Regional Attendance

[CLS]

Re: Regional Attendance

...

You're asking me to represent a viewpoint that isn't my own, but I'll spend a moment on it. With Michigan in the field, Yost is not neutral; the Joe would be somewhat neutral; Grand Rapids would be more neutral still. But if the NCAA's objective is to load up any these locations with Wolverine fans for atmosphere & gate, to me the difference is only in degree. I'll allow that someone could sincerely argue that the Joe was unacceptable while Grand Rapids was OK. Maybe that's Lt. Powers' position. I don't know, that's for him to say.

Actually, it was your term I was reacting to. I wanted to know what you thought he thought. That convoluted enough? I can't speak for him either, but my approach to the “degrees of neutrality” concept is to recognize that there are always going to be gray areas, and short of having the Regionals in Helsinki, we're never going to approach perfect. So I define neutral very narrowly (home rink) and treat it as binary.

Which is why I didn't even react to your current proposal. Because in my view it was completely non-neutral. I've never understood the current debate as being between the “haves” and “have nots”, but rather about playing in home rinks. That could very well have been some sort of confirmation bias, but I think that if it were a “have” vs. “have not” debate, the coaches' vote wouldn't have been so lopsided.

I've acknowledged the need to accept imperfect formats to find a viable solution. So I certainly can't fault you for doing exactly that. But I do think these cases expose the fact the status quo is less consistent and less fair than people routinely claim. The Committee becomes strategically non-neutral when it feels it's necessary. Let's wink and have a sellout in Fargo to balance the budget? Pragmatic, yes. Necessary, maybe. Moral high ground? Not so much.

OK, agreed absolutely. And I'd agree with you if you say that if it benefits the lower seed (e.g. Providence – Miami 2015) the moral ground is much more shaky.

 

[Almington]

Re: Regional Attendance

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to hold their primary arena free for the off chance that they will get to host? Can they pick an alternate location? if so what are the criteria? Do they automatically drop to the #9 seed? Does the lower seed get the opportunity to host?

 

[joecct]

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to hold their primary arena free for the off chance that they will get to host? Can they pick an alternate location? if so what are the criteria? Do they automatically drop to the #9 seed? Does the lower seed get the opportunity to host?

From D3 experience, you host at your home rink or not at all.

 

[komey1]

Re: Regional Attendance

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to hold their primary arena free for the off chance that they will get to host? Can they pick an alternate location? if so what are the criteria? Do they automatically drop to the #9 seed? Does the lower seed get the opportunity to host?

This actually happened in the NIT in basketball. Top seeds host. Kentucky had a down year and missed the NCAAs and was selected for the NIT. However, Rupp Arena was unavailable for their game against Robert Morris. So Robert Morris got to host, and then proceeded to defeat Kentucky.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Regional Attendance

What you seem to be missing is that "have a better overall season next year" wouldn't be enough for teams in some conferences. They don't just have to be better, they have to be almost perfect, and their conference mates have to have a collective OOC record around .400 or so. Placing a PWR cutoff for a conference tournament winner to host is just a mean-spirited way to keep the "have-nots" from getting too uppity. Like you're doing them a favor just letting them compete in the tournament at all.

It's rather bemusing that you would think that a Cornell fan, or any ECAC fan for that matter, would need this lecture. What you're missing is that a top team *would* be almost perfect against the type of schedule that RIT faced. Case in point: Cornell's 2003 run when only 3 other ECAC teams had winning records, but Cornell's record of 28-4-1 entering the tourney was still good enough for the overall #1 seed.

Every team in the country has the opportunity to earn a top seed no matter how bad their conference is. All you have to do is win reliably against the "bad" teams you face and go .500 against top teams. If you don't happen to face many/any top teams, then it comes down to whether you can beat bad teams on a consistent basis. If you can, that proves that you're an excellent team (despite what the "SOS boo-birds" will inevitably say) and you *will* get a high seed in the tournament. So in reality every single team does have the opportunity to earn a top seed - there's no conspiracy to keep small conference teams out.

