Worked out well before. Thank god Grand Rapids wasn't on the list this year. *shudder*
objectively. The Cincinnati setup makes little sense if you want to see butts in the seats and labeling Fargo a "neutral site" is ludicrous.
My issue is not how they did the brackets this year. Or last year. Or two years ago. Or five years ago.
Within each year, the general idea has made sense. This year they stuck almost completely to bracket integrity...how can you argue with that in a championship tournament? My issue, however, is that in previous recent years, this was not the same approach taken. Attendance (or "atmosphere") was a major consideration in shifting around matchups. I'm OK with that, also...it also makes sense to want to have your championship tournament played in front of large, loud, fun, caring crowds, and that isn't easy for a niche sport like college hockey. And a few years before that, it was bracket integrity as the priority.
In the end, I'm pretty OK with whatever they decide as the priority in bracket integrity vs. atmosphere. But I just would like they make up their mind, generally stick to the same philosophy, and let us know in advance when that philosophy is going to change.
has not worked so why not keep the integrity of the bracket intact? For a few years they have made swaps, sometimes numerous swaps, and the results, especially in the west, have been dubious.
Crowds in recent seasons in Grand Rapids, St. Louis and Toledo have been downright ridiculous. For Notre Dame's game in Toledo in 2013 there weren't a thousand people in the building and it wasn't much better for the Miami game, despite the ease of fans to travel from both schools.
Maybe they've decided to give up on the idea of building good atmosphere and realize it doesn't matter who goes where if you are not either on campus or in a town close to one of the teams, barring one of the 2 or 3 teams out there that can bring more than 1000 fans even if they are 500 miles away.
figure out the principle and then follow it consistently. I do think that for college hockey it would be nice not to have two rounds played in a mausoleum. Especially a locale like Cincinnati, which isn't filled to the gills with hockey addicts to begin with.
I would get rid of the regionals completely and do the tournament the way that has pretty much become standard for conference tournaments.
Same teams make it. 16, with conference champions in. Seed them straight 1-16.
1 plays 16 in a best of three series hosted by 1. 2 hosts 15, 3 hosts 14, etc.
Next weekend, reseed and do the same thing. Best team left hosts the worst in a three game series. 2nd best hosts 2nd worst. So on.
Then the Final 4,where you actually get big crowds and some national interest, is played at a neutral site.
It adds an extra week. It's a dramatic change. But first off, anytime you have a series instead of a game, I think you have a more deserving winner. But secondly, with regionals weekend getting ZERO national publicity and interest and many playing in front of bad crowds, I just don't see the point. Having intense series in front of excited crowds with student sections would be much better marketing for the sport...and a better way to decide a champion.
to campus locales. One objection I heard was about the benefit of "neutral" sites. That's always been a joke IMHO. So this year we have Fargo and Providence featuring who? And Manchester is in the greater Lowell neighborhood.
I had read that it was the coaches who put up that objection about wanting the tourney at "neutral" sites.
I do agree...if the tourney must be single elimination based, then having the four number one seeds host would be better than this.
Unless I've missed it, still no future sites announced for regional sites, so perhaps a change may at least be considered.
I think they have a very transparent and consistent method of picking the field but for building the brackets they're not going to ever do it the exact same way.
I think they're just going off intuition of what is fair, right, etc...I doubt they've ever been as methodical about it as Moy likes to pretend they are. (I hate Moy's blogs about building the brackets...his step-by-step is highly unlikely to be the actual method in the room)
I somewhat disagree with your last statement. Yes, I do think that each year they are going off trying to pick brackets that are best for the sport, fair, right, etc...and I know that every year creates a new, unique set of circumstances that can't be totally compared to years past.
However, just looking at the brackets the past few years compared to this year (along with his explanations), it seems pretty clear that they could not have used the same logic. Atmosphere mattered more in the past few brackets than it did in making up this year's brackets.
And I'm OK with that. Maybe the logic is "Hey, for the past few years we tried moving teams around to get bigger crowds. We still ended up quite a few venues that were empty, so we decided it isn't worth it and to stick with bracket integrity as the priority."
I totally would understand that logic. I just wish they would tell us. The more open the process is, the better.