CCHA: Minimum/maximum

So, play with the PairWise Predictor, and see what fun you can have.

For example, the CCHA can have a minimum of three teams in the tournament, but what is the maximum? I have not been able to find a way to get seven CCHA teams into the tournament. Six, yes, but seven? Not yet. Can you find it?

Let me know in the comments.

100 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t see a way 7 teams get in. The maximum I see getting in is 6 teams. NMU needs things to bounce just right as in the highest seeds winning most games with Cornell losing both of their games. If that happens I see WMU, NMU, and Cornell tied for 14th with Cornell having the lowest RPI. I don’t see any other way NMU gets in.

    If BGSU somehow wins the CCHA title I see them bouncing NMU and possibly WMU or MSU from the field.

  2. I don’t see a way 7 teams get in. The maximum I see getting in is 6 teams. NMU needs things to bounce just right as in the highest seeds winning most games with Cornell losing both of their games. If that happens I see WMU, NMU, and Cornell tied for 14th with Cornell having the lowest RPI. I don’t see any other way NMU gets in.

    If BGSU somehow wins the CCHA title I see them bouncing NMU and possibly WMU or MSU from the field.

  3. I only see 6. At first I thought 7 could make it if BG wins and WMU wins the consolation game, but then I realized that NMU or MSU would then be kicked out  after all the tiebreakers.

  4. I only see 6. At first I thought 7 could make it if BG wins and WMU wins the consolation game, but then I realized that NMU or MSU would then be kicked out  after all the tiebreakers.

    • I would absolutely puke if 7 CCHA teams got in.  NMU is not good, OU is not good.  This is getting a little ridiculous.

      • NMU is not good!  You’re nuts.  They were good enough to go 5-1 against the WCHA.  Sure they lost to BGSU, but so did Ferris St..  Bye the way, all of the CCHA teams fared well against the WCHA.  Another point: just because FSU and NMU were beaten by BGSU it does not mean either of these teams were somehow over-rated.  Any CCHA team can beat anyone.  I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to see BGSU go to the frozen four.   It just doesn’t seem that long ago when NMU went to Minnesota and took away their invitational
        tournament trophy.

    • I would absolutely puke if 7 CCHA teams got in.  NMU is not good, OU is not good.  This is getting a little ridiculous.

      • NMU is not good!  You’re nuts.  They were good enough to go 5-1 against the WCHA.  Sure they lost to BGSU, but so did Ferris St..  Bye the way, all of the CCHA teams fared well against the WCHA.  Another point: just because FSU and NMU were beaten by BGSU it does not mean either of these teams were somehow over-rated.  Any CCHA team can beat anyone.  I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to see BGSU go to the frozen four.   It just doesn’t seem that long ago when NMU went to Minnesota and took away their invitational
        tournament trophy.

  5. Now that the topic is gaining more steam, you’re going to see more people on board with some of the empty buildings. The Minnesota battle on Friday night in Machester is going to be like a Mausoleum…Harvard-UNO at South Bend….

    • All 3 in the midwest games will be VERY ugly. BU-Yale on a weekday at 1:00 is a disaster, so is MN vs. Duluth playing 1,500 miles away. Only way northeast somewhat saves face is if BU is in final. If its Yale vs. MN or Duluth that’s 2 of the 4 regionals that are attendance nightmares.

        • The regional times are different for ESPN, of course. One group of people will say the times are bad for attendance and the others will say, since they can’t go physically, it’s nice to have them all on TV. The Yale-BU game will draw fine (the game is at 2:00, so leaving the Boston area around noon would be enough time) and as a college hockey fan, there is always some intrigue to seeing a team such as the Gophers. I think that game will do fine attendance wise as well.

    • UNO has sold it’s entire ticket allotment. So has RIT. UNO’s bus junket, only announced on Monday, is also sold out. Omaha is only just over 500 miles from South Bend. Mankato is actually a tad closer and RIT is also only a 500 mile drive the other direction. Everybody I know that is going is driving, me included. It’s likely UNO is going to have well over 500 fans attendance in South Bend all by itself. There are currently ZERO tickets for sale to this regional, as I write this, on StubHub, and few that I can find on Craigslist or eBay. And, this regional is being played in an arena that only seats 5,022 people.

      If all the Notre Dame fans who own season tickets (who HAD to buy tickets to this event as part of their season tickets packages) aren’t going, then why is there not a ton of tickets for sale for this regional on the secondary market?

