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

[pgb-ohio]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

In the 6 team region, there were four games played in each region, with 2 teams emerging from each region to go to the Frozen Four.

I assume in your 8 team region there would be 6 games played in each region, with 2 teams from each region advancing to the Frozen Four?

I think the other problem you'd have with an 8 team region is that you'd have to hold it over 3 days, 2 games each day? That gets to be a big commitment for fans traveling, especially if day 3 is a Sunday.

I'm not necessarily advocating for any position. I offered my comments primarily from a historical context with respect to the two super regional proposal.

Well, crud. We're both wrong. Your historical point is correct. Through some brain cramp I omitted the byes that were part of the 12 team tournament. Having a bad day.

But as for my Great Eight idea, it really is just four games. To repeat, the eight teams are the winners of the first round games, held on campus sites. Then, the following weekend, those eight winners advance to a single neutral site and play the second round. Paring the first round survivors down to four teams would only take 4 games. To further clarify, I'm imagining single elimination all the way through.

 

[Stauber1]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

...What I hear you saying here is that, regardless if the atmosphere concerns could be mitigated, regardless of the issues with some teams unable to host because they do not own the rink, regardless of the neutrality issues and the advantages a host team might have, (in particular an olympic rink team at high altitude like CC, which would be a significant advantage), regardless of the TV coverage issues, you are STILL, against the regional system.

First and foremost, the argument for a return to campus sites is based on the idea that atmosphere concerns simply cannot be mitigated to a satisfactory level while maintaining the current format. There are some things that have been identified which could possibly help the issue, but there remains a healthy skepticism as to just how much of a difference those changes could affect. If different parties disagree on that assumption that is fine, but we should take care not to misrepresent the arguments.

Second, while it is true some teams do not own their rink, the number of teams is a minority and the number of teams who don't at least have access to a close-by rink to serve as substitute is an even smaller minority. This point is also one of the reasons the argument for a single game at campus sites holds merit; while some prefer a best-of-3 series (myself being one of those) or a high seed hosting a 4-team regional, a one-off makes these scheduling difficulties much less of an issue.

Third, the idea of neutrality and home advantage has been discussed at length. The current system in some cases awards significant home advantage regardless of seed. In an on-campus first round, home advantage would be directly tied to seed. In terms of fairness, I can't fathom how the current system is perceived to be better. I was very happy for Providence when they won the championship, and heading into last weekend they were the team I was rooting for. But for the purposes of this discussion we shouldn't forget that they reached the FF after being the last at-large bid, playing a regional in their home town and their 2 opponents (both seeded significantly higher) had to travel 900 and 1,900 miles, respectively. If North Dakota (or MN last year) had been a 3 or 4 seed, this issue would have been even more pronounced.

Lastly, TV coverage is also an issue that has been discussed. You are correct in that PGB has stated (as have I) that a decrease in television viewability would be acceptable if that sacrifice produced a better format. I should be careful in speaking for PGB, but I do believe he has said this in the past (if I misrepresent you, please correct me).
I would suggest, though, that viewability in general (considering all media platforms equally) would not be reduced significantly, if at all. There may be an interim period where viewability decreases, but I do think that in a span of 2-4 years contracts and logistics would be formulated that would allow access to view the vast majority of games online - or through a local provider for particular games.
...although The Board would have to find something else to do with all the angst they currently direct at The Mullet.

I'd also just say that I'm not sure how much showing games on ESPNU does to "grow the game."

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

First and foremost, the argument for a return to campus sites is based on the idea that atmosphere concerns simply cannot be mitigated to a satisfactory level while maintaining the current format. There are some things that have been identified which could possibly help the issue, but there remains a healthy skepticism as to just how much of a difference those changes could affect. If different parties disagree on that assumption that is fine, but we should take care not to misrepresent the arguments...

Well put and Amen.

...Lastly, TV coverage is also an issue that has been discussed. You are correct in that PGB has stated (as have I) that a decrease in television viewability would be acceptable if that sacrifice produced a better format. I should be careful in speaking for PGB, but I do believe he has said this in the past (if I misrepresent you, please correct me).
I would suggest, though, that viewability in general (considering all media platforms equally) would not be reduced significantly, if at all. There may be an interim period where viewability decreases, but I do think that in a span of 2-4 years contracts and logistics would be formulated that would allow access to view the vast majority of games online - or through a local provider for particular games.
...although The Board would have to find something else to do with all the angst they currently direct at The Mullet.

I'd also just say that I'm not sure how much showing games on ESPNU does to "grow the game."

You represented me just fine. CLS and I have discussed this issue at least once in the recent past. He gives the TV coverage of the early rounds more priority than I do, just as you say. While more comprehensive TV coverage is clearly a good thing, I treat it as one of several important variables -- and am willing to compromise on it.

BTW, while I chose to highlight 2 of your points, I appreciated the full post.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

Second, while it is true some teams do not own their rink, the number of teams is a minority and the number of teams who don't at least have access to a close-by rink to serve as substitute is an even smaller minority. This point is also one of the reasons the argument for a single game at campus sites holds merit; while some prefer a best-of-3 series (myself being one of those) or a high seed hosting a 4-team regional, a one-off makes these scheduling difficulties much less of an issue.

Well tell that to Minnesota State because that is great as long as you are not them, or a number of other Minnesota schools. It has been pointed out, they cannot simply ask the local municipality to keep a date open, when they have no idea, even two weeks out, if they will want it or not.I would not call this a small issue.

