P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
That BC-Fairbanks home and home would be something...
That BC-Fairbanks home and home would be something...
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 Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
- Thread starter HockeyMan2000
- Start date
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
It's not a "knee jerk reaction" to discuss this. You also can't pin it on the economy either. Generally speaking, regional attendance has been poor now for a few years running -- really you can make the argument that since they expanded it to 4 sites, the ticket sales have, let's say, not been impressive at all except for a few specific times. It just does not seem there is an appetite here to bring in big crowds for this format. Certainly not at the prices they are mandating for the "product" itself -- they simply don't match up.
And playing to 4,000-seat crowds in 10,000 seat venues doesn't "showcase" this sport -- at all. In fact it does it a disservice, playing in front of sparse crowds with inflated ticket prices. How does the current format make our sport "look good" by doing that?
Also, never I was thinking when I posted this thread about reducing it back to 12 or campus sites. Neither of those scenarios is ever going to happen.
As people like Priceless have wrote above there are ways to do 8-team per-site. In terms of it being "ideal" -- as I originally wrote, there would be challenges, finding a building, probably having one group of teams play 1 day in front of another -- but the benefits outweigh the issues there IMO. The product of having more games and teams in two locales as opposed to four, with fans not as spread out, would undoubtedly drive up attendance. Also would justify the ticket pricing whereas now consumers have, by and large, shown that they are rejecting what they're offering as a product.
It's not a "knee jerk reaction" to discuss this. You also can't pin it on the economy either. Generally speaking, regional attendance has been poor now for a few years running -- really you can make the argument that since they expanded it to 4 sites, the ticket sales have, let's say, not been impressive at all except for a few specific times. It just does not seem there is an appetite here to bring in big crowds for this format. Certainly not at the prices they are mandating for the "product" itself -- they simply don't match up.
And playing to 4,000-seat crowds in 10,000 seat venues doesn't "showcase" this sport -- at all. In fact it does it a disservice, playing in front of sparse crowds with inflated ticket prices. How does the current format make our sport "look good" by doing that?
Also, never I was thinking when I posted this thread about reducing it back to 12 or campus sites. Neither of those scenarios is ever going to happen.
As people like Priceless have wrote above there are ways to do 8-team per-site. In terms of it being "ideal" -- as I originally wrote, there would be challenges, finding a building, probably having one group of teams play 1 day in front of another -- but the benefits outweigh the issues there IMO. The product of having more games and teams in two locales as opposed to four, with fans not as spread out, would undoubtedly drive up attendance. Also would justify the ticket pricing whereas now consumers have, by and large, shown that they are rejecting what they're offering as a product.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
Hmm, no brainer and the NCAA. Any more questions?
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
This is the key. The NCAA has a bunch of conflicting imperatives here. They want to make money, but they want a fair tournament. They want fans, but they want neutral sites.
They're tripping over their own rules. It's a recession, lower the price - make travel shorter, and admit that you'll have to give up some home ice advantage to make things work.
The other thing would be to delay the regionals a week to give fans more time to make travel arrangements, but that's not a great idea in my mind, either.
This is the key. The NCAA has a bunch of conflicting imperatives here. They want to make money, but they want a fair tournament. They want fans, but they want neutral sites.
They're tripping over their own rules. It's a recession, lower the price - make travel shorter, and admit that you'll have to give up some home ice advantage to make things work.
The other thing would be to delay the regionals a week to give fans more time to make travel arrangements, but that's not a great idea in my mind, either.
aparch
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
And absolutely cost is the driving factor keeping fans away. The NEED to lower the price.
It's 16k for hockey.
And absolutely cost is the driving factor keeping fans away. The NEED to lower the price.
rufus
rock and roller
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
The other thing messing things up is since they went to four regional sites, you really don't have any idea where your team will be playing until they do the selection show. With two sites, you had a pretty good idea if your team was gonna make the tourney, which site they were gonna be at, and would often have tickets and other arrangements lined up well in advance.
The other thing messing things up is since they went to four regional sites, you really don't have any idea where your team will be playing until they do the selection show. With two sites, you had a pretty good idea if your team was gonna make the tourney, which site they were gonna be at, and would often have tickets and other arrangements lined up well in advance.
