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.....