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

[hockeyplayer1015]

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.

Not sure what to tell you, because it IS happening. The figure comes from paid tickets.

Go look up either SLU/Clarkson box score from Appleton Arena. Both sell-outs, yet the box score won't show it as being so.

 

[The Zlax45]

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".

Yes, NCAA Football aka D-1AA tourney, D-2, and D3 title games...it also includes sports like Fencing, Wrestling, Mens and Women's Volleyball

http://deadline.com/2011/12/espn-inks-long-term-deal-with-ncaa-205711/

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

...In fact I'd say if it doesn't increase overall attendance substantially, I don't see a good reason to do it.

This has been a very helpful conversation. In this most recent post, you've more or less identified the competing values at stake. But while you've identified the correct variables, I'd turn your conclusion on its head:

At this point in time, the key factor is the percentage of seats filled. The problem in the West isn't that we're falling short of capacity. It's that at the truly neutral sites, the current percentage of capacity is an epic fail. If we held the first round of the playoffs on campus sites, I'd expect a substantial increase in attendance. That's a good thing. But even if all we did was break even in the overall numbers, I'd still be good to go. The improvement in percentage of seats filled would be significant and well worth doing.

...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.

We agree that both are sins, but disagree as to which is the worse sin.

Turning away a ready ticket buyer is a bad thing, of course. But risking a few hard sellouts in the first round would be tolerable, for at least three reasons:

1. Any host school could voluntarily move its first round game to a larger neutral site. If there's a clear financial incentive to do so, most would likely make the move. Sounds like Yale's coach would do it regardless. Not every team would have this option, of course. But actual cases of large numbers of fans being closed out would be fairly rare, IMHO.

2. Those large, traveling fanbases are looking at a daunting schedule in the post-season. There are potentially 4 consecutive weekends of travel, or least ticket expense at post-season prices. Conference Tourney; 1st Round; Round of 8; Frozen Four. Note that a good number of us do the Frozen Four whether we have a rooting interest or not. So we're asking a relatively small number of fans to settle for 3 special hockey weekends in a 4 week period, rather than 4. Also, remember that if tDon and I have our way, the first round will be a single game. I'm guessing that many of those "closed out" might actually welcome a one week respite from the travel and expense, provided that the single game was on television. (Yes, I do recall that you've persuasively argued that the TV coverage would be at risk.)

3. For hardcore fans who cannot miss, there's always the secondary ticket market. Typically tickets will be available at moderate prices when compared with the sports world as a whole.


In sharp contrast, the current percentage of capacity is intolerable, IMHO. I'm guessing Stauber1 agrees.

 

[Red Cows]

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.

As an aside to all this discourse, why are so many of the school's back east arena's so freaking small?

I mean, I live in Nebraska and the entire state has a population of only 1.8 million people or so. We have 3 USHL teams in this state, junior leagues, and they play in arena's that seat, respectively, 4,014 (Omaha Lancers), 4,610 (Lincoln Stars), 4,047 (Tri-City Storm--Hastings, Kearney, Grand Island--the actual arena is in Kearney). 20 "eastern" NCAA teams play in arenas that are smaller than these junior's facilities, a list that includes the last 2 NCAA Champions.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

As an aside to all this discourse, why are so many of the school's back east arena's so freaking small?

I mean, I live in Nebraska and the entire state has a population of only 1.8 million people or so. We have 3 USHL teams in this state, junior leagues, and they play in arena's that seat, respectively, 4,014 (Omaha Lancers), 4,610 (Lincoln Stars), 4,047 (Tri-City Storm--Hastings, Kearney, Grand Island--the actual arena is in Kearney). 20 "eastern" NCAA teams play in arenas that are smaller than these junior's facilities, a list that includes the last 2 NCAA Champions.

Well, part of it is the fact that some eastern teams aren't exactly in bustling metropolis'. The Junior teams you list ARE in, more or less, small cities. Simply because I'm most familiar with the ECAC footprint, most of this will relate to that particular league.

Several of the schools are fairly small. Enrollment in the 2000-3000 range, and also in locations that are fairly small (except for Brown, Harvard, Yale/QU, and arguably Union/RPI, although they compete with pro hockey markets as well.)

