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

[pgb-ohio]

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

assuming the facilities managers' can arrange the schedules accordingly....not a problem if your team is the only one to use the home, hockey-only arena, I suppose, but if it's a multi-purpose space?

On campus playoff games? A single elimination format would work best for schools with multi-purpose arenas. Holding open 1 date open over the course of a three day weekend isn't an undue hardship. But having to hold open 3 dates, with the distinct possibility that all three dates will be wasted? It raises a financial issue, at the very least.

 

[UML]

As I say every year when this thread comes up, how about the NCAA lower the prices. You will get more causal fans at $49.

Lower prices and beer.

 

[SCSU Euro]

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

I may be one of the only people who isn't all-in with on-campus, true "home-ice" advantage for the whole field. Its short notice, some of these cities are really hard to get to, and isn't the #1 seed's advantage that they're playing the #4 seed first? I don't think they should get their fans, their locker room, their particular ice (and perhaps odd dimensions)... I mean I get that for the top four teams, but should the #8 team really get that big of an advantage of the #9 team? I don't think so... Let #3 and #4 seeds have as even of a chance as the tops seeds

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Yes, but I caveated naming those particular towns by saying there are others like them all over America. I don't got to tourney hockey games for the city they are being held in, I go for the hockey. You can find something interesting to do, anywhere. Fun is as fun does. I'm not specifically espousing those towns, in particular, they are examples among many.

Couldn't agree more. You're 100% correct. I've defended this position on USCHO for years. But we're in the minority. And our numbers are shrinking with every passing season. Every time a new set of tournament sites is selected, the conversation on the board is almost exclusively about the tourist opportunities.

By the way, FWIW, Omaha has arguably the finest zoo in the world. Not in the U.S. In the world.

I don't say so, TripAdvisor and other such web sites like it do.

Next time I make it to Omaha, I'll check it out. I'm sure it will be a day well spent.

But back in 2005 when Columbus hosted the Frozen Four, I also tried to play the Zoo card. (Think Jack Hanna & David Letterman) The invite fell on deaf ears.

Don't know why those from the East Coast are so reluctant to cross the Hudson. But otherwise solid people believe in all seriousness that Buffalo and Pittsburgh are Western cities, and that traveling to such distant locales is too arduous to be seriously considered. Or, if they find their courage, they'll head straight to Yellowstone and attempt to feed the bears out their car windows.

My point being that it's best to be realistic and just keep smiling. We can throw the party in Omaha or Columbus, but most of our Eastern friends aren't coming.

 

[Stauber1]

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

I may be one of the only people who isn't all-in with on-campus, true "home-ice" advantage for the whole field. Its short notice, some of these cities are really hard to get to, and isn't the #1 seed's advantage that they're playing the #4 seed first? I don't think they should get their fans, their locker room, their particular ice (and perhaps odd dimensions)... I mean I get that for the top four teams, but should the #8 team really get that big of an advantage of the #9 team? I don't think so... Let #3 and #4 seeds have as even of a chance as the tops seeds

Why do you want to make the cut-off at 4, rather than 8?
Seems to me you have to make a call at some point.
The PWR decides who gets to host and who goes on the road. We as a community have come to accept that in terms of #15 getting to play for a championship while #16 gets to play golf, and I don't see much difference in the home/away situation.

Bottom line, the most legitimate critique of the current system is exactly what we are seeing in Providence this year. Or what we would have seen if Notre Dame had barely qualified for the tournament. Or if UND was a 4 seed. Or if MN had been a 4 seed last year. If teams are going to gain advantage for hosting, it would be better to tie it to seed rather than do it despite seed.

The other option is to have arenas with little to no atmosphere and/or have home advantage for teams that haven't "earned" it through their regular season play.

 

[SCSU Euro]

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

Why do you want to make the cut-off at 4, rather than 8?

I don't want to do it at all, but if the top 4 teams got home ice, I'd be more ok with that than the top 8. The 8th team doesn't deserve that big of an advantage. So if we HAVE to do this on campus, home-ice thing, then I'd say ideally the top 4 teams would host their regions at their home ice, but are required to give x amount of tickets to the visiting teams' schools, yet I know this won't work bc not all rinks can host 3 other teams.