Third, the idea of neutrality and home advantage has been discussed at length. The current system in some cases awards significant home advantage regardless of seed. In an on-campus first round, home advantage would be directly tied to seed. In terms of fairness, I can't fathom how the current system is perceived to be better. I was very happy for Providence when they won the championship, and heading into last weekend they were the team I was rooting for. But for the purposes of this discussion we shouldn't forget that they reached the FF after being the last at-large bid, playing a regional in their home town and their 2 opponents (both seeded significantly higher) had to travel 900 and 1,900 miles, respectively. If North Dakota (or MN last year) had been a 3 or 4 seed, this issue would have been even more pronounced.

Neutrality is a huge deal with me and has been pointed out, the big programs already have a big advantage, and the 2 for 1 requirement makes it very difficult for the smaller programs to make it in. If you then add a home ice advantage, which, make no mistake, is bigger at home than it is across town, you are almost assuredly moving the game toward the big money teams and away from the small teams. I think one of the top things about college hockey is that small programs can compete, but this would make it like most other big sports, and the big money teams will rule just like they do in the other sports.
Let me give you an example. Minnesota: plays on an olympic rink, the team is set up to take advantage of that, and if they were home , not only do they get a home crowd, and a home environment, they get to use that home olympic rink, which most teams do not have. It adds up to quite a bit of an advantage, aside from the fans and the noise of playing in your home town. I mean BC plays in Providence, which is not all that far, and no one is saying it's a home game for them, but UND plays in Fargo, which is further, and it is? Overall I think you have to protect the small programs. I disagree that it is the same at the excel as it is at Mariucci.

Lastly, TV coverage is also an issue that has been discussed. You are correct in that PGB has stated (as have I) that a decrease in television viewability would be acceptable if that sacrifice produced a better format. I should be careful in speaking for PGB, but I do believe he has said this in the past (if I misrepresent you, please correct me).

I would suggest, though, that viewability in general (considering all media platforms equally) would not be reduced significantly, if at all. There may be an interim period where viewability decreases, but I do think that in a span of 2-4 years contracts and logistics would be formulated that would allow access to view the vast majority of games online - or through a local provider for particular games.
...although The Board would have to find something else to do with all the angst they currently direct at The Mullet.

I totally disagree. I think part of the reason the game is where it is, is because casual sports fans decide to watch it.I think allowing it to be on a major network is a huge deal.

I'd also just say that I'm not sure how much showing games on ESPNU does to "grow the game."

There are other issues of course, but this is just the ones you brought up. But to bring up one, why mess with the success of the east when the only regional that has a problem is the mid west.

 

[CLS]

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

Absolutely a legitimate point, but not sure what it resolves in this particular context. The regionals you're defending have roughly the same amount of ice usage as a FF. A Great Eight would be four games rather than three. An increase, yes. A night and day difference, no. And back in the first round, the ice at the campus sites would likely be much better than the neutral sites.

I was not defending the current format. I was responding to a response to the "Great Eight" proposal. But even if we were comparing with the current format, we could quibble over whether it's "night and day" but from an ice quality standpoint, it's movement in the wrong direction. And while I'll admit that I didn't go back to study your original writeup, but it seems to me that it's not just the number of games, it's also the number of practices and skates.

In general, agreed. I was hoping the Great Eight might be an exception to the general rule. Clearly there's a possibility I'm wrong. But again, what conclusion are we to reach if you're correct? It seems to me the "few would travel, nobody would stay overnight" argument supports campus sites, not neutral sites. Even under the current format, there's a 50% chance of being one and done.

But that 50% is very meaningful. Under this proposal you know in advance you'll see only one game. In the current format, you know you'll see at least one game. You have an expectation of seeing 1.5 games (or some number greater than 1.0 if you don't assign a 50% probability of each team winning the first game). You hope that you'll see two games. And in the words of the philosopher A. Dufresne, "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things."

And there's an additional burden to the teams and fans of the 9 - 16 seed that I haven't seen mentioned yet. You could easily have a situation in which an eastern/western school gets sent west/east for the first round, then gets sent west/east again one week later.

Well, if it's really true that none of the first round campus games would ever be broadcast on any channel, live or tape delay, I'd have to agree that's a serious issue. Still, I've just got believe that the ESPN3 productions would find their way to the markets of the participating teams. But then again, is ESPN capable of blacking out the entire first round? Yes, I suppose they are. Even so, I might still be willing to pay the price. But I admit that a total blackout would make it a tougher call.

Hence my "if that's true" qualifier. I'm not doubting anyone's word, but it's the first time I've seen that stated that explicitly. I've only had suspicions to this point.

No sugar coating needed; I'm fine with being spoken to bluntly. As for my original quote, I should have been less terse. I'll admit to being a little frustrated in the last couple of posts, less reflective than usual.

Don't want to put words in manurespreader's mouth. But what I think he's saying is that he'd let the West use certain campus sites (UMD example) for regionals to make things less bad. Favoring minor repairs is certainly a respectable position. But I'm not sure that's viable in this case. By what principle do you decide which campuses are allowed an exemption? Small school=Yes, Big School=No? Can't say in advance, but I'll know it when I see it? It seems to me if you allow campus sites back into the mix for regionals, everyone should be allowed to bid. Then you've basically lost the neutrality you're trying to preserve. We're right back to unearned home ice advantage.

If that's the specific point, then we agree, as we have in the past. I was reacting more to manurespreader's characterization of who had to be convinced; it's the coaches, not us.

My thought was that the first round would be designed to improve atmosphere, while the Great Eight would put a limit on the advantage held by the first round hosts. Something aimed at both sides. But it's not really being received that way; hence a bit of frustration on my part.

