What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

[SJHovey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Green Bay has been done. And it has been successful. But as I understand it, that weekend is booked for the foreseeable future with some other event.

Successful from what standpoint?

Green Bay hosted 3 regionals. In 2011 and in 2012 it had the worst attendance of any of the four regionals that year. In 2006 it had the second worst attendance, but in 2006 Wisconsin also played in that regional.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/frozen_4/2013-14/007-Attendance.pdf

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Successful from what standpoint?

Green Bay hosted 3 regionals. In 2011 and in 2012 it had the worst attendance of any of the four regionals that year. In 2006 it had the second worst attendance, but in 2006 Wisconsin also played in that regional.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/frozen_4/2013-14/007-Attendance.pdf

Well, given that the arena holds 8,700 for hockey, a 6,000+ attendance average for a regional that doesn't include Wisconsin is pretty decent. Also, if I remember correctly, the actual butts-in-seats for Green Bay seemed pretty well in-line with the reported attendance numbers. I don't think they were inflated.

 

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

This is a really good example of why the regional attendance problem may not be one that is solvable.

In the west we simply couldn't do what you have done. I have no idea, but I would guess that a huge majority of the eastern schools that play D-1 hockey are within 200 miles of one another, and within 200 miles of the 5-7 places they have held the East and Northeast regionals these past dozen years? I have to believe most fans are a lot closer. Someone who is more familiar with the NE can correct me if I'm way off on the miles.

That means that it's not that big of a deal if you end up in the NE regional or the East regional, or what day you play, etc... In fact, you're probably able to even catch the games without the cost of a hotel room, and certainly without the cost of a flight.

In the west, attending regionals is a real b####, unless it happens on that rare occasion to be in our town. Ever try to line up a flight from Grand Forks to Toledo on a days notice? Ever make the drive from Grand Forks to Toledo?

I've always thought that if you want to do regionals in the west, and have them even modestly attended, you basically have to set them in Detroit and St. Paul, and leave them there. But that won't work because of the complaints over home ice advantage for MN and Michigan, which is a legit complaint.

So what we are stuck with in the west, like it or not, is either go with campus games for the first round or two, or the regionals we presently have, which include the occasionally packed Fargo and the vacant Toledo.

I agree, particularly with the "attendance not solvable" part. In "the West" (and I'm sure Alaska and now Arizona will get a kick out of Ohio, Michigan, et. al., referring to themselves as West), almost every regular season game all year involves a fairly significant trip, with overnight stays required. The shortest drive in our conference is over 4 hours away from us. BiG teams and most NCHC teams face something similar. For those fans that make a trip or 2 during the season, and then travel to their conference tournaments, regionals often become that weekend when our spouses say, "Financially and time-wise, that's enough," particularly if Frozen Four tickets and travel have been made. Compounding that, regionals involve only 5 days' notice. You just can't expect fans to spend that kind of money, when many only have a regular fan base of 2-5000 to begin with.

I think a myth has grown around basketball's March Madness, with discussions of money and enthusiasm. The facts are that most of the money comes from TV and Final 4, not regionals, and most of the enthusiasm comes from office pools. As most who have attended a basketball regional can tell you, crowds are often sparse, and for even the big schools, there's a consensus that you can watch the early stuff on TV, so why bother arranging a last minute flight to Boise? The NCAA makes no real efforts to change this, because they are still going to get that big payoff from CBS and the Final 4 site. For hockey, we may want to adopt that same attitude - that regionals in the west are, like the teenage years, a semi-miserable experience that you just endure in order to get to the next level. You can go to home teams hosting, and possibly improve your attendance while making the playing field less level, or you can keep it as is, and suffer through marginal attendance. But you can't make things better across the board.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

I agree, particularly with the "attendance not solvable" part. In "the West" (and I'm sure Alaska and now Arizona will get a kick out of Ohio, Michigan, et. al., referring to themselves as West), almost every regular season game all year involves a fairly significant trip, with overnight stays required. The shortest drive in our conference is over 4 hours away from us. BiG teams and most NCHC teams face something similar. For those fans that make a trip or 2 during the season, and then travel to their conference tournaments, regionals often become that weekend when our spouses say, "Financially and time-wise, that's enough," particularly if Frozen Four tickets and travel have been made. Compounding that, regionals involve only 5 days' notice. You just can't expect fans to spend that kind of money, when many only have a regular fan base of 2-5000 to begin with.

