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

[JB]

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

OK, I will admit not reading this entire thread.

However I am an advocate of 2 super regionals. I have a "romantic" thought about the old 12 team two regional format. Those used to fill the east regional and had fantastic atmosphere that I have always felt was killed in the 4 site system. Note: at that time Hockey East was filling the Garden for the league tournament which isn't happening anymore. So here is how I would make it work:

1) Two 8 team regionals at 3 days each
2) day 1 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 1 v 16, 8 v 9)
3) day 2 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 2 v 15, 7 v 10)
4) day 3 - 2 games round of 8. Early game is winners of day 1. Late game is winners of day 2. Everybody gets equal rest for a game.

I look at this as more teams in one place, more fans, more chance at casual fans. Additionally better chance is your team is good you know where they will be placed.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

Basically, everything you guys posted objecting to my idea is exactly why I said I wouldn't be for it either.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

OK, I will admit not reading this entire thread.

However I am an advocate of 2 super regionals. I have a "romantic" thought about the old 12 team two regional format. Those used to fill the east regional and had fantastic atmosphere that I have always felt was killed in the 4 site system. Note: at that time Hockey East was filling the Garden for the league tournament which isn't happening anymore. So here is how I would make it work:

1) Two 8 team regionals at 3 days each
2) day 1 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 1 v 16, 8 v 9)
3) day 2 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 2 v 15, 7 v 10)
4) day 3 - 2 games round of 8. Early game is winners of day 1. Late game is winners of day 2. Everybody gets equal rest for a game.

I look at this as more teams in one place, more fans, more chance at casual fans. Additionally better chance is your team is good you know where they will be placed.

You're going to have trouble finding facilities that can host 8 teams at a time.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

And some more numbers for those interested...
Here are the top 8 seeds going back to 2005 and their rink capacities.
I am using their current rinks. I already have those capacities, and I don't want to go back to look up when the switches were made/what the capacities were for the old buildings.

2014
ND-5022 MN-10000 BC-7884 WI-15325 FSU-2490 UML-6003 QU-3086 UNi-2225...

Well, I have to admit that Ferris, Merrimack and Union are a little on the small side. Harvard too, although I would think finding an alternate site would be doable in Boston, if desired. My thinking was that 3,000 might be an appropriate threshold. Have to admit that Clarkson and Quinnipiac barely meet that standard. So it's probably more accurate to say that you'd expect 1-2 small rinks per playoff season, as opposed to my original guess of 0-1. That's not really different enough to change my mind. But it is a little more of an issue than I thought.

Thanks for gathering those numbers, btw.

 

[JB]

You're going to have trouble finding facilities that can host 8 teams at a time.

In the past they did 6 at a time: 2 days of 2 games. My thought is 3 days 2 games. The trick is 2 games a day so you are really only hosting 4 teams at a time or per day. No different than day #1 now.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

OK, I will admit not reading this entire thread.

However I am an advocate of 2 super regionals. I have a "romantic" thought about the old 12 team two regional format. Those used to fill the east regional and had fantastic atmosphere that I have always felt was killed in the 4 site system. Note: at that time Hockey East was filling the Garden for the league tournament which isn't happening anymore. So here is how I would make it work:

1) Two 8 team regionals at 3 days each
2) day 1 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 1 v 16, 8 v 9)
3) day 2 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 2 v 15, 7 v 10)
4) day 3 - 2 games round of 8. Early game is winners of day 1. Late game is winners of day 2. Everybody gets equal rest for a game.

I look at this as more teams in one place, more fans, more chance at casual fans. Additionally better chance is your team is good you know where they will be placed.

In the past they did 6 at a time: 2 days of 2 games. My thought is 3 days 2 games. The trick is 2 games a day so you are really only hosting 4 teams at a time or per day. No different than day #1 now.

This has some potential. Put enough fanbases in one place at the same time, create a convention atmosphere. It is an appealing thought.

For someone with my current travel constraints, it offers one of the same advantages of the plan I've been pushing -- the chance to attend a pair of Round of 8 games on single day. Day 3 might be worth a trip all by itself, even if you couldn't be on the road any longer. Also, if you staggered the two tournaments so that one finished Saturday and the other on Sunday, you could comfortably view all four Round of 8 games over the course of a two day weekend.

The one obvious drawback is that the Day 1 winners aren't going to want to wait until Day 3 to play again. Still, it is true that this format avoids the rested team vs. tired team problem pretty nicely. And after all, the FF has an off day. So it's not like this schedule is entirely unheard of.

