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

[SJHovey]

Re: The Great Eight

Re: The Great Eight

There is no question moving the first and second rounds to campus sites and making them multiple game series, like were done back in the '80's, will favor the higher seed (home team). I think the percentage of time the host team advanced to the next round, both under the total goals and the best 2 of 3 formats, was something in the neighborhood of .780 from the '81 tournament through the '91 tournament. Under the "neutral" regional format (first, east and west regional, ultimately 4 regionals), the higher seed advances just over 60% of the time.

Is that good or bad? I think reasonable arguments can be made for both. It certainly adds a sense of randomness to the tournament, and makes the underdog story more likely. But does that make the tournament "better"?

In my opinion, the move to 16 teams, coupled with a move away from home campus games, has diluted the quality of the hockey games we see at the Frozen Four, although it has certainly opened up opportunities for championships to a broader selection of teams.

Since going to the 16 team format (13 seasons), all of which have used the 4 neutral site regionals, the average margin for victory in the Frozen Four games, and in the championship game as been around 2.5 goals. There have also been a total of 4 overtime games in the Frozen Four under that format.

You go back the previous 20 years or so to about the time HE was formed, and when there were only 8 teams, and then 12 teams in the tournament, with games played on campus for a period of time, the average margin of victory was closer to 2 goals per game, and in the championship game it was even lower, down around 1.9 goals per game. And that includes the absurd 8 goal margin in the '94 championship game. You take that out and it's 1.5 goals a game. That's a goal per game difference in the championship game. We also had 17 overtime games in those years in the Frozen Four. That's about 1 per year.

I'm not saying it's necessarily worse to see one of the last 3 or 4 teams in the tournament end up winning it. But I do think the quality of the product we get to see has been diluted somewhat.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

This has been/is a great thread. We've revisited this topic on an annual basis for quite a few years now and it generally is full of thoughtful, articulate comment, and often some innovative ideas as well. This year's is no exception. Over 50 different posters have commented in this thread, and I think just about every single post has added something positive to the discussion. Even those posters who think much of what has been discussed here might not make for an improved experience (and may even take some things backwards like the potential for diminished TV coverage) have been expressed those thoughts in rational and mature ways and have tried to offer logical reasoning as to why they see things that way. What a shame that none of us have an opportunity to play a part in changes (if any) the NCAA may soon make to the format of the tournament. The powers that be in the hockey committee should be poring over this thread and mining it for the many good ideas contained within.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

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^]

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.

Got it. I'd only add that, pre-clarification, you caught my reference but missed my drift. Beyond the actual problem in the Women's tournament, I was indeed referring to the rants. But I never believed that you, personally, had a hidden wolf in your proposal. Similarly, Lt. Powers exempted me from having a hidden wolf in mine. (see above) But those suspicions are out there, on all sides. And they do make it considerably more difficult to reach consensus on issues like this.

EDIT: I did revise the phrasing back in Post #271. It now reflects opposition to a "guaranteed East/West title game," as opposed to singling out the East.

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.

No kidding!

Hypothetical tournament: 8 Eastern teams, 8 Western teams. 6 Eastern teams play within commuting distance of their campuses on neutral ice. The other two are sent to Ann Arbor and Minneapolis. The screams of moral indignation on behalf of the two exiled Eastern teams would be plainly audible in Fairbanks. As for the two Western exiles sent East, the screams would be more muted because they'd be trading away Visitor status for neutral ice. But I'm sure someone would find a way to claim unfairness in that situation as well.

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.

Exactly. That's how it was done back in the 70's; that's how you'd want to do it now if we went back to that system.

This has been/is a great thread. We've revisited this topic on an annual basis for quite a few years now and it generally is full of thoughtful, articulate comment, and often some innovative ideas as well. This year's is no exception. Over 50 different posters have commented in this thread, and I think just about every single post has added something positive to the discussion. Even those posters who think much of what has been discussed here might not make for an improved experience (and may even take some things backwards like the potential for diminished TV coverage) have been expressed those thoughts in rational and mature ways and have tried to offer logical reasoning as to why they see things that way. What a shame that none of us have an opportunity to play a part in changes (if any) the NCAA may soon make to the format of the tournament. The powers that be in the hockey committee should be poring over this thread and mining it for the many good ideas contained within.

Appreciate this post, and very much agree with the sentiment. Sincere thanks to all who have posted.

