Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

[norm1909]

Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

REPORT OF THE NCAA DIVISION III MEN’S ICE HOCKEY COMMITTEE JANUARY 11, 2016, TELECONFERENCE

a. Nonpredetermined finals site.
(2) Recommendation. To conduct the championship finals at a nonpredetermined site in
at least one of the four years of the 2019-22 championship bid cycle.
(3) Effective Date. Immediate (to allow for appropriate communication to potential hosts
in the 2019-22 championship bid process).
(4) Rationale. The committee discussed the results of the nonpredetermined site survey
distributed to Division III men's ice hockey membership (institutions and
conferences). The results indicate that 60 percent of respondents support a change to
a nonpredetermined site selection process for the championship (refer to Attachment
A). The Division III women’s ice hockey championship finals are conducted at a
nonpredetermined site. Given the similar geography and nature of the sport fan base,
the committee believes a format comparable to that of the women could be productive
for men’s ice hockey.
The committee acknowledged that, while the predetermined process allows for an
extended amount of planning and promotes neutrality, a nonpredetermined site
selection process could have a number of benefits, including a built-in fan base for
Division III ice hockey to enhance the student-athlete experience, provide a solution
to the existing challenge of limited interest to host the finals, and potentially reduce
the financial burden on participating teams (i.e., avoid expensive metropolitan or
resort locales such as Minneapolis and Lake Placid, New York). The concept was
first discussed with men’s ice hockey coaches during the 2015 American Hockey
Coaches Association annual meeting which prompted further study through the
survey to head coaches, athletics directors and ice hockey conference commissioners.
The committee will consider which year(s) to commit to a nonpredetermined finals
site conjunction with its review of submitted bids for predetermined site selection in
the upcoming bid cycle.

b. Bracket Expansion.
(1) Recommendation. That the NCAA Division III Men’s Ice Hockey Championship
bracket be expanded to include 12 teams.
(2) Effective date. 2017 championship.
(3) Rationale. Due to increased sponsorship, the men’s ice hockey championship field is
poised to increase from an 11-team bracket to a 12-team bracket based on the 1:6.5
access ratio for team sports. The additional team will be accommodated in the
existing format with the addition of one first-round game (from three to four).
Further, the move to 12 teams will allow the committee to develop a bracket with
greater competitive equity which will be better understood by Division III
participants and fans.
(4) Estimated budget impact. $12,000. This estimate reflects the additional per diem,
transportation, and game expense necessary to add a first-round game.

2019 championship dates.
The committee confirmed the 2019 championship dates as
March 22-23 which is consistent with the date formula that calls for the finals to fall on the
fourth weekend in March.

How about dealing with the rampant violation of scholarships in Dlll? There are
so many violations that the WIAC schools pulled out of a league because of rampant violations by one
school in particular

 

[Dyce]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Might as well post the entire response that you excerpted, as it's really something. For context, this is from the "Additional Feedback" section of a survey sent to schools regarding future site selection (predetermined vs. non-), so this is from a school representative of some kind:

first off your positioning of the question is leading: 'avoid expensive metropolitan locales such as
Minneapolis'. Really? Are you taking into account the total cost of the trip? Minneapolis has so many hotel
options available that increases the ability to negotiate hotel prices. If teams have to travel to presumably
smaller, less expensive locales have you factored in how teams or fans will get there? Fly into a major
airport and then????? walk? No there is added expenses to rent a car and travel to the smaller locale. Not
to mention that cities like Minneapolis have attractions other than hockey to kill spare time. The attendance
at Ridder Arena was pretty good by the way- it is a hockey state. Now Lake Placid is not easy to get to and
has a great history but that is about it. Your giving only two options to this question eliminates intelligent
discourse and reasoning on finding a platform that promotes the game in general. The NCAA wastes too
much time trying to be 'fair'. How about dealing with the rampant violation of scholarships in Dlll? There are
so many violations that the WIAC schools pulled out of a league because of rampant violations by one
school in particular. Fairness, swallow a camel and choke on a nat. 90% of Dlll hockey is comprised of
Junior hockey players and these guys know one another very well having played with each other
somewhere along the line and they talk. In fact some brag about the financial aid they are getting. Full rides
at Dlll- only the very good players get the $. Sure, legislation is designed to catch the variation but really in
the past 10 years there has been only surface work by the NCAA. Candidly, it's a joke. Only rhetoric and no
serious action. So when you talk about 'fairness' in competition by selecting a neutral site all athletes will
choose a site that has fans verses a venue that is fair and empty. Fair is something that happens at the end
of the summer at the fairgrounds.... in life there is no 'fair'. So I suggest that a couple venues be selected
that attract fans and provide a great experience and forget the misleading NCAA ridden fairness doctrine- it
doesn't work.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Might as well post the entire response that you excerpted, as it's really something. For context, this is from the "Additional Feedback" section of a survey sent to schools regarding future site selection (predetermined vs. non-), so this is from a school representative of some kind:

The author is not bashful, whoever it was!

The NCAA wastes too much time trying to be 'fair'.

