ericredaxe
Veteran
Oh come on! If we were fans we would have been there no matter what!
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
- Thread starter Numbers
- Start date
Oh come on! If we were fans we would have been there no matter what!
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Hah true. I mean, I was, but really, putting any game at 2pm on a Friday when you don't have to is beyond comprehension.
Hah true. I mean, I was, but really, putting any game at 2pm on a Friday when you don't have to is beyond comprehension.
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
BTW, how many regionals or quarterfinals/first round series have you attended? How many not involving your team?
Sean
Really? If you want to increase the attendance at regionals I think you would want input from those that currently don't attend. Until you know what their reasons are for not attending it will be guesswork to make changes that will get them to attend. You may not agree with their reasons (and I don't agree with some of them), but excluding them from the discussion will not improve anything.
BTW, how many regionals or quarterfinals/first round series have you attended? How many not involving your team?
Sean
FiveHole12
Registered User
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
I understand complaints about Manchester this past season. Having start times early afternoon on a Friday is not very good (I would have gone to Manchester on Friday if not for the start times). Just tired of seeing all the beaching going on about attendance and suggestions about on campus sites, etc. On campus would totally suck, and I'm a fan of a team that could probably have a good chance of hosting most seasons if they were to go that route. That would be a huge step backwards. Better to just have the top 4 teams meet at the FF than go that route.
I've seen regionals at 2 different venues, same weekend, many times. Commute form Albany to Worcester, Worcester to Amherst, Providence to Worcester. My team doesn't play in all of those at the same time. BTW... see a common denominator there? Worcester. Best location in the east to hold a regional. Can get anywhere from there. Folks be-atch about the venue. I'm there to watch hockey, that is all. Could care less about amenities. How many times have you seen games at Lawler, Bright, Gutterson or Mathews when your team isn't playing there that night? I usually see a D-1 game on weekends when my team may be out west.
I understand complaints about Manchester this past season. Having start times early afternoon on a Friday is not very good (I would have gone to Manchester on Friday if not for the start times). Just tired of seeing all the beaching going on about attendance and suggestions about on campus sites, etc. On campus would totally suck, and I'm a fan of a team that could probably have a good chance of hosting most seasons if they were to go that route. That would be a huge step backwards. Better to just have the top 4 teams meet at the FF than go that route.
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
We used to travel to most of BU's away games, but even so I saw many games at Tully, Bright, Conte or Matthews when BU was out west. I don't know how many, but probably a few dozen. Since BU started their women's program ten years ago we have attended as many men's and women's home games as possible and now with my daughter playing hockey even they come second and third on the priority list.
Sean
I've never complained about Worcester as a host site and I'm also there to watch hockey.
We used to travel to most of BU's away games, but even so I saw many games at Tully, Bright, Conte or Matthews when BU was out west. I don't know how many, but probably a few dozen. Since BU started their women's program ten years ago we have attended as many men's and women's home games as possible and now with my daughter playing hockey even they come second and third on the priority list.
I'm also tried of seeing the complaints, and I agree that returning to campus sites is a step backwards (and as I recall campus sites didn't always sellout). However, if those complaining didn't attend then they should be heard.
Sean
gfmorris
New member
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Isn't a solution — perhaps not a good one — to treat the east and west regionals differently? Perhaps the climate is different these days. There's nothing like an experiment, even though it's not a natural one.
GFM
Isn't a solution — perhaps not a good one — to treat the east and west regionals differently? Perhaps the climate is different these days. There's nothing like an experiment, even though it's not a natural one.
GFM
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
It has some drawbacks. Either (a) you keep the west teams in the western regionals and the east teams in the eastern regionals, which distorts the seedings, means that the regionals would have lots of repeats of conference tournaments, and means that eastern teams and fans never get to see western teams in the post season and vice versa or (b) you confront the unfairness of an eastern team getting shipped west and having to play a western team in its home rink when it would have gotten to play on a neutral rink if it had stayed in the east.
