The U Sports 8-Team Format Doesn't Work!

[UNB Bruins Fan]

The AUS is the only conference that has roster size limits. This has had its intended effect of limiting UNB from adding more depth players than its opponents in the AUS. This sometimes has an adverse effect when AUS teams show up at Nationals with a depleted roster. But the AUS doesn't get to say it is "unfair competitively" at Nationals because they did it to themselves.

Has it though? Don't get me wrong, I loathed - and still loath - the decision to adopt a roster cap, but even I will admit that it hasn't been near the detriment at the national level as I thought it would be.

The roster cap went into affect before the 2013-2014 season (I believe). Here are the AUS results at the University Cup since then:

2014 - Acadia went 0-2 in the last year of the six team format
2015 - UNB finished 2nd, Acadia/St. FX (to eventual champion Alberta) lost in 1st round
2016 - UNB, St. FX, SMU finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd
2017 - UNB, Acadia, St. FX finished 1st, 3rd, 4th
2018 - St. FX, UNB finished 2nd and 3rd. Acadia lost in 1st round to eventual champion Alberta.
2019 - UNB, St. FX finished 1st and 3rd.

So in those six tournaments the AUS has sent 15 teams and came away with 3 Gold, 3 Silver, 4 Bronze (by four different teams, no less), 1 4th place, and just four teams that didn't make at least the semi-finals (two of whom lost to the eventual champion). The only really "bad" showings (ie/ didn't make the semis/didn't lose to the eventual champion) for an AUS team in that span was Acadia in 2014 (4-2 loss to Windsor and 3-2 loss to host Saskatchewan) and Acadia in 2015 (6-5 OT loss to UQTR in a game they comfortably led at one point)...three losses by a combined four goals.

I would say the AUS has fared quite well at the University Cup during the roster cap era...probably better than most of us would have imagined. In fact, I think you could argue all the b****ing and complaining and doom and gloom around these parts after the roster cap was announced was overblown and that it hasn't really any negative impact at all (in terms of being competitive at the national level).

 

[Hollywood3]

At one time there was a 5-team knockout where losers played for bronze:

Day 1
QF 4th v 5th
SF1 2nd v 3rd

Day 2
SF2 1st v winner 4th/5th
Bronze QF loser 4th/5th v loser 2nd/3rd

Day 3
Bronze SF QF winner v loser SF2

Day 4
Bronze final
Gold final

I don't advocate for this, just pointing out that it was done.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Has it though? Don't get me wrong, I loathed - and still loath - the decision to adopt a roster cap, but even I will admit that it hasn't been near the detriment at the national level as I thought it would be.

AUS teams not named UNB certainly felt the sting, especially Acadia.

 

[hockeyinsiderusports]

AUS teams not named UNB certainly felt the sting, especially Acadia.

More cap space.

 

[AUS Fan]

AUS teams not named UNB certainly felt the sting, especially Acadia.

I don't agree with this. ACA /SFX lost to the eventual champion. I don't think the roster cap had any bearing on the results. Go back and read the comment by UNB Bruin - 15 teams, 10 medals, 4 "bad" results. You could dump on SMU for only being there once, when they hosted. Acadia has been 4 times and never hosted.

 

[Rob]

I don't agree with this. ACA /SFX lost to the eventual champion.

I think he may have been referring to the post brawl suspensions which left the teams with very limited rosters.

I remember a couple of seasons ago UPEI was playing with only 14 players. This can be dangerous because it increases the chances of even more injuries by overplaying players.

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

The cap certainly hasn't hurt UNB so far, winning 3 of the last 4 National titles.
The concern would be going into Nationals and being at a disadvantage, due to injuries.
That's totally an AUS decision, that the majority of teams have supported it.
As far as the 8 team tournament goes, I would rather see it scaled back to 6 teams.
This gives the host 2 games, it also means that you may have an outside chance of still making it to a National final, just like the Golden Bears did in Moncton.
Cuts down on the host costs, 2 less dressing rooms etc...

 

[Rob]

I'm still in the camp over reverting back to four teams.

Of course none of this matters as U Sport has already made up their minds.