Not 100% sold, but this is worth thinking about. At the very least, it's better than cutting the field back to 12 teams in order to restore 6 team regionals.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

This was floated a few weeks ago, but why not just have the Midwest Regional at Target Center, and the West Regional at Xcel Energy Center.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Well, I have to admit that Ferris, Merrimack and Union are a little on the small side. Harvard too, although I would think finding an alternate site would be doable in Boston, if desired. My thinking was that 3,000 might be an appropriate threshold. Have to admit that Clarkson and Quinnipiac barely meet that standard. So it's probably more accurate to say that you'd expect 1-2 small rinks per playoff season, as opposed to my original guess of 0-1. That's not really different enough to change my mind. But it is a little more of an issue than I thought.

Thanks for gathering those numbers, btw.

3000 would be decent. I don't think Colgate meets that threshold (not sure if their new rink will, either), and they are very much in the middle of nowhere; they'd probably have to trek all the way to Utica to play (assuming Morrisville isn't nearly large enough). Not sure if the new rink will get up to 3000 or not. Perhaps there should be some exceptions for outlying locations.

One of the potential large issues with campus sites, and I'm not sure if other sports with this paradigm have to deal with this or not, is that our sport is sponsored by schools in Alaska, and flights there on short notice could be very expensive.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

OK, I will admit not reading this entire thread.

However I am an advocate of 2 super regionals. I have a "romantic" thought about the old 12 team two regional format. Those used to fill the east regional and had fantastic atmosphere that I have always felt was killed in the 4 site system. Note: at that time Hockey East was filling the Garden for the league tournament which isn't happening anymore. So here is how I would make it work:

1) Two 8 team regionals at 3 days each
2) day 1 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 1 v 16, 8 v 9)
3) day 2 - 2 games round of 16 (examples - 2 v 15, 7 v 10)
4) day 3 - 2 games round of 8. Early game is winners of day 1. Late game is winners of day 2. Everybody gets equal rest for a game.

I look at this as more teams in one place, more fans, more chance at casual fans. Additionally better chance is your team is good you know where they will be placed.

Six was a logistical disaster when they tried it. Eight isn't possible outside of maybe a handful of facilities, and they aren't the likely ones to block off this amount of time. You have to account for practice time for teams, many of whom will have never been in the building. That means on your day 1, you need to find the locker room and ice time for 8 teams in 4 practices and 2 games.

Not happening. This idea has zero chance of working.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

This was floated a few weeks ago, but why not just have the Midwest Regional at Target Center, and the West Regional at Xcel Energy Center.

That's clever in at least 3 ways. First, you'd double the number of available locker rooms, meaning 8 teams could be easily accommodated. Second, it would be nice for anyone having an interest in attending games at both regionals; you could just take the Light Rail back and forth between the two buildings. Third, you wouldn't need to change the current format to do this. Although it would be one "convention," it would technically remain two regionals. However...

Isn't it almost universally agreed that NHL/NBA buildings are too big for our regionals? As in much too big? Even in hockey-rich Minnesota, you'd likely have a ton of empty seats. OK, if all of the conference tournaments were held elsewhere for a year, that would remove some competition for the fan dollar. But even in that scenario I doubt there would be enough fans to go around.

If I'm understanding JB correctly, he'd have an 8 team event at a building the size of Mariucci. The idea being that 8 fanbases might fill most or all of 10,000 seats. Seems plausible to me. But spread those same 10,000 fans over 35,000 seats* and we're more or less back to where we started -- poor atmosphere due to all the empty chairs.

*Don't know the combined capacity of Target Center and the X, but that's close enough for purposes of this discussion.

 

[chickod]

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

In the past they did 6 at a time: 2 days of 2 games. My thought is 3 days 2 games. The trick is 2 games a day so you are really only hosting 4 teams at a time or per day. No different than day #1 now.

Absolutely agree 100%. For a number of reasons:

1) You don't know how many people I know would go to that format just because it was a "great take." With fewer teams, they have been less inclined. These are "causal" fans that don't necessarily have a rooting interest, but they fill seats.
2) It eliminates some of the arenas in the rotation that are not as "accessible" (Lake Placid, for example - and before anyone says what a great place it is, that's not the point - it's not practical for MOST teams - HE has eleven (soon to be all twelve) teams in New England - why would ALL of the fans have to travel to Lake Placid?)
3) LARGER CROWDS - BETTER ATMOSPHERE - FEWER EMPTY SEATS with more teams in the same location, this is a no-brainer
4) No need to make a choice if you have "split loyalties" - for fanatics who want to see ALL the games in their region, they don't have to pick and choose or make ridiculous travel concessions

I will say this again...this is NOT basketball. The format you propose is more suited for hockey.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Six was a logistical disaster when they tried it. Eight isn't possible outside of maybe a handful of facilities, and they aren't the likely ones to block off this amount of time. You have to account for practice time for teams, many of whom will have never been in the building. That means on your day 1, you need to find the locker room and ice time for 8 teams in 4 practices and 2 games...

