Congrats to Denver. Pretty good tournament overall. Disappointed I couldn’t be in Boston as it would have been my 15th Frozen Four but I had surgery last Monday which stopped me from going and sadly the next 4 are out of my travel range. As always kind of sad to see a season come to an end
@Frozen Frog @froginmn I appreciate the info here, bc puck. The previous and future sites both show that for regionals the east coast hosts two, and like this year sometimes three of the four regionals. The Midwest and Colorado have to share the other two and too often just one. This favors fans on the east coast for regionals, but I suspect it is due to availability of more arenas and/or bidding. I believe the tournament requires “neutral” arenas, meaning arenas which are not on-campus, so Mariucci Arena on the Minnesota campus is out. I think on-campus sites were determined to be too advantageous and eliminated decades ago.Not sure about any East Coast Bias. Regional sites since 2015:
2015: Providence, Manchester NH, South Bend, Fargo, FF: Boston
2016: Allentown, St Paul, Cincy, Worcester, FF: Tampa
2017: Cincy, Fargo, Providence Manchester, FF: Chicago
2018: Sioux Falls, Bridgeport, Worcester, Allentown FF St Paul
2019: Fargo, Allentown, Providence, Manchester, FF Buffalo
2020; Covid
2021 Bridgeport, Manchester, Fargo, Loveland FF Pittsburgh
Also future sites as follows:
Frozen Four: Future dates and sites
A complete listing of the future dates and sites for the men’s DI college ice hockey championship.www.ncaa.com
So it may lean a little East but certainly not in a "biased" way. Cities make bids and we all know the NCAA will chase every last nickel
You're right about the on-campus sites having been eliminated (at least for now). The other issue with Mariucci (and some others) is that I'm fairly certain that it has an Olympic sized (200 x 100) ice sheet which the NCAA doesn't want and would be an even bigger edge for the home team.
Goofy rule? You can pull your goalie for an extra attacker. Sometimes it works (Cornell scored a goal) and often you get burned (Minnesota got an empty netter against St. Cloud).
I thought that might get some attention, but I believe it is a goofy rule, just stuck in tradition because it gives a stimulating chance for the desperate team and its fans to steal the game they are a minute away from losing, while essentially penalizing the team who earned the win over 59 preceding minutes. It is 6 on 5, like a penalty is 5 on 4, a “man advantage.” Why penalize the team about to win, and earned it. It appears goofy/unreasonable; it is unjust.
It’s not 6 on 5, it’s 6 on 6. Just one team chooses to have a goalie and one takes a chance by not having one. It’s simply an alignment change.I thought that might get some attention, but I believe it is a goofy rule, just stuck in tradition because it offers excitement to the desperate team that is about to lose, while essentially penalizing the team who earned the win over 59 preceding minutes. It is 6 on 5, like a penalty is 5 on 4. Why penalize the team about to win, and earned it. It is unjust.
I may defend the thought further, later, if I have the energy, haha. And I am confident I won’t have a MAN ADVANTAGE!
There is no “one takes a chance by not having one (a goalie)” because the team has nothing to lose in the last minute, because they are conceding they have lost with the status quo; they are desperate. It does not matter if they lose 2-0 because of an empty-net goal, versus 1-0; they are both losses!
I am not making this up. Also referred to as a “man advantage.”
The other team could pull its goalie to make it 6 on 6 skaters....There is no “one takes a chance by not having one (a goalie)” because the team has nothing to lose in the last minute, because they are conceding they have lost with the status quo, they are desperate. It does not matter if they lose 2-0 because of an empty-net goal, versus 1-0; they are both losses!
And it is referred to as 6 on 5, not 6 on 6; show me in any newsprint where it is referred to as 6 on 6 instead of 6 on 5.
