I vote in favor of Nashville hosting a Frozen Four. UAH can host.
Heck, EVERY NCAA hockey school can host.
This thoroughly reasonably named thread (sigh) is as good a place as any to ask: when do we find out about next year’s regionals? Who’s hosting?
There really isn't much more to say here. Western arenas and schools have little incentive to bid. Even NoDak only sports about a 1 in 4 chance to qualify again this year. I await the day that a change HAS to occur.
When it does, I hope the reasoning continues to go like this:
A 60+ team sport deserves a full 4 round tourney.
We (NCAA) will make more money with on campus sites than neutral sites.
And, then we will get some sort of arrangement like the one proposed by pgb-ohio. Conference champs plus the top 2 at large bids host round one. Thinking that through....
Who is in favor? Likely all WCHA and AHA teams, plus perhaps B10 teams, who will stand a great chance of hosting at some point, where they have no such chance now. As well as schools like SCSU, UMD and others who don't have an available rink to host, but might get an on campus game in this system.
Who would see a down-side? Any school who currently commonly ends up in the 9-15 range of the PWR, with a lot of fans who travel to regionals, who might end up playing at Mercyhurst or Robert Morris or some place. Really, there are few schools who are in this group. On the one hand, they might be the HEA schools, plus an ECAC team or two. But those schools might just as easily get to host a game themselves...
Round 1 rules:
No intraconference matchups. Since there would be the possibility of 5 teams from one conference qualify (we have never seen more than that), then we allow 1 school to move 2 PWR spots in the seeding, but all other schools can only be moved 1 spot (I'm getting rid of the bands, here. It's a straight seeding.)
2 Double headers the following weekend at predetermined sites, with predetermined bracketing.
Assume current high seeds win tourneys, and all PWR stays exactly as is:
1- SCSU; 2- UMass, 3- Mankato; 4- UMD
5- QU; 6- OSU; 7- Denver; 8- NE
9- Prov; 10-ASU; 11- Clarkson; 12- Cornell
13- WMU; 14- Harv; 15- Notre Dame; 16- AIC
SCSU, UMass, Mankato, UMD, QU, OSU, Denver, AIC
Notre Dame @ SCSU; Harvard @ UMass; WMU @ Mankato; Cornell @ UMD;
ASU @ QU, Clarkson @ OSU; Prov @ Denver; NorthEastern @ AIC
Bracket done with regionality involved:
SCSU game vs Denver game
Mankato game vs OSU game
UMass game vs AIC game
UMD game vs QU Game
You could argue the matchups that SCSU should get AIC, and I wouldn't fight you. But that's actually a Western Regional. It needs to have Western teams.
The only thing not coming out 'good' is that the 2 at large hosts are both from the NCHC, so it's harder to balance the 2 double headers.
Those double headers would be Saturday/Sunday on the 2nd weekend, so there would be lots of time to book flights for the fans. And, they could research ahead of time the area to which they MIGHT be traveling.
I know this is a knock off of what pgb-ohio already posted, but I like it a lot.
So… 4000 fans is considered a failure for regional attendance, loosely speaking. That’s happened in 16/120 regional games in the past 10 tournaments.
Your solution to this is on-campus rinks, of which only about 1/3 of all D-I schools can manage for average attendance? And you’ll put 8 games a year in these spots, and only a few of those games will have much advance notice and won’t necess have the NCAA branding set up ahead of time and have the NCAA’s requirements for lodging and other logistics set up ahead of time?
And you’re serious?
On campus NCAA's are a lot of fun. I remember fantastic NCAA games at Bowling Green over the years against Colorado College and Vermont, well fantastic for BG anyway. I can also remember very good BG teams going to Maine and BC and getting run out of the barn.
.......and that's why campus sites will never happen again. It's just too big of an advantage for the home teams. The coaches will never go for on campus again because lower seeded teams have almost no shot of advancing, very few ever did. Look how many times Michigan used home ice to get to the Frozen Four.
In the current setup the lower seeded teams have a fighters chance to advance....play well, get a hot goalie and you can beat the #1 seed in a one off scenario. Way tougher on their home ice.
1. 4000 fans in an NHL sized venue is poor crowd. 4000 in a 10,000 seat building is mediocre. 4000 fans in a 4000 seat venue can be a great crowd.