I think a myth has grown around basketball's March Madness, with discussions of money and enthusiasm. The facts are that most of the money comes from TV and Final 4, not regionals, and most of the enthusiasm comes from office pools. As most who have attended a basketball regional can tell you, crowds are often sparse, and for even the big schools, there's a consensus that you can watch the early stuff on TV, so why bother arranging a last minute flight to Boise? The NCAA makes no real efforts to change this, because they are still going to get that big payoff from CBS and the Final 4 site. For hockey, we may want to adopt that same attitude - that regionals in the west are, like the teenage years, a semi-miserable experience that you just endure in order to get to the next level. You can go to home teams hosting, and possibly improve your attendance while making the playing field less level, or you can keep it as is, and suffer through marginal attendance. But you can't make things better across the board.

Very well said. Agree completely.

 

[Goon]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

NCAA Hockey: Coaches Favor Status Quo
Apparently, some think that moving the NCAA tourney back on campus is taking a step back. I don't see how.
I get that the Eastern schools don't want to change. Most of the teams in the east can take a bus trip to the regionals.
But the Regional Championship in the West needs to be tweaked.

 

[Agganis]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

But the Regional Championship in the West needs to be tweaked.

Tweaked sure, I doubt (m)any will disagree with that, but trying to make some tweaks to the neutral site format is different than immediately moving it back to campuses.

 

[Goon]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Tweaked sure, I doubt (m)any will disagree with that, but trying to make some tweaks to the neutral site format is different than immediately moving it back to campuses.

It just doesn't make sense that some would rather play in a listless building with no atmosphere.

 

[Agganis]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

It just doesn't make sense that some would rather play in a listless building with no atmosphere.

Many of the posts in this thread are about how to improve the atmosphere at regionals without going back to campus rinks, I think that makes sense.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

I think that's the way it is with most western fans. I've never missed a conference tournament. Went to the first WCHA tournament in the late '80's, and I haven't missed one since, even the couple of years they moved it to Wisconsin.

I've also attended a bunch of Frozen Fours. I'd have to look at a list of them to even come up with the number right now, but it's well over 10.

Regionals? I've been to 6. For all the reasons you mentioned. I've just finished traveling to the conference tournament. I might be going to the Frozen Four. I don't know until Sunday where my team will even be playing, or what day. And it's going to be hundreds, if not a thousand miles away.

 

[Critical Thinker]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

As a broke student who lives in the campus's architecture studio, I would really appreciate it if the committee got every game on or within driving distance of campus. But since I'm broke, my opinion is probably irrelevant to the N¢AA.

 

[CLS]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

NCAA Hockey: Coaches Favor Status Quo
...

According to the link:

According to Brad Schlossman of the Grand Forks Herald, the college hockey coaches voted 52-6-1 against going to home sites in the first round in the regionals.

Wow. While I agree with them, I had no idea the sentiment was so strong

... For hockey, we may want to adopt that same attitude - that regionals in the west are, like the teenage years, a semi-miserable experience that you just endure in order to get to the next level. You can go to home teams hosting, and possibly improve your attendance while making the playing field less level, or you can keep it as is, and suffer through marginal attendance. But you can't make things better across the board.

Beautifully and accurately stated. There is a tradeoff. I love the metaphor.



Re: the Conference Tournament winners only suggestion. While I agree this is politically a non-starter, I assume we’re blue-skying and offer the following suggestion:

8 Participants in the National Tournament, made up of six conference championship winners and two at-large teams.

First Round: We could have a spirited debate on this board about (A) home rinks of higher seed according to PWR or perhaps some variation, like at-large teams having to play on the road or (B) what I’d prefer, a single super-regional; four games, two days, winners go to FF, losers go home.

