Why Are There 16 Teams in the Tournament?

[watchmaker49]

They should drop back to 8 teams. Top four have home ice playing a best of 3 series. They (NCAA) would make a lot more money doing this. Paying expenses of 16 teams travel and low tickets sales, except for one arena, they had to lose money even considering what little money ESPN gave them.

[JohnboyND7]

They should drop back to 8 teams. Top four have home ice playing a best of 3 series. They (NCAA) would make a lot more money doing this. Paying expenses of 16 teams travel and low tickets sales, except for one arena, they had to lose money even considering what little money ESPN gave them.

Seems like someone is mad that UND got handled in the playoffs, in the city where the opponent was from.

[GFG]

I don't agree with this at all. With all the parity in college hockey the 16 team format is more competitive than ever. Hell you could damn near put it to 24 and have a hell of a tournament. Granted that's too many teams since there's only 58 total, but with all the parity in college hockey there's no reason to downsize the tournament. They just need to return to campus sites. Or else force 2 of the 4 regionals every year to be in a place like MSP, Boston or Detroit so that they get some attendance. I mean for christ's sake, Warroad could host a regional and get higher attendance than a couple of the regionals did this year

[The Sicatoka]

I gave my thoughts in a different thread:

Why not let the #1 seeds host with the requirement that they must host in an arena that holds at least 7000 people. Before the season every team would have to declare where they'd host if granted a #1 seed. If your home rink holds 7000, host there. If not, a team would have to declare where they'd host.

[The Sicatoka]

PS - Why 16 teams? Because over the last handful or so years, the #1 seeds are barely over 0.500 against the #4 seeds (teams 13-16 in the tournament).

[GFG]

I gave my thoughts in a different thread:

Why not let the #1 seeds host with the requirement that they must host in an arena that holds at least 7000 people. Before the season every team would have to declare where they'd host if granted a #1 seed. If your home rink holds 7000, host there. If not, a team would have to declare where they'd host.

Problem with that is I think only Wisco, UND, Omaha and Minnesota have rinks that hold 7,000+ people Not positive but if there's more schools there cant be many

[ihatethegophers]

Oh my, you are correct: 8 teams with capacity over 7,000

http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2011-2012/

[The Sicatoka]

Problem with that is I think only Wisco, UND, Omaha and Minnesota have rinks that hold 7,000+ people Not positive but if there's more schools there cant be many

I picked 7000 because if implemented it'd get negotiated down to 6000 in committee.

Even then, teams like Yale and Fairfield would declare DCS Center (where they hosted a regional this time). Tech would declare Resch in Green Bay. The Bawhstan schools would declare The Gawhden or some other venue that holds the requisite number. This year I'm guessing the top four would've looked something like (and using the 6000 minimum number):

BC - Conte Forum

Michigan - Yost Arena

Union - Pepsi Arena in Albany (biggest rink around there, hosts an AHL team)

UND - uh ... Engelstad Arena ... (stop here, that's a whole other forum to discuss)

[watchmaker49]

Seems like someone is mad that UND got handled in the playoffs, in the city where the opponent was from.

Not at all, if UND had been the 6th place team and had to travel to the 3rd ranked teams arena no matter where it was would have been fine with me. Having what 30% of all the teams making it is too many. Actually I am also thinking that the fans are getting the short end of the stick here as much as teams are. This year UND fans were lucky they only had to drive to St. Paul, along with the Gopher fans. What if both teams had gone out east then their fans could not have made the games and there would have been another empty arena. Take out the UND/Gopher out of St. Paul and how many tickets would have been sold? With an 18,000 seat arena with at best 2,000 fans like all the other regional sites how is this good for college hockey? The fan base is not large to start with so why not make life easier on the fans? I have never liked these regional tournaments. This is college hockey not basketball.

[The Sicatoka]

What I'd really like to see changed isn't number of teams but seeding

What I'd change:

- if they are using pre-determined sites you have to be a #1 or #2 seed to be at home, otherwise you get no guarantee of being at the site your school is hosting

- seed using KRACH, not PWR

[nodakvindy]

What I'd like to see is avoid intraconference matchups for as far as possible. If you have four teams from a conference, they should be separated one to each region. This year, four of the five CCHA teams were in one half of the draw. Use the ratings to establish the 16 teams, but to so slavishly stick to ranking for seeding is idiotic. The teams are generally close anyway, and with the minimal non-conference play, there is some question to the validity of various rankings.

I think this would have been an ideal bracket, in terms of spreading out the teams and also staying

Worcester -- Boston College-Michigan St. Ferris St.- Denver

Green Bay -- UND-Mass-Lowell, Miami-Cornell

St. Paul - Michigan-Air Force, Minnesota-Boston U.

Bridgeport - Union-W. Michigan, Minnesota-Duluth-Maine

All four brackets have one Hockey East, one WCHA and at least one CCHA team, with the two ECAC clubs on opposite halves of the bracket. Attendance would be decent, although would have been nice to get another eastern team into Worcester.

