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

[Sean Pickett]

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.

There's a difference between out-of-the-box ideas and creating a new game. That said, many years ago I thought about having a three team game on a triangular rink!

Sean

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

There's a difference between out-of-the-box ideas and creating a new game. That said, many years ago I thought about having a three team game on a triangular rink!

Sean

Were you watching a NASCAR race in the Poconos?

 

[pgb-ohio]

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?

This idea reminds me of the B1G Conference Baseball tournaments, and certainly the format has its appeal. Lots of great games in a short period of time should be attractive to the neutral fan. And yet, I have to say that while I've enjoyed the baseball tournaments OSU has hosted, attendance at the non-OSU games has been pretty lean. Then again, whether that matters (or not) depends on the problem you're trying to solve, as noted by CLS.

Without having given this much thought, let me suggest an alternative to 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:eek

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.

That is an improvement. Reframing it just slightly, it eliminates the possibility of losing in the first round to a host team and being gone.

On the financial side, you'd have six games instead of three. Presumably you'd get a nice financial head start on Weekend 1 at the campus sites. So even if crowds were smallish for Weekend 2 , at the end of the tournament the grand total of the gate receipts would likely turn out OK. Even better, the ticket revenue would drawn from fans who actually want to attend, and do. As long as we're dreaming, smaller venues on Weekend 2 might even make for a good atmosphere! And who knows? Maybe great crowds and dramatic games on Weekend 1 would create some additional interest for Weekend 2.

The more I think about it, the better I like it. But its chances politically? Yikes. Maybe I need to let go of my current pessimism, but I still have trouble seeing this happen.

There's a difference between out-of-the-box ideas and creating a new game. That said, many years ago I thought about having a three team game on a triangular rink!

Sean

Pretty much the perfect answer to the challenge you were given.

As for the 3 Team Battle Royale, I've tossed that one around too. I never envisioned a triangular rink, though.

In my version, you'd have one net in the usual place, and one on each side at center ice. If desired, you could use the portable pads on the far blue line. Never got a group to try it out. Maybe it would increase the risk of injury to an unacceptable level, I dunno. But it really would force you to think on your skates.

Question: 1 Puck or Two?

EDIT: We are talking 3 on 3 on 3, correct? With 5 on each side, you'd be playing a game of human bumper cars.

 

[JB]

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.

Without it being a new game just 4 teams playing on 2 separate rinks same building same time... Concurrent double hheader The scoreboard would need to show the other game to the other end.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Without it being a new game just 4 teams playing on 2 separate rinks same building same time... Concurrent double hheader The scoreboard would need to show the other game to the other end.

That's done all the time in tennis, so it could actually work. If one games gets more interesting than the other the fans can just move to the interesting game.

Sean

 

[Spartanforlife4]

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

Someone here brought up the Great Eight idea, with all the quarterfinals at one site. I don't know if he picked it up from lacrosse or not, but that's what they do. This year all four games were played at Navy and appeared to have good attendance. Round 1 is campus sites, Round 2 is Great Eight, and then the next weekend is Rounds 3 and 4 for the Final Four.

The issue here comes with timing. Hockey always has that break in between regionals and the Frozen Four so that it doesn't compete with the Final Fours, but something would have to change, unless you want to make everything a cluster and hold the campus site round on a Tuesday and then the G8 that weekend.

I think the other issue would be this would never leave the Northeast.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Someone here brought up the Great Eight idea, with all the quarterfinals at one site.

Excuse me; I'm right here.

If you really want to relive that conversation, it starts at Post #241. Not recommending that you do; not recommending that you don't. Just sayin'.

I don't know if he picked it up from lacrosse or not, but that's what they do. This year all four games were played at Navy and appeared to have good attendance. Round 1 is campus sites, Round 2 is Great Eight, and then the next weekend is Rounds 3 and 4 for the Final Four.

I was aware that having the first round on campus was something D-1 Lacrosse did. But I was NOT aware they used the Great 8 format for Round 2. As noted back at the beginning, the Great 8 idea stemmed from some brainstorming among friends at the Boston FF. Whether any party to those conversations was inspired by the lacrosse format, I couldn't tell you.