 

[Stauber1]

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

I don't want to do it at all, but if the top 4 teams got home ice, I'd be more ok with that than the top 8. The 8th team doesn't deserve that big of an advantage. So if we HAVE to do this on campus, home-ice thing, then I'd say ideally the top 4 teams would host their regions at their home ice, but are required to give x amount of tickets to the visiting teams' schools, yet I know this won't work bc not all rinks can host 3 other teams.

Agreed, it would be very difficult for some arenas to accommodate 3 other schools for a classic regional.

I will continue to argue that with the PWR making that cut-off on who hosts and who goes on the road, it isn't much (if any) different than what we have accepted in terms of last team in/last team out. That ranking system should always be evaluated, critiqued and adjusted.
And I will also continue to argue that if you can't finish in the top 10% of teams, you haven't earned any "protection".

Given the realities of college hockey, what makes the most sense to me is top-8 hosting on-campus first round. Winners go to 2 regionals (1 east, 1 west) the next weekend. Frozen Four the following weekend. (I'd like to claim this as my own creation, but I think Wisconsin poster Almington first introduced it about 4 years ago and it may have crept into my subconscious...PGB can comment more accurately on that).

With the 2 regionals in the 2nd round, you maintain some degree of neutrality, you can place the regional in arenas that have a proven track record for butts in seats, and you lessen travel cost/time for fans.
The biggest question is do you do a best-of-3 in the first round or a 1-off. Personally, I'm in favor of the best-of-3; yet I understand the concerns with that and think a 1-off (a la the women's tournament) is a satisfactory compromise.

Again, I understand the hangups of making the 9 travel to 8, or 10 travel to 7...should that advantage really hinge on the subjective criteria used to make up the PWR?
But I'd reiterate that we have come to accept that in terms of last team in/last team out...and if you don't finish in the top 10%, how much can you really ask for?

 

[SCSU Euro]

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

Agreed, it would be very difficult for some arenas to accommodate 3 other schools for a classic regional.

I will continue to argue that with the PWR making that cut-off on who hosts and who goes on the road, it isn't much (if any) different than what we have accepted in terms of last team in/last team out. That ranking system should always be evaluated, critiqued and adjusted.
And I will also continue to argue that if you can't finish in the top 10% of teams, you haven't earned any "protection".

Given the realities of college hockey, what makes the most sense to me is top-8 hosting on-campus first round. Winners go to 2 regionals (1 east, 1 west) the next weekend. Frozen Four the following weekend. (I'd like to claim this as my own creation, but I think Wisconsin poster Almington first introduced it about 4 years ago and it may have crept into my subconscious...PGB can comment more accurately on that).

With the 2 regionals in the 2nd round, you maintain some degree of neutrality, you can place the regional in arenas that have a proven track record for butts in seats, and you lessen travel cost/time for fans.
The biggest question is do you do a best-of-3 in the first round or a 1-off. Personally, I'm in favor of the best-of-3; yet I understand the concerns with that and think a 1-off (a la the women's tournament) is a satisfactory compromise.

Again, I understand the hangups of making the 9 travel to 8, or 10 travel to 7...should that advantage really hinge on the subjective criteria used to make up the PWR?
But I'd reiterate that we have come to accept that in terms of last team in/last team out...and if you don't finish in the top 10%, how much can you really ask for?

But is the reason to help give an advantage or avoid bad attendance? BC I have to imagine attendance would be ok for the first round, but could still be bad for the second round. And a weekend to have one (or two to three) games, then a second weekend to have two games but just one day, before the Frozen Four, doesn't make as much sense to me as three games over two days in one venue. In the current format, a Regional is asking people to make the trip all the way out to wherever for 2 days and 3 games; now you want someone from out east to travel to Minnesota or Colorado or North Dakota for one day of two games, one of which may not mean anything to them.

 

[Stauber1]

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

But is the reason to help give an advantage or avoid bad attendance? BC I have to imagine attendance would be ok for the first round, but could still be bad for the second round. And a weekend to have one (or two to three) games, then a second weekend to have two games but just one day, before the Frozen Four, doesn't make as much sense to me as three games over two days in one venue. In the current format, a Regional is asking people to make the trip all the way out to wherever for 2 days and 3 games; now you want someone from out east to travel to Minnesota or Colorado or North Dakota for one day of two games, one of which may not mean anything to them.

