Re: Regional Attendance
Do hockey coaches qualify as "hockey people"? They're the main reason we have neutral sites.
Do hockey coaches qualify as "hockey people"? They're the main reason we have neutral sites.
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
hockeyplayer1015
Capt
Re: Regional Attendance
My issue with campus sites: you cannot GUARANTEE better attendance unless we are ALSO going to a 16 to 8 weekend, then the following weekend go 8 to 4 in a best of 3 format.
Sure, if the favorites win, and the home team can have their fans pack the place for 2 games, you do alright/well in several locations. But, what if the host #1 seed loses the first night? Then you're REALLY in a "friends and family" bind, as some of these places are more remote and tougher to get to. Also, suppose SCSU hosted on their big sheet this year, is that now OK for the other teams for a national tournament game?
I really think Easter weekend, on top of some questionable game times and a bit of a pricey ticket on short notice is a major hurdle for attendance. As has been mentioned, you have many folks who go to the Frozen Four regardless of who plays, it's their "big" trip for the season. Maybe some of those folks go to their conference championships, especially if their team is in it. Something has to have the least priority, and with the short notice, regionals are that choice to skip.
I would say, introduce a tiered pricing scheme first. That could very well introduce the casual fan off the streets to boost attendance. The diehards are likely to go regardless, but to boost attendance you need to open it to the casual fans/students, and make it worthwhile for the general fan with no rooting interest.
My issue with campus sites: you cannot GUARANTEE better attendance unless we are ALSO going to a 16 to 8 weekend, then the following weekend go 8 to 4 in a best of 3 format.
Sure, if the favorites win, and the home team can have their fans pack the place for 2 games, you do alright/well in several locations. But, what if the host #1 seed loses the first night? Then you're REALLY in a "friends and family" bind, as some of these places are more remote and tougher to get to. Also, suppose SCSU hosted on their big sheet this year, is that now OK for the other teams for a national tournament game?
I really think Easter weekend, on top of some questionable game times and a bit of a pricey ticket on short notice is a major hurdle for attendance. As has been mentioned, you have many folks who go to the Frozen Four regardless of who plays, it's their "big" trip for the season. Maybe some of those folks go to their conference championships, especially if their team is in it. Something has to have the least priority, and with the short notice, regionals are that choice to skip.
I would say, introduce a tiered pricing scheme first. That could very well introduce the casual fan off the streets to boost attendance. The diehards are likely to go regardless, but to boost attendance you need to open it to the casual fans/students, and make it worthwhile for the general fan with no rooting interest.
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Regional Attendance
The conference tournaments don't need to be the weekend they are...The NCAA conference schedule starts officially so many days before the national championship...if we shift thinks til after the Frozen Four, that just means we start a little later in october.
Re: Regional Attendance
Well that's why you give the day inbetween for the teams to travel. This would allow for a better draw of spectators for the lower seeds and this way teams in the Atlantic Hockey and WCHA actual can have a home game since the Atlantic never has a team in the top 15. Well you also have to be kind of considerate when it comes to the 2 and 3 matchups and the whole point of making it a lower seed, higher seed, higher seed series games is to allow for that fan base to be present at one game at least especially if they don't travel well outside of the area. It just seems this needs to kind of be treated like baseball is and not have it be a one and done kind of tournament until the final 8 or 4. The other idea could be to increase the field to 8 and make it a three day national championship and expand the field to 20 and have 1 seeds automatically qualify and the 5-20 have playin games at home rinks for the higher seed with the sequestered tickets for the away team. Something needs to be changed becausee having regionals in arenas that hold 15,000+ and only getting 5,000 in there is just said and a waste of money that should be used to help college hockey spread. Seeing games played infront of no one does not help promote the sport at all.