2. OK, 8 first round games at campus sites might cause some loss of revenue. Maybe. But if so, it's at the margins. The Frozen Four is the breadwinner, whatever the regional format. I also have to believe that having the first round on campus would reduce costs in terms of travel, hotels & facility overhead.
3. Lack of seating capacity on campus? You seem to ignore the obvious fact you'd be working with 8 buildings rather than 4. I'll buy that the AHL buildings currently in use are twice as big as many campus arenas. But if you added up the chairs in 8 smaller buildings, I'll bet the total would be quite similar to the sum of the chairs in 4 AHL buildings. And even if the AHL total is slightly higher, how is that an advantage? The current reality is that the surplus chairs will just sit empty, even at the so-called "successful" regionals.
4. Lodging & Logistics are an argument against? Seriously? It's much easier to host one traveling team than the four required by the current set-up. And if Mr. MacInnes shows up to chat, he'll acknowledge that my format avoids a lot of locker room logistical problems caused by multi-team tournaments.
5. Lead time is a legitimate issue. But if the biggest concern is less branding/commercialism in the first round, I find myself almost wishing for that result.
One more point; this one isn't a direct reply. But I feel compelled to remind you that the Midwestern & Western Regionals have been mostly failures at the gate for many years. Recently they've been a little better due to:
1. The Success of the Dakota Regionals; and
2 Pretending that Eastern Pennsylvania is part of the Midwest.
While I applaud the results achieved at those sites, I certainly don't think we've found a permanent solution with these locations.
Another feature of my plan is that it guarantees teams from the "small school conferences" the opportunity to host. That, in turn, might create some very competitive games. 3rd Place NCHC Team hosted by the WCHA Champ? I don't believe that's an automatic win for the host. But I do think it sounds like a great game.
Next, I'd assert that there's a lot more parity in college hockey these days. The gap between #1 & #16 has closed considerably. Now the last team to get into the tournament has a real chance to win the whole thing. Preposterous you say? Last year UMD did just that.
You may very well be correct that "campus sites will never happen again." But it won't be because visiting teams "can't" win.
Last edited by pgb-ohio; 03-14-2019 at 08:46 PM.
We've been debating this issue on USCHO for years. Somehow we managed to take a partial break in 2018.
Regardless, Numbers has done a good job of re-creating my plan, and plugging this year's teams into my general idea. If you weren't part of the 2017 conversation, just focus on that.
Nevertheless, time will tell. This year, like many, is certainly an unusual situation: likely 3 top seeds from the west, but only one true western regional. Some would say that's not really sporting.
In general, however, I think like this:
The women's tourney uses home sites. So, it can't be that difficult to manage the logistics for the NCAA.
Cost for NCAA: Here's the potential problem. Instead of renting 4 buildings for 2 days of games + however long they need for setup, they rent 2 buildings for 1 day of games + setup. Surely this is cheaper, although I am sure they pass the costs on to the host right now, and that's the reason that few western facilities bid to host. But......flights. My bracket as done above has 7 flights in round 1 and 4 in round 2. That's 11 flights. Rare is the year now with that many flights in the bracket. Since all hotel stays are at least one day shorter, there is some savings, but probably not enough to offset that. Perhaps the bracket rules could be adjusted to accommodate that. I'll try working something else up in a minute.
Attendance: What I normally notice reading box scores is that both Round of 16 games have identical attendance. Does that mean they are separate tickets and you have to purchase both? I'm not sure. But I am sure of this....For an NCAA tournament game, almost any school will nearly sell out their barn. Probably at higher prices than are being paid now. So, revenue wise, I would be sure that a Round16 at home, and 2 regional double header system would be equal in revenue and profits to the present system.
But I don't really see it happening.
Last edited by Numbers; 03-14-2019 at 09:46 PM.
I wonder if the tone on this thread would change if Arizona State would be a top seed (and that would be possible this year) and get a home game for the first round.
How many seats (of the 500 or so in their current building) would be allocated to the visiting team.
That is a potential problem with home teams hosting. Many facilities (11 currently being used) seat less than 2500 people.
Secondly, how many of these venues are capable of providing proper facilities for National television broadcasting. And would that change the television coverage of this tournament (currently not great). Would ESPN send crews in to 8 different facilities. I don't think so.
Visitors would get an allotment, and any unsold would be sent back a couple days before to be sold.
Not treading new waters here
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)