(B) would require some fans to travel, but if you’re willing to red-eye, might not even require an overnight. Unlike the previous super regionals, fans would know their team is going to play only one game and would know exactly when it is, so travel planning is easier and you don't need to worry about buying a ticket you might not use. College hockey junkies would get to see four games, like the regionals in the 12 team tournament, but unlike the previous super-regionals, every game would be a win-or-go-home. If the FF is in the east, you could have the super-regional in the west, and vice versa.

 

[The Freds]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

For those fans that make a trip or 2 during the season, and then travel to their conference tournaments, regionals often become that weekend when our spouses say, "Financially and time-wise, that's enough," particularly if Frozen Four tickets and travel have been made. Compounding that, regionals involve only 5 days' notice. You just can't expect fans to spend that kind of money, when many only have a regular fan base of 2-5000 to begin with.

You summed up my feelings. After attending regionals (sometimes two locations in the same weekend) for the first few years of the current format I stopped going to regionals. Too much travel, my team not being there, and too expensive tickets, and sometimes hotels, in the weeks of March leading up to the Frozen Four - I said enough. I only went to the regionals this year because Providence was in it and I could drive a couple of hours and not have to fly. I'm not sure if I would have gone if I had to fly to Fargo.

I think I likely can speak for a very large percentage of fans. My criteria for attending a regional are:

1- The team I cheer for is playing in it.
2- The location is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
3- The timing of the game is such that I don't need to take significant time off of work to attend
4- The pricing somewhat reasonably matches what I am accustomed to paying for a college hockey game (realizing there may be a minor premium for postseason games).

Meet those criteria, and a heck of a lot more of us will go to the games.

For me, this sums it up. I might even go, even if #1 is not true, as long as I can drive an hour or two and the tickets do not exceed $25 or so.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

This is a really good example of why the regional attendance problem may not be one that is solvable.

In the west we simply couldn't do what you have done. I have no idea, but I would guess that a huge majority of the eastern schools that play D-1 hockey are within 200 miles of one another, and within 200 miles of the 5-7 places they have held the East and Northeast regionals these past dozen years? I have to believe most fans are a lot closer. Someone who is more familiar with the NE can correct me if I'm way off on the miles.

That means that it's not that big of a deal if you end up in the NE regional or the East regional, or what day you play, etc... In fact, you're probably able to even catch the games without the cost of a hotel room, and certainly without the cost of a flight.

You are pretty much spot on.
Boston to Worcester, 46 m, 50 min.
Boston to Providence, 50 m, 50 min
Boston to Manchester, 54 m, 53 min
Boston to Albany, 168 m, 2 hr 40 min
Boston to Bridgeport, 152 m, 2 hr 40 min

Worcester to Albany, 131 m, 2 hr
Worcester to Providence, 40 m, 42 min
Worcester to Manchester, 70 m, 1 hr 10 min

I can cut those times by 15%-25%.

If my team is in Albany, I will stay overnight and catch Worcester on the way there or on the way back home, depending on the days/times of each regional.
All other regionals, except for Bridgeport, are an easy commute and no need for an overnight

Could try a Super Regional in the west/midwest. Have the seeds and brackets selected as they are now and have all eight teams from the 2 brackets in one location. Separate admission for each regional so fans will have an opportunity to see their team play, as well as to see the other regional live if they choose and if tix are available. This may be worth it for more folks to travel, stay over the weekend and be able to see 6 games, 3 from each bracket.

 

[davyd83]

You are pretty much spot on.
Boston to Worcester, 46 m, 50 min.
Boston to Providence, 50 m, 50 min
Boston to Manchester, 54 m, 53 min
Boston to Albany, 168 m, 2 hr 40 min
Boston to Bridgeport, 152 m, 2 hr 40 min

Worcester to Albany, 131 m, 2 hr
Worcester to Providence, 40 m, 42 min
Worcester to Manchester, 70 m, 1 hr 10 min

I can cut those times by 15%-25%.