Well that's why you give the day inbetween for the teams to travel. This would allow for a better draw of spectators for the lower seeds and this way teams in the Atlantic Hockey and WCHA actual can have a home game since the Atlantic never has a team in the top 15. Well you also have to be kind of considerate when it comes to the 2 and 3 matchups and the whole point of making it a lower seed, higher seed, higher seed series games is to allow for that fan base to be present at one game at least especially if they don't travel well outside of the area. It just seems this needs to kind of be treated like baseball is and not have it be a one and done kind of tournament until the final 8 or 4. The other idea could be to increase the field to 8 and make it a three day national championship and expand the field to 20 and have 1 seeds automatically qualify and the 5-20 have playin games at home rinks for the higher seed with the sequestered tickets for the away team. Something needs to be changed becausee having regionals in arenas that hold 15,000+ and only getting 5,000 in there is just said and a waste of money that should be used to help college hockey spread. Seeing games played infront of no one does not help promote the sport at all.
Re: Regional Attendance
Well...can't speak for all of them. Jack Parker was on the broadcast Saturday night and I KNOW he has been intimately involved in committee decisions. He admitted that he "made a mistake" originally calling for the expansion to 16 teams and the "new" regional format, but he has been trying to get them to switch back to campus sites. So not ALL of the coaches are making what you apparently are intmating decisions that are in the best interests of the game.
Well...can't speak for all of them. Jack Parker was on the broadcast Saturday night and I KNOW he has been intimately involved in committee decisions. He admitted that he "made a mistake" originally calling for the expansion to 16 teams and the "new" regional format, but he has been trying to get them to switch back to campus sites. So not ALL of the coaches are making what you apparently are intmating decisions that are in the best interests of the game.
Re: Regional Attendance
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm reading "expand...expand...expand" and thinking they can't even draw NOW. How are they going to draw with MORE games? Again, the East is different than the West, but let's get people to come to ONE round of regionals before we start asking them to go the THREE games in a "preliminary" round. I just think there's a finite limit to how much people can travel and spend. Expansion isn't the answer to everything. Sometimes people have to admit that they were wrong and think about CONTRACTING. This obsession with "growing" the game is only diluting it. The reality is, it's a niche sport and a regional game. Why do you think kids in Canada play hockey? Because it's COLD and there's ICE. If it were warm and sunny and the ocean was warm, they'd be playing water polo, like Southern California. So why do we think that because we put a game in a warm weather location (and I've already stated that you have to exclude the Frozen Four because it has now become a "destination" for many people who go every year regardless of who is playing) we are going to generate all this incredible interest? And even if we did, why do we want to make fans TRAVEL, when 95% of them would rather go to a game locally? Just to "grow the game" and get a few butts in the seats in some place where college hockey will never catch on? I don't get it. If I didn't grow up in New England, where my dad would flood our patio so we could skate or we had frozen ponds to skate on, why would I ever care about hockey? Most kids follow games that they can play. If you don't live in a cold weather climate, you have shut out everyone except more affluent people, who can afford to pay for ice team in rinks in warm-weather climates.
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm reading "expand...expand...expand" and thinking they can't even draw NOW. How are they going to draw with MORE games? Again, the East is different than the West, but let's get people to come to ONE round of regionals before we start asking them to go the THREE games in a "preliminary" round. I just think there's a finite limit to how much people can travel and spend. Expansion isn't the answer to everything. Sometimes people have to admit that they were wrong and think about CONTRACTING. This obsession with "growing" the game is only diluting it. The reality is, it's a niche sport and a regional game. Why do you think kids in Canada play hockey? Because it's COLD and there's ICE. If it were warm and sunny and the ocean was warm, they'd be playing water polo, like Southern California. So why do we think that because we put a game in a warm weather location (and I've already stated that you have to exclude the Frozen Four because it has now become a "destination" for many people who go every year regardless of who is playing) we are going to generate all this incredible interest? And even if we did, why do we want to make fans TRAVEL, when 95% of them would rather go to a game locally? Just to "grow the game" and get a few butts in the seats in some place where college hockey will never catch on? I don't get it. If I didn't grow up in New England, where my dad would flood our patio so we could skate or we had frozen ponds to skate on, why would I ever care about hockey? Most kids follow games that they can play. If you don't live in a cold weather climate, you have shut out everyone except more affluent people, who can afford to pay for ice team in rinks in warm-weather climates.
Last edited:
I wonder if we just had the conference champions and no at large bids.
