Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again
Also, every team travels like crap compared to North Dakota fans!
See...I think you just hit on something there. IMO, that's the reason the NCAA is "considering" (supposedly) going back to campus sites. It might be OK for the "wealthy" basketball fans (or perhaps there are just more of them so a "fraction" is still a lot larger than the hockey fan base) to travel THREE TIMES to see their team play, but it's not very feasible in hockey. Playing a round on campus sites would increase attendance (well, purportedly - I hesitate to say the word "increase" as it pertains to attendance at all given the last few years' attendance history)...well, it would at least REDUCE the amount of travel.
The other issue is regional. In the East, EVERY regional is within a two-hour drive of my house (and most less than an hour). You have 20 Division 1 schools that play hockey in New England alone. This results in not only being able to spend less to follow your team, it frees up time and money in the event that your team DOES make it to the Frozen Four. Many people (I know I can't do it because of work) cannot take two out of three weekends "off" to travel to regionals and then the FF. It's even WORSE in the West, where the majority of people have to travel EVERYWHERE.
I don't know what the answer is. Some will say "But if you have it on campus sites, in the West the ONLY people that don't have to fly are fans of the home team." But in the East, it's relatively easy to go to almost ANY of the onsite venues because of the close proximity of everything here. So maybe you keep the "neutral" regionals in the East and have it on campus sites in the West?
The reality is, until the sport becomes more than a niche sport, I'm afraid attendance is just going to be what it is...low. (And don't tell me how we are "growing" the sport all over the Milky Way...because the attendance figures don't bear that out). You may get PLAYERS from Arizona and Texas and California (thanks to freeon, which allows them to freeze water in 100 degree temperatures), but that doesn't mean that COLLEGE HOCKEY is popular there. A good percentage of people who GO to a game grew up PLAYING the game. Also, if your school doesn't play it, you're not going to watch it. More people watch water polo at UCLA and don't even THINK about hockey. Also, it's much easier to shoot a ball through a hoop. The only cost is a ball and finding a playground. The cost of playing hockey, given the equipment, ice time, etc. is insane. Hockey will NEVER be as popular as basketball (I mention basketball specifically because it is played the same time of year and hockey - comparisons to baseball and football are irrelevant). The fact that rosters are littered with people from areas that never used to produce hockey players should not be interpreted as "growing" the game. Yeah, people will go to a Frozen Four in Anaheim or Tampa. But look who's going. Fans of the school, of where the game is played, or, in some cases, because it's a novelty and they'll never see college hockey for another ten years.