Opinion Poll on NCAA playoff structure

[StateofHockey78]

Curious to get people's opinions about the current 16 team playoff format. Couple things I see as opportunities to enhance the postseason -

1. Add play-in games for the low seeds. Something similar to basketball, take 3 bubble teams and the AHA auto bid and have them duke it out for the 15-16 spots. I know the hard part here is you'd need to add a weekend in between the conference playoffs and the 16 team bracket, Although perhaps a mid-week play-in could be possible?

2. I'd love to see a best of 3 for the frozen four and have something more similar to the NHL where it's a series. Again this would require games to be played over the course of two weekends, so maybe it's not realistic. I'd just love to see a series and imagine that would be incredible to have the very best go at it more than once. The NCAA could improve the chances of this if they were locating the FF in a more geographic friendly location vs. FLORIDA.

 

[Lost_Husky]

The top 16 teams getting in is sufficient for the number of D1 hockey schools.

Play in games water down the invite and wear down the team that had to "play-in". Look at NCAA basketball. How many people care about those play in games? They almost don't count unless you are a fan of one of those schools or have a very strict pick'em pool/bookie/contest. If hockey tourney is going to expand, just expand to 32 and be done with it.

My biggest grip is host locations. There is no good reason why regionals are placed so for away from hockey bases. Look where the teams are, Minnesota, Michigan, and New England. Put a regional there or where travel is relatively easy and there are hockey fans (ie Denver, Chicago, New York, Buffalo,...). The forth location can move around, but keep them near college hockey fans. Drop the prices a bit so people can convince their non-college hockey fan friends/family to go with them for a weekend of hockey.

I don't have a problem with the FF being in Vegas, Phoenix, or Florida. There are enough snowbirds/numerous flights/things to do it doesn't matter. For me, geography makes more of an issue for regionals.

 

[Timothy A]

4 round robin locations, the 4 winners go to the FF.

 

[brassbonanza]

Hard pass on a best of 3 Frozen Four.

 

[StateofHockey78]

The top 16 teams getting in is sufficient for the number of D1 hockey schools.

Play in games water down the invite and wear down the team that had to "play-in". Look at NCAA basketball. How many people care about those play in games? They almost don't count unless you are a fan of one of those schools or have a very strict pick'em pool/bookie/contest. If hockey tourney is going to expand, just expand to 32 and be done with it.

My biggest grip is host locations. There is no good reason why regionals are placed so for away from hockey bases. Look where the teams are, Minnesota, Michigan, and New England. Put a regional there or where travel is relatively easy and there are hockey fans (ie Denver, Chicago, New York, Buffalo,...). The forth location can move around, but keep them near college hockey fans. Drop the prices a bit so people can convince their non-college hockey fan friends/family to go with them for a weekend of hockey.

I don't have a problem with the FF being in Vegas, Phoenix, or Florida. There are enough snowbirds/numerous flights/things to do it doesn't matter. For me, geography makes more of an issue for regionals.

Good points. I think the play-ins could be hosted by the higher pairwise position so you get a good atmosphere. The fact that we've had two 15 seeds win it all recently should be evidence adding a few more schools is a good idea. 32 sounds good in a way, but when I look at who is ranked around that level many don't deserve a spot. We'd be adding a lot of teams at or below .500 then.

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

The NCAA has a policy of 25% threshold for NCAA tournaments. Hockey is already above that threshold.

Regionals and Frozen Fours are awarded on a bid process. Facilities/local groups submit a bid, and ticket prices are based on those bids. The NCAA gets a cut based on the RFP they put out, and the facilities have to cover the costs of putting on the event. Many facilities/local groups have come to the realization that it is a difficult hill to climb. That will also limit the number of locations you would get to bid if you move the games to a two weekend Frozen Four. How many facilities are going to want to tie up two weekends? How many hockey fans are going to go to the Frozen Four if it is over two weekends? If you are a fan of one of the teams, do you have the time off from work to take two weekends off, only to possibly have your team beaten on the first weekend?

You also need to remember these athletes are students as well. Taking more time away from campus with what is already the longest NCAA season will be a hard sell to university presidents, I think.

