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?

... And even if ticket revenue takes a hit, wouldn't eliminating the costs associated with hosting off-campus usually be enough to offset that?

Yes, sure would, but I don't think ticket revenue would take a hit. Isn't the whole thesis of this increasing attendance? I suspect the athletic departments at some schools might get overwhelmed, and there might be some push-pull between the sites and the NCAA over revenue, since the school would probably want to treat it as another "home" game, but that could be worked out.

You could be right. Naturally coaches will favor anything they perceive gives their team an edge, or at least cancels out a disadvantage. And if a majority of the coaches actually feel this way, that factor certainly needs to be taken into account. But other constituencies have legitimate concerns too. Including, dare I say it, ticket buying fans. Wouldn't you agree that the fans' verdict on the status quo, at least at Western sites, is an overwhelming thumbs down?

Not sure of the "overwhelming" but I'd say the current system doesn't work well in the west. But given the choice of pleasing the coaches and playing to the potential audience, I'd vote for the coaches. I look on college (and high school, for that matter) athletics as something that the colleges for the benefit of the college and the students that participate. If I like the result, I go; if I don't like the result I don't. I don't look on college sports as a form of produced entertainment, as pro sports and movies are. When college sports start tilting to the fans too far, you get the academic cesspool that is college football and basketball (not saying hockey is even close yet, and I'll admit I enjoy watching football, but the degree to which it's corrupted the academic mission of the colleges bothers me).

I think there are some nuances that are being overlooked.
...
- Second, you have to operate under the assumption that in the majority of cases, teams that have a large fan base that travels for the current regionals also have larger home rinks, and vice versa. This is of course not always the case, but generally speaking it is.

First, thanks for your research. Regarding this point I agree, but not sure where you're going with this. If you're saying that going to home rinks wouldn't hurt overall attendance, I agree. But it seems to me that large fan base that travels well might create a problem if, say, UNH has a game at Merrimack.

I haven't gone back to look at exact attendance numbers for each day of the past regionals. I would have assumed 5,000 a day on average. But coming closer to what you have found for 1st day attendance, let's say 5,500 a day on average for both days of the regional.
5500 a day x 2 days at each site x 4 sites = 44,000.
Using the data I posted yesterday, the smallest crowds an on-campus first round could have accommodated in the last 10 years is 42,804. That was in 2011, a year when half of the top 8 played in a rink that seated less than 3500 (MIA-3200 MER-2549 YA-3486 UNi-2225).

If you're interested in the attendance the article that I linked to in my earlier post has it.

But help me here, I don' understand what you're saying. I don't understand the relevance of two day attendance. I thought we were only talking about the opening round. I also don't understand aggregating the capacities. If 1,000 people are shut out of a game at Quinnipiac, what good does it do if there are seats available to them in Grand Forks?

I don't think there would be any need to set a minimum capacity threshold. The only schools that would pose serious attendance issues are all in Atlantic Hockey; and as I said yesterday, until the formula for ranking the teams changes or Atlantic Hockey makes an incredibly large imporevement on a conference-wide scale, that just isn't going to be an issue.

But isn't this statement based on an assumption that the bar for "serious attendance issues" is around 2,000? If so, I don't agree. pgb estimated 3,000 and I think it may be even higher, maybe 3,500 or 4,000.

 

[chickod]

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

Imagine if only one representative per conference? Everyone would be on the edge of their seats for every game. However, because of the money involved, it will never happen. But if it did, we'd have more conferences!

Now see, that's a really interesting hypothesis. And that was my position for a long time, but then I started thinking, if money was that important, why do they not blink an eye by playing all these games in half-empty arenas? So I came to the conclusion that money IS the great motivator...UNLESS that money is coming from someplace else. In hockey, the money comes from the football, basketball and TV revenue (and the TV revenue is not FOR hockey, it's just that hockey is an "add on" to the package that they have to televise in order to get the money for the rest of the deal). In hockey, the money doesn't matter. Forget all the other baloney you've heard...there's only ONE reason why it's done this way...they're playing with house money so anything they take is in gravy. Because if they REALLY needed to be revenue-conscious, they simply would not pay money to rent arenas (and all of the ancillary costs that go along with staging an event) if they were going to lose money. Or unless they're insane and/or incompetent (which, I guess, we can't rule out). Our group just finished organizing and sponsoring the first Lyme Disease conference in Massachusetts last weekend. It was miniscule in magnitude compared to something like the NCAA tournament...but it makes one realize how many "unforseen" expenses there are in putting on ANY event (from security, to publicity, to printing badges, programs, providing food, making signs, and on and on an on...). So the only conclusion I can draw is that, in this particular case, apparently money does NOT matter. How else can one explain it? Would you throw half of your paycheck in the trash every week? I just don't get it...

