Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Change the Tourney

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

    If all the DU and UND fans had known for months in advance (as they did for the Final Five) that the teams would be playing in Green Bay today, I'm sure many of them would have made the trip. And I think both fanbases would rather have a win today than the one last Saturday. But putting the game in Green Bay (which isn't really convenient for either) on a week's notice didn't help.

    For the baseball tournament, the Regionals and Super-Regionals are held at campus sites with a week's notice--and usually of the highest seeded (or largest capacity) team, which guarantees the NCAA more money. LSU, which averages over 10,000/game, will almost always host a regional and Super-Regional, if they qualify which is great for LSU fans (of which I am one) and the NCAA's bottom line, but not necessarily fair for the rest of the field. Hosting the hockey regionals on campus (which has been proposed several times in this thread) will only ensure that teams that can fill a large barn will have an even greater competitive advantage.

    And this isn't just a hockey problem. Lots of the first and second-round basketball games were played in front of sparse crowds. Maybe we just notice it more now because fewer fans have the time off and the money to attend games.
    Last edited by AFHockeyFan; 03-27-2011, 11:10 AM.
    2010-2011 Atlantic Hockey Pick 'Em Champion!
    2013 Atlantic Hockey Postseason Pick 'Em Champion!
    Air Force Falcons
    2007 Atlantic Hockey Champions, NCAA West Regional
    2008 Atlantic Hockey Champions, NCAA Northeast Regional
    2009 Atlantic Hockey Champions, NCAA East Regional Final
    2011 Atlantic Hockey Champions, NCAA East Regional
    2012 Atlantic Hockey Champions, NCAA Northeast Regional

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

      Originally posted by AFHockeyFan View Post
      As one poster already mentioned, there are no Regional sites announced beyond 2012, and two of those are repeats from 2011. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the NCAA is headed in this direction.
      Personally, though, I think they're headed towards a model similar to lacrosse, which from a small amount of observation seems to work for men's Division I lacrosse, which is a similar sport in size of membership (although moving on a stronger growth vector than ice hockey), geographic compactness, and patterns of fan interaction (i.e. few "any game, any day" fans, but a significantly larger who will go "any game, any day, as long as it's my boys").

      The first round features 8 games at one of eight sites, each at the highest seed. Advantages to this: Better guarantee of a fan presence, since they're home games for the highest seeds (who, due to a similar level of "have vs. have not" disparity, are frequently the traditional powers - Maryland, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, Virginia, Princeton, UNC, Duke and Cornell). Disadvantages: If a non-traditional power makes the field as a high seed, of course, that game might be pretty poorly attended.

      The second round features 4 games split between two sites. Teams are bracketed according to bracket integrity, but the results of their first-round games will feed into two different sites depending upon where the best place is for them attendance-wise. For example, in the 2010 edition, the quarterfinals were, assuming high seed advances: #1 Virginia-#8 Stony Brook, and #2 Syracuse-#7 Cornell, who would be placed at "Northern Regional" bid winner Stony Brook, and #3 Maryland-#6 Princeton, #4 North Carolina-#5 Duke at "Southern Regional" bidder Princeton. The winners would continue on through to the Final Four as bracketed. Advantages to this plan: Does not hurt bracket integrity, easier for people to plan day trips, generally puts together two great games attendance wise. Disadvantages: requires a third weekend of games, attendance will suffer if one of the high seeds gets knocked off (as Syracuse and Princeton did), and the low seed is not as big a draw.

      As far as what the NCAA should do, the facts are right here:
      1) The Frozen Four is a license to print money in almost any place it goes, as long as said place is an interesting draw (i.e. a traditional city, a city with a great local hockey fan base, or a city that has an independent draw apart from hockey, like DC was or Tampa will be).
      2) It is clear, after ten or so years of 4x4 regionals, that attendance depends strongly on a local or local-ish team being in attendance, and that team advancing to the quarters. Fans are showing that they won't watch games that don't involve their own team.
      3) The NCAA would like to maximize attendance at as many games as possible. Under the current system, this is only guaranteed for the three Frozen Four games, and four games at regional sites (although this could be for as many as eight).