      Notre Dame’s web site has some for sale, but any search for “best available” in any price category does not return particularly desirable seating locations.

      In an arena this small, I don’t think its going to look or feel like many other regional venues that you normally see. This is the first on-campus regional anywhere since ’09. Because of this size of this venue, I don’t think the “atmosphere” thing is going to be the issue in South Bend everyone thinks it might be.

  6. Now that the topic is gaining more steam, you’re going to see more people on board with some of the empty buildings. The Minnesota battle on Friday night in Machester is going to be like a Mausoleum…Harvard-UNO at South Bend….

    • All 3 in the midwest games will be VERY ugly. BU-Yale on a weekday at 1:00 is a disaster, so is MN vs. Duluth playing 1,500 miles away. Only way northeast somewhat saves face is if BU is in final. If its Yale vs. MN or Duluth that’s 2 of the 4 regionals that are attendance nightmares.

        • The regional times are different for ESPN, of course. One group of people will say the times are bad for attendance and the others will say, since they can’t go physically, it’s nice to have them all on TV. The Yale-BU game will draw fine (the game is at 2:00, so leaving the Boston area around noon would be enough time) and as a college hockey fan, there is always some intrigue to seeing a team such as the Gophers. I think that game will do fine attendance wise as well.

    • UNO has sold it’s entire ticket allotment. So has RIT. UNO’s bus junket, only announced on Monday, is also sold out. Omaha is only just over 500 miles from South Bend. Mankato is actually a tad closer and RIT is also only a 500 mile drive the other direction. Everybody I know that is going is driving, me included. It’s likely UNO is going to have well over 500 fans attendance in South Bend all by itself. There are currently ZERO tickets for sale to this regional, as I write this, on StubHub, and few that I can find on Craigslist or eBay. And, this regional is being played in an arena that only seats 5,022 people.

      If all the Notre Dame fans who own season tickets (who HAD to buy tickets to this event as part of their season tickets packages) aren’t going, then why is there not a ton of tickets for sale for this regional on the secondary market?

      Notre Dame’s web site still has some for sale, but any search for “best available” in any price category does not return particularly desirable seating locations.

      In an arena this small, I don’t think its going to look or feel like many other regional venues that you normally see. This is the first on-campus regional anywhere since ’09. Because of this size of this venue, I don’t think the “atmosphere” thing is going to be the issue in South Bend everyone thinks it might be.

  7. If they are going to go to campus sites, do something similar to DI baseball. Announce the regional hosts 2 weeks before the selection show, with the top 8 teams eligible to host and preference to the higher seeds. The schools would be able to open ticket sales earlier than selection Sunday and avoid regionals with sparse attendance.

  8. If they are going to go to campus sites, do something similar to DI baseball. Announce the regional hosts 2 weeks before the selection show, with the top 8 teams eligible to host and preference to the higher seeds. The schools would be able to open ticket sales earlier than selection Sunday and avoid regionals with sparse attendance.

  9. I could go either way on campus sites.

    Empty buildings are terrible but so is playing at places where ESPN may not want to send TV crews. It’s the cost of four sites and four crews versus 12 sites and 12 crews (figuring opening round and regional finals are on campus). We might get the great atmosphere on campus, but it will be exposed to only those in the physical building if it isn’t nationally televised.

    I am also not a fan of 1 seeds hosting four-team regionals. Then you get all these rules about having adequate facilities, which may force teams to move away from their campus building. In that scenario, what’s the point of campus sites if it is not guaranteed?

    Mostly, I do not want to see a best-of-three series at any stage of the tournament. I understand why conferences have that format (to reward and advance the higher seeded teams). If the national championship and semifinals are decided by one game, each round should be decided by the same format.

    I’ve seen every NCAA tournament format dating back to the two-games total goal series in the 1980s and prefer the single-elimination in every round. If they move the opening round to best-of-three, I would prefer all rounds including championship moved to that format. But that will not happen.

    • Is it really a “national TV” audience if all but 2 of the regional games are buried on ESPNU or web stream only, like this year?

      • Uh, yes I would call that nationally available. For the middle aged like me who can remember regionals never being televised unless a local station decided to broadcast the local team and you had to hope that the broadcast would be picked up through syndication by your local station (usually only because of local interest), ESPN even on U or 3 is a national broadcast.

