long as you have enough sites qualify and you don't have to adjust matchups to avoid a lack of suitable buildings, you're golden.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

EODS, I feel the need the preface my reply with the following: I've long believed you're an excellent poster, who's made countless positive contributions to this board. That will continue to be my opinion, regardless of how the current conversation goes. That said, here are my replies.

1. Sure. And it sucks that what I’m about to remind you of is true, but it’s an immutable fact: the NCAA wouldn’t last long, and neither would any theoretical replacement or other sports league, if they willingly gave up money for something that was cool. This will never <ever> be a reason that any sports league ever does anything.

As a general principle, yes. But I believe this is an argument against the status quo. My understanding has long been that the neutral sites are a financial albatross, propped up by Frozen Four $$. Why is it tolerated? Because Neutral Sites are "something so cool" they're worth subsidizing. I'm actually shocked that someone would support the current set-up on the grounds it's a vital source of revenue.

My belief is that you'd sell lots more tickets at the campus sites. Even at lower price points -- which was a good point by you -- I still think ticket revenue would be at least be a wash. And when people actually attend the games, parking places are purchased; food & drinks are consumed; souvenirs are sold.

Now I can't predict the future, so I can't prove that the campus sites would be a financial success. Nor can you prove the contrary. It does startle me that our beliefs/expectations are so different.

Maybe you're focusing on the last year or two and believe the current format has turned the corner. But unless you're good with having three regionals on the East Coast as a permanent feature of the tournament, I just don't see it.

Finally, if the current format is so financially solid, why won't anyone from the "CCHA States" bid for the regionals? And with the exception of the school with the best traveling fan base in college hockey, no one from the Old WCHA area is bidding either.

2 & 4. You think travel to Mankato or Potsdam or (god forbid) Houghton is going to be a snap on a weeks notice? What about NCAA and ESPN’s logistics? There are a good 20 pages of requirements for hosting a regional, and having a year to prepare and plan is per of what makes them operate as efficiently as they do.

It wouldn't be a snap, but it would get done. There'd no travel at all for the 8 home teams. For the 8 road teams, most of the traveling parties would be relatively small. The team itself, and a group consisting of family, best friends and the most hardcore fans.

As for the 20 pages of requirements, I've already conceded that changes would be necessary, and tried to gently suggest we'd all be better off without some of those rules.

Not sure how well balancing logistics on a week’s time is going to go. Or are we going to tell every team in the nation to hold rooms and all the other logistics for a year, after they already have to do that (and have possible issues with blank venue dates or other conflicts), when they already have to do that for conference tourneys...

Most of the communities in question will have enough hotel space to accommodate 1 hockey team and a few hundred fans. Even on short notice. For truly unusual situations, you could set up the travel schedule so the fan lodging is somewhere between the two cities. Remember, we're talking about a single elimination tournament. One game. Win or lose, head home. Again, it's not a snap. But it wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it sound. It's not like March is high tourist season in the Northern states.

3. Those 4 venues host two games each in the first round. And your ticket prices reflect it. 4x2 is 8.

Fair point. But there's a serious downside. Most fans dislike having to pay the higher prices. Partly because of budget constraints; and partly because most fans don't stay for both games. Personally I'm usually up for a double-header, and I'll bet you are too. But we're in the minority. And if anything, our numbers are shrinking.

That being the case, why not sell the games one at a time, at half the price? In locations where fans will actually attend?

 

[The Zlax45]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

1. Sure. And it sucks that what I’m about to remind you of is true, but it’s an immutable fact: the NCAA wouldn’t last long, and neither would any theoretical replacement or other sports league, if they willingly gave up money for something that was cool. This will never <ever> be a reason that any sports league ever does anything.

2 & 4. You think travel to Mankato or Potsdam or (god forbid) Houghton is going to be a snap on a weeks notice? What about NCAA and ESPN’s logistics? There are a good 20 pages of requirements for hosting a regional, and having a year to prepare and plan is per of what makes them operate as efficiently as they do.

