Needless to say, I am quite pleased with Providence
College's success yet again at the
regionals held in Providence. I
am really torn in the debate whether PC should have been given
the home ice "advantage" even though they were not the sponsor
of the regional. Clearly, the partisan crowd helped them
tremendously this past weekend, just as they were helped back in
2015.
And clearly, the placement of the Friars in Providence
greatly enhanced the attendance. Northeastern, after many
decades of poor attendance, has finally developed a hockey
following, no doubt helped by their resurgence into the Hockey
East upper eschelon
(and the fact it's only an hours drive from Boston to
Providence. And Cornell always travels well. For years, I
attended Cornell-RPI games in Troy and it was always
difficult to tell by the crowd noise, which team was playing
at home.
The problem is philosophical, of course. Do you avoid
placing a number 4 seed at home, giving them an advantage?
Guess you would have to decide whether the goal is attendance
or crowd neutrality (seems to be mutually exclusive).
As far as placing PC in Providence even though Brown was
the sponsor, would placing Brown at home be any different? I
know the NCAA rules about sponsorship, but would placing Brown
in Providence be any different than placing Providence at
home? Only difference is that Brown paid a "bribe" to the
NCAA to gain that advantage by offering to sponsor.
Anyone know exactly what sponsoring a regional entails? Is
it organizational work? Is it money (Brown is a much
wealthier school than PC)? Is there something else?
My last comment concerns the serving of alcohol at NCAA
events. I am against it. It's not that I don't enjoy a beer
now and then. I thought it made the lines at the men's room
much longer than in the past 😁
PS I miss the old days when comments and discussions would
be flying back and forth in this forum during the tournament.
Oh, the good old days.....