        I remember the only coverage of non-local regional games being a score update on a TV or radio broadcast and a box score with 2-3 paragraphs in the next day’s paper. No live TV. No video highlights. Not even a photo. And if you didn’t live near any tournament qualifying teams, good luck. Thankfully Hockey-L, the Internet and Tim Brule came along in the 90s

        So I am not going to complain about ESPN broadcasting all regional games even if it requires streaming it to my TV through my tablet. I can go home this afternoon and watch every single game, get video highlights, and live score updates. Pretty sweet deal compared to 15, 20, 30 years ago.

  10. I could go either way on campus sites.

    Empty buildings are terrible but so is playing at places where ESPN may not want to send TV crews. It’s the cost of four sites and four crews versus 12 sites and 12 crews (figuring opening round and regional finals are on campus). We might get the great atmosphere on campus, but it will be exposed to only those in the physical building if it isn’t nationally televised.

    I am also not a fan of 1 seeds hosting four-team regionals. Then you get all these rules about having adequate facilities, which may force teams to move away from their campus building. In that scenario, what’s the point of campus sites if it is not guaranteed?

    Mostly, I do not want to see a best-of-three series at any stage of the tournament. I understand why conferences have that format (to reward and advance the higher seeded teams). If the national championship and semifinals are decided by one game, each round should be decided by the same format.

    I’ve seen every NCAA tournament format dating back to the two-games total goal series in the 1980s and prefer the single-elimination in every round. If they move the opening round to best-of-three, I would prefer all rounds including championship moved to that format. But that will not happen.

    • Is it really a “national TV” audience if all but 2 of the regional games are buried on ESPNU or web stream only, like this year?

      • Uh, yes I would call that nationally available. For the middle aged like me who can remember regionals never being televised unless a local station decided to broadcast the local team and you had to hope that the broadcast would be picked up through syndication by your local station (usually only because of local interest), ESPN even on U or 3 is a national broadcast.

        I remember the only coverage of non-local regional games being a score update on a TV or radio broadcast and a box score with 2-3 paragraphs in the next day’s paper. No live TV. No video highlights. Not even a photo. And if you didn’t live near any tournament qualifying teams, good luck. Thankfully Hockey-L, the Internet and Tim Brule came along in the 90s

        So I am not going to complain about ESPN broadcasting all regional games even if it requires streaming it to my TV through my tablet. I can go home this afternoon and watch every single game, get video highlights, and live score updates. Pretty sweet deal compared to 15, 20, 30 years ago.

  11. This is ultimately the point I think: name another sport besides football and mens
    basketball that play their entire postseason at neutral sites? Sorry, but college hockey aint at that level.

    • I agree. I love this sport, but I’m realistic. I know it’s a much more niche audience than football and basketball. So why not reward the teams that perform throughout the year (and all the diehard hockey fans out there) with a home game – at least for regionals – that doesn’t include a flight and hotel room. Not a lot of people can afford that. And if attendance is such an issue – as it seems to be since they always shift teams closer to home for gate receipts – this would address that as well.

      The NCAA can’t seem to make up their mind. They want to have it at neutral sites to be fair, but then they shift teams closer to home for gate receipts. They think they can have their cake and eat it too.

  12. This is ultimately the point I think: name another sport besides football and mens
    basketball that play their entire postseason at neutral sites? Sorry, but college hockey aint at that level.

    • I agree. I love this sport, but I’m realistic. I know it’s a much more niche audience than football and basketball. So why not reward the teams that perform throughout the year (and all the diehard hockey fans out there) with a home game – at least for regionals – that doesn’t include a flight and hotel room. Not a lot of people can afford that. And if attendance is such an issue – as it seems to be since they always shift teams closer to home for gate receipts – this would address that as well.

      The NCAA can’t seem to make up their mind. They want to have it at neutral sites to be fair, but then they shift teams closer to home for gate receipts. They think they can have their cake and eat it too.

