NCAA Hockey: Burn It All Down

Submitted by stephenrjking on

I've been patient.

My credentials as a certified college hockey fan are long. I have spent seasons seeing virtually every game Michigan has played. I have traveled to college hockey games in seven states, in venues as diverse as Omaha, Marquette, Minneapolis, Madison, and even Dayton. I come from one college hockey town (Ann Arbor) and I live in another (Duluth). I have attended two Frozen Fours and many NCAA regional games. I have written loving reports on great moments in the sport's history. So know I do not say this lightly:

I have a hard time calling myself a college hockey fan right now.

Yes, this is prompted by the recent, absolutely disgusting snub of Kyle Connor from the award. Jimmy Vesey is a nice player, but the Hobey Baker has allegedly never been a career award. Awarding it to Vesey this season on the strength of 46 points and 1.39 ppg over a player who scored 71 points and half a point more per game cannot be anything other than a career achievement award or a consolation for losing to another freshman who scored exactly the same number of points last year.

But it is far more than that.

College Hockey, as an institution, seems dead-set on destroying itself. And it does so with the eager approval of much of its groupthink intelligensia that exists east of Pennsylvania.

NCAA Tournament

Let's consider, for example, the unjust and completely disastrous NCAA Tournament Regional system. Much effort has been wasted discussing it, including not inconsiderable amounts of my recreational time, because there is nothing quite so idiotic as broadcasting games on television that are alleged to be the most important of the season and seeing thousands upon thousands of empty seats on ESPN. 

I used the word "unjust" advisedly, because the reason the regional system persists as it does is that it actually well serves two important constituents: Small, low-money schools, which predominantly exist in the East; and larger, bigger-money schools that are also in the East.

It serves the small schools well because an empty arena is an easier place to pull an upset, especially against a #1 seed that had to fly hundreds of miles because the closer arena happens to be reserved for the hosting team. And it serves the larger Eastern schools well because most of them are clustered in such close proximity that they have not one but two regionals that they may attend in easy driving distance.

Seriously. Since the four-regional system was introduced in 2003, all "Eastern" regionals save one (there are two per year; the sole exception is Rochester in 2007) have been located within in a quadrilateral encompassed by Albany, Bridgeport, Providence, and Manchester. (The favorite regional location, Worcester, is right in the middle of that space). The longest driving distance between those cities is 2.5 hours, between Manchester and Bridgeport; all other distances are shorter. 

The result is that a team like Boston College almost never has to travel far for the NCAA tournament. In fact, since the four-regional system debuted, BC has attended a regional within an hour's drive of Boston in every season except two: 2011, when they had to travel to St. Louis, and 2009, when they did not make the tournament. 

In contrast, teams like Minnesota-Duluth and Michigan Tech can NEVER hope for a Regional closer than 2.5 hours away and if they make the tournament almost invariably have to travel much further. The Colorado teams only have a hope of a close regional in those rare instances one is placed in Colorado, and a team like Minnesota State can have a dream season ruined by a "luck of the draw" regional where the only available "Western" Regional is in South Bend, 8 hours away. And in this context regionals have been awarded to places like St. Louis and Cincinnatti, cities with zero college hockey support.

Plenty of better alternatives have been proposed. I've proposed them. Others have proposed them. The reason they have not been taken can no longer be attributed to "neutrality" or "let's see how this works." The reason is that the people making the choices don't care about the teams and the fans that aren't near the Eastern Regionals.

Frozen Four

But the Frozen Four is great, right?

I dunno. Plenty of tickets are available for the Frozen Four in Tampa, which is hosting its second FF in four years. Other college hockey non-hotbed destinations include cities like Washington DC, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. Since the turn of the century, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Boston, and Detroit (the three locii of regional college hockey, flagships of states that have most of the best teams and fanbases) have been granted five Frozen Fours total. It has been a couple of years since the FF has even sold out ahead of time; if they cared about casual fan interest, they might hold the event in places where fans actually cared.

There is a serious fanbase for the sport out "west." Despite the indignity of distant regionals, fanbases like North Dakota and Michigan regularly send thousands of people on drives of three hours or longer to watch their teams play. Michigan Tech sends large groups of fans 8 hours downstate for a holiday tournament. Places like Duluth build fancy new arenas and give their teams the star treatment. 

Yet, it is harder for these fans to engage with the way the sport is structured. Right when a dedicated fan of the sport should be getting most engaged, the games are taken away from them. 