For the most part, the rinks fit the size that is needed. Some arenas will only sell out their rivalry games, although I will note that Lynah and the Whale (Cornell and Yale, respectively) are usually close to, or full for most every game and are among the higher capacity rinks in the league). Most of the ECAC rinks are also older, and the cost of building a new building is nothing to sneeze at.

Hockey East does have larger capacity arenas, but that goes along with some larger schools/locations. Atlantic Hockey and the ECAC tends to be smaller schools and locations, so the demand simply isn't there.

 

[CLS]

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

This has been a very helpful conversation. In this most recent post, you've more or less identified the competing values at stake.

pgb, the comment about total attendance was in response to stauber’s clarification of what s/he meant by “attendance issues”. He was defining it as a drop in attendance due to some facilities being too small, as I recall less than 2,000. I was defining it as facilities that have less capacity than the number of people who want to see it. I don’t doubt for a minute that moving to on-campus venues in the first round would increase total attendance.

As for my comment that you’re responding to, I agree that increase in attendance is a good thing generally, but in return you’ve lost something that’s meaningful to me – site neutrality. So even an increase in attendance (and percentage of seats filled, more on that below) isn’t enough to convince me that moving to on-campus sites is a good thing. We’ve been through this enough for me to know that site neutrality and atmosphere (directly related to percentage of seats filled) occupy very different places on your list of priorities than mine, and I understand and respect that.

But while you've identified the correct variables, I'd turn your conclusion on its head:

At this point in time, the key factor is the percentage of seats filled. The problem in the West isn't that we're falling short of capacity. It's that at the truly neutral sites, the current percentage of capacity is an epic fail.

Epic fail by what definition? Yours, for sure. Mine, no. That’s a matter that varies from person to person, as stauber and purpleinnebraska so eloquently described.

The more important definition is the one of the venues, demonstrated that evidently no Midwestern venues are submitting bids. There are solutions to that problem other than moving to on-campus sites. One I will suggest half tongue-in-cheek because I’m guessing it would cause a flamefest is to stop having regionals in the Midwest. Have one somewhere around the twin cities and three in the east, which has no shortage of venues submitting bids.

But a suggestion I’ll make seriously is this. Change Section III.1 of the bid requirements:

b. The facility must be modern, clean and accessible and must have at least 5,000 seats. Playing conditions must meet NCAA regulations and must be of championship caliber.

to 4,000 and solicit bids from USHL venues. I don’t know anything about those venues, other than their capacities as listed by Red Cows, and I don’t know what the NCAA means by “modern, clean and accessible” and “championship caliber”. But I do know that the USHL is a feeder system for the many college programs, and this would be a nice reward to folks who have watched many of those kids play and develop and who even may have billeted those kids in their homes. It also could be a recruiting tool for college programs who compete with the Canadian major junior teams for USHL players.

1. Any host school could voluntarily move its first round game to a larger neutral site. If there's a clear financial incentive to do so, most would likely make the move. Sounds like Yale's coach would do it regardless. Not every team would have this option, of course. But actual cases of large numbers of fans being closed out would be fairly rare, IMHO.

You didn't mean to put "neutral" did you? I think "larger" suffices. First, that might not be as easy to do as you think. The school would have to arrange with the larger site for an event that might not happen and/or try to find the larger site in one week. Second (value judgment here) once again we're saying "Big school, you get a playoff game in your home rink; small school, you have the choice of scrambling to find a larger arena, or shutting out some of your fans and/or screwing the other school"

2. Those large, traveling fanbases are looking at a daunting schedule in the post-season. ...

Don’t disagree with you at all. The comment about the large traveling bases was in response to stauber; to the extent that you’re arguing they may not be that large, you’re actually countering stauber’s point, not mine.

Leaving for Manchester soon. Looking forward to an intra-Minnesota blood feud and to watching the player who's IMHO the most exciting college freshman since Paul Kariya.

 

[LtPowers]

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

As an aside to all this discourse, why are so many of the school's back east arena's so freaking small?

The schools are small, there are a lot more college hockey teams within easy driving distance, and there's a lot more competition for entertainment dollars.