Good point, though 8 teams isn't absolutely impossible. As one example, I believe a combination of Mariucci & Ridder would give you the necessary locker rooms. If the Day 1 competitors had their practices on Day 0, there actually would be enough ice time to get everything done on Day 1. But ultimately you're correct. The need to have 8 locker rooms simultaneously available would greatly reduce the number of possible sites.

 

[chickod]

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

Not happening. This idea has zero chance of working.

You sound like the typical elitist who wants to shove their opinion down our throats. You don't KNOW if it will work until you try...

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

You sound like the typical elitist who wants to shove their opinion down our throats. You don't KNOW if it will work until you try...

No, I sound like someone who worked at no less than 6 regionals with the six team format, and experienced all the problems first hand. The 8 team proposal would be great for the fans, but that's 180 degrees from the priority of the NCAA as they describe it. They're charged with making the experience for the teams and players, and if they couldn't do that with 6 teams they certainly won't do it with 8.

If you've experienced just ONE six team tournament, tell me how well it worked from your angle.

And sure, I don't know for sure about this million dollar idea of yours, but I have a pretty good idea about the NCAA's 5 cent execution record.

 

[chickod]

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

The 8 team proposal would be great for the fans, but that's 180 degrees from the priority of the NCAA as they describe it.

Wait...so you're saying that the NCAA (itself) says that the fans are not a priority? In other words, you're saying what I have said here recently, all the revenue for this is generated by basketball, football and TV, so who cares what the fans think. Right? That's so callous it makes me want to say "Why should I ever even bother to go to a game again?" Geez...the arrogance is astounding...nah...on second thought...

 

[chickod]

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

And if the NCAA thinks that the "experience" of college athletics is equally fulfilling whether there are 10,000 people in the seats or 500, then I don't know who is running their organization. Sorry, but it sounds frighteningly similar to the politicians who say "the taxpayers will pay for it. What do we care?"

What a joke...

 

[chickod]

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

And sure, I don't know for sure about this million dollar idea of yours, but I have a pretty good idea about the NCAA's 5 cent execution record.

So it's MORE expensive to have two venues instead of four? How does that work? You're probably one of those who thinks because I don't have children I can't have an opinion about how they should be raised, either. Our imperious leader condescends to us enough...we don't need it from you.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

Good point, though 8 teams isn't absolutely impossible. As one example, I believe a combination of Mariucci & Ridder would give you the necessary locker rooms. If the Day 1 competitors had their practices on Day 0, there actually would be enough ice time to get everything done on Day 1. But ultimately you're correct. The need to have 8 locker rooms simultaneously available would greatly reduce the number of possible sites.

The Day 1 competitors would have their practices on Day 0. But the Day 2 competitors would be practicing on Day 1, so you haven't solved any backlog on ice time - that's still 4 practices and 2 games.

Mariucci/Ridder can probably solve the locker room issue, but if you're suggesting that they can use Ridder for practices that won't fly especially since they are different size sheets.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

So it's MORE expensive to have two venues instead of four? How does that work? You're probably one of those who thinks because I don't have children I can't have an opinion about how they should be raised, either. Our imperious leader condescends to us enough...we don't need it from you.

Shockingly, you missed the point. I'm not talking about money.

The NCAA has a track record of poor execution on the best of ideas. It doesn't matter how good the idea is if you don't commit to its implementation fully, and they've repeatedly shown that they don't. Hence the million dollar idea/5 cent execution analogy.

 

[purpleinnebraska]

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

If attendance at the regionals is really a major concern (not saying it shouldn't be, but I don't know how high of a priority it actually is for the NCAA or participants), the only way you resolve it is home games. We're caught in a travel buzzsaw this time of year. If I go to the conference tournament, can I afford to go to the regionals? And if we get through the regionals, can I afford the Frozen Four? And how many days can I get off work, particularly if I was taking off some Friday afternoons during the regular season? The bottom line is that you can't expect a fan base to show up to all of these, but if you give some teams a home game or games, you can count on those teams pretty much filling up their arenas.

But I think a big part of the ongoing problem with this debate is that we don't agree on priorities, and if the NCAA knows their priorities, they're not really sharing them. Bracket integrity? Level playing field? Attendance? Atmosphere? Team travel? Best interest of the players? The fans? TV-friendly arenas? Balancing name programs by regions in an attempt to get a blockbuster Frozen Four field? No format can please all of those interests, so which of those interests do you put as your highest priorities?

For me, regional attendance isn't that big of a deal, particularly in a situation like this year's South Bend regional where the tickets are already sold, so it's not going to be a huge money loser. If there's no crowd there, that arguably provides a truer test of who's the better team. There's nothing quite as "neutral" as no fan involvement at all! But if you think regional attendance is a big deal, you're going to having to be willing to sacrifice things like bracket integrity, travel convenience, or a level playing field to get there.