I tend to agree. But here are a couple of counterpoints for the sake of discussion:
1. Neutral sites actually have the potential to increase exposure. Hosting postseason games in hockey hotbeds and successful markets, while rewarding the home teams, will primarily serve existing fans and season-ticket holders. And regional sites are almost always larger than many campus venues, so assume best case scenario - college hockey completely takes off from a spectator standpoint, even in underserved markets - demand will far outpace supply.
2. Notwithstanding the vagaries of neutral site selection and geographical seeding, fans can actually be assured of seeing their team at least occasionally with minimal travel or hassle. Let's say you support a program that is consistently in the second eight of the PW, and your school is modestly successful at bidding to host OR stands to benefit from geographical seeding. Under a home-site model, you would virtually never see your team in the postseason without (1) travel, and (2) fighting host fans over tickets. The neutral site model allows fans to buy tickets to a specific regional, plan well in advance, and if the stars align and their team qualifies - and is placed locally, take in some post season hockey. Worst case scenario, the team isn't placed, the fans can either go as non-committed spectators, or sell their seats to fans of the qualifiers.
UND's success at bidding for regionals seems to have benefited UND fans more often than not, and has allowed locals access to important post-season action, even when the Sioux have not been in the mix. For example, watching huge upsets like HC over UMN, or AIC over SCSU, in person just hits different, and the thought of losing that for 'just one more game at the Ralph' might be a close call for some. Maybe someone can crunch numbers and see if the recent spate of Fargo/SF regionals have ultimately netted more 'home' games for UND than a theoretical home site model.
Fun questions to kick around.