Powers &8^]

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

...Epic fail by what definition? Yours, for sure. Mine, no. That’s a matter that varies from person to person, as stauber and purpleinnebraska so eloquently described.

My prose wasn't ideal. To clarify: From my vantage point, it does appear that the Eastern regionals are functional and solvent. Far from ideal, but they meet minimum standards. Even in the West, there are some success stories. As of tonight, Fargo joined that list. But attempting to describe tonight's proceedings as anything other than a North Dakota home game would be a joke. Still, it was an electric atmosphere, and more than solvent. Another data point would be the Minnesota/North Dakota match-up at the X in St. Paul a few seasons back. For regional attendance, that's pretty much the perfect storm. The large Gopher fan base residing in the Twin Cities, plus UND -- the best traveling fan base in college hockey. IIRC, attendance was around 10,000. Solvent? Absolutely. But while I'm certain the atmosphere in the lower bowl was very good, you're talking about a building that was maybe 60% full. Functional? Again, clearly yes. But outstanding? Not so much, given the venue. And then there's the truly neutral sites like Toledo. For those, I stand by the phrase epic fail. While the specific criteria may vary from person to person, more than a few sites just didn't work out.

The more important definition is the one of the venues, demonstrated that evidently no Midwestern venues are submitting bids. There are solutions to that problem other than moving to on-campus sites. One I will suggest half tongue-in-cheek because I’m guessing it would cause a flamefest is to stop having regionals in the Midwest. Have one somewhere around the twin cities and three in the east, which has no shortage of venues submitting bids.

Well, that's out-of-the box thinking! Let's play with it a little bit. As a preliminary matter, if you want a strict quota where the East is guaranteed three regionals regardless of who bids, the proposal is dead on arrival. I suppose you could adopt three Eastern regional labels, but stop short of a strict quota. Example: East, Northeast, Atlantic, West. But quite honestly I think that one is DOA as well. But what about this: Simply drop the geographic labels all together. No Eastern Bids or Western Bids. 4 regionals available; may the best four bids win. Each regional is named after its host city. No geographic designation at all.

We might have something there. For a long time the FF alternated between East and West. But that hasn't been true for decades. Maybe a strict 50/50 split of regionals should also be set aside. Judge the bids on the merits, let the chips fall where they may. Something to think about.

Ultimately, I'm skeptical. My thought is that most Easterners will simply refuse to watch two Western teams compete, even if the game is being held close by. I would also be concerned that the Eastern audience would be spread too thin by the addition of another set of games. But we can't know unless it's tried.

But a suggestion I’ll make seriously is this. Change Section III.1 of the bid requirements... to 4,000 and solicit bids from USHL venues. I don’t know anything about those venues, other than their capacities as listed by Red Cows, and I don’t know what the NCAA means by “modern, clean and accessible” and “championship caliber”. But I do know that the USHL is a feeder system for the many college programs, and this would be a nice reward to folks who have watched many of those kids play and develop and who even may have billeted those kids in their homes. It also could be a recruiting tool for college programs who compete with the Canadian major junior teams for USHL players...

Extremely skeptical. Now should the current format continue, I'd love to see one of the USHL venues successfully bid and prove me wrong. But the track record is just so clear in the West. No local team, no tickets sold locally. Overnight lodging required to make the trip? The large majority just says no.

You didn't mean to put "neutral" did you? I think "larger" suffices. First, that might not be as easy to do as you think. The school would have to arrange with the larger site for an event that might not happen and/or try to find the larger site in one week. Second (value judgment here) once again we're saying "Big school, you get a playoff game in your home rink; small school, you have the choice of scrambling to find a larger arena, or shutting out some of your fans and/or screwing the other school"

Should have used the term off-campus, or just left it at larger.

I'd agree that it's unfair that some teams could seamlessly reserve ice-time on campus, while others have to scramble. But I also think that if it's a one-and-done format, most of the affected schools could find an alternate facility. Go in at the last minute and say you need the whole weekend, and the likely reaction would be laughter. But for those who have a plausible chance of making the top 8, you'd be able to give the target venue at least some notice. From there, the inquiry would be for Friday OR Saturday OR Sunday. I'd think the building manager would at least be willing to talk.

