PDA

View Full Version : How long until tournament expansion?



Pages : [1] 2

ac9er
02-13-2012, 10:51 PM
I will admit that I am a younger fan and still learning about the game. Growing up in Indiana everything is basketball oriented, but I have grown to watch college hockey every weekend during the winter and early spring. With conference realignment affecting hockey just like football, it made me wonder if or more likely when the Frozen 4 will become like basketball and expand its tournament. I know that this thread will probably draw some critique, but the sport is growing as people like me are being introduced to the sport. I can see more programs springing up as the popularity grows. Thus I ask the question when tournament expansion will begin and how many teams would be added?

Hammer
02-13-2012, 10:52 PM
Expansion? We're lucky to have a 16 team tournament with only 58 teams (soon to be 59) playing D-1 hockey.

ac9er
02-13-2012, 10:59 PM
I guess I should rephrase a little and say how long until more universities and colleges become D-1 and then allowing expansion. With the Big Ten getting involved I can see more major programs in other sports getting involved.

gopheritall
02-13-2012, 11:09 PM
3 words..Bee, See, Ess. That would fix it all. The only question is, should we call them bowls or something else.

Just razzing you. I see no need to expand unless there is major program expansion. I, personally, don't see it happening. I would love to see it but the regionals will need to sell out regularly before they should expand. The catch is that they really need to double the teams to keep the structure intact.

Hammer
02-13-2012, 11:10 PM
I think it's going to be a while. We've had a lot more contraction over the past decade than expansion. Penn State had a donor throw them $85 million to start the program. And then the guy (or his family, I'm not certain which) went and bought an NHL team for the hell of it. There aren't too many people in this time and market that are going to do that.

FreshFish
02-13-2012, 11:12 PM
depends upon what proportion of teams you want to make the tournament, and how widespread the participation. i can't see any way to justify expanding the number of 'wild cards' above current, and there aren't that many new conferences to receive auto-bids.

let's say you want no more than 25% of eligible teams to make it; you'd need at least 64 teams to hit target; even at 72 teams you probably would stick at a 16-team field.

if you expect around 25% of eligible teams to make the tournament, you'd need at least 80 teams to hit target.

in other words, to many people a 16-team tournament with, realistically, fewer than 58 potential teams (do you ever expect the AHA to have two teams in the tournament? if no, then you have 50 potential teams) already has a few too many slots per potential team. i'd say no serious consideration of expansion unless there are over 70 programs.

Hammer
02-13-2012, 11:21 PM
And also keep in mind, although there are different rules, Division III has an 11-team tournament for 71 participating teams.

Again, be thankful we have a 16-team tourney. It wasn't that long ago that we were at 12.

Red Cows
02-14-2012, 12:24 AM
I think the day might come, but it is a good ways down the road.

NCAA hockey is easily the one D-1 sport with the most growth upside potential over the next decade or two. The other sports have all basically plateaued in that regard.

To justify expanding the tournament field to say, even 20 teams, IMHO, I think you'd need to have a minimum of another 16 teams playing D-1 hockey.

Problem is, its an expensive sport to fund/endow. Title 9 considerations are also another big factor.

The teams that currently exist can aide this process by getting more people to their games. More people at games equals more revenue. More possible revenue equals more interest by more schools in having D-1 hockey. The attendance figures at most D-1 hockey schools are a joke, which is the biggest obstacle to the expansion of the sport at the collegiate level, to date.

That, and having the Frozen Four in asinine locations like Tampa.

goldy_331
02-14-2012, 10:58 AM
I think the day might come, but it is a good ways down the road.

NCAA hockey is easily the one D-1 sport with the most growth upside potential over the next decade or two. The other sports have all basically plateaued in that regard. Lacrosse

To justify expanding the tournament field to say, even 20 teams, IMHO, I think you'd need to have a minimum of another 16 teams playing D-1 hockey. NCAA rule of max 25% of teams in tourney, we're over that now.