Successful negotiation means that (A) both sides get to retain what's fundamental to them, but they compromise on points that are not fundamental, and (B) both sides retreat from a position. With regard to (A) I think that neutral sites are fundamental, and I'm not retreating from that position. And with regard to (B) I don't see that by proposing some form of neutral sites in the second round you're really giving up anything, so the compromise seems to me to be in only one direction. It seems like Bully Nation marching up to Small Nation's borders and saying "we'll take half your land instead of taking all of it" and calling that a compromise.

Well, when we attend games as fans we don't score or make saves. But I think it's OK to keep being a fan. Similarly, I think it's OK to keep posting, even if it's only an academic exercise. On the latter, we might have a little influence on opinion within the hockey community. But sure -- we're outsiders, not decision-makers.

Agree. So long as it remains an academic exercise. Sometimes it feels more personal than that, though, and I know how internet arguments usually degenerate; in fact I think it's remarkable it hasn't already.

 

[stuckinwi]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

There are other issues of course, but this is just the ones you brought up. But to bring up one, why mess with the success of the east when the only regional that has a problem is the mid west.

When the longest drive you're faced with is 2 hours it's easy to be succesful and draw a crowd.

 

[Stauber1]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

Well tell that to Minnesota State because that is great as long as you are not them, or a number of other Minnesota schools. It has been pointed out, they cannot simply ask the local municipality to keep a date open, when they have no idea, even two weeks out, if they will want it or not.I would not call this a small issue.

I agree, it's not a small issue. That being said, it does not seem apparent to me that teams are as hand-tied as is implied. Rinks would know a year out they need to hold a single (specific) date open, and then are able to adjust that 4-6 weeks out for the vast majority of college hockey teams who know whether they are out of the top-8, or potentially in it. Is it possible that at some point a team gets shut out of their building without a desirable substitute? Yes. That would be bad, but I would argue this is unlikely to happen in a single-game format.

Neutrality is a huge deal with me and has been pointed out, the big programs already have a big advantage, and the 2 for 1 requirement makes it very difficult for the smaller programs to make it in. If you then add a home ice advantage, which, make no mistake, is bigger at home than it is across town, you are almost assuredly moving the game toward the big money teams and away from the small teams. I think one of the top things about college hockey is that small programs can compete, but this would make it like most other big sports, and the big money teams will rule just like they do in the other sports.
Let me give you an example. Minnesota: plays on an olympic rink, the team is set up to take advantage of that, and if they were home , not only do they get a home crowd, and a home environment, they get to use that home olympic rink, which most teams do not have. It adds up to quite a bit of an advantage, aside from the fans and the noise of playing in your home town. I mean BC plays in Providence, which is not all that far, and no one is saying it's a home game for them, but UND plays in Fargo, which is further, and it is? Overall I think you have to protect the small programs. I disagree that it is the same at the excel as it is at Mariucci.

I agree, the current PWR is tilted a bit. It is sadly ironic that the push to weigh home/away games differently (which was meant to aid the "smaller" programs) was paired with the QWB and the elimination of one of the comparisons (which favors "power" conferences). To me, this suggests a need for a critical eye on the ranking system, and while that has implications for tournament format, conflating the two issues (I think) should be avoided.

I also think the worry of a shift toward "big-money power" is perhaps overstated. Just a quick look back at some of who would have hosted first-round games had they been on-campus:
2010 - Miami, Bemidji, Cornell, St. Cloud
2011 - Yale, Union, Merrimack, Miami
2012 - Duluth, Miami, Ferris
2013 - Lowell, Miami, Quinnipiac
2014 - Lowell, Union, Quinnipiac, Ferris
2015 - Tech, Duluth, Mankato, Miami

I'd also suggest looking at the home/away composition of schedules for teams across the country. Big-name programs do enjoy an advantage, typically by 3-4 game margin. An issue? Yes. Something that continues to need critique. But Tech had just as many more home games this year as MN did. Michigan played an equal number home and away. Bemidji, Mankato, Yale, Quinnipiac were just some of the teams that played more at home than on the road.

There are other issues of course, but this is just the ones you brought up. But to bring up one, why mess with the success of the east when the only regional that has a problem is the mid west.

I don't think this is an issue specific to the midwest (although it is certainly most prominent in the west and midwest regionals). SJHovey posted the attendance numbers a few posts back. Some things to keep in mind when looking at them is that the avg. attendance is representative of the attendance for just the first round (rather than looking at total attendance for both days), and that the number is for 2 games (as we all know a big chunk of fans only attend 1 of the games on the first day). These are also tickets sold, and not actual attendance.
- 4,200 in Albany and 4,200 in Worcester in 2008.
- 6,000 in Albany in 2010.
- 5,600 in Providence in 2013
- 6,000 in Worcester in 2014
These would be good numbers for a lot of college hockey rinks, but leave 14,000-17,000 seat arenas very empty. Especially when considering a significant % of that number only really attend 1 of the games.

Most years, in most of the arenas even in the east, you are taking a paid attendance that leaves the arena 40% empty; and an actual attendance per game that leaves the arena more than 50% empty.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

But that 50% is very meaningful. Under this proposal you know in advance you'll see only one game. In the current format, you know you'll see at least one game. You have an expectation of seeing 1.5 games (or some number greater than 1.0 if you don't assign a 50% probability of each team winning the first game). You hope that you'll see two games. And in the words of the philosopher A. Dufresne, "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things."

Apparently another manifestation of the regional difference. That incentive to travel is currently in place, but it isn't having any positive impact in the West, as far as I can tell.

Successful negotiation means that (A) both sides get to retain what's fundamental to them, but they compromise on points that are not fundamental, and (B) both sides retreat from a position. With regard to (A) I think that neutral sites are fundamental, and I'm not retreating from that position.