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
I don't think it's knee jerk, either, considering it comes up every year. Poor attendence predates the economic bust.
I'm completely in favor of it. The regional experience went downhill when they went to 4 teams, no doubt about it. These days, I'll consider going (1) if my team is there, and (2) if the location is convenient. Otherwise, forget about it. If the regionals were more of a draw, I'd be more willing to travel -- even if my team wasn't there.
If that isn't going to happen, then the NCAA needs to seriously consider making single-game tickets available. I'd be in favor of releasing them if the regional isn't sold out (ha!), with maybe a 30% premium over a multi-day ticket -- i.e., (full ticket/3)*1.3
I don't think it's knee jerk, either, considering it comes up every year. Poor attendence predates the economic bust.
I'm completely in favor of it. The regional experience went downhill when they went to 4 teams, no doubt about it. These days, I'll consider going (1) if my team is there, and (2) if the location is convenient. Otherwise, forget about it. If the regionals were more of a draw, I'd be more willing to travel -- even if my team wasn't there.
If that isn't going to happen, then the NCAA needs to seriously consider making single-game tickets available. I'd be in favor of releasing them if the regional isn't sold out (ha!), with maybe a 30% premium over a multi-day ticket -- i.e., (full ticket/3)*1.3
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
Yes. Back in the day, it was less of a guessing game because there was some predicatbility to which seeds got flipped to the other regional.
Yes. Back in the day, it was less of a guessing game because there was some predicatbility to which seeds got flipped to the other regional.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
I think another key could be smaller facilities. But are there enough viable 7-8000 seat arenas out there that are not campus rinks? Baseball learned to build smaller parks. No one will ever build an 70,000 seat baseball stadium like Cleveland or Philadelphia again. If these games were destined for buildings that had 7000 seats, it may drive up early demand and get more people to go ahead and buy tickets. People were laughing out loud at Notre Dame when the first promos were read at the rink early in the season encouraging us to "get our tickets now because the games are sure to sell out." Lets face it, 5000 people at Van Andel looks bad. 5000 people in an arena with 7000 seats doesn't so much. And getting people in the habit of buying tickets early has its advantages.
I also think blockski makes a good point about conflicting goals out of the NCAA. You probably can't satisfy every need with where college hockey is as a sport now.
Price of the tickets is as good a place to start as any. With Notre Dame out, I was a lot less likely to go. Had tickets been cheaper, I would have seriously considered making the 90 mile trip. But nearly 50 dollars is a lot to ask a fan with no real rooting interest in any of the four teams. I have seen a number of commercials recently from Michigan Speedway and they all talk about how they have lowered prices. Some of the seats there are now $25.00. A few years ago when NASCAR was at the height of its popularity, I think the cheapest seat in the house was $40.00.
I think another key could be smaller facilities. But are there enough viable 7-8000 seat arenas out there that are not campus rinks? Baseball learned to build smaller parks. No one will ever build an 70,000 seat baseball stadium like Cleveland or Philadelphia again. If these games were destined for buildings that had 7000 seats, it may drive up early demand and get more people to go ahead and buy tickets. People were laughing out loud at Notre Dame when the first promos were read at the rink early in the season encouraging us to "get our tickets now because the games are sure to sell out." Lets face it, 5000 people at Van Andel looks bad. 5000 people in an arena with 7000 seats doesn't so much. And getting people in the habit of buying tickets early has its advantages.
I also think blockski makes a good point about conflicting goals out of the NCAA. You probably can't satisfy every need with where college hockey is as a sport now.
Price of the tickets is as good a place to start as any. With Notre Dame out, I was a lot less likely to go. Had tickets been cheaper, I would have seriously considered making the 90 mile trip. But nearly 50 dollars is a lot to ask a fan with no real rooting interest in any of the four teams. I have seen a number of commercials recently from Michigan Speedway and they all talk about how they have lowered prices. Some of the seats there are now $25.00. A few years ago when NASCAR was at the height of its popularity, I think the cheapest seat in the house was $40.00.
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
Great point - cheaper tickets will definitely enable the locals to come out and see the games - not just traveling fans.