Also recall that the original proponent of the "lacrosse approach" (a couple of years ago) was Alton, not me. Could be that his second round was essentially a Great 8, and all I added was a name. And be all that as it may, I haven't attended a lacrosse match during the current century, as far as I can recall. So lacrosse was only an indirect influence, at most. FWIW.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Someone here brought up the Great Eight idea, with all the quarterfinals at one site. I don't know if he picked it up from lacrosse or not, but that's what they do. This year all four games were played at Navy and appeared to have good attendance. Round 1 is campus sites, Round 2 is Great Eight, and then the next weekend is Rounds 3 and 4 for the Final Four.

Except there are two sites for the Quarterfinals in lacrosse. Denver hosted both the Denver-Ohio State and Notre Dame-Albany games at Mile High.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Except there are two sites for the Quarterfinals in lacrosse.

Major difference. Key feature of the Great 8: Bring lots of teams to one site with the goal of raising in-house attendance to acceptable levels. As has been much discussed, fans tend to watch only their own teams play. Over time, that trend has become more pronounced. The question is: Can you create a good enough show, a big enough event, to bring some of the neutral fans back?

Denver hosted both the Denver-Ohio State and Notre Dame-Albany games at Mile High.

Another significant difference with the Great 8. I proposed a neutral site to counterbalance the home ice advantage granted in the first round. Now I'm sure DU doesn't play regular season lacrosse games at Mile High. So maybe that's similar to Minnesota hosting hockey games at the X.

Still, using a "sort of neutral" site in the host city runs counter to the spirit of the Great 8. I presume that Denver was awarded the quarterfinal games based on regular season and first round results -- similar to baseball regionals. If so, a strong team could host locally year after year. Not what I was looking for.

 

[CLS]

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

...
Another significant difference with the Great 8. I proposed a neutral site to counterbalance the home ice advantage granted in the first round.

You sly devil, you. I thought that you were proposing to put it in the east when the FF was in the West, to counterbalance the travel burden. Now I see you're looking out for the "neutral site" folks. Thanks. I guess if I can respond favorably to a suggestion that puts the first round at home rinks, it's only fair.

Now I'm sure DU doesn't play regular season lacrosse games at Mile High. So maybe that's similar to Minnesota hosting hockey games at the X.

Still, using a "sort of neutral" site in the host city runs counter to the spirit of the Great 8. I presume that Denver was awarded the quarterfinal games based on regular season and first round results -- similar to baseball regionals. If so, a strong team could host locally year after year. Not what I was looking for.

Don't think your presumption is correct, since the Quarterfinals sites for 2016 (one of them is Columbus!) have already been announced.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-12-11/2014-18-ncaa-championship-sites

 

[Spartanforlife4]

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

Except there are two sites for the Quarterfinals in lacrosse. Denver hosted both the Denver-Ohio State and Notre Dame-Albany games at Mile High.

Whoops. Misread the bracket on Wikipedia.

I think the two site-two quarterfinal set up could be great, though. I guess the issue there would be attempting to create brackets based on geography without ruining the competitive integrity.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

You sly devil, you. I thought that you were proposing to put it in the east when the FF was in the West, to counterbalance the travel burden. Now I see you're looking out for the "neutral site" folks. Thanks. I guess if I can respond favorably to a suggestion that puts the first round at home rinks, it's only fair.

I'll take sly devil as a compliment, but I don't think I've really earned it. My Great 8 had both components from the very beginning. I guess I didn't market the idea properly! But I did mention right away in #241 that my Great 8 would be at an NHL or AHL Arena, which means a neutral site in virtually every case. Honestly, my top priority with the Great 8 was to try and sell a compromise: First Round on Campus, Second Round at a Neutral Site.

You're memory is correct on the travel angle; I did mention Great 8 in one region, FF in the other region. Beyond the travel factor, I imagined that the Great 8 would do better if it didn't have to compete with the FF for attention and ticket buyers in the local market.

Don't think your presumption is correct, since the Quarterfinals sites for 2016 (one of them is Columbus!) have already been announced.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-12-11/2014-18-ncaa-championship-sites

My bad. I simply don't follow lacrosse, and shouldn't be presuming things about that sport. Guess I was once again importing a baseball idea, and assuming it would apply to lacrosse. On the bright side, we see that:

1. The NCAA can allow some variation between sports, with Western Civilization surviving intact; and

2. The NCAA is flexible enough to allow selection of a smaller site that fits the event. The Jesse Owens was built specifically for Track; a sport that got kicked out of Ohio Stadium 10-15 years ago during the renovations. It's also used for soccer, FWIW. I can see the Jesse Owens working very well for one of the "Olympic Sports" playoff rounds, with good atmosphere and all the rest.

