fightingsiouxfan16
New member
Re: Regional Attendance
But that should be helping the sport not hurting it.
But that should be helping the sport not hurting it.
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.
Regional Attendance
- Thread starter ticapnews
- Start date
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Regional Attendance
Aramark had (maybe still has) the contract with SCSU when I was there in the 90's. They kept putting out dirty dishes in the stack of clean dishes. I wrote them a threatening letter because my neighbor's grandmother was a state rep - not that it would've mattered. Regardless, I received a prompt 8:00AM phone call the next day pleading with me not to write that letter and a promise that they'd do better.
Better is a subjective term on this matter.
Aramark had (maybe still has) the contract with SCSU when I was there in the 90's. They kept putting out dirty dishes in the stack of clean dishes. I wrote them a threatening letter because my neighbor's grandmother was a state rep - not that it would've mattered. Regardless, I received a prompt 8:00AM phone call the next day pleading with me not to write that letter and a promise that they'd do better.
Better is a subjective term on this matter.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Regional Attendance
They are not required to show the entire Hockey tournament...they choose to, they used to syndicate it all out...
Re: Regional Attendance
I shudder to even contemplate something worse.
If you think Aramark is bad, you should have experienced Servomation (which was the vendor when I was in school back in the .......'s)
I shudder to even contemplate something worse.
Re: Regional Attendance
FWIW, I personally remember attending the 1999 West Regional in Madison, and the 2000 West Regional at Mariucci, both of which I simply walked in, walked over to center ice and picked out whatever seat I wanted.
The attendance records seem to suggest differently. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/frozen_4/2015-16/007-attendance.pdf
FWIW, I personally remember attending the 1999 West Regional in Madison, and the 2000 West Regional at Mariucci, both of which I simply walked in, walked over to center ice and picked out whatever seat I wanted.
Re: Regional Attendance
See...be thankful. What you haven't experienced won't hurt you...
See...be thankful. What you haven't experienced won't hurt you...
FireKnight
Let's go Tech!
Re: Regional Attendance
That's the difference in market. At West Point, we pay $15 for a chair back seat and $10 for bleachers. Even in Potsdam, premium seating is only $15. I paid $10 per ticket for GA to Appleton to see the Clarkson/SLU playoff series. I live about 90 miles from Albany, so the trip isn't bad, but why would I pay $100 for the 3 game session to see 4 schools for which I have only a passing interest, when I can pay $20 to see 2 of the best playoff games in a great atmosphere like Appleton where my team is playing. You can throw in the cost of my night of drinking after the Clarkson loss in game 2 and the Sergi's fat bag and I'm still not in $100. Out west, they are used to paying $35-40 per game, so I think the regional hit seems a lot less but they still don't draw.
The NCAA has to find the right balance between pricing, promotion, and attendance to keep the regionals afloat. They insist on new paint and new boards for the regionals, no sponsorship, and no beer. Those all cost the venue money and, in Albany and St. Paul's case, they are BIG venues. Maybe it makes sense to lower the cost to increase attendance but will lowering the cost increase attendance enough to bring back the revenue?
That's the difference in market. At West Point, we pay $15 for a chair back seat and $10 for bleachers. Even in Potsdam, premium seating is only $15. I paid $10 per ticket for GA to Appleton to see the Clarkson/SLU playoff series. I live about 90 miles from Albany, so the trip isn't bad, but why would I pay $100 for the 3 game session to see 4 schools for which I have only a passing interest, when I can pay $20 to see 2 of the best playoff games in a great atmosphere like Appleton where my team is playing. You can throw in the cost of my night of drinking after the Clarkson loss in game 2 and the Sergi's fat bag and I'm still not in $100. Out west, they are used to paying $35-40 per game, so I think the regional hit seems a lot less but they still don't draw.
The NCAA has to find the right balance between pricing, promotion, and attendance to keep the regionals afloat. They insist on new paint and new boards for the regionals, no sponsorship, and no beer. Those all cost the venue money and, in Albany and St. Paul's case, they are BIG venues. Maybe it makes sense to lower the cost to increase attendance but will lowering the cost increase attendance enough to bring back the revenue?
purpleinnebraska
Well-known member
Re: Regional Attendance
??? Which western teams are you talking about? MSU-M people aren't used to paying $35-40 per game. We occasionally have premium games near that amount, but that's just when we know we can gouge Gopher fans.