If UND had played RIT's schedule this year and gone, say, 36-2, I guarantee you they would still be one of the #1 seeds in the tournament (don't feel like running the what-if calculator) - just the same as if RIT had accomplished the same thing.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Regional Attendance

From D3 experience, you host at your home rink or not at all.

Yes, but I think the question more is where does the game go? A random neutral site nearby? To the lower seed's rink? The latter would be hardly fair at all. Also, we run the risk of tournament games being played in facilities that are waaayyyyyy too small for a four-team regional, and even so for a best of 3 opening round. If we went to high seed hosting a regional, we'd have had two regionals in arenas that barely hold 3,000 people. For a regional of PC hosting BC, Harvard, and Duluth that's woefully small and would end up excluding many fans who'd want to go. If each team were allocated 500 tickets, plus their band, that's half the arena right there. There's a good chance not every PC season ticket holder would get access to a seat. Perhaps there's an established rule that the host site must be X seats, and if it's not a nearby replacement site has to be found. At least that way there's established contingency plans.

I strongly dislike the if you win your conference tournament and are in the top 16 you get to host idea. At that point, why have a regular season? The conference tournament now awards an autobid AND home ice in the playoffs? Way too much emphasis there. Perhaps if you win the conference regular season title and the tournament and are in the top 8 you get to host automatically. If you're in a lesser conference, and you're good enough to be a one seed, shouldn't you be able to go nearly perfect against that competition? Don't forget Mankato got the number one overall seed last year from a very, very mediocre WCHA where 60% of the league had <.500 records. One seeds and hosting privileges aren't something that should be handed out to everybody like participation ribbons.

I like the idea of a best of three opening round at a campus site then moving to two four-team regionals in the east and west the following weekend.

 

[ericredaxe]

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to hold their primary arena free for the off chance that they will get to host? Can they pick an alternate location? if so what are the criteria? Do they automatically drop to the #9 seed? Does the lower seed get the opportunity to host?

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to host a game for their conference tournament? I do t know the answer to that but I'd say the same thing should happen.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: Regional Attendance

If UND had played RIT's schedule this year and gone, say, 36-2, I guarantee you they would still be one of the #1 seeds in the tournament (don't feel like running the what-if calculator) - just the same as if RIT had accomplished the same thing.

36-2 isn't very realistic, is it? You thinking a perfect record in-conference? Seriously? And even if it was, I'd wager you'd still struggle to a #1 seed due to SOS.


Powers &8^]

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Regional Attendance

Actually, it was your term I was reacting to. I wanted to know what you thought he thought. That convoluted enough? I can't speak for him either, but my approach to the “degrees of neutrality” concept is to recognize that there are always going to be gray areas, and short of having the Regionals in Helsinki, we're never going to approach perfect. So I define neutral very narrowly (home rink) and treat it as binary.

I've reviewed the posts in question. And yes, this part of the conversation is getting quite convoluted. But both of us may have partially misunderstood the good Lieutenant. OK, he made a couple of comments that could be interpreted as a willingness to choose among options. Still, in the end, I believe he takes an approach similar to yours. If the proposal includes campus sites at any stage of the tournament, it's "Just Say No" time. After further review, my thought is that he was just being diplomatic, not indicating a real interest in considering "gray area" sites. I'm not sure if it's better or worse, but if anything you're more flexible than he is.

Which is why I didn't even react to your current proposal. Because in my view it was completely non-neutral.

I would not describe a game on a campus site, with the home team competing, as being on neutral ice. I don't believe I've done so. So this criticism feels rather odd.

Over course of the many proposals I've made over the years, my objective has been fairness, not neutrality. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice to teams that have earned it. For that matter, there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice on the basis of a rotation, provided the rotation itself is equitable.

I'm certainly not alone on this. A few posts back Lynah Fan presented an alternative campus sites plan. He evaluated his plan in terms of fairness. I'd say he succeeded in that regard, even if his creation wouldn't be my first choice.

I've never understood the current debate as being between the “haves” and “have nots”, but rather about playing in home rinks. That could very well have been some sort of confirmation bias, but I think that if it were a “have” vs. “have not” debate, the coaches' vote wouldn't have been so lopsided.

