Each year there arises discussion of the playoff formats for the various conferences and for the University Cup itself. From the CIS site I found a PDF format guide made before the 2009 nationals. [LINK] If you skip to pages 19 to 22 they have the results for all official national playoffs ever played. They don't have the conference playoffs.
In summary form, this is what they did:
1963, 1964, 1965, 1972
- four teams, straight knockout semis and finals
- one team each from CW, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic
1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971
- five teams, straight knockout
- extra team from Ontario added
- all losers played off for bronze
1973
- five teams, one each from CW, GPAC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic
- CW (Alberta) and GPAC (Lakehead) played two game total goals quarter-final, others got byes to two game total goals semi-finals
- final sudden death
1974
- four teams (none from GPAC)
- best-of-3 semi-finals and sudden death final
1975
- five teams
- CW and GPAC played best-of-3 quarter-final, winner played Quebec in best-of-3 semi-final (all played in Edmonton)
- Ontario and Atlantic played best-iof-3 semi-final (all played in Halifax)
- winners played best-of-3 in Edmonton
1976 (WARNING: THIS WAS WEIRD)
- ten teams
- two teams from CW and two teams from GPAC played straight knockout west regional
- two teams from Quebec and two teams from Atlantic played straight knockout east regional
- two teams from Ontario got byes to national final 4
- on day one an Ontario team played a regional winner
- on day two the winner of one game played the loser of the other
- the two winners from day two played in the final
(NOTE: CALGARY WON THE WEST REGIONAL AND CONCORDIA WON THE EAST REGIONAL. TORONTO AND GUELPH REPRESENTED ONTARIO. IN THE NATIONALS CONCORDIA BEAT GUELPH AND CALGARY BEAT TORONTO. SO THE NEXT DAY TORONTO BEAT CONCORDIA AND GUELPH BEAT CALGARY. TORONTO BEAT GUELPH IN THE FINAL.)
1977
- six teams, one each from CW, GPAC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic and Alberta as host
- Ontario played GPAC and Quebec played Atlantic in regionals
- the semi-finals in the nationals were two-game total goals
- the final was sudden-death
1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
- six teams, one each from CW, GPAC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic plus a host team
- the current format of two round-robins followed by a sudden-death final was used
1984, 1985
- six teams, one each from CW, GPAC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic plus a host team
- the host and their conference winner got byes to the final 4
- the others paired off in two regional best-of-3 series
- the final 4 played two-game total goals semi-finals and a sudden-death final
1986
- seven teams (two from Atlantic, one from Quebec, two from Ontario, and two from CW)
- host Alberta got bye into final 4
- the others paired off in three regional best-of-3 series
- the final 4 was straight knockout
1987
- six teams (one from Atlantic, one from Quebec, two from Ontario, and two from CW)
- the current format of two round-robins followed by a sudden-death final was used
1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998
- straight knockout final 4 every year
- one team from Atlantic, one from CW, and two from Ontario-Quebec
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
- six teams
- one team from Atlantic, one from CW, and two from Ontario-Quebec each year
- host and a rotating berth also added
- two round-robin pools and a sudden death final
Very interesting to see the year by year scenarios, and theyre is some weird stuff in there
of note 1998 was actually the year, the CIS switched back to the 2 - 3 team pool formats, UNB defeated Acadia 6-3 in the final at Saskatoon Place, 1997 was the last year of the 4 team straight up semis when UNB lost a heartbreaker to a hot guelph goalie 4-3 at Maple Leaf Gardens
1984, 1985
- six teams, one each from CW, GPAC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic plus a host team
- the host and their conference winner got byes to the final 4
- the others paired off in two regional best-of-3 series
- the final 4 played two-game total goals semi-finals and a sudden-death final
This was a crazy idea. It resulted in UoT coming to Frederciton in 84 to play the Eastern Canadian Regionals. UNB was good that year, but UoT was better. They won 2 straight and went on to distroy everyone at the tournament. No TV coverage, no national exposure... no one outside of Fredericton even knew this was going on.
This was a crazy idea. It resulted in UoT coming to Frederciton in 84 to play the Eastern Canadian Regionals. UNB was good that year, but UoT was better. They won 2 straight and went on to distroy everyone at the tournament. No TV coverage, no national exposure... no one outside of Fredericton even knew this was going on.
I think this was UoT's last title.