I don't think the purpose is to give an advantage, but rather to remove advantage awarded despite seed and to improve attendance and atmosphere. The advantage in the proposed format is a byproduct, and one that I don't think deserves all that much scrutiny for the reasons already stated.

I would also think that attendance in the first round would be better than OK. I would think it would be a virtual sell-out in the vast majority of cases. And even if it happens to be in small rinks, multiply that by 8 (or 16-24 if you do a best-of series) and attendance is going to exceed what you currently have.

For the second round, again, I think that the proposed format would allow to hold it in a rink/city proven for attendance. I would also disagree that people would be less likely to travel for 1 day and 1 game. Currently, people are being asked to travel for Friday games, only 1 of which is any interest to them, and no guarantee that the next day will feature their team - while still being more or less required to purchase tickets to every game at the site. In this proposal you only have to commit 1 day for games (less money for lodging/food and less time off work, if any time off work) and it is 1 day that guarantees to feature "your" team. It would be fairly easy to schedule all 4 games on a Saturday, allowing less work/life disruption, less money spent on lodging/food, and still making it possible to televise every game.

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I think that would be more appealing to the majority of folks.

EDIT: I should add that it is acknowledged that visiting fans would have a difficult time making it to the first round. Some would certainly still go, but less visiting fans than currently attend the first games of the tournament. I don't see that impacting attendance as home fans would fill the arena - which would provide a fantastic college hockey atmosphere.

 

[FiveHole12]

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

IMHO, the NCAA selection of tourney sites and the Final Four locations is/are pretty nutty.

They need to NOT be in large metropolitan areas where there is big competition for sports dollars from pro sports. They need to be in cities like (and I am using the Midwest just as an example here) like Des Moines, Sioux Falls, and yes, Omaha---medium markets that have the facilities to put on such an event and aren't crazy expensive to get to. Having some sort of hockey background or legacy in a given locale wouldn't hurt, either.

People in towns like these will get behind an NCAA Championship event being held in their town. People in Tampa yawned about the Frozen Four being there in 2012. Guess where it is next year? This is NOT a good thing for college hockey, IMHO.

Wow. You want to pick on the Frozen Four sites and you pick on the one that did the best job hosting in years? What didn't you like about Tampa? The Festival atmosphere? The hospitality? The 80º weather? Sitting on the beach after a long winter? The teams that participated?

Yes, but I caveated naming those particular towns by saying there are others like them all over America. I don't got to tourney hockey games for the city they are being held in, I go for the hockey. You can find something interesting to do, anywhere. Fun is as fun does. I'm not specifically espousing those towns, in particular, they are examples among many.

By the way, FWIW, Omaha has arguably the finest zoo in the world. Not in the U.S. In the world.

I don't say so, TripAdvisor and other such web sites like it do.

Ahhh... so it's all about the hockey. What was it about the hockey in Tampa you didn't like? The up tempo styles of the big name schools, BC and Minnesota, or the hold on for dear life styles of the smaller schools, Ferris State and Union?
C'mon, fess up. It was because they didn't have a zoo, wasn't it?

Couldn't agree more. You're 100% correct. I've defended this position on USCHO for years. But we're in the minority. And our numbers are shrinking with every passing season. Every time a new set of tournament sites is selected, the conversation on the board is almost exclusively about the tourist opportunities.

Next time I make it to Omaha, I'll check it out. I'm sure it will be a day well spent.

But back in 2005 when Columbus hosted the Frozen Four, I also tried to play the Zoo card. (Think Jack Hanna & David Letterman) The invite fell on deaf ears.

Don't know why those from the East Coast are so reluctant to cross the Hudson. But otherwise solid people believe in all seriousness that Buffalo and Pittsburgh are Western cities, and that traveling to such distant locales is too arduous to be seriously considered. Or, if they find their courage, they'll head straight to Yellowstone and attempt to feed the bears out their car windows.

My point being that it's best to be realistic and just keep smiling. We can throw the party in Omaha or Columbus, but most of our Eastern friends aren't coming.

