Regional sites - how are they selected?

[Scarlet]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Ah, memories. BU hosted NCAA games in 84, and lost to Bowling Green and then again in 86 (or was it 87) and lost to Minnesota. Then they went to East Lansing in 1990 when the Spartans were the Final Four host at the Joe and beat them best two of three.

 

[davyd83]

It would only be 6 games over 3 days. I feel this is the best solution. Only 4 locker rooms needed.

If there are 8 teams, you need 8 locker rooms. You need practice times.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

If there are 8 teams, you need 8 locker rooms. You need practice times.

I think what he means is that after the first day, two teams would be gone. Still don't know if that would work, though.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

I think what he means is that after the first day, two teams would be gone. Still don't know if that would work, though.

You'd still need eight locker rooms because teams have to be able to access their locker room the day before their first game. So:

Thursday - Teams 1-4 arrive, get to locker room, practice.
Friday - Teams 1-4 play 1st round, two go home. Teams 5-8 arrive, get to locker room, practice. 8 rooms needed here plus four practice slots on top of two scheduled games....ice conditions
Saturday - Teams 5-8 play 1st round, 2 of Teams 1-4 play 2nd round. Three games plus morning skate opportunities for two other remaining teams
Sunday - Teams 5-8 play 2nd round

You're asking for an ice condition disaster there, plus eight locker rooms, even more locker rooms for the necessary officiating crews, and barely enough time to schedule everything on Friday and Saturday. Four-team regionals on campus would be much easier.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

It would only be 6 games over 3 days. I feel this is the best solution. Only 4 locker rooms needed.

I guess the question I have is why would it be better to have two regionals of eight teams, with two advancing out of each, rather than four regionals of four teams each?

I attended a lot of six team regionals over the years, before we expanded to 16 teams, and those buildings were empty. I remember walking into Mariucci and sitting down at center ice, 15 rows up, for the UNH-Niagara game, and I had no one else in my row. I heard two fans heckling each other across the arena at Van Andel in 1997 because of the emptiness, and we had Michigan St. and Michigan in that regional.

If the goal of condensing from four regionals to two is to put more butts in the seats and create a better atmosphere, it won't happen.

I believe college hockey has four options, none of them perfect:

1. Play at four neutral site locations, recognizing that occasionally the Providence or Fargo situations are going to arise (current format). Ticket sales are iffy, the atmosphere is less than ideal, but the probability for upsets and excitement is pretty high.

2. Go back to on campus games with the higher seeds hosting. Adds another weekend of college hockey and creates some scheduling nightmare possibilities for host schools who don't know they are hosting until a week before. Creates a tournament in which the better teams are likely to prevail (which isn't exactly terrible) but reduces the chance of the unknown team making a run.

3. Have the four regionals played in a one and done format at the home of the region's #1 seed. Still provides a small "puncher's chance", although not as great as today, but should have better attendance. However, likely precludes fans from seeds 2-4 attending or getting tickets. Also, some logistics nightmares for the occasional #1 seed from a school with a tiny or old rink.

4. Set four regional sites as permanent hosts. St. Paul, Detroit, Boston and probably Manchester. Easier travel planning. Hockey supportive communities. But creates an element of unfairness on behalf of the more "local" programs. Can also have big, empty arenas, especially if local team is not participating.

Honestly, I kind of prefer the current format.

 

[JB]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

I guess the question I have is why would it be better to have two regionals of eight teams, with two advancing out of each, rather than four regionals of four teams each?

I attended a lot of six team regionals over the years, before we expanded to 16 teams, and those buildings were empty. I remember walking into Mariucci and sitting down at center ice, 15 rows up, for the UNH-Niagara game, and I had no one else in my row. I heard two fans heckling each other across the arena at Van Andel in 1997 because of the emptiness, and we had Michigan St. and Michigan in that regional.

If the goal of condensing from four regionals to two is to put more butts in the seats and create a better atmosphere, it won't happen.

I believe college hockey has four options, none of them perfect:

1. Play at four neutral site locations, recognizing that occasionally the Providence or Fargo situations are going to arise (current format). Ticket sales are iffy, the atmosphere is less than ideal, but the probability for upsets and excitement is pretty high.

