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

[CLS]

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

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.

Well played and I’m especially impressed by the research!

In my defense, I’d say (1) the “sans the first round” is a significant difference, and (2) I shouldn’t try to “rescue” other proposals that I fundamentally disagree with, in this case, the “conference tournament champions only” proposal.

Regarding Tampa, I think you’re going to have to try to find a different destination city, without an NHL team. Does Orlando have a rink in a facility they don’t share with an NBA team? New Orleans? There’s no reason you need a venue that large.

Sure Tampa’s hosted or will host two FF’s in a relatively short period of time. But that was the FF, which has a high probability of success. Especially at that time of the year, the Lightning aren’t going on the road for several days (perhaps a week or more with your Thursday – Monday format, and adding time for practices and to comply with NCAA signage requirements) for an event that would probably count it as a miracle if they drew 4,000.

...

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?

...

Well stated! Fascinating questions. Quite frankly I wonder if the NCAA already knows, or thinks they know that the western regionals are as good as they will get. If so, what they apparently did in letting the coaches vote has them boxed in a corner.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

...(2) I shouldn’t try to “rescue” other proposals that I fundamentally disagree with, in this case, the “conference tournament champions only” proposal...

And I probably shouldn't be rescuing proposals that, for me, are second choices at best.

 

[johnk]

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...

I think that you have a much better chance of drawing casual fans for a day that will see 2 teams gain a birth to the Frozen 4, at one location. Add to that the fans of 4 schools instead of 2 and I can't see how this doesn't alleviate some of the attendance issues.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

I think that you have a much better chance of drawing casual fans for a day that will see 2 teams gain a birth to the Frozen 4, at one location. Add to that the fans of 4 schools instead of 2 and I can't see how this doesn't alleviate some of the attendance issues.

Clearly correct, as far as it goes. Trouble is, in order to offer a proposal, you also have tell everyone what the arrangement would be for the first round games. And if you do, be prepared to duck for cover. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the group of posters on this thread for being articulate and civil. But what's happening is that if someone objects to one element of a plan, they're against the whole thing. No one has an interest in building on ideas. Everybody's just playing defense.

It gets worse. Your specific idea -- no matter what you do with the first round -- is a departure from the current format of four separate regionals. In other words, it's a policy change that would require formal approval from all of the relevant constituencies. As we've just seen from the coaches vote, that's probably a mission impossible for the foreseeable future.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Clearly correct, as far as it goes. Trouble is, in order to offer a proposal, you also have tell everyone what the arrangement would be for the first round games. And if you do, be prepared to duck for cover. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the group of posters on this thread for being articulate and civil. But what's happening is that if someone objects to one element of a plan, they're against the whole thing. No one has an interest in building on ideas. Everybody's just playing defense.

It gets worse. Your specific idea -- no matter what you do with the first round -- is a departure from the current format of four separate regionals. In other words, it's a policy change that would require formal approval from all of the relevant constituencies. As we've just seen from the coaches vote, that's probably a mission impossible for the foreseeable future.

All true, but I don't think any proposal will increase attendance until you address the underlying problem: lack of interest in college hockey.

The CCHA thought they could sell 70,000 tickets for the Frozen Four in Detroit. Didn't happen. What needs to be done is find ways to convert fans of one team to fans of college hockey in general and to increase the college hockey fan base overall. Over on the ASU thread someone posted a link to a SB article that stated the future of USA hockey was in college hockey in Arizona, the southwest/west coast and PAC-12. But besides adding new schools how can interest in college hockey in existing locations be increased?

Should college hockey create a national advertising campaign? Promote it better to local youth programs? I though the Frozen Four Skills Challenge was great, but it was dropped by the NCAA (likely due to losing money). The glass was removed alone the sides and the kids were able to interact with the participants. Maybe some type of local challenges could be put on at several locations, maybe even at the regionals. Get the kids to like the players and not just a team.

Sean

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

South Bend: WeAreNDHockey can give you a more authoritative response. But I'll toss my understanding out there. Notre Dame season ticket holders were forced to purchase regional tickets as part of last year's season ticket. Not sure if it was technically a sellout. But yes, at least most of the ticket money was in the till. At the same time, the large majority didn't use those tickets. We need to open our eyes and see the stark reality: By the time March rolled around, the season ticket money was long gone, making the regional ducats free as a practical matter. No travel time, no overnight lodging expense was required for most of those ticketholders. And yet they still couldn't be tempted into attending the game as neutral fans. The bottom line is that if we insist on having genuinely neutral sites in the West, we need to plan on smaller crowds.