Nothing compares to the 1976 format. Jimi Hendrix tunes were playing in the background when the ivory tower weirdos concocted that one.
You are right - that is strange. To have a 1-1 record, but because you lost game 2 - you don't advance. So for Day 1 winners, they could only advance if they won on Day 2. I hope, but it doesn't sound like it, that GF-GA would have been used to break the ties.
It's also strange that the other conf. had to have playdowns, but Ontario didn't.
You are right - that is strange. To have a 1-1 record, but because you lost game 2 - you don't advance. So for Day 1 winners, they could only advance if they won on Day 2. I hope, but it doesn't sound like it, that GF-GA would have been used to break the ties.
It's also strange that the other conf. had to have playdowns, but Ontario didn't.
Some of that stemmed from the east being mad that there were two western conferences (i.e. GPAC was around back then). So IIRC there were many back-room shenanigans.
I wouldn't mind either a 4 or 8 team national tournament, A four team tournament could be preceded by a regional set of tournaments.
I don't like the idea of a host team getting a bye into a four team tournament. So I'd prefer the basketball and volleyball format of 8 teams single knockout.
In the past I had a post about a CIS regional system. [LINK]
Here's what it would look like based on current standings:
HOST REGIONAL @ THUNDER BAY
#1 Host - LAKEHEAD
#8 CW 3rd - CALGARY
#9 AUS 3rd - ST. MARY'S
#16 OUA 7th - CARLETON
WEST REGIONAL @ EDMONTON
#2 CW winner - ALBERTA
#7 AUS runner-up - ACADIA
#10 OUA 3rd - MCGILL
#15 OUA 6th - BROCK
EAST REGIONAL @ FREDERICTON
#3 AUS winner - NEW BRUNSWICK
#6 OUA runner-up - UQTR
#11 CW 4th - SASKATCHEWAN
#14 OUA 5th - WATERLOO
CENTRAL REGIONAL @ LONDON
#4 OUA winner - WESTERN ONTARIO
#5 CW runner-up - MANITOBA
#12 OUA 4th - LAURIER
#13 AUS 4th - ST. FRANCIS-XAVIER
And an 8 team national tournament would look like this:
FINAL EIGHT
Host: LAKEHEAD
CW: ALBERTA, MANITOBA
OUA: WESTERN ONTARIO, UQTR, MCGILL
AUS: NEW BRUNSWICK, ACADIA
Using the current top 10, and avoiding conference match-ups, would produce this:
NEW BRUNSWICK v LAKEHEAD
UQTR v MANITOBA
ALBERTA v MCGILL
WESTERN ONTARIO V ACADIA
Am I assuming under this scenario there are no respective conference playdowns. You've go four teams deep in the relative regional tournaments so obviously you finish the regular season and then head for a regional. Am I fair to assume that under this scenario outline?
Am I assuming under this scenario there are no respective conference playdowns. You've go four teams deep in the relative regional tournaments so obviously you finish the regular season and then head for a regional. Am I fair to assume that under this scenario outline?
If you have regionals one weekend and nationals the next then I imagine that conferences would hold a playoff of some sort. They may wish to trim a round to make it work.
If the 8 team national tournament is used there would be no need to change anything about conference playoffs.
I see that basketball is going to a regional system with a twist - the host and four conference winners qualify leaving 3 berths to be decided at 3 regional tournaments (one hosted by CW, one by Ontario, and the other shared by Quebec and Atlantic). That means 17 teams would be involved in the process.
Now if hockey did that (and kept awarding the OUA two places to account for Quebec), here's what it would look like:
Automatic qualifiers:
Host
Canada West #1
Atlantic #1
Ontario West #1
Ontario East #1
Atlantic Regional
Atlantic #2
Ontario #4
Canada West #4
Ontario #7 or Atlantic #5*
West Regional
Canada West #2
Atlantic #3
Ontario #5
Ontario #7 or Canada West #5*
* I am not sure who would get the last two spots. Once you get 6 from Ontario and 4 each from Atlantic and Canada West, it is hard to say what to do. So my thought is that the host conference would get no further berths and each other conference would get one more. I then would send the AUS team to the Atlantic regional and the CW team to the West regional. When the OUA does not host they would basically fill in as required.
