NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?

[bronconick]

Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?

Hell, the only reason I've even gone to GR the last couple of times is because I know it won't sell well unless Michigan/MSU are there, and those people buy up in the last 2-3 weeks. I order mine in January, get 5th row seats on the blue line, and convince myself that the cost isn't so bad for that location. (The fact that Western was "hosting" all but the last one was a bonus point. If Western ever made a freaking tournament, I wanted to do my small part to encourage them to keep bidding so we could possibly one day be the 4 seed hosting a regional and ****ing people off. Alas, such is a pipe dream.) I sure as hell wouldn't pay the same for upper deck seating. Cutting that upper deck seat price in half is the absolute quickest way to fix some of the issues.

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?

I've attended the last 2 regionals hosted in Grand Rapids, and they drew 7000-8000 with Michigan, Michigan State, and ND playing there in some combination. And GR has more things to do than either Ft. Wayne or Albany, though I wouldn't consider it a prime site for overall points-of-interest-draw.

Not to quibble too much, but in the three regionals in Grand Rapids Notre Dame has been placed, the average "official" attendance has been 4854. The most attended single session had 5325.

 

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Regionals - Time to Go Back to 2 Sites?

And now with the tournament at a non-traditional site many of us are also concerned that instead of a national championship what we may see in Ford Field is empty seats, bad ice, and as a result a substandard product. Which is why many regular Frozen Four attendees are taking this one off!

Well said!

The whole issue of holding the Frozen Four at "non traditional sites" is a valid one to have. Ford Field was a stunt decision that I hated from the start (and I've been going to FF's since the early '80s) but places like Tampa -- yes I'm all for a nice warm venue for a change, and I'll almost certainly go, but what good in the big picture is it going to do for college hockey?

It's not like people living in regions of the country where college hockey doesn't exist are all of a sudden going to think "wow, what a great sport, I'm going to watch it the rest of the year!" That'll never happen, ever. They don't have teams there to watch, most college hockey TV coverage is done on a local, not national, basis...it's mystifying to me what they think they will get out of it. What's the point of "broadening the sport's scope" when it just isn't there in the majority of the nation to begin with?

As much as I love it, this sport is what it is -- a regional sport with a comparatively small number of teams. And to be honest, it's always going to be that way. I don't want to say it's an "inbred sport," but it is to some degree. How many of us are fans whose parents were fans and we follow it because of where we are or the schools we went to or live near? I'd say it's got to be the majority, easily.

The NCAA only cares about the $$, absolutely, but it's interesting, to me at least, that they don't seem to have a firm grasp on what this sport really is -- or ever will be. They can't see that there isn't enough support out there to make 4 regionals viable in terms of attendance, but have done nothing about it, while they seem to be going out of their way to inconvenience the very fans -- those people who walked up in Providence and started the whole FF "phenomena" decades ago -- who started this all for them.

It's certainly an interesting conversation to have...