OT: Could hockey regionals be coming back to campus sites?
Open-ended reporting which could be good news around here; IIRC, there was a lot of whining about Yost, especially from Colorado College, back in the day which drove neutral sites.
No regional sites have been selected past 2017. And, according to Kristin Fasbender, the NCAA’s director of championships and alliances, the committee and the college hockey body as a whole will explore whether a new structure to the regional portion of the tournament, which could include playing games at campus sites, is a more viable option.
http://www.uscho.com/2016/03/20/ncaa-committee-sees-straightforward-pat…
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^
For those too young to have been able to attend a regional in Yost, that would be amazing. I really wish I could have been at the Molly game in 2002...
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^
Does anyone know or wonder if Molly knows how famous she is around these parts or if she still thinks we are truly horrible people?
If you Google her it appears she lives in the Denver area, has a husband and two kids, works as teacher and has a photography studio.
Aaaaaand we have a new leader in the clubhouse for the creepiest post of 2016...
That is probably not the same Molly. Also, it would probably be wiser just to say that it is possible to google her, rather than vomit out every piece of information you were able to obtain.
She might know. She might not. I would actually enjoy interviewing Molly for an oral history of the Molly game. Ultimately, she was guilty of no more than giving a very clumsy quote to a student newspaper. Nobody even knows which cheerleader she was on the ice.
The really interesting information, to me, is the identity of the person who was wearing the Blizzard Mascot costume. He was the most significant actor in the entire event.
she has become your typical female in her mid-30s (husband, kids, job). Imagine that.
If someone randomly out of the blue asked her about some statement she made 14 years ago when she was younger and dumber, yes, she may think someone was "truly horrible" (e.g., a creepy stalker).
I once went to a wedding in Colorado where I tried to get a Michigan game on BTN turned on at the bar, someone mentioned that it pissed off the wedding photographer.
Holy shit.
The Regionals at Yost in 1998 and 2002 are 2 of the 3 most exciting sports events I have ever been.to. Literally, Yost was so loud you could not talk to the person sitting next to when those winning goals were scored. Just absolutely crazy.
thank you for posting it. very enjoyable. and wow, that would've been a game to attend.
i wonder how denver liked walking down stairs in their skates. that took some getting used to for me.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
They've talked about this before, at this level. They subsequently doubled down on regionals. Part of the problem is that there is a block of schools that like the empty regionals for both competitive and attention reasons, since they get none. Certain people say, "Who cares if nobody shows up? It's neutral and that's good for low seeds."
But of course it totally insults high seeds. Minnesota State had its best season ever last year, for example, and their reward was... a regional in South Bend, too far for their fans to attend in reasonable numbers. Unjust.
There are several basic scenarios, a number of which have been explored to large extents by Brian, Alton, myself, and others. I see three major options, subjectively ordered from least to most preferable for me.
3. Four different four-team regionals, held at the home rink of the #1 seeds rather than neutral sites.
2. Eight high seeds host corresponding lower seeds at home (either one or three-game series). Winners play at one or more neutral "super-regionals" the next weekend.
1. Eight high seeds host lower seeds at home. Then, highest four remaining seeds host remaining lower seeds for FF berths.
There's a lot of detail involved in the strengths and weaknesses of these ideas. I may or may not get into some of that here, we'll see where it goes.
FWIW it needs to happen but I'll believe it when I see it.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^
It'll never go through if it's up for a vote. Too many small schools who will never be good enough to host a regional will vote against this because of some BS about an even playing field. It negates all the success you had during the regular season by turning it all into a coin flip competition.
My dream would be expanding the tournament by a weekend - still 16 teams
Round of 16 - Best of 3 at higher seeds home ice
Quarters - Best of 3 at higher seeds home ice
Frozen Four - as is
Eliminates a lot of the randomness, rewards higher seeds, and all of your regionals will be sell outs and incredible atmospheres. I should stop dreaming of this though because we all know it'll probably never happen
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^
Best of 3 has some logistical challenges, such as arena availability and television, that can be overcome by leaving the first round at one game.
The key with the "home regional" concept is to not have regionals at all, but just have the top 8 seeds host in the first round. A fairly high number of schools, even small schools, are in play for a top 8 seed.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^
Best of 3's were done by the old WCHA in the first round. Logistically they seemed to survive.
The female WCHA hockey conference still does best of 3's.
It's a great way to do the first round.
I think we all agree the first round of the NCAA should be hosted by the higher seed. Let's start there as a first improvement and figure out the nuts and bolts later.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:50 PM ^
Best of 3 is a long-running staple of college hockey that was an annual feature of Michigan's CCHA season for a quarter century until the B1G formed. The Big Ten "all six to the Joe/X" format is unusual in college hockey, with most conferences holding a first round series at a home site in a best-of-3 format.