If my team is in Albany, I will stay overnight and catch Worcester on the way there or on the way back home, depending on the days/times of each regional.
All other regionals, except for Bridgeport, are an easy commute and no need for an overnight

Could try a Super Regional in the west/midwest. Have the seeds and brackets selected as they are now and have all eight teams from the 2 brackets in one location. Separate admission for each regional so fans will have an opportunity to see their team play, as well as to see the other regional live if they choose and if tix are available. This may be worth it for more folks to travel, stay over the weekend and be able to see 6 games, 3 from each bracket.

Now try to provide locker rooms, trainer facilities, practice times, pregame skates and time for six games at one venue in a weekend. Can't do it. NHL Arenas don't have facilities for 8 teams at once. I've seen plenty of facilities from top to bottom and the only one that could even come close would be U of Minnesota, but you'd have some teams practicing at NHL size Ridder and playing on the Olympic sheet at Mariucci. Even so, you only have 2 full sized accommodations for each rink. Same at Wisconsin, and Wisconsin has 2 different sized rinks as well.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Don't know if this is possible or if it would even help but what if each of the regionals were held in 2 locations very close to each other where the 2nd day could have 2 games at the same location. Example: Saturday afternoon, 2 games in Manchester. Saturday night, 2 games in Worcester. Sunday 2 games in Worcester. Probably easier to do in the East but maybe Detroit/AnnArbor, 2 arenas in Minneapolis or Columbus?

This would really work if you figured out the building pairs well. You could even do an on and off campus site pair as the on campus site the "host" school couldn't play in their own building but down the road, this would really work in the east. Have the primary site be the "regional final location"...

This idea has been somewhat lost in the shuffle, and really deserves a full hearing. Both posters suggested interesting Eastern pairs; here's a quick brainstorm on a couple of Western possibilities:

1. Yost (Ann Arbor) and Munn (East Lansing)The stipulation would be that if the Wolverines qualify, they have to play at Munn; if the Spartans qualify they have to play at Yost. I'm sure an enterprising T-Shirt guy from Ann Arbor could come up with an "Overrun Munn" design if the need arose. Minor tweak, I'd let each building keep its title game.

2. Mariucci (Minneapolis) and Amsoil (Duluth) Same idea. Gophers would have to play at Amsoil; Bulldogs at Mariucci. Otherwise, teams are placed in regionals according to the current system.

With each pairing, you'd have two large fanbases with a chance to host within commuting distance. All buildings are designed specifically for college hockey and have considerable college hockey tradition. Located in college hockey hotbeds, you've got a decent chance of grabbing some neutral fans. But using the building pairs, you eliminate the much-dreaded possibility of a team hosting on its home ice. Yes, the phrase "campus sites" has become a profanity in our world. But as the selection of Notre Dame this year shows, the buildings themselves are still eligible.

Note that I would not select either the X or Joe Louis. The NHL buildings are just too big for any likely regional. NHL buildings shouldn't be utilized for regionals unless it's the only viable option. The X once had a UND/MN regional match-up. In other words, the perfect storm. The building was half empty.

As for Columbus -- a Definite No. Both the Schott and Nationwide are too big for regionals. We simply don't have a building suitable for hosting a regional, much less two. And while the local hockey community has grown very nicely during my years here, we don't that large pool of fans that would qualify us a college hockey hotbed. It's not even close.

Could try a Super Regional in the west/midwest. Have the seeds and brackets selected as they are now and have all eight teams from the 2 brackets in one location. Separate admission for each regional so fans will have an opportunity to see their team play, as well as to see the other regional live if they choose and if tix are available. This may be worth it for more folks to travel, stay over the weekend and be able to see 6 games, 3 from each bracket.

Now try to provide locker rooms, trainer facilities, practice times, pregame skates and time for six games at one venue in a weekend. Can't do it. NHL Arenas don't have facilities for 8 teams at once...