This is all correct. The games were not sellouts. About 1000 short on day one and about 1400 short on day 2 as far as total tickets sold. I would guess between 100 and 200 Notre Dame season ticket holders attended one or both games, and perhaps 1800 people passed through the turnstiles on Saturday and maybe 1400 Sunday. As pointed out, the stark reality is there are very few people out there willing to attend a game when their team is not playing. These tickets were -- as pgb-ohio noted -- essentially free. I paid for mine 7 months earlier and had long forgotten about the $$$. (Well, that isn't really true, I was ****ed off about my team pooping the bed again so I hadn't forgotten about the $$$ but that's a complaint for a Notre Dame thread... )
Notre Dame's two basketball teams were playing fairly important games on the weekend and that likely held down the crowd a little bit. I considered staying home to watch the hoops games but in the end felt like I almost owed it to college hockey to attend. In the end I was glad I did. All three games were entertaining and both the RIT contests were great fun. As well, despite the small size of the crowd the fans who were there were quite spirited and the atmosphere was actually better than any of the other regionals I have attended that Notre Dame participated in. Had the university bothered trying to get people to show up it maybe they could have actually had a decent turnout, but having cashed the season ticket holder's checks in August, they felt no need to bother.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

But besides adding new schools how can interest in college hockey in existing locations be increased?

Your ideas are good.

I'd add that efforts should be redoubled with students currently at the school, undergrad and grad alike. Staff members too, for that matter. Loyalties formed during the student years tend to endure. That may not create a huge number of fans of the sport, but odds are that some of the converts would take it to the next level. I'll bet if you took a survey of regular posters on this board, a good percentage of them would report they got hooked on their team during their full-time years on campus.

This is all correct. The games were not sellouts. About 1000 short on day one and about 1400 short on day 2 as far as total tickets sold. I would guess between 100 and 200 Notre Dame season ticket holders attended one or both games, and perhaps 1800 people passed through the turnstiles on Saturday and maybe 1400 Sunday. As pointed out, the stark reality is there are very few people out there willing to attend a game when their team is not playing. These tickets were -- as pgb-ohio noted -- essentially free. I paid for mine 7 months earlier and had long forgotten about the $$$...

Appreciate the follow-up.

 

[CLS]

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

...I considered staying home to watch the hoops games but in the end felt like I almost owed it to college hockey to attend. In the end I was glad I did. All three games were entertaining and both the RIT contests were great fun. As well, despite the small size of the crowd the fans who were there were quite spirited and the atmosphere was actually better than any of the other regionals I have attended that Notre Dame participated in....

Thank you. At times I feel like I'm the only hockey fan in the world (maybe along with five hole twelve) who can have an enjoyable hockey experience despite a small crowd.

Clearly correct, as far as it goes. Trouble is, in order to offer a proposal, you also have tell everyone what the arrangement would be for the first round games. And if you do, be prepared to duck for cover. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the group of posters on this thread for being articulate and civil. But what's happening is that if someone objects to one element of a plan, they're against the whole thing. No one has an interest in building on ideas. Everybody's just playing defense.

Until pretty recently, pretty much every proposal for the first round has been some form of home rink of higher seed. And since that's a bedrock principle issue for some, it should be no surprise that some folks regard the bells and whistles as putting lipstick on a pig. You've gotten no serious pushback, some support, and some "building on" of your suggestions in 313.

Besides, radical proposals, (e.g. a Tampa regional or putting the FF in a football stadium) should be thoroughly vetted, because they have the potential for serious negative consequences. I contend that Ford Field was a serious debacle for the NCAA because it destroyed the myth of ticket shortage for the Frozen Four and marked the transition from a "lottery" (good for the NCAA) to the controlled pre-sale that it's become.

It gets worse. Your specific idea -- no matter what you do with the first round -- is a departure from the current format of four separate regionals. In other words, it's a policy change that would require formal approval from all of the relevant constituencies. As we've just seen from the coaches vote, that's probably a mission impossible for the foreseeable future.

Because of the coaches' vote, a policy change involving home rinks is probably a mission impossible in the forseeable future. But a "super-regional" in the west? Their vote had nothing to do with that, and if the legitimate logistics and ice condition concerns can be addressed, it might have a shot at a fair hearing. I don't think that the coaches vote should be taken as a referendum on the status quo or an indication that they don't care about crowd size at all; only that they don't like one specific suggestion to address the crowd size problem.

Besides, as you've said before, just because we don't have much say with the decision makers doesn't mean that we can't, as fans, discuss ideas.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

...You've gotten no serious pushback, some support, and some "building on" of your suggestions in 313.

Well, I've just browsed through the posts from #313 forward, and I have to disagree with this characterization. There's some truth to it, but it's pretty misleading. While most left the post itself alone, they also settled on the conclusion that the "attendance problem is unsolvable." In other words, people weren't offended by the list in #313; they just deemed it irrelevant. Not the response I was hoping for. But you pays your money, you takes your chances.