  13. I made this comment last year in a similar discussion. Campus sites are not necessary. All the NCAA has to do to solve attendance problems at the Regionals is to simply have 2 regional sites hosting 8 teams each, instead of 4 regional sites hosting 4 teams each. As it is, there is little distance between the 2 regional sites in the East, and relatively little distance between the 2 regional sites in the West. In the East you can actually attend both the Providence and Manchester sites in the same day. Having only 2 regional sites would not affect the travel very much at all. There can still be 4 regionals with 4 teams each, except 2 regionals will be held at each site instead of all 4 regionals having their own site. One regional would play Thursday and Saturday and the other regional would play Friday and Sunday. Two regional champions would emerge from each site. Ticket packages can be sold for the entire weekend, which would solve attendance problems, as there would be 8 teams worth of fans to fill the arena at any given time. They can figure out how to work the tickets, i.e. priority for each team’s fans to attend their games, emptying the arena between games, etc. The sites would need to be in cities big enough to accommodate the amount of fans. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it is far better than campus sites.

    • If we could use the examples set by professional leagues, the higher seeds get to host games; they have earned it through more successful regular seasons. It works very well and it’s reasonably fair.
      Does it really matter if some of these early round games are in “out of the way” places ? I’m sure Michigan Tech fans would be really jacked to host a game in their own arena. and the visitors are traveling anyway to some arena somewhere.
      So, ask yourself this: are you going for a visit to a city, or are you going to a game ? ESPN will go, no matter the site. If they can send a crew 2000 miles away from home, they’ll send one 1000 miles away even if it’s a small town.

      • .
        And let me tell you… its one hell of a small “towns” – the Copper Country’s history (in hockey alone) should be enough of a draw when paired up with the beauty of the area.

        Nobody would be disappointed… nobody.

        Is it far? Oh yeah, its far… making it that much more special!
        .

      • If college players were professionals, then yes they should do it like the NHL. But they are not. The NHL is a best of seven set up with both teams guaranteed to play at least two home games. Even if you make the NCAA tournament a best of three, how is that reasonably fair if all the games are at the higher seed’s campus? Making the NCAA tournament is the reward for a successful season.

        • A voice of reason! Well said. If we do this it will be akin to the NCAA football debacle that was the BCS where the smaller conferences had virtually no shot at getting into the national title picture.

      • There are all kinds of issues with you wanting to compare college hockey to the NHL and how they do their seeding. First, and this is really the only thing that matters, is in the NHL you play every single team in the West multiple times (if you are in the west) so you have multiple head to head games to play. UND doesn’t play Harvard very often during the regular season.

        Plus with the way the teams are picked for the NCAA it is a math formula and not a straight who has the better record (or most points like in the NHL).

        There is no way to compare the two for any number of reasons so please stop doing that.

        Every team in the NHL if they play well and win has a chance to make the playoffs and be a top seed. A team in Atlantic Hockey has virtually no chance of being in the top 4 and hosting. So now we are talking about something that is just inherently unfair, a prime example is the team like Robert Morris that finished the season with the 5th best winning percentage in the country only got to 25th in the PWR. So stop with the comparison of the NHL, it’s ridiculous.

    • I have always been a proponent of using two “super regional” sites with eight teams playing on a Thursday-Saturday/Friday-Sunday schedule. But was very interested to talk to someone who runs a regional who said there is almost no way they would bid a four-day regional because of the amount of work/commitment of resources involved. So IF you get the bids, this works, but neutral sites might not be thrilled with this format.

      The other potential downside to using campus sites that I didn’t have a way to express in the article is that hockey loses the “off-week” between the regionals and Frozen Four. Doesn’t seem like a big deal EXCEPT that you consider that the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are played in that “off-week.” ESPN’s networks are filled with women’s basketball that weekend which means if hockey wants to be televised, it may need to have games at some very strange times to avoid women’s basketball (which I believe is the priority sport for ESPN).

      • I have always been a proponent of this as well. Super Regional in St. Paul and Super Regional in Boston. I don’t think there is any other viable locations. Detroit was a flop this year with the BIG tourney. Only question is whether the Wild and Bruins can schedule around this given the fact that both arenas are used the weekend before for HEA and WCHA/BIG tourney. I suppose the Target Center in Minneapolis could be used instead but the T-wolves would have scheduling issues as well.

    • Truth be told it’s all about the NCAA and money. Which ever way earns more money for the NCAA that’s they way its going to be. They make the rules and control the money.