You guys crack me up. You say it's 'all about the hockey' and then in the next sentence talk about the attractions of your city. It's pretty clear the only thing that interests you is having the event in your own back yard.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

Wow. You want to pick on the Frozen Four sites and you pick on the one that did the best job hosting in years? What didn't you like about Tampa? The Festival atmosphere? The hospitality? The 80º weather? Sitting on the beach after a long winter? The teams that participated?


Ahhh... so it's all about the hockey. What was it about the hockey in Tampa you didn't like? The up tempo styles of the big name schools, BC and Minnesota, or the hold on for dear life styles of the smaller schools, Ferris State and Union?
C'mon, fess up. It was because they didn't have a zoo, wasn't it?



You guys crack me up. You say it's 'all about the hockey' and then in the next sentence talk about the attractions of your city. It's pretty clear the only thing that interests you is having the event in your own back yard.

I'm glad you saved me the hassle.

Actually, Tampa has TWO zoos. So suck on that one, Omaha! (Busch Gardens and Lowry Park. Former is more than likely better).

 

[Riz]

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

But is the reason to help give an advantage or avoid bad attendance? BC I have to imagine attendance would be ok for the first round, but could still be bad for the second round. And a weekend to have one (or two to three) games, then a second weekend to have two games but just one day, before the Frozen Four, doesn't make as much sense to me as three games over two days in one venue. In the current format, a Regional is asking people to make the trip all the way out to wherever for 2 days and 3 games; now you want someone from out east to travel to Minnesota or Colorado or North Dakota for one day of two games, one of which may not mean anything to them.

There used to be regionals here in Colorado quite often actually. Attendance was actually pretty good but either CC, DU, UND, or Air Force played in just about every single one.

some of these cities are really hard to get to

Yes because Providence, Green Bay, and Worcester are SO easy to get to for those of us out west??

now you want someone from out east to travel to Minnesota or Colorado or North Dakota for one day of two games, one of which may not mean anything to them.

Yes I do... I've been asked to travel across the country east year after year after year. Plus, Denver and St. Paul are much more accessible cities than some of these eastern ones where the regionals are being held

 

[Ralph Baer]

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

I really like best 2-of-3 series hosted by higher seeds. I'd much rather my team (UND) play in front of a loud, hostile crowd in an emotional environment than in the sterile vacuums we so often see.

My best example of a road win was when Jon Casey stood on his head twice in 1984 to beat that unbelievable RPI team, which went on to dominate again the next year en route to a title.

Arrgggggh!

 

[Terrier520]

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

Don't know why those from the East Coast are so reluctant to cross the Hudson. But otherwise solid people believe in all seriousness that Buffalo and Pittsburgh are Western cities, and that traveling to such distant locales is too arduous to be seriously considered. Or, if they find their courage, they'll head straight to Yellowstone and attempt to feed the bears out their car windows.

The Hudson isn't the problem. Can easily go to NYC, Philadelphia or DC. The problem is crossing the Appalachians, or, as those of us on the East Coast think of it, the Alps. It's rough, man. You have to drive up a hill and everything.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The Hudson isn't the problem. Can easily go to NYC, Philadelphia or DC. The problem is crossing the Appalachians, or, as those of us on the East Coast think of it, the Alps. It's rough, man. You have to drive up a hill and everything.

You want the Brits to keep you on that side again, Tory?

 

[Terrier520]

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

You want the Brits to keep you on that side again, Tory?

Why do you think Bostonians would rather go to Detroit via Canada, eh?

 

[manurespreader]

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

Omaha is a dump. Worcester is better. Or Lowell.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Why do you think Bostonians would rather go to Detroit via Canada, eh?

Because you have a vendetta with Cleveland? But what about those Berkshires?

 

[Terrier520]

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

Because you have a vendetta with Cleveland? But what about those Berkshires?

Those are glorified hills. Then again, as a NY'er who went to school there, I've never crossed them. Why do you think I don't want to go to Albany?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Those are glorified hills. Then again, as a NY'er who went to school there, I've never crossed them. Why do you think I don't want to go to Albany?

Well, to get from Boston to Dee-troy-it, you have to cross some resemblance of mountains or large hills. Unless, of course, you want to take a REALLY long way around.