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?

The neutral sites were intended to prevent situations like 1998, where UND was a top seed but had to go to Yost to play the regional, where Michigan also happened to be placed. That's not the only example, obviously, but it was one of them.

There are quite a few such examples, but the one you've named is probably the most notorious.

Note that the neutral site system hasn't fixed this. Not forgetting there is a genuine difference between home ice and home crowd. But unearned home cooking reared its head over the weekend. The NCAA succumbed to the temptation to place PC in Providence, and the home folk helped get the bottom seed to the Frozen Four. I don't mean to disrespect the great effort put forth by the Friars. But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

FWIW, basketball regionals can be done at campus sites, but are never allowed to be "home games" until the Final Four. They theoretically could do the same thing, although I'm not sure how much attendance would be affected...

I've considered this, and think it would genuinely help, at least in the West. As one example, I think a number of schools not named Michigan would do OK hosting at Yost. Another example, though not a perfect analogy: Many years ago UMD hosted a home WCHA playoff series against UND at the Gophers' home rink because the DECC was unavailable. They got a solid turnout at the gate. It can work. But if the goals of maximizing attendance, atmosphere and revenue are important, the results would fall well short of letting the top 8 teams host on campus.

EDIT: The local university would undoubtedly inherit most or all of the administrative duties of holding the event. The "hosting away from home" idea is that the location would be convenient to the highest seed, but would satisfy the desire to keep the game off the higher seed's campus. Tweaking the current system in this way would allow a number of great hockey buildings back into the mix for regional play. Right now they're blackballed because they're on somebody's campus...

 

[LtPowers]

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

Personally I would prefer (as a fan) to see the four best teams in the Frozen Four each year. I just think it makes for outstanding hockey. It's great to see Butler make a run to the championship basketball game, but they don't ever win.

Then why have sixteen teams in the tournament? Just go with the four teams with highest PWR and let them go at it.


Powers &8^]

 

[LtPowers]

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

But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just because it doesn't eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth mitigating the problem.


Powers &8^]

 

[SJHovey]

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

Then why have sixteen teams in the tournament? Just go with the four teams with highest PWR and let them go at it.


Powers &8^]

I'm not opposed to upsets, or for that matter, giving teams a chance to upset a better team. But for all sports, just from a fan's perspective, I really enjoy it when the two very best teams meet for the championship. But underdog stories are always fun, and again, I'm certainly not opposed to taking away the possibility.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

There are quite a few such examples, but the one you've named is probably the most notorious.

Note that the neutral site system hasn't fixed this. Not forgetting there is a genuine difference between home ice and home crowd. But unearned home cooking reared its head over the weekend. The NCAA succumbed to the temptation to place PC in Providence, and the home folk helped get the bottom seed to the Frozen Four. I don't mean to disrespect the great effort put forth by the Friars. But why are we tolerating all of the disadvantages of the neutral site system if it doesn't eliminate the problem of unearned home crowd advantage?

Too bad the Frozen Four isn't in a far enough away location that, if Providence makes it to the championship, the other team's mascot grabs a Boston school's flag and skates around the arena with it.

 

[Ralph Baer]

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

Too bad the Frozen Four isn't in a far enough away location that, if Providence makes it to the championship, the other team's mascot grabs a Boston school's flag and skates around the arena with it.

But their fans are ready to go to the hotel where the other team is staying and run around the halls making noise in the middle of the night.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Couldn't agree more. And if you've been reading my stuff in even a superficial way, you know I've been searching for compromise solutions to make things better, not insisting on perfect answers.

Because it doesn't eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth mitigating the problem.

We disagree about what the issue is, not the willingness to compromise. Or, more precisely, we agree that there's a huge issue and a small issue -- but my huge issue is your small issue, and vice versa.

 

[Almington]

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

If a school can't host 4 teams, would it be feasible that a school within driving distance (like the travel partner for an ECAC school) would be able to host the 2-3 matchup while the #1 sead host the 1-4 matchup and the championship. The 2-3 matchup likely would be sparcely attended, but it cany be much worse than the current off games, pulse the smaller location wouldn't feel as empty with just a few hundred fans.