Fairness, swallow a camel and choke on a nat. 90% of Dlll hockey is comprised of
Junior hockey players and these guys know one another very well having played with each other
somewhere along the line and they talk. In fact some brag about the financial aid they are getting. Full rides
at Dlll- only the very good players get the $.

Sure, legislation is designed to catch the variation but really in the past 10 years there has been only surface work by the NCAA. Candidly, it's a joke.

Fair is something that happens at the end of the summer at the fairgrounds.... in life there is no 'fair'.

 

[joecct]

The author is not bashful, whoever it was!

And when they catch you, then what?

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

The author is not bashful, whoever it was!

With his comments on the WIAC it would appear to be a western school representative of some kind. Also with his comments defending Minneapolis perhaps a MIAC person?

 

[bakdraft21]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

wow where have i heard some of this before?? I would link to some of my posts but dont care to know how to do it.......... Players getting full rides ugh I am sure the people on here could figure out what school that may? be.....A different venue for the NCAA's sounds familiar,I think some people have been reading this site.....

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

With his comments on the WIAC it would appear to be a western school representative of some kind. Also with his comments defending Minneapolis perhaps a MIAC person?

I would have guessed River Falls, but River Falls made it pretty obvious which response was theirs, effectively saying "yeah, we can host"

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

A couple issues I have with this...

I will leave the "free rides" for another post, but this nonpredetermined site thing has me ***** for a few things...

1. For those of us who have been around here more than the past 10 years can remember how hard it is to get tickets for nonpredetermined sites. I sat in lines over night just to get 2 tickets into a couple Final Fours. I've seen players family begging for tickets. I would have gone to more (even with Plattsburgh not in it) had they been easier to get. Now, a family of 5, I can not even get tickets to a regular season game some nights.

2. What and the **** are they smoking over there?

Given the similar geography and nature of the sport fan base,
the committee believes a format comparable to that of the women could be productive
for men’s ice hockey.

Okay I understand geography (duh). But how and the hell can they compare men's hockey with women's? Plattsburgh State women's hockey had a national high average attendance of 482. 21 men's programs had higher...

Average DIII Womens Attendance: 169
Average DIII Mens Attendance: 492 (which includes a lot of the weak ECACNE attendances)

Average DIII Womens Top 10 (in attendance): 312
Average DIII Woemns Top 10 (in attendance): 1567

Of the DIII Men's teams, only 20% of ALL DIII teams could have held this years Finals (attendance wise).

Only 8 DIII teams currently (that are listed) can meet the mandatory 3,000 seat requirement to host.
The Womens total could have been held in 25+ rinks.

Simply put, you CAN NOT compare the Men's and Women's Championship. Two totally different monsters here. That's like saying DI and DIII men's hockey is the same because they're both primarily Northern/Mid West sports....

Three Options in my book:

1. Yes Lake Placid was low this year. Playing a Friday afternoon game hurts any kind of travel plans for your casual fan to get there ( Saturday/Sunday maybe).

2. Is Lake Placid too big? 7,700 people....Maybe if you had Oswego, Plattsburgh, and Norwich all in the Final Four. I think a 4,500 seat arena would be prime size. Big enough to get most everyone a seat in the field of death (OSU,PSU,NOR) and small enough where the opposite field of death would feel so empty.

3. The most logical (so you know it won't happen) combining the Men's and Women's FF. If I was in Lake Placid already for the men's FF and Plattsburgh (or pretty much anyone) was playing their Championship game, I'd go. I think you would see some women's fans stick around for the mens championship as well. I know even for the Primelink I stick around for non-Plattsburgh games.

Maybe we are too far removed from remembering what it was like getting tickets for on campus site, making last minutes reservations not knowing where its going to be until a few days prior, and all the headaches that came with it. You had to take another day off from work just to go hang out all day to get tickets.

And then you move into the conversation of what happens when someone like Hobart is the highest remaining seed with the largest rink available. Hobart, Adrian, Stout, and Plattsburgh (but Plattsburgh is hosting the women's FF (if they went back to the same weekend)....Good luck with that...

 

[joecct]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Potsdam - Cheel Arena. They're talking about upgrading Ogdensburg airport to accept medium jets.

The women would be done and the men, if still playing, would be at a regional.

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Potsdam - Cheel Arena. They're talking about upgrading Ogdensburg airport to accept medium jets.

The women would be done and the men, if still playing, would be at a regional.

I think Dartmouth's Thompson Arena would be a great place for it.

 

[elbojpb]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

The author is not bashful, whoever it was!

It's someone who cannot correctly spell (g)nat. That may rule some out/in.

 

[elbojpb]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

A couple issues I have with this...but this nonpredetermined site thing has me ***** for a few things...

Three Options in my book:

1. Yes Lake Placid was low this year. Playing a Friday afternoon game hurts any kind of travel plans for your casual fan to get there ( Saturday/Sunday maybe).