This is what would have happened last year:
Automatic qualifiers:
Host: LAKEHEAD
Canada West #1: ALBERTA
Atlantic #1: ST. MARY'S
Ontario West #1: WESTERN ONTARIO
Ontario East #1: MCGILL
Atlantic Regional
Atlantic #2: NEW BRUNSWICK
Ontario #4: LAURIER
Canada West #4: REGINA
Atlantic #5: ST FRANCIS-XAVIER
NEW BRUNSWICK v REGINA
LAURIER v ST FRANCIS-XAVIER
West Regional
Canada West #2: SASKATCHEWAN
Atlantic #3: MONCTON
Ontario #5: YORK
Canada West #5: MANITOBA
SASKATCHEWAN v YORK
MONCTON v MANITOBA
Ontario Regional
Ontario #3: UQTR
Canada West #3: UBC
Atlantic #4: ACADIA
Ontario #6: TORONTO
I see that basketball is going to a regional system with a twist - the host and four conference winners qualify leaving 3 berths to be decided at 3 regional tournaments (one hosted by CW, one by Ontario, and the other shared by Quebec and Atlantic). That means 17 teams would be involved in the process.
Now if hockey did that (and kept awarding the OUA two places to account for Quebec), here's what it would look like:
Automatic qualifiers:
Host
Canada West #1
Atlantic #1
Ontario West #1
Ontario East #1
Atlantic Regional
Atlantic #2
Ontario #4
Canada West #4
Ontario #7 or Atlantic #5*
West Regional
Canada West #2
Atlantic #3
Ontario #5
Ontario #7 or Canada West #5*
* I am not sure who would get the last two spots. Once you get 6 from Ontario and 4 each from Atlantic and Canada West, it is hard to say what to do. So my thought is that the host conference would get no further berths and each other conference would get one more. I then would send the AUS team to the Atlantic regional and the CW team to the West regional. When the OUA does not host they would basically fill in as required.
This is what would have happened last year:
Automatic qualifiers:
Host: LAKEHEAD
Canada West #1: ALBERTA
Atlantic #1: ST. MARY'S
Ontario West #1: WESTERN ONTARIO
Ontario East #1: MCGILL
Atlantic Regional
Atlantic #2: NEW BRUNSWICK
Ontario #4: LAURIER
Canada West #4: REGINA
Atlantic #5: ST FRANCIS-XAVIER
NEW BRUNSWICK v REGINA
LAURIER v ST FRANCIS-XAVIER
West Regional
Canada West #2: SASKATCHEWAN
Atlantic #3: MONCTON
Ontario #5: YORK
Canada West #5: MANITOBA
SASKATCHEWAN v YORK
MONCTON v MANITOBA
Ontario Regional
Ontario #3: UQTR
Canada West #3: UBC
Atlantic #4: ACADIA
Ontario #6: TORONTO
UQTR v ACADIA
UBC v TORONTO
I'm afraid that would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the ambuguity with whether it's 7 from Que or whatever combinations you had for one of the regionals. The cost, the time and the reluctance of schools to get too complicated about playoff formats would tend to suggest the current system will be in place for some time to come. It's simple and guarantees teams 2 games at least..the idea of a sudden-death eight-team national tournament might not be as feasible in hockey as say basketball, where consolation rounds are an accepted format to give teams another couple of games. My experience with hockey is once teams are eliminated from championship play, they don't tend to be much interested in a consolation round. I remember they had a bronze medal game at the nationals in 2003 when it was hosted by UNB and it turned out to be a gong show. Both teams didn't want to play in the game and it turned really nasty out on the ice. Needless to say, they shelved that game the next year.
I'm afraid that would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the ambuguity with whether it's 7 from Que or whatever combinations you had for one of the regionals. The cost, the time and the reluctance of schools to get too complicated about playoff formats would tend to suggest the current system will be in place for some time to come. It's simple and guarantees teams 2 games at least..the idea of a sudden-death eight-team national tournament might not be as feasible in hockey as say basketball, where consolation rounds are an accepted format to give teams another couple of games. My experience with hockey is once teams are eliminated from championship play, they don't tend to be much interested in a consolation round. I remember they had a bronze medal game at the nationals in 2003 when it was hosted by UNB and it turned out to be a gong show. Both teams didn't want to play in the game and it turned really nasty out on the ice. Needless to say, they shelved that game the next year.
It was actually shelved after the following year, when Dal beat Alberta in the bronze medal game the day after UNB upset UofA and handed them their first loss of the season....needless to say I don't think Alberta was too keen on playing that game either.
