What's new
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

Re: Regional Attendance

That was 2001 in Grand Rapids, #3 Michigan beat #2 seeded St. Cloud (only a mild upset) - and there were a LOT of Michigan State fans rooting for St. Cloud in that building that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Ice_Hockey_Tournament

beating St. Cloud in 2002 at Yost was #4 seed Michigan over #5 seed St. Cloud (not an upset)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Ice_Hockey_Tournament

always helps to have your facts straight

He probably meant 2003, when the #3 seeded Michigan team hosted the #2 seed Maine and then the #1 seed Colorado College. Or 1998 when #3 seeded Michigan hosted #2 seeded North Dakota.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Now please explain how you get this done, make sure arena dates are clear, get ESPN on board, advertise and promote and make all of the necessary arrangements in 2 days time.

Considering the ratings for college hockey, I'm sure ESPN would rather skip the regionals altogether :p
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Many but not all of these arenas are setting empty and an extra weekend full of hockey fans would be welcome, we have known for quite some time who the top 4-8 teams are it is not like the planning would start on selection Sunday.

Yeah, team #3 starts promoting an event in early February...and then...OOPS! ESPN starts lining up crews to be in this city, but then...OOPS
 
Re: Regional Attendance

He probably meant 2003, when the #3 seeded Michigan team hosted the #2 seed Maine and then the #1 seed Colorado College. Or 1998 when #3 seeded Michigan hosted #2 seeded North Dakota.

or 1994 and 1996 when Michigan State hosted as #6 seeds, but lost their 1st game both times - so very few people remember.
1999 (Wisconsin) & 2000 (Minnesota) when neither host team made the tournament (ghost towns)

In any case, a #3 beating a #2 is not really an upset any more than those 8/9 games are in basketball.

;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Regional Attendance

Don't worry, it gets done magically because he really REALLY REALLY wants it to be done this way.

just a quick snap of the fingers

Had not thought of the logistics at other campuses, we would just mark out that date at The Ralph cause we assume we would be a #1 seed. :D:D
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Yeah, team #3 starts promoting an event in early February...and then...OOPS! ESPN starts lining up crews to be in this city, but then...OOPS

I can just imagine ESPN booking Clay Matvic on a flight to Omaha then the 0-8 collapse happens...
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Had not thought of the logistics at other campuses, we would just mark out that date at The Ralph cause we assume we would be a #1 seed. :D:D

Since the advent of the 16 tournament in 2003 North Dakota has NOT been a #1 seed in: 2014, 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003

They have been a #1 seed in the other 6 years. This % is probably as good as any other program,(save perhaps BC?!)
but illustrates that they have NOT been a #1 seed more often than not.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Since the advent of the 16 tournament in 2003 North Dakota has NOT been a #1 seed in: 2014, 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003

They have been a #1 seed in the other 6 years. This % is probably as good as any other program,(save perhaps BC?!)
but illustrates that they have NOT been a #1 seed more often than not.

Jeez didja see the smiley faces after the note
 
Re: Regional Attendance

I was going to say the ratings don't matter because they are so small. However the Notre Dame -Michigan game Friday night had 115,000 viewers while the other two games had 50-55 thousand which is a regular season number.
 
I was going to say the ratings don't matter because they are so small. However the Notre Dame -Michigan game Friday night had 115,000 viewers while the other two games had 50-55 thousand which is a regular season number.

If it weren't profitable, they would be doing it.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

If it weren't profitable, they would be doing it.

They're doing it to complete their contract so they can broadcast the Bouncy Ball version of the Frozen Four - the whatchamacallit tournament.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Correct. However it's very difficult to see how that would be compatible with the coaches' vote last spring. (meaning a future Compton bid)

And while I don't recall the particulars, wasn't the selection of Compton something of a one time compromise? I believe the compromise was justified by arguments like "It's a neat new building that everyone will enjoy checking out;" "We don't have a satisfactory competing bid;" and so on. Maybe someone from ND recalls more of the details.

The details were that nobody else in the Midwest put in a bid.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

That is a perfect example of the quirk that I see in that fanbase : Their hatred of Minnesota appears to exceed their love of their own team.

Just look at it this way for a second, though. When it's your own team involved in a close game, it's hard to really "cheer" much, because you are usually on pins and needles and just trying to exhale. I think what he was saying was that they could really "let loose" and be raucous, because it was FUN. It didn't really matter if Holy Cross won or not, because it wasn't "their" team. It's easier to make noise in that situation; thus, the entire place was going bananas, as opposed to that sort of "nervous" murmur that occurs when the game involving your own team could go either way.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

I did, but the point you made got me thinking. If the fighting SiouxHawk Roughriders can't be counted on as a #1 seed, then no one can.....

I do agree with you though if they let a campus site bid for a regional and the home team misses the tourney like MN did it would not be good.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

If it weren't profitable, they would be doing it.

Hockey, fencing, bowling, lacrosse, softball, soccer, even baseball are not profitable for ESPN(U). They cover those sports because they have to in order to get the NCAA basketball contract, which is incredibly profitable for the network. So when all is said and done, ESPN comes out way, way, way ahead. All they care about is keeping costs on the other broadcasts as low as possible. I am shocked they bother sending four broadcast teams to cover regionals. Just have Barry and Bucci stay in Bristol and call games remotely, like NBCSN did with the Hockey East tournament.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Just look at it this way for a second, though. When it's your own team involved in a close game, it's hard to really "cheer" much, because you are usually on pins and needles and just trying to exhale. I think what he was saying was that they could really "let loose" and be raucous, because it was FUN. It didn't really matter if Holy Cross won or not, because it wasn't "their" team. It's easier to make noise in that situation; thus, the entire place was going bananas, as opposed to that sort of "nervous" murmur that occurs when the game involving your own team could go either way.

Don't really know if we were cheering for Holy Cross or against Gophers, we said during the game I bet this is the loudest game Holy Cross has ever heard. I mean why wouldn't you cheer against the #1 seed, if they get beat you don't have to play them and your road gets easier. We totally expected if we beat Michigan that we would have to play the #1 seeded Gophers. Seeing the Gophers; your biggest rivals get beat just was icing on the cake.
 
Back
Top