??? Which western teams are you talking about? MSU-M people aren't used to paying $35-40 per game. We occasionally have premium games near that amount, but that's just when we know we can gouge Gopher fans.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Regional Attendance
SCSU games are between $25-35; Gopher tickets were priced up to $70 this year, depending upon the opponent, causing a minor revolt. Perhaps you've read about their poor attendance figures this year?
Re: Regional Attendance
My two cents.
Who scheduled these games on Easter weekend?
Maybe have the top 8 seeds host a two out of three series. If their home rink is not big enough they choose one in their area that is big enough.
Two out of three series because the Number 1 seeds are getting knocked off too frequently and i would rather see the best teams play than Cinderella teams. If Northeastern had a bad 1st game they can regroup and come back and play like they had the previous 20 games.
Speaking of that how about all the games being two out of three ( will never happen ) so we are more likely to see the best college hockey team win it all.
Then an east and west regional that is reseeded.
Then the Frozen 4.
My two cents.
Who scheduled these games on Easter weekend?
Maybe have the top 8 seeds host a two out of three series. If their home rink is not big enough they choose one in their area that is big enough.
Two out of three series because the Number 1 seeds are getting knocked off too frequently and i would rather see the best teams play than Cinderella teams. If Northeastern had a bad 1st game they can regroup and come back and play like they had the previous 20 games.
Speaking of that how about all the games being two out of three ( will never happen ) so we are more likely to see the best college hockey team win it all.
Then an east and west regional that is reseeded.
Then the Frozen 4.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Regional Attendance
Yeah, no kidding! Usually it's the Frozen Four being played on Easter weekend!
Re: Regional Attendance
Based on what I saw this weekend when watching the gams on TV - why would anyone pay anything more than face value for these games to see them in person? You have to think you could walk into the game after purchasing a ticket from a scalper a short time after faceoff for a significantly reduced price.
Based on what I saw this weekend when watching the gams on TV - why would anyone pay anything more than face value for these games to see them in person? You have to think you could walk into the game after purchasing a ticket from a scalper a short time after faceoff for a significantly reduced price.
Re: Regional Attendance
I realize this is not a regional, but three of us attended the ECAC Conference Playoffs in Lake Placid, NY. We had a great time and they had what we thought were decent crowds there. Three of the teams there were not even from NY and they had decent attendance (4600-4700). We are actually Massachusetts fans but went there for the hockey and the historical aspect of the venue. We also like St. Lawrence & Dartmouth. This year they sold beer at the ECAC playoffs in Lake Placid, yet when we went to the NE Regionals in Worcester a week or so later we were told they couldn't serve beer do to NCAA rules. If that's the case where were the so called NCAA rules the week before in Lake Placid. Also I know that you can, or used to be able to get beers at the UM-Lowell games at Tsongas Center , and a limited number of beers at the BU games in Agganis Arena. Just wondering why the differences? They're all NCAA games.
I realize this is not a regional, but three of us attended the ECAC Conference Playoffs in Lake Placid, NY. We had a great time and they had what we thought were decent crowds there. Three of the teams there were not even from NY and they had decent attendance (4600-4700). We are actually Massachusetts fans but went there for the hockey and the historical aspect of the venue. We also like St. Lawrence & Dartmouth. This year they sold beer at the ECAC playoffs in Lake Placid, yet when we went to the NE Regionals in Worcester a week or so later we were told they couldn't serve beer do to NCAA rules. If that's the case where were the so called NCAA rules the week before in Lake Placid. Also I know that you can, or used to be able to get beers at the UM-Lowell games at Tsongas Center , and a limited number of beers at the BU games in Agganis Arena. Just wondering why the differences? They're all NCAA games.
MarkEagleUSA
C'mon Q!
Re: Regional Attendance
I'm sure the NCAA didn't intentionally schedule on Easter. This was the weekend for them and just also happened to be Easter.
The 2013 Regionals were also Easter weekend. I spent Easter Sunday at a bar in Providence watching a Blackhawks game while waiting for our 7:30 start.
I'm sure the NCAA didn't intentionally schedule on Easter. This was the weekend for them and just also happened to be Easter.