Out of curiosity, what would you, or the CIS use in tiebreakers in some situations? For example, you have UQTR as 3 and Laurier as 4. What is the tiebreaker? Last year Laurier and UQTR never played each other, and both ended up with 45 points (Laurier has one more win, UQTR had more OTL's).
Out of curiosity, what would you, or the CIS use in tiebreakers in some situations? For example, you have UQTR as 3 and Laurier as 4. What is the tiebreaker? Last year Laurier and UQTR never played each other, and both ended up with 45 points (Laurier has one more win, UQTR had more OTL's).
Each conference has its own rules to determine placements.
I'm afraid that would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the ambuguity with whether it's 7 from Que or whatever combinations you had for one of the regionals. The cost, the time and the reluctance of schools to get too complicated about playoff formats would tend to suggest the current system will be in place for some time to come. It's simple and guarantees teams 2 games at least..the idea of a sudden-death eight-team national tournament might not be as feasible in hockey as say basketball, where consolation rounds are an accepted format to give teams another couple of games. My experience with hockey is once teams are eliminated from championship play, they don't tend to be much interested in a consolation round. I remember they had a bronze medal game at the nationals in 2003 when it was hosted by UNB and it turned out to be a gong show. Both teams didn't want to play in the game and it turned really nasty out on the ice. Needless to say, they shelved that game the next year.
The logistics would not be easy but there is no doubt that the regional tournaments would garner great publicity for CIS hockey. And this, or something similar, is on the horizon for basketball.
As for the 2-game guarantee, I would point out that most teams are eliminated with one loss under the current format. Whether adding a bronze game is a good idea is a whole other issue.
As for the number of teams in the regionals, what is shown is just what I surmised would be seen as fair. Basically, it is 7 from the OUA and 5 each from the AUS and the CW. The host would then take one spot, leaving the rest for conference standings and/or playoffs to determine.
The logistics would not be easy but there is no doubt that the regional tournaments would garner great publicity for CIS hockey. And this, or something similar, is on the horizon for basketball.
As for the 2-game guarantee, I would point out that most teams are eliminated with one loss under the current format. Whether adding a bronze game is a good idea is a whole other issue.
As for the number of teams in the regionals, what is shown is just what I surmised would be seen as fair. Basically, it is 7 from the OUA and 5 each from the AUS and the CW. The host would then take one spot, leaving the rest for conference standings and/or playoffs to determine.
Hollywood, I know where you're coming from. But consider the cost of going to a regional and then if lucky enough to advance, going to the national tournament. In today's climate, just can't see a school buying into that. True, regional tourneys would probably increase the profile of CIS hockey, but then I think back to when they did have an eastern regional final and nobody was any the wiser for it. As for the nationals, teams play 2 games regardless of whether they win the first game or not. There are instances where teams have lost the first game and yet advance. Most classic case is Alberta in 2008 winning the national title after losing the first game to Universite de Moncton. Just doesn't seem right for a team to travel to a national tournament and play one game. Here's Alberta in 1997 flying into toronto, getting beat by UNB on the Friday, and then heading home the next day. Not the way it should be to my way of thinking.
Hollywood, I know where you're coming from. But consider the cost of going to a regional and then if lucky enough to advance, going to the national tournament. In today's climate, just can't see a school buying into that. True, regional tourneys would probably increase the profile of CIS hockey, but then I think back to when they did have an eastern regional final and nobody was any the wiser for it. As for the nationals, teams play 2 games regardless of whether they win the first game or not. There are instances where teams have lost the first game and yet advance. Most classic case is Alberta in 2008 winning the national title after losing the first game to Universite de Moncton. Just doesn't seem right for a team to travel to a national tournament and play one game. Here's Alberta in 1997 flying into toronto, getting beat by UNB on the Friday, and then heading home the next day. Not the way it should be to my way of thinking.
If cost is the big concern then trim a round of playoffs. However, IMO the regionals would draw needed attention to the league as a whole. League finals have regional interest only (other than hardcore fans) and the sports networks would get much better audiences for regionals than they would for conference finals.
The best pure national would have just three teams - the conference winners. I actually would not mind that because that way if you beat a team in the playoffs they cannot come back to beat you later.
If the host rotates amongst conferences, even the smallest arena could host a small tournament. The networks would not know exactly which city would host but would have a fair idea of the top suspects and then prepare accordingly. And no team would have a guaranteed place in the tournament.
I would not worry about being eliminated after one game. Teams go to win and getting a second game means nothing.
