NCAA Hockey Administrators to Fans: Drop Dead

Submitted by stephenrjking on

The NCAA released its championship sites for the next few years. There are a lot of Michigan-related sites here, including a Frozen Four in Detroit.

But I'm a college hockey fan and I was interested to see if they would change the format of the college hockey regional system.

Not only has it not changed, they've made it worse.

Sioux Falls gets 2018 regional. Fargo gets 2019 regional. UND will host both.

— Brad E. Schlossman (@SchlossmanGF) April 18, 2017

2018 NCAA regionals: Sioux Falls, Bridgeport, Worcester, Allentown. 2019 regionals: Fargo, Manchester, Providence, Allentown.

— Brad E. Schlossman (@SchlossmanGF) April 18, 2017

The "Western" regionals consist of two regionals hosted by North Dakota, and... Allentown?

That's right, if you're a fan of a team west of Niagara Falls that isn't North Dakota, you've just been given the shaft. Unless you want to drive for hours to the East Coast, you don't get to see your team play NCAA tournament games.

I guess we could just decide that the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament are a joke, so we don't feel bad about it. Is that what the NCAA hockey committee wants? Because that's the vibe we're getting. Dedicated fanbases in any number of schools in Minnesota and Michigan, jilted. The Chicago corridor teams, shafted. Have an all-time season at a place like Omaha or Huntsville? Sorry, you can see the games on WatchESPN.

It's the worst playoff in sports, and they just made it worse. Go to home sites for the first two rounds. Get rid of this garbage.

trueblueintexas

April 18th, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^

I just want to know how much North Dakota paid to get that set up. It almost garauntees that any of the top western teams have to play on their home turf to get through the tourney. The NCAA probably doesn't even have a committee to decide this. It's probably "some guy" in an office rubber stamping this shit. What a joke.

stephenrjking

April 18th, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^

What's sad about this is that there is an actual committee that's made up of hockey people that makes these decisions, and they're making the wrong decisions.

The reason North Dakota is getting these regionals is clearly that there are no other bids. Allentown would not be getting a pair of "midwest" regionals if there was a plausible bid for Toledo or Grand Rapids or Green Bay or something. 

But the reason there are no other bids is that the regional format is a total disaster, and they're not bothering to fix that, and the sport's postseason is, consequently, a joke. It doesn't reflect well on the sport as a whole.

Everyone Murders

April 18th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^

Is it a chicken or egg issue at some level? 

The problem might be self-perpetuating.  Larger venues/cities are not actively pursuing regionals because they see the pathetic crowds, and who wants to be associated with that nonsense (especially if you lose money or merely break even in the process).  So they have them in consecutive years in freakin' Allentown, which won't exactly be flooded with people for the match-up.

And the larger venues/cities see that the crowds are still small (maybe even smaller), so they have even less interest.  

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.   

lhglrkwg

April 18th, 2017 at 5:06 PM ^

Move to home sites. It immediately solves the atrocious attendance at regionals, boosts the TV appeal, and reduces some of the utter randomness of one-and-done hockey / rewards the 1 seeds

Literally, if you go to home site regionals, your % capacity goes from 5% to 100% in one season. Those are all going to sell out

wile_e8

April 18th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^

It's not really a chicken or egg issue. There is a clear start here, and it's the NCAA's decions to move to away from home arenas for regionals. College hockey doesn't have enough fan support to fill arenas several hours away from any of the teams attending, so the only way the "neutral" arenas make money is if a local team is in attendance. They can get away with it in the east, where there are lots of teams in a small area and any regional site will be bound to host at least a couple teams within a short drive. But out west, most of the "neutral" sites only have one or two teams within a short drive, so the entire attendance is dependent on the local team making the tourney.

Since regional sites are given out years in advance, it's a giant bet that the local team will be good a few years down the line. Outside of North Dakota, there haven't been many teams worth betting on the past few years, which is how multiple sites ended up getting burned. Now the number of arenas that want to take that bet is very low.

lhglrkwg

April 18th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^

It makes me wonder if the poor attendance will almost end up forcing the NCAA to go back to home sites. When your only bid for a 'west' regional is Allentown PA, you know there are essentially no bidders. If it gets worse, you almost wonder if the NCAA will be forced to go to home sites just so they have somewhere to play.

There aren't a ton of arenas that are medium enough to be large enough but also not NHL sizes where it's 10% full. Not a ton of 5,000-10,000 cap arenas out there willing to roll the dice on losing a ton of money

trueblueintexas

April 18th, 2017 at 2:54 PM ^

My comment was in jest. In all seriousness, with these kinds of decisions it does start to look like a committee issue. Either they don't really need a committee because the sites are by default the "only four" that bid or the committee really sucks ass at getting sites to bid. I agreee with you, on campus games are the best solution. Either have a true committee that does work, or, disband the committee and just award it to the first four that apply. No reason to waste the money if the results are the same. Of course, somehow NCAA is actually an acronym for waste of money.

mGrowOld

April 18th, 2017 at 2:07 PM ^

I find it facinating that the NCAA can seemingly operate without the faintest whiff of accountability for poor decision-making year after year afer year year.  The same idiots who screwed up the formatting in the first place are still in charge, still making decisions and the fact that they can look at "crowds" such as this and not feel they've made a terrible mistake is mind-boggling to me.

Image result for small crowds hockey arenas ncaa

 

stephenrjking

April 18th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^

Ah, the Resch center. I actually made the four-hour drive and paid for four tickets to take my family there for the Michigan-Cornell game (Shawn Hunwick's last, as it turns out). I mean, it wasn't terrible, but without Wisconsin showing up there was no way that was going to have fans. Michigan managed to bring about 1000, I think? Not bad for a location six-plus hours from Ann Arbor. 