 

[SJHovey]

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

I'd just go back to the way it was in '89, '90 and '91. Play at the home of the higher seed, best two of three. The preliminary rounds of the NCAA take place over two weekends, not one as we have it now. The only difference between now (with a 16 team field) and '89, '90 and '91 (only a 12 team field) is that the 4 highest seeds wouldn't get first week byes like they did back then, but would have to play.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

I'd just go back to the way it was in '89, '90 and '91. Play at the home of the higher seed, best two of three. The preliminary rounds of the NCAA take place over two weekends, not one as we have it now. The only difference between now (with a 16 team field) and '89, '90 and '91 (only a 12 team field) is that the 4 highest seeds wouldn't get first week byes like they did back then, but would have to play.

I think there is a very good chance the NCAA will return to this kind of a format sooner than later. Possibly as soon as 2017. Some coaches have mentioned reservations about playing as many as 6 games potentially with a best of three format leading up to the FF though. If the NCAA goes back to campus sites I'd play single games, for a couple of reasons. One, I agree that at least 4 games, and possibly 6, is too much. Two, I think a series gives too much of an advantage to a home team. The higher seeds have earned a shot to host, but upsets are so much less likely when you have to win twice in 3 days.

 

[SJHovey]

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

I think there is a very good chance the NCAA will return to this kind of a format sooner than later. Possibly as soon as 2017. Some coaches have mentioned reservations about playing as many as 6 games potentially with a best of three format leading up to the FF though. If the NCAA goes back to campus sites I'd play single games, for a couple of reasons. One, I agree that at least 4 games, and possibly 6, is too much. Two, I think a series gives too much of an advantage to a home team. The higher seeds have earned a shot to host, but upsets are so much less likely when you have to win twice in 3 days.

If you look at the brackets from those three seasons, there were a number of instances where the home team lost the first game, but came back to win the next two, so the possibility of upsets would definitely be increased. But I just don't think they'll go single game, for a couple of reasons.

First, I think there are many who think like I do, which is that playing best of 3 increases the likelihood the better teams will advance, which should be what we want.

Second, if you ship a team into some place to play only a single game, you're leaving too much money on the table. The gate and other stuff you can sell at the game doubles or triples if you make it a series.

I realize there is some fun in having these underdog stories, and they are certainly appealing. But the Stanley Cup playoffs are appealing too. By that third game of a playoff series, there is an edge to the games.

I wouldn't be opposed to a format where the home team has to play as the "visitor" in game two, for purposes of line changes.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

I wouldn't be opposed to a format where the home team has to play as the "visitor" in game two, for purposes of line changes.

I believe this is how the regionals and super regionals work in the NCAA baseball tourney, the host team bats first in game two. If we do see a return to series, I think this is something that should be implemented. For those posters who had teams actually playing in the NCAAs in the short time where best of three series were used, was this format used, where the host was considered the visitor for faceoff and last change rules? I admit to having no idea whatsoever

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

I believe this is how the regionals and super regionals work in the NCAA baseball tourney, the host team bats first in game two. If we do see a return to series, I think this is something that should be implemented. For those posters who had teams actually playing in the NCAAs in the short time where best of three series were used, was this format used, where the host was considered the visitor for faceoff and last change rules? I admit to having no idea whatsoever

No, the home team was the home team in all games played, both in best of three and the previous two games-total goals series.

Sean

 

[SJHovey]

I believe this is how the regionals and super regionals work in the NCAA baseball tourney, the host team bats first in game two. If we do see a return to series, I think this is something that should be implemented. For those posters who had teams actually playing in the NCAAs in the short time where best of three series were used, was this format used, where the host was considered the visitor for faceoff and last change rules? I admit to having no idea whatsoever

I think the primary negative to the best of 3 in the first two rounds is that you suddenly get to the Frozen Four and play single elimination. Probably no perfect solution.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

I think the primary negative to the best of 3 in the first two rounds is that you suddenly get to the Frozen Four and play single elimination. Probably no perfect solution.

Just like the conference tourneys, best of threes for one or two weeks, then single elimination upon arrival in Boston or Lake Placid or the Twin Cities... It does seem backwards.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

I wouldn't be opposed to a format where the home team has to play as the "visitor" in game two, for purposes of line changes.

I continue to favor the single game format, for the reasons stated by WeAreNDHockey. But if we go to 2 of 3, this idea would also have my support.

No, the home team was the home team in all games played, both in best of three and the previous two games-total goals series.

Sean is correct about the history.