But you're assuming that all the games have to be played in a 2 day period. Tweak that, and FiveHole12's idea could work. How about this:

In 2018, the FF is in St. Paul. Fans from the Upper Midwest might be game for regional travel in that particular year. So in 2018, let's put the two Western Regionals in Tampa. Yes, Tampa, Florida. Midwest Regional is played Friday/Saturday. West Regional is played Sunday/Monday. Saturday is a little busy with the Midwest Championship Game and 4 Western practices, but I'm confident that an NHL facility could handle that. Might have to be just a little flexible on locker rooms for the practices.

Maybe crowds would still be poor; maybe the mausoleum atmosphere would still prevail. But at least everyone attending would get a trip to Florida out of it. If you've spent the day on the beach, maybe an evening at the mausoleum wouldn't be so bad. And for those who love neutral sites, this would be about as neutral as you can get.

Anyhow, there you go: Three more ideas for improving Western regionals that wouldn't require a major policy change...

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

This idea has been somewhat lost in the shuffle, and really deserves a full hearing. Both posters suggested interesting Eastern pairs; here's a quick brainstorm on a couple of Western possibilities:

1. Yost (Ann Arbor) and Munn (East Lansing)The stipulation would be that if the Wolverines qualify, they have to play at Munn; if the Spartans qualify they have to play at Yost. I'm sure an enterprising T-Shirt guy from Ann Arbor could come up with an "Overrun Munn" design if the need arose. Minor tweak, I'd let each building keep its title game.

2. Mariucci (Minneapolis) and Amsoil (Duluth) Same idea. Gophers would have to play at Amsoil; Bulldogs at Mariucci. Otherwise, teams are placed in regionals according to the current system.

With each pairing, you'd have two large fanbases with a chance to host within commuting distance. All buildings are designed specifically for college hockey and have considerable college hockey tradition. Located in college hockey hotbeds, you've got a decent chance of grabbing some neutral fans. But using the building pairs, you eliminate the much-dreaded possibility of a team hosting on its home ice. Yes, the phrase "campus sites" has become a profanity in our world. But as the selection of Notre Dame this year shows, the buildings themselves are still eligible.

Note that I would not select either the X or Joe Louis. The NHL buildings are just too big for any likely regional. NHL buildings shouldn't be utilized for regionals unless it's the only viable option. The X once had a UND/MN regional match-up. In other words, the perfect storm. The building was half empty.

As for Columbus -- a Definite No. Both the Schott and Nationwide are too big for regionals. We simply don't have a building suitable for hosting a regional, much less two. And while the local hockey community has grown very nicely during my years here, we don't that large pool of fans that would qualify us a college hockey hotbed. It's not even close.



But you're assuming that all the games have to be played in a 2 day period. Tweak that, and FiveHole12's idea could work. How about this:

In 2018, the FF is in St. Paul. Fans from the Upper Midwest might be game for regional travel in that particular year. So in 2018, let's put the two Western Regionals in Tampa. Yes, Tampa, Florida. Midwest Regional is played Friday/Saturday. West Regional is played Sunday/Monday. Saturday is a little busy with the Midwest Championship Game and 4 Western practices, but I'm confident that an NHL facility could handle that. Might have to be just a little flexible on locker rooms for the practices.

Maybe crowds would still be poor; maybe the mausoleum atmosphere would still prevail. But at least everyone attending would get a trip to Florida out of it. If you've spent the day on the beach, maybe an evening at the mausoleum wouldn't be so bad. And for those who love neutral sites, this would be about as neutral as you can get.

Anyhow, there you go: Three more ideas for improving Western regionals that wouldn't require a major policy change...

First, Mariucci is actually less than ideal for NCAA purposes since it's still an Olympic size sheet. Not a total deal-breaker, but the committee has shown it will avoid non-NHL size ice if at all possible.

