NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The only problem with a Friday is that you have to either play the early game while everyone is still at work or the late game after many have gone to bed - bad for ratings either way.

Well they play the FF on a thursday at 4:30-5 and 8-8:30 what would be the difference?

 

[Onion Man]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

It's been tried. From the 1991-92 season through the 2001-02 season, 6 teams were sent to both an East and West regional. Attendance sucked unless the regional happened to be played on the home ice of one of the participants, like Michigan or Minnesota.

I know, but the top teams got byes, etc. They also put them in smaller arenas like Worcester. I think college hockey is much bigger now than it was in the 90's (remember when the NCAA final was an afternoon game), so it may be something to consider. Personally, I like it the way it is.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

It's time to face reality. On-campus sites (such as the first round in this proposal) is the only thing that's going to get good attendance.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

But here's a thought... How about a 3 game series for round 2 also?

This would almost guarantee a very deserving FF, would eliminate the attendance issues at the Regionals and would create a ton of buzz locally for the teams involved. The extra weekend needed is already built into the schedule, so that wouldn't be an issue. Why am I not on that committee?

Works for me.

Frankly, I find it INCONCEIVABLE! that you are not on that committee.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

How about a 3 game series for round 2 also?

If both the first and second rounds were best of three on home ice of the higher seeds, you may as well just shrink the tournament to four teams and start with the frozen four because 90-95% of the time, you'd probably see the four #1 seeds advance under this scenario.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

If both the first and second rounds were best of three on home ice of the higher seeds, you may as well just shrink the tournament to four teams and start with the frozen four because 90-95% of the time, you'd probably see the four #1 seeds advance under this scenario.

I strongly doubt it would be that certain, given the vagaries of the seeding process. If you've got 8 teams which had to win two games the previous weekend advancing to the second round, you've got 8 solid teams. Winning two games on the road is very conceivable for good teams.

You'd have the four best teams in the nation at the Frozen Four. As it should be.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I strongly doubt it would be that certain, given the vagaries of the seeding process. If you've got 8 teams which had to win two games the previous weekend advancing to the second round, you've got 8 solid teams. Winning two games on the road is very conceivable for good teams.

You'd have the four best teams in the nation at the Frozen Four. As it should be.

From the article that prompted this thread:
"The last time the NCAA tournament had a best-of-three series in the first round was from 1988-91. Top seeds reached the Frozen Four 87.5 percent of the time under that format, which included 12 teams."
Out of the 16 best of 3 series played involving the top seeds, only 2 resulted in upsets (LSSU lost to Clarkson in 3 games in 1991, and Michigan State lost to BU in 1990 in 3 games).

The underlying point in all of this is that while road upsets happen, they generally don't happen twice in a row. Even with the top seeds not having byes in the 16 team tournament, I don't see that 87.5% success rate dropping much if the first two rounds were best of 3 on home ice.

Note: the upset rate was much higher in the first round - 5 out of 16 series were won by the lower seed - which makes sense since these were the equivalent of today's 8-9 / 7-10 / 6-11 / 5-12 first round games.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

From the article that prompted this thread:
"The last time the NCAA tournament had a best-of-three series in the first round was from 1988-91. Top seeds reached the Frozen Four 87.5 percent of the time under that format, which included 12 teams."
Out of the 16 best of 3 series played involving the top seeds, only 2 resulted in upsets (LSSU lost to Clarkson in 3 games in 1991, and Michigan State lost to BU in 1990 in 3 games).

The underlying point in all of this is that while road upsets happen, they generally don't happen twice in a row. Even with the top seeds not having byes in the 16 team tournament, I don't see that 87.5% success rate dropping much if the first two rounds were best of 3 on home ice.

Note: the upset rate was much higher in the first round - 5 out of 16 series were won by the lower seed - which makes sense since these were the equivalent of today's 8-9 / 7-10 / 6-11 / 5-12 first round games.

I don't find the 87.5% number compelling. It is true that it is harder to pull an upset with a three game road series, but two things are much different from that time period. First, the top seeds had only one round to win, which meant that they had technically fewer chances to lose. Mathematically, if you add another round played, you increase the odds that a favored team will be upset by providing another opportunity for it to happen.

More importantly, college hockey is several orders of magnitude more balanced now than it was 20 years ago. The best teams were loaded with top players, and lower-ranked teams really were inferior. The talent base now is much more spread out than it was even a few years ago, and far more than two decades ago. The teams that would travel to an opponent's rink are simply better teams than the ones that made the trip 20 years ago, and have a greater chance to compete.