If cost is the big concern then trim a round of playoffs. However, IMO the regionals would draw needed attention to the league as a whole. League finals have regional interest only (other than hardcore fans) and the sports networks would get much better audiences for regionals than they would for conference finals.
The best pure national would have just three teams - the conference winners. I actually would not mind that because that way if you beat a team in the playoffs they cannot come back to beat you later.
If the host rotates amongst conferences, even the smallest arena could host a small tournament. The networks would not know exactly which city would host but would have a fair idea of the top suspects and then prepare accordingly. And no team would have a guaranteed place in the tournament.
I would not worry about being eliminated after one game. Teams go to win and getting a second game means nothing.
I kind of chuckle at your references to "national networks.'' TV doesn't give a damn about the CIS or the national tournament and that's because the competency level for CIS athletics is zero!!!! They are so disorganized and disjointed that it's not even funny. They don't even realize how good a product they have, but they aren't afraid to gouge national tourney bidders with guarantee fees and give little in return. Michel Belanger of the CIS is an exception, but he's one guy, and he's torn in any different directions. As for your suggestion of cuttling out conference playoff series to save costs, quite to the contrary. I would dare suggest a series between UNB and Saint Mary's would draw considerably more interest than an East regional tournament featuring Trois Rivieries, McGill, UNB and Saint Mary's perhaps.....I go a different way. Make the final in each conference a best-of-seven, with the winners going to a four-team national tournament, single elimination format. Seed the four teams 1 thru 4, with 1 playing 4 and 2 vs. 3 in semifinals with the winner meeting for the national title. Rotate the nationals in each of the four conferences and be done with it. No wild cards. No regionals. Expand each conference playdowns because that's where the most interest is relative to the various teams' fans.
From a purist stand-point, the best national would have ONLY the league winners play in the nationals. So I don't disagree with the idea of reducing the field.
However, with 4 teams it is hard to do so. I don't like the idea of a host team being guaranteed a spot in the final 4. (Therefore my prior idea of 4 regionals, one hosted by the host of the final 4.)
Don't dismiss the national network idea. The Vanier Cup got huge numbers this year. If a network put some time into CIS hockey they could have a low-cost option to poker and other filler currently taking up Saturday afternoons.
I don't see best-of-7 happening in the CW due to travel. A best-of-5 could happen over two weekends, though.
From a purist stand-point, the best national would have ONLY the league winners play in the nationals. So I don't disagree with the idea of reducing the field.
However, with 4 teams it is hard to do so. I don't like the idea of a host team being guaranteed a spot in the final 4. (Therefore my prior idea of 4 regionals, one hosted by the host of the final 4.)
Don't dismiss the national network idea. The Vanier Cup got huge numbers this year. If a network put some time into CIS hockey they could have a low-cost option to poker and other filler currently taking up Saturday afternoons.
I don't see best-of-7 happening in the CW due to travel. A best-of-5 could happen over two weekends, though.
Hollywood, there are 4 conferences being contested nationally...CW. Ontario West, Ontario East-Que. and the Atlantic region....the nationals could be rotated each year among the conferences (the anointed conference could determine the site of the national final (the host would be the conference, not the local team)..so there you have the 4 team tourney...sudden death as indicated before.....in other words, beef up the local conference playdowns and send the champion to the nationals.......I was kind of joking about best of seven but in an area like the AUS where the distance between the 2 furthest points is about 4 hrs on Trans-Canada double lane highways, it could easily be done....two best of five semifinals, a best of seven final....teams would make a fortune....appreciate your thoughts about the distance relative to CWest teams and to teams like Lakehead in Ontario West...best of five would probably work there logistically...
Trooper must be using a different watch than me, because it is a bit more than five hours between Fredericton--Wolfville and Fredericton-Antigonish with the last stretches on the Nova Scotia end on non-twinned (and not-fun roads when the weather is bad) ... but I agree with the gist of his comments.
Unfortunately I don't believe you can compare the Vanier Cup and University Cup vis-a-vis television audiences. What amateur level of football does the CIS compete against in Canada for fans? None, that I'm aware of, unless junior football out west is getting a lot of TV. Of course the CIS is competing against NCAA football on TV, but not within the country.