Second, using campus sites without host teams playing in their own building. Which school staffs the games in which rink? Athletic departments are stretched thin at that point in the spring season, and putting their team in a different building can strain the availability of staff (sports info, operations, etc.) without much recourse. One of the reasons that host teams are placed in the regions they are hosting is to avoid this specific problem.

Third, even the Amalie Arena would be over capacity for the "combined" regional. I think we've covered this exact scenario when it was presented as the 8 team "super regional", you've just repackaged the labels. 6 teams in a building in one day doesn't work. Remember, each and every team is traveling their entire roster (which they are permitted to do in the NCAA postseason), all their staff, and all their equipment (including large cases, skate sharpeners, etc.). Making them move all this is a logistical nightmare. Each team needs to have a place where they move in once and move out once in an NCAA tournament setting.

And fourth, have you ever tried to book a last minute flight to Florida during spring break season? The hockey tickets had better be free to make up for the gouging you'd take from the airlines. So unless you're buying them on spec or you don't care which teams make it, that's probably unacceptable too.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

First, Mariucci is actually less than ideal for NCAA purposes since it's still an Olympic size sheet. Not a total deal-breaker, but the committee has shown it will avoid non-NHL size ice if at all possible.

Overall, you've kind of missed the spirit of my post. I'm not all that wedded to the specifics.

On this item, the Gophers could use Aldrich. Or the Fairgrounds Coliseum. Or any other rink someone from the Twin Cities thinks would be better. Minnesota already hosts off-campus when they use the X. The smaller buildings might present different challenges. But it's hard to believe it would actually be more work to use the smaller site. (except on the first try)

Or, you could pair St. Cloud and Duluth as co-hosts for all I care. The goal is to find two schools willing co-host, both near significant numbers of potential fans.

Second, using campus sites without host teams playing in their own building. Which school staffs the games in which rink? Athletic departments are stretched thin at that point in the spring season, and putting their team in a different building can strain the availability of staff (sports info, operations, etc.) without much recourse. One of the reasons that host teams are placed in the regions they are hosting is to avoid this specific problem.

I'm familiar with all of this, and realize I've suggested something new. And yeah, some will resist any new idea on the grounds that it just creates more work...

Short answer is you staff your own building. The fact you'd have a close-by partner, and the opportunity for your team to play at that partner's building, should be a small incentive to co-host.

Every school who hosts is going to be stretched thin, whether their own team qualifies or not. For teams that qualify, I get that their Hockey SIDs can't be in two places at the same time. That would definitely need to be addressed. But schools that offer Women's Hockey might be able to use the Women's SID for back-up. Or perhaps a hockey knowledgeable person from another sport. And be all that as it may, just how many Sports Info staffers do you send to road games? For many schools it's just the Hockey SID and that's it. What if that one person becomes ill? Does the whole operation grind to a halt because you're missing one person?

This is not an insurmountable problem IMHO. But if the logistical problems are more daunting than I think, schools won't submit co-host bids and it's back to the drawing board. Just putting the idea out there for consideration doesn't cost much.

Third, even the Amalie Arena would be over capacity for the "combined" regional. I think we've covered this exact scenario when it was presented as the 8 team "super regional", you've just repackaged the labels. 6 teams in a building in one day doesn't work. Remember, each and every team is traveling their entire roster (which they are permitted to do in the NCAA postseason), all their staff, and all their equipment (including large cases, skate sharpeners, etc.). Making them move all this is a logistical nightmare. Each team needs to have a place where they move in once and move out once in an NCAA tournament setting.

OK, let's honor your objection. Instead of what I originally posted, let's do the Midwest games Thursday/Friday; leave Saturday open for the beach; and do the West on Sunday/Monday. Four teams are the maximum number present at any time. It would actually be an improvement for TV purposes, as the Eastern Regionals could have three games televised live on Saturday without competition from the West.

And fourth, have you ever tried to book a last minute flight to Florida during spring break season? The hockey tickets had better be free to make up for the gouging you'd take from the airlines. So unless you're buying them on spec or you don't care which teams make it, that's probably unacceptable too.