Well, that's half of the equation. Those of us on the other side feel just as strongly that minimally acceptable tournament atmosphere is fundamental, and won't retreat from that position. The particulars of the change are negotiable, but the need for change is not. So it's a clash of absolutes.

And with regard to (B) I don't see that by proposing some form of neutral sites in the second round you're really giving up anything, so the compromise seems to me to be in only one direction. It seems like Bully Nation marching up to Small Nation's borders and saying "we'll take half your land instead of taking all of it" and calling that a compromise.

Two friends, East and West, take a boat out for a cruise. A leak develops. East has a life jacket, West does not. The boat isn't going to sink in the next 5 minutes, but the problem is serious. There is one signal flare available, jointly owned. A cargo ship comes to within visual range of the flare, assuming it's properly detonated. West proposes that the flare be used to signal the cargo ship. East refuses to consent, saying "I have a life jacket; there's no need to waste the flare." That's what it feels like to me.

Agree. So long as it remains an academic exercise. Sometimes it feels more personal than that, though, and I know how internet arguments usually degenerate; in fact I think it's remarkable it hasn't already.

Good posters on this thread.

 

[HarleyMC]

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

I agree, the current PWR is tilted a bit.

Nice work Stauber. With the committee only scheduling regionals into 2016 (article) it looks more promising now that we will most likely see a reasonable facsimile or synthesis of some of the ideas being kicked around on this thread.

In addition to abandoning the one and done format, my beef is also centered on the the PWR procedure itself which is another elephant in the room. Bottom line it's an inaccurate means of determining post season pairings at the expense of good teams who worked their collective a***s off all season for a playoff spot.

The whole thing should be abandoned for a more equitable linear regression that includes covariates on both the team and conference level in a hybrid Bradley-Terry model that integrates recursive partitioning. However, this would require full cooperation of all D1 teams to report a predetermined series of latent factorials to populate the equation to ensure greater equivalency and fairness in post season outcomes. This would require constructing a very complex statistical model, but a more accurate one.

John Whalen, the physicist at RPI whom I understand helped design the PWR for USCHO, has been advocating a change from the PWR tool to the basic BT model for years, but to no avail. IMO a hybrid of the BT model would yield more error free probabilities and greater internal consistency. This would also require the NCAA's full cooperation and attention to detail. Will it ever get done? If it was college football maybe, but college hockey...I have my doubts.

 

[CLS]

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

...
Well, that's half of the equation. Those of us on the other side feel just as strongly that minimally acceptable tournament atmosphere is fundamental, and won't retreat from that position. The particulars of the change are negotiable, but the need for change is not. So it's a clash of absolutes.

Well, kinda. Your absolute is atmosphere. As I understand it, it’s not home rinks for the first round, and if there were some other way of achieving atmosphere, you’d be OK with it. If your absolute is higher seed home ice for at least the first round, then we do have a clash of absolutes. To me, that’s what manurespreader was asking you; is your absolute atmosphere, or is it really home ice? To use a metaphor (more on that below), is home ice the “wolf” and atmosphere the “sheep’s clothing”?

There are ways of preserving neutrality, and probably (as Stauber points out, there are no guarantees) improving atmosphere. But most or all of them that at least I can think of violate some other preferred feature that we’ve agreed on previously. If neutrality and atmosphere really are absolutes, then maybe we should revisit some of them, recognizing we aren’t as constrained by practicalities as the NCAA is.

For example, say to the NCHC, B1G, and WCHA (collectively the “West”) and to the ECAC, AHA, and HE collectively the “East”, “You have two slot in the Frozen Four. Determine them however you want.” This is how it was way back in the dark ages. The East could then continue to have their neutral sites, and the West could go to higher seed home rink first rounds or even regionals. Of course this presumes that “West” and “atmosphere” folks are the same and that “East” and “neutral” are the same, which may not be true. It also violates what I think many of us hold dear, the concept of a national tournament that has the same rules for everyone, but if neutrality and atmosphere are indeed absolutes and both sides would be willing to give on the “same rules” concept, maybe it should be explored.

Don’t want to put words in your mouth, but one concept that’s been mentioned by “atmosphere” advocates is that it’s not only the size of the crowd, but the size of the crowd relative to the venue. So a crowd of 3,000 isn’t necessarily a bad thing per se but it’s a bad thing if it’s in a 10,000 seat venue. It’s OK in a 3200 seat venue (or a 2900 seat venue, but we have a different issue there). So why not suggest 3000 seat neutral site venues for the regionals? I don’t know if such places exist; Red Cows suggested some 4,000 seat sites in the Midwest and it was greeted with skepticism, but maybe it deserves a second look. In any case I don’t know why the NCAA required a 5,000 seat capacity for regional bids, when, at least in the Midwest, there wouldn’t be anywhere near 5,000 people there.

Or here’s another one. Put on-campus rinks back in the mix for regionals. Instead of four pre-determined regional sites, have, say, eight contingent sites and establish a rule that nobody gets to play on their home rink.

By having contingent venues, you could even establish a rule that the site has to be at least as convenient for the top seed as it is for anyone else. That would prevent, for example, Miami having to go to Providence; they might instead go to South Bend, while Mankato goes to, say, Mariucci, and making it reasonably convenient for at least one team would probably be beneficial for crowd size and atmosphere. Can’t speak for any of the other neutrality advocates, but it would satisfy me. Yes, this is kind of hare brained, but I bring up these to repeat the question. Is your absolute atmosphere, or home ice?

Two friends, East and West, take a boat out for a cruise. A leak develops. East has a life jacket, West does not. The boat isn't going to sink in the next 5 minutes, but the problem is serious. There is one signal flare available, jointly owned. A cargo ship comes to within visual range of the flare, assuming it's properly detonated. West proposes that the flare be used to signal the cargo ship. East refuses to consent, saying "I have a life jacket; there's no need to waste the flare." That's what it feels like to me.

