Thoughts about proposed regional tournament formats the NCAA
Division-I Hockey Tournament:
 
In both of the recent proposals, teams ranked 1,2 and 5,6 in each
region would be "home" for the regional round. Teams 3 and 4 would travel
to the opposite regional. The following is assuming a perfectly-even
distribution of teams and rankings between the 4 leagues (ignore the
independent for now).
 
ADVANTAGES of the travel pattern:
 
    1. Only four teams travel out of their home region, although in
       the West, the distances are large enough that many teams'
       expenses will probably be the same regardless of which regional
       they go to.
 
    2. Four "local" teams to provide fan interest. I expect this is
       different for the East and the West, but it is still an advantage
       in both cases.
 
    3. For "local" teams to provide media interest.
 
    4. The top 2 seeds get the "home ice" advantage, which they have
       earned during the season
 
    5. The favorites (top 2 seeds) are the "home" team (see fan and media
       interest above).
 
    6. The underdogs (bottom 2 seeds) are the "home" team (see fan and
       media interest above).
 
DISADVANTAGES:
 
    1. The 3rd and 4th seeds don't get "home ice" when they face 5 and 6
       (unfair). Would a team rather get the 5th seed than the 4th in
       order to get "home ice" for the tournament? If so, it is the
       ultimate in perverse strategy....
 
    2. If 3 or 4 win over 5 and 6, they still don't get "home ice"
       facing 1 and 2. Normally this would be considered fair, except
       they had to face 5 or 6 on the road, making the path to the final
       four for the 3rd or 4th seeds possibly the most difficult in the
       tournament.
 
 
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF 2 REGIONALS (instead of on-campus best-of-three
series):
 
    1. Condensing the season: the NCAA playoffs would take 1 less week,
       up to 4 less games for a team. This save some money for the
       schools, takes less time from school (which the NCAA wants), etc.
 
    2. Concentration of media and fan attention: with 6 teams in one
       building, publicity will be more effective, more fans will see
       more teams, etc.
 
    3. Television: Although coverage like the Basketball tournament
       would be nice, don't count on it. However, it is much more likely
       that the regional games will be televised, at least to the home
       cities of the schools, possibly to regional networks. Instead of
       4 TV trucks on each of 2 weekends, paid for by 4 TV stations, 2
       TV trucks would be needed for one weekend, with the costs split
       by up to 12 TV stations and/or regional networks. Presumably the
       regional sites would be more suitable for TV coverage than some
       of the on-campus sites.
 
OTHER DISADVANTAGES:
 
    1. Home fans and teams get 2 (or 3) less home games
 
    2. The fairness issue: either current proposal has flaws in fairly
       treating teams while reducing 12 teams to 4 (16 would be so much
       easier!)
 
    3. NCAA ticket revenue may be less than with on-campus sites
       (depending on where the on-campus and regional sites turn out to be).
 
 
Having said all that, I think that discussion should back up a bit, and
come to a consensus on the *purpose* and *goals* of the NCAA Hockey
Tournament. Once that is settled, it should be easier to select the
format.
 
What does he mean by that, you ask?
 
    Well, some of the advantages and disadvantages to the various
formats are contraditory. It depends on what is desired. Here are some
possibilities that I can think of (I am not proposing any of them, just
showing what is possible):
 
    * A desire for broader public interest dictates broader
      representation. Possible formats might be a minimum of 2 teams from
      each league, 3 teams from each league, or always including an
      independent. How about at least 2 from each time zone where
      Division I hockey is played? It may also dictate regional
      tournaments instead of on-campus series. Or perhaps best-of-three
      played at alternating campus sites (unlikely)?
 
      [For example, The Wisconsin high school hockey tournament has
       regional tournaments, with the winners going to state. Teams stay
       in their region, regardless of state-wide ranking. It is possible
       for the top teams in the state all the be in the same region, and
       only the winner gets to state, while another region could have no
       ranked teams at all. This is considered to be "better for high
       school hockey in the state" as it broadens the base of interest
       and fan exposure, makes state-wide TV coverage possible, etc.]
 
    * If the only purpose is to select the best team in the nation, then
      a tournament of the top N teams, seeded exactly according to a
      pre-determined formula would be the format (no east-west seedings
      at all).
 
    * A need for more ticket revenue might dictate elimination of the
      cross-continent pairing format (if local rivalries are perceived
      to draw more fans), or siting the game at the larger of the two
      campus sites, not at the higher seed.
 
    * A desire to shorten the season (even more than the cuts already
      scheduled) would dictate a 4-team tournament, with each conference
      sending their tournament winner. As an alternative, eliminate the
      conference tournaments and have 4 regionals, with each conference
      sending 4 teams (1 to each regional, or 3 plus the top 4 remaining
      teams at large, with or without an independant).
 
I don't have answers to these questions. What do you think?
 
	--david