Burn It All Down

I could engage in serious western suspicion of "Eastern Bias." It's getting harder, in the wake of decisions like today's, to overlook it. But Occam's Razor suggests that the conclusions I should draw as a frustrated fan are less sinister, but more discouraging: A lot of people making decisions about college hockey honestly don't care. They don't care about the product, they don't care about the teams, and they don't care about the fans. 

The truly dreadful thing about this is that even corrupt leagues like the OHL seem to be better run and more authentic. They even took strong steps in a situation like what happened in Flint, leadership that does not exist in college hockey. And it sickens me to say it.

I'm never going to stop rooting for Michigan Hockey. And I'll probably continue to follow what goes on nationwide.

But I care less about the sport as a whole than I used to. And as long as the sport continues to wreck itself, many will feel the same way.

Do stupid stuff. Ruin the NCAA tournament. Choke out the Frozen Four. Let small schools with decent fans struggle and die. It's not worth my effort to pay attention. It's tempting to just say, "let it burn."

It's hard to care anymore.

Comments

pz

April 8th, 2016 at 9:06 PM ^

Agree 100% - it needed to be said.

College hockey has such ridiculous potential to have an amazingly exciting post season, and empty regionals are the dead worst.

The Connor snub is unforgivable. There is zero doubt he was the best player in the country this year, and less justification for not giving him the award than for the NCAA's ban on satellite camps (which is zero in its own right).

Now the question is "when will something actually be done about it?" Hopefully soon, or it will become more and more difficult.

And go Quinnipiac tomorrow night, by the way. Still not sure if I'll be watching.

ILL_Legel

April 8th, 2016 at 9:32 PM ^

Yes and you can say some of the same about NCAA football. The NCAA is an awful organization. Bad leadership, bad policy, etc. I'll meet you with my torch and pitchfork!



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Bando Calrissian

April 8th, 2016 at 9:41 PM ^

Years ago, I made a half-hearted, rarely-followed decision that I was done watching Michigan hockey after the final regular-season game. Nothing good followed, between goofy conference tournaments, one-and-done NCAAs, weird officiating, the Hobey bullshit...

I dare you to find a weirder sport. Even with the fairly predictable Pairwise equation eliminating the tournament drama... Nothing makes sense. Ever. Maybe it's time to just really boycott it all once March rolls around.

Michigan Arrogance

April 9th, 2016 at 9:33 AM ^

I agree that the playoff format needs to change, but this shadowy eastern bias is completely made up. Cities/venues bid on these regionals. There isn't anyone or group of people taking those bids and nefariously twirling thier mustaches as they choose Albany or Worchester for a regional and then fade out laughing thru to the screen wipe. 25 teams out of 65 are located within 3-4 hours of that Alb-Prov-Worchester triangle. Where would you expect them to place the regionals, given that and the venues that bid for it?

Where should we place those regionals to make UMD, MTU, NMU, LSSU, Mankato and a host of other small schools not have to travel more than an hour? Escanaba Co Muni? Copper Harbor? It's ridiculous. No one's claiming consipracy b/c St Lawrence, Clarkson and Maine have to travel 4+ hours every year (if they even make the tourney). 

I'm in favor of 1st round best of 3 where the top seeds host, but the 1st half of your set up here makes it sound like MTU, Duluth and Mankato are entitled to have a regional in their back yard. Those schools being located in BFE is a them problem, not an NCAA problem.

The reality is, the smallness of the sport and the remoteness of half the schools that play it makes neutral sites a bad idea from a pure attendance perspective. Plus, these smaller schools are the ones that WANT neutral sites, b/c it's easier to get an upset in an empty bldg than in A2 or EL vs MSU/UM or Boston vs BC/BU. 

The Hobey was bullshit, and everyone knows it. JT should have made the final 3 and either he or Conner should have won it. the kid from Harvard had a very good career. he's not nor has ever been, the best hockey player in the nation.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 11th, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^

Have to agree...it just so happens that Midwestern teams are more spread out than eastern ones.  Campus-hosted regionals are a fine idea, but they're not going to solve the fact that MSU-Mankato is two weeks from everywhere while there are like eight programs within a two-hour bus ride of Bridgeport.

If we go to campus regionals, you'll still see, most likely, two out of four of them every year hosted in that same Albany-to-Boston proximity.  And Midwestern teams will still have to hop a plane to get to Ann Arbor or Madison or Oxford or wherever.

