What's new
By:
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

willythekid said:
Says the guy whose every post is about either North Dakota or it's conference...
Click to expand...

You know what? That is actually a fair point. So I guess I should probably explain myself : I used to support that team but over the years there were some things that gradually turned me off to them. First and foremost was the obsession with the Gophers. That one always annoyed me but I tried my best to ignore it. Later on we had not one but two ugly examples of poor sportsmanship that involved North Dakota players trying to instigate a fight with Minnesota players after a game in the handshake line. That made me start to come to grips with the fact that maybe I'm not supporting the team that best reflects the style of hockey that I most appreciate. The straw that broke the camel's back was the removal of the Fighting Sioux nickname followed by the formation of the NCHC.

When they have success there is a part of me that is still happy for my many friends and relatives who continue to support that team. I still have a great appreciation for the Sioux in a historical context from the WCHA era, but the Fighting Hawks of the NCHC just don't do it for me.

I have made the comments that I've made out of frustration as a reaction to the above mentioned things that have rubbed me the wrong way, but now that I've been called on it in such a way that has caused me to look myself in the mirror I can objectively see how it might make me appear to an outsider. Now that I have gotten it out of my system I will try to be better than that moving forward.

Thank you for helping me see it that way.
 
Last edited:
ticapnews said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not exactly sure what you're talking about, yes it's a package deal but college basketball isn't a part of that deal...CBS/TBS has that deal...
 
Shirtless Guy said:
Not exactly sure what you're talking about, yes it's a package deal but college basketball isn't a part of that deal...CBS/TBS has that deal...
Click to expand...

ESPN has a major NCAA deal for sports other than Men's hoops. I believe the hockey part is a piece of the Women's hoops contract.

Found it http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7357065/ncaa-espn-agree-tv-deal-2023-24
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Shirtless Guy said:
Not exactly sure what you're talking about, yes it's a package deal but college basketball isn't a part of that deal...CBS/TBS has that deal...
Click to expand...

ESPN has basketball contracts but they're negotiated with the conferences. CBS also has its own college basketball deals with individual conferences (and the deal with the NCAA for the basketball tournament). Those deals are more like the football contracts. I think some of the basketball deals are negotiated together with the football packages.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

I just don't get why they don't treat hockey like baseball. Top seeds host Regionals and Super Regionals. In Super Regionals its a best of 3 series and then its 8 teams going to Omaha. Just bit the bullet and do the three game series at a school with top seed and give the school the option of moving the game if they think tickets are going to increase. The schools that host should more than likely be locked up before the conference tournaments. Then have a 3 day event in a city. If having 4 games in one arena in one night is an issue look to move some games to local arenas to help accommodate the event. If you make the city destination worthy you still have the potential to get fans to stay even if their team is not in the games. Maybe involve some kind of ticket company to allow buying back of tickets if your team isn't in the game for the championship. Space out games on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday to allow the championship teams fan base to show up. The Regionals at neutral sites just makes the sport look bad. The NCAA needs to realize this is not like Basketball. Heck maybe they should create a city or two cities that always host the frozen 4. Maybe Las Vegas or Tampa/Miami that way its more of a destination attraction as well as a hockey attraction. This way fans all over already are going to those cities then hold x amount of tickets in reserve for the fan bases say 3,000 per school that leaves around 8,000 for general public before fan tickets are for sale.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Sean Pickett said:
The article states ESPN has the international rights for men's basketball, which is likely a big money maker. It is interesting that women's ice hockey is part of the CBS package and not the ESPN package.

Sean
Click to expand...

You got to believe that the NCAA told ESPN that either you do all sports if you want the major marquee sports.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

tunksee said:
You got to believe that the NCAA told ESPN that either you do all sports if you want the major marquee sports.
Click to expand...
The NCAA has done exactly that in the past and CBS would delay broadcast championships in the middle of summer. According to the article the ESPN deal will have them broadcast 24 championships on ESPN's multimedia platforms. I would guess many will be on ESPN3 only. The good news is that ESPN3 broadcasts are excellent, at least the few I've watched on my TV. I watched both PC-UMD and UML-Yale on my TV and both looked great, with no streaming problems.

Sean
 
Re: Regional Attendance

tunksee said:
The schools that host should more than likely be locked up before the conference tournaments.
Click to expand...

In what fantasy land is that true?

Besides, if you're going to switch to three-game series held at the higher seeds, you might as well drop the tournament to 12 and give the top four byes. Maybe that would finally satisfy everyone who has been complaining about first-round upsets since Holy Cross-Minnesota.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Regional Attendance

LtPowers said:
In what fantasy land is that true?

Besides, if you're going to switch to three-game series held at the higher seeds, you might as well drop the tournament to 12 and give the top four byes. Maybe that would finally satisfy everyone who has been complaining about first-round upsets since Holy Cross-Minnesota.
Click to expand...

For the most part the teams that would have hosted: Quinnipiac, St. Cloud, UND, and Providence were already locks as a top eight seed (host school). Boston College and Michigan also looked to be locks before the tournament in their conferences too.