      I'd say this points them in the direction of the lacrosse arrangement.
      UConn -- Clarkson

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

        A few things.

        The NCAA makes money off the bids by "neutral" sites. Ticket prices are then set by the host school/arena. Complain to them about the incredibly high ticket prices.
        The bidding process and a desire for "fairness" is why the games are awarded to neutral sites. The NCAA should never have gone away from the model which allowed on-campus, best of three regionals.
        If we go back to 12 teams, then the AHA loses the autobid. Part of the agreement to get the 16-team format was adding autobids for the CHA and AHA. The CHA is already gone. The BTHC will take an autobid. The power conferences are not going to allow the AHA to take 1/12 of the championship field.

        This is another reason hockey should be looking at smaller conferences, not larger. If we had 8 conferences we could have 8 autobids and 8 at-large bids to compose a 16-team field. The intra-conference rule would be rendered almost moot because there would be so many conferences. I already proposed such a format. Obviously some tweaking can be done (Air Force doesn't really fit in the WCHA) but it could be used as a framework.

        Under this scenario, this year's calendar could have looked like this:

        Conference playoffs March 4-6 and March 11&12.
        NCAA First Round: March 18-20
        NCAA Second Round: March 26&27
        Frozen Four: April 7&9 (or 8&10)

        Based on the results of conference playoffs and seeding:
        Code:
        	Autobid At-Large
        NEH	UNH	
        HEA	BC	Merrimack
        Ivy	Yale	Dartmouth
        ECAC	Union	RPI
        		
        CHL	Miami	ND
        GL	UMD	WMU
        BTHC	Michigan	
        WCHA	UND	Denver, UNO, CC
        First round: (Best 2 of 3, on campus site of autobids)
        #15 RPI @ #1 Yale
        #9 Merrimack @ #8 New Hampshire

        #14 Colorado College @ #4 Miami
        #13 UNO @ #5 Michigan

        #12 Notre Dame @ #3 North Dakota
        #11 Western Michigan @ #6 Union

        #16 Dartmouth @ #2 Boston College
        #10 Denver @ #7 Minnesota-Duluth

        Second round: (Best 2 of 3, on campus site of higher seed)

        Frozen Four: 1 v 4, 2 v 3

        I don't expect any of this will actually happen. It's more likely we'll have 4 super-conferences of 10-12 teams and the BTHC, and contraction of 8-12 programs. That will reduce our field to 12 teams whether we like it or not.
        Last edited by Priceless; 03-27-2011, 12:00 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

          Originally posted by AFHockeyFan View Post
          I agree this duplicates the existing conference tournaments to some degree, but those are about to change anyway. Michigan could play Minnesota for the BTHC championship one weekend, but they'd be in different regionals the next. And shouldn't the NCAAs be more important than a conference tournament? Plus, I'd rather have a few rivals facing off than teams that don't really care about each other. The rivals would sell more tickets.

          Omaha didn't have much history with college baseball, but now that city and the College World Series are synonymous.
          Several good ideas here; however, I'm not sure I agree about the "permanent site" thing. And I don't think the NCAA would do that anyway. The idea that we would get to see "teams that we don't see much" is a good theory, AS LONG AS you put the regional in a location that is close to two or three of the teams so that you at least get the attendance "draw." Otherwise, you have St. Louis all over again. But I still go back to what I said yesterday. This is not basketball - the game does not have "universal" (or even widespread) appeal. The games have to be in HOCKEY AREAS. Period.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

            Originally posted by kingdobbs View Post
            ... the facts are right here:
            1) The Frozen Four is a license to print money in almost any place it goes, as long as said place is an interesting draw (i.e. a traditional city, a city with a great local hockey fan base, or a city that has an independent draw apart from hockey, like DC was or Tampa will be).
            I know we are talking regionals here, but I think it is important to point out that just 10 years ago the Frozen Four was still being held in Albany (14,000) and Providence (12,000) and just 12 years ago, had the debacle that was Anaheim (1999) and we are just 15 years removed from Cincy (1996).