But all proposed tournament formats have drawbacks. So despite the disadvantages, this suggestion should be in the mix.
Definitely should be considered.
It has some drawbacks. Either (a) you keep the west teams in the western regionals and the east teams in the eastern regionals, which distorts the seedings, means that the regionals would have lots of repeats of conference tournaments, and means that eastern teams and fans never get to see western teams in the post season and vice versa or (b) you confront the unfairness of an eastern team getting shipped west and having to play a western team in its home rink when it would have gotten to play on a neutral rink if it had stayed in the east.
But all proposed tournament formats have drawbacks. So despite the disadvantages, this suggestion should be in the mix.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Just get rid of the at large berths and just have the conference champions in the Tournament.
1. It makes the conference tournaments REALLY exciting.
2. Cuts down the field
3. Cuts down travel and allows for East/West regionals.
If this happens - que the realignment scramble rag.
Just get rid of the at large berths and just have the conference champions in the Tournament.
1. It makes the conference tournaments REALLY exciting.
2. Cuts down the field
3. Cuts down travel and allows for East/West regionals.
If this happens - que the realignment scramble rag.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Great news. They realize the mistake it would be to go back to Campus Sites.
Great news. They realize the mistake it would be to go back to Campus Sites.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Don't know if this is possible or if it would even help but what if each of the regionals were held in 2 locations very close to each other where the 2nd day could have 2 games at the same location. Example: Saturday afternoon, 2 games in Manchester. Saturday night, 2 games in Worcester. Sunday 2 games in Worcester. Probably easier to do in the East but maybe Detroit/AnnArbor, 2 arenas in Minneapolis or Columbus?
Don't know if this is possible or if it would even help but what if each of the regionals were held in 2 locations very close to each other where the 2nd day could have 2 games at the same location. Example: Saturday afternoon, 2 games in Manchester. Saturday night, 2 games in Worcester. Sunday 2 games in Worcester. Probably easier to do in the East but maybe Detroit/AnnArbor, 2 arenas in Minneapolis or Columbus?
Nick Papagiorgio
Holding court
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
You serious Clark?
You serious Clark?
JB
Desk Chair Coach
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
This would really work if you figured out the building pairs well. You could even do an on and off campus site pair as the on campus site the "host" school couldn't play in their own building but down the road, this would really work in the east. Have the primary site be the "regional final location".
So Manchester(P) and Lowell - just don't let Umass host at home they have to be in Manchester. Lowell is actually closer to Manchester than Durham, plus it is an NHL sized sheet.
Worcester and Providence either could be a primary.
Albany Pepsi Center (P) and RPI Houston field house
This would really work if you figured out the building pairs well. You could even do an on and off campus site pair as the on campus site the "host" school couldn't play in their own building but down the road, this would really work in the east. Have the primary site be the "regional final location".
So Manchester(P) and Lowell - just don't let Umass host at home they have to be in Manchester. Lowell is actually closer to Manchester than Durham, plus it is an NHL sized sheet.
Worcester and Providence either could be a primary.
Albany Pepsi Center (P) and RPI Houston field house
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
But speaking only for myself: If the only two choices on the ballot were the status quo and "conference champs only," I really would select conference champs only. At least in the West, virtually anything would be better than the status quo. And by using the conference champs format, we'd be mostly rid of bracketology and pairwise calculations. All six berths in the NCAAs would be determined on the ice, in conference championship games. That's sounding better and better all the time.
Still, the conference champs format has virtually no chance of happening. If a majority of the coaches actually support the current system, then we have to accept that a major policy change is unlikely. So what are we left with? Can any minor repairs be made within the current structure?
As far as I can tell from the very limited reporting, the coaches' response was primarily opposition to campus sites, as opposed to a defense of the current system. So maybe it makes sense to set our sets lower, but to go back to the drawing board and try again.