Re: Regional Attendance
I know I'm late to this party but this neutral regionals need to stop. The Northeast and East regionals work because the amount of schools that are within driving distance works. The only problem with these regionals though is the travel base is not as high when you consider the size of normal school arenas. I have an unfair opinion on this being a Grand Forks area resident and seeing the REA full at 11,000+ each night even without school in secession. Heck for exhibition games with the U18 and Manitoba College the Ralph still gets 8,000+. With all the coverage that ESPN can do for other sports on ESPNU getting camera crews out to campuses for home NCAA playoff games won't be an issue so Camera crew availablity is a dumb arguement. The integretity of the game being played may be unfair put if the close to godly NCAA can't come in and say to put a cap on the home team getting seats until day X to allow for the other school to get seats that allows for a 3 to 1 to 2 to 1 ratio if all tickets sell then that should be fine. Another point to this is why not allow for a 3 game series in the first round and have a final destination location for the final 8 teams on a Thursday Friday and championship of Sunday. I heard today listening to a Twin cities radio station to allow for a three game series in which the lower seed hosts game one on a Thursday and games 2 and 3 are played at the higher seeds building on Saturday and Sunday. This would allow for less home ice advantage in having all games played at one campus and gives fans more chances to see the games and less of a burden going to 3 in one city for the lower seed. With only 37784 total attendance registered you could easily achieve that at 8 different arenas the first night. You stretch those games into series playoffs instead and you could have potentially 100000+ if you get series that go 3 games.
All I can say is that it needs to change. College hockey is not the same as College Basketball. Hockey is a special sport that certain parts of the population understands compared to Basketball being country wide. The general public outside of 50 miles of campus locations don't care about these schools and its not fair to just have regionals on the East coast and Minnesota. Why not reward the team with a better pairwise record and give them there playoff game much like the playoff system for FCS football.
I know I'm late to this party but this neutral regionals need to stop. The Northeast and East regionals work because the amount of schools that are within driving distance works. The only problem with these regionals though is the travel base is not as high when you consider the size of normal school arenas. I have an unfair opinion on this being a Grand Forks area resident and seeing the REA full at 11,000+ each night even without school in secession. Heck for exhibition games with the U18 and Manitoba College the Ralph still gets 8,000+. With all the coverage that ESPN can do for other sports on ESPNU getting camera crews out to campuses for home NCAA playoff games won't be an issue so Camera crew availablity is a dumb arguement. The integretity of the game being played may be unfair put if the close to godly NCAA can't come in and say to put a cap on the home team getting seats until day X to allow for the other school to get seats that allows for a 3 to 1 to 2 to 1 ratio if all tickets sell then that should be fine. Another point to this is why not allow for a 3 game series in the first round and have a final destination location for the final 8 teams on a Thursday Friday and championship of Sunday. I heard today listening to a Twin cities radio station to allow for a three game series in which the lower seed hosts game one on a Thursday and games 2 and 3 are played at the higher seeds building on Saturday and Sunday. This would allow for less home ice advantage in having all games played at one campus and gives fans more chances to see the games and less of a burden going to 3 in one city for the lower seed. With only 37784 total attendance registered you could easily achieve that at 8 different arenas the first night. You stretch those games into series playoffs instead and you could have potentially 100000+ if you get series that go 3 games.
All I can say is that it needs to change. College hockey is not the same as College Basketball. Hockey is a special sport that certain parts of the population understands compared to Basketball being country wide. The general public outside of 50 miles of campus locations don't care about these schools and its not fair to just have regionals on the East coast and Minnesota. Why not reward the team with a better pairwise record and give them there playoff game much like the playoff system for FCS football.
Re: Regional Attendance
This was discussed a couple of days ago. There is no choice. The NCAA seems to have this obsession with not "going up against" the basketball Final Four; thus, we are FORCED into taking a week off between the regionals and the Frozen Four. So you couldn't play them next weekend. Pushing everything back to have the regionals two weekends from now (after the Final Four) and then the Frozen Four a week after that is probably not feasible either, because then you would have three weeks between the conference tournaments and the regionals.
Bottom line, if the NCAA cared enough, they would do something about it. Obviously they don't. It's a "throwaway" sport. If they depended on the revenue, you could draw one of two conclusions:
1) They would try to maximize their revenue
2) They are being run by a bunch of near-sighted morons
You can decide which answer is correct...