Leaving for Manchester soon. Looking forward to an intra-Minnesota blood feud and to watching the player who's IMHO the most exciting college freshman since Paul Kariya.

BU/Yale was a lot of fun. The "blood feud" was a bore; I literally fell asleep during the second period. Great game if you're a UMD fan, of course. Otherwise not so much.

Curious if you stayed for the whole 2nd game. While the blowout was likely to blame, most left. Either way, your thoughts on crowd and atmosphere in Manchester?

 

[The Zlax45]

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

I thought the crowd for BU/Yale was as good as anyone would expect on a Friday afternoon...lots of people were still there for the second game and left after the first period.

 

[The Zlax45]

The schools are small, there are a lot more college hockey teams within easy driving distance, and there's a lot more competition for entertainment dollars.


Powers &8^]

Out of PC's 11 conference road games, I attended nine of them without having to drive longer than two hours...the college hockey market has just a ton of teams around

 

[chickod]

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

I thought the crowd for BU/Yale was as good as anyone would expect on a Friday afternoon...lots of people were still there for the second game and left after the first period.

And the floodgates opened after UMD's fourth goal. We were gone - got to the box office (which is outside the arena so you can't get back in) to get tix for Saturday night and got our same seats. But they said that things were "picking up." I'm hoping BU will have an even bigger crowd there tomorrow (and I thought it was good today given the day and time of game).

 

[LtPowers]

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

Well, that's out-of-the box thinking! Let's play with it a little bit. As a preliminary matter, if you want a strict quota where the East is guaranteed three regionals regardless of who bids, the proposal is dead on arrival. I suppose you could adopt three Eastern regional labels, but stop short of a strict quota. Example: East, Northeast, Atlantic, West. But quite honestly I think that one is DOA as well. But what about this: Simply drop the geographic labels all together. No Eastern Bids or Western Bids. 4 regionals available; may the best four bids win. Each regional is named after its host city. No geographic designation at all.

We might have something there. For a long time the FF alternated between East and West. But that hasn't been true for decades. Maybe a strict 50/50 split of regionals should also be set aside. Judge the bids on the merits, let the chips fall where they may. Something to think about.

The "regionals" aren't really regionals anyway (same with Basketball). The bracket isn't set up to bring teams from the same part of the country together. I assume the original purpose of "regionals" was to minimize travel and minimize region-based playstyle/officiating disparities, but now only the top four seeds are placed with that in mind. Everyone else is flying hither and yon.


Powers &8^]

 

[chickod]

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

The "regionals" aren't really regionals anyway (same with Basketball).

I think that really was exacerbated once the NCAA went to that "pod" system for basketball, when you were in the (for example) East "Regional" but played in say, Utah. Only the Regional FINAL is actually in that region now. At least previously the ENTIRE Regional was played in that region. Not the same SITE, but, for example, the first round would be in say, Raleigh and Syracuse and then the final would be in say, New York. But they were ALL in the same regions. I think it's ridiculous the way they do it now, and even ignoring the argument that "hockey is different (which it is)," it doesn't work. Just look at the packed house at the Centrum (DCU Center) when Vermont played Syracuse. Would you get that crowd in Worcester for say, Pepperdine vs Colorado State? It's just stupid reasoning, especially from a financial perspective with the double whammy of MORE expense for travel and LESS revenue due to disinterest - fans with no stake. Not only that, just look at the empty arenas for those "first round" games. It wasn't like that when you had schools in their proximities and REGIONAL rivalries. And because the NCAA has no creativity, they just say "OK, we'll do it the same way in hockey." Someone had mentioned they didn't think that UMD and Minnesota had more than 750 fans COMBINED yesterday in Manchester. I would say 250 is more like it. I actually tried to count and I think I saw seven Minnesota sweaters (obviously not all the fans wear the team sweater, but you get the picture).

This whole "bracket integrity" thing has gotten out of hand. Like anyone is going to beat Kentucky anyway. Does it really matter if the 16th seed is near home or traveling half-way across the country? It's stupid...