            This, "the FF can do no wrong," attitude can turn around quickly if it is done poorly a couple years in a row...
            Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

            AHA:
            B1G: UMich, MSU, UMinn, Notre Dame, OSU, UWisc
            CCHA: BSU, BG, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU
            ECAC:
            HEA: UMass
            NCHC: Miami, UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
            Independant: ASU


            Inactive: UAH, ASU, BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

              Originally posted by moose97 View Post
              I know we are talking regionals here, but I think it is important to point out that just 10 years ago the Frozen Four was still being held in Albany (14,000) and Providence (12,000) and just 12 years ago, had the debacle that was Anaheim (1999) and we are just 15 years removed from Cincy (1996).

              This, "the FF can do no wrong," attitude can turn around quickly if it is done poorly a couple years in a row...
              Note that he did include a number of qualifications; one I would add is "in a hockey rink." And in support of your point, lottery winners were given the opportunity to buy more tickets a few weeks ago, there were reports of tickets being bought by the general public through the box office, and unscientifically there didn't seem to be a lot of lottery "losers". Also seating seems to have improved dramatically. It used to be the low priority folks would get nosebleeds, middle/high priority like me were in the upper bowl. This year, it seems like there are even low priority folks in the lower bowl. We'll have better information when pgb-ohio does his usual seating analysis. If all that's true, that should be concerning, given that it's probably in the best possible geographic location.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                Originally posted by CLS View Post
                Note that he did include a number of qualifications; one I would add is "in a hockey rink." And in support of your point, lottery winners were given the opportunity to buy more tickets a few weeks ago, there were reports of tickets being bought by the general public through the box office, and unscientifically there didn't seem to be a lot of lottery "losers". Also seating seems to have improved dramatically. It used to be the low priority folks would get nosebleeds, middle/high priority like me were in the upper bowl. This year, it seems like there are even low priority folks in the lower bowl. We'll have better information when pgb-ohio does his usual seating analysis. If all that's true, that should be concerning, given that it's probably in the best possible geographic location.
                That supports the theory that one bad FF (Detroit may have brought fans, but apparently ****ed off the season-ticket holders) can be made up for (especially if travel isn't a concern - say, with Michigan and 2 WCHA schools in the tourney), but two in a row could be potentially catastrophic.
                Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

                AHA:
                B1G: UMich, MSU, UMinn, Notre Dame, OSU, UWisc
                CCHA: BSU, BG, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU
                ECAC:
                HEA: UMass
                NCHC: Miami, UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
                Independant: ASU


                Inactive: UAH, ASU, BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                  Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                  A few things.

                  The NCAA makes money off the bids by "neutral" sites. Ticket prices are then set by the host school/arena. Complain to them about the incredibly high ticket prices.
                  The bidding process and a desire for "fairness" is why the games are awarded to neutral sites. The NCAA should never have gone away from the model which allowed on-campus, best of three regionals.
                  If we go back to 12 teams, then the AHA loses the autobid. Part of the agreement to get the 16-team format was adding autobids for the CHA and AHA. The CHA is already gone. The BTHC will take an autobid. The power conferences are not going to allow the AHA to take 1/12 of the championship field.

                  This is another reason hockey should be looking at smaller conferences, not larger. If we had 8 conferences we could have 8 autobids and 8 at-large bids to compose a 16-team field. The intra-conference rule would be rendered almost moot because there would be so many conferences. I already proposed such a format. Obviously some tweaking can be done (Air Force doesn't really fit in the WCHA) but it could be used as a framework.