It's a nice way to pad ticket sales and give fans and teams some extra games; in practice in these conference tournaments the underdogs rarely ever win. There have been a couple of exceptions (Michigan's glorious 2-game sweep at Munn being the best of those) but for the most part things go chalk. Michigan made the Joe something like 25 years in a row in that format.
Now, best of three did once feature in the NCAA tournament. And one of Yost's most important events took place in that context: Cornell's 1991 visit to Yost Ice Arena for a best-of-3. Cornell brought fans, who brought chants, which quickly metastacized in Michigan's burgeoning fanatic section, and Yost then became the legedary terror of college hockey that it was for the 90s and 00s.
There are, however, some issues with best of three. For starters, arena availability is a question for a non-trivial minority of teams. In conference playoffs most teams reserve availability for a possible home playoff series, since there is a great chance that they will play at home. Even that is tough for a couple teams, like Ohio State, whose arenas get used for a lot of different events.
It's a lot harder to reserve a multi-use arena for a weekend of games that have only a slim chance of taking place. Playing only one game makes this task easier, since an arena that is scheduled for a concert or an event can still make space for a few hours on a Friday or Sunday or whenever to hold the game.
Another issue is television: best-of-3 series don't get a lot of tv coverage. ESPN currently produces every NCAA tournament game, a task that is relatively simple with only four regional locations (Incidently, probably the main argument in favor of regionals). It is a stretch to go to 8 home sites; it's a much larger stretch to televise 8 3-game series. It simply wouldn't happen. You would get, at best, a "feature" game or two on each night, with most of the games taking place in the dark. Single games at least give us a chance.
Also relevant: The major obstacle to home regionals is already the block of mid and low-level teams who like the empty neutral sites, and competition is a big reason for that. Best-of-3 significantly increases the probability of the favorites (already playing at home) advancing. One-shot games at least leave underdogs with a decent chance of pulling off an upset, and would likely be a necessary concession to gain the votes needed to change the format.
I get what you're saying, but another way of wording the common complaint of smaller teams "Best-of-3 significantly increases the probability of the favorites (already playing at home) advancing" or "home sites for the higher ranked team makes the more likely to win" which I can only respond bluntly with "so what?".
You are Joe Hockey Team A and you're 30-8-1. Joe Hockey Team B goes 22-15-2 and thinks they should get an even shot. Well no, we have a regular season for a reason and Team A earned the advantage
There are two issues:
1. People like the possibility of an upset. Especially schools with a vote that know they have little likelihood of being a higher seed.
2. The ratings can be seen as a bit arbitrary. Why is UMD, with a record of 18-15-5, in the tournament, while Michigan Tech, with a record of 23-9-5, left home? Why is a 24-7-5 Michigan team ranked behind a 23-9-6 Denver club? The pairwise rankings are entirely numerically based, but much of the variance in the rankings comes from a relatively small number of non-conference games, many played early in the season or during a time when some of the best players are gone for World Juniors.
I like the idea that home ice is earned, but there are some valid counter-arguments.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:47 PM ^
Apparently in the 80's they even did it as a 2-game aggregate scoring method
Per wikipedia:
1981–1987
8 teams (2 game, total goals first round at higher seed)
1988
12 teams (2 game, total goals first two rounds at higher seed)
1989–1991
12 teams (best of 3 games first two rounds series at higher seed)
So some form of this concept worked for a decade before it went back to single game elimination again. I know TV is a big consideration here but I know there's a number of formats out there (including your suggestion) that are way better than playing in St. Louis in front of 20 people
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^
I spent a lot of time discussing the need for home-site playoffs on USCHO for three consecutive springs a few years ago. The thread linked here was the last one I posted, and the OP links back to several other threads in which the issues and numbers are thoroughly explored.
To sum up: The college hockey postseason is an anticlimactic joke in every way except at the Frozen Four. It hurts the sport with fans, with players deciding between college and Major Junior, and in its own bottom line. Home playoff games would draw more fans to more exciting environments, make more money, and produce a better product.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^
I like stephenrjking's idea to have the #1 seeds host the regionals on their home ice. Still gives a reward for being a 1 seed, while not going totally home ice for all of the higher seeds. It also puts the regionals in areas where college hockey is a thing and allows for some fan excitement. I really have no idea why this isn't happening and would love for someone to give even a half-assed explanation as to how this current regional set-up is helping........anyone.
Many things in life revolve around money. An ideal solution would be to have Michigan host, but not really benefit financially. Everyone, including Michigan, benefits monetarily because the stands are full. but if Michigan covers the other teams travel expenses, and splits the gate 50/50, that gives a lot more incentive for a team to travel. Yes, it is Michigan's home ice, and a hostile fan base. But there's so much more excitment, and people in the seats means more money for everyone.
That's not how NCAA does things in softball or baseball, for example.
