karma turning with NCAA hockey hosting rules?

Submitted by Wolverine In Exile on
http://www.uscho.com/2015/03/18/report-committee-chair-faison-to-push-f… So maybe karma is turning for ncaa hockey regional hosting rules? Incoming chair of hockey committee is saying he's going to push for home team hosting of regionals for the NCAA hockey tourney. Not entirely surprising considering he's the AD at north Dakota, but it would be welcome I think across the board. Interestingly, the chairman was intimating there may be not just 4x4-team pods, but potentially 8 home site first round matchups with a separate 4 home site round meaning you'd have a 3 week long national tourney (frozen four stays the same with a host site for 4 teams). Yes please.

Commie_High96

March 18th, 2015 at 9:21 PM ^

There was nothing more intimate than watching UM play Colgate at the Pepsi center in Albany in 2000. So sad that great hockey cities like Albany, Dayton and Milwaukee are going to lose out.

ppudge

March 18th, 2015 at 10:20 PM ^

Two weekends of best of three action at the higher seeded teams' home arenas? Yes please. Then the Frozen Four can be single elimination at a neutral site.

bronxblue

March 18th, 2015 at 10:23 PM ^

It was dumb when they got rid of the weekend home series, and so any correction to that injustice is welcome.  Teams earn home ice all season; let them enjoy it.

Canadian

March 18th, 2015 at 10:25 PM ^

Love this... My ideal scenario is the B1G going to a three weekend playoff with the high seed hosting a best of 3 series. If the B1G season had ended two weeks ago the first weekend of playoff action would've seen
#3 Michigan hosting #6 Wisconsin
#4 Penn State hosting #5 Ohio State
The second weekend (last weekend) would've been
#1 Minnesota hosting lowest ranked winner from week 1
#2 MSU hosting highest ranked winner from week 1
This weekend would've been the championship round hosted by the highest ranked team remaining.

Then the NCAA tournament (if we are now going to 3 weekends) would see the top 8 seeds host a best of 3 week 1 where you rank the teams 1-16 and you have 1vs16,2vs15,3vs14,etc.
the second week you re-seed and have the top remaining team host lowest remaining team (like the NHL playoffs) for another best of 3 series.
Then you rotate the Frozen Four between 5 locations; Minnesota, Detroit, Boston, New York, Denver

Alton

March 19th, 2015 at 12:15 AM ^

I agree that we need to get rid of the "neutral" sites (actually non-neutral but pre-determined).  What I disagree with is that they should re-seed.  Those seeds are nothing more than guesses as is, so if a #15 beats #2 the first weekend, it would be pretty unfair to make them play #1 the second weekend.  Every other NCAA tournament in every sport uses a bracket instead of re-seeding, and I don't see any good reason to make the hockey tournament different.

Also, as somebody who goes to the frozen four every year, I disagree very strongly with your suggestion of a rotation.  I can't think of a good reason to exclude places like Chicago or Pittsburgh or even Tampa Bay (they were a great host last time) from the chance to have a frozen four.  What would be the point of a rotation?

One thing not discussed in the article is that they need to change the frozen four from its current Thursday-Saturday format to a Saturday-Monday setup.  There is no reason they should be playing a national semifinal at 4 in the afternoon on a workday.  That just screams "minor sport."

 

Michigan Arrogance

March 19th, 2015 at 4:55 AM ^

I'm surprised you're against rotating the FF between those 5- they have the most geographically convenient locations to college hockey towns and thus the best chance of getting a good crowd. MSP, Detroit, Albany and Boston. Maybe another in the east like providence or Hartford. Denver only has a few teams close but the broadmore hosted at the historic start of the tourney, so that's fine I guess. I mean, if u want good attendance for college hockey, Pittsburgh and Tampa are last on the list I would think.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Canadian

March 19th, 2015 at 7:26 AM ^

EXACTLY my thought process. Tampa may have been a good host but there isn't a single school in the state of Florida sporting a hockey team. Michigan and Minnesota have a historically rich college hockey program and quite a few other in-state programs. Denver represents the West. Boston represents the East (and have quite the historically successful programs too). New York represents the East as well (like the Midwest, there are enough programs around to support this.
I want there to be a chance of great crowds.

Alton

March 19th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^

The Frozen Four was in both Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay in the last 5 years; both were reasonably successful.  Why exclude them?  Why not experiment a little?  If it doesn't work, don't go back.  If it does, why not try again (like they are with Tampa Bay)?