You, individually, offered support for the smaller venues. I'm not forgetting that, and it was appreciated. Another positive response came from Agganis, who offered that he might support some tweaks, though he didn't do any building. Nothing wrong with that at all, but nothing much being accomplished.

As for pushback, it came in response to the more creative, out-of-the-box suggestions in other posts. And very sincerely, I don't have a problem with those replies either. People disagreed in intelligent, appropriate ways. But once "defense" takes over a thread, it becomes increasingly unlikely that anyone will go out on a limb. A chilling effect, so to speak.

I don't regret having the conversation at all. It was genuinely enlightening. But it has reached the point of diminishing returns, IMHO.

Because of the coaches' vote, a policy change involving home rinks is probably a mission impossible in the forseeable future. But a "super-regional" in the west? Their vote had nothing to do with that, and if the legitimate logistics and ice condition concerns can be addressed, it might have a shot at a fair hearing. I don't think that the coaches vote should be taken as a referendum on the status quo or an indication that they don't care about crowd size at all; only that they don't like one specific suggestion to address the crowd size problem.

I believe that the opportunity for significant change has passed. Tea leaf reading is an inexact science, to be sure. But when NCAA decision-makers are considering big changes, they usually float trial balloons of some kind. They might ask a single conference to test an experimental rule. Or, they'll flag something as a point of emphasis, and hint that if the initial solution doesn't work, sterner measures are coming. In this case, they could have planted a clue by announcing a tweak to the site selection criteria. Instead, the silence was deafening. The news "leaks out" that the vote was 90% negative. But that's all folks. Period, end of story. To me, that's a pretty good indication that the conversation is over. The secrecy allowed the heretics to save face, but that's it. When you described the Hockey Committee as "boxed in a corner," I thought that was spot on.

Besides, as you've said before, just because we don't have much say with the decision makers doesn't mean that we can't, as fans, discuss ideas.

Of course. If someone else wants the podium, by all means have at it.

 

[joecct]

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

Outside the box
Friday - Sunday
Game 1. #1 seed v #2 seed (winner to regional final)
Game 2. #3 seed v #4 seed (loser eliminated)

Game 3. Loser game #1 v Winner Game #2

Game 4. Winner Game #1 v Winner Game #3

Top 2 seeds get 2 chances to get to regional finals. Bottom 2 seeds have to win 3 games on the weekend to get to the FF.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Outside the box

Outside the box? You pretty much torched the box. Glad to see at least one poster is immune to the "chilling effect."

 

[CLS]

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

Outside the box
Friday - Sunday
Game 1. #1 seed v #2 seed (winner to regional final)
Game 2. #3 seed v #4 seed (loser eliminated)

Game 3. Loser game #1 v Winner Game #2

Game 4. Winner Game #1 v Winner Game #3

Top 2 seeds get 2 chances to get to regional finals. Bottom 2 seeds have to win 3 games on the weekend to get to the FF.

Outside the box, indeed, but I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. How would this improve attendance at regionals? Seems to me it makes attendance more problematic by spreading the games out and making the number of games for each team uncertain.

If you're saying you think that it should be harder for lower seeds to make the FF and easier for higher seeds to make the FF, you've accomplished that. But I personally don't agree with you, and I'd say that if that's your objective, going to home rinks for the first round is a better solution. Sorry to sound defensive.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

If you're saying you think that it should be harder for lower seeds to make the FF and easier for higher seeds to make the FF, you've accomplished that.

That's exactly what he's saying. In the face of a 90/10 vote to protect the underdog, joecct's chutzpah was rather pleasant -- at least from my vantage point.

But I personally don't agree with you, and I'd say that if that's your objective, going to home rinks for the first round is a better solution. Sorry to sound defensive.

You weren't defensive, though perhaps you were playing defense. Two different things. But more importantly, you got right to the heart of the matter, succinctly and accurately. I just think joecct's real objective was rhetorical.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Outside the box, indeed, but I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. How would this improve attendance at regionals? Seems to me it makes attendance more problematic by spreading the games out and making the number of games for each team uncertain.

It might improve attendance. However, why not a modified double-elimination like the Massachusetts Super 8 high school format?

Friday
Game 1: #1 seed v #4 seed
Game 2: #2 seed v #3 seed
Saturday
Game 3: loser game #1 v loser game #2
Game 4: winner game #1 v winner game #2
Sunday
Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)

The upside? With all four teams playing at least 2 games the trip for their fans would be much more appealing. The downside? The winner of game 5 would have to play 4 games in three days, including 2 on Sunday. A pretty brutal schedule. But they would have put themselves in that position by losing a game. You could also modify the schedule to have the regional over four days:

Thursday
Game 1: #1 seed v #4 seed
Game 2: #2 seed v #3 seed
Friday
Game 3: loser game #1 v loser game #2
Game 4: winner game #1 v winner game #2
Saturday
Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Sunday
Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)

Of course this makes the weekend trip even longer for fans that have to travel. And with Thursday and Friday doubleheaders you run into probable lack of attendance by working fans. Also with only one game on Saturday and Sunday attendance will probably dip as well. So how about changing the days of the week?