...

Well played!

Ah, the battle of metaphors (which admittedly I started, quite clumsily). Always a perilous exercise, because there will always be arguments about how well the metaphor fits the situation. But in the spirit of the academic exercise, let me offer this one:

Two friends, East and West go out for dinner.

East: Great beer selection! And the appetizers look yummy!

West: Yah, but this place lacks ambience.

East: That prime rib was excellent!

West: Yes, but look at the room. There are twenty tables and only ten of them are filled. And the crowd isn’t very lively. They’re just sitting there enjoying the food.

East: Wow, that tiramisu was to die for! Let’s come here again. The ambiance wasn’t ideal, but the food is what I really care about

West: Yes, but I didn’t like the atmosphere. Let’s eat at my home dining room next time. It’s a nice cozy place, my wife makes a great lasagna, the dining room would be full, my mother-in-law always keeps the conversation lively, and it’s easy to get to – for me. And don’t suggest your place. I own a construction business and made $400k last year and you’re just a carpenter and made only $60k last year. If you have a great year and I have a lousy year and you make more money than I do, we’ll go to your place.

East: Thanks for the invitation, but I want to come back here.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Good stuff; was just too busy yesterday to get on the board...

Well, kinda. Your absolute is atmosphere. As I understand it, it’s not home rinks for the first round, and if there were some other way of achieving atmosphere, you’d be OK with it. If your absolute is higher seed home ice for at least the first round, then we do have a clash of absolutes. To me, that’s what manurespreader was asking you; is your absolute atmosphere, or is it really home ice? To use a metaphor (more on that below), is home ice the “wolf” and atmosphere the “sheep’s clothing”?

My absolute is satisfactory atmosphere. If that could be accomplished without returning to campus sites, I'd be good to go.

The two issues are intertwined, at least in the West, because I'm extremely skeptical that anything other than a return to campus sites will fix the first round. Others go further, arguing that the only way to fix the first two rounds is have them on campus. I continue to believe that the 2nd Round could be successfully staged on neutral ice, whether you used 1 site (Great Eight) or 2 sites. I also continue to believe that my position is meaningfully different than the proposals that give the highest seeds two home games.

Quick clarification on "satisfactory." I'd be happy to stipulate that the Eastern Regionals are functioning at a C+/B- level. If all 4 regionals were performing at least that well, I'd certainly entertain the option of keeping things as they are. The trouble is, the Western regionals are frequently performing at the D or F level. The pattern is unmistakable. It's not limited to one or two cities; it's been happening for years. That's what's unacceptable. Something, anything, has to be done.

There are ways of preserving neutrality, and probably (as Stauber points out, there are no guarantees) improving atmosphere. But most or all of them that at least I can think of violate some other preferred feature that we’ve agreed on previously. If neutrality and atmosphere really are absolutes, then maybe we should revisit some of them, recognizing we aren’t as constrained by practicalities as the NCAA is.

For example, say to the NCHC, B1G, and WCHA (collectively the “West”) and to the ECAC, AHA, and HE collectively the “East”, “You have two slot in the Frozen Four. Determine them however you want.” This is how it was way back in the dark ages. The East could then continue to have their neutral sites, and the West could go to higher seed home rink first rounds or even regionals. Of course this presumes that “West” and “atmosphere” folks are the same and that “East” and “neutral” are the same, which may not be true. It also violates what I think many of us hold dear, the concept of a national tournament that has the same rules for everyone, but if neutrality and atmosphere are indeed absolutes and both sides would be willing to give on the “same rules” concept, maybe it should be explored.

I've thought of this, and speaking only for myself, I'd consider it. But I'd only go that route if both semi-finals were East/West match-ups. If the "wolf" in this scenario is an attempt to guarantee an East/West title game, that's an absolute deal breaker.

Overall, I'd view this as a retreat. The East vs. West match-ups are generally the most interesting games of the tournament. Capping the number of those games at two is a problem. Strictly limiting it to the championship game is unacceptable.

Don’t want to put words in your mouth, but one concept that’s been mentioned by “atmosphere” advocates is that it’s not only the size of the crowd, but the size of the crowd relative to the venue. So a crowd of 3,000 isn’t necessarily a bad thing per se but it’s a bad thing if it’s in a 10,000 seat venue. It’s OK in a 3200 seat venue (or a 2900 seat venue, but we have a different issue there). So why not suggest 3000 seat neutral site venues for the regionals? I don’t know if such places exist; Red Cows suggested some 4,000 seat sites in the Midwest and it was greeted with skepticism, but maybe it deserves a second look. In any case I don’t know why the NCAA required a 5,000 seat capacity for regional bids, when, at least in the Midwest, there wouldn’t be anywhere near 5,000 people there.

Conceptually I agree. But I'd need to know what buildings we're talking about before I could decide if this is a viable option. At an even more basic level, we wouldn't be addressing the problem of fans refusing to travel on short notice to the regionals. Whether the venue has 3,000 seats, 5,000 seats or 17,000 seats, a turnstile count of 500 is a major problem.

Or here’s another one. Put on-campus rinks back in the mix for regionals. Instead of four pre-determined regional sites, have, say, eight contingent sites and establish a rule that nobody gets to play on their home rink.

By having contingent venues, you could even establish a rule that the site has to be at least as convenient for the top seed as it is for anyone else. That would prevent, for example, Miami having to go to Providence; they might instead go to South Bend, while Mankato goes to, say, Mariucci, and making it reasonably convenient for at least one team would probably be beneficial for crowd size and atmosphere. Can’t speak for any of the other neutrality advocates, but it would satisfy me. Yes, this is kind of hare brained, but I bring up these to repeat the question. Is your absolute atmosphere, or home ice?

