Possible Changes To NCAA Tourney

[watchmaker49]

Now how not changing the name would matter?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/251592/group/homepage/

I think everyone here could agree with this. Which 4 schools will whine against it the most? Let me see. I guess maybe Minnesota, BC, BU, and Michigan?

[Sodbuster]

Now how not changing the name would matter?

http://www.grandfork...group/homepage/

I think everyone here could agree with this. Which 4 schools will whine against it the most? Let me see. I guess maybe Minnesota, BC, BU, and Michigan?

That would be my four guesses.

[as15]

I think having the first round at a home site is the only way to level the playing field. Western teams are at a disadvantage due to being so spread out. Take this year for example the regional sites are in Toledo, Providence, Grand Rapids, and Manchester. If UND is the #1 overall seed and gets placed in the Midwest region in Grand Rapids, which would be the closest regional, it is still located 900 miles away. For a fan from Grand Forks to attend these games, a flight is almost a necessity, its too far to drive for a weekend. This basically nullifies any advantage UND would have from being the top seed.

Lets look at it the other way now. For example, if BU is the 16th seed this year, which should theoretically give them the least advantage of any team in the tournament. The furthest regional from Boston is 835 miles away, and two are within 60 miles. They could essentially be the worst team in the tournament and still play in front of a lot of their own fans. Eastern teams have a lot of advantages when it comes to regional placements. What is the closest possible regional to Grand Forks? St. Paul, which is still a 5 hour drive. Almost every eastern team will be within 2 hours drive of two regional sites, which basically guarantees that they will be placed in one of those two sites. The majority of western teams will have at the very least a long bus ride, sometimes even a flight to get to the closest regional site.

[watchmaker49]

The one selling point to the NCAA in this debate is $$$$$$$$$$$! Look at how empty most of the arenas are every year? There were more people at the UND/MN game that at most of those sites combined. UND would sell 22,000 tickets alone. Wisconsin 20-30K tickets. MN 18,000 and so forth. They are already flying teams around the country and payin hotel bills so one would think this would be more profitable for them also. Which inturn would make bigger checks to the teams.

[fightingsioux4life]

This would be so awesome! Imagine how jacked up The Ralph would be for this! The sooner we stop having regionals in non-hockey cities, the better.

[watchmaker49]

This would be so awesome! Imagine how jacked up The Ralph would be for this! The sooner we stop having regionals in non-hockey cities, the better.

CLAP CLAP CLAP! CHEER CHEER CHEER!

[yababy8]

How would best of three fit into the home regional scheme? Have a two weekend regional? With games being played in home arena's of highest seed for each of the three series (semi and finals)?

[as15]

How would best of three fit into the home regional scheme? Have a two weekend regional? With games being played in home arena's of highest seed for each of the three series (semi and finals)?

I believe it would be a two weekend regional. The first weekend there would be series at 8 different locations, whoever is the higher seed in that game, that is where the game will be played. The next weekend, it will be down to 8 teams, it didn't specify in the article, but if they want to still have a Frozen Four, that would mean each team would play one game that second weekend to get down to 4 teams. They could probably due this at two different sites (East and West or something) or have one large "Super Regional" with all 4 games played over a period of two days. The only issue would be that fans of teams would travel only to see their team play once, which most people probably don't want to do, especially if it is half way across the country.

[yababy8]

I believe it would be a two weekend regional. The first weekend there would be series at 8 different locations, whoever is the higher seed in that game, that is where the game will be played. The next weekend, it will be down to 8 teams, it didn't specify in the article, but if they want to still have a Frozen Four, that would mean each team would play one game that second weekend to get down to 4 teams. They could probably due this at two different sites (East and West or something) or have one large "Super Regional" with all 4 games played over a period of two days. The only issue would be that fans of teams would travel only to see their team play once, which most people probably don't want to do, especially if it is half way across the country.

Why not just have the regional finals be best of three as well-at the school that has the higher seed.

[jodcon]

If they would just reward the #1 seeds with the tournament in their barn they wouldn't have to worry about fairness of travel, take a week off after the league tournaments IF they need to for setting up the logistics and ticket sales, then play the regionals at the top seeds house and the Frozen Four at the predetermined site. I would bet attendance would be substantially better too.

I would really not like to see a best-of-three first round the way the WCHA is set up, we could be looking at 9 games in 17 days, that would be a wreck, and I think other conferences play a similar format.

Depending on how the NCHC tourney will be set up it could be better for us, but I'm sure other, bigger conferences would balk, and with good reason.

[yzerman19]

Do a best of three weekend to knock it down from 16 to 8 at the higher seeds home barn...then transition to a WJC format at the top 2 remaining seeds' home barns.

1. Split the 8 into two pools of 4

2. Each pool plays a round robin over a 3 day weekend

3. Top 2 teams from each pool move on to the Frozen Four

4. Frozen Four is a neutral site with same format as current

This would add games at sites with likely attendance, lead to the better teams advancing, and really jazz up the atmosphere. It would extend the season by a weekend, but I think they are talking about that anyway with this first round idea.

[MafiaMan]

I've been arguing for this change for a long time...it would be nice to finally see something done about it. It would also be nice to eliminate teams playing each other in consecutive weekends in conference tournaments and then regional tournaments (which has obviously happened to North Dakota and Minnesota several times over the past few years in addition to Denver as well).