 

[CLS]

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

(Omitted for brevity)

Interesting examples. I think Fargo would have satisfied both of us. It sure had atmosphere, and it qualifies as “neutral” in my definition. But what would it have looked like if UND hadn’t made the tournament? Don’t know. It points out the one of the problems in the west: attendance is highly dependent on one or more key teams being there. Toledo’s an example on the other extreme (though in retrospect, I don’t know of what combination of schools might have made it a success). And I agree with you, I think, that the Minny/UND game in St. Paul would have been even more fun to many, not necessarily me, if it had been in a 10,000 seat stadium or if there had been 18,000 there. In fact I think that the fact that this particular matchup couldn’t fill the X is an argument on your side.

But what about this: Simply drop the geographic labels all together. No Eastern Bids or Western Bids. 4 regionals available; may the best four bids win. Each regional is named after its host city. No geographic designation at all.

We might have something there. For a long time the FF alternated between East and West. But that hasn't been true for decades. Maybe a strict 50/50 split of regionals should also be set aside. Judge the bids on the merits, let the chips fall where they may. Something to think about.

Ultimately, I'm skeptical. My thought is that most Easterners will simply refuse to watch two Western teams compete, even if the game is being held close by. I would also be concerned that the Eastern audience would be spread too thin by the addition of another set of games. But we can't know unless it's tried.

I like your idea of abandoning the geographic designations. College hockey would be better off if without the geographic chauvinism, my favorite absurdity being the oxymoronic "East All American" and "West All American" teams. Regarding eastern fans not watching western teams play -- Fair enough. Last night’s Minnesota-UMD game is evidence on your side. Folks actually paid for the game, but didn't watch it anyway. I think you’d have to have at least one eastern team in reasonable commuting distance of the site. Not to open up another can of worms, but if attendance is really a concern to the NCAA, maybe they should take more liberties with the matchups and where they’re sited.

Extremely skeptical [of USHL sites successfully hosting regionals]. Now should the current format continue, I'd love to see one of the USHL venues successfully bid and prove me wrong. But the track record is just so clear in the West. No local team, no tickets sold locally. Overnight lodging required to make the trip? The large majority just says no.

You may be right, and I'll admit I hadn't given this "proposal" much thought. Red Cows intervening post got me thinking. My idea was that at least there's a marketing hook for the locals: they've actually seen some of the participants play.

Should have used the term off-campus, or just left it at larger.

As I thought about it, by my definition “neutral” isn’t inaccurate, it’s just redundant. By my definition, Fargo was “neutral”. I think true “neutral” is really impossible unless you put it somewhere inaccessible, like Sochi, or do something inexplicable, like having a regional in Fargo and not letting UND play there. Not playing in the rink that one team plays most or all of its home games is enough for me.

Curious if you stayed for the whole 2nd game. While the blowout was likely to blame, most left. Either way, your thoughts on crowd and atmosphere in Manchester?

I was one of the hardy souls who stayed for the whole game. Did you know that Minnesota ended up with only something like 3 less SOG’s than UMD (surely one of the most deceiving stats ever)? You know that crowd and atmosphere aren’t high on my list of priorities, but I’ll try to be as objective as I can.

First game: crowd -- “OK”, maybe even “good”, but a little disappointing to me. For a team as exciting as BU is this year, there should have been a larger crowd. The lower bowl should have been filled (sides were pretty full; ends were pretty sparse), and there should have been more people in the upper bowl (pretty empty). In fact, now that I think about it, there was a Hobson's choice here. The crowd I think this game deserved probably wouldn't fit in Agannis Arena.

Atmosphere – pretty good, mainly due to the game itself. Yale showed you can play good team defense without being boring, and BU has enough talent they can create scoring chances against even good defense. It would have been better if the crowd had been larger or if it the game had been in a smaller venue.

Second game: crowd -- a friends and family event of a small family that doesn’t have many friends.