 

[chickod]

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

Then you might want to post in the ECAC league thread.

The OLD ECAC tournament...years ago. I was using it for "illustrative" purposes.

 

[CLS]

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

...

Again, spot on in recognizing that sacrifices have to be made. But that is true regardless of the format...something gets sacrificed.

I think at the crux of this is something you also alluded to, which is priorities are different for different people. Some people want to have great game-day atmosphere. Some want zero home advantage. Some want to see the best opportunity for upsets. Some want to see high-seeded teams rewarded for their season. Some want it to be easy to travel to all the games. Some want to be able to sit at home and watch every game of the tournament. It's not possible to meet all of these desires, and so priorities and sacrifices are necessary. At the end of the day, I think something most of us agree on is that the current format isn't doing as good of a job as it could to strike a balance, prioritize and sacrifice in order to create the best tournament.

Beautifully stated. As for the last sentence, I don't know -- the reason being that I haven't seen another format that I think is better (and, extending your logic, it may not be possible, because of the different viewpoints, some of which seem diametrically opposed); to paraphrase a quote many (apparently incorrectly) attribute to Winston Churchill, "The current NCAA Hockey Tournament format is the worst format, except for all the others that have been proposed." At the end of the day, it is the NCAA's call. It's their tournament.

 

[chickod]

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

At the end of the day, it is the NCAA's call. It's their tournament.

Succinct. That about sums it up. He who does not listen to constructive criticism is destined to repeat the same errors again and again. Apparently, they don't care. You're right...it's THEIR tournament. Reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit: <b><i>"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the 'phone' company."</i></b> - Lorraine Newman

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

In hockey, the money comes from the football, basketball and TV revenue (and the TV revenue is not FOR hockey, it's just that hockey is an "add on" to the package that they have to televise in order to get the money for the rest of the deal). In hockey, the money doesn't matter. Forget all the other baloney you've heard...there's only ONE reason why it's done this way...they're playing with house money so anything they take is in gravy.

The football and basketball rights are separate from the hockey rights. If and when the NCAA hockey tournament games lose money you will see ESPN drop the tournament. Also, It is my understanding that the NCAA does not lose money on the men's hockey tournament, it makes money. They used to publish the profit/loss, but no longer appear to. It is also my understanding that the NCAA does not bet any money, because the official hosts have to make financial guarantees and are subject to lose money.

For those interested in average home attendance, the NCAA publishes that every year. Here is the 2013-14 attendance records. USCHO also tracks the attendanace and includes average attendance vs capacity. Here is the 2014-15 attendance records.

Sean

 

[chickod]

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

The football and basketball rights are separate from the hockey rights.

Not sure where you got this because my friend who works at ESPN said that is absolutely not true...

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

Good stuff; thanks for the reply.

Couple More Questions: Under the current regional format, do the participating teams get both a full practice and a morning skate before their first game? If yes, is it acceptable to have one of those sessions on a different ice sheet, provided the rink dimensions were the same?

In the last NCAA tournament manual I read (four seasons ago) each team is assigned a practice session the day before and a game day skate. The practice session is tied to required media availability either directly before or after.

Since each team is assigned a locker room for the duration of their stay at a site, it's prohibitive to send them to another facility for a session. There are very few instances where a second sheet is available at an NCAA site, so I don't remember anything about changing sheets for a pregame skate. I don't know of any team that does a lot of strategy in a pregame skate, in fact most of them try and avoid having coaches out there since that would count toward practice time for the week. Based on that, if you're just out to get the legs moving I don't see as big an issue with not having the pregame skate on the competition rink - but I'm not on a coaching staff and their ideas may be drastically different if it's an issue of becoming familiar with the rink itself.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

Not sure where you got this because my friend who works at ESPN said that is absolutely not true...

How many NCAA tournament basketball games have you seen on ESPN this year. Give you a hint, it is 0.

 

[chickod]

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

How many NCAA tournament basketball games have you seen on ESPN this year. Give you a hint, it is 0.