Those labels are very imperfect. But it would be even more inaccurate to call it an East/West debate. Even though there is a real East/West dimension on this issue, plenty of schools in the West have wanted to express opposition as well.

The lopsided nature of the vote probably stemmed from multiple factors. The widespread anger at the formation of the B1G Hockey Conference was at peak levels at that point in time. Also, the actual vote was limited to a rejection of campus sites. Those in the voting alliance didn't have to be in favor of anything.

Angry about either (or both) of those things? This is your chance to make yourself heard. Just Say No with us. Had alternative proposals been under consideration, my guess is that the large voting bloc would have splintered into smaller factions. Which is likely the reason that those pulling the strings didn't want any alternatives on the ballot.

 

[CLS]

Re: Regional Attendance

...
I would not describe a game on a campus site, with the home team competing, as being on neutral ice. I don't believe I've done so. So this criticism feels rather odd.

I'm not saying that you've described a game on a campus site, with the home team competing, as being on neutral ice. What I'm saying is that in my view, a game on a campus site, with the home team competing doesn't meet my minimum standard of neutrality. That's not criticism; it's disagreement. Any proposal that has all the games on campus sites, with the home team competing doesn't to me form the starting point of a negotiation. If it were just the two of us that were negotiating, I would say “You're not listening to me.” But it's not just the two of us, and your proposal wasn't addressed to me. It appeared to me that you were addressing your proposal to people who were OK with home ice but felt that it was unreasonably difficult for “have not” schools to earn it. That's why I asked what you meant by “degrees of neutrality”.

Over course of the many proposals I've made over the years, my objective has been fairness, not neutrality. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice to teams that have earned it. For that matter, there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice on the basis of a rotation, provided the rotation itself is equitable.

I'm certainly not alone on this. A few posts back Lynah Fan presented an alternative campus sites plan. He evaluated his plan in terms of fairness. I'd say he succeeded in that regard, even if his creation wouldn't be my first choice.

You're certainly been consistent and you're certainly not alone. In fact, I'd guess that the majority of participants in this thread agree with you. But I don't agree that there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice and I don't think I'm alone either.

Those labels ["have" and "have not"] are very imperfect. But it would be even more inaccurate to call it an East/West debate. Even though there is a real East/West dimension on this issue, plenty of schools in the West have wanted to express opposition as well.

Agree entirely on this. When I suggested (or at least implied) that one compromise could be permitting higher seeds hosting in the West on their home rinks it wasn't because I thought strong support was limited to the west or that opposition was limited to the east; it was because the Western Regionals are the ones that have he most glaring examples of regionals that are lacking in atmosphere and where finding minimally acceptable sites is so difficult. And in my experience, the fans who are the most vocal in wanting to change the current system are fans of western teams.

The lopsided nature of the vote probably stemmed from multiple factors. The widespread anger at the formation of the B1G Hockey Conference was at peak levels at that point in time. Also, the actual vote was limited to a rejection of campus sites. Those in the voting alliance didn't have to be in favor of anything.

Angry about either (or both) of those things? This is your chance to make yourself heard. Just Say No with us. Had alternative proposals been under consideration, my guess is that the large voting bloc would have splintered into smaller factions. Which is likely the reason that those pulling the strings didn't want any alternatives on the ballot.

Not clear to me who “those pulling the strings” are. If it was the NCAA, it was monumentally stupid of them to allow the vote. And if they had to allow the vote, it was stupid of them to structure the vote in this way, for the reason that you mention.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Regional Attendance

I'm not saying that you've described a game on a campus site, with the home team competing, as being on neutral ice. What I'm saying is that in my view, a game on a campus site, with the home team competing doesn't meet my minimum standard of neutrality. That's not criticism; it's disagreement.

Oh, I don't fault you at all for standing your ground. It was the "not worth reacting to" thing that stung a little. At the gut level, I felt that home ice for autobids was an original thought; an actual breakthrough. It seemed like it should have earned a few points for cleverness, even among the unpersuaded. Guess I took your comments as both disagreement and criticism. But it's not like this is a scored debate. And of course no hard feelings.