I'd consider contingent venues; this is actually pretty appealing. There are issues with it, however. For one, the "jilted" venues would be quite unhappy. A lot of schools take out their ice as soon as their team's season concludes. For a guaranteed event, on the right terms, I'm sure they'd leave in the ice for another week or two. For the possibility of home team games, the same. But the mere possibility of being a neutral site? I wonder.

I also have to question if the cost exceeds the benefit. Fargo was certainly a success in terms of atmosphere and at the gate. But there was a huge home crowd advantage for UND; the payoff in terms of neutrality was nominal IMHO. Still, trying to find more Fargos is a coherent strategy. Allowing campus sites back into the mix would make the search a lot easier. And I take it your position is that Fargo did offer a meaningful trade-off in terms of neutrality.

In any event, the Fargo example does do a good job of illustrating that atmosphere is the key for me. Fargo instead of Grand Forks isn't a deal breaker. But are there enough Fargos out there, even with campus sites once again available? And if a host school does qualify for the tournament, isn't there going to be an overwhelming temptation to let them play at home rather than exercising one of the contingencies?

Well played!

Ah, the battle of metaphors (which admittedly I started, quite clumsily). Always a perilous exercise, because there will always be arguments about how well the metaphor fits the situation. But in the spirit of the academic exercise, let me offer this one:

Enjoyed the restaurant metaphor; it really deserves a comparable response. But a quick, condensed reply:

Eating at a well-functioning, half-full, 2 Star restaurant is all well and fine. But insisting that others must eat at about-to-go-bankrupt restaurants is neither fair or acceptable. And when a restaurant is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, the food quality is quite likely to suffer.

 

[ericredaxe]

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

If the goal is to improve the atmosphere at the regional, higher seed hosting is reall the only option. I think there are too many people whose criteria for attending a regional are:

1. Proximity is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
2. Game time is such that taking time off from work is not required.
3. Price point of the ticket feels like college hockey pricing.

Fix those three items for a large number of people and atmosphere at the regionals will improve.

 

[LtPowers]

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

Good stuff; was just too busy yesterday to get on the board...My absolute is satisfactory atmosphere. If that could be accomplished without returning to campus sites, I'd be good to go.

Considering that the goal of the tournament is to determine the best team, shouldn't competitive fairness be the primary concern?


Powers &8^]

 

[The Freds]

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

If the goal is to improve the atmosphere at the regional, higher seed hosting is reall the only option. I think there are too many people whose criteria for attending a regional are:

1. Proximity is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
2. Game time is such that taking time off from work is not required.
3. Price point of the ticket feels like college hockey pricing.

Fix those three items for a large number of people and atmosphere at the regionals will improve.

For me this hits the nail on the head. I'm even open to the overnight stay if I can drive to it. Booking a flight with a few days notice generally puts the total cost of the trip out of reach for me, especially with the Frozen Four to follow two weeks later. I will go even if my team is not playing if the price is reasonable and the timing works.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Considering that the goal of the tournament is to determine the best team, shouldn't competitive fairness be the primary concern?

Obviously this is a complex conversation, and it's just not possible to mention every variable in every post. But sure -- competitive fairness should be one of the core concerns.

That said, I don't think anybody's talking about a format that's so unfair that you'd refuse to participate on principle. Due to the imperfection of the pairwise system, it can't be claimed that there's one -- and only one -- fair way to set up the bracket. On the bright side, that does allow for some wiggle room.

As just one example, giving Providence a home crowd advantage at this year certainly wasn't done to promote competitive fairness. The Friars' overall body of work justified letting them into the field, but I doubt there's any sort seeding formula that would have put them in the top band, or even the second band. Still, taking the full range of variables into account, the decision was deemed acceptable by most. Even after the Friars won it all, there wasn't much second guessing of their placement in the regionals.

 

[CLS]

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

...

I've thought of this [different regional formats in east and west], and speaking only for myself, I'd consider it. But I'd only go that route if both semi-finals were East/West match-ups. If the "wolf" in this scenario is an attempt to guarantee the East a berth in the title game, that's an absolute deal breaker.

Overall, I'd view this as a retreat. The East vs. West match-ups are generally the most interesting games of the tournament. Capping the number of those games at two is a problem. Strictly limiting it to the championship game is unacceptable.

Why?

You’re used the terms “absolute deal breaker” and “unacceptable” relative to suggestions that have very little, if anything, to do with atmosphere. Or are you defining “atmosphere” so broadly that guaranteeing the east (and in fairness, I hope the west) a slot in the finals detracts significantly from atmosphere? Sure, I like the east/west matchups also, but I don’t understand making it an “absolute deal breaker” issue. And I’d also argue with you if you were to try to tell me that an east/west final this year would have created a better atmosphere in Boston, at least as you’ve defined atmosphere in the past. With any other pairing, there would have been empty seats, fewer partisan fans, and less noise.

If there were a proposal that somehow managed to provide regionals with full arenas with screaming fans, but also guaranteed both east and west a spot in the finals would it still be unacceptable?

Hate to bring up another issue now, but I don’t understand this east/west fixation (I laugh every year at the oxymoronic “East All-American” and “West All-American” teams). I know a lot of folks, including me, would have preferred that BU and North Dakota not be matched in the semifinals. I would have preferred a seeded tournament, which I think would have meant North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. But I would have preferred a seeded tournament even if it meant North Dakota/Omaha and BU/Providence. Would you object to a seeded finals, if in some years that guarantees east and west a slot in the finals?