Not sure how well balancing logistics on a week’s time is going to go. Or are we going to tell every team in the nation to hold rooms and all the other logistics for a year, after they already have to do that (and have possible issues with blank venue dates or other conflicts), when they already have to do that for conference tourneys.

Also: the FF making more money isn’t a reason to let the first rounds potentially make less money. Unless we’re counting on only top level big ticket programs winning conferences every year (let’s look at this season as evidence that that is a bad call).

3. Those 4 venues host two games each in the first round. And your ticket prices reflect it. 4x2 is 8.

The logistics are done in D-3 Basketball though very quickly. They announce the Sweet 16/Elite 8 hosts on a Sunday and playing on Friday with team's only knowing they qualify for that round on Saturday evening and having to travel thousand miles in some cases. If it can be done at the lower level of NCAA tournaments, it can be done in college hockey.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

I see my reputation in this area precedes me.

Indeed. We haven't always agreed. But I've learned things from you, and it has influenced my thinking. Much appreciated.

There's an easy way to guard against unsuitable buildings to receive the bids, the same way that the NCAA is now dealing with home sites in the women's D-1 basketball tournament. Each venue still has to apply and be vetted as a potential host well prior to the tournament, and if they meet the requirements they are in the pool of potential host sites. If your team is in position to host and you're pre-approved, congratulations you're a host school. If your rink did not make the grade, sorry but them's the breaks. As long as you have enough sites qualify and you don't have to adjust matchups to avoid a lack of suitable buildings, you're golden.

Sounds like a good concept. As long as the "certifications" would last for a period of years, I don't think this would be huge hardship. Perhaps you could certify existing buildings by doing one conference per year, then after six years, repeat the cycle. Presumably new buildings would need to get an immediate review...

Granted, if someone insists that you have to certify all 60 schools every March, that would kill the plan.

While you're here, let me ask you a question. My friend EODS brought up Houghton in a recent post. In your humble opinion, could MTU host a 1st Round NCAA hockey game on short notice? (One visiting team; single game, winner-take-all format; with roughly a week's notice)

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

What makes anyone think that NCAA games on campus would sell out "for sure" - when no one shows up to any of these on-campus conference playoff games?

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

What makes anyone think that NCAA games on campus would sell out "for sure" - when no one shows up to any of these on-campus conference playoff games?

Many (most) schools are on break during the first half of March. By the end of the month, most are back.

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

Many (most) schools are on break during the first half of March. By the end of the month, most are back.

True, but there's more to it than that.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

True, but there's more to it than that.

Of course there may be more than that, but that is the factor you noted. It is one of the major factors at schools with good student support that drive sub-par crowds during the first two rounds of conference tournaments. And that factor would be largely absent by the time the NCAA rolls around. NCAA tournament games are (or should be) bigger deals than conference tournament games and I have zero doubt that hosting at least the first round on campus sites would lead to (generally) full buildings, barring horrible pricing decisions forced on the schools by the NCAA. If big crowds are your priority the only thing that would assure them is higher seeds hosting.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

Of course there may be more than that, but that is the factor you noted. It is one of the major factors at schools with good student support that drive sub-par crowds during the first two rounds of conference tournaments. And that factor would be largely absent by the time the NCAA rolls around. NCAA tournament games are (or should be) bigger deals than conference tournament games and I have zero doubt that hosting at least the first round on campus sites would lead to (generally) full buildings, barring horrible pricing decisions forced on the schools by the NCAA.

This.

If big crowds are your priority the only thing that would assure them is higher seeds hosting.

Give this last one further review.

In my format, the AH Champ & WCHA Champ would get home games. Not always, but those teams are likely to be appealing underdogs who wouldn't get home ice otherwise. And they're schools that don't usually get the opportunity to host an NCAA event. Pair them against a "name brand" school that finished 2nd or 3rd in their conference. Who, for better or worse, steps into the role of Goliath. Those tickets will sell extremely well, don't you think?