BuckNekked

April 9th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^

Ive always been a huge college hockey fan. As Ive said before I was born into the culture. It saddens me to see what has become of my favorite sport. 

As always Stephen a well thought out post.

BuckNekked

April 9th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^

Ive always been a huge college hockey fan. As Ive said before I was born into the culture. It saddens me to see what has become of my favorite sport. 

As always Stephen a well thought out post.

phufredabo

April 10th, 2016 at 2:04 AM ^

I just got paid $5623 working off my PC. If you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $5k her first month. GB04.It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. Why Not You also try this..

Start HERE--> www.alpha-careers.com

UMinSF

April 10th, 2016 at 2:35 AM ^

Totally agree the Hobey was a farce. Seems clear they didn't want a frosh. Not a big conspiracy, just a poor choice.

100% agree on the Frozen Four.  I cannot believe they hold the biggest event in college hockey in Florida, where there are no teams. 1,000 miles or more away from almost all participating schools!  Ridiculous.

Agree early rounds should be at the higher seeds' arenas. Neutral sites are stupid. College hockey is similar to the NIT in fan support. They're smart enough to let competing teams host.

Don't agree about eastern bias. Half the teams in college hockey are from New England. If they have 4 regional sites, it makes total sense for 2 of them to be there. NY and tiny Massachusetts have more hockey schools than any other states.

The other half of the teams are geographically spread out, with concentrations in Michigan and Minnesota. Many of the hockey schools in the midwest and west are in really remote areas, far from population centers. 

Minneapolis and Detroit are logical regional sites, but it makes sense to hold them occasionally in Colorado or Ohio or Pennsylvania too. What makes no sense is hosting any games in places where there are no division 1 teams and no fans.

MaizeJacket

April 14th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^

I've watched and enjoyed the college hockey games I've been able to see the past few years.  I by no means clear my schedule for it, but I make a point to best I can sit down and watch Michigan in the postseason.  I grew up in the south where I did not even know hockey existed until I was about 10; college football and NASCAR were, are, and probably will be my #1 and #2.  I guess you could say I climbed onto the fence of college hockey fandom. But when Michigan played Miami U a few years ago in the regional, and lost controversially in overtime, I had to ask my buddy who attended the game who the host team was.  He replied "nobody, it's completely neutral".  Which, really befuddled me.  I had just assumed it was the same as the NCAA baseball regional/super regional setup.  My dad came in when it was on and the first thing he said was "There's nobody there".  He was right.  I have to think NCAA hockey and NCAA baseball are relatively similar in popularity across the board, so I've always thought that the NCAA baseball regional/super regional system would work just fine for hockey, in that higher seeded teams earn the right to host.  I think the Frozen Four is good as a neutral venue, but why they insist on having it in places like Tampa is beyond me.  I could understand a larger metro area like Atlanta or Dallas every now and then, but otherwise it should be in the footprint of hockey bluebloods.

Wolvie3758

April 14th, 2016 at 6:24 PM ^

but not anymore..its alllllll stacked in favor of the East Coast year after year after year..I just grew tired of it and stopped paying attention...

rob f

April 17th, 2016 at 9:47 AM ^

been more true, Stephen---the "crowd" shot at the Excel Energy Center at the top of your OP tells it all.  That is, except to those in charge at the NCAA, the most clueless organization in the history of organized sports.  It is exactly that same cluelessness that makes me believe that we're probably years away from any of the nonsense to stop.  Big dumb organizations are slow to catch on to anything that makes sense.

That said, I'll propose something in addition to many of the great ideas presented by others in this thread already:  besides 8 home sites for opening round best-of-3 matchups, make the next round also be best-of-3 matchups at the home sites of the top remaining team in each region.  Why should the great game of college hockey be played in gigantic empty arenas?  It would never happen in NCAA Hoops so WTF is in the heads of NCAA "leadership" that makes this crap OK for hockey?

I get it, hockey is a regional sport.  Play it, then, in towns and regions that care. If Ferris or NMU or MTU or Mantako State or LSSU are good enough to get one of the top two seeds in their region, then why can't they be rewarded with home series?

 Play the Frozen 4 in cities that care.  But Tampa????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   (I'll let my punctuation speak a thousand words this time)

Christianwilliams

April 25th, 2016 at 2:40 AM ^

Midwestern teams are more spread out than eastern ones. And I must say that NCAA hockey, and NCAA baseball are relatively similar in popularity across the board. After reading this conversation I suddenly got remember a video game which I had brought from Instant-gaming, and use to play it every Sunday.