2. Go back to on campus games with the higher seeds hosting. Adds another weekend of college hockey and creates some scheduling nightmare possibilities for host schools who don't know they are hosting until a week before. Creates a tournament in which the better teams are likely to prevail (which isn't exactly terrible) but reduces the chance of the unknown team making a run.

3. Have the four regionals played in a one and done format at the home of the region's #1 seed. Still provides a small "puncher's chance", although not as great as today, but should have better attendance. However, likely precludes fans from seeds 2-4 attending or getting tickets. Also, some logistics nightmares for the occasional #1 seed from a school with a tiny or old rink.

4. Set four regional sites as permanent hosts. St. Paul, Detroit, Boston and probably Manchester. Easier travel planning. Hockey supportive communities. But creates an element of unfairness on behalf of the more "local" programs. Can also have big, empty arenas, especially if local team is not participating.

Honestly, I kind of prefer the current format.

The old 6 team regional format in the east were generally a good atmosphere. You could get a dud from time to time like a CC vs Colgate, even then either the start or the end of that game had fans from the other game too. I know in the west where the teams are more spread out is a different issue.

1. Current format - I think we are stuck with this... I like more teams closer together as I go watch even when my team is out.

2. Higher seed hosts has all sorts of scheduling issues for many of the on campus rinks that are used for other things. I also don't think the NCAA wants to go back to this format.

3. #1 seed host the regional... You would get what happened in Fargo this year or in Minnesota that year of UNH vs Niagara. One game is going to be a great crowd. The tickets are going to sell. The slotting visiting team tickets will be problematic. If the home team doesn't make the regional final... hello Fargo

4. Even picking permanent sites isn't going to be great. I think the reality is the popularity of College Hockey has fallen off some since the late 90's. The regionals really need to be in 5-6k seat arenas. Not sure you get that... anywhere if not on campus sites. Manchester 4600 this last weekend would have been a better atmosphere if is was in a 5k seat building with no upper deck

5. Super regionals. This just increases the odds of a few good games particularly in the east. There are more fans around so the potential of more sitting in a game that is not there team. The fans would have a better idea for where the team is going to land. The logistics is a challenge. The ice is already an issue as the NCAA has the top layer stripped and repainted and not enough time for the new top layer to really set good and hard. I really think the locker room issues are solvable it needs some creativity - even getting practice time can be worked out. The ice quality is the real problem.


Every year this gets discussed and the NCAA is not likely to go back on campus unless nobody bids to host on neutral sites. That is how Yost had it for so long and everybody hated that.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

I thought for sure a couple of years ago we were going back to campus sites because the "neutral" site regionals have become stale in so many places. Toledo was a disaster in 2013 as was Van Andel. Maybe having the two western regionals 3 hours apart was not smart, I don't know. Cincinnati showed some promise a couple of years ago but having the closest team 7 hours away by car this year was not a good idea. The 2-day total there has dropped in each of the 3 recent years it was in Cincinnati, and the final has drawn less each year, from 5700 to 5100 to 3300. My guess is a trend like that and the days of that host committee bidding again are done.

I don't think it is possible for any system to satisfy even half of us. Sure we'd all like better atmosphere but I'm sure most don't want to be the 9 seed playing in Grand Forks. Or even the 13 seed playing in Mariucci. Sure we all like to see the upsets as long as it isn't our team, but a championship tournament is supposed to be a way to determine the "best" team when many don't play each other during the regular season.

One of the things that will continue to add to the staleness of these tourneys is fewer and fewer people care about the sport. They care about their team. Virtually nobody stays for the second game and virtually nobody who attends the second game came for the first. Years ago when I attended events like these in both college hockey and college basketball that was less true.

I think the only way you'll ever assure decent crowds -- especially in the west -- is to have permanent sites in towns that care about hockey and have traditional hockey powers within a reasonable drive. And then on top of that be very willing to move teams from within their bands to get them as close to home as possible. In the process of doing that though you likely eviscerate any notion of bracket integrity, which a lot of us think is important.

