The recent 2022 NCAA men’s hockey tournament has shed light on the significant issue with neutral-site regionals. From poorly attended games to lacklustre atmospheres, it is evident that the current setup does not do justice to one of the most thrilling sporting events of the year.
For more than a decade, we have witnessed a series of regional disappointments in various locations. Despite this, certain coaches and administrators persist in defending the status quo, arguing that it is acceptable and necessary. They contend that improved site selection is the key to resolving the situation. Nevertheless, even in the so-called “good” years, attendance remains woeful.
It is time to recognize that the next regional disaster is always looming, and it is time to pursue an alternative approach. The NCAA has confirmed neutral-site regionals through 2026, with bids for 2027 and 2028 currently in progress. The solution is straightforward: bring regionals to the home arenas of the higher seed.
Under this proposed framework, the top eight teams in the 16-team field would host the opening weekend and the quarterfinals. This model, utilized in other college sports, ensures a more equitable, thrilling, and engaging tournament experience. It also restores the intensity and excitement of the game, which is often lacking in the current regional setup.
However, there are potential obstacles to this proposition, including concerns that not all teams will consistently be in the top eight to have the opportunity to host. Some disagree, asserting that playing in an empty arena in a neutral location increases their chances of advancing. However, this narrow-minded approach is detrimental to both players and fans and lacks statistical validity, as our detailed analysis shows.
One of the advantages of this proposed change is the creation of an electrifying game experience. Home-site regionals would ensure that the fervent energy and intense atmosphere in college hockey towns carry over to the tournament games. Teams from diverse profiles would have the chance to host games on campus, creating a remarkable variety of atmospheres.
The current regional setup also falls short in terms of fairness. Playing at home sites would ensure that teams earn their spots based on objective rankings, leaving no doubt about fairness and equity. This adjustment would not only bring added excitement to the regular season, but would also generate increased interest and fair competition throughout the tournament.
In terms of television coverage and the overall appeal of college hockey, the current regional setup seems lacking. Conversely, games played at home venues would enhance the sport’s allure and provide a compelling viewer experience. It is time to make college hockey relevant to the widest possible audience and create the most positive impact and highest level of excitement.
Financially, home-site regionals are anticipated to offer significant benefits and lead to a revenue increase. This suggests a clear opportunity for a more profitable tournament, contradicts the common belief that it would hurt the bottom line.
Moving forward requires gaining the approval of the Division-I Men’s Ice Hockey Committee and subsequently the NCAA championship committee. Coaches have historically played a crucial role in influencing the Committee’s decisions. Encouragingly, there are indications that the tide may be turning, with coaches and athletic directors beginning to recognize the benefits of home-site regionals.
In conclusion, a change is overdue. The NCAA men’s hockey tournament warrants being played in the most electrifying and meaningful settings possible. Let us ensure that this tournament truly reflects the passion and energy that college hockey embodies.