Just repeating what he told me. I think I mixed up my discussion about revenue coming from football, basketball and TV with the actual contract. OK - the contract doesn't include basketball, but the point was whatever the contract they agreed to, it was with the understanding that the NCAA Hockey coverage was "part of the package" and that they had to take that with the rest.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

For those interested in average home attendance, the NCAA publishes that every year. Here is the 2013-14 attendance records. USCHO also tracks the attendanace and includes average attendance vs capacity. Here is the 2014-15 attendance records.

Sean

Just a small disclaimer that those figures aren't always accurate, depending on how each school decides to come to a number.

For example, St. Lawrence will show around 1700 avg attendance. For a 3000 capacity rink, you'd think that would leave 1300 seats on average. However, that figure fails to include students and other player-comped tickets. Their true average attendence figures are probably closer to 2400-2500, sometimes more.

Of course, you can also have the alternate issue of inflated numbers, or the same number for every game, regardless of actual turnout.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The football and basketball rights are separate from the hockey rights. If and when the NCAA hockey tournament games lose money you will see ESPN drop the tournament. Also, It is my understanding that the NCAA does not lose money on the men's hockey tournament, it makes money. They used to publish the profit/loss, but no longer appear to. It is also my understanding that the NCAA does not bet any money, because the official hosts have to make financial guarantees and are subject to lose money.

For those interested in average home attendance, the NCAA publishes that every year. Here is the 2013-14 attendance records. USCHO also tracks the attendanace and includes average attendance vs capacity. Here is the 2014-15 attendance records.

Sean

Completely false. In fact, the NCAA required that ESPN carry the hockey championships in order to be able to show "NCAAM" and "NCAAW", in additon to "NCAAF".

 

[chickod]

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

Completely false.

Thank you.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Just a small disclaimer that those figures aren't always accurate, depending on how each school decides to come to a number.

For example, St. Lawrence will show around 1700 avg attendance. For a 3000 capacity rink, you'd think that would leave 1300 seats on average. However, that figure fails to include students and other player-comped tickets. Their true average attendence figures are probably closer to 2400-2500, sometimes more.

Of course, you can also have the alternate issue of inflated numbers, or the same number for every game, regardless of actual turnout.

Also, the total attendance is based upon where you play any "home game", not necessarily your typical home rink. That's why some schools are above 100% in average capacity.

 

[tape]

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

Also, the total attendance is based upon where you play any "home game", not necessarily your typical home rink. That's why some schools are above 100% in average capacity.

Or standing room tickets.

 

[Stauber1]

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

First, thanks for your research. Regarding this point I agree, but not sure where you're going with this. If you're saying that going to home rinks wouldn't hurt overall attendance, I agree. But it seems to me that large fan base that travels well might create a problem if, say, UNH has a game at Merrimack.

If you're interested in the attendance the article that I linked to in my earlier post has it.

But help me here, I don' understand what you're saying. I don't understand the relevance of two day attendance. I thought we were only talking about the opening round. I also don't understand aggregating the capacities. If 1,000 people are shut out of a game at Quinnipiac, what good does it do if there are seats available to them in Grand Forks?

In regard to using the 2-day attendance as a comparison, it was just sloppiness on my part. When adding together the on-campus first round with a neutral site quarterfinal round, the attendance figure will greatly eclipse what we see in the current regional format.

Yes all I was saying there is that an on-campus first round would not decrease overall attendance. I was just trying to point out that in terms of revenue and making the tournament solvent, there wouldn't be any issues. Taking the aggregate capacities of all on-campus sites makes this clear.

But I don't think total attendance is only relevant financially. If 24,000 people are currently able to attend first round games, but in an on-campus first round 40,000-50,000 are able to attend, isn't that serving the fans of college hockey better?
By acknowledging larger fan bases that travel tend to have larger arenas, I was trying to point out that whoever the home team is they are going to have more fans at the game by hosting on-campus than they currently do at regional sites. There are currently 1,500 fans per team on average (arguably less when factoring in local/neutral spectators), and I think we agree that larger fan bases tend to exceed that average while smaller ones tend not to reach it. This means that, for example, even if Union hosts a game in their 2,250-seat rink, and 500 seats are reserved for the visiting team, Union fans still come out ahead. The fans of whoever they host will come out behind, but more Union fans will be able to attend that game than currently so.

But isn't this statement based on an assumption that the bar for "serious attendance issues" is around 2,000? If so, I don't agree. pgb estimated 3,000 and I think it may be even higher, maybe 3,500 or 4,000.