One lesson I take from all of this, that some may find surprising: I find myself feeling a great deal of compassion for the members of the NCAA Hockey Committee. This issue is truly a game of Wack-A-Mole. Every time you think you've successfully addressed one concern, another legitimate concern pops up. The committee is pretty much faced with a mission impossible. No matter what they do, a large percentage of our community is going to be left unsatisfied. Yes, on one level it would be nice to "have an opportunity to play a part in the changes." But on another level, I'm kind of glad it's their job to make the decision, not ours.

 

[The Freds]

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

Well the coaches have expressed their opinion: ‘Overwhelming majority’ of coaches don’t want change for NCAA regional system/

 

[ericredaxe]

Well the coaches have expressed their opinion: ‘Overwhelming majority’ of coaches don’t want change for NCAA regional system/

Nothing like a game at a 35% full arena!

 

[pgb-ohio]

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

Well, that's pretty disappointing. Trouble is, it's impossible to know from the short write-up who to be disappointed with.

Maybe there's a fuller story here, and the problem is simply that USCHO wasn't able to cover the deliberations in person. If that's the explanation, I guess I can shrug it off the article. But the writer sure makes it sound like the coaches just took an informal straw poll, then quickly adjourned. If that's the case, shame on them. Many sincere concerns about the current system were expressed, and not just by fans. We deserved a better response.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

Nothing like a game at a 35% full arena!

35% full is pushing it in many recent western regionals. More like 15%.

One of the things I'm left to wonder about is who makes up the "overwhelming majority." Is it a mix of coaches from all conferences and schools from all three NCAA divisions? Or is the "overwhelming majority" made up of coaches from D2 and D3 schools and the smallest schools and the ones with little national appeal or brand recognition. I suppose we'll see when the next few NCAA regionals are announced. If it moves back to campus sites, we'll know the coaches from the B1G, or the two HEA schools that compete exclusively in top D1 conferences, or a handful of other schools that routinely make the NCAAs and play before many thousands of fans ruled the roost, and wield influence in NCAA hockey just like the SEC does in football. If it stays largely the way it is now, perhaps the NCAA decided that the simplest and most fair thing to do is what the "overwhelming majority" thinks.

My wish is for the NCAA to stop trying to serve two masters with this tourney. If atmosphere and attendance are really important move it back to campus sites. But if you want a truly national tourney, and want the setup that is the most fair to all the participants, simply select and seed the field in the (mostly) transparent and impartial way it is done now and make 1 play 16 and 2 play 15 and so on and so on. We've seen mostly empty buildings at the two western regionals for years now and the NCAA has been holding on to that format so long that obviously they are mostly OK with it. Set it up like basketball (no games on your own surface) and be done with it.

 

[The Freds]

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

Maybe there's a fuller story here, and the problem is simply that USCHO wasn't able to cover the deliberations in person. If that's the explanation, I guess I can shrug it off the article. But the writer sure makes it sound like the coaches just took an informal straw poll, then quickly adjourned. If that's the case, shame on them. Many sincere concerns about the current system were expressed, and not just by fans. We deserved a better response.

I get the distinct impression the writer was not at the meeting, but interviewed those who were. I did wonder if the opening line of the article, "Poor attendance at some NCAA regional sites has led to some talk that the format should be changed..." was derived from this thoughtful thread. We shall see what tweaks they try to improve attendance.

 

[The Zlax45]

I get the distinct impression the writer was not at the meeting, but interviewed those who were. I did wonder if the opening line of the article, "Poor attendance at some NCAA regional sites has led to some talk that the format should be changed..." was derived from this thoughtful thread. We shall see what tweaks they try to improve attendance.

My thoughts on on-campus regionals in the east is the fact there are very few "large" college rinks here. BC, BU, Lowell, UNH, and Maine...rest of the eastern schools are in the 3k seat area and will never be able to host.

 

[CLS]

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

Not a very informative article, was it? It’s also odd that the picture that accompanies the article is from Fargo, which even I as a supporter of neutral sites recognize as (a) an exception to the rule in the west and (b) a “perfect storm” for good attendance. If all regionals were attended like Fargo, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Well, that's pretty disappointing. Trouble is, it's impossible to know from the short write-up who to be disappointed with.

Maybe there's a fuller story here, and the problem is simply that USCHO wasn't able to cover the deliberations in person. If that's the explanation, I guess I can shrug it off the article. But the writer sure makes it sound like the coaches just took an informal straw poll, then quickly adjourned. If that's the case, shame on them. Many sincere concerns about the current system were expressed, and not just by fans. We deserved a better response.