So the top 8 didn't change that much after the first series of games before the single elimination tournament began. So most teams would know 2 weeks in advance if they would have a host playoff game. If football teams in FCS can manage to sell out stadiums a week in advance for home tournament games I don't know why hockey would be different at their 'home' site.

As far as making it 12 teams and 4 byes that's just too much advantage to a number one seed. In a best of 3 series I think you would actually see less upsets of the 1 vs 4 variety, especially if that one seed is in their own barn.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

davyd83 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A major problem for some of the proposals, a false dilemma for others.

There are a large number of possible campus site formats. But one thing that's very likely true with all of them? You'd lose some TV coverage. Anyone who has taken a serious look at the issue gets this. Again, it's a trade-off. In this case, the belief is that the players and the fans willing to attend in person should take priority over the TV viewer.

Understand that this runs contrary to my self-interest. It's been years since I've traveled to a regional. I watch a lot of the ESPNU coverage. But I still say it's the right thing to do.

My favorite campus site plan is to have the round of 16 hosted by the eight higher seeds. Teams with a legitimate shot at the top eight know who they are with some advance notice. NESN/FSN North/FSN Detroit would likely pick up a few of those games. The rest would go uncovered. I get that, and it's a trade I'd make.

The following weekend I'd have the Round of 8 at two pre-planned sites. Two sites, each with plenty of notice? I think we'd have a decent shot of keeping the ESPNU coverage on the second weekend.

I also think potential ticket buyers would find this package much more attractive than the status quo. Attend a double-header on Saturday. Watch a double-header on TV on Sunday. 4 Games, 4 Frozen Four teams selected. Better product. Single day at each site means lower cost to attend.

Bottom Line for TV? My format would probably have 6-7 games on TV sports packages rather than 12. In exchange you'd get great atmosphere at the 8 first round games, plus a real chance for improved atmosphere at the 4 second round games. For me, this is an easy yes.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

Sean Pickett said:
An interesting article about how to solve the regional attendance issues from Penn State student sports reporter.

Sean
Click to expand...

That plan in theory sounds decent. But in reality we all know the Tuesday-Wednesday games suck. Also, the "Super Saturday" still creates and even exacerbates the already existing issue of fans not having enough time to make affordable travel plans. Some won't know their team is going to be participating in this Super Saturday until late Wednesday night and have to travel by late Friday or very early Saturday morning (unless that team plays at 12:00 noon).
Not to mention that the suggestion that TV move basketball game times for hockey is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Re: Regional Attendance

tunksee said:
In a best of 3 series I think you would actually see less upsets of the 1 vs 4 variety, especially if that one seed is in their own barn.
Click to expand...

Well that was rather my point, wasn't it?

A best of 3 series would virtually eliminate 1v4 upsets. If that's your goal, just remove the pretense and let the top four have a week off.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Regional Attendance

LtPowers said:
Well that was rather my point, wasn't it?
A best of 3 series would virtually eliminate 1v4 upsets. If that's your goal, just remove the pretense and let the top four have a week off.
Powers &8^]
Click to expand...
When you get right down to it, that is the way it should have remained. 16 teams out of a 60 team field is too many. The 12 team tournament with the top four receiving a first round bye was more appropriate (numbers-wise, that is), albeit not popular.
 
Re: Regional Attendance

pgb-ohio said:
My favorite campus site plan is to have the round of 16 hosted by the eight higher seeds. Teams with a legitimate shot at the top eight know who they are with some advance notice. NESN/FSN North/FSN Detroit would likely pick up a few of those games. The rest would go uncovered. I get that, and it's a trade I'd make.
Click to expand...

So the lower seeds not only have to visit a hostile arena, but their fans don't even get to watch on TV? Yeah, sign me right up for that.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Regional Attendance

pgb-ohio said:
It's been years since I've traveled to a regional. I watch a lot of the ESPNU coverage.
Click to expand...
The same for me. I used to go to the super regionals, but with most of the games now on TV I prefer to stay home and be able to watch more games (and if one gets bad like BU-DU, I may even be able to switch to another game). If BU is in the east I will attend both days, but that has only happened twice in the past decade.

pgb-ohio said:
Bottom Line for TV? My format would probably have 6-7 games on TV sports packages rather than 12. In exchange you'd get great atmosphere at the 8 first round games, plus a real chance for improved atmosphere at the 4 second round games. For me, this is an easy yes.
Click to expand...
Another option for broadcast coverage might be to just stream the games on ESPN3. I watched both the Providence-UMD and UML-Yale games on my TV and both streams were excellent. They looked as good as the TV broadcasts of the other games I watched.

Sean
 
Re: Regional Attendance

TigerFan86-87 said:
When you get right down to it, that is the way it should have remained. 16 teams out of a 60 team field is too many. The 12 team tournament with the top four receiving a first round bye was more appropriate (numbers-wise, that is), albeit not popular.
Click to expand...

What is the ideal percentage? Pro sports leagues often see 40% or more of the field make the playoffs.


Powers &8^]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top