This was discussed a couple of days ago. There is no choice. The NCAA seems to have this obsession with not "going up against" the basketball Final Four; thus, we are FORCED into taking a week off between the regionals and the Frozen Four. So you couldn't play them next weekend. Pushing everything back to have the regionals two weekends from now (after the Final Four) and then the Frozen Four a week after that is probably not feasible either, because then you would have three weeks between the conference tournaments and the regionals.
Bottom line, if the NCAA cared enough, they would do something about it. Obviously they don't. It's a "throwaway" sport. If they depended on the revenue, you could draw one of two conclusions:
1) They would try to maximize their revenue
2) They are being run by a bunch of near-sighted morons
You can decide which answer is correct...
Last edited:
Re: Regional Attendance
Yes I think that with the home 2 out of 3 series the visiting team should be given the opportunity to purchase half of the tickets. If the game went to 3 games at The Ralph you would have 33000+ attendance right there.
I don't know about playing the first game at an eastern teams rink and then all those people trying to get back to Grand Forks, Denver or Minneapolis for the next two games though.
Yes I think that with the home 2 out of 3 series the visiting team should be given the opportunity to purchase half of the tickets. If the game went to 3 games at The Ralph you would have 33000+ attendance right there.
I don't know about playing the first game at an eastern teams rink and then all those people trying to get back to Grand Forks, Denver or Minneapolis for the next two games though.
Re: Regional Attendance
Agree with almost EVERYTHING you said, except for the part about playing the 1st game in the rink of the lower-seeded team and then switching to the higher seed for game 2/3. Can't do it...impossible logistics-wise. That's why I like what I proposed earlier...RETAIN the neutral sites but keep LOCAL teams near home. Now, I realize this is next to impossible in the West. In the East, for example, if Maine is playing Yale, it's about a 9 hour drive between the two campuses (not considering traffic on I-95, probably the most congested road in the country - especially given these games are on weekends). You have to have all three (potentially) games in the same rink. That's the advantage of getting the higher seed. But, otherwise, you are right. Something has to change, and the decisions should be made by HOCKEY people, not football and basketball people and/or ADs who don't even know or care about hockey. I've been harping on this for years but it doesn't matter because I don't have any connections to people that matter.
Agree with almost EVERYTHING you said, except for the part about playing the 1st game in the rink of the lower-seeded team and then switching to the higher seed for game 2/3. Can't do it...impossible logistics-wise. That's why I like what I proposed earlier...RETAIN the neutral sites but keep LOCAL teams near home. Now, I realize this is next to impossible in the West. In the East, for example, if Maine is playing Yale, it's about a 9 hour drive between the two campuses (not considering traffic on I-95, probably the most congested road in the country - especially given these games are on weekends). You have to have all three (potentially) games in the same rink. That's the advantage of getting the higher seed. But, otherwise, you are right. Something has to change, and the decisions should be made by HOCKEY people, not football and basketball people and/or ADs who don't even know or care about hockey. I've been harping on this for years but it doesn't matter because I don't have any connections to people that matter.
Re: Regional Attendance
That's why you keep the regionals REGIONAL. Eastern teams stay East and Western teams stay West. Then two from each meet in the Frozen Four. It was done that way years ago until hockey tried to be like basketball and seed EVERYONE 1 through whatever. It doesn't work in hockey, primarily for all of the reasons everyone has stated above: namely, attendance. The fan bases aren't as large, and people won't go unless it is held in an area where college hockey is popular. It might work for the Frozen Four, because that has become a celebrity thing like the Final Four. People go just to say they went. That's why they can get away with Anaheim and Tampa. But, for any playoffs before that, well, you saw the attendance with your own eyes as well as I did...I don't want to go to a BU/Lowell regional playoff game in Phoenix.
That's why you keep the regionals REGIONAL. Eastern teams stay East and Western teams stay West. Then two from each meet in the Frozen Four. It was done that way years ago until hockey tried to be like basketball and seed EVERYONE 1 through whatever. It doesn't work in hockey, primarily for all of the reasons everyone has stated above: namely, attendance. The fan bases aren't as large, and people won't go unless it is held in an area where college hockey is popular. It might work for the Frozen Four, because that has become a celebrity thing like the Final Four. People go just to say they went. That's why they can get away with Anaheim and Tampa. But, for any playoffs before that, well, you saw the attendance with your own eyes as well as I did...I don't want to go to a BU/Lowell regional playoff game in Phoenix.