The top seeds (16 in baseball & softball) host regionals, and the NCAA pays the visitors to travel to the host site and they pay for the hotels as well. The NCAA will shuffle the seedings somewhat to ensure that they don't have to pay for too many flights--NCAA rules say that if a team has to travel more than 400 miles to their regional, they get to fly; otherwise, they have to drive.
No expense is involved for Michigan (the NCAA covers the prices of the lights, the grounds crew, etc.) In return, the NCAA sets the ticket prices and takes the first $25,000 in ticket revenue--that number of course varies depending on the sport & the round. Michigan then gets to keep the rest. The only expense to Michigan is if they don't cover that $25,000 minimum--they have to make up the difference to the NCAA. If a team doesn't want to take that chance, they don't bid on the tournament, although that rarely happens any more since the money is so miniscule compared to the revenues of an entire major athletic department.
I don't see why hockey couldn't adapt that model, which they use successfully in many different sports--field hockey, volleyball, baseball, softball, tennis, lacrosse, and probably a few others that I am forgetting.
The primary difference is, I think, the arena. All your other examples--field hockey, baseball, softball, tennis--have facilities that are so specialized they are not being used for anything else, and are therefore open at the time of postseason play. The hockey facilities, on the other hand, are often shared, and booked for other stuff. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but it's apparently why Wisconsin and OSU don't want to host the B1G tournament on campus, so I imagine it's a concern for the other hockey schools as well.
We have had on-campus postseason hockey in the past, and not once did a team that earned home ice pass it up.
We should refuse to design an entire NCAA postseason around the fact that Wisconsin tore down their hockey rink. If Wisconsin can't handle hosting, they can play on the road. The same is true for other teams as well. I know that at least 8 of the 16 schools that make the tournament in any year would be willing to play some games on their home ice.
Depends upon the arena. UMD uses Amsoil Arena, which is part of Duluth's fairly well-used convention center. There is, in fact, a Harlem Globetrotter's game scheduled this week.
But it's on Thursday. The nice thing about the one-game scenario I outlined is that even an event like that on the weekend can be scheduled around, allowing a hockey game to be played.
It's a consideration, but I don't think it's huge. Most arenas won't be fully used this weekend.
I just went to the websites of the hockey rinks of all 8 top seeeds; none of them have any events scheduled all weekend (except St. Cloud, which seems to have a kid's birthday party scheduled for Saturday night). I assume that the St. Cloud event is easily cancelled or not even scheduled if the NCAA had a home-ice policy for hockey.
So a "lacrosse-style" format that keeps single elimination would work something like this:
Notre Dame at #7 Michigan, Fri, 7:30
Boston University at #6 Denver, Fri, 8:00 MT
Ferris State at #2 St Cloud State, Sat, 3:00 CT
Harvard at #5 Boston College, Sat, 6:30
Northeastern at #3 North Dakota, Sat, 8:00 CT
Minnesota-Duluth at #4 Providence, Sun, 3:00
Holy Cross at #1 Quinnipiac, Sun, 5:30
Yale at #8 Mass.-Lowell, Sun, 8:00
You could also have a best-of-three format; it doesn't really matter. All 8 rinks are available for hockey all weekend. The advantage of single-elimination is that you could show all 8 games on the same channel (ESPNU?). The advantage of best-of-three is that more hockey is always better than less hockey.
There is speculative talk about teams like Iowa and Nebraska (both have new, usable rinks in town, which is a big issue). However, Notre Dame's admission in time for 2017-2018 tells me that no teams are close to starting a program.
The logic goes like this: the Big Ten is almost certain to add another school along with Notre Dame to keep the conference balanced, and would not have solicited ND at this time if it did not plan to do so. However, the time table is quick enough that there is not time for a new program to start and begin play by that season. Therefore, the Big Ten is planning on a new, different associate hockey member, a school that is already playing.
And because they are expecting that, they have no expectation of an existing B1G school starting a program in the near future. If they did (say, Iowa, for the 2018-2019 season) they would have delayed any move on Notre Dame to coincide with the season that team would join in conference play.
I think we should interpret this as the Big Ten was unhappy at 6, no one else is near joining, so we're adding Notre Dame and Arizona State (or I suppose someone like North Dakota but I'd be very surprised)
People have written articles about it but there doesn't seem to be much movement for a B1G school to start a varsity ice hockey program. Most of the other schools do not have the facilities for a varsity program. Nebraska's basketball arena can be used for hockey but there doesn't seem to be a movement to start a program. Illinois is a school that probably would consider it if it were financially viable.
There are a lot of barriers - facilities, scholarships, operations costs and Title IX being the most notable.
Below is a link (excuse the source) that discusses it.
There's a very, very easy way for a school to comply with Title IX if it wants to start a mens' hockey program.
Easy but costly to fund a women's sport with 18 scholarships.