 

[StateofHockey78]

The NCAA has a policy of 25% threshold for NCAA tournaments. Hockey is already above that threshold.

Regionals and Frozen Fours are awarded on a bid process. Facilities/local groups submit a bid, and ticket prices are based on those bids. The NCAA gets a cut based on the RFP they put out, and the facilities have to cover the costs of putting on the event. Many facilities/local groups have come to the realization that it is a difficult hill to climb. That will also limit the number of locations you would get to bid if you move the games to a two weekend Frozen Four. How many facilities are going to want to tie up two weekends? How many hockey fans are going to go to the Frozen Four if it is over two weekends? If you are a fan of one of the teams, do you have the time off from work to take two weekends off, only to possibly have your team beaten on the first weekend?

You also need to remember these athletes are students as well. Taking more time away from campus with what is already the longest NCAA season will be a hard sell to university presidents, I think.

Thanks for the education. Pretty logical feedback on the FF as well, I can't dispute the challenges that exist. Seems like the only way to expand based on the financial piece would have to come at the cost of having host schools, which creates all kinds of unfair issues. I still think there's a way to get a couple more schools in the mix, but appears highly unlikely anytime soon.

 

[LordofBrewtown]

Personally, I don't like expanding beyond 16 teams/am against any "play-in" games. But then, I don't like the play-in games in basketball either. 15/64 is perfect. I'd hold any hockey expansion until we have at least 80 teams playing D1. I think making the tournament should mean something/be special.

I also would really dislike the best 2 out of 3. I like the tournament as it is, with the possible exception of changing how regional hosts are selected/going to on-campus sites or higher seeds hosting; and I think the NCAA could do a better job marketing the tournament/piggybacking off of basketball and bracket madness to expand hockey popularity - maybe by changing the timing of the tournament/season by a week or so.

 

[StateofHockey78]

Personally, I don't like expanding beyond 16 teams/am against any "play-in" games. But then, I don't like the play-in games in basketball either. 15/64 is perfect. I'd hold any hockey expansion until we have at least 80 teams playing D1. I think making the tournament should mean something/be special.

I also would really dislike the best 2 out of 3. I like the tournament as it is, with the possible exception of changing how regional hosts are selected/going to on-campus sites or higher seeds hosting; and I think the NCAA could do a better job marketing the tournament/piggybacking off of basketball and bracket madness to expand hockey popularity - maybe by changing the timing of the tournament/season by a week or so.

I think you all have convinced me forget the series and play-ins likely dont work. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... Thanks for all the comments, helps get through boring work days.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

OK, here's your hybrid.

First weekend - First Round
On Campus best of 3 series, 8 teams advance

Second weekend - Quarterfinal & Semifinal
2 four team regionals, 1 team advances from each

Third weekend - NCAA Finals
Neutral site, best of 3 series

Positives: Takes the same amount of time with the 10/11 day layoff between the weekends of the current tournament eliminated (with the possibility of going one day longer with a third game in the Final). Gets attendance at 8 sites in the first weekend. Only needs three neutral sites per year instead of five.

Negatives: Single game elimination format in between series formats. Possibility of one conference dominating the home ice in round 1 if no autobids are used for home sites.

 

[tylerzx2002]

As others have noted play-in games might be a bit much, especially when we have conference tournaments acting as de facto play-in games for the NCAA Tournament.

I'm a bit surprised the NCAA hasn't tried to add some extra tournament teams but that probably won't happen until a lot more schools add D1 teams.

 

[StateofHockey78]

OK, here's your hybrid.

First weekend - First Round
On Campus best of 3 series, 8 teams advance

Second weekend - Quarterfinal & Semifinal
2 four team regionals, 1 team advances from each

Third weekend - NCAA Finals
Neutral site, best of 3 series

Positives: Takes the same amount of time with the 10/11 day layoff between the weekends of the current tournament eliminated (with the possibility of going one day longer with a third game in the Final). Gets attendance at 8 sites in the first weekend. Only needs three neutral sites per year instead of five.

Negatives: Single game elimination format in between series formats. Possibility of one conference dominating the home ice in round 1 if no autobids are used for home sites.

Not bad. Even for those who don't like the best of 3 series final, you could leave that at one game and accomplish the improved "regional" locations.