You've already given the first part of my answer. This regional would be one-shot special event, designed bring in fans who will attend regardless of teams. In other words, travel arrangements are made well in advance, Frozen Four-style. With 8 teams in one location, and the Eastern teams kept as close to home as possible, fans of a contending Western team would have pretty decent odds their team would be "sent West." Guaranteed? No. But better odds of predicting the right location than the normal year.

Next, let's not forget the realities of the status quo. Last minute air tickets to anywhere are very expensive these days. If you're from west of the Alleghenies, the only way you're going to Manchester in March is if your team makes it. So there's less than a week's notice for that scenario. Cha-ching. Not necessarily a savings in comparison to Tampa.

Finally, let's also remember that the bar for a successful Western regional is currently very, very low. Yes, the Tampa idea would be an experiment. But even if only 100 people attended, that would pretty much match what happened in Toledo. To be more positive, the great popularity of the 2012 Tampa FF led me to believe that there more might be more interest for a Tampa regional than there has been for many of the recently tried Western sites. Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong. Again, this was offered in the spirit of brainstorming and thinking outside the box. Never meant to imply that these ideas couldn't be tinkered with. In fact I meant to imply the exact opposite.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Re: the Conference Tournament winners only suggestion. While I agree this is politically a non-starter, I assume we’re blue-skying and offer the following suggestion:

8 Participants in the National Tournament, made up of six conference championship winners and two at-large teams.

First Round: We could have a spirited debate on this board about (A) home rinks of higher seed according to PWR or perhaps some variation, like at-large teams having to play on the road or (B) what I’d prefer, a single super-regional; four games, two days, winners go to FF, losers go home.

(B) would require some fans to travel, but if you’re willing to red-eye, might not even require an overnight. Unlike the previous super regionals, fans would know their team is going to play only one game and would know exactly when it is, so travel planning is easier and you don't need to worry about buying a ticket you might not use. College hockey junkies would get to see four games, like the regionals in the 12 team tournament, but unlike the previous super-regionals, every game would be a win-or-go-home. If the FF is in the east, you could have the super-regional in the west, and vice versa.

Ummm... Isn't this essentially my Great Eight proposal, sans the first round? (Post #241) You know, the one you rejected because the ice would be bad and no one would go? (Post #255)

Not contemplating copyright litigation; just sayin'.

No worries; a poster is allowed to change his mind.

 

[gfmorris]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

OK, let's honor your objection. Instead of what I originally posted, let's do the Midwest games Thursday/Friday; leave Saturday open for the beach; and do the West on Sunday/Monday. Four teams are the maximum number present at any time. It would actually be an improvement for TV purposes, as the Eastern Regionals could have three games televised live on Saturday without competition from the West.

You've already given the first part of my answer. This regional would be one-shot special event, designed bring in fans who will attend regardless of teams. In other words, travel arrangements are made well in advance, Frozen Four-style. With 8 teams in one location, and the Eastern teams kept as close to home as possible, fans of a contending Western team would have pretty decent odds their team would be "sent West." Guaranteed? No. But better odds of predicting the right location than the normal year.

I guess that the presupposition of this approach is "make the regional a destination for a crap-ton of hockey over five days", and that's fine, but I can see two related problems:

1. You're going to have a hard time finding people who will book travel Wed-Tue. Sure, the flights are cheaper then, so that might help, but you're killing two whole weeks at work with that kind of travel.

2. I'm not sure that you're going to get a lot of interest in airing games on non-prime nights unless ESPN gives it the kind of zip that they do for college basketball during the conference tournaments for men's basketball. Also, I'm just not sure that there's that much interest in doing that many days of programming for the Mouse, although perhaps it would be nice to have some off-prime content that isn't a re-run of some gymnastics competition. (Hey, I saw the new local HS win 3rd at a national competition, all because I went to get my hair cut on a Thursday night and had a TV in my face.)

