Brian Morris wrote:
> Let me weigh in on two disparate threads.
>
> First, for all those in favor of campus sites for the regionals--please
> explain this weekend's results. Does anyone think it was fair that
> Michigan managed to beat the defending national champions in front of
> 8,000 screaming Wolverine fans? Don't tell me Michigan outplayed UND,
> more skill, more desire etc. Of course they did, but wasn't that perhaps
> motivated by playing in front of a home crowd? In my mind this is a
> significantly more biased arena than even a local team playing in a large
> regional arena, like RPI in the Pepsi, or even Michigan at Joe Louis.
> Campus arenas are going to be filled by students and people at the campus,
> and the home field effect is going to be overwhelming.
The crowd was overwhelmingly Michigan, and it did play a role. I do not think
Michigan would have beaten North Dakota at any other venue. It wasn't
students, though, for the most part. At $50 a ticket package, they were much
less in evidence.
> Did anyone think Michigan State was harmed playing at Michigan? I would
> think the crowd must have been nearly 100% pro-Ohio State, since all the
> campus people view Michigan State as the farmers from the dark side.
> Again an unfair disadvantage for the Spartans.
No, I do not think Michigan State was appreciably hurt. There was a good sized
contingent of Spartan fans, though perhaps less than I was expecting. A large
number of the Michigan fans did not show up for all of the first game. I'd say
the crowd was roughly 50-50, with perhaps a slight MSU tilt.
> I think it is extremely unfortunate that the NC$$ has given up on the true
> regional venue out West. While the turn-outs at Albany this weekend were
> down considerably from previous regionals, I think that is a product of
> the weather and to a certain extent the lack of ECAC participants. The
> RPI effect can only explain the extra people for one game, and all the
> previous regionals outdrew this weekend's. But my point is that the East
> has managed to develop a relatively stable set of Regionals which is
> neutral ice for the participants. The fact that the West does not
> strongly skews their outcomes.
We can go through the reasons why campus sites are a must in the West. There
are three larger potential venues: Joe Louis, the Bradley Center and McNichols
arena in Denver. The third isn't very likely, in my view, since it will
dramatically increase the travel costs for a large number of the teams
involved. Denver may well get some regionals, but I doubt that it will be a
frequent host. Milwaukee has a large natural draw for Wisconsin, but is at
least a six hour drive from any other school. A year like last year, when
Wisconsin did not make the tournament at all, has the potential to be a
complete disaster. The Bradley Center is expensive to rent and is a fiasco
waiting to happen. Detroit was the site of the first two regionals, which were
a flop at the polls. If they had it there every year, and made the commitment
that Michigan and Michigan State would never be sent east, then it might make
it, though I'm not sure. Detroit just is not a college hockey town, and it may
already be saturated with the GLI, the CCHA final four and the regular season
games that get played there. Plus, what is a decent crowd in the Pepsi Center
or the Centrum just doesn't make it in a 20,000 seat venue, let alone a year
where you don't even make it to 6,000. This is also solution that wouldn't
make those of us in the WCHA very happy. There is one other possibility; Van
Andel arena in Grand Rapids is more appropriately sized, and seems to get a
sufficient crowd if Michigan and Michigan State are there. This still has the
problem of not giving the WCHA equal time and in some ways is even worse. From
Minnesota on west, it's harder to get to GR than to Detroit or Ann Arbor; the
drive is still 10+ hours and air service is much more expensive since you're
flying into a much smaller airport that is pretty much served (at least from
here) by Northwest. Quite frankly, it's easier to get to Worcester from
Minneapolis than Grand Rapids.
So, from an attendence standpoint, campus sites are the only option for the
West Regionals. There just is no other choice.
Besides, your analysis is flawed in another way. This was the fourth year that
the West Regional was held at a campus site with the home team involved. It is
the first time that the home team has gone on to the Final Four. Michigan
State was a complete flop in its two tries at Munn; the Spartans didn't make it
out of the first round either time. And while Michigan did benefit from home
ice this time, they can claim to have paid their dues. In 1995, they had to
beat Wisconsin in front of the very hostile Dane County crowd. Basically,
those are going to be the breaks of playing in the west and there probably
isn't any way around it except for North Dakota to take the risk of hosting a
regional and getting payback. It's unlikely, for the same attendance risk that
would be involved, but it is an option.
J. Michael Neal
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