Atmosphere -- I’ve been to more exciting funerals. To be clear, I blame Minnesota for that. If the game had been closer to, or in, Minnesota and there had been a larger contingent there, would they have played better? Don’t know how they would have played in front of a larger Minnesota contingent, but in my view (a) it’s their job to excite me, not vice versa; (b) if a team, participating in a one-and-done national tournament needs the crowd to get it to play well, I don’t think much of them; (c) if the game had been more closely contested, I would have enjoyed it, despite the crowd; and (d) if they had played like that in Minnesota, it wouldn’t have been boring, it would have been ugly. There would have been mass booing, and mock cheering when Minnesota finally scored. You could tell how the team felt. The team celebrated (appropriately, I think) in an “at least we didn’t get shut out” manner.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

I was one of the hardy souls who stayed for the whole game. Did you know that Minnesota ended up with only something like 3 less SOG’s than UMD (surely one of the most deceiving stats ever)? You know that crowd and atmosphere aren’t high on my list of priorities, but I’ll try to be as objective as I can.

First game: crowd -- “OK”, maybe even “good”, but a little disappointing to me. For a team as exciting as BU is this year, there should have been a larger crowd. The lower bowl should have been filled (sides were pretty full; ends were pretty sparse), and there should have been more people in the upper bowl (pretty empty). In fact, now that I think about it, there was a Hobson's choice here. The crowd I think this game deserved probably wouldn't fit in Agannis Arena.

Atmosphere – pretty good, mainly due to the game itself. Yale showed you can play good team defense without being boring, and BU has enough talent they can create scoring chances against even good defense. It would have been better if the crowd had been larger or if it the game had been in a smaller venue.

Second game: crowd -- a friends and family event of a small family that doesn’t have many friends.

Atmosphere -- I’ve been to more exciting funerals. To be clear, I blame Minnesota for that. If the game had been closer to, or in, Minnesota and there had been a larger contingent there, would they have played better? Don’t know how they would have played in front of a larger Minnesota contingent, but in my view (a) it’s their job to excite me, not vice versa; (b) if a team, participating in a one-and-done national tournament needs the crowd to get it to play well, I don’t think much of them; (c) if the game had been more closely contested, I would have enjoyed it, despite the crowd; and (d) if they had played like that in Minnesota, it wouldn’t have been boring, it would have been ugly. There would have been mass booing, and mock cheering when Minnesota finally scored. You could tell how the team felt. The team celebrated (appropriately, I think) in an “at least we didn’t get shut out” manner.

I also stayed to the end of the Minnesota-UMD game and there were very few fans of either school, but I would put the count in the hundreds (~200) for each. Besides a low fan count neither school brought/hired bands, nor did they bring their skating cheerleaders, and while Goldie was there and very active I didn't see Champ at all. That also lead to the game having a very poor atmosphere and I personally think it would have been much better if the school bands had been there.

As for the Fargo regional, it is my understanding that attendance for the St. Cloud-Michigan Tech game was much less at the start and that it filled in during the game as UND fans arrived for the UND-Q game. The truth is that there is a limited number of college hockey fans willing and able to attend tournament games, especially when their team is not in the tournament. Look at the league tournament attendance from last week. There are tens of thousands of fans of all the DI teams who will attend every home game, and even away games their team plays locally, but they are not college hockey fans. When it comes down to watching other teams play most have little interest at all. Until that changes we will continue to see attendance issues.

Sean

 

[TheEagle]

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

As for the Fargo regional, it is my understanding that attendance for the St. Cloud-Michigan Tech game was much less at the start and that it filled in during the game as UND fans arrived for the UND-Q game. The truth is that there is a limited number of college hockey fans willing and able to attend tournament games, especially when their team is not in the tournament. Look at the league tournament attendance from last week. There are tens of thousands of fans of all the DI teams who will attend every home game, and even away games their team plays locally, but they are not college hockey fans. When it comes down to watching other teams play most have little interest at all. Until that changes we will continue to see attendance issues.

From what I saw on TV it seemed like the stands filled up relatively fast for the Tech-St. Cloud game. The stands looked ~60% full after the first 10 minutes. There is always going to be some percentage of the crowd that doesn't show up for other teams (especially on a Friday afternoon), but North Dakota fans like college hockey and generally show up pretty well for other games.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Interesting examples. I think Fargo would have satisfied both of us. It sure had atmosphere, and it qualifies as “neutral” in my definition. But what would it have looked like if UND hadn’t made the tournament? Don’t know. It points out the one of the problems in the west: attendance is highly dependent on one or more key teams being there.