 

[jeteye1717]

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

Perhaps this was discussed earlier in this thread ('tho I looked and couldn't spot any mention of it), but the NYT ran an interesting article last week (in advance of the lacrosse Finals in Philadelphia) lamenting the continuing attendance concerns at its marquee event since 2007:

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/sports/as-lacrosse-rises-its-final-four-falls-fast.html

Numerous concerns and potential remedies were bandied about, including the high cost to fans of tickets and travel, a possible move to smaller venues away from NFL stadia, the proliferation of quality, high-def television broadcasts that cut into in-person attendance, etc., all issues that have been discussed here re: the hockey regionals in particular. There were in addition some thought-provoking quotes from Phil Buttafuoco, executive director of the men's lacrosse coaches association, and Anthony Holman, the NCAA championship administrator for Division I lacrosse. "It's absolutely a concern," Holman said. "We've spent the last 18 months developing strategies and plans around how we can increase the attendance at the championship. But our No. 1 priority is the experience we can provide to our student-athletes." I think we've all heard that in reference to hockey too. But it appears the lacrosse people, having looked hard at the attendance numbers, are willing to revisit the status quo and seriously consider making changes, as they did already this season by reducing the cost of Final Four (tm) ticket packages. "I think maybe they went a bit too far in terms of ratcheting up ticket prices ... and pressuring host sites for financial return. I think they realize that now." If only the hockey folk could be as introspective, 'tho given the vast majority of coaches so adamantly opposed to making significant changes to the regional format it's not gonna happen ...

One other quote caught my eye: "Buttafuoco has been among those urging caution about moving the Final Four site far from Interstate 95, pointing to the NCAA's relocation of the men’s hockey tournament to Anaheim, CA in 1999, which he considered a blunder" ... IIRC, wasn't Buttafuoco at one time a high-ranking NCAA official on the hockey side of things? While he may have bit his tongue then re: his concerns about staging the hockey championship so far from its roots/fan base (which ironically featured a title game between UMO and UNH, the two DivI teams most geographically remote from Anaheim), I find it interesting that he's more willing now to speak up in favor of keeping the lacrosse championship close to its historic heart. Denver's title game win over UMD pushed the western-most team to ever win a DivI lacrosse championship from Chapel Hill, NC to the Rocky Mountain foothills, but there's no denying the niche appeal of the sport remains east of the Appalachians. Geographic concerns don't seem to have the same impact on the hockey folk, else why would the Frozen Four be headed back to Tampa so soon?

 

[CLS]

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

I'll take sly devil as a compliment, but I don't think I've really earned it. My Great 8 had both components from the very beginning. I guess I didn't market the idea properly! But I did mention right away in #241 that my Great 8 would be at an NHL or AHL Arena, which means a neutral site in virtually every case. Honestly, my top priority with the Great 8 was to try and sell a compromise: First Round on Campus, Second Round at a Neutral Site.

You're memory is correct on the travel angle; I did mention Great 8 in one region, FF in the other region. Beyond the travel factor, I imagined that the Great 8 would do better if it didn't have to compete with the FF for attention and ticket buyers in the local market.

Just a little chain-pulling between friends, hence the emojis. If you don’t deserve compliments for being a sly devil, you deserve them for being civil and reasonable. My recollection is exactly what you said – an attempt at compromise between atmosphere and neutral sites, with the travel burden evened out.

2. The NCAA is flexible enough to allow selection of a smaller site that fits the event. The Jesse Owens was built specifically for Track; a sport that got kicked out of Ohio Stadium 10-15 years ago during the renovations. It's also used for soccer, FWIW. I can see the Jesse Owens working very well for one of the "Olympic Sports" playoff rounds, with good atmosphere and all the rest.

Perhaps this was discussed earlier in this thread ('tho I looked and couldn't spot any mention of it), but the NYT ran an interesting article last week (in advance of the lacrosse Finals in Philadelphia) lamenting the continuing attendance concerns at its marquee event since 2007:

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...alls-fast.html

Numerous concerns and potential remedies were bandied about, including […] a possible move to smaller venues away from NFL stadia, the proliferation of quality […] There were in addition some thought-provoking quotes from Phil Buttafuoco, executive director of the men's lacrosse coaches association, and Anthony Holman, the NCAA championship administrator for Division I lacrosse. "It's absolutely a concern," Holman said. "We've spent the last 18 months developing strategies and plans around how we can increase the attendance at the championship. […]But it appears the lacrosse people, having looked hard at the attendance numbers, are willing to revisit the status quo and seriously consider making changes, as they did already this season by reducing the cost of Final Four (tm) ticket packages. "I think maybe they went a bit too far in terms of ratcheting up ticket prices ... and pressuring host sites for financial return. I think they realize that now." […]

Geographic concerns don't seem to have the same impact on the hockey folk, else why would the Frozen Four be headed back to Tampa so soon?