But first -- to the poster who thinks everyone not currently attending should just shut up -- my reply is be careful what you wish for. People shut up when they've given up. It's not like NCAA Hockey has a huge surplus of fans. Pushing away a portion of the current fanbase isn't in anyone's best interest. And God forbid people should want to discuss a hockey topic on a hockey message board... Anyhow, if it's OK with everyone else, here's another round of brainstorming:
1. Schedule the games during timeslots when there's at least a conceptual chance that people will attend. Spread the games out from Thursday through Monday if necessary. Each individual regional could still be limited to two days to save hotel costs. But no more games during the traditional workday. Most fans aren't willing to take time off work for the regionals. Even the Frozen Four waits until 5:00 for the first semi-final. Why are we deluding ourselves that a 2:00 PM Friday start will be successful at the regional level?
2. Drop the geographic designations from these tournaments. I still don't buy that ANY of the regional sites are performing at an ideal level. But if there really are four sites that can be financially solvent and have non-offensive turnstile counts, then OK. If three of the sites are technically in the East in a given year, so be it. If all four of the sites in a given year are in the East, so be it. Better to play against a hostile crowd than in front of empty seats, IMHO.
3. To the well-meaning rink managers from places like Toledo and Fort Wayne: Please, please stop bidding. There's absolutely no reason for you to take a financial bath on this event; no one's coming. The only thing you're accomplishing with your financial sacrifice is propping up a system that desperately needs to change -- even if only small changes are possible. Keep your wallets closed.
4. Give serious consideration to smaller, community-based rinks as hosts. If finding truly neutral sites means that crowds of 1,000 - 2,000 are the best case scenario in the West, then find buildings that are matched to crowds of that size. The costs of staging the event would be much less than holding it at a mostly empty 10,000 seat building.
5. Building on #4, if staging costs are reduced, maybe ticket prices could be reduced as well.
Now, before you start casting stones at my list, please remember I'm playing a game of "what if" here. The question is: If campus sites are truly off the table, then what? Fair enough?
I'd like to know that too.
But speaking only for myself: If the only two choices on the ballot were the status quo and "conference champs only," I really would select conference champs only. At least in the West, virtually anything would be better than the status quo. And by using the conference champs format, we'd be mostly rid of bracketology and pairwise calculations. All six berths in the NCAAs would be determined on the ice, in conference championship games. That's sounding better and better all the time.
Still, the conference champs format has virtually no chance of happening. If a majority of the coaches actually support the current system, then we have to accept that a major policy change is unlikely. So what are we left with? Can any minor repairs be made within the current structure?
As far as I can tell from the very limited reporting, the coaches' response was primarily opposition to campus sites, as opposed to a defense of the current system. So maybe it makes sense to set our sets lower, but to go back to the drawing board and try again.
But first -- to the poster who thinks everyone not currently attending should just shut up -- my reply is be careful what you wish for. People shut up when they've given up. It's not like NCAA Hockey has a huge surplus of fans. Pushing away a portion of the current fanbase isn't in anyone's best interest. And God forbid people should want to discuss a hockey topic on a hockey message board... Anyhow, if it's OK with everyone else, here's another round of brainstorming:
1. Schedule the games during timeslots when there's at least a conceptual chance that people will attend. Spread the games out from Thursday through Monday if necessary. Each individual regional could still be limited to two days to save hotel costs. But no more games during the traditional workday. Most fans aren't willing to take time off work for the regionals. Even the Frozen Four waits until 5:00 for the first semi-final. Why are we deluding ourselves that a 2:00 PM Friday start will be successful at the regional level?
2. Drop the geographic designations from these tournaments. I still don't buy that ANY of the regional sites are performing at an ideal level. But if there really are four sites that can be financially solvent and have non-offensive turnstile counts, then OK. If three of the sites are technically in the East in a given year, so be it. If all four of the sites in a given year are in the East, so be it. Better to play against a hostile crowd than in front of empty seats, IMHO.