And I take it your position is that Fargo did offer a meaningful trade-off in terms of neutrality.

Yes, I’d call Fargo a neutral site, if that’s what you’re asking. I understand that with any realistic neutral site, it’s going to be more convenient for somebody. While I cringed at Miami having to play Providence in Providence, especially since I don’t believe Providence was the host school, I accepted it as pretty much a worst-case scenario. (After all, it improved the atmosphere, albeit in an unfair way).

In any event, the Fargo example does do a good job of illustrating that atmosphere is the key for me. Fargo instead of Grand Forks isn't a deal breaker. But are there enough Fargos out there, even with campus sites once again available? And if a host school does qualify for the tournament, isn't there going to be an overwhelming temptation to let them play at home rather than exercising one of the contingencies?

Of course Fargo is a useful example only because North Dakota made the tournament as a high seed. If they had made the tournament as a low seed, you'd have the Providence problem. If they did not make the tournament at all, the atmosphere wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. With regard to the first question, my original unthought-out suggestion was really restricting it to on-campus rinks because I’ve assumed that no unafilliated venue would accept a contingent booking. We’ve discussed that in the past when the question of rinks that are too small has come up. And while there might be temptation to let a team play at home, if letting a team play at home were forbidden by the regulations, the temptation would be irrelevant.

Enjoyed the restaurant metaphor; it really deserves a comparable response. But a quick, condensed reply:

Eating at a well-functioning, half-full, 2 Star restaurant is all well and fine. But insisting that others must eat at about-to-go-bankrupt restaurants is neither fair or acceptable. And when a restaurant is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, the food quality is quite likely to suffer.

Glad you didn’t make a longer reply, because it’s really not worth it. You can’t (at least I can’t) metaphorize simply a complex situation. I will say though, I thought about creating another branch of the same restaurant on the west side of town (I could then have called my little allegory “West Side Story”).

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Why?

You’re used the terms “absolute deal breaker” and “unacceptable” relative to suggestions that have very little, if anything, to do with atmosphere. Or are you defining “atmosphere” so broadly that guaranteeing the east (and in fairness, I hope the west) a slot in the finals detracts significantly from atmosphere? Sure, I like the east/west matchups also, but I don’t understand making it an “absolute deal breaker” issue. And I’d also argue with you if you were to try to tell me that an east/west final this year would have created a better atmosphere in Boston, at least as you’ve defined atmosphere in the past. With any other pairing, there would have been empty seats, fewer partisan fans, and less noise.

Your first reaction is correct; seedings at the FF have little or nothing to do with atmosphere at the regionals. By proposing the fully segregated regionals, you inadvertently raised another issue I feel strongly about. This has mostly to do with the Women's D-1 tournament set-up; there's no need to fully hash this out on the Men's Board. But for clarification's sake, here's the short version: On the Women's side, there's relatively little East/West play in the regular season. The NCAA field consists of 8 teams. To save travel expenses, the NCAA goes out of its way to avoid East/West matchups in the Round of 8. Then oftentimes the Women's FF itself is West/West and East/East in the semis. So it's distinctly possible to win a national title playing only a single game against the other region all year long. That really bothers me; I hope the Men's tournament never regresses to that state of affairs. If it did, then I'd say the solution is just as bad as the original problem. But again, this concern is relevant to just one of your suggestions.

If there were a proposal that somehow managed to provide regionals with full arenas with screaming fans, but also guaranteed both east and west a spot in the finals would it still be unacceptable?

Yes, and you've already provided a clear example as to why. In hindsight, BU/PC was the best title game match-up. So at least for this year, the "wolf" would have been a solution in search of a problem. In contrast, guaranteeing East/West semis makes sense as a way countering the impact of segregated regionals. And that was the format in the 70's and earlier. At the same time, notice that this latter approach preserves the possibility of two teams from the same region playing for the title. It's not rare for the two best teams to come from the same region, as occurred this year.

Hate to bring up another issue now, but I don’t understand this east/west fixation (I laugh every year at the oxymoronic “East All-American” and “West All-American” teams). I know a lot of folks, including me, would have preferred that BU and North Dakota not be matched in the semifinals. I would have preferred a seeded tournament, which I think would have meant North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. But I would have preferred a seeded tournament even if it meant North Dakota/Omaha and BU/Providence. Would you object to a seeded finals, if in some years that guarantees east and west a slot in the finals?

No. When the particular slots are earned on the ice, I don't have a problem with it. The issue arises when the tournament format is Gerry-rigged to maximize the chances of that result, regardless of the on-ice resumes. There's simply no need to use "affirmative action" to guarantee each region a berth in the last game. IMHO it's both unnecessary and wrong.

Yes, I’d call Fargo a neutral site, if that’s what you’re asking. I understand that with any realistic neutral site, it’s going to be more convenient for somebody. While I cringed at Miami having to play Providence in Providence, especially since I don’t believe Providence was the host school, I accepted it as pretty much a worst-case scenario. (After all, it improved the atmosphere, albeit in an unfair way).

Of course Fargo is a useful example only because North Dakota made the tournament as a high seed. If they had made the tournament as a low seed, you'd have the Providence problem. If they did not make the tournament at all, the atmosphere wouldn't have been anywhere near as good.

All true. But I'd say those are arguments for the campus sites, not neutral sites. Remember that, for me, Fargo is an example of what's acceptable, not what's ideal.

With regard to the first question, my original unthought-out suggestion was really restricting it to on-campus rinks because I’ve assumed that no unafilliated venue would accept a contingent booking. We’ve discussed that in the past when the question of rinks that are too small has come up. And while there might be temptation to let a team play at home, if letting a team play at home were forbidden by the regulations, the temptation would be irrelevant.