Stauber1, it is admirable that you like college hockey the way it is, but it is not wrong for people to want the sport to grow; in fact, some believe that growth is essential for the sport to be healthy. A sport that does not have growth potential is a sport that athletic departments find it easy to eliminate. If you start losing teams like Bowling Green, the NCAA is going to start chopping NCAA tournament games. Nobody wants that.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't find the 87.5% number compelling. It is true that it is harder to pull an upset with a three game road series, but two things are much different from that time period. First, the top seeds had only one round to win, which meant that they had technically fewer chances to lose. Mathematically, if you add another round played, you increase the odds that a favored team will be upset by providing another opportunity for it to happen.

To add to that point, the second round road teams are going to be better than the first. I think the road-team winning percentage goes up in the second round.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Although can you imagine the *****ing that will go on when DU, Wisco, UND, or MN finish 9th in the PWR and Cornell finishes 8th

I don't think it'd be any worse then it is now, and it'd be mostly casual fans and newbies on here who don't understand the PWR and Simple Math.

Also, what if, say, Miami hosted a Super Regional and got bounced in the first game. How many people on campus are going to see a potential Boston College vs. Maine regional final matchup in Oxford, OH? I think this idea has failure written all over it.

Want to know a fun fact about the Super-Regionals....each team plays one game no matter what. So, you're arguing something that won't exist.

Winning two games on the road is very conceivable for good teams.
.

Conversely though, winning two games at home is even more conceivable for good teams. Upsets will happen, sure, but not nearly as much as they have recently...and it will probably be around the same rate as the first round was in 88-91.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't find the 87.5% number compelling. It is true that it is harder to pull an upset with a three game road series, but two things are much different from that time period. First, the top seeds had only one round to win, which meant that they had technically fewer chances to lose. Mathematically, if you add another round played, you increase the odds that a favored team will be upset by providing another opportunity for it to happen.

While that is true, I think I can safely rule out the possibility of a #4 advancing to the Frozen Four for a long time if the first two rounds become best of threes. I certainly wouldn't expect RIT to win two straight road series against Denver and UNH, nor would I have expected Bemidji to win two straight series at Notre Dame and Cornell.

More importantly, college hockey is several orders of magnitude more balanced now than it was 20 years ago.

Maybe so, but it doesn't mean the teams are going to win a lot on the road. Here are the home ice records of the top 8 teams from this past season:
Denver 15-3-3
Miami 14-4-2
UW 15-3-3
BC 14-2-0
UND 13-5-3
SCSU 12-4-5
Cornell 12-3-1
Bemidji 12-3-0
Total: 107-27-17 (.765)

Out of the eight first round series that would involve these teams, I see one or two upsets happening at most.

And of course, keep in mind that the upset rate was only around 30% in the first round between '88-'91 when the 3-6/4-5's squared off.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

While that is true, I think I can safely rule out the possibility of a #4 advancing to the Frozen Four for a long time if the first two rounds become best of threes. I certainly wouldn't expect RIT to win two straight road series against Denver and UNH, nor would I have expected Bemidji to win two straight series at Notre Dame and Cornell.

Maybe so, but it doesn't mean the teams are going to win a lot on the road. Here are the home ice records of the top 8 teams from this past season:
Denver 15-3-3
Miami 14-4-2
UW 15-3-3
BC 14-2-0
UND 13-5-3
SCSU 12-4-5
Cornell 12-3-1
Bemidji 12-3-0
Total: 107-27-17 (.765)

Out of the eight first round series that would involve these teams, I see one or two upsets happening at most.

And of course, keep in mind that the upset rate was only around 30% in the first round between '88-'91 when the 3-6/4-5's squared off.

Maybe not, but until 2009 a #4 seed had never made it and we heard very little arguement about them not being there. One or two upsets are great and would probably happen every year, but you wouldn't see 5 or 6 like we have recently. If 87% of the top seeds advanced in those dates you mentioned how is the upset rate 30%? The upset rate would be higher in todays game because there is far more talent in todays era than there was back then, that is just fact.

 

[Chris_NH]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I like this idea. It would definitely help with attendance issues. I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it, though, so I'm sure someone will point out some downside I haven't considered.

I think lower ticket prices would help a whole lot more than re-machining the whole tournament. In fact, the 'Super Regional' sites might still suffer with attendance because ticket prices would likely be higher than they are now. The two things that hurt attendance are:
1.) High prices
2.) Little advance notice on which teams will be where. With only a week's notice, airplane tickets are going to be fiercely expensive.

I think re-jiggering the tournament is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on that big old ocean liner that went down after hitting something.

 

[ts8801]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Is the loss of upsets really all that horrible? This is the national tournament, the best teams should be playing in the final. And we also have to be real RIT was hardly a #4 seed, what was their RPI before the playoffs 31, which would make them a 8 seed if the tourney was expanded that far. I love seeing upsets every now and then but I would rather see the best teams advancing. Also the home ice advantage would be reduced when conference teams play each other.