3. To the well-meaning rink managers from places like Toledo and Fort Wayne: Please, please stop bidding. There's absolutely no reason for you to take a financial bath on this event; no one's coming. The only thing you're accomplishing with your financial sacrifice is propping up a system that desperately needs to change -- even if only small changes are possible. Keep your wallets closed.
4. Give serious consideration to smaller, community-based rinks as hosts. If finding truly neutral sites means that crowds of 1,000 - 2,000 are the best case scenario in the West, then find buildings that are matched to crowds of that size. The costs of staging the event would be much less than holding it at a mostly empty 10,000 seat building.
5. Building on #4, if staging costs are reduced, maybe ticket prices could be reduced as well.
Now, before you start casting stones at my list, please remember I'm playing a game of "what if" here. The question is: If campus sites are truly off the table, then what? Fair enough?
Last edited:
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
I prefer campus sites. The top seeds should be rewarded by playing in front of their fans and sleeping in their beds.
As for tournament champs only. The top 10 or so teams know they are in the NCAA's before the conference tournaments start. What's their incentive? If failure to advance in the conference tournament ended all hope for an NCAA bid, wouldn't we see more urgency?
I'm old enough to remember when only conference champs got into the hoops tournament. The ACC tournament was 3 nights of pure adrenaline and the relief and triumph of the winner was quite evident. Sometimes the #1seed did not win. Too bad (there was always the NIT).
I prefer campus sites. The top seeds should be rewarded by playing in front of their fans and sleeping in their beds.
As for tournament champs only. The top 10 or so teams know they are in the NCAA's before the conference tournaments start. What's their incentive? If failure to advance in the conference tournament ended all hope for an NCAA bid, wouldn't we see more urgency?
I'm old enough to remember when only conference champs got into the hoops tournament. The ACC tournament was 3 nights of pure adrenaline and the relief and triumph of the winner was quite evident. Sometimes the #1seed did not win. Too bad (there was always the NIT).
FiveHole12
Registered User
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
How about this?.... since teams 5-16 PWR suck (you know, it was decided on the ice during conference championships), and usually at least one conference champion sucks (AHA)... take the top four PWR and send them to the FF. Done deal... no attendance issues and lots of happy folks here at the USCHO fan Forum.
My opinion... I enjoy watching the games live, whether the building is full or not. I enjoy watching a #15 team taking on a #2. Not much difference in the talent levels anymore in the tournament. Good hockey. I get the chance to see good hockey at a regional that has been announced a year or two in advance. I am more than likely locked out at a campus site. College hockey already has it's issues with a limited fan base. Locking out diehards is not a way to endear their loyalty.
I'd like to know that too.
But speaking only for myself: If the only two choices on the ballot were the status quo and "conference champs only," I really would select conference champs only. At least in the West, virtually anything would be better than the status quo. And by using the conference champs format, we'd be mostly rid of bracketology and pairwise calculations. All six berths in the NCAAs would be determined on the ice, in conference championship games. That's sounding better and better all the time.
Still, the conference champs format has virtually no chance of happening. If a majority of the coaches actually support the current system, then we have to accept that a major policy change is unlikely. So what are we left with? Can any minor repairs be made within the current structure?
I'm guessing that the big problem here is attendance? You don't want to see empty seats when your watching on tv? What happens when the host school loses in round one? Empty arena for the final.
How about this?.... since teams 5-16 PWR suck (you know, it was decided on the ice during conference championships), and usually at least one conference champion sucks (AHA)... take the top four PWR and send them to the FF. Done deal... no attendance issues and lots of happy folks here at the USCHO fan Forum.
My opinion... I enjoy watching the games live, whether the building is full or not. I enjoy watching a #15 team taking on a #2. Not much difference in the talent levels anymore in the tournament. Good hockey. I get the chance to see good hockey at a regional that has been announced a year or two in advance. I am more than likely locked out at a campus site. College hockey already has it's issues with a limited fan base. Locking out diehards is not a way to endear their loyalty.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
I get that your comment was sarcastic, something you thought no one in their right mind would agree with. You got a serious reply as one last attempt to convey to you what a huge problem the regionals have been in the West. If you come to these threads with an open mind, you might actually learn something. I certainly have. At the top of the list is that regionals in the East are working a bit better than I thought. A close second is that the coaches like the status quo more than I thought. Those insights mean it's time to reconsider, not shut up. An open mind. You might try it.