  14. I made this comment last year in a similar discussion. Campus sites are not necessary. All the NCAA has to do to solve attendance problems at the Regionals is to simply have 2 regional sites hosting 8 teams each, instead of 4 regional sites hosting 4 teams each. As it is, there is little distance between the 2 regional sites in the East, and relatively little distance between the 2 regional sites in the West. In the East you can actually attend both the Providence and Manchester sites in the same day. Having only 2 regional sites would not affect the travel very much at all. There can still be 4 regionals with 4 teams each, except 2 regionals will be held at each site instead of all 4 regionals having their own site. One regional would play Thursday and Saturday and the other regional would play Friday and Sunday. Two regional champions would emerge from each site. Ticket packages can be sold for the entire weekend, which would solve attendance problems, as there would be 8 teams worth of fans to fill the arena at any given time. They can figure out how to work the tickets, i.e. priority for each team’s fans to attend their games, emptying the arena between games, etc. The sites would need to be in cities big enough to accommodate the amount of fans. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it is far better than campus sites.

    • If we could use the examples set by professional leagues, the higher seeds get to host games; they have earned it through more successful regular seasons. It works very well and it’s reasonably fair.
      Does it really matter if some of these early round games are in “out of the way” places ? I’m sure Michigan Tech fans would be really jacked to host a game in their own arena. and the visitors are traveling anyway to some arena somewhere.
      So, ask yourself this: are you going for a visit to a city, or are you going to a game ? ESPN will go, no matter the site. If they can send a crew 2000 miles away from home, they’ll send one 1000 miles away even if it’s a small town.

      • .
        And let me tell you… its one hell of a small “towns” – the Copper Country’s history (in hockey alone) should be enough of a draw when paired up with the beauty of the area.

        Nobody would be disappointed… nobody.

        Is it far? Oh yeah, its far… making it that much more special!
        .

      • If college players were professionals, then yes they should do it like the NHL. But they are not. The NHL is a best of seven set up with both teams guaranteed to play at least two home games. Even if you make the NCAA tournament a best of three, how is that reasonably fair if all the games are at the higher seed’s campus? Making the NCAA tournament is the reward for a successful season.

        • A voice of reason! Well said. If we do this it will be akin to the NCAA football debacle that was the BCS where the smaller conferences had virtually no shot at getting into the national title picture.

      • There are all kinds of issues with you wanting to compare college hockey to the NHL and how they do their seeding. First, and this is really the only thing that matters, is in the NHL you play every single team in the West multiple times (if you are in the west) so you have multiple head to head games to play. UND doesn’t play Harvard very often during the regular season.

        Plus with the way the teams are picked for the NCAA it is a math formula and not a straight who has the better record (or most points like in the NHL).

        There is no way to compare the two for any number of reasons so please stop doing that.

        Every team in the NHL if they play well and win has a chance to make the playoffs and be a top seed. A team in Atlantic Hockey has virtually no chance of being in the top 4 and hosting. So now we are talking about something that is just inherently unfair, a prime example is the team like Robert Morris that finished the season with the 5th best winning percentage in the country only got to 25th in the PWR. So stop with the comparison of the NHL, it’s ridiculous.

    • I have always been a proponent of using two “super regional” sites with eight teams playing on a Thursday-Saturday/Friday-Sunday schedule. But was very interested to talk to someone who runs a regional who said there is almost no way they would bid a four-day regional because of the amount of work/commitment of resources involved. So IF you get the bids, this works, but neutral sites might not be thrilled with this format.

      The other potential downside to using campus sites that I didn’t have a way to express in the article is that hockey loses the “off-week” between the regionals and Frozen Four. Doesn’t seem like a big deal EXCEPT that you consider that the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are played in that “off-week.” ESPN’s networks are filled with women’s basketball that weekend which means if hockey wants to be televised, it may need to have games at some very strange times to avoid women’s basketball (which I believe is the priority sport for ESPN).

      • I have always been a proponent of this as well. Super Regional in St. Paul and Super Regional in Boston. I don’t think there is any other viable locations. Detroit was a flop this year with the BIG tourney. Only question is whether the Wild and Bruins can schedule around this given the fact that both arenas are used the weekend before for HEA and WCHA/BIG tourney. I suppose the Target Center in Minneapolis could be used instead but the T-wolves would have scheduling issues as well.

    • Truth be told it’s all about the NCAA and money. Which ever way earns more money for the NCAA that’s they way its going to be. They make the rules and control the money.

  15. Most ticket buying folks, I think, would prefer using home sites for the first round or two.
    How was attendance when the NCAA did this previously ?

    • Attendance was fine, but if memory serves it was also a total goals two game series. I don’t think that will even be on the table to discuss. Plus, I believe the real issue was that the top seeds nearly always made it to the FF. So now we are talking about going back to a system that was a failure for what ever reason without trying anything else first.