Certainly agree that Fargo 2015 satisfies both of us. But without UND? Iffy. Probably a sellout with tons of no-shows. Eliminating such uncertainty is one of the largest benefits of returning to campus sites. You'd only be selling tickets to those who have already given thumbs up to the specific match-up.

Toledo’s an example on the other extreme (though in retrospect, I don’t know of what combination of schools might have made it a success).

BG and/or Michigan would have made it a success. Miami and/or Michigan State would certainly have been helpful. OSU? We travel spectacularly well for Football, but Hockey tends to be the friends and family scenario. For Toledo, I'm guessing we would have brought 500 fans; maybe 1000 tops. The higher number would include Buckeye fans from the immediate area. Support at that level would be a meaningful contribution, but not enough to carry the event.

You may be right, and I'll admit I hadn't given this "proposal" much thought. Red Cows intervening post got me thinking. My idea was that at least there's a marketing hook for the locals: they've actually seen some of the participants play.

It's another example of good, out-of-the-box thinking by both you and Red Cows. Despite my skepticism, if the status quo continues, I would sincerely like to see it tried.

As I thought about it, by my definition “neutral” isn’t inaccurate, it’s just redundant. By my definition, Fargo was “neutral”. I think true “neutral” is really impossible unless you put it somewhere inaccessible, like Sochi, or do something inexplicable, like having a regional in Fargo and not letting UND play there. Not playing in the rink that one team plays most or all of its home games is enough for me.

Solid principle. But in practical application, the impact is quite disparate. Some schools have suitable neutral facilities within reasonable commuting distance, others do not. When you noticed that the rink capacity variable would have a disparate impact on certain fanbases, you expressed compassion for those who might be closed out. Would it be possible to share some of that compassion for those closed out by geography?

Despite all of the emphasis on the differences between East & West, it occurs to me that there is a core commonality here: As a rule, college hockey fans are not "big money" people. The big money types can be found in NHL suites. In contrast, we're average Joes who are doing fine, but who do need to stay on budget. Lots of us would like to attend a regional, but for a high percentage the need for overnight lodging is a cut point. Commutable, the answer is yes. Overnight lodging, the answer is no. True both East & West. But in terms of impact, the off-campus sites are merely inconvenient in the East, while often a deal breaker in the West.

I was one of the hardy souls who stayed for the whole game. Did you know that Minnesota ended up with only something like 3 less SOG’s than UMD (surely one of the most deceiving stats ever)? You know that crowd and atmosphere aren’t high on my list of priorities, but I’ll try to be as objective as I can.

You did well. A few more comments below:

First game: crowd -- “OK”, maybe even “good”, but a little disappointing to me. For a team as exciting as BU is this year, there should have been a larger crowd. The lower bowl should have been filled (sides were pretty full; ends were pretty sparse), and there should have been more people in the upper bowl (pretty empty). In fact, now that I think about it, there was a Hobson's choice here. The crowd I think this game deserved probably wouldn't fit in Agannis Arena.

Atmosphere – pretty good, mainly due to the game itself. Yale showed you can play good team defense without being boring, and BU has enough talent they can create scoring chances against even good defense. It would have been better if the crowd had been larger or if it the game had been in a smaller venue.

Very much what I experienced when I attended in Worcester; good but not great. Now in defense of Manchester, having the marquee game start at 2:00PM on a business day is a significant disadvantage -- as others have pointed out.

Second game: crowd -- a friends and family event of a small family that doesn’t have many friends.

Atmosphere -- I’ve been to more exciting funerals...

So you've met the enemy first hand. This happens all too often at the Western neutral sites. And yet even with this knowledge, you've only seen the half it. At least in Manchester there was a decent crowd for the first game. It's much worse when an entire two game session receives such sparse support.

Does this help explain why some of us in the West are so eager to see this enemy defeated?

 

[Caustic Undertow]

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

Death, taxes, and awful regionals.

Some may remember that I was a hefty debater of this issue in years past, starting the major threads in two seasons.