Of the tweaks I just suggested, only the "community based rinks" would raise this issue. But for me, it's still a manageable problem. No matter how small the venue, a limited number tickets could be made available to those willing to purchase well in advance. If a shortage of advance tickets actually arose, then you move to larger facilities going forward. To take this possibility seriously, I'd only award regionals one year at a time. That way, if the problem actually occurred, the damage could be limited to a single season.
And even more to the point, nothing needs to change in the East. If the buildings currently in use suit the purpose, fine. Keep doing exactly what you're doing. For 2, 3 or even all 4 regionals. But only a lemming would continue to schedule regionals in places like Toledo and Fort Wayne.
I'm guessing the big problem here is that you haven't read the rest of the thread. Or maybe you simply ignore everything you disagree with. Yes, the idea of having two rounds on campus sites was one of many ideas discussed. But most on this thread were talking about having just the first round on campus. That would fully address the issue you raise. It would also lessen the advantage given the higher seeds.
I'd be strongly against having the pairwise eliminate a conference champ, AHA or otherwise. Still, it might actually be preferable to the status quo in the West...
I get that your comment was sarcastic, something you thought no one in their right mind would agree with. You got a serious reply as one last attempt to convey to you what a huge problem the regionals have been in the West. If you come to these threads with an open mind, you might actually learn something. I certainly have. At the top of the list is that regionals in the East are working a bit better than I thought. A close second is that the coaches like the status quo more than I thought. Those insights mean it's time to reconsider, not shut up. An open mind. You might try it.
I certainly respect that opinion, at least as a guiding principle. I'm a diehard fan too. Trouble is, the idea that anyone would be locked out of a Western regional under the current format is LOL funny. As the Eagles might put it, the diehard fans are "already gone" from the Western regionals.
Of the tweaks I just suggested, only the "community based rinks" would raise this issue. But for me, it's still a manageable problem. No matter how small the venue, a limited number tickets could be made available to those willing to purchase well in advance. If a shortage of advance tickets actually arose, then you move to larger facilities going forward. To take this possibility seriously, I'd only award regionals one year at a time. That way, if the problem actually occurred, the damage could be limited to a single season.
And even more to the point, nothing needs to change in the East. If the buildings currently in use suit the purpose, fine. Keep doing exactly what you're doing. For 2, 3 or even all 4 regionals. But only a lemming would continue to schedule regionals in places like Toledo and Fort Wayne.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Conference champs only. Want the regular season to matter? Don't send all teams to the playoffs. The two leagues that have the teams who last won the Frozen Four (this year ECAC and Hockey East; drop ECAC the next year if the winner doesn't come from one of those two leagues) get an automatic berth to the Frozen Four, while the other two play in.
Conference champs only. Want the regular season to matter? Don't send all teams to the playoffs. The two leagues that have the teams who last won the Frozen Four (this year ECAC and Hockey East; drop ECAC the next year if the winner doesn't come from one of those two leagues) get an automatic berth to the Frozen Four, while the other two play in.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Could work! Would the play-in games be the previous weekend?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
How did it work when five teams were invited? Let's do something similar.
How did it work when five teams were invited? Let's do something similar.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Really want to make the regular season matter. Drop the conference tournaments. Regular season champs get autobid. I bet attendance would increase simply because people wouldn't have to travel to the conference championships and tie up 2 straight weekends, not to mention the money!
Really want to make the regular season matter. Drop the conference tournaments. Regular season champs get autobid. I bet attendance would increase simply because people wouldn't have to travel to the conference championships and tie up 2 straight weekends, not to mention the money!