      • At the end (late 80s/early 90s) it was a best-of-three for two rounds. I remember as a teenager going to Boston College for a best-of-three that went the distance and they sold out game three the day of the game (no one bought it thinking BC would sweep). But back then BC sold out a lot of games (new arena helped). Don’t know if that would always be the case when we look at how difficult it is for schools to sell out early round playoff games. Maybe being a national tournament game makes it different?

        • Define late 80’s? In 1987 for example, I was at both UND games against St Lawrence and that was a 2 game series total goal. Not sure what year they changed it but it must have been right around then?

  16. Most ticket buying folks, I think, would prefer using home sites for the first round or two.
    How was attendance when the NCAA did this previously ?

    • Attendance was fine, but if memory serves it was also a total goals two game series. I don’t think that will even be on the table to discuss. Plus, I believe the real issue was that the top seeds nearly always made it to the FF. So now we are talking about going back to a system that was a failure for what ever reason without trying anything else first.

      • At the end (late 80s/early 90s) it was a best-of-three for two rounds. I remember as a teenager going to Boston College for a best-of-three that went the distance and they sold out game three the day of the game (no one bought it thinking BC would sweep). But back then BC sold out a lot of games (new arena helped). Don’t know if that would always be the case when we look at how difficult it is for schools to sell out early round playoff games. Maybe being a national tournament game makes it different?

        • Define late 80’s? In 1987 for example, I was at both UND games against St Lawrence and that was a 2 game series total goal. Not sure what year they changed it but it must have been right around then?

  17. Single-elimination games at the top eight seeds one weekend, then at the top four remaining seeds the next, then neutral-site Frozen Four. If that’s not feasible to host one game apiece per site, then best-of-three the first two rounds – just not two-game total goals series or tiebreaking “mini-games”

    • The big problem with the 3 game series is injuries, and that’s coming from the Coaches. Plus it also takes the excitement out of lower seed moving forward. But I do agree on campus sites for first round of 16 and campus sites for the second round of 8. I only place I have heard or read about it being unfair advantage to the visiting team is from fans. Have not heard one coach or player say they are against campus sites.

  18. Single-elimination games at the top eight seeds one weekend, then at the top four remaining seeds the next, then neutral-site Frozen Four. If that’s not feasible to host one game apiece per site, then best-of-three the first two rounds – just not two-game total goals series or tiebreaking “mini-games”

    • The big problem with the 3 game series is injuries, and that’s coming from the Coaches. Plus it also takes the excitement out of lower seed moving forward. But I do agree on campus sites for first round of 16 and campus sites for the second round of 8.

  19. I guess it’s just coincidence that the committee chair floating this idea happens to be AD at a school with one of the largest campus arenas in college hockey. It’s not like his school would benefit from concession revenues or anything like that.

    Certainly from the fairness perspective, I am opposed to on-campus sites if this means the top seeds get to play at home, which would seem the primary reason for the proposal. I would be less opposed if campus sites were used as neutral sites.

    I would rule out sites with international-sized ice. I actually prefer the larger ice but since most college teams do not play on this, I think it is an unfair advantage that those few that do.

    I think the ideas regarding super-regionals and packing lots of games into a short period of time overlook some important issues. Once is ice quality. I’ve seen some suggestions of four games in a day, which is absurd considering how difficult it is to keep good ice for just two games. On TV, the ice for the second game in Fargo last night looked pretty bad. I would think you would want the best possible conditions for a national tournament. Add to this not only heavy use of the ice but also the time of year, where in many places it is no longer cold outside, making more difficult to keep good ice (not all rinks have air-conditioning).

    The other issue regarding super-regionals is ticket pricing and attendance. Regionals are already expensive. If you double the number of games from three games in two days to six games in four days are you going to double ticket prices? Are you going to sell separate packages for the Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Sunday games? If the latter, how does this help attendance, or do you really expect people to show up for all four days? Regardless of how many teams/games there were, Manchester would still have been empty for UMN-UMD last night.

    Am I the only one who would go to all the games even if my team lost in the first game of the first day? How much of a fan are you really if you only watch your team’s games?