Now how about CIS hockey? After the NHL, the number one hockey on TV is the CHL, especially the World Juniors and the Memorial Cup. Are the FISU World University Games ever shown on TV? No, so no chance to help promote CIS hockey there. Right now, the CIS has to PAY one of the sports networks to broadcast the University Cup each year -- that's right, that is the opposite of a bidding war for your TV rights. Last winter-spring, SportsNet started rebroadcasting NESN-produced NCAA Hockey East games on Friday nights. So obviously that network is more interested in showing Boston College, or BU, or NU games through to the Frozen Four, than doing the work to produce Western, Alberta or UNB regular season or playoff games. For in-Canada production they are obviously more interested in focusing on the OHL, WHL or QMJHL.
So as much as it would be great if Regionals might have a TV audience, I'm pretty certain we'll never get a chance to find out with our current sports networks ...
Last edited by FreddtFoyle: 12-10-2009 at 07:08 AM.
Reason: Fix typos
Trooper must be using a different watch than me, because it is a bit more than five hours between Fredericton--Wolfville and Fredericton-Antigonish with the last stretches on the Nova Scotia end on non-twinned (and not-fun roads when the weather is bad) ... but I agree with the gist of his comments.
Unfortunately I don't believe you can compare the Vanier Cup and University Cup vis-a-vis television audiences. What amateur level of football does the CIS compete against in Canada for fans? None, that I'm aware of, unless junior football out west is getting a lot of TV. Of course the CIS is competing against NCAA football on TV, but not within the country.
Now how about CIS hockey? After the NHL, the number one hockey on TV is the CHL, especially the World Juniors and the Memorial Cup. Are the FISU World University Games ever shown on TV? No, so no chance to help promote CIS hockey there. Right now, the CIS has to PAY one of the sports networks to broadcast the University Cup each year -- that's right, that is the opposite of a bidding war for your TV rights. Last winter-spring, SportsNet started rebroadcasting NESN-produced NCAA Hockey East games on Friday nights. So obviously that network is more interested in showing Boston College, or BU, or NU games through to the Frozen Four, than doing the work to produce Western, Alberta or UNB regular season or playoff games. For in-Canada production they are obviously more interested in focusing on the OHL, WHL or QMJHL.
So as much as it would be great if Regionals might have a TV audience, I'm pretty certain we'll never get a chance to find out with our current sports networks ...
Yeah, exactly. There are any number of reasons why schools might not be inclined to beef up conference playdowns (schooling itself, costs, etc) and the fact that we've got a couple of best of five rounds now in the AUS is through a lot of lobbying on the part of coaches, media, support groups, fans, etc. Logistically, there are major concerns obviously in Canada West..You'd have to have a best of five with the first two in one location and the final three in the other due to travelling, etc. The thing about TV, I really don't think the networks have any idea about the quality of the hockey, but on the other hand, you wonder about the lobbying that is done. Major junior is not as good a product as CIS, but with marketing and professionally run organizations, they've created the market that intrigues TV types. Look at the world jr. tournament. It's almost as big an event as the Olympics and you've got the Memorial Cup as well. Huge events. And then there's the University Cup. Part of it, too, are the restrictions placed on the various teams by their schools and the academics that don't allow for a Memorial Cup type five-day round-robin plus playoff championship tournament. Foyle is right about the Wolfivlle to Freddy trek or the Freddy to Antigonish...not great roads as you get to the 2 N.S. communities, so there's time lost..but even at 5 hours, it's a short trek compared with what you hear in Canada West and Ontario..heaven forbid Cape Breton gets a crazy notion of bringing back its hockey program. Flights to Memorial U in St. John's, Nl. wouldn't be too painful, however.
Hollywood, there are 4 conferences being contested nationally...CW. Ontario West, Ontario East-Que. and the Atlantic region....the nationals could be rotated each year among the conferences (the anointed conference could determine the site of the national final (the host would be the conference, not the local team)..so there you have the 4 team tourney...sudden death as indicated before.....in other words, beef up the local conference playdowns and send the champion to the nationals.......I was kind of joking about best of seven but in an area like the AUS where the distance between the 2 furthest points is about 4 hrs on Trans-Canada double lane highways, it could easily be done....two best of five semifinals, a best of seven final....teams would make a fortune....appreciate your thoughts about the distance relative to CWest teams and to teams like Lakehead in Ontario West...best of five would probably work there logistically...
From a purist perspective a four team playoff amongst conference winners would be excellent. Every team in it would have won a championship. The hosting could rotate between conferences. TV would have two semi-finals and a championship game. (Although TV would likely prefer the buzz created form an 8-team tournament.)