Any proposal that has all the games on campus sites, with the home team competing doesn't to me form the starting point of a negotiation. If it were just the two of us that were negotiating, I would say “You're not listening to me.” But it's not just the two of us, and your proposal wasn't addressed to me. It appeared to me that you were addressing your proposal to people who were OK with home ice but felt that it was unreasonably difficult for “have not” schools to earn it.

The last part in particular. It was also addressed to people who use said reason as their basis for opposition. If you can take down someone's main reason for opposition, maybe you can win a convert. But of course I understand that's not your position, and of course that particular proposal was not addressed to you.

That's why I asked what you meant by “degrees of neutrality”.

We probably need to let go of that phrase; it's proving to be more confusing than helpful. Nobody's excited about the "gray area" sites. In other words, nobody sees them as any part of a solution. Some see proof of hypocrisy; others see a necessary evil. Not a lot to feel good about there.

In addition, nobody seems to have any interest in my hybrid idea that would have the Round of 16 on campus and the Round of 8 at neutral sites. The latter is a little more surprising to me -- and a little more disappointing -- but so be it.

Drop those two items from the conversation, and it's hard to see any remaining relevance for the "degrees."

You're certainly been consistent and you're certainly not alone. In fact, I'd guess that the majority of participants in this thread agree with you. But I don't agree that there's nothing wrong with awarding home ice and I don't think I'm alone either.

Clearly you're not alone either.

Agree entirely on this. When I suggested (or at least implied) that one compromise could be permitting higher seeds hosting in the West on their home rinks it wasn't because I thought strong support was limited to the west or that opposition was limited to the east; it was because the Western Regionals are the ones that have he most glaring examples of regionals that are lacking in atmosphere and where finding minimally acceptable sites is so difficult. And in my experience, the fans who are the most vocal in wanting to change the current system are fans of western teams.

Yeah, I'm still good with all of that. In fact, I've playing around with what a dual track, East/West system might look like. The first draft looks a little better than I was expecting. Maybe you'll think so too. I'll share the idea on the Board before leaving for Tampa.

Not clear to me who “those pulling the strings” are. If it was the NCAA, it was monumentally stupid of them to allow the vote. And if they had to allow the vote, it was stupid of them to structure the vote in this way, for the reason that you mention.

It's not clear to me who the leaders were either, hence the phrasing. But it certainly felt like an orchestrated vote.

I am curious, though, as to what part of the vote you feel is stupid. My feeling has always been that the vote made change much more difficult. If you favor the status quo, why is that stupid? If you're saying that's it's stupid to create bitterness and hard feelings, I'm with you 100%. But to the extent the vote functions as a firewall, isn't that a good thing for your side of the question?

 

[CLS]

Re: Regional Attendance

...
It's not clear to me who the leaders were either, hence the phrasing. But it certainly felt like an orchestrated vote.

I am curious, though, as to what part of the vote you feel is stupid. My feeling has always been that the vote made change much more difficult. If you favor the status quo, why is that stupid? If you're saying that's it's stupid to create bitterness and hard feelings, I'm with you 100%. But to the extent the vote functions as a firewall, isn't that a good thing for your side of the question?

That was an abrupt change in point of view with no explanation. My bad. Yes, the way it turned out was a good thing for my side of the question. That comment was looking at it from the NCAA's point of view.

I'll explain what I was thinking, then I'll take it back, because I've missed (or forgotten) a key fact.

It was clear to me that the NCAA wanted some sort of change, and that the change would include some form of return to on-campus games. They had said as much. And even I understand that the NCAA needs to have it as an alternative. So given that, why would they allow a vote unless they knew it would be supportive (or at least not overwhelmingly dismissive) of the concept? And as you point out asking the question in the way it was asked invites a “just say no” response, as opposed to structuring the question as a bunch of alternatives, which would make the vote more factionalized.

But now in reviewing the article on the vote, I see that the vote was taken at a meeting of the American Hockey Coaches Association. The NCAA was not in control of the agenda, and those in control of the agenda may have had a reason to orchestrate the vote.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: Regional Attendance

It seemed like it should have earned a few points for cleverness, even among the unpersuaded.

It was indeed clever, and I have to admit it holds some appeal.