 

[VRedsRule]

I prefer the six team format and pool play. Accepting that OUA will have their two entries (which I don’t care for), you have the conference champions, the other OUA finalist, the host and the last berth goes to the winning conference from year previous.

 

[AUS Fan]

Just give the Cup to UNB and UofA in alternate years. Every 10 years randomly pick SFX or McGill. Every 15 years, perhaps UWO or UQTR. That's it...

 

[Drummer]

I like MiamiHockey's Vanier Cup format...I can get on board with that. ...

Speaking of which, isn't the SN partnership done now? I wonder what will happen moving forward in terms of TV coverage?

I'd like the Conference Finals have more meaning. A 'road to the university cup' would be great - playing series in your rink as you advance.

The downside, and why USPORTS wouldn't go this way is advertising. You'd never know where the finals were to be hosted without a weeks notice. But, a best of three between ALB/UNB would be awesome.

Yes - the Sportsnet contact ended this past 2018/19 season.

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

Here's a snippet of what I proposed in the 2019 University Cup Thread:

Here's a better format: follow the Vanier Cup's lead.

Have the OUA East Champion play the AUS Champion in a Best-of-3, and the OUA West Champion play the Canada West Champion play in a Best-of-3. Alternate which conference gets the home ice.

Then the winners of those series play a Best-of-3 for the University Cup, alternating the host conference each year.

If you wish, also switch up the conference match-ups each year (OUA West vs. AUS, OUA East vs. CW).

This new format will help in three ways:
a) MUCH better crowds. Even in the OUA, land of the empty barns, fans will jump on board to support their team.
b) Less travel = lower costs.
c) Meaningful Conference Championships.

The big issue here is that USports is trying to be the NCAA. Canadian sports culture is much different than US sports culture, and USports' insistence on pursuing these types of tournaments does more to hurt its image than help it. How many decades have they been chasing host venues?

What's going to make USports more compelling is to have exciting games in front of large, energetic crowds. The only way to do that is to have the Championship be a series hosted by one of the teams involved.

I know that going to the University Cup comes with costs beyond travel. I can imagine a number of top programs who would far prefer to share some home gates than traverse across the country for one or two games. Thinking of McGill / Carleton / Ottawa ...

If I'm Alberta or UNB, I'm all for this. It does three things:
a) Meaningful conference championships ... crowds would only grow with a meaningful championship that had a chance at a national title on the line.
b) Single-elimination tournaments favour the underdogs ... Carleton had a chance against UNB in one game, but not in three.
c) Crowds ... who wouldn't be all-in for an Alberta-UNB series over a single game?

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

Here's a snippet of what I proposed in the 2019 University Cup Thread:

Here's a better format: follow the Vanier Cup's lead.

Have the OUA East Champion play the AUS Champion in a Best-of-3, and the OUA West Champion play the Canada West Champion play in a Best-of-3. Alternate which conference gets the home ice.

Then the winners of those series play a Best-of-3 for the University Cup, alternating the host conference each year.

If you wish, also switch up the conference match-ups each year (OUA West vs. AUS, OUA East vs. CW).

This new format will help in three ways:
a) MUCH better crowds. Even in the OUA, land of the empty barns, fans will jump on board to support their team.
b) Less travel = lower costs.
c) Meaningful Conference Championships.

The big issue here is that USports is trying to be the NCAA. Canadian sports culture is much different than US sports culture, and USports' insistence on pursuing these types of tournaments does more to hurt its image than help it. How many decades have they been chasing host venues?

What's going to make USports more compelling is to have exciting games in front of large, energetic crowds. The only way to do that is to have the Championship be a series hosted by one of the teams involved.

I know that going to the University Cup comes with costs beyond travel. I can imagine a number of top programs who would far prefer to share some home gates than traverse across the country for one or two games. Thinking of McGill / Carleton / Ottawa ...

If I'm Alberta or UNB, I'm all for this. It does three things:
a) Meaningful conference championships ... crowds would only grow with a meaningful championship that had a chance at a national title on the line.
b) Single-elimination tournaments favour the underdogs ... Carleton had a chance against UNB in one game, but not in three.
c) Crowds ... who wouldn't be all-in for an Alberta-UNB series over a single game?