2. Is Lake Placid too big? 7,700 people....Maybe if you had Oswego, Plattsburgh, and Norwich all in the Final Four. I think a 4,500 seat arena would be prime size. Big enough to get most everyone a seat in the field of death (OSU,PSU,NOR) and small enough where the opposite field of death would feel so empty.

Don't know if anyone else got the same impression, but the UMB/SNC game seemed to me to be affected by the ice width. Neither of those teams gives up that many scoring opportunities, and perhaps the Olympic sheet was playing havoc with their defensive assignments and alignment!?

If a pre-determined site is chosen going forward, I'd prefer that it be an 85' surface in width which wouldn't screw with the defensive game plans to such a great extent.

Remy ... BTW, always enjoy your posts, well thought out, but sometimes too long

 

[bakdraft21]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Don't know if anyone else got the same impression, but the UMB/SNC game seemed to me to be affected by the ice width. Neither of those teams gives up that many scoring opportunities, and perhaps the Olympic sheet was playing havoc with their defensive assignments and alignment!?

If a pre-determined site is chosen going forward, I'd prefer that it be an 85' surface in width which wouldn't screw with the defensive game plans to such a great extent.

Remy ... BTW, always enjoy your posts, well thought out, but sometimes too long

agree with the 85',doesnt make sense to move to the big sheet after most if not all teams play on the smaller sheet.......yes I know its the same for both,still dont like it...

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Don't know if anyone else got the same impression, but the UMB/SNC game seemed to me to be affected by the ice width. Neither of those teams gives up that many scoring opportunities, and perhaps the Olympic sheet was playing havoc with their defensive assignments and alignment!?

If a pre-determined site is chosen going forward, I'd prefer that it be an 85' surface in width which wouldn't screw with the defensive game plans to such a great extent.

Remy ... BTW, always enjoy your posts, well thought out, but sometimes too long

1. Some play in wider than 85' and get thrown off by the smaller ice, now we're being unfair to them.

2. Teams knew in advance that they were playing on an Olympic sheet. St. Norbert spent all week practicing on an Olympic-size sheet before traveling out East. What happens In a non-predetermined setup when we find out last-minute that one of the teams with larger sheets is hosting? Now only that team has an opportunity to prepare.

3. If we really want fair in terms of ice sheet dimensions, just have Manhattavile host it on their 208x77... NOBODY is used to that!

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Don't know if anyone else got the same impression, but the UMB/SNC game seemed to me to be affected by the ice width. Neither of those teams gives up that many scoring opportunities, and perhaps the Olympic sheet was playing havoc with their defensive assignments and alignment!?

If a pre-determined site is chosen going forward, I'd prefer that it be an 85' surface in width which wouldn't screw with the defensive game plans to such a great extent.

Remy ... BTW, always enjoy your posts, well thought out, but sometimes too long

Thanks. Better? JK

They were discussing this same issue in one of the DI Regionals. Your point could be extremely valid, my only rebuttal to that would be something I've seen Plattsburgh do time and time again. They play in a shoebox, and when they get out on the bigger ice surface, tend to shine more. Bob's total team speed is one of the best around over the past few years. Yet this year especially, we had one defensmen who struggled massively when it came to playing on the bigger surfaces against higher competition. The more restrictions we put on host sites starts to really limit the potential venues. I don't see a billionaire stepping up and building the perfect venue, in the perfect location, with the perfect transportation, hotels, and everything else the NCAA wants any time soon. As was said, the best bet is to combine the mens and womens DIII and have a great time where ever it is.

 

[OZFEST]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Who was in this group of respondents for this Additional Feedback? Was this all AD's who reponded?

 

[Sir Nubs]

Don't know if anyone else got the same impression, but the UMB/SNC game seemed to me to be affected by the ice width. Neither of those teams gives up that many scoring opportunities, and perhaps the Olympic sheet was playing havoc with their defensive assignments and alignment!?

If a pre-determined site is chosen going forward, I'd prefer that it be an 85' surface in width which wouldn't screw with the defensive game plans to such a great extent.

Remy ... BTW, always enjoy your posts, well thought out, but sometimes too long

If that was true about ice width then how did St. Norbert shutout both Norwich and Plattsburgh in Lake Placid in 2008?

The administrator who wrote that NCAA response is really clueless. If the WIAC was angry about supposed financial aid with membership why did they expect CSS/SNC to stay with them under WIAC banner?

 

[joecct]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

If that was true about ice width then how did St. Norbert shutout both Norwich and Plattsburgh in Lake Placid in 2008?

Kyle Jones?

The administrator who wrote that NCAA response is really clueless. If the WIAC was angry about supposed financial aid with membership why did they expect CSS/SNC to stay with them under WIAC banner?

Well, somebodies are apparently jumping back.

 

[Scott_TG]

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Re: Report of the ncaa division iii men’s ice hockey committee january 11, 2016

Who was in this group of respondents for this Additional Feedback? Was this all AD's who reponded?

I read all of the responses and most seemed to be coaches. At least one was definitely a conference commissioner though.

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Who was in this group of respondents for this Additional Feedback? Was this all AD's who reponded?

The survey was sent to all coaches and athletic directors of schools with hockey.