Problem is, its an expensive sport to fund/endow. Title 9 considerations are also another big factor. Exactly

The teams that currently exist can aide this process by getting more people to their games. More people at games equals more revenue. More possible revenue equals more interest by more schools in having D-1 hockey. The attendance figures at most D-1 hockey schools are a joke, which is the biggest obstacle to the expansion of the sport at the collegiate level, to date.

That, and having the Frozen Four in asinine locations like Tampa.

See my comments in red.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Snowballs chance in hell.

Biddco
02-14-2012, 11:25 AM
Tournament contraction is more likely than expansion.

mnstate0fhockey
02-14-2012, 11:26 AM
Snowballs chance in hell.

Not even that good.

SCSU Euro
02-14-2012, 11:26 AM
I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "Never"...

"Never..."

4four4
02-14-2012, 12:04 PM
Tournament contraction is more likely than expansion.

I am curious. How so?

goldy_331
02-14-2012, 12:17 PM
I am curious. How so?

We are already over the percentage the NCAA uses to determine how many teams can go into national tournament and we may lose more teams in the future (see UAH).

LynahFan
02-14-2012, 01:19 PM
We are already over the percentage the NCAA uses to determine how many teams can go into national tournament and we may lose more teams in the future (see UAH).
Exactly. They granted a waiver to go above 25% (16/58 = 28%) in order to get rid of the byes, so even the NCAA acknowledged that they dislike the byes enough that it was worth breaking their own rules to eliminate them. Therefore, even if we got over 64 teams, they're not going to turn around and break the rules to add byes back into the tournament prematurely. Therefore, we won't see an expansion to 20 in the tournament until we actually have 80 D-1 teams, so we'll need an additional 22 Terry Pegulas to step forward and start programs.

Good luck finding 22 billionaires who would like to direct their charitable contributions toward a bunch of over-privileged kids with knives strapped to their feet instead of global health, famine relief, low income housing, etc. It's now happened once in the last, what - well I guess ever, and that guy is enough of a hockey fan that he's also an NHL owner. Finding 22 more like him is going to be a long wait!

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 02:26 PM
I am curious. How so?

The tournament already has too many teams per NCAA rules. To have 16 teams they need 64 NCAA teams playing D1 Men's Ice Hockey. We have a waiver as has been mentioned. They could cut it at any time back to 12.

bronconick
02-14-2012, 02:42 PM
This is why there has been a couple dozen schools reported as "looking into the matter" and outside of Moorhead, that is all that has come of it.

Even Big Ten schools aren't going to jump at this. It's 36 scholarships a year, a likely need for a new arena, and it's not like your share of the BTN profits are going to increase by adding a hockey team.

The next push by the conference will probably be to get 3 more teams to add Lacrosse. You can get by with using other facilities for that anyway. Michigan's brand new team is playing at the Big House with Oosterbaan field house "if necessary". Total cost of facility upgrades: $500,000.

ScoobyDoo
02-14-2012, 02:52 PM
This is why there has been a couple dozen schools reported as "looking into the matter" and outside of Moorhead, that is all that has come of it.

Even Big Ten schools aren't going to jump at this. It's 36 scholarships a year, a likely need for a new arena, and it's not like your share of the BTN profits are going to increase by adding a hockey team.

The next push by the conference will probably be to get 3 more teams to add Lacrosse. You can get by with using other facilities for that anyway. Michigan's brand new team is playing at the Big House with Oosterbaan field house "if necessary". Total cost of facility upgrades: $500,000.

Lacrosse is going to be huge. Hockey is always going to be a niche sport.

du78
02-14-2012, 03:10 PM
Lacrosse is going to be huge. Hockey is always going to be a niche sport.

BU announced today they are going from club to varsity in Lax in 2013/14. They will also add women's lightweight rowing.

http://www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=26865

Furman University will be adding men's and women's Lax in 2014/15 and I just heard DU's Coach Tierney indicate that he expects USC would be adding a men's program in the future.