West
1. SCSU
2. Michigan
3. Ferris
East
1. Quinnipiac
2. Northeastern
3. RIT
Wednesday
Gm 1: RIT v Michigan
Gm 2: Ferris v Northeastern
Thursday
Gm 3: Qunnipiac v winner game 1
Gm 4: SCSU v winner game 2
Saturday
Gm 5: semifinal winners
It makes the conference tournaments mean something and would raise the level of intensity because a loss means you're done.
The regionals are done and you add 2 sold out games at the Nationals.
Re: Regional Attendance
Pipe dream. But it's not an outrageous suggestion...just never going to be considered in this age where "bigger is better" for everything...
Pipe dream. But it's not an outrageous suggestion...just never going to be considered in this age where "bigger is better" for everything...
And everyone has trigger words, safe spaces, and a trophy.
Re: Regional Attendance
The only reason I like the lower seed hosting one game and the higher seed hosting 2 is:
1) You give the team a day break. Play on Thursday.
2) At this point in the season teams should be able to travel.
3) Yes you don't give the teams alot of time to get acclimated but that's why you give the higher seed the advantage of 2 games in their home rink.
4) Gives the chance of playoff hockey and playoff caliber teams on display in different markets. Allows for the spread of the game.
5) Ticket sales can be split between the two schools either 50-50 if two games or 66-33 if three games. Allows for the revenue to stay at the schools and not the NCAA.
For UND its the perfect worst case scenario. They travel to Boston Wednesday have a practice skate on arrival. Game is played at 6:00 pm East then flight back that night. Day off to recover from travel and day to practice for Northeastern. These guys should know how to travel and deal this late its mostly about getting into a rink and learning the way the puck interacts with the boards and how the ice is to skate on.
The only reason I like the lower seed hosting one game and the higher seed hosting 2 is:
1) You give the team a day break. Play on Thursday.
2) At this point in the season teams should be able to travel.
3) Yes you don't give the teams alot of time to get acclimated but that's why you give the higher seed the advantage of 2 games in their home rink.
4) Gives the chance of playoff hockey and playoff caliber teams on display in different markets. Allows for the spread of the game.
5) Ticket sales can be split between the two schools either 50-50 if two games or 66-33 if three games. Allows for the revenue to stay at the schools and not the NCAA.
For UND its the perfect worst case scenario. They travel to Boston Wednesday have a practice skate on arrival. Game is played at 6:00 pm East then flight back that night. Day off to recover from travel and day to practice for Northeastern. These guys should know how to travel and deal this late its mostly about getting into a rink and learning the way the puck interacts with the boards and how the ice is to skate on.
Re: Regional Attendance
No, not all, just an "Overwhelming Majority" (someone else's words, not mine).
http://www.uscho.com/2015/05/07/ove...es-dont-want-change-for-ncaa-regional-system/
At some point, it might become necessary to change the Regional structure for financial/practical reasons. There's been difficulty getting suitable venues in the west; they've had to resort to pre-determined on-campus sites (Notre Dame last year) or facilities that are way too large (Xcel this year). I believe there was a USCHO article just before the Regionals started that quoted Kristin Fasbender (Director of Championships and Alliances) as saying returning to campus sites is still on the table. But let's not pretend that the reason that we have neutral sites now is because some NCAA bureaucrat wanted it that way, or that the reason that the NCAA has continued to have them despite the difficulties. It's the coaches.
No, not all, just an "Overwhelming Majority" (someone else's words, not mine).
http://www.uscho.com/2015/05/07/ove...es-dont-want-change-for-ncaa-regional-system/
At some point, it might become necessary to change the Regional structure for financial/practical reasons. There's been difficulty getting suitable venues in the west; they've had to resort to pre-determined on-campus sites (Notre Dame last year) or facilities that are way too large (Xcel this year). I believe there was a USCHO article just before the Regionals started that quoted Kristin Fasbender (Director of Championships and Alliances) as saying returning to campus sites is still on the table. But let's not pretend that the reason that we have neutral sites now is because some NCAA bureaucrat wanted it that way, or that the reason that the NCAA has continued to have them despite the difficulties. It's the coaches.
Re: Regional Attendance
Despite the many interesting comments on the thread, we seem to be dealing with a case of collective amnesia here. Just under a year ago at he Coaches' Meetings in Florida, the coaches voted overwhelming to reject a return to campus sites. I'm not going to look up the exact numbers, but vote was 50-something to 6 or 7.