    Speaking of UNM-UMD, I was very surprised by the sparse attendance for that game after all the talk on these boards about how well the Minn fans travel. OTOH, if the game had been played at a tiny rink like the one in Fargo it would have looked a lot more full. :)

    I agree with the other comments that it was idiotic to make the BU-Yale game the early game. It’s not as if most of the folks who attend these games are students, and having the local team play on a weekday afternoon is stupid if you are concerned about attendance. No doubt ESPN wanted the boring UNM-UMD game in the evening so folks in Minnesota could be home from work to watch. In fairness, ESPN couldn’t have predicted how uninteresting the late game would be.

    I’ve only ever been to just one regional myself, in Worcester in the ’00s. Attendance was really quite good—the teams were BU, BC, North Dakota, and Mercyhurst (UND won the region). There was a good contingent of UND fans. In terms of travel, Manchester is a lot easier than Worcester because the airport is just a few miles from the arena, whereas you pretty much need to fly into Boston to get to Worcester (as far as I know the is no commercial service into the Worcester airport).

    I’m interested to see what the crowd is like in Providence this afternoon. Only one of the schools has an undergraduate enrollment of more than 10,000 (Miami). I’m hoping BC can find some scoring and get past Denver so they can knock Miami out of the tournament once again (but I don’t expect this to happen).

  20. I guess it’s just coincidence that the committee chair floating this idea happens to be AD at a school with one of the largest campus arenas in college hockey. It’s not like his school would benefit from concession revenues or anything like that.

    Certainly from the fairness perspective, I am opposed to on-campus sites if this means the top seeds get to play at home, which would seem the primary reason for the proposal. I would be less opposed if campus sites were used as neutral sites.

    I would rule out sites with international-sized ice. I actually prefer the larger ice but since most college teams do not play on this, I think it is an unfair advantage that those few that do.

    I think the ideas regarding super-regionals and packing lots of games into a short period of time overlook some important issues. Once is ice quality. I’ve seen some suggestions of four games in a day, which is absurd considering how difficult it is to keep good ice for just two games. On TV, the ice for the second game in Fargo last night looked pretty bad. I would think you would want the best possible conditions for a national tournament. Add to this not only heavy use of the ice but also the time of year, where in many places it is no longer cold outside, making more difficult to keep good ice (not all rinks have air-conditioning).

    The other issue regarding super-regionals is ticket pricing and attendance. Regionals are already expensive. If you double the number of games from three games in two days to six games in four days are you going to double ticket prices? Are you going to sell separate packages for the Thursday-Saturday and Friday-Sunday games? If the latter, how does this help attendance, or do you really expect people to show up for all four days? Regardless of how many teams/games there were, Manchester would still have been empty for UMN-UMD last night.

    Am I the only one who would go to all the games even if my team lost in the first game of the first day? How much of a fan are you really if you only watch your team’s games?

    Speaking of UNM-UMD, I was very surprised by the sparse attendance for that game after all the talk on these boards about how well the Minn fans travel. OTOH, if the game had been played at a tiny rink like the one in Fargo it would have looked a lot more full. :)

    I agree with the other comments that it was idiotic to make the BU-Yale game the early game. It’s not as if most of the folks who attend these games are students, and having the local team play on a weekday afternoon is stupid if you are concerned about attendance. No doubt ESPN wanted the boring UNM-UMD game in the evening so folks in Minnesota could be home from work to watch. In fairness, ESPN couldn’t have predicted how uninteresting the late game would be.

    I’ve only ever been to just one regional myself, in Worcester in the ’00s. Attendance was really quite good—the teams were BU, BC, North Dakota, and Mercyhurst (UND won the region). There was a good contingent of UND fans. In terms of travel, Manchester is a lot easier than Worcester because the airport is just a few miles from the arena, whereas you pretty much need to fly into Boston to get to Worcester (as far as I know the is no commercial service into the Worcester airport).

    I’m interested to see what the crowd is like in Providence this afternoon. Only one of the schools has an undergraduate enrollment of more than 10,000 (Miami). I’m hoping BC can find some scoring and get past Denver so they can knock Miami out of the tournament once again (but I don’t expect this to happen).

  21. Why not go East/West? Why move teams around so much? Essentially HE and ECAC in East with NCHC and WCHA in West with BT and AH as swing leagues. You would get shorter commutes for fans and more rivalry match ups.

  22. Why not go East/West? Why move teams around so much? Essentially HE and ECAC in East with NCHC and WCHA in West with BT and AH as swing leagues. You would get shorter commutes for fans and more rivalry match ups.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here