 

[The Zlax45]

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

I believe this is how the regionals and super regionals work in the NCAA baseball tourney, the host team bats first in game two. If we do see a return to series, I think this is something that should be implemented. For those posters who had teams actually playing in the NCAAs in the short time where best of three series were used, was this format used, where the host was considered the visitor for faceoff and last change rules? I admit to having no idea whatsoever

Actually in baseball, the host is home the first game and the visiting team is the home team for the second one. The third game is a coin flip for which team gets the home team privileges.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

Actually in baseball, the host is home the first game and the visiting team is the home team for the second one. The third game is a coin flip for which team gets the home team privileges.

Did not realize that was how it was done. Thanks for the info.

 

[John Biasi]

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

The switch to neutral sites in the "west" after 2003 was not intended to prevent a 1998 situation. It may have played a small, small part (2002 would have had a lot more to do with the switch), but the NCAA's intention was always to have neutral sites after 1991. The first two years (1992 and 1993) after the format switch were all neutral sites. If you look at the east, it was nothing but neutral sites from 1992-2004.

Unfortunately attendance was low for the first two years in the west at Joe Louis even with local teams in play (if I remember correctly, it was less than a third full) and they didn't want to host again. There was also a serious lack of neutral facilities in the west that could host six teams and officiating crews that weren't 18,000 seat arenas. So the west switched to campus sites because no neutral sites wanted to or could host. There was more than one year when only one venue applied to host the west regional.

I really don't know why people single out 1998 and Yost. It wasn't an anomaly in the west to see a host team as a lower seed play on home ice against a higher seed. Third-seed UMass-Lowell played sixth-seed Michigan State at Munn in 1994. No. 1 seed Michigan played fourth-seed Wisconsin at Dane County in 1995. Fourth-seed UMass-Lowell played fifth-seed Michigan State at Munn in 1996. It was a neutral site location in 1997, so by 1998 a lower seed playing at home happened every season it was possible.

Suddenly No. 2 seed North Dakota loses to No. 3 seed Michigan at Yost and they have to change venue rules? I don't buy it. In 1998, Michigan finished fourth in the PairWise. But back then in order to earn a No. 1 or No. 2 seed, you had to have won either your conference regular season or tournament. BC (5th in the PWR) won the Hockey East conference tournament, so they jumped UM (admittedly I could be mistaken and the top four seeds were split even east-west, but this is the scenario I remember). Michigan won neither so they got the highest No. 3 seed and played the lowest seed overall, Princeton. So it was North Dakota (second in the PairWise) losing to Michigan (fourth in the PairWise). Not a huge upset.

Back to the topic at hand. I'll keep it simple. I want to see campus sites, single-game elimination, two weekends.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

I really don't know why people single out 1998 and Yost. It wasn't an anomaly in the west to see a host team as a lower seed play on home ice against a higher seed. Third-seed UMass-Lowell played sixth-seed Michigan State at Munn in 1994. No. 1 seed Michigan played fourth-seed Wisconsin at Dane County in 1995. Fourth-seed UMass-Lowell played fifth-seed Michigan State at Munn in 1996. It was a neutral site location in 1997, so by 1998 a lower seed playing at home happened every season it was possible.

There was a fairly widespread belief that UND would have been the national champ that year had they played Michigan anywhere but Yost. Widespread, in part, because North Dakota has a legion of fans with long memories.

I was an eyewitness on that noteworthy night. I was there first and foremost because Ohio State was playing Michigan State in the first game of the doubleheader. Got the desired result. Experienced a true twilight zone -- Wolverine fans rooting for a Buckeye team. During the nightcap I didn't have any skin in the game, but it was equally memorable. I've never seen another home crowd carry a team to victory as dramatically as they did that night at Yost.

Bottom Line: People remember that game for the high stakes and the dramatic impact of the crowd.

Suddenly No. 2 seed North Dakota loses to No. 3 seed Michigan at Yost and they have to change venue rules? I don't buy it.

This, and the rest of the history you cite, is undoubtedly spot on. But I don't think anyone else was attempting to reconstruct a time line the way you were. It was just a matter of noting a high water mark. I'll go this far: That game may have been something of a turning point for opinion in the college hockey community. But you're correct, change wasn't immediately forthcoming. Opposition to campus sites continued to build as Mariucci provided a major home ice advantage to the Gophers in 2003, to provide a data point from years later. Eventually the pendulum did swing entirely away from campus sites, but change came at a slow pace. Now, just maybe, the pendulum is starting to swing back -- again at a slow pace.