                  Under this scenario, this year's calendar could have looked like this:

                  Conference playoffs March 4-6 and March 11&12.
                  NCAA First Round: March 18-20
                  NCAA Second Round: March 26&27
                  Frozen Four: April 7&9 (or 8&10)

                  Based on the results of conference playoffs and seeding:
                  Code:
                  	Autobid At-Large
                  NEH	UNH	
                  HEA	BC	Merrimack
                  Ivy	Yale	Dartmouth
                  ECAC	Union	RPI
                  		
                  CHL	Miami	ND
                  GL	UMD	WMU
                  BTHC	Michigan	
                  WCHA	UND	Denver, UNO, CC
                  First round: (Best 2 of 3, on campus site of autobids)
                  #15 RPI @ #1 Yale
                  #9 Merrimack @ #8 New Hampshire

                  #14 Colorado College @ #4 Miami
                  #13 UNO @ #5 Michigan

                  #12 Notre Dame @ #3 North Dakota
                  #11 Western Michigan @ #6 Union

                  #16 Dartmouth @ #2 Boston College
                  #10 Denver @ #7 Minnesota-Duluth

                  Second round: (Best 2 of 3, on campus site of higher seed)

                  Frozen Four: 1 v 4, 2 v 3

                  I don't expect any of this will actually happen. It's more likely we'll have 4 super-conferences of 10-12 teams and the BTHC, and contraction of 8-12 programs. That will reduce our field to 12 teams whether we like it or not.
                  This is the format that they used to have.
                  Husky Hockey heading to the top of the bottom!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                    Has anyone pointed out that the problem with the regionals is college hockey fans? If you have a regional within driving distance and you don't go then you are the problem.

                    How does the NCAA fix attendance problems by going to smaller, host schools? They want money. They need bigger arenas. Sure they could let Yale host at their 3500 seat arena and fill the seats for the Yale games. However, they give up 4300 tickets per game. It doesn't take a finance major to see that is a bad choice.

                    What happens if Yale loses that firs game to Air Force? How many Yale fans will attend the other games? If they were going to attend they would be at the regionals. I attended regionals at Minnesota. The non-Minnesota games were very poorly attended.

                    The bottom line is that college hockey fans want a guarantee that their team will advance or they aren't going. They want someone else to pony for the regionals. If you want college hockey to grow then go to the games. If you want a regional near you then talk to your school about hosting. If a school was guaranteed to make money because their fans would sell out no matter who was there they would host. It still falls back on the fans not attending.

                    Anyone that is within 2 hours driving distance to a regional and is not at the games is to blame for that regional not selling out. If you sell out the arenas close to you then the NCAA will stop sending them to places like St Louis because it will not make financial sense.

                    /rant
                    Bottom Line: If you deserve to win the national championship then don't worry about who you play, when, and where. Just keep winning.
                    Exception: You are right about the refs. They, no doubt, have it in for <insert your team name here>!

                    Comment


                    • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                      Originally posted by gopheritall View Post
                      Has anyone pointed out that the problem with the regionals is college hockey fans? If you have a regional within driving distance and you don't go then you are the problem.

                      How does the NCAA fix attendance problems by going to smaller, host schools? They want money. They need bigger arenas. Sure they could let Yale host at their 3500 seat arena and fill the seats for the Yale games. However, they give up 4300 tickets per game. It doesn't take a finance major to see that is a bad choice.

                      What happens if Yale loses that firs game to Air Force? How many Yale fans will attend the other games? If they were going to attend they would be at the regionals. I attended regionals at Minnesota. The non-Minnesota games were very poorly attended.

                      The bottom line is that college hockey fans want a guarantee that their team will advance or they aren't going. They want someone else to pony for the regionals. If you want college hockey to grow then go to the games. If you want a regional near you then talk to your school about hosting. If a school was guaranteed to make money because their fans would sell out no matter who was there they would host. It still falls back on the fans not attending.

                      Anyone that is within 2 hours driving distance to a regional and is not at the games is to blame for that regional not selling out. If you sell out the arenas close to you then the NCAA will stop sending them to places like St Louis because it will not make financial sense.

                      /rant
                      It doesn't make any sense to berate fans for not attending regionals. The customer is always right. We've had tremendous variation in regional sites and tournament seedings over the past decade. If attendance at 4-team regionals has stunk for 10 years, then it's probably time to listen to the customers and admit that maybe the idea of a 3-game, 4-team regional is a pretty bad one to begin with.