I'd also like to note that this annually has become one of the most interesting threads on this forum. Its the one thread where you get people from all of the conferences and a lot of teams posting. Lots of interesting ideas and disagreements, even when deep, are approached in an adult fashion. We're all huge fans of our teams, and unlike many we're also pretty big fans of college hockey in general. Many go to regionals that are close even if our team is not in the tourney and I know some go to a close region even if their team has been shipped across the country. I always think that once the thread is done, someone from the NCAA should be required to read it and study the feasibility of some of the ideas put forth. Of course they never will because these threads end up with far too much logic and common sense.

 

[johnk]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

How many areas have 2 arenas close enough to hold a "Super Regional"? Example in the East:

Northeast 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in Worcester Saturday
East 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in Boston Saturday

Northeast and East championship in Boston on Sunday.

Would definitely help attendance on 2nd day.

 

[Crimson on the Glass]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Is it really that much of a huge deal for a school to "hold open" ice time for a possible hosting of a Regional tournament? The ECAC teams do it every year, often not knowing with certainty going into the last weekend of the regular season whether they will be home or away for the coming Fri-Sun ECAC first round, or whether they will host that weekend or the one after (round 2). I'm sure that they schedule accordingly, and if some public skating sessions or youth hockey practices need to be moved around, so be it. Is it not the same for most of the other conferences? You'd just have to be ready to scramble if your team had the good fortune to finish as a PWR #1 seed.

If you want to impose a cut-off for how small an arena could host? Personally I wouldn't. Just set a reasonable minimum visiting team allotment and then let the home team's season ticket holders have their chance.

 

[CLS]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

JB and SJHovey, excellent posts!

1. (JB) Current format - I think we are stuck with this... I like more teams closer together as I go watch even when my team is out.

1. (SJHovey) Play at four neutral site locations, recognizing that occasionally the Providence or Fargo situations are going to arise (current format). Ticket sales are iffy, the atmosphere is less than ideal, but the probability for upsets and excitement is pretty high.

I’m not so sure that we’re “stuck” with the current format. I think the NCAA wants to do something, and there’s significant pressure for change because of sparsely attended western regionals. To my knowledge, regional sites for 2018 haven’t even been assigned yet (Is it possible they got NO acceptable western bids?), so they’ve got to do something soon. But the NCAA is in a difficult situation because of the position of the coaches. I put “stuck” in quotes because my personal view is that the current format is the best alternative I’ve seen.

2. (JB) Higher seed hosts has all sorts of scheduling issues for many of the on campus rinks that are used for other things. I also don't think the NCAA wants to go back to this format.

2. (SJHovey) Go back to on campus games with the higher seeds hosting. Adds another weekend of college hockey and creates some scheduling nightmare possibilities for host schools who don't know they are hosting until a week before. Creates a tournament in which the better teams are likely to prevail (which isn't exactly terrible) but reduces the chance of the unknown team making a run.

Also may be problematic if you have a small rink and/or you typically fill the rink for regular season games. The NCAA will want seats, and then you either need to preclude the visitors from any seats even if they’re willing and able to travel on short notice or shut out some of your own fans or both.

3. (JB) #1 seed host the regional... You would get what happened in Fargo this year or in Minnesota that year of UNH vs Niagara. One game is going to be a great crowd. The tickets are going to sell. The slotting visiting team tickets will be problematic. If the home team doesn't make the regional final... hello Fargo

3. (SJHovey) Have the four regionals played in a one and done format at the home of the region's #1 seed. Still provides a small "puncher's chance", although not as great as today, but should have better attendance. However, likely precludes fans from seeds 2-4 attending or getting tickets. Also, some logistics nightmares for the occasional #1 seed from a school with a tiny or old rink.

The rink doesn’t even need to be tiny (depends on what you mean by “tiny”). The announced attendance for Harvard-Providence was 6543. The Bright Hockey Center capacity is 3095.

4. (JB) Even picking permanent sites isn't going to be great. I think the reality is the popularity of College Hockey has fallen off some since the late 90's. The regionals really need to be in 5-6k seat arenas. Not sure you get that... anywhere if not on campus sites. Manchester 4600 this last weekend would have been a better atmosphere if is was in a 5k seat building with no upper deck

4. (SJHovey) Set four regional sites as permanent hosts. St. Paul, Detroit, Boston and probably Manchester. Easier travel planning. Hockey supportive communities. But creates an element of unfairness on behalf of the more "local" programs. Can also have big, empty arenas, especially if local team is not participating.