It's rare to have that margin of victory on any contested issue, in the sports world or otherwise. The verdict against the proposed change was crystal clear. But the coaches only told us what they were against, without providing any clue as to what changes they might favor -- making the situation much worse IMHO. The practical result is that any meaningful change from the status quo is highly unlikely.
The coaches' priority is playing the games at sites that are as neutral as possible. Do they specifically want poor atmosphere, for the neutrality that offers? No, I wouldn't go that far. If forced to comment, they'd probably express regret for the poor fan experience. But make no mistake: Neutrality is the priority. Poor fan experience is nothing more than acceptable collateral damage.
You're right that this is an issue, and I agree with your conclusion. Even if the net revenue would be a little lower; even the attendance increase would only be marginal -- every single fan added is worth having.
Coaches aren't the only ones who have a say, but their views make a big difference. And it's very clear that tournament atmosphere is not a priority for the coaches.
Despite the many interesting comments on the thread, we seem to be dealing with a case of collective amnesia here. Just under a year ago at he Coaches' Meetings in Florida, the coaches voted overwhelming to reject a return to campus sites. I'm not going to look up the exact numbers, but vote was 50-something to 6 or 7.
It's rare to have that margin of victory on any contested issue, in the sports world or otherwise. The verdict against the proposed change was crystal clear. But the coaches only told us what they were against, without providing any clue as to what changes they might favor -- making the situation much worse IMHO. The practical result is that any meaningful change from the status quo is highly unlikely.
The coaches' priority is playing the games at sites that are as neutral as possible. Do they specifically want poor atmosphere, for the neutrality that offers? No, I wouldn't go that far. If forced to comment, they'd probably express regret for the poor fan experience. But make no mistake: Neutrality is the priority. Poor fan experience is nothing more than acceptable collateral damage.
MarkEagleUSA
C'mon Q!
Re: Regional Attendance
Some of us had a discussion a couple of weeks ago regarding the ECAC's decision to stream the league playoffs via internet PPV. A common theme to come out of that was that the athletes on the ice deserve better... deserve the broadest exposure they can be given. In this case, I think the atmosphere of a large, loud crowd is also deserved by the participants.
Neutrality doesn't have to come at the expense of the fan experience. I think the easiest place to start is ticket pricing.
Some of us had a discussion a couple of weeks ago regarding the ECAC's decision to stream the league playoffs via internet PPV. A common theme to come out of that was that the athletes on the ice deserve better... deserve the broadest exposure they can be given. In this case, I think the atmosphere of a large, loud crowd is also deserved by the participants.
ThePowerConference
Registered User
Re: Regional Attendance
Some of the ideas on here are so preposterous that its not even remotely close to reality. There are some simple items that can be changed so that attendance goes up and they have been brought up already.
1) No games on Easter
2) Better start times based on time zone
3) Lower ticket prices
4) Sell beer
Some of the ideas on here are so preposterous that its not even remotely close to reality. There are some simple items that can be changed so that attendance goes up and they have been brought up already.
1) No games on Easter
2) Better start times based on time zone
3) Lower ticket prices
4) Sell beer
LordofBrewtown
Registered User
Re: Regional Attendance
Several Different Aspects of Attendance being discussed here.
1) Regarding Ticket prices. I'm all for lower prices & tiered prices, and do think that it will help in general. However, the prices are set before the field is selected. That's also a big factor, because: I believe that it's a calculated risk/decision by the sites/NCAA to go for the big crowd: If they get North Dakota in Fargo or St Paul, Michigan in Detroit, etc, they know the tickets will sell - and they probably get that often enough that their expected $ value from sales is better with the higher ticket prices, even if the expected value of the attendance #'s is worse.
