Brian Morris writes:
>...I also agree that the NC$$ is
>playing with fire in altering the playoffs to ensure an East vs. West
>match-up in the finals.  I would guess (if it's true) this is a reaction to
>last year's Albany *bust* where the fans got to see the CCHA playoffs instead
>of an interleague scramble.  The word on the street was that Knickerbocker
>officials expected Maine to bring in 3000-4000 additional fans to the final
>four especially impacting on the Thursday schedule.  However Maine got ambushed
>in Providence leaving a lot of unfilled seats at the Knick.
 
Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with the attendance in Albany
last year.  Don't forget that the final four has already sold out in
Milwaukee, so whether Maine and Wisconsin (the two teams likely to have the
biggest following if they're there) make it or not, every seat will still
be full (or at least sold).
 
I would bet the rumored change would have more to do with insuring a high
attendance for the *regionals*.  Detroit didn't draw well at all, and
Providence had 5,327 the first night and 8,521 the second in a building
that holds about 12,000.  Holding the regionals on two consecutive days
this year is likely to help boost the attendance, since many fans said they
weren't happy with the Thur-Sat or Fri-Sun format.  But also, if more local
teams were to be sent to a regional (i.e. 6 East teams versus the current 4
East and 2 West), the hope would be that the extra two local teams would
bring more fans to the games.
 
Personally, I think the problem is not that there aren't enough local teams
(although more will help, to a certain extent).  It is that the abandoning
of the on-campus format for the opening rounds makes it harder for fans to
travel to see their team play, especially when many teams don't know where
they'll be playing until the Sunday before the regionals.
 
I would propose sort of a combining of the regional format with a return to
on-campus play.  This would also allow a return to the old brackets which
would give us the possibility of the four best teams making the final four,
something I wrote about yesterday.
 
My idea has the two top seeds in each region hosting a regional involving
themselves and two other teams.  For example, 1E, 5E, and 4W would all
travel to the home of 1E.  5E would play 4W on Friday night, and the winner
would play host 1E Saturday night with the winner going to the final four.
I expect many local fans would attend the Fri game even though their team
wouldn't play until the next night, so as to get a preview of who their
team would meet up with.
 
Other matchups would have 2E hosting 3W and 6E, 1W hosting 5W/4E, and 2W
hosting 3E/6W.  This way, if it so happens that the four best teams really
are from one region, they'll still have a chance to all make the final four
whereas now, only two of the 1-4 seeds from any region can possibly make
it.
 
I would bet anything that combined attendance at four regionals as outlined
above would at least equal and probably better the attendance we saw at
last year's regionals and are likely to see this year.
 
In the East, for example, Maine would sell out with about 5,200, and as I
figure the 2nd seed will be BU (~4,000) or Harvard (~3,000), combining
those figures gives us about 9,000 - more than Providence got last year.
Last year, the top two East seeds were Maine and SLU (4,000), and although
Alfond was still being renovated then, it was being used and sellouts at
both rinks would have bettered Providence.
 
Also, I think only 8 teams would have to travel as opposed to the current
12.  That cuts back on costs for the NC$$.  (I believe all six teams are
put up in hotels at each regional, but I'm not positive.)
 
>...Why
>doesn't the NC$$ adopt the system for seeding the basketball tournament?  Both
>fans and coaches seem to agree that the basketball system is fair and
>equitable, and hardly affects the attendance or tv ratings.
 
And tv ratings aren't even an issue, at least not yet, since the regionals
weren't televised last year (there were even cases of stations trying to
televise them and roadblocks being put in their way) and I have no reason
to suspect it will be different this year.  Before the regionals, the on-
campus games *were* on tv in most places - both locally and back at the
home of the visiting teams.
 
BTW, one thing basketball can do that hockey cannot is to assign a bunch of
teams to a regional that aren't even from that region, because of the
popularity of the hoop tourney.  But even hoop seems to recognize the value
of having at least one local team in its own regional - such as the
finagling that was done to place UMass in the regional held in Worcester
last year.  Yet, I also attended the 1987 hoop regional in Syracuse in
which the closest team playing was Northeastern, 6 hours away.  30,000
tickets were sold for each session.
 
Hockey could face that problem if, say, the West regional were assigned to
Minneapolis/St Paul ahead of time and Minnesota did not have a good enough
year to make it into the top four seeds in the West.  Even this year, the
top four seeds in the West will likely be four of the following five:
Michigan, Miami, LSSU, Minnesota-Duluth, and Wisconsin, with only Michigan
being a "local" team.  MSU is on the outside with a shot if they finish
strong, but don't rule out the possibility that if it is close, the
committee will assign MSU to the Joe so as to boost attendance.  I don't
agree with this and hope it won't happen if four teams are more deserving
than MSU.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)    *HMN*