Great point - cheaper tickets will definitely enable the locals to come out and see the games - not just traveling fans.
aparch
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
Here's the link to the rinks in the US, to use as a guide to rinks that would be available. that are in the 7k to 10k range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indoor_arenas_in_the_United_States
A discussion came up about 17k rinks that could be viable Frozen Four locations.
Here's the link to the rinks in the US, to use as a guide to rinks that would be available. that are in the 7k to 10k range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indoor_arenas_in_the_United_States
UNH_Alum_In_CT
Registered User
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
When I went to the UNH football game at Ball State this past September, we stayed in Indy. During the tour of the Raceway, the guide pointed out all these grass berms where people could sit. They had inexpensive tickets for that area and allowed people to bring in their own coolers. The reason -- they didn't want to shut anybody out of attending the event because of the cost of the ticket/concessions!!! Maybe the NCAA big shots need to take a ride down the street and talk to their neighbors!!!
When I went to the UNH football game at Ball State this past September, we stayed in Indy. During the tour of the Raceway, the guide pointed out all these grass berms where people could sit. They had inexpensive tickets for that area and allowed people to bring in their own coolers. The reason -- they didn't want to shut anybody out of attending the event because of the cost of the ticket/concessions!!! Maybe the NCAA big shots need to take a ride down the street and talk to their neighbors!!!
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
I used to be a pretty big NASCAR fan, attended races at Indy, Michigan and Talladega every year. As NASCAR was growing they were a pretty respectable sport when it came to fan friendliness. Race tickets weren't always dirt cheap, but most tracks had some pretty inexpensive seats, parking was always free, they were always very accommodating when it came to bringing in coolers full of stuff (infield or grandstand seats) and many tracks were famous for reasonably priced concessions. After 9-11 things changed. A lot. They began to get pretty restrictive in the size and type of coolers you could lug in, tickets doubled and tripled in price, good deals on bad seats (like infield passes) disappeared, and since they didn't let you bring in as much of your own stuff, a lot of the concession prices skyrocketed. Guess what. I (and none of the other 6 or 7 people I used to attend with) go to races any longer. Up until 2003 or so you never saw an empty seat at a NASCAR race. Now literally 10s of thousands go unsold. I think this is an argument that largely begins and ends with how much it costs to go to the games.
When I went to the UNH football game at Ball State this past September, we stayed in Indy. During the tour of the Raceway, the guide pointed out all these grass berms where people could sit. They had inexpensive tickets for that area and allowed people to bring in their own coolers. The reason -- they didn't want to shut anybody out of attending the event because of the cost of the ticket/concessions!!! Maybe the NCAA big shots need to take a ride down the street and talk to their neighbors!!!
I used to be a pretty big NASCAR fan, attended races at Indy, Michigan and Talladega every year. As NASCAR was growing they were a pretty respectable sport when it came to fan friendliness. Race tickets weren't always dirt cheap, but most tracks had some pretty inexpensive seats, parking was always free, they were always very accommodating when it came to bringing in coolers full of stuff (infield or grandstand seats) and many tracks were famous for reasonably priced concessions. After 9-11 things changed. A lot. They began to get pretty restrictive in the size and type of coolers you could lug in, tickets doubled and tripled in price, good deals on bad seats (like infield passes) disappeared, and since they didn't let you bring in as much of your own stuff, a lot of the concession prices skyrocketed. Guess what. I (and none of the other 6 or 7 people I used to attend with) go to races any longer. Up until 2003 or so you never saw an empty seat at a NASCAR race. Now literally 10s of thousands go unsold. I think this is an argument that largely begins and ends with how much it costs to go to the games.
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
What about a double elimination tourney between the 4 teams? Guaranteeing two games would make more people likely to make a trip. A team winning the first two would have day 3 off and be well rested for day 4 thus giving a distinct advantage to today's system regional winner but forcing them to a third game. Losers of day one would have to play 4 days to win. Sounds like a fair second chance.
What about a double elimination tourney between the 4 teams? Guaranteeing two games would make more people likely to make a trip. A team winning the first two would have day 3 off and be well rested for day 4 thus giving a distinct advantage to today's system regional winner but forcing them to a third game. Losers of day one would have to play 4 days to win. Sounds like a fair second chance.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
The problem with a double elimination tournament is just that... you'd need 4 days. This isn't baseball where you can play two in one day. Its not that it couldn't be done but i don't think an arena would like those logistics.