I guess that depends on how we define "serious attendance issues." I would consider it attendance low enough to cause financial strain for the purposes of the NCAA, and for the purposes of the host school a capacity low enough that after allotting away seats the percentage of home fans is only marginally higher than the percentage of away fans. A 2,000 seat rink wouldn't be ideal, but I think it is good enough to satisfy by those criteria. Anything less and it becomes increasingly problematic.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

Just a small disclaimer that those figures aren't always accurate, depending on how each school decides to come to a number.

For example, St. Lawrence will show around 1700 avg attendance. For a 3000 capacity rink, you'd think that would leave 1300 seats on average. However, that figure fails to include students and other player-comped tickets. Their true average attendence figures are probably closer to 2400-2500, sometimes more.

Of course, you can also have the alternate issue of inflated numbers, or the same number for every game, regardless of actual turnout.

If St. Lawrence under-reports their average attendance they are the only team in college or pro sports in North America that chooses to do so. There is absolutely no way that they are submitting an attendance figure to the media for boxscores that says 1700 if they can show 2400 in the rink. No way. No how. Not happening.

 

[Stauber1]

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

...Also, It is my understanding that the NCAA does not lose money on the men's hockey tournament, it makes money. They used to publish the profit/loss, but no longer appear to. It is also my understanding that the NCAA does not bet any money, because the official hosts have to make financial guarantees and are subject to lose money...

Yep, the NCAA gets paid, and if the region bombs it is the host/arena who takes the loss.
So it's not surprising that the NCAA wasn't able to find a single non-campus site to bid on this year's midwest regional and was thus forced to break its own rule about hosting a regional on-campus. If you are looking for a sign that the current format is broken, that is it. If this continues to happen, the NCAA will have no choice but to change the format.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Coaches viewpoints:

http://www.uscho.com/in-the-corner/...tes-a-mixed-bag-with-NCAA-tournament-coaches/

A diverse set of opinions, as you'd expect.

Was interested to see Don Lucia come out in favor of the single game format. Lucia cites the greater risk of injury and fatigue in the extra games. Perhaps even more importantly, he suggests that the one-and-done format is more conducive to upsets than a 2 of 3 series. I believe that too. Put another way, home ice and a 2 of 3 format would be too large of an advantage for the higher seeds.

 

[CLS]

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

...
Yes all I was saying there is that an on-campus first round would not decrease overall attendance. I was just trying to point out that in terms of revenue and making the tournament solvent, there wouldn't be any issues. Taking the aggregate capacities of all on-campus sites makes this clear.

OK, I was taking that as a given. In fact I'd say if it doesn't increase overall attendance substantially, I don't see a good reason to do it.

But I don't think total attendance is only relevant financially. If 24,000 people are currently able to attend first round games, but in an on-campus first round 40,000-50,000 are able to attend, isn't that serving the fans of college hockey better?
By acknowledging larger fan bases that travel tend to have larger arenas, I was trying to point out that whoever the home team is they are going to have more fans at the game by hosting on-campus than they currently do at regional sites. There are currently 1,500 fans per team on average (arguably less when factoring in local/neutral spectators), and I think we agree that larger fan bases tend to exceed that average while smaller ones tend not to reach it. This means that, for example, even if Union hosts a game in their 2,250-seat rink, and 500 seats are reserved for the visiting team, Union fans still come out ahead. The fans of whoever they host will come out behind, but more Union fans will be able to attend that game than currently so.


I guess that depends on how we define "serious attendance issues." I would consider it attendance low enough to cause financial strain for the purposes of the NCAA, and for the purposes of the host school a capacity low enough that after allotting away seats the percentage of home fans is only marginally higher than the percentage of away fans. A 2,000 seat rink wouldn't be ideal, but I think it is good enough to satisfy by those criteria. Anything less and it becomes increasingly problematic.

OK understood, and thanks for the explanation. I was defining "serious attendance issues" as the rink is too small to accommodate the number of fans who want to see the game. With your Union example, I don't know how close to full they usually are for their home games, but by my definition, Union fans may not come out ahead, because some of them might not be able to see the game. And as you say, fans of the visitors (especially if it's one of those large traveling base teams) would come out behind because there may be many of them who would be willing to expend the resources to get to the game, but can't. In my world that's a worse sin than empty seats at an arena.