Also the closest a regional ever got to Michigan Tech, the host. The system is absolutely garbage to schools like that.

NittanyFan

April 18th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

These choices would indicate the answer is "no."  The NCAA may be catering to North Dakota here, but neither can they put a regional in a city that doesn't want one.  

Cincinnati/Miami University probably would have bid again (they hosted 3 of the last 4 years) if Miami was better.  Miami folk even said that getting home ice in the regionals was a primary reason for their bid in the first place.

Nothing at all geographically between Allentown, PA and the Dakotas definitely stinks for the majority of the B1G, CCHA and WCHA.

OwenGoBlue

April 18th, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^

As a general rule, all major sporting events should be held in cities people want to visit with big airports. This list is absurd. Toledo would be a giant step up as a host site.

WCHBlog

April 18th, 2017 at 2:33 PM ^

Fargo/Sioux Falls and Allentown were the only "western" bids submitted.

Toledo once had a new arena and were looking to fill dates with anything so they got an NCAA hockey regional and they absolutely lost their ass on the deal. They'll never bid again. Now it's Allentown's turn with their new arena. 

funkywolve

April 18th, 2017 at 2:53 PM ^

When these places bid for the event, I'm guessing they are banking on a big chunk of their revenue coming from concession sales, parking and probably a cut of the ticket sales.  When ticket sales and attendance are awful, they are left grabbing their ankles.

WCHBlog

April 18th, 2017 at 3:33 PM ^

"Turning the lights on" isn't cheap when you consider all the costs of arena set-up and staffing/running a game day operation. Plus, there are like a billion little requirements the NCAA expects a venue to do, and of course, the venue assumes all those costs. 

It adds up pretty quick, and when you only have maybe 500 people there like Toledo did, you don't make it back.

OwenGoBlue

April 18th, 2017 at 4:46 PM ^

It's the NCAA stuff I'm most curious about, like if there are fees or ticket obligations in the bids. Something they could waive in the future to get better sites and fan experience. I know hockey arena ops are expensive but arenas like Toledo's host 500 person events not infrequently and some NHL arenas even host high school hockey tournaments with similar attendance. The attendance seems like an obstacle they should be able to overcome to host games in places that are easier to get to (which would at least increase attendance marginally) if there are tweaks elsewhere.

Alton

April 18th, 2017 at 9:16 PM ^

The host must put up $150,000 of their own money to the NCAA. It strikes me as a completely ridiculous number, but obviously there are venues willing to put that up. If the event makes more than $150,000 then the host splits that 80/20 with the NCAA. The NCAA gets the 80, the host gets the 20. (!)

Alton

April 19th, 2017 at 10:58 AM ^

For anybody who wants to read the "who pays for what" details, the NCAA still has the regional bid instruction PDF up on their website:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI%20IH%20Regional%20Bid%20Spec…

The actual details are on page 21:

(1) The NCAA gets $150,000 from the host.

(2) The host gets paid for everything they provide (which is pretty much everything other than equipment plus travel & lodging for the teams and refs)--"budgeted expenses or actual expenses, whichever is less."

(3) The remainder of the receipts are split 80/20.

Alton

April 19th, 2017 at 12:27 PM ^

"Fargo/Sioux Falls and Allentown were the only 'western' bids submitted."

According to this article, your statement is not true.  http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/4253149-number-region…

According to North Dakota athletic director Brian Faison, who is a member of the committee, that's not the case:  "Faison, who is required to leave the room when UND's bids are discussed among the Committee, said that some home facilities did submit bids this time, but they weren't considered."

So (presumably) Yost did submit a bid.  Or some other schools who qualify--minimum 5,000 seats & ADA seating & video board & 5 locker rooms--submitted bids.  But they were not considered in favor of Allentown.

The only schools to get home regionals in the last 5 years have had representatives on the committee.  Michigan does not, so no home regional.

TCGoBlue

April 18th, 2017 at 2:25 PM ^

I can't even. Grand Forks/Fargo is one thing, it's near the school, but there are zero college hockey fans in Sioux Falls. Moronic. Asinine. Enraging.

lhglrkwg

April 18th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^

all these schools are totally against home site regionals, but North Dakota keeps getting de facto home regionals.

#1 seeds should host regionals. No one wants to go to Bridgeport. At this point Bridgeport has got to be getting tired of the tournament since they've had something like 20 consecutive regionals

NowTameInThe603

April 18th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^

No complaints here. I saw my first live Michigan sporting event thanks to the regional being in Manchester. Saw them beat up home team UNH 4-0 if I remember. Al Montoya in between the pipes.

One of my best friends is a Notre Dame fan so we plan to travel out there for both games in 18' and 19'. Cannot wait.

JamesBondHerpesMeds

April 18th, 2017 at 6:20 PM ^

As a native South Dakotan, I am enraged that a team from NORTH Dakota is poisoning the sweet, sweet nectar of a town known as Sioux Falls with its sponsorship of a Regional.

That is enough to make me lament this decision.

 

Neodoomium

April 18th, 2017 at 7:31 PM ^

Yeah, but if U of M were to submit Ann Arbor as a prospective site, the NCAA would angrily burn Yost down in lieu of a rejection letter.

They love two things: empty arenas and giving North Dakota home games they don't deserve.

drzoidburg

April 18th, 2017 at 10:22 PM ^

How in the world is this less unfair than when Yost hosted, and yet they won't let us host ever again it seems. Watching them play Boston this year as a 3 seed at "neutral site" with 98% wearing a Sioux (no, not Hawks) jersey was a joke

Single elimination hockey is the death knell of the sport for me, along with the near total lack of checking any more