[Fetch]

PS the new uniforms were not so lcky

[The Sicatoka]

PS the new uniforms were not so lcky

"Icky"? I guess I didn't have you pegged as a 7th grade girl.

[ksixpack]

I would like to see it stay as 16 teams with the top 8 hosting the bottom 8 in a best of three series on the home campus of the higher seed (16 vs 1, 15 vs 2, etc). Then I would like to see the 8 winners go to a Great 8 tournament where the teams are reseeded 1-8 and there would be 4 games on Thursday (8 vs 1, 7 vs 2, etc.) with two in the afternoon and two at night. The 4 winners would play in the two semifinal games on Friday night and the the Championship game Sunday at noon.

The benifits of this would be numerous...

#1 Tournament Integrity...the best and highest ranked teams during the season would be have a great advantage of playing the lower seeded teams at home in a best of 3 and also lower ranked teams in the Great 8 tournament. The best teams over the first 6 months and 35 games of the season deserve this reward.

#2 Revenue...with this format there would be between 23 and 31 tournament games as opposed to the 15 games currently. Every one of those games would be played in jam packed arenas and not in poorly attended regional venues with no playoff atmosphere which is embarrassing when shown on TV. With the added home venue games and great 8 tournament there should be more buzz and a greater tv audience.

#3 Reduced Travel Expenses...travel costs for the tournament would be less as there are currently 20 travel teams in the current format (all 16 in the current regional format...unless you are Minnesota, and the 4 that make it to the frozen four) and only 16 in this new format...8 the first week and 8 for the great 8 tournament.

#4 Fan Experience...with the current tournament format you have to travel (unless you are Minnesota) to see your team play in the NCAA tournament. With the best of 3 opening round series at home, you get to see your team in the tournament. This would eliminate travel costs for fans as well as reward them for having a top 8 team. For example, look at the reward now for winning the WCHA...you get to watch your team play the #12 team in the league playoffs (yawn) and then it is on the road for 3 weekends (Final 5, Regional, Frozen Four) to see them try to capture a national title. The great 8 tournament would be awesome with twice the teams and fan bases there for the tournament.

[Siouxperfan7]

I would like to see it stay as 16 teams with the top 8 hosting the bottom 8 in a best of three series on the home campus of the higher seed (16 vs 1, 15 vs 2, etc). Then I would like to see the 8 winners go to a Great 8 tournament where the teams are reseeded 1-8 and there would be 4 games on Thursday (8 vs 1, 7 vs 2, etc.) with two in the afternoon and two at night. The 4 winners would play in the two semifinal games on Friday night and the the Championship game Sunday at noon.

The benifits of this would be numerous...

#1 Tournament Integrity...the best and highest ranked teams during the season would be have a great advantage of playing the lower seeded teams at home in a best of 3 and also lower ranked teams in the Great 8 tournament. The best teams over the first 6 months and 35 games of the season deserve this reward.

#2 Revenue...with this format there would be between 23 and 31 tournament games as opposed to the 15 games currently. Every one of those games would be played in jam packed arenas and not in poorly attended regional venues with no playoff atmosphere which is embarrassing when shown on TV. With the added home venue games and great 8 tournament there should be more buzz and a greater tv audience.

#3 Reduced Travel Expenses...travel costs for the tournament would be less as there are currently 20 travel teams in the current format (all 16 in the current regional format...unless you are Minnesota, and the 4 that make it to the frozen four) and only 16 in this new format...8 the first week and 8 for the great 8 tournament.

#4 Fan Experience...with the current tournament format you have to travel (unless you are Minnesota) to see your team play in the NCAA tournament. With the best of 3 opening round series at home, you get to see your team in the tournament. This would eliminate travel costs for fans as well as reward them for having a top 8 team. For example, look at the reward now for winning the WCHA...you get to watch your team play the #12 team in the league playoffs (yawn) and then it is on the road for 3 weekends (Final 5, Regional, Frozen Four) to see them try to capture a national title. The great 8 tournament would be awesome with twice the teams and fan bases there for the tournament.

I kinda like what you got here. Only thing that I would change would be having the "Great 8" tournament the weekend directly after the first round games. Also, putting a day off from the semifinals to the Finals. So if it were this year, you would have the first round games this last weekend, then you would have the quarterfinals this Thursday, Semifinals Friday, and then take Saturday off and have the Championship on Sunday. This way you can avoid the week layoff and the loss of excitement without having to compete with the Basketball Final 4. Just piggy backing off ksixpack's idea...just a thought.

[JohnboyND7]

I would like to see it stay as 16 teams with the top 8 hosting the bottom 8 in a best of three series on the home campus of the higher seed (

Best of 3 is lame. Gives the better teams too big of an advantage. They already get to play at home...now you want the crappier team to pull off two upsets? That is asking a lot. Now if you want to make it a best of 3 with game 2 being at the lower seeded team, it would be fair. But then you have both teams traveling a lot and taking up time which is also lame.

No best of 3.

[ksixpack]

Best of 3 is lame. Gives the better teams too big of an advantage. They already get to play at home...now you want the crappier team to pull off two upsets? That is asking a lot. Now if you want to make it a best of 3 with game 2 being at the lower seeded team, it would be fair. But then you have both teams traveling a lot and taking up time which is also lame.