You can almost argue we’ve already got this in the east, except the “permanent” host rotates between Worcester, Providence, and Manchester. Regarding the unfairness aspect, the non-Boston schools (grudgingly perhaps) accept the HE Finals always being in Boston, the old WCHA schools (grudgingly perhaps) accepted the finals always being in Minneapolis.

5. (JB) Super regionals. This just increases the odds of a few good games particularly in the east. There are more fans around so the potential of more sitting in a game that is not there team. The fans would have a better idea for where the team is going to land. The logistics is a challenge. The ice is already an issue as the NCAA has the top layer stripped and repainted and not enough time for the new top layer to really set good and hard. I really think the locker room issues are solvable it needs some creativity - even getting practice time can be worked out. The ice quality is the real problem.

Of course there are hybrids; for example one that’s been suggested in the past is first round on-campus with Super regional. That would solve the ice problem, but would involve either extending the tournament or giving up the off-week (which isn’t really a “week” since the regionals don’t end till Sunday and the FF really starts on Wednesday.

(johnk) How many areas have 2 arenas close enough to hold a "Super Regional"? Example in the East:

Northeast 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in Worcester Saturday
East 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in Boston Saturday

Northeast and East championship in Boston on Sunday.

Would definitely help attendance on 2nd day.

Also helps with the ice problem. And one variation that would certainly work in the Boston area, and maybe Michigan and/or Minnesota, and oddly enough might work in Colorado is to have the first round or the opening round of a Super Regional on campus, with the qualification that no team gets to play on its home rink; for example if CC hosts, they play at AFA.

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Is it really that much of a huge deal for a school to "hold open" ice time for a possible hosting of a Regional tournament? The ECAC teams do it every year, often not knowing with certainty going into the last weekend of the regular season whether they will be home or away for the coming Fri-Sun ECAC first round, or whether they will host that weekend or the one after (round 2). I'm sure that they schedule accordingly, and if some public skating sessions or youth hockey practices need to be moved around, so be it. Is it not the same for most of the other conferences? You'd just have to be ready to scramble if your team had the good fortune to finish as a PWR #1 seed.

If you want to impose a cut-off for how small an arena could host? Personally I wouldn't. Just set a reasonable minimum visiting team allotment and then let the home team's season ticket holders have their chance.

For those teams that play in city run arenas, it can be a big deal. Taking Bemidji or Mankato as examples, they already have to figure in three weekends to host the WCHA playoffs. If they have to hold open a fourth weekend due to the possibility of hosting a regional, that is potentially one month of revenue that arena (and the city) could lose out on if the cards don't fall the right way.

 

[davyd83]

For those teams that play in city run arenas, it can be a big deal. Taking Bemidji or Mankato as examples, they already have to figure in three weekends to host the WCHA playoffs. If they have to hold open a fourth weekend due to the possibility of hosting a regional, that is potentially one month of revenue that arena (and the city) could lose out on if the cards don't fall the right way.

In the WCHA, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Huntsville, Bemidji & Mankato are municipal facilities. Tech, NMU, LSSU, Ferris and Bowling Green are university owned. In the NCHC, Duluth & CC do not own their arenas.

 

[johnk]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Also helps with the ice problem. And one variation that would certainly work in the Boston area, and maybe Michigan and/or Minnesota, and oddly enough might work in Colorado is to have the first round or the opening round of a Super Regional on campus, with the qualification that no team gets to play on its home rink; for example if CC hosts, they play at AFA.

I think if you have a 5k seat building and a 10k seat building within a 60 mile radius, this could be done. I'm guessing there are several in New England, Upstate NY, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado that could handle this type of set up.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Is it really that much of a huge deal for a school to "hold open" ice time for a possible hosting of a Regional tournament? The ECAC teams do it every year, often not knowing with certainty going into the last weekend of the regular season whether they will be home or away for the coming Fri-Sun ECAC first round, or whether they will host that weekend or the one after (round 2). I'm sure that they schedule accordingly, and if some public skating sessions or youth hockey practices need to be moved around, so be it. Is it not the same for most of the other conferences? You'd just have to be ready to scramble if your team had the good fortune to finish as a PWR #1 seed.