The problem with a double elimination tournament is just that... you'd need 4 days. This isn't baseball where you can play two in one day. Its not that it couldn't be done but i don't think an arena would like those logistics.
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
I would like to see tourney completed over a 3 week period.
First round..Friday, Saturday and if neccessary Sunday. The better seeded team gets the home ice for a best of 3 series.
2nd round..same thing. Road teams that pull off the upset get a 2-3 days at home before going back on the road on Wednesday.
The 2nd round winners advance to the Frozen Four and you play at the picked site.
I like this for a couple of reasons....
1. It protects the better seeded teams. The bounce of the puck in one game format can be unpredictable so force the lower seeded teams to win 2 games on the road. 4 #1 seeds have been upset in round 1 of the tourney over the last 2 years.
2. You get sellouts rather than half or 3/4 empty neutral site arenas. Fort Wayne on TV was sad to look at. Pick your favorite school..it's hard to imagine the crowds would not turn out.
3. I would think that the NCAA Would make more money. I guess I could be proven wrong on that. I just assume this would be the case because more ticket sales and cheaper rent.
4. Plus you create an atmosphere. If you have been to an NCAA men's basketball and a men's hockey tourney game...the atmosphere is night and day. There is just little buzz more times than not at these neutral hockey sites.
I would like to see tourney completed over a 3 week period.
First round..Friday, Saturday and if neccessary Sunday. The better seeded team gets the home ice for a best of 3 series.
2nd round..same thing. Road teams that pull off the upset get a 2-3 days at home before going back on the road on Wednesday.
The 2nd round winners advance to the Frozen Four and you play at the picked site.
I like this for a couple of reasons....
1. It protects the better seeded teams. The bounce of the puck in one game format can be unpredictable so force the lower seeded teams to win 2 games on the road. 4 #1 seeds have been upset in round 1 of the tourney over the last 2 years.
2. You get sellouts rather than half or 3/4 empty neutral site arenas. Fort Wayne on TV was sad to look at. Pick your favorite school..it's hard to imagine the crowds would not turn out.
3. I would think that the NCAA Would make more money. I guess I could be proven wrong on that. I just assume this would be the case because more ticket sales and cheaper rent.
4. Plus you create an atmosphere. If you have been to an NCAA men's basketball and a men's hockey tourney game...the atmosphere is night and day. There is just little buzz more times than not at these neutral hockey sites.
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
You don't necessarily get a sellout.
http://www.uscho.com/box/?date=20080328&vis=msu&home=cc&gender=m
You don't necessarily get a sellout.
http://www.uscho.com/box/?date=20080328&vis=msu&home=cc&gender=m
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
I already commented on the cost being the issue.
Other discussions from campus sites to two sites to double elimination all go backward as far as I am concerned. Have been going to the tournament since '82 and have seen the transition from 2 games total goals to best 2 out of 3 to 2 regional sites to 4. Honestly I like the 4 sites! And I like single elimination.
The 2 sites with a Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Saturday is complex, and to ask fans to commit several days for hotels and restaurants is silly, that's what the frozen four is for.
In terms of campus sites agree with others many facilities are to small.
Lower the ticket prices and we'll rebound with bigger crowds. Watching start of BC-Yale in Worcester and crowd again is small despite 2 New England teams within close proximity.
I already commented on the cost being the issue.
Other discussions from campus sites to two sites to double elimination all go backward as far as I am concerned. Have been going to the tournament since '82 and have seen the transition from 2 games total goals to best 2 out of 3 to 2 regional sites to 4. Honestly I like the 4 sites! And I like single elimination.
The 2 sites with a Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Saturday is complex, and to ask fans to commit several days for hotels and restaurants is silly, that's what the frozen four is for.
In terms of campus sites agree with others many facilities are to small.
Lower the ticket prices and we'll rebound with bigger crowds. Watching start of BC-Yale in Worcester and crowd again is small despite 2 New England teams within close proximity.
FredDavenport
Registered User
Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?
any guesstimates on how many are in the DCU Center for the BC-Yale game tonight?
any guesstimates on how many are in the DCU Center for the BC-Yale game tonight?