BTHC Likely to Change Playoff Format

Submitted by hockeyguy9125 on

BTHC looks to be changing the conference tournament from campus sites to a neutral site, single elimination tournament...in Minnesota.

http://www.westerncollegehockeyblog.com/2012/2/6/2774480/big-ten-tourne…

As Brian has pointed out in the past, Wisconsin's bitching for no legitimate reason probably has a lot do with this. While in the old format, the #2 seed kind of gets screwed, the campus site idea was unique and also seriously rewards the regular season winner which is always a good thing. This now allows for one team to have a horrid regular season, and to get hot for three games to get in the NCAA Tournament. At least in the current CCHA format, you have two rounds of best of three series to really make you earn the birth at Joe Louis. There have not been too many teams stealing bids. 

Also, of course this goes into Minnesota and Wisconsin's back yard. Why at least try to center it in Chicago where its a decent drive for everyone? Its much better to screw the fan bases of Michigan, MSU, OSU, and PSU. (say what you want about each school's fan base and how they travel *cough OSU, MSU cough*, but the ones who would have gone, might not drive 11 hours to the Xcel Energy Center) Here is another crazy stupid idea...rotate it between venues so its close for each fan base at some point.

This is bull shit, but I can't say that I am totally surprised.

M-Wolverine

February 6th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^

Scooped Brian with this post...though I'm sure we're going to see a nice long post later telling us how stupid it is. Because, well, he's right. It's moronic.  Even if you're going to do it in a neutral location, the whole point of that is to make it centrally located.  So it's compounding a bad idea on top of a bad idea. 

mGrowOld

February 6th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

I like the idea but I think they chose the wrong school for the home of the tournament.  Why not Alaska....why do they always get left out?  I think if you truly want to test the mettle of the fans supporting their teams why stop in Minnesota?  Why not move the games 4,000 miles away from everyone where the weather this weekend is expected to hit a balmy -6?

That'll separate the wheat from the chaff.

meals69

February 6th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

I actually clicked on the post to find out what BTHC was, but upon seeing that it had to do with hockey the words Big Ten Hockey Conference immediately came to mind :-)

Real Tackles Wear 77

February 6th, 2012 at 12:31 PM ^

Having been at the NC game in St. Paul in April, I can say it felt like a true road game, despite being 2 hours from Duluth and both fanbases having equal opportunity to buy tickets. This will be a complete advantage for Minnesota every year and Madison is exactly halfway between Ann Arbor and the twin cities, making it half as long for them.

kevin holt

February 6th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^

Terrible ideas in hockey:

-Neutral sites

-Intent-to-blow-the-whistle

-Outdoor games becoming commonplace

-Single-elimination tournaments, especially in conference tournaments and especially when there are only 6 teams.

 

Seriously, having a neutral site means they have to make it single-elimination, which is just extra dumb. There's honestly no upside at all to this. I see none.

Edit: also, changing policy because one team whined is ALWAYS a good idea in sports, right guys?

MastaDon

February 6th, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^

Some of my first Michigan hockey games were NCAA regionalism at Yost. They were some of my favorite sporting events all time. I don't understand why college hockey seems dead set on ignoring it's great fan bases by having neutral site games in half empty NHL arenas.

As far as I'm concerned the BTHC could have a 6 year rotation where it visited each school. Sure Penn State might be tough, but being exposed to high level hockey once in awhile can't hurt interest in the sport.

joeyb

February 6th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^

I don't get this one bit. Just have 3 rounds of best of 3. The first two can be on home ice and the third can be at a rotating neutral location. Detroit, Chicago, St. Paul, Pittsburgh. Two out of every four years, Wisconsin should be happy with that.

lhglrkwg

February 6th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^

Thanks for giving Wisconsin and Minnesota permanent home ice advantage. There's no way any significant amount of Michigan, MSU, OSU or Penn State fans will ever go to the XCel Center for this tournament. It's going to be 70% Minnesota, 20% Wisconsin, 10% Michigan and 10% MSU-OSU-Penn State every year. SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS MAKES ANY SENSE

JeepinBen

February 6th, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^

Which is exactly why they wont do it. /beurocracied

But really Chicago is a great site for a couple reasons, and is tough for a couple reasons:

- The united Center is a great barn. Absolutely great building

- The United Center has 2 tenants who keep it pretty busy (Bulls, Hawks) and all kinds of other stuff (UFC last weekend, etc.), Scheduling could be dicey

- Chicago is centrally located and really really easy to get to (flights from anywhere, major highways, etc) and can handle an influx of just about any number of people. There were next to no infrastructure upgrades planned to host the Olympics.