No best of 3.

I couldn't disagree more. The "crappier" team should not have any advantages...the advantage should always go to the better team from the past 6 months/35 games of the season. That is how it is in every professional playoff format and this is how it is in the WCHA playoffs. They used to play a 2 game total goal series at the higher seeds rink to advance to the frozen four back in the 80's so this is not without NCAA tournament history...I much prefer best of 3 to 2 game total goals...

[Dave Berger]

I couldn't disagree more. The "crappier" team should not have any advantages...the advantage should always go to the better team from the past 6 months/35 games of the season. That is how it is in every professional playoff format and this is how it is in the WCHA playoffs. They used to play a 2 game total goal series at the higher seeds rink to advance to the frozen four back in the 80's so this is not without NCAA tournament history...I much prefer best of 3 to 2 game total goals...

Two game total goals... ugh.

Dave

[Goon]

Two game total goals... ugh.

Dave

I was never fond of that format.

[Fetch]

lucky

[Nodaker]

This year the goofs stayed in Minneapolis because they were the host for that regional. What is it that a team has to do to be a host? Is it just a way for a team to guarantee what regional they are in if they make it that far?

[Dave Berger]

This year the goofs stayed in Minneapolis because they were the host for that regional. What is it that a team has to do to be a host? Is it just a way for a team to guarantee what regional they are in if they make it that far?

I really think it's the other way around. The NCAA needs to line up schools/venues in advance to host the tournament games. The incentive for teams to bid and host is that, should they advance, they are guaranteed to be placed in that regional.

From the NCAA perspective, it would be plain silly for them not to place host schools at their "own" regional. It guarantees them a local fan base, and allows them to sell tickets in advanceto fans hoping that their team will receive a bid to the tournament.

Dave

[JohnboyND7]

I couldn't disagree more. The "crappier" team should not have any advantages...the advantage should always go to the better team from the past 6 months/35 games of the season. That is how it is in every professional playoff format and this is how it is in the WCHA playoffs. They used to play a 2 game total goal series at the higher seeds rink to advance to the frozen four back in the 80's so this is not without NCAA tournament history...I much prefer best of 3 to 2 game total goals...

Making it best of 3, all on the road, your basically telling the home team, "Hey, as long as you don't totally suck it up, your moving on." 1 game. Make it count. Can you imagine the 1980 Olympics if the US had to play against the Soviets best 2 out of 3? And you realize that football does not use that format. Football says, "You got one game. Let's see who is better." I like it that way.

Agree to disagree.

[Doc Holliday]

I think declaring a site and higher seeds hosting is a good starting point for discussion. The problem I see is reserving buildings. Multi-purpose venues are not going to want to block off a weekend that realistically, has more chance of NOT hosting a regional than of hosting. You can't tell the Pepsi Center that they need to tell the Nuggets/ Avs that they have to be on the road that weekend because CC, Denver or Air Force “might” host a hockey regional. But I don't think it's an awful idea. I personally like the idea of #1 seeds host, but the other three schools are guaranteed a certain number of tickets (10% I guess for each school) blocked off.

My thought: Keep it at 16 team, but just do two arenas. Example: the Midwest & West regional are both played at Xcel, but one of the regions is a Thursday/Saturday while the other one is a Friday/Sunday. The Frozen Four has a day off, why not allow it for the regions? Yeah, it may be harder for some fans to travel because it requires days off, etc., but it seems to not be a problem for basketball fans that travel. Also, I think more people may be inclined to travel knowing that they can get walk up tickets and attendance may be better, especially for the Thursday & Friday sessions. Saturday may not be bad, but Sunday will struggle. However, it already struggles. I also think more venues may be interested in bidding if they know that they're going to get more games. I just feel like more fans would be willing to travel. In the west, you could have Xcel, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Denver, Milwaukee. With the east, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Albany etc. If you just want to go with the current arenas in the rotation and not go NHL venues, the attendance #’s probably suggest that it may be a good idea at this point in time.

I do think something needs to be changed.

[82SiouxGuy]

Making it best of 3, all on the road, your basically telling the home team, "Hey, as long as you don't totally suck it up, your moving on." 1 game. Make it count. Can you imagine the 1980 Olympics if the US had to play against the Soviets best 2 out of 3? And you realize that football does not use that format. Football says, "You got one game. Let's see who is better." I like it that way.

Agree to disagree.

I believe that all conferences use a best of 3, all in the home of the higher seed, for the first round of their tournaments. Pretty much every year there are teams that pull off the upsets, like Michigan Tech this year. For a national tournament you would think that the teams would be even more closely matched than the top and bottom of most conferences. 8 vs 9, 7 vs 10, 6 vs 11 and 5 vs 12 would almost always be pretty close matchups. The main advantage is that the best teams would advance more often than the current situation.

Football is always a 1 game situation. College hockey almost always plays a 2 game series. So a best 2 out of 3 is as good a fit for college hockey as a 1 and done. All levels of pro hockey use a multiple game playoff system.