If the NCAA was really willing to adopt the zero tolerance rule, yes. They do enforce such a rule for the Men's Hoops tourney; so maybe they'd do the same for Men's Hockey. But my suspicion is that it's much more likely that they'd leave some discretion in the hockey committee's hands -- and thus the relevance of the temptation.

Glad you didn’t make a longer reply, because it’s really not worth it. You can’t (at least I can’t) metaphorize simply a complex situation. I will say though, I thought about creating another branch of the same restaurant on the west side of town (I could then have called my little allegory “West Side Story”).

Hmmm; Jets vs. Sharks? Does sound like a hockey game.

 

[LtPowers]

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

Obviously this is a complex conversation, and it's just not possible to mention every variable in every post. But sure -- competitive fairness should be one of the core concerns.

That said, I don't think anybody's talking about a format that's so unfair that you'd refuse to participate on principle. Due to the imperfection of the pairwise system, it can't be claimed that there's one -- and only one -- fair way to set up the bracket. On the bright side, that does allow for some wiggle room.

As just one example, giving Providence a home crowd advantage at this year certainly wasn't done to promote competitive fairness. The Friars' overall body of work justified letting them into the field, but I doubt there's any sort seeding formula that would have put them in the top band, or even the second band. Still, taking the full range of variables into account, the decision was deemed acceptable by most. Even after the Friars won it all, there wasn't much second guessing of their placement in the regionals.

I think we can all accept that sometimes a team is going to get a home regional, and that does sometimes affect competitive fairness. But where you see a foot in the door, I see a slippery slope. Forcing teams 9-16 to go into a hostile arena every time, every year, without fail, is going to severely reduce their chances of making it to the next round, when they already have disadvantages stacked against them. Sure, first round upsets will still happen, but not nearly as often as they've happened the last 6 or 7 years.

And while this may not apply to you, I have a feeling many proponents of campus sites for the tournament have exactly that as their primary motivation.


Powers &8^]

 

[CLS]

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

...By proposing the fully segregated regionals, you inadvertently raised another issue I feel strongly about....

Thanks for the clarification. I’m wasn’t really taking issue with your not wanting a “guaranteed” slot for east or west; it’s just that I took your “deal breaker” to be a new wrinkle thrown in late in the game, and, especially when you specified "east" but not "west", it (surprisingly to me, coming from you) smacked of some of the paranoid rants I occasionally used to see on this board complaining about the nefarious NCAA (often in cahoots with ESPN) rigging the matchups to screw the old WCHA or Hockey East when all the NCAA had done was pretty much follow a formula so rigidly that USCHO and several posters easily predicted the matchups on the nose. My hypotheticals were to find out exactly what your problem was. I agree that that rigging the tournament for the purpose of guaranteeing a slot to east or west is a bad thing, especially when no [other] desirable result is achieved by doing so.

Also, I didn’t necessarily mean to propose fully segregated regionals; only that they would be run differently. To be sure if they weren’t fully segregated, that would create another set of undesirable situations.

...

[G]uaranteeing East/West semis makes sense as a way countering the impact of segregated regionals. And that was the format in the 70's and earlier. At the same time, notice that this latter approach preserves the possibility of two teams from the same region playing for the title. It's not rare for the two best teams to come from the same region, as occurred this year.

No [I wouldn't object to a seeded finals even if that resulted in a guaranteed slot for east or west in the finals]. When the particular slots are earned on the ice, I don't have a problem with it. The issue arises when the tournament format is Gerry-rigged to maximize the chances of that result, regardless of the on-ice resumes. There's simply no need to use "affirmative action" to guarantee each region a berth in the last game. IMHO it's both unnecessary and wrong. ...

I also agree that east/west matchups in the semis are a good thing. The one non-deal breaking suggestion I’d have is that I’d make the matchups Higher West Seed vs. Lower East seed and Higher East Seed vs. Lower West Seed. There’s no need that I can see to pre-establish which east regional winner will play which west regional winner. So this year it would have been North Dakota/Providence and BU/Omaha. Especially since the games were being played in a neutral (at least in my terms) site, BU and North Dakota had earned the right to play a lower seed, and Providence and Omaha, plucky and overachieving as they were, had not.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

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

One more thing to consider in terms of home sites in the regional round.

In the late 1980's and into the early 1990's, Munn Ice Arena had one of the best atmospheres in college hockey. The Spartans were in the midst of a sellout streak that would reach over 200 games, but with a notable disclaimer that will be explained as you read on.

In 1988, Michigan State hosted Harvard in the opening round of the then 8 team NCAA tournament and the building was packed for two very good games. That 2 game total goals series was played on March 18-19, which was the last week before the university started spring break. Both games sold out.

In 1989, Michigan State hosted Boston College in the second round of the then 12 team NCAA tournament and the building was about 3/5 full. That best-of-3 series was played on March 24-26, which was during the university's spring break. There were more fans for game 3 on Sunday as the students arrived back on campus, but none of the games were sellouts. That led to the announced disclaimer that the sellout streak was counted in the regular season only.

In 1990, Michigan State hosted Boston University in the second round of the then 12 team NCAA tournament and the building was again about 3/5 full. That best-of-3 series was played on March 23-25, which was during the university's spring break. The Sunday crowd was similar to the first two games despite the return of the students.

Timing is going to be essential for making a lot of venues provide the atmosphere that most people are advocating the home sites are depending upon. The students are the obvious portion of the crowd that would be absent, but spring break also takes families out of town as well. And don't think for a hot second that the NCAA would ever consider changing the dates of the tournament, since it would conflict with the bouncy-ball.