Powers &8^]

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Regional Attendance

It was indeed clever, and I have to admit it holds some appeal.


Powers &8^]

I appreciate that very much. Thanks for taking a moment to post this.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Regional Attendance

36-2 isn't very realistic, is it? You thinking a perfect record in-conference? Seriously? And even if it was, I'd wager you'd still struggle to a #1 seed due to SOS.


Powers &8^]

I flipped Robert Morris to 27-8-4 (flipping results from L to W at Holy Cross, vs Army, vs AIC) and RMU is in as the 13th overall team. Just as an aside to what it takes for teams in AHA to get in...That doesn't take into account and effects on those 3 games changing the composition of the conference tournament.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Regional Attendance

What happens if a team is unable or unwilling to host a game for their conference tournament? I do t know the answer to that but I'd say the same thing should happen.

That actually happened in the WCHA in the 1983-84 season.

At the time, the WCHA consisted of three rounds of playoffs, hosted by the higher seed. Each round was decided on a two game, total goal series.

UMD and UND advanced to the finals. However, I think the Duluth arena had already been booked for some sort of boat show or something (I don't recall the exact reason). In any event, the finals were played at old Mariucci arena in Minneapolis. UMD won the series anyway.

 

[UMICH]

Re: Regional Attendance

That actually happened in the WCHA in the 1983-84 season.

At the time, the WCHA consisted of three rounds of playoffs, hosted by the higher seed. Each round was decided on a two game, total goal series.

UMD and UND advanced to the finals. However, I think the Duluth arena had already been booked for some sort of boat show or something (I don't recall the exact reason). In any event, the finals were played at old Mariucci arena in Minneapolis. UMD won the series anyway.

Not the same sport, this was actually in the NCAA tournament, but something similar happened in 2008. Michigan baseball shocked the #1 overall seed Vanderbuilt at their home ball park by winning that Regional. Next up, SuperRegionals (best of 3) against Oregon State. By virtue of their upset of Vanderbuilt Michigan automatically became the higer seed and was supposed to host Oregon State. Well Michigan had already started major rennovations to their ballpark so we couldn't host. Oregon State then got to host by default. Unfortunately it didn't work out for us and we lost to the two-time defending National Champions Oregon State.

 

[Fred.Davenport]

Re: Regional Attendance

Let's talk more about this after the Frozen Four. In the meantime, safe travels to all heading to Tampa

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Regional Attendance

...In fact, I've playing around with what a dual track, East/West system might look like. The first draft looks a little better than I was expecting. Maybe you'll think so too. I'll share the idea on the Board before leaving for Tampa.

Let's talk more about this after the Frozen Four. In the meantime, safe travels to all heading to Tampa.

Fred's got the right idea. I'll save that new idea for next week.

Everyone: Have a fantastic time in Florida!

 

[billmich88888]

Re: Regional Attendance

Not the same sport, this was actually in the NCAA tournament, but something similar happened in 2008. Michigan baseball shocked the #1 overall seed Vanderbuilt at their home ball park by winning that Regional. Next up, SuperRegionals (best of 3) against Oregon State. By virtue of their upset of Vanderbuilt Michigan automatically became the higer seed and was supposed to host Oregon State. Well Michigan had already started major rennovations to their ballpark so we couldn't host. Oregon State then got to host by default. Unfortunately it didn't work out for us and we lost to the two-time defending National Champions Oregon State.

There are a lot of errors in the above statement.

1) The year Michigan beat Vanderbilt was 2007 (not 2008)

2) Michigan was a #2 seed in their regional, and Oregon St. won their regional as a #3 seed, therefore Michigan had the opportunity to host by being the higher seed. Simply beating Vanderbilt didn't guarantee anything and they would have been on the road if the opponent was a #1 seed from the other regional winner.

3) Since the year was 2007, Oregon St. was the defending national champions (not 2-time) , they did go on to win the championship that year (who knows if they do so if the super regional was in A2)

Bonus: In 2008 Michigan hosted a regional as a #2 seed (NCAA at the time trying for geographic spreading out of regions, no longer done in baseball/softball) Arizona emerged victorious from this regional.