Saturday
Game 1: #1 seed v #4 seed
Game 2: #2 seed v #3 seed
Sunday
Game 3: loser game #1 v loser game #2
Game 4: winner game #1 v winner game #2
Monday
Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Tuesday
Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)

So now you have doubleheaders on both weekend days, which should maximize attendance by both working fans and travel fans. Single night games on Monday and Tuesday should help with attendance by working fans, leaving the issue of what the travel fans would do. With three teams still alive after Sunday I would think many would have planned to stay and leave on Wednesday. Those that can't stay could still attend the weekend doubleheaders. It also gives everyone a few more days to make plans to attend the regional.

Or the games could be split over 2 weekends:
On the current regional weekend
Saturday
Game 1: #1 seed v #4 seed
Game 2: #2 seed v #3 seed
Sunday
Game 3: loser game #1 v loser game #2
Game 4: winner game #1 v winner game #2

On the current bye weekend drop from 4 to 2 sites:
Saturday
East regional Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Northeast regional Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Sunday
East regional Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)
Northeast regional Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)
and do the same with the west regionals

I see more problems with this than having the regionals on a single weekend. My preference would be to have the modified double-elimination regionals on Saturday-Tuesday. So fire away!

Sean

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Going to include a mini-game if winner-4 loses vs. winner-5? Or just too bad for blowing it?

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Going to include a mini-game if winner-4 loses vs. winner-5? Or just too bad for blowing it?

No, just too bad for blowing it (sort of like BU this year ). The Mass Super 8 used to be true double-elimination, but after needing the extra game a few times they dropped it to have a set final game with winner-take-all.

Sean

 

[CLS]

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

It might improve attendance. However, why not a modified double-elimination like the Massachusetts Super 8 high school format?

Friday
Game 1: #1 seed v #4 seed
Game 2: #2 seed v #3 seed
Saturday
Game 3: loser game #1 v loser game #2
Game 4: winner game #1 v winner game #2
Sunday
Game 5: winner game #3 v loser game #4
Game 6: winner game #4 v winner #5 (winner advances to FF)

...

Or the games could be split over 2 weekends:
...
Sean

Without having given this much thought, let me suggest an alternative two your two weekend model.

Weekend 1: Games 1 and 2, and now I’ll say something heretical (for me) at the home rink of the higher seed

Weekend 2 (neutral site)
Friday: Games 3 and 4
Saturday: Game 5
Sunday: Game 6

The reasons that I could buy an arrangement like this (even though I strongly prefer neutral ice) is that (a)every team would have the opportunity to get to the FF by winning at a neutral site, and (b)every team, in order to make the FF, would have to win at a neutral site.

Giving up the dead week would probably be problematic and I'm sure there are other problems, but (a) there may be reasonable solutions, and (b) I don’t want to appear to be playing defense.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

Well, since we're down to throwing out crazy ideas that would never happen, maybe each regional should be in a football stadium, with a football field sized rink, with all 4 teams playing at the same time. 4 nets, 4 teams, first to 20 goals goes to the frozen 4.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Well, since we're down to throwing out crazy ideas that would never happen, maybe each regional should be in a football stadium, with a football field sized rink, with all 4 teams playing at the same time. 4 nets, 4 teams, first to 20 goals goes to the frozen 4.

Reminds me of the suggestions for that other tournament...

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Without having given this much thought, let me suggest an alternative two your two weekend model.

Weekend 1: Games 1 and 2, and now I’ll say something heretical (for me) at the home rink of the higher seed

Weekend 2 (neutral site)
Friday: Games 3 and 4
Saturday: Game 5
Sunday: Game 6

The reasons that I could buy an arrangement like this (even though I strongly prefer neutral ice) is that (a)every team would have the opportunity to get to the FF by winning at a neutral site, and (b)every team, in order to make the FF, would have to win at a neutral site.

Giving up the dead week would probably be problematic and I'm sure there are other problems, but (a) there may be reasonable solutions, and (b) I don’t want to appear to be playing defense.

I like that better than my idea. Only 2 games the first weekend, but likely a good crowd if it is a doubleheader, and for fans of the host school not a travel issue. The second weekend does have the Friday doubleheader problem, as well as fans of losing teams on Friday and Saturday possibly not showing up, but we already have those issues now.

Sean