However, it is a mis-characterization to call Ontario East and West as distinct conferences. Back when GPAC operated they always made GPAC play CW or had some other play-in round. So why Ontario East would get a berth from Quebec is a bit of a stretch.
(As an aside, imagine what a GPAC league would look like today - Lakehead, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Regina would be a very tough 4 team conference.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreddtFoyle
Trooper must be using a different watch than me, because it is a bit more than five hours between Fredericton--Wolfville and Fredericton-Antigonish with the last stretches on the Nova Scotia end on non-twinned (and not-fun roads when the weather is bad) ... but I agree with the gist of his comments.
Unfortunately I don't believe you can compare the Vanier Cup and University Cup vis-a-vis television audiences. What amateur level of football does the CIS compete against in Canada for fans? None, that I'm aware of, unless junior football out west is getting a lot of TV. Of course the CIS is competing against NCAA football on TV, but not within the country.
Now how about CIS hockey? After the NHL, the number one hockey on TV is the CHL, especially the World Juniors and the Memorial Cup. Are the FISU World University Games ever shown on TV? No, so no chance to help promote CIS hockey there. Right now, the CIS has to PAY one of the sports networks to broadcast the University Cup each year -- that's right, that is the opposite of a bidding war for your TV rights. Last winter-spring, SportsNet started rebroadcasting NESN-produced NCAA Hockey East games on Friday nights. So obviously that network is more interested in showing Boston College, or BU, or NU games through to the Frozen Four, than doing the work to produce Western, Alberta or UNB regular season or playoff games. For in-Canada production they are obviously more interested in focusing on the OHL, WHL or QMJHL.
So as much as it would be great if Regionals might have a TV audience, I'm pretty certain we'll never get a chance to find out with our current sports networks ...
This raises an issue presently before the CRTC. Local stations want to get cable fees the same way as specialty cable channels (e.g. TSN). Cable guys say "but you show stuff available on US channels", to which the local stations say "so does TSN/RSN/etc.".
One possible scenario is that channels (local or otherwise) would get fees based on original programming. This would change the equation. Rather than a sports channel showing the cheapest possible programming (i.e. crap being dumped by US channels) they would derive benefit from developing some programming of their own. Within a short time most CIS teams will have webcasting set up. So add some cameras etc. and presto! Inexpensive original Canadian programming.
Also, I know that the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers had that same "buy the time" arrangement with SportsNet just before and after the lockout. I don't know the present arrangement. So it is not surprising to see the CIS in the same position. In both cases the team/league gambles that they can sell the ad time to recover the costs. Usually they have a major sponsor lined up to buy any time they cannot sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by austrooper
Yeah, exactly. There are any number of reasons why schools might not be inclined to beef up conference playdowns (schooling itself, costs, etc) and the fact that we've got a couple of best of five rounds now in the AUS is through a lot of lobbying on the part of coaches, media, support groups, fans, etc. Logistically, there are major concerns obviously in Canada West..You'd have to have a best of five with the first two in one location and the final three in the other due to travelling, etc. The thing about TV, I really don't think the networks have any idea about the quality of the hockey, but on the other hand, you wonder about the lobbying that is done. Major junior is not as good a product as CIS, but with marketing and professionally run organizations, they've created the market that intrigues TV types. Look at the world jr. tournament. It's almost as big an event as the Olympics and you've got the Memorial Cup as well. Huge events. And then there's the University Cup. Part of it, too, are the restrictions placed on the various teams by their schools and the academics that don't allow for a Memorial Cup type five-day round-robin plus playoff championship tournament. Foyle is right about the Wolfivlle to Freddy trek or the Freddy to Antigonish...not great roads as you get to the 2 N.S. communities, so there's time lost..but even at 5 hours, it's a short trek compared with what you hear in Canada West and Ontario..heaven forbid Cape Breton gets a crazy notion of bringing back its hockey program. Flights to Memorial U in St. John's, Nl. wouldn't be too painful, however.
I could see CW making the final a best-of-five. In fact, I would like that. One problem now is that one team hosts the whole series. This makes upsets very rare.
BTW, Manitoba's shortest road trip (to Regina) would be 6+ hours by bus.
As for the CIS product, what happens every year is that they get one weekend of coverage. Fans everywhere say "Gee, that is great hockey. They should show more of it." And then nothing happens. That's where regionals would be better than expanded conference playoffs.
