NCAA releases 2014 regional sites (Hockey)

Submitted by lhglrkwg on November 1st, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Your 2014 regional sites are

Worcester, MA (Northeast)
Bridgeport, CT (East)
Cincinnati (Midwest) - US Bank Arena (where Michigan won the '96 title)
St Paul (West) - Xcel Center

I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of this, but the NCAA freakin loves putting regionals in Worcester, Bridgeport, and St Paul. It seems like they're there almost every year. I'm not sure why Michigan and New York state don't host more since Michigan has 7 D1 teams and New York has 10. However, I should say that these regionals will probably not be empty caverns of emptiness.

H/T: USCHO
 

Comments

justingoblue

November 1st, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^

Football is not under the NCAA money-making umbrella. The NCAA makes most of its money on the March Madness contracts (mens and womens combine for something like 84% of their revenue), with the rest coming from ticket sales and smaller television contracts for other championship events (i.e. hockey), in addition to some small paycheck from EA to use the NCAA logo in their NCAA Football series.

Nobody is saying the NCAA would make $50b on the hockey championship; what got said was they're leaving money on the table, which isn't really debatable, and definitely isn't smart business-wise.

WolvinLA2

November 1st, 2012 at 3:35 PM ^

Even if we went along with your gift shop analogy, this would be like hiding the gift shop in the back where no one could find it despite there being a great location for it out front.

The gift shop exists to make money, right? Even if it's not funding a space program, might as well make as much off of it as you can. That's what people are saying.

Lionsfan

November 1st, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

I don't why they don't have more regional sites in Michigan and New York, but maybe it's because Minnesota and New England are wrongfully seen as the only American places that love hockey?

I dunno, it's pretty stupid though

rmic2

November 1st, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^

I travel to Cincy fairly regularly for work, so would be great to see Michigan sent to Cincy for the regionals.

I live in Pittsburgh, so I am already planning to see UM in the finals.

Alton

November 1st, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

No, the last time the regional was in St Paul, the arena wasn't even half full.  Wisconsin, St Cloud, Northern Michigan and Vermont drew 7300 for the semifinals and 7200 for the final. 

Still more than the other regionals, but not all that much more.

 

Sac Fly

November 1st, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^

If they shifted the format like baseball, the benefits would be huge. That would get rid of games like Michigan vs UNO in an empty building in St. Louis. It has a very negative impact on recruiting.

Alton

November 1st, 2012 at 2:04 PM ^

That's seemingly only true in hockey and Men's basketball.

They don't have a problem in rewarding 1-seeds in field hockey, Men's and Women's soccer, Men's and Women's volleyball, baseball, softball, Men's and Women's lacrosse or Men's and Women's tennis.  I don't know how this "no home sites" mania arose in hockey, but the sooner it disappears the better.

I suspect that I can add it to my list of "NCAA rule changes made specifically because of situations that arose in Michigan games" that I was discussing in another post.

justingoblue

November 1st, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

For the record, I'm aware that one-seeds in other sports get home advantage (softball is a nice example that you and I have talked about before), that was more of a joke about NCAA hockey's rules than the NCAA at large, which I guess wasn't all that clear since there were two replies.

wile_e8

November 1st, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^

No - he already mentioned baseball, which tends to give the best teams home games. With hockey, I'm pretty sure the reluctance to give regionals to the #1 seed has a lot to do with a combination of (a) a lot of teams having multipurpose facilities that won't necessarily be free to host regionals (this is why the B1G tourney switched to neutral sites) and (b) a lot of teams have crappy small arenas and wouldn't be good regional hosts.

justingoblue

November 1st, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

when this happens in other sports, they just move the regional to a different venue. For example, Cal hasn't been able to host a softball regional (lately, possibly still), so I believe the rule is that Cal would have to find another facility in the immediate area, or it gets shifted to a two seed's home stadium and Cal would play there as a "host".

WCHBlog

November 1st, 2012 at 3:35 PM ^

1. The reason they keep picking the same sites out east and with Minnesota is because they hand out regionals based on bids, and if nobody else bids to host those events, the same places keep getting picked.There's just very few places that meet the NCAA's criteria for what they want out of a regional site and have the interest to do so. About the only reason Cincinnati was picked was because they were a new choice.

2. Home sites would be infinitely better. The NCAA's problem is similar to the issue they had with home sites for football; namely the possibility of a team with an inadequate or unavailable arena earning the right to host.

Buck Killer

November 1st, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^

They are both shit holes. I am a huge Detroit sports fan, but the Detroit citizens elect fuckwads. The JLA is a dirty old shit hole. Why WOULD they come here? Vote the racist turds out of office and rebuild the Joe. Duh