                      Want better attendance? Go back to having larger regionals and a smaller field, losing some of the more marginal programs that round out a 16-team field. If we absolutely must have 16 teams, and we must have no more than 4 teams per site, then I don't see any alternative to campus sites.
                      1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2012(!)

                      Comment


                      • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                        Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
                        16 out of 58 (28%)

                        What screwy system is hoops using these days - 68 teams? If we apply that percentage to hockey, you get 11-odd teams. Round up generously to . . . . . 12 teams.

                        Sure, it necessitates byes. But those are awarded on merit. Much like proposals to award regionals to the campus sites at the top 4 seeds. And history tells us that you can operate a 6 team regional a lot more successfully than a 4 team one. And you don't have to sacrifice that NCAA tournament feel to achieve excitement and ticket sales.
                        There is no reason to keep 16 teams at this point. None. You hit the nail on the head.
                        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                        -aparch

                        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                        -INCH

                        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                        Comment


                        • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                          Originally posted by Caustic Undertow View Post
                          Now, some numbers:

                          There are 8 "game days" in the regionals. Each day has 1 attendance figure--the first day fans see both games. Here are the day one and day two attendance numbers for the regionals last year, courtesy of ultra-reliable wikipedia:

                          Fort Wayne
                          4133
                          3204

                          Albany
                          4073
                          3737

                          Worcester
                          6572
                          6054

                          St. Paul
                          7281
                          7182

                          Total regional attendance: 42,236
                          Here's what we have for this year so far:

                          Bridgeport
                          7671
                          7816

                          St. Louis
                          5024
                          Can't find yesterday's anywhere

                          Green Bay
                          4355

                          Manchester
                          7608

                          I can't speak to the Western venues (other than to say St. Louis is a bad idea in every way), but Manchester, Worcester and Bridgeport are actually doing pretty well in the Northeast. I've been to the last three Northeast regionals and they've all been about as good an atmosphere as you could reasonably expect for a regional, and I imagine the East regional in Bridgeport is the same way. Albany obviously not so much. I'd say Manchester is definitely better than Worcester in pretty much every way. Better attendance, better atmosphere, better building. Worcester certainly isn't bad by any means, but given the choice, I'd take Manchester.

                          Ideally, I'd like to just see the Northeast regional in Manchester every year and the East regional in Bridgeport every year until it stops working. So I guess you could consider me a proponent of the "permanent" sites. Although if it stops working, I'd obviously like to see a change. The problem, of course, is whether or not UNH and Yale should be hosts every year and be guaranteed a spot at those sites if they make the tourney. In the interest of fairness, I say no. In the interest of attendance, I say yes.

                          I think what I'd like to see would be Hockey East host the Manchester regional and ECAC host the Bridgeport regional. Then you try and get UNH and Yale at those sites if it's possible, but it's not a requirement that you get them there. This year, for instance, you would just say, "Sorry UNH, but BC deserves to be in Manchester more than you do." I think more often than not, you'd be able to have UNH and Yale there no problem. But by having the leagues host instead of the schools, you don't have to make sure they're there when there is a problem like this year.

                          To the person who suggested Agganis, it's a nice building that's obviously in a convenient location, but it's on campus and even if you sell it out, you're still getting 1300 less than what you're getting in Manchester.
                          Places I've seen a college hockey game: Agganis Arena, Alfond Arena, Bright Center, Consol Energy Center, Conte Forum, DCU Center, Fenway Park, Gutterson Fieldhouse, Houston Field House, Lawler Arena, Madison Square Garden, Matthews Arena, Mullins Center, Schneider Arena, Scottrade Center, Sears Centre, Tampa Bay Times Forum, TD Bank Sports Center, TD Garden, Tsongas Center, Tully Forum, Verizon Center, Verizon Wireless Arena, Walter Brown Arena, Wells Fargo Center, Whittemore Center

                          Comment


                          • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                            Originally posted by gopheritall View Post
                            Has anyone pointed out that the problem with the regionals is college hockey fans? If you have a regional within driving distance and you don't go then you are the problem.