I'd started to argue the "you can't get last-minute die-hards to these events" angle, but that's really not what you're going for.

I think that we've talked about this plenty, but I always try to go back to the following questions?

A. What are the broad groups of fans that you have at a regional: core fans of a participating team, locals, people who've made it a point to go to the regional regardless of who's there, or someone else?
B. What are the proportion of those fans?
C. How does travel distance/ease affect their participation?
D. What factors change those proportions in a way that means more fannies in seats and a better atmosphere?

I think that we've all talked in generalities about these things, but my gut feeling is that no one but the NCAA knows those answers, and they probably don't harvest the data to know in advance. I mean, there's so much data that can be done in ticketing alone between when you buy the ticket and what your ZIP code is. Now I get that it's May and we need something to talk about besides NLIs and the goofiness coming out AHCA, but how do we get anything approximating the right answers so we could push this forward? What are the known knowns, known unknowns, etc.?

GFM

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

I guess that the presupposition of this approach is "make the regional a destination for a crap-ton of hockey over five days", and that's fine, but I can see two related problems:

1. You're going to have a hard time finding people who will book travel Wed-Tue. Sure, the flights are cheaper then, so that might help, but you're killing two whole weeks at work with that kind of travel.

Oh, I dunno. We could try: Saturday Travel; Midwest Regional on Sunday/Monday; Beach Day Tuesday; West Regional on Wednesday/Thursday. Still done a full week before FF. Or not.

2. I'm not sure that you're going to get a lot of interest in airing games on non-prime nights unless ESPN gives it the kind of zip that they do for college basketball during the conference tournaments for men's basketball. Also, I'm just not sure that there's that much interest in doing that many days of programming for the Mouse, although perhaps it would be nice to have some off-prime content that isn't a re-run of some gymnastics competition. (Hey, I saw the new local HS win 3rd at a national competition, all because I went to get my hair cut on a Thursday night and had a TV in my face.)...

It would be live programming, with rights already paid for. Should be some value there. I'll admit I'm not sure if there's enough value to get all the games on the air.

I think that we've talked about this plenty...

You're correct, of course. I've posted a ton of this topic and it is time to give it a rest. Bear with me while I'll finish this reply, then I'll move on.

... but I always try to go back to the following questions?

A. What are the broad groups of fans that you have at a regional: core fans of a participating team, locals, people who've made it a point to go to the regional regardless of who's there, or someone else?
B. What are the proportion of those fans?
C. How does travel distance/ease affect their participation?
D. What factors change those proportions in a way that means more fannies in seats and a better atmosphere?

Excellent questions.

Very Quick Answers: I'd guess that every school that makes the tournament can generate 250 parents, siblings and closest friends, and the location makes very little difference for them. In contrast, local interest varies greatly. In general, going to non-college hockey towns means no local component to the crowd. But like lemmings, we continue to choose these sites on the theory they're neutral. Diehard fans of the sport? Currently MIA at the Western Regionals. My "brainstorms" were things I thought might attract some of the diehards/former regulars back. But if I'm wrong yet again, I can live with that. I don't design tournaments for a living.

I think that we've all talked in generalities about these things, but my gut feeling is that no one but the NCAA knows those answers, and they probably don't harvest the data to know in advance. I mean, there's so much data that can be done in ticketing alone between when you buy the ticket and what your ZIP code is. Now I get that it's May and we need something to talk about besides NLIs and the goofiness coming out AHCA, but how do we get anything approximating the right answers so we could push this forward? What are the known knowns, known unknowns, etc.? GFM

Yup. The brainstorming has quickly turned back into the whack-a-mole game. If the NCAA wants to provide some of that info, the conversation could be productive again. But as I've noted more than once, all we got from the NCAA meetings was a flat "No." Substantive feedback? None. Guidance as to what a better approach might be? Nope.

So all we're doing now is shooting down every option. Due, in part, to fear of the unknowns. And all in defense of a status quo that we know for certain is "semi-miserable." Which was a nicely chosen term, BTW.