Perhaps, but I’m not sure we deserved a better response from this group. The coaches don’t set the tournament format. They are just one constituency, albeit a very powerful constituency.

35% full is pushing it in many recent western regionals. More like 15%.

One of the things I'm left to wonder about is who makes up the "overwhelming majority." Is it a mix of coaches from all conferences and schools from all three NCAA divisions? Or is the "overwhelming majority" made up of coaches from D2 and D3 schools and the smallest schools and the ones with little national appeal or brand recognition. I suppose we'll see when the next few NCAA regionals are announced. If it moves back to campus sites, we'll know the coaches from the B1G, or the two HEA schools that compete exclusively in top D1 conferences, or a handful of other schools that routinely make the NCAAs and play before many thousands of fans ruled the roost, and wield influence in NCAA hockey just like the SEC does in football. If it stays largely the way it is now, perhaps the NCAA decided that the simplest and most fair thing to do is what the "overwhelming majority" thinks.

While it’s certainly true we don’t know who made up the various voting blocs (if indeed a vote was taken), I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in the articles in USCHO concerning the tournament format, the two most impassioned responses I remember were from Keith Allain and Nate Leaman. Both are coaches that made it to the FF as low seeds (this was before this year’s FF games, so Leaman hadn’t won it yet) and mentioned that upsets are a part of the charm of the tournament, and that upsets are less likely if the games are played at the higher seed’s home rink. My opinion is that the voting bloc that supports the current system most vociferously is the coaches at schools that expect to make the tournament, if at all, as a 9 – 16 seed. That's a lot of schools.

My wish is for the NCAA to stop trying to serve two masters with this tourney. If atmosphere and attendance are really important move it back to campus sites. But if you want a truly national tourney, and want the setup that is the most fair to all the participants, simply select and seed the field in the (mostly) transparent and impartial way it is done now and make 1 play 16 and 2 play 15 and so on and so on. We've seen mostly empty buildings at the two western regionals for years now and the NCAA has been holding on to that format so long that obviously they are mostly OK with it. Set it up like basketball (no games on your own surface) and be done with it.

The problem is, they have two masters. They have the member institutions, of which the coaches are one (but not the only) voice. ADs and member institution presidents matter also and their views may be different than those of the coaches. They also have the practicality of limited resources. If they can’t financially support the current format, it doesn’t matter what the coaches think.

 

[joecct]

35% full is pushing it in many recent western regionals. More like 15%.

One of the things I'm left to wonder about is who makes up the "overwhelming majority." Is it a mix of coaches from all conferences and schools from all three NCAA divisions? Or is the "overwhelming majority" made up of coaches from D2 and D3 schools and the smallest schools and the ones with little national appeal or brand recognition. I suppose we'll see when the next few NCAA regionals are announced. If it moves back to campus sites, we'll know the coaches from the B1G, or the two HEA schools that compete exclusively in top D1 conferences, or a handful of other schools that routinely make the NCAAs and play before many thousands of fans ruled the roost, and wield influence in NCAA hockey just like the SEC does in football. If it stays largely the way it is now, perhaps the NCAA decided that the simplest and most fair thing to do is what the "overwhelming majority" thinks.

My wish is for the NCAA to stop trying to serve two masters with this tourney. If atmosphere and attendance are really important move it back to campus sites. But if you want a truly national tourney, and want the setup that is the most fair to all the participants, simply select and seed the field in the (mostly) transparent and impartial way it is done now and make 1 play 16 and 2 play 15 and so on and so on. We've seen mostly empty buildings at the two western regionals for years now and the NCAA has been holding on to that format so long that obviously they are mostly OK with it. Set it up like basketball (no games on your own surface) and be done with it.

If you look at the agenda you'll see that the various divisions and sexes caucus separately when it comes to tournament issues. D3 would never tell D1 how to run their tournament and vice versa.

They'll caucus together for rules and other issues such as the Gentlemens Agreement.

 

[FiveHole12]

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

If venues were losing money at regional's, they wouldn't be bidding to host them. Basic economics.
If they are losing money, the first common sense solution would be to stop televising the regionals. Then perhaps more peeps would show up at the live event and the venue could sell more tickets and food.

And, we wouldn't have to read on here how empty the arena's look on the tube. GO TO THE GAMES FOLKS!