                            How does the NCAA fix attendance problems by going to smaller, host schools? They want money. They need bigger arenas. Sure they could let Yale host at their 3500 seat arena and fill the seats for the Yale games. However, they give up 4300 tickets per game. It doesn't take a finance major to see that is a bad choice.

                            What happens if Yale loses that firs game to Air Force? How many Yale fans will attend the other games? If they were going to attend they would be at the regionals. I attended regionals at Minnesota. The non-Minnesota games were very poorly attended.

                            The bottom line is that college hockey fans want a guarantee that their team will advance or they aren't going. They want someone else to pony for the regionals. If you want college hockey to grow then go to the games. If you want a regional near you then talk to your school about hosting. If a school was guaranteed to make money because their fans would sell out no matter who was there they would host. It still falls back on the fans not attending.

                            Anyone that is within 2 hours driving distance to a regional and is not at the games is to blame for that regional not selling out. If you sell out the arenas close to you then the NCAA will stop sending them to places like St Louis because it will not make financial sense.

                            /rant
                            I looked at going to the Manchester regional. I don't drive because of the tumor so I would have to take the bus. Two buses from Portland have a layover in Boston before going to Manchester. Those would have cost $75-80 round trip. Greyhound goes straight to Manchester from Portland but would be $95. Then I would have to stay overnight not once, but twice because of the insane 8pm start of the final. That's another $200. The tickets would be $87 for the three games. Now we're closing in on $400 and I still haven't eaten for three days, have no souvenirs and I haven't figured out how to get from my house to the bus and back. Not to mention that if I fall or pass out again, it's a medical nightmare.

                            So I humbly suggest that maybe it isn't my fault.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                              Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
                              It doesn't make any sense to berate fans for not attending regionals. The customer is always right. We've had tremendous variation in regional sites and tournament seedings over the past decade. If attendance at 4-team regionals has stunk for 10 years, then it's probably time to listen to the customers and admit that maybe the idea of a 3-game, 4-team regional is a pretty bad one to begin with.

                              Want better attendance? Go back to having larger regionals and a smaller field, losing some of the more marginal programs that round out a 16-team field. If we absolutely must have 16 teams, and we must have no more than 4 teams per site, then I don't see any alternative to campus sites.
                              The Yale regional would have had 4300 fewer tickets per game. How is that better for the NCAA? The NCAA wants more tickets sold not a higher % of seats filled. Anyone complaining about empty seats when they are within driving distance to the regional has no argument in my opinion. It is ok for other to disagree but that will not change my mind. I am headed to the F4 even though the Gophers didn't even make the tournament. I plan to go to all 3 games.

                              If the field is reduced to 12 teams then changing the format will make sense. Right now on-site at campuses with small arenas is not the answer. That would limit it to a few campuses with large arenas. Minnesota is one of them so I'm ok if we want it at Minnesota every other year (or more frequently). I doubt others are. The answer needs to equal more revenue.
                              Bottom Line: If you deserve to win the national championship then don't worry about who you play, when, and where. Just keep winning.
                              Exception: You are right about the refs. They, no doubt, have it in for <insert your team name here>!

                              Comment


                              • Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

                                Originally posted by gopheritall View Post
                                The Yale regional would have had 4300 fewer tickets per game. How is that better for the NCAA? The NCAA wants more tickets sold not a higher % of seats filled. Anyone complaining about empty seats when they are within driving distance to the regional has no argument in my opinion. It is ok for other to disagree but that will not change my mind. I am headed to the F4 even though the Gophers didn't even make the tournament. I plan to go to all 3 games.

                                If the field is reduced to 12 teams then changing the format will make sense. Right now on-site at campuses with small arenas is not the answer. That would limit it to a few campuses with large arenas. Minnesota is one of them so I'm ok if we want it at Minnesota every other year (or more frequently). I doubt others are. The answer needs to equal more revenue.
                                Going to the Frozen Four /= Going to a regional

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X