USports made an ill-fated decision a number of years ago to switch from 6 to 8 teams.
It hasn't worked!

The National Governing body has basically tried to "Draft" off of the dollars of Men's B-Ball and Men's Hockey in terms of hosting fees to balance the "loss leaders" of the other "less desirable" events all the while streamlining Men's and Women's Hockey formats to mirror Basketball and Volleyball Championships 8-team, single-elimination Tournaments.

The problem is that Hockey teams with a travelling entourage of 30 or so people is a much more expensive propostion than B-Ball and V-Ball.

The old 6-team format guaranteed at least two home gates, which gave the organizing committee a "punchers chance" to break even!

And it isn't like the competitiveness of the tournament has increased...has the OUA won a game over the last three years?

As it stands now, other than the Atlantic, which doesnt have NHL options, who in their right mind would "bid" on an 8-team event where you are only guaranteed 1 home gate.

Time to seriously look at going back to the 6-team Tournament IMO.

Thoughts?

My thoughts:
Go back to the 6 team format, at least the host is guaranteed 2 gates and insures that they will play on Saturday.
This is much better for the host committee and cuts down costs.
Example: This year, Lethbridge choses to play Thursday against Alberta and is one and done. Under the 6 team format, they play on Saturday, which won't kill the gate on the first night.
But, to Bob's point, who wants to bid on the new 8 team format, it costs more to host 8 teams, dressing rooms are an issue, 1 game guarantee isn't attractive. The one and done game can happen to the best of teams!!

 

[Rob]

Yes - the Sportsnet contact ended this past 2018/19 season.

Didn't know that. This could be for the better if you want a format change.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I'd like the Conference Finals have more meaning. A 'road to the university cup' would be great - playing series in your rink as you advance.

The downside, and why USPORTS wouldn't go this way is advertising. You'd never know where the finals were to be hosted without a weeks notice. But, a best of three between ALB/UNB would be awesome.

Yes - the Sportsnet contact ended this past 2018/19 season.

Here's the thing with Advertising ... there's no way it covered the broadcasting costs to Sportsnet ... all evidence points to the Sportsnet deal giving USports next to nothing to broadcast the University Cup. And now there is no deal ... which tells you everything you need to know about how much Sportsnet valued it.

The dynamics of broadcast TV have changed since the original Sportsnet deal, which actually makes the location and schedule less important. Sportsnet now has 7 channels ... including SN1 and SN360. You'll often find second-rate programming on those, and their scheduling is much more flexible. You see this in their CHL playoff broadcasts.

When you factor in the travel costs to get 4-6 teams across the country, no amount of advertising can come close to covering UCup costs.

So, imagine an Alberta-UNB Best of 3 Final at the Aitken Centre ... guaranteed two sellout gate revenues. UNB could easily cover Alberta's costs, and pay for broadcast costs, and still be profitable. Much better model than flying teams across the country to play one game in front of 100 people.

 

[Drummer]

Yes - the Sportsnet contact ended this past 2018/19 season.

This wasn't directed at SportsNet not getting ad revenue - it was the host/venue solely relying on gate versus the 1-year lead up ad revenue they develop, from which USPORTS takes a cut (this is where they get the bulk of their money from - not from SportsNet).

I agree - a two(2) team best of 3 final has lower travel and hosting costs, but there is a lot of money in having a Lead/Premier sponsor which you can't find or cultivate in a few weeks.

 

[MiamiHockey]

This wasn't directed at SportsNet not getting ad revenue - it was the host/venue solely relying on gate versus the 1-year lead up ad revenue they develop, from which USPORTS takes a cut (this is where they get the bulk of their money from - not from SportsNet).

I agree - a two(2) team best of 3 final has lower travel and hosting costs, but there is a lot of money in having a Lead/Premier sponsor which you can't find or cultivate in a few weeks.

First, sponsors are not going to pay much for an event that might attract 10,000 viewers on Sportsnet. It's easy to overestimate what kinds of dollars come in from Cavendish Farms.