- the allstate Arena hosts the Chicago Wolves, an AHL team, and could host a BTH Tourney if the UC wasn't available.

- Chicago has a huge Big Ten presence already, besides Northwestern (Persastrong!) there are alumni from every school in the B1G here. Near my apartment there are 8 different B1G Bars I can think of.

- Chicago is a town that is in love with hockey. We (we = most chicagoans. I've been skating since I was 3, if you played at the Cube in AA from 2006-2009 you probably played against me) took a break from the mid 90's until 2008ish, but hockey is hugely popular. The Blackhawks are the hardest ticket to get in town, even more than the 1st place Bulls.

Again, Chicago is by far the smartest choice, just like it was for the B1G Bball tournament. So of course they'll pick somewhere else.

joeyb

February 6th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^

Here's one:

I'd (and I assume most fans would) consider making a weekend out of the tournament in Chicago. I could drive or take a relatively short train ride there, I have freinds there, and there are things to do there. I can't say the same things about St. Paul. I would never consider flying somewhere for the tournament.

BVB

February 6th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^

The first sentence of the article is what gets me - a majority of the ADs from hockey schools support the idea.  Why would anyone other than Minnesota and Wisconsin vote for this?  I wasn't a math major, but I'm pretty sure it takes 4 out of 6 to make a majority.  So the real question is who are the other 2?

Seth9

February 6th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^

Michigan and MSU have strong enough programs such that they would oppose giving Minnesota and WIsconsin such a huge built in advantage every year. OSU and PSU, on the other hand, are not likely to be very competitive in the opening years of the Big Ten and OSU might not even fill up their own building. And seeing as both teams will, in the early years of the BTHC, be travelling somewhere in the 1st round more often than not, neither of them would be as strongly opposed to a format that gives a general advantage to Minnesota and Wisconsin anyway. Meanwhile, having games in Minnesota has financial advantages. Playing at the XCel Center guarantees a sell out, particularly if you package the weekend together, and furthermore, because it would technically be a neutral site, there would be an equal payout to all Big Ten teams. So OSU and PSU are effectively trading an uncommon home series for money. Not to mention that a 5 or 6 seed has a much better chance of getting hot and winning 3 in a row than they do of winning a road series and then winning a single elimination semifinal and final at somebody else's arena.

Mr. Robot

February 6th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^

I still have a hard time believing that Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Ohio would possibly let that slide. That's a MASSIVE advantage for Wisconsin and especially Minnesota.

I'll believe it when I see it, I guess. If they keep it in one place, Chicago would make more sense, but I think rotating it around and allowing one team to be the "host" every year, like the NCAA regionals, would be appropriate. Having it directly on a home-site for the championship game is a bit unfair, but there's nothign wrong with letting Michigan and MSU "host" it at the Joe, Ohio "host" it where the Blue Jackets play, etc, and then just rotating it around.

InterM

February 6th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^

When Michigan was in the Frozen Four last year, I was highly motivated to go, but abandoned that idea due to the $500-plus airfare to Minneapolis.  But hey, no problem, I'd gladly pay that airfare for the Big Ten tourney!  And I'm sure my fellow season ticket holders agree -- to say nothing of those rabid fanbases at MSU, OSU, and PSU.  So, all in all, this sounds like a SWELL idea!

DeadMan

February 7th, 2012 at 1:42 AM ^

We're leaving the CCHA for this? Is there any chance if we make a big stink about this that it could get changed? I guess it will make money with the Minnesota and Wisconsin fans always selling out the place. And it will prevent something like the football championship game with tons of empty seats, which is possible in Chicago (albeit unlikely). I do feel like Michigan might have the power to change this, but I wonder if they'll want to piss off the rest of the B1G hockey teams with shenanigians. 

Also I wonder how much money this will actually make. I'm guessing the arena will take a cut of everything and minimize the profits. Plus you're splitting it among 6 schools. They'd better hope that it garners a lot of national attention. 

redwings8831

February 7th, 2012 at 2:22 AM ^

"Heppel declined to identify the neutral sites to be targeted, but multiple sources with knowledge of the discussion Monday confirmed the Big Ten will initially look to secure a rotation of facilities between Joe Louis Arena in Detroit and the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn."