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.....