Nebraska
Rink?: Yes, either their own arena or the Lincoln Stars arena
Why not: There's a rumor they worked something out with UNO to keep UNO as the only hockey teams in the Nebraska system
Iowa
Rink?: Literally across the street from Iowa's campus is Coralville and they're building a 7,000 person arena. Will be used for Iowa's ACHA team.
Why not: Sure seems like a slam dunk once that arena is in
Schools that may interested but have no rink: Illinois, Northwestern
Schools that I've never even heard a rumor about: Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland
Notre Dame hosted a regional on its home ice in 2015. They didn't qualify for the tournament but I think they would have played there if they did.
The NCAA appears to have a rule: "Regionals may not be placed on campus, unless an administrator at that school is the chairman of the NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Committee."
Tom Nevala of Notre Dame was the chairman when his committee received bids for hosting the 2015 NCAA hockey regionals.
The regional drawing has been pitiful. It will be interesting to see in Cincinnati this weekend. Games at 2 pm and 5:30 pm on a Friday make it even more difficult.
Based on how the NCAA runs things, there are 3 possible directions this could go:
(1) Lacrosse-Style
We have a single-game (or best-of-3) first round during week 1 at the top 8: Holy Cross at #1 Quinnipiac, Yale at #8 Mass.-Lowell, Minnesota-Duluth at #4 Providence, Harvard at #5 Boston College, Ferris State at #2 St Cloud State, Notre Dame at #7 Michigan, Northeastern at #3 North Dakota and Boston University at #6 Denver.
Week 2 is single-games at neutral sites (let's say Boston & Chicago's NHL arenas): at Boston: Quinnipiac/HC winner v UML/Yale winner and Providence/UMD winner v BC/Harvard winner. at Chicago: SCSU/FSU winner v Michigan/NDame winner, NDakota/NEastern winner v Denver/BU winner.
Week 3 is the Frozen four as always.
(2) Field Hockey-style
We have 4 regionals (single-elimination) during week 1 at the top 4: at Quinnipiac: Quinnipiac v Northeastern, Mass.-Lowell v Harvard; at St Cloud State: SCSU v Ferris St, Michigan v Minnesota-Duluth; at North Dakota: N Dakota v N Dame, Denver v Boston University; at Providence: Providence v Holy Cross, Boston College v Yale
Week 2 is off (just like it is now) and week 3 is the Frozen four as always.
(3) Old Time NCAA Hockey-style
Week 1 is 8 best-of-3 series: Holy Cross at #1E Quinnipiac, Boston University at #4W Michigan, Harvard at #2W North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth at #3E Boston College, Notre Dame at #1W St Cloud State, Northeastern at #4E Mass.-Lowell, Ferris State at #2E Providence, Yale at #3W Denver.
Week 2 is 4 best-of-3 series at the higher remaining seed: HC/Qpc winner v BU/Mich winner, Harv/NDk winner v UMD/BC winner, NDm/SCS winner v NE/UML winner, FSU/Prov winner v Yale/DU winner.
Week 3 is the Frozen four as always.
expand field to 24...Top 4 Seeds host 4 team regionals..#2 seeds placed in nearest geographical region remaining 16 teams play a one game play in and are placed geographically...I am sick of watching these games in empty arenas...no energy at all
There is no way the NCAA would approve an expansion to 24 teams for a 60-team sport. Their guideline says between 17 and 30 percent; not a chance that 40 percent is permitted.
If another 20 schools add hockey, then maybe.
been stagnant for a long time...Look how lacrosse has just exploded while hockey stays at the same few teams give or a take a couple of new ones...Schools like Neb, and Iowa, Ill, Ind and other Midwest, Northern schools should have Hockey programs but dont..Its not like there arent hockey facilities in those states..Just dont understand why hoceky doesnt grow all that much..If Quinnipiac can have a team so can Nebraska
If anything, the tournament should probably contract back to 12 teams. As it stands, teams barely over .500 can get in if their RPI is right
16 is a good number because you need room for 2-3 auto bids that shouldn't be there in the first place. If a #4 can knock off a #1 (which seems to happen every year) then the number seems OK.
Can you specify what the whining was regarding Yost??
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:00 PM ^
The main problem is that Michigan always won.
There were some other issues; the student section was quite rowdy and their behavior was seen as troubling. While I do not know of specific incidents, I remember hearing that some other fans were treated poorly. This does not surprise me. I believe Michigan was actually fined for this.
It's worth noting that the student section for the regionals in 2002 consisted of only two sections, but they were right on center ice within easy shouting distance of opposing parents and fans. If I recall correctly, they were moved for the regional in 2003.
I don't think CC ever complained that loudly about the regional. Denver did, specifically insisting that they get the "nice" locker room that was usually Michigan's, since they were the region's #1 seed. After Michigan stunned them, Red was direct in his postgame press conference: "Maybe they shouldn't have taken our locker room away."