2) I agree that attracting the casual fans could help a lot. Also, making fans care more about college hockey in general instead of just your team. In that regard some ideas to help: A) Lower Ticket prices and/or tiered pricing; B) do NOT go to best 2/3 series - the one and done format appeals to the casual fan, so; C) If ESPN has the rights, put in the next contract that they HAVE to put up a Bracket game/fantasy challenge on their site (heck sponsor a prize/trip to next year's frozen four or something), and highlight it on the front page. People Love Brackets, this could get/generate eyeballs. D) Create a review show for ESPN similar to what the English Premier League has for soccer, say 30 minutes, Sunday night or Monday that shows highlights from past weeks games, get a catchy music theme for it, even if this just shows on ESPNU later at night/early morning reruns - make it easy for them give exposure to the game. If this works, each conference could have their own "show". E) Publicize the regionals locally more...bars/restaurants near the venue need to be aware. F) Consider Moving the season back a week and/or adjusting based on when Easter is each year. Moving everything back a week could mean less competition with basketball. Is there an opportunity to piggyback off of "tournament" momentum? combine this with getting bracket games going - people may just be done/out of their basketball pools & who doesn't want to enter another one/complete a bracket even if you don't know anything. Now, if there's some games locally, not directly up against basketball, and prices are reasonable? Let's go check it out and cheer out picks/an upset on!
Several Different Aspects of Attendance being discussed here.
1) Regarding Ticket prices. I'm all for lower prices & tiered prices, and do think that it will help in general. However, the prices are set before the field is selected. That's also a big factor, because: I believe that it's a calculated risk/decision by the sites/NCAA to go for the big crowd: If they get North Dakota in Fargo or St Paul, Michigan in Detroit, etc, they know the tickets will sell - and they probably get that often enough that their expected $ value from sales is better with the higher ticket prices, even if the expected value of the attendance #'s is worse.
2) I agree that attracting the casual fans could help a lot. Also, making fans care more about college hockey in general instead of just your team. In that regard some ideas to help: A) Lower Ticket prices and/or tiered pricing; B) do NOT go to best 2/3 series - the one and done format appeals to the casual fan, so; C) If ESPN has the rights, put in the next contract that they HAVE to put up a Bracket game/fantasy challenge on their site (heck sponsor a prize/trip to next year's frozen four or something), and highlight it on the front page. People Love Brackets, this could get/generate eyeballs. D) Create a review show for ESPN similar to what the English Premier League has for soccer, say 30 minutes, Sunday night or Monday that shows highlights from past weeks games, get a catchy music theme for it, even if this just shows on ESPNU later at night/early morning reruns - make it easy for them give exposure to the game. If this works, each conference could have their own "show". E) Publicize the regionals locally more...bars/restaurants near the venue need to be aware. F) Consider Moving the season back a week and/or adjusting based on when Easter is each year. Moving everything back a week could mean less competition with basketball. Is there an opportunity to piggyback off of "tournament" momentum? combine this with getting bracket games going - people may just be done/out of their basketball pools & who doesn't want to enter another one/complete a bracket even if you don't know anything. Now, if there's some games locally, not directly up against basketball, and prices are reasonable? Let's go check it out and cheer out picks/an upset on!
LordofBrewtown
Registered User
MarkEagleUSA
C'mon Q!
Re: Regional Attendance
Not sure there's anything the NCAA can do about that except explore everything being Friday-Saturday when the Regionals fall on Easter weekend. While it would not help attendance, they could even look at Thu-Fri, Fri-Sat during the holiday.
That's the place to start IMHO.
Re: Regional Attendance
But I'm not sure that the tickets prices are THAT much of an issue. I mean, I'm going to miss a regional that my team is playing in because of a $40 ticket? That amounts to $1.33/ week. To me, the bigger issue is the travel. It's HIGHLY unlikely that I am going to spend $1000 to travel to St. Paul and then the same or more two weeks later to go to Tampa. The travel expenses are 15-20 times the cost of a ticket, so location is the most important factor to me. If somebody can't save $3-4 / week to go to a game ONCE a year, then it's just not a top priority.
But I'm not sure that the tickets prices are THAT much of an issue. I mean, I'm going to miss a regional that my team is playing in because of a $40 ticket? That amounts to $1.33/ week. To me, the bigger issue is the travel. It's HIGHLY unlikely that I am going to spend $1000 to travel to St. Paul and then the same or more two weeks later to go to Tampa. The travel expenses are 15-20 times the cost of a ticket, so location is the most important factor to me. If somebody can't save $3-4 / week to go to a game ONCE a year, then it's just not a top priority.