Of course I agree that if the Top 8 teams in the Pairwise host, tickets sales will go well. Basking in the warm afterglow of a successful regular season, with an opportunity to do something great on home ice? Ticket buyers love winning.

Many will feel the latter approach is the fairest. But the "small' schools will disagree, with some justification. And we need the support of the small schools to have any chance of making a change.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

While you're here, let me ask you a question. My friend EODS brought up Houghton in a recent post. In your humble opinion, could MTU host a 1st Round NCAA hockey game on short notice? (One visiting team; single game, winner-take-all format; with roughly a week's notice)

The WCHA Championship game is proof that Tech could host an NCAA game. They advanced from the semifinals on a Sunday and hosted the following Saturday.

Tech has great locker room space for a visiting team, there are more than enough hotel rooms proportional to the size of the town. And considering that the majority of teams are outside the 500 mile radius from Houghton, they would be flying on an NCAA charter right into CMX just 7 miles from campus.

TV would come from Wisconsin, where there are at least three production companies within a 6 hour drive for the truck. There have been a half-dozen full blown telecasts from the JMSIA and they worked just fine.

So in short, yes.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

The WCHA Championship game is proof that Tech could host an NCAA game. They advanced from the semifinals on a Sunday and hosted the following Saturday.

Tech has great locker room space for a visiting team, there are more than enough hotel rooms proportional to the size of the town. And considering that the majority of teams are outside the 500 mile radius from Houghton, they would be flying on an NCAA charter right into CMX just 7 miles from campus.

TV would come from Wisconsin, where there are at least three production companies within a 6 hour drive for the truck. There have been a half-dozen full blown telecasts from the JMSIA and they worked just fine.

So in short, yes.

As I thought. But having the specifics available makes for a much stronger post. Well done.

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

Of course there may be more than that, but that is the factor you noted. It is one of the major factors at schools with good student support that drive sub-par crowds during the first two rounds of conference tournaments. And that factor would be largely absent by the time the NCAA rolls around. NCAA tournament games are (or should be) bigger deals than conference tournament games and I have zero doubt that hosting at least the first round on campus sites would lead to (generally) full buildings, barring horrible pricing decisions forced on the schools by the NCAA. If big crowds are your priority the only thing that would assure them is higher seeds hosting.

What do you mean that is the factor I noted? You noted a factor ... I just said attendance was poor. You said a reason. I said it was more than that. What are we missing here?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

I get how that works. That was not my point.

For example, if we were playing in Arizona, I would guess at minimum, we would have 100 fans going. Clearly at any venue, every team gets at least 100 tickets.
Would Arizona State want 20% of fans from Minnesota State in the building, and they have to turn hundreds of their fans away. I don't think so.

well that is now it would work. visiting team gets an allotment. home team gets one.

don't think you can assume it is split evenly, because even now the regionals are not split 25/25/25/25

they would turn away hundred. maybe hundred and half... not hundreds

 

[mookie1995]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

TV would come from Wisconsin, where there are at least three production companies within a 6 hour drive for the truck. There have been a half-dozen full blown telecasts from the JMSIA and they worked just fine..

would never put it past espn to just utilized the jumbletron feed and have a couple "play by play" guys watch the feed and comment from CT

if there is a tech issue, they can run replays of lacrosse

 

[Iwearpurple]

Re: NCAA Hockey Administrators to western fans: Drop Dead

well that is now it would work. visiting team gets an allotment. home team gets one.

don't think you can assume it is split evenly, because even now the regionals are not split 25/25/25/25

they would turn away hundred. maybe hundred and half... not hundreds

I never suggested it was split equally. And if you think that if Arizona State was to host the first round of the NCAA playoffs, at most 650 of their fans would want to attend the game, you are wrong.