Second, a title sponsor is not necessary if you don't have to fly 4-6 teams in to the event.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that it costs $25,000 per team for airfare + hotels + food. That number will be higher for some teams, lower for others. You need a lot of sponsorship dollars to cover $100,000 - $150,000 in travel costs, as we see now with the 8-team format. Covering the costs of one team traveling will be in the range of $25,000 ... it should be easy enough to cover that expense even without sponsorship.

Third, instead of worrying about a Title Sponsor, Sportsnet can sell their advertising spots much as they would with any program ... based on viewership.

 

[Hollywood3]

First, sponsors are not going to pay much for an event that might attract 10,000 viewers on Sportsnet. It's easy to overestimate what kinds of dollars come in from Cavendish Farms.

Second, a title sponsor is not necessary if you don't have to fly 4-6 teams in to the event.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that it costs $25,000 per team for airfare + hotels + food. That number will be higher for some teams, lower for others. You need a lot of sponsorship dollars to cover $100,000 - $150,000 in travel costs, as we see now with the 8-team format. Covering the costs of one team traveling will be in the range of $25,000 ... it should be easy enough to cover that expense even without sponsorship.

Third, instead of worrying about a Title Sponsor, Sportsnet can sell their advertising spots much as they would with any program ... based on viewership.

Don't forget, you need to travel for the semi-finals, too.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Yep.
And for each of those series the home team would have a minimum of two Gate Revenues to cover the costs.
They could do a regional broadcast if they wished.
Or, no broadcast.

Don't forget, you need to travel for the semi-finals, too.

 

[Hollywood3]

Yep.
And for each of those series the home team would have a minimum of two Gate Revenues to cover the costs.
They could do a regional broadcast if they wished.
Or, no broadcast.

That was tried before but the problems were costs (travel one weekend to the regionals and the next to the nationals) and time (two weekends instead of one). The last tournament like this was 1986:
1986 University Cup

 

[MiamiHockey]

That was tried before but the problems were costs (travel one weekend to the regionals and the next to the nationals) and time (two weekends instead of one). The last tournament like this was 1986:
1986 University Cup

That's 33 years ago. Things have changed.
Also, the 1986 UCup was not what I am proposing. The 1986 UCup still had a Host (Alberta) and Four Teams, and the Regionals pared it down from Seven to Four.
I'm proposing that the Finals only involve Two Teams, not Four.
So, over two weekends, you'd have a total of Three teams traveling, and you'd fund that with revenues from between 6-9 Home Gates.

 

[Hollywood3]

That's 33 years ago. Things have changed.
Also, the 1986 UCup was not what I am proposing. The 1986 UCup still had a Host (Alberta) and Four Teams, and the Regionals pared it down from Seven to Four.
I'm proposing that the Finals only involve Two Teams, not Four.
So, over two weekends, you'd have a total of Three teams traveling, and you'd fund that with revenues from between 6-9 Home Gates.

I believe Manitoba hosted three regional series back in the day. When they hosted Alberta it went 3 games and the gate would have covered the costs. I don't believe that their series against Laurentian and Toronto would have. (Those were before the Wayne Fleming Arena aka Max Bell Centre was built.)

Also, don't forget that similar formats are needed for men's and women's, lest there be political fall out. I could see most match-ups in men's meeting costs now because most teams have or have access to decent arenas.

 

[Bob Stauffer]

I am hearing there may be a National U Sports Men's Hockey Conference which could address some of the challenges of an 8-team Tournament

 

[Hollywood3]

Back in the day, there was 5-team elimination style tournament where all teams to lose before the final would play for bronze. This could adapted to a 6 team format which would fall within the footprint of the former format. It would look like this:

This could also be adapted to an 8-team tournament. However, it would require two arenas on the first two days. I am not convinced this would be an improvement.

 

[Drummer]

I am hearing there may be a National U Sports Men's Hockey Conference which could address some of the challenges of an 8-team Tournament

Like Champions League? - totally into this idea.

Let the lower teams play for a conference title, let the heavy weights play for a national title.