Can you imagine the outcry if North Carolina played Duke in the ACC basketball tournament final and was promptly stuck in the same regional for the NCAA tournament a week later? Exactly...#1 seed or not, there's a huge disadvantage to being seeded in someone else's backyard (also see: 1998 North Dakota vs Michigan @ Yost Arena).

[The Sicatoka]

Did someone say "NCAA playoff hockey in The Ralph"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0

[scpa0305]

Now how not changing the name would matter?

http://www.grandfork...group/homepage/

I think everyone here could agree with this. Which 4 schools will whine against it the most? Let me see. I guess maybe Minnesota, BC, BU, and Michigan?

I actually like how the format is layed out, however, the venues (locations) MUST change to hockey friendly cities.

[watchmaker49]

I actually like how the format is layed out, however, the venues (locations) MUST change to hockey friendly cities.

One could argue that this years sites except for Toledo are hockey friendly cities.

[yababy8]

Did someone say "NCAA playoff hockey in The Ralph"?

It's very unhealthy..

[Siouxperfan7]

Here is what I would like to see: Keep the format like it is with single elimination games in 4 regional sites. What I would change is instead of determining regional sites 2 years in advance, award the regional sites to the top 4 seeds in the country. So every team that is the #1 seed in their region would be the host. This is good for 3 reasons. First, it rewards teams that have played an entire season and achieved a good record and a #1 seed the best chance to advance to the Frozen 4. Second, the NCAA will make tons of money off of it. With the #1 seed playing at home, there is a better chance that they will win their first game and almost guarantee 2 sellouts in these arenas as opposed to half filled arena's like we have seen in the past. And third, it will create a far better atmosphere for the biggest games of the year as apposed to quiet arenas in front of a couple thousand fans with schools playing 800 miles from their campus.

[MafiaMan]

Here is what I would like to see: Keep the format like it is with single elimination games in 4 regional sites. What I would change is instead of determining regional sites 2 years in advance, award the regional sites to the top 4 seeds in the country. So every team that is the #1 seed in their region would be the host. This is good for 3 reasons. First, it rewards teams that have played an entire season and achieved a good record and a #1 seed the best chance to advance to the Frozen 4. Second, the NCAA will make tons of money off of it. With the #1 seed playing at home, there is a better chance that they will win their first game and almost guarantee 2 sellouts in these arenas as opposed to half filled arena's like we have seen in the past. And third, it will create a far better atmosphere for the biggest games of the year as apposed to quiet arenas in front of a couple thousand fans with schools playing 800 miles from their campus.

That's a lot of absolute last-second planning...and won't ever happen. Imagine pairings coming out on Sunday afternoon and having to make travel arrangements to go from Boston to Kalamazoo or Grand Forks to Sault Ste Marie on 3-4 days notice...that's pretty tough logistically-speaking. I believe a three-game series is a better option that still rewards a team for having a successful regular season.

[Siouxperfan7]

That's a lot of absolute last-second planning...and won't ever happen. Imagine pairings coming out on Sunday afternoon and having to make travel arrangements to go from Boston to Kalamazoo or Grand Forks to Sault Ste Marie on 3-4 days notice...that's pretty tough logistically-speaking. I believe a three-game series is a better option that still rewards a team for having a successful regular season.

What's the difference from what they do now? Teams don't know where they are playing till selection Sunday now. The 3 game series is a nice idea, but it messes things up for the next weekend.

[Dustin]

If they would just reward the #1 seeds with the tournament in their barn they wouldn't have to worry about fairness of travel, take a week off after the league tournaments IF they need to for setting up the logistics and ticket sales, then play the regionals at the top seeds house and the Frozen Four at the predetermined site. I would bet attendance would be substantially better too.

I would really not like to see a best-of-three first round the way the WCHA is set up, we could be looking at 9 games in 17 days, that would be a wreck, and I think other conferences play a similar format.

Depending on how the NCHC tourney will be set up it could be better for us, but I'm sure other, bigger conferences would balk, and with good reason.

Totally agree with everything you said. I wrote the same thing (before I read this) over on Schlossman's blog.

[iluvdebbies]

Best format is to have #1 seeds host regionals. Take a week off, after conference tournaments, to set up sites and for teams and fans to put together travel plans. Season will be a week longer, but would have to be a week longer using a best of three format.

[MafiaMan]

What's the difference from what they do now? Teams don't know where they are playing till selection Sunday now. The 3 game series is a nice idea, but it messes things up for the next weekend.

The difference now is that fans can speculate as to where their team will be placed (like UND fans figuring they were coming to the X two weekends in a row)...once you open up remote locations, it will get trickier. A February-March trip to Marquette or Sault Ste Marie is a white-knuckler!

[Snake]

Isn't there already an extra week between regionals and frozen four to avoid conflict with b-ball final four? The season wouldn't need to be a week longer as long as they're OK playing the same weekend as the bouncy-ball final four

[iluvdebbies]

Isn't there already an extra week between regionals and frozen four to avoid conflict with b-ball final four? The season wouldn't need to be a week longer as long as they're OK playing the same weekend as the bouncy-ball final four

I think that week is also used for travel plans

[watchmaker49]

That's a lot of absolute last-second planning...and won't ever happen. Imagine pairings coming out on Sunday afternoon and having to make travel arrangements to go from Boston to Kalamazoo or Grand Forks to Sault Ste Marie on 3-4 days notice...that's pretty tough logistically-speaking. I believe a three-game series is a better option that still rewards a team for having a successful regular season.

Why SSM?