 

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

It's been tried. From the 1991-92 season through the 2001-02 season, 6 teams were sent to both an East and West regional. Attendance sucked unless the regional happened to be played on the home ice of one of the participants, like Michigan or Minnesota.

or Worcester... it works... otherwise they wouldn't have even bothered with 4x4

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I think lower ticket prices would help a whole lot more than re-machining the whole tournament. In fact, the 'Super Regional' sites might still suffer with attendance because ticket prices would likely be higher than they are now. The two things that hurt attendance are:
1.) High prices
2.) Little advance notice on which teams will be where. With only a week's notice, airplane tickets are going to be fiercely expensive.

I think re-jiggering the tournament is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on that big old ocean liner that went down after hitting something.

Yep, and worse of all, people are far more likely to buy nosebleed seats, and then move down into an empty lower bowl. The NCAA should slash Tickets on lower demand regionals, and block off access to upper levels until they've got enough tickets sold to fill lower levels first.

 

[Slap Shot]

If 87% of the top seeds advanced in those dates you mentioned how is the upset rate 30%?

Perhaps he's alluding to making it to the FF, which doesn't preclude upsets from the first round.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Is the loss of upsets really all that horrible? This is the national tournament, the best teams should be playing in the final.

The chance to make it to the FF is what keeps the non-traditional powers going. RIT's run will result in a higher profile for that team among prospects, which means a better RIT team in the future, which is good for college hockey (increasing the level of play is always good). It also means a higher profile for college hockey in Rochester, which is also good for college hockey (witness the poor attendance at the regional a few years ago).

The "haves" already have so many advantages, why give them two more they really shouldn't need, at the expense of keeping the "have-nots" healthy?


Powers &8^]

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The "haves" already have so many advantages, why give them two more they really shouldn't need, at the expense of keeping the "have-nots" healthy?


Powers &8^]

The "haves" don't. The teams that finish in the top 8 in the PWR do. The two are mutually exclusive. Want to host the first round? Win.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The chance to make it to the FF is what keeps the non-traditional powers going. RIT's run will result in a higher profile for that team among prospects, which means a better RIT team in the future, which is good for college hockey (increasing the level of play is always good). It also means a higher profile for college hockey in Rochester, which is also good for college hockey (witness the poor attendance at the regional a few years ago).

The "haves" already have so many advantages, why give them two more they really shouldn't need, at the expense of keeping the "have-nots" healthy?


Powers &8^]

Yeah, I don't think too many people nation-wide realize what that two game winning streak did for RIT hockey on campus and throughout the entire Rochester area. The increase in attention that team brought to themselves, the NCAA Tournament and the Frozen Four was stunning. Prior to this year's post season, I nearly always had to explain to people what the Frozen Four was and I had to let them in on the fact that RIT was now in Division I (and what that actually meant, for that matter). Occasionally, people who knew I was a big RIT hockey fan would ask me how they were doing as though there were no way to find out anything about them otherwise (and in a way, that was true). And even on campus, there was an awareness, but outside of the couple thousand regular game attendees, there didn't seem to be much interest (although it had increased significantly since the move to D-I). Now, however... WHAT A DIFFERENCE! The campus came together and was totally energized with school spirit like never before. How many other schools had hundreds of students, faculty, staff, and alumni outside in the cold welcoming their team's bus back to campus at 2:00 am after winning only a regional championship? Probably not many. Even more amazingly, the Rochester community was energized by the team's heroics. The media attention from all TV stations, the newspaper and sports talk radio was immense for nearly two weeks. Previous to that, if they got an actual article and highlights on the news, it was a good weekend. Now, many many more people here are aware of the formerly hidden gem we had at Ritter every season. Now I can't wear an RIT hockey shirt or hat anywhere without someone commenting on it, and actually knowing what they're talking about. I have also never seen as much Orange dotted throughout crowds at Rochester Amerks games as I see now. These seem to be people who were always Amerks fans, but now are excited about another team representing the Flower City on a national stage. The entire city kind of fell in love with these guys. There were viewing parties for the tournament games at multiple bars throughout the area, not just around the campus.
It's all been rather incredible and can't help but increase the profile of NCAA hockey in a city that was primarily a Buffalo Bills / New York Yankees / Syracuse Orange / Minor league baseball and hockey city. But under the new proposed format, this may never happen again (and not just in Rochester). Not that it would be impossible, but highly unlikely.
It would just be a shame if that had not happenned for RIT and Rochester. Although, on a personal note, I am now feeling much more pressured to get my tickets early since the local demand for tickets is going way way up. I can see the one home game at Blue Cross Arena selling out in '10-'11, which would be amazing at 11,500 people (something the Amerks haven't even done in a few seasons, btw).