Each week during the season, we look at the big events and big games around Division I men’s college hockey in Tuesday Morning Quarterback
Ed: Jim, when I talk about college hockey to people who have never been to a game, I often speak enthusiastically about the atmosphere. Loud crowds, the bands, and the usually more intimate venues on campus are all part of the experience.
But that on-campus vibe hasn’t been part of the championship games in a majority of conferences until this season.
The NCHC joined Atlantic Hockey, the Big Ten, and the CCHA this year in holding all of its playoff games on campus, and for those conferences, it seems to have been a huge success. With Minnesota Duluth’s upset of North Dakota in the semifinals, Denver got to host at Magness Arena. That seemed especially fitting since coach David Carle has been a vocal proponent of moving NCAA regionals to on-campus, higher-seed sites. (And he used his hit on Sunday’s ESPN selection show to make his case again.)
I’m not convinced yet about the NCAA tournament, but I think you’d agree that each of the four on-campus championships had outstanding fan and player experiences.
Jim: I agree with you, Ed, that’s I’m not ready for regionals on campus, though I had that conversation with a number of people around the Hockey East tournament this weekend.
I was at TD Garden where there were more than 15,000 people per night with great atmosphere not just in the building but all around Boston’s West End. That is the reality for Hockey East right now. Who’s to say that lasts years into the future (I remember Hockey East finals with half-empty buildings), but that seems to be the only league that fits well in its playoff structure.
While do know there is a lot of novelty about playing the ECAC Championship in Lake Placid and that, in a way it aligns with the league’s mini-Ivy like branding, I do wonder how sustainable it is financially for the league and if they are missing out by not transitioning like all of the other league have. The environment certainly supports it in the four current markets, though with all four home teams winning, there is certainly nothing neutral about these games.
So when we talk about NCAA regionals, I still believe in neutrality. I know people want to say that No. 1 seeds earned something but the reality is the difference between No. 1 ad No. 16 is so slim that giving a team home ice really can influence results. I’m just not a fan of that.
What’s your take here? You’ve been a part of a league that has gone both routes and you’ve seen some empty buildings for championship games.
Ed: I’m still in favor of neutral sites for NCAA regionals. For those fans who want to travel to a nearby regional, they can make plans that they can’t otherwise. I’m already seeing complaints from people wanting to go to regional finals on Saturday and Sunday, but they can’t plan on it because the times aren’t set, ostensibly for broadcast purposes.
Hockey East is the outlier in all of this because travel is relatively easy. Even Lake Placid is at most a five-hour or so drive for all of the teams in the ECAC.
But I do remember seeing championship games in front of fewer than 1,000 fans in a 10,000-plus capacity arena, and it’s sad, especially compared to sell-out crowds at on-campus sites.
I think as long as the NCAA D-I men’s ice hockey championship subcommittee (which is now a subset of the larger oversight committee) keeps doing the job it has in the last couple of seasons to promote attendance and atmosphere, that they will be able to keep hosting in neutral sites. I really think all of the logistics will also keep things the way they are.
What do you consider the criteria for a successful regional venue to be?
Jim: That’s actually a really good question and one where I think there are layers.
I think the building itself matters a lot. Can it fit a regional and the needs of four teams onsite. I think fans forget that being the number one criteria for any city is the venue and the biggest factor is whether four teams can fit comfortably. And I’m not talking about a youth hockey tournament where you let one team get dressed in the lobby. This is the national championship. The player experience should be the number one priority when selecting a regional site.
Any layer beyond this is window dressing. Yes, the fan experience matters and having a downtown area that is vibrant and can accommodate the tourism (read: are there enough hotels and restaurants so that if I travel from out of town is this convenient) feels like a must-have. But in reality, my first point above – the right-sized venue – eliminates so many cities from hosting that fan experience almost has to be an afterthought.
The last layer, and while it probably should be the most important but it likely treated like the least, is geography. How hard is it to even travel there?
And when you put all three together, you’re playing every regional in a fantasyland that doesn’t exist. And that is what probably provides the best support to moving back to campuses.
And even after making that argument, I’ll say I’d still prefer regional setting to campuses. See a trend here?
Ed: You make a great point about finding a venue that checks off all of the boxes. It’s hard to find a venue that meets every layer.
What occurred to me as I thought over your last response is that it ultimately comes down to who the committee wants to serve in locating the regionals. For the players, many on-campus arenas will not meet the requirements.
For the fans, the experience is not always met, even by excellent facilities. For example, the Denny Sanford Premier Center is a great building for the players and as a place to watch a game. But it’s remote from downtown nightlife in Sioux Falls. There have been many Frozen Fours that are some distance from post-game activities, and I definitely prefer the arenas that are walking distance from hotels.
You’re also right about travel. It’s an hour and 15 minutes by car from the Denver airport to Loveland. You can catch a train from Logan Airport to Worcester or drive an hour (at the right time of day), or perhaps find a flight into Worcester via other hubs. You can fly into Albany, but it also may be a couple of hops. Same with Sioux Falls.
The main difference between an on-campus site that meets the criteria and a neutral regional site is going to be the fans who can or will attend. An on-campus site will be full of the home team’s fans and a small allotment of the visitors, but a regional site also attracts college hockey fans (or just hockey fans in general) who can plan on the trip ahead of time – up-in-the-air Saturday and Sunday schedules notwithstanding.
I’ll leave you with this question: Do any of the four regional locations this season have attendance concerns?
Jim: The building themselves should all have decent opening day attendances. But individual games may be played with few fans. Providence and Quinnipiac in Sioux Falls and Western Michigan and Minnesota State may both be played in front of friends and family, but the counterpart games featuring Denver and North Dakota, respectively, will feature raucous crowds. Second-day crowds are always dependent on who advances.
It does seem that Albany needs Penn State fans to drive that region (maybe Bentley gets 1,000 fans to trek out the Mass Pike?) and Worcester will be protected by UConn and hopefully get a nice injection from Dartmouth fans?
So I think ticket sales will be excellent. And I know that fans will still complain.