If you want to impose a cut-off for how small an arena could host? Personally I wouldn't. Just set a reasonable minimum visiting team allotment and then let the home team's season ticket holders have their chance.

For years Ohio State while the CCHA was still a going concern had the issue of not having their regular arena available for playoff games because the university decided it make more financial sense to rent out the place to the for a high school championship weekend for wrestling. Many of these arenas want to guarantee they operate for as many days as possible to generate income and "holding open" the space might cost them some revenue. Many years ago when Notre Dame made their first ever NCAA tournament they were faced with the possibility of not having their home ice available for practice should they have pulled off a couple of upsets and made the FF because the university for years hosted a car show in the same space 2 weeks after the conference tournaments. Given the choice of meeting the needs of a minor sport or generating revenue, I know where most schools might fall.

 

[Riz]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

WHEN are they going to be selected? Seems like at the latest it will be with the future frozen four sites. Why did they delay the 2018 regional site selections so long if they aren't likely to change the format?

 

[CLS]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

WHEN are they going to be selected? Seems like at the latest it will be with the future frozen four sites. Why did they delay the 2018 regional site selections so long if they aren't likely to change the format?

Interesting to speculate, isn’t it?

Here are some possibilities:

1. They do want to make a change, but know that it will be unpopular and don’t know, politically, how to make it happen.

2. They didn’t get any acceptable bids in the last go-round (probably from the west) and either need to “recruit” an acceptable bid or they need to figure out which of their normal criteria they will compromise.

Pre-assigned home rink? Everybody hates this, but this is the one they've resorted to most recently. You have the possibility of a lower seed getting a “home” game, and it’s an attendance nightmare if the home team doesn’t make the tournament or loses in the first round.

Signage etc.? Don’t know how much of an issue this is, but if I ran a venue, I’d object to the NCAA requirements about logos in the ice surface (this must be a big deal; basically it requires that you melt your surface and refreeze it), advertisements on the boards, etc.

Beer sales? Don’t know if they actually lose bids over this, but it’s a significant financial hit for many venues.

One criteria that should be easy to dispense with is the 5000 minimum capacity. Why have it if you’re not likely to draw 5000 anyway? They do have other requirements, like amenities, etc. which would eliminate outright dumps. Don’t know if there are acceptable sites that have less than 5000 capacity.

I can think of others, but they get pretty bizarre.

 

[JB]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

Signage etc.? Don’t know how much of an issue this is, but if I ran a venue, I’d object to the NCAA requirements about logos in the ice surface (this must be a big deal; basically it requires that you melt your surface and refreeze it).

This is the one that kills me. The NCAA marketing people have there reason, they don't want company's not paying to be official sponsors getting on TV for a NCAA broadcast without paying. What if Coke is the official sponsor and Pepsi is in the ice? etc. I get it.

The problem is this is making the playing surface of lower quality. Most ice arenas (at least in the past) have multiple layers a base, then the lines, then the logos and a top layer. Doing as the NCAA asks you grind off 2 layers of ice, paint NCAA logos and put the top layer back down. The real problem is most locations don't have time to let the ice really set and I think the surface suffers.

The NCAA talks about being for the student athletes... we all know it is really all about the money. Otherwise they wouldn't make so many decisions aligned with the cash and hurting those athletes.

The boards are easy to change, stick on, it is the ice that makes me a little crazy.

Beer sales? Don’t know if they actually lose bids over this, but it’s a significant financial hit for many venues.

I don't think this is likely to change. Apparently the NCAA does not allow alcohol at any of there Championship events.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

WHEN are they going to be selected? Seems like at the latest it will be with the future frozen four sites. Why did they delay the 2018 regional site selections so long if they aren't likely to change the format?

I believe the reason we don't know is that they decided to award one more Frozen Four than originally setup...

 

[SJHovey]

I believe the reason we don't know is that they decided to award one more Frozen Four than originally setup...

Brad Schlossman has been saying April 18, I believe.

 

[bcmsu9196]

Re: Regional sites - how are they selected?

The boards are easy to change, stick on

True. I've seen it in Worcester and Bridgeport, as soon as the regional final is over and the teams disperse, they rip those suckers right off