 

[ericredaxe]

And, we wouldn't have to read on here how empty the arena's look on the tube. GO TO THE GAMES FOLKS!

I think I likey can speak for a very large percentage of fans. My criteria for attending a regional are:

1- The team I cheer for is playing in it.
2- The location is such that it does not require an overnight stay.
3- The timing of the game is such that I don't need to take significant time off of work to attend
4- The pricing somewhat reasonably matches what I am accustomed to paying for a college hockey game (realizing there may be a minor premium for postseason games).

Meet those criteria, and a heck of a lot more of us will go to the games.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

GO TO THE GAMES FOLKS!

Very few fans of college hockey teams are college hockey fans. If their team is not in the NCAA tournament they won't go to the games. And of those that college hockey fans many prefer to watch all the games on TV. I'm a fan of college hockey and in the past I have gone to many other games during the season when BU was out of town or not playing that day. I've also gone to many NCAA games, either when local teams hosted and BU wasn't hosting (pre-regionals) or regionals when BU wasn't in the tournament. And when BU was in the tournament I attended all the games in their regional when they played in the east. However, after attending at least one NCAA first round/quarterfinal series or regional for 18 straight years (1986-2003) and 20 of 21 years, I stayed home to watch BU play out west in 2007. Since then I have watched on TV unless BU has been at an eastern regional (2009 & 2015).

Sean

 

[manurespreader]

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

My thoughts on on-campus regionals in the east is the fact there are very few "large" college rinks here. BC, BU, Lowell, UNH, and Maine...rest of the eastern schools are in the 3k seat area and will never be able to host.

These guys do not care one whit about that information. But nice of you to include it.

 

[giwan]

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

These guys do not care one whit about that information. But nice of you to include it.

Why change anything? Because ESPN wants it? There is such a lack of TV content out their why not just go to another network. The other day they were showing U17 girls volleyball. I mean really?

 

[ericredaxe]

My thoughts on on-campus regionals in the east is the fact there are very few "large" college rinks here. BC, BU, Lowell, UNH, and Maine...rest of the eastern schools are in the 3k seat area and will never be able to host.

Gutterson
Matthews
Mullins
Lynah
Thompson

I would guess are all pushing over 4500ish

But even so, I'd rather see 2500 in a sold out arena than 4000 in a 10k arena where half of those are only there for one of the two games....

But... It is obvious that attendance numbers and atmosphere are not a primary concern for those planning the tournament.

 

[FiveHole12]

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

Gutterson
Matthews
Mullins
Lynah
Thompson

I would guess are all pushing over 4500ish

But even so, I'd rather see 2500 in a sold out arena than 4000 in a 10k arena where half of those are only there for one of the two games....

But... It is obvious that attendance numbers and atmosphere are not a primary concern for those planning the tournament.

Unless BU is playing at Manchester, Providence or Worcester, the tickets cost $20. - $30., and you're not working that day... you're not going to be in the building anyway. You're gonna be sitting on your couch watching it on the tube. By default, you have no say in where regionals should be played or how many attend. Just watch it and be happy... and hope they don't do away with TV... cuz then you're screwed.

I'm not just throwing this just at you ericredaxe... anyone that doesn't attend regionals... same thing. You're not there, S_T_F_U and enjoy the games on the tube, and don't worry about how many people are in the building. Not your problem.

 

[ericredaxe]

Unless BU is playing at Manchester, Providence or Worcester, the tickets cost $20. - $30., and you're not working that day... you're not going to be in the building anyway. You're gonna be sitting on your couch watching it on the tube. By default, you have no say in where regionals should be played or how many attend. Just watch it and be happy... and hope they don't do away with TV... cuz then you're screwed.

I'm not just throwing this just at you ericredaxe... anyone that doesn't attend regionals... same thing. You're not there, S_T_F_U and enjoy the games on the tube, and don't worry about how many people are in the building. Not your problem.

I didn't watch it on TV. The game was in the middle of the work day.

You are looking at it the wrong way... The reason nobody is there and the reason it is a problem is because people miss games due to the format....

But based on how they continue to stick with the format, I can only assume that regionals attendance is low on the priority list for the tournament organizers.

 

[brassbonanza]

Having games at 2pm on as Friday between two teams that are supposed to carry the attendance at the site is pretty ridiculous. Some schedule tweaking is an easy way to get a bit of a boost.