Also, Albany?  I was at 2 regionals and a frozen four at that arena.  No thanks, ever again.  Too big for a regional, too small for a frozen four.  Also, it's another 1-concourse arena (like Joe Louis)--it is simply outdated.

Canadian

March 19th, 2015 at 7:32 AM ^

I would prefer to reseed as the seeds are based off the Pairwise and not just a selection committee. With a week between rounds it provides the chance to reseed unlike the basketball tournament which has the bracket split up in different locations and only a day between games to prepare for the new opponent.

Alton

March 19th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^

Basketball (men's and women's) and Women's Volleyball could re-seed after the first rounds & before the regionals, but they don't.  They could re-seed after the regionals and before the final four, but they don't.

Lacrosse could re-seed after the first round or after the quarterfinals, but they don't.

Soccer could re-seed after every single round, but they don't.

Baseball and Softball could re-seed after the regionals, or after the super-regionals, but they don't.

Field hockey and Tennis could re-seed after the regionals, but they don't.

I think sticking with brackets, like every single NCAA team tournament in every division, would be best.  People like brackets, and the PWR system simply isn't good enough to justify using it for every round.

Alton

March 19th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^

Every sport is different from every other sport (soccer doesn't use a puck!  Field Hockey doesn't play on ice! Baseball doesn't allow unlimited substitution!)

That doesn't justify a departure from the use of a bracket, though.  It really doesn't have anything to do with it, if you think about it.

mgoblue0970

March 19th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^

You know how the #15 team could make it better for themselves?  Take matters into their own hands and win some more games in the regular season!

Sorry, but re-seeding is stupid and life isn't fair.

Canadian

March 19th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^

I don't know if you understand what I'm saying when I say reseed. The #15 will always be #15 but instead of playing against the winner of the 3vs14 series they would instead go against the top ranked team (at beginning of the tournament) remaining (if #1 beats #16 and #15 beats #2 you would see #15 @ #1). It benefits the higher ranked team throughout the playoffs.

Brian

March 18th, 2015 at 11:19 PM ^

Anything would be better than the current system. Anything. You could have 'em play outdoors in the middle of the Mongol Horde and it would still be like "dat time travel tho". 

rob f

March 18th, 2015 at 11:54 PM ^

wouldn't time travel have to be involved if we're considering "having 'em play outdoors in the middle of the Mongol Horde"?

But yeah, the current system wasn't at all well thought out.  Typical of the NCAA over the last couple decades, regardless of the sport.

gwkrlghl

March 19th, 2015 at 12:28 AM ^

Your #1 seeds are 'rewarded' by being shipped to the nearest empty arena neutral site to play a game of coin flip. Anything to give the top seeds a bit of an advantage is fine in my book

Home sites would actually make regional games a watchable environment

Alton

March 19th, 2015 at 12:36 AM ^

I know this is coming from North Dakota's representative on the hockey committee, but I have to wonder if some of this is coming from ESPN.  Any TV producer would tell you that there is nothing that makes a neutral sports fan turn the channel more quickly than the sight of large swaths of empty seats.

Large, enthusiastic crowds are great television.  Home regionals would mean better ratings for ESPN and also probably better TV coverage for the sport.

mgoblue0970

March 19th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^

I don't know... some of these off campus reginoals really suck.  I'm looking at you Ft Wayne!!!

The only decent regional I've been to off campus was in Denver.  They averaged 18K for the three games at the Pepsi Center.

Sac Fly

March 19th, 2015 at 4:50 AM ^

To be fair, that's kind if the reason they did away with home-site regionals in the first place, when an average Michigan team took down 1 seed Denver and 1 seed Colorado College at Yost in consecutive years.

gwkrlghl

March 19th, 2015 at 6:28 AM ^

I now see that this guy isn't saying a 1 seed would host but just campus sites. I would be largely against that (for your reasoning), but 100% in favor of giving the 1 seeds hosting rights for regionals.

(And I think you mean #2 seeded NoDak and #4 seeded Denver in consecutive years)

saveferris

March 19th, 2015 at 9:05 AM ^

Michigan got probably the toughest draw in the tournament both of those seasons as a reward for hosting the regional.  The 2002-03 Wolverines were easily a 2 seed in any other Regional but got stuck as a 3 seed in the Midwest against Maine and CC.  That game against Maine was a dogfight, an absolute slugfest, while Colorado College got to coast past Wayne State.  That CC team was bigger, better, and well-rested.  MIchigan just out-skated them that day and I've never heard Yost that loud.  Still Top 3 in greatest sporting environments I've ever been party to.