Interesting you bring that up pgb, and thanks for the article, jeteye (btw, relying on your quotes; the link didn't work for me. It appears there's an extra "http://" and when I eliminated the first one, I got an "article not found"). Lots of interesting stuff there.

During the discussions about lacrosse I wondered why the Lacrosse Finals have been in NFL football stadiums that last few years and what the crowds have been like. At least hockey can fill up an NHL rink, or at least come reasonably close. I couldn’t imagine lacrosse drawing 70 – 80 thousand. Does anybody know what kind of crowds the lax finals draw? Would, for example, an MLS soccer field accommodate the crowd?

There’s also a comment about how much control the NCAA has over ticket prices; I thought that was the venue’s thing, but it appears that the NCAA has more influence than I thought. If so, no question, the prices for the NCAA regionals should be less (and/or there should be some experimenting with single admission tickets).

Regarding lacrosse, note that they’re talking about their semis and finals, which aren’t a problem in hockey. If your venue is too large, you actually decrease ticket sales. If fans know they can get a ticket the week before that finals, there’s no reason for a “I’ll go only if my team makes it” fan to buy a ticket before the quarterfinals.

And finally, regarding travel, it’s not just the distance, it’s also the direction. Flying to Florida is far different than flying to California, even if the flight time is more or less the same. Crossing time zones means you kill a whole day when you’re traveling east.

 

[jeteye1717]

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

... Thanks for the article, jeteye (btw, relying on your quotes; the link didn't work for me. It appears there's an extra "http://" and when I eliminated the first one, I got an "article not found"). Lots of interesting stuff there.

Ooops, my mistake; let's try that again (hope this works):

www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/sports/as-lacrosse-rises-its-final-four-falls-fast.html

 

[The Freds]

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

Well, it appears there will be no changes at least through 2018. As reported in the today story on USCHO's front page, With NCAA seeking 2017 regional hosts, is push for change stalled?, the NCAA is seeking sites to host regionals for 2017 and 2018 in the same format we now have. Let's hope they can come up with some creative ideas to boost attendance and enhance the atmosphere. (Maybe reading the entirety of this thread.)

 

[joecct]

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

The little guys want the one and dones. Tbe big boys want 2/3. Since the littles outnumber the bigs, there will be no change.

 

[ericredaxe]

Well, it appears there will be no changes at least through 2018. As reported in the today story on USCHO's front page, With NCAA seeking 2017 regional hosts, is push for change stalled?, the NCAA is seeking sites to host regionals for 2017 and 2018 in the same format we now have. Let's hope they can come up with some creative ideas to boost attendance and enhance the atmosphere. (Maybe reading the entirety of this thread.)

At least I know I'll most likely be free to go skiing in March 2017 and 2018!

 

[FiveHole12]

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

At least I know I'll most likely be free to go skiing in March 2017 and 2018!

Is that because you won't travel an hour or two to Worcester, Providence, Manchester, Bridgeport, or some other eastern venue to see your team play? Or because you think your team will suck and won't be there?

 

[CLS]

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

The little guys want the one and dones. Tbe big boys want 2/3. Since the littles outnumber the bigs, there will be no change.

Does Minnesota qualify as a "big boy"?

Lucia said he isn’t concerned as much about the possibility of eliminating regionals for campus sites as much as he is about the potential to make the opening weekend a best-of-three series as has been rumored when discussing hosting games at campuses.

“If it did go to [campus sites], I’d be more in favor of one game [opening rounds],” Lucia said. “I would not be in favor of two-out-of-three, just from the standpoint of risk of injury late in the year playing a three-game set or the thought you might have to play six games in two straight weekends. Would you have anything left if you did advance?”

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/in-the-corner/...g-with-ncaa-tournament-coaches/#ixzz3jk4VXuOE

This isn't about tournament format; it's about neutral site vs. home ice. It might be true that the "big boys" want home rinks and the little guys want neutral sites.