I have little to add to my previous thoughts; I believe the terrible regional format actively undermines the credibility of this sport. Minnesota State just had its best season ever, and it sees it end in front of perhaps 2000 people in a venue many hours away from their fans. This happened because the western regionals are impossible events to draw fans to if they are not hosted by "big name" teams and are thus scheduled with the fans of a half dozen teams in mind.

And that design has to exist because nobody will go these events in the west if they are genuinely neutral. In the East it's a bit different, since so many teams are close to each other, but even then, what's the point? 97% of all Eastern regionals in this have been located within a quadrilateral whose corners are Manchester, Albany, Bridgeport, and Providence; the longest distance between regionals in this set is approximately 200 miles. The lone exception was a single regional in Rochester.

And those aren't exactly barn-burners. UMD is playing BU in Manchester right now and the arena can't be more than half full.

This is an embarrassment to the sport. It's not good for fans. It's not good for teams. It's not even good for the apparently money-hungry NCAA. The lone advantage to this format (first mentioned in this thread by HockeyMan2000, I believe) is that it is a lot easier to televise than any alternative.

I'm on record favoring single home games at the venue of high seeds for the first two rounds. Much best-of-3 discussion is active here, and I like that idea, but it is extremely hard to televise and increases the possibility that a home venue will be unavailable. Single games can be scheduled in such a way to allow most or all on television (though it's still a lot harder to produce--right now ESPN has a year to plan production and announcers, which I am sure is a positive for them) and if a venue has some scheduling conflict due to other events it is easier to make space for one game over a whole three-day weekend than three.

That's my view. The NCAA tournament games in these empty neutral sites is surreal in a very bad way, a borderline joke that insults its and its fans by holding the most important games of the year in the deadest and least attended venues of the year. It must change.

 

[Stauber1]

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

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.

There are limiting factors for attendance in both the current format and the proposed on-campus first round.
Right now, money and time are those factors. In the proposed format, it's capacity. But it seems very clear to me that more people would be able to attend the games if we changed the format. And it wouldn't even be close. Regionals have been averaging less than 24,000 combined on that first day, while the smallest combined attendance an on-campus first round could have accommodated in the last 10 years was over 42,800.
That's the smallest. The average combined crowd that could have been accommodated over the last 10 years is 52,791. Even if we assume only 85% of capacity in attendance (which I think is conservative) that means, on average, 44,872 hockey fans would have been able to attend the first round each year.

As for the example I used with Union, I'll take one more crack at an explanation.
Regionals average less than 6,000 on the first day. For 4 teams. That is less than 1,500 per team. We seem to agree that teams with bigger fan bases that travel tend to have bigger arenas and vice versa. So it seems logical to say teams like Union bring under that 1,500 fan per team average.
Union's arena holds 2,225. If 500 seats are reserved for visiting fans, that leaves 1,725 for Union.
1,725 is more than 1,500 (or under 1,500). And Union is one of the smallest rinks we can use for an example; Only Princeton and Atlantic Hockey have rinks that seat less than Union's. 71% of college hockey rinks seat at least 3,000. If we take AH out of that equation, 87.5% seat at least 3,000.

If a few hundred home fans get shut out once every couple years, that seems like a MUCH smaller sin than tens of thousands of fans being shut out EVERY YEAR due to money and time constraints.

 

[Stauber1]

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

This is an embarrassment to the sport. It's not good for fans. It's not good for teams. It's not even good for the apparently money-hungry NCAA. The lone advantage to this format (first mentioned in this thread by HockeyMan2000, I believe) is that it is a lot easier to televise than any alternative...

...That's my view. The NCAA tournament games in these empty neutral sites is surreal in a very bad way, a borderline joke that insults its and its fans by holding the most important games of the year in the deadest and least attended venues of the year. It must change.

I couldn't agree more. And with all the discussion about the attendance and how it relates to fans (which I have been a large contributor to), what has been overlooked is how it affects the kids playing the game, and the kids who share classrooms with them.

Any time a player is asked where their favorite road trip is, invariably the answer comes back an opponent (usually a rival) where the arena is packed, the fans are engaged and the volume is high.

I also think that when we talk about fans that get shut out of games, the demographic that gets shut out the most in the current format is the students. And that is a real shame.