Consolation Games - What to do?

[cjwilhelmi]

Ok with all the talk about consolation games, what do you want to do with them? Should we keep them as they are? Add a game? Take a game away? Get rid of them completely?

What are the pro's and con's in your eyes?

[OAKS]

I don't think it really matters. Teams are basically required to take the whole week off or arrive early Tuesday & bail ASAP if they wanna make it back to school. Any team with a decent chance is still going to schedule their travel to be there the whole time. If we cut back, a suggestion thats' been made is to only guarantee 2 games. If you lose the first day, you get one consolation round. If you make it to the 2nd round or farther, no consolation games (can always schedule as many of your own consolation games though if there are available fields, but you're on your own for refs and staff).

The two main problems that seems to creep up and are why teams do not show are the time and money commitments.


My ideas for the time commitment:
Even if we moved the final to Sunday, it would still be Wednesday - Sunday, which basically gives teams one extra day of classes, which really isn't much. As well, we'd need a contingency plan if BYU or another religious-minded school makes the Sunday finals. Two games on Friday or Saturday, resulting in a poor quality final, or move it to Monday, and lose all of the other teams and most of the locals as fans? It doesn't really work.

If we keep growing, and if we ever expand the field, we'll need to go to a regional or two-weekend format, with a couple of games one weekend, then 2 or 3 final rounds the next.


My ideas for budgeting.
One suggestion that might help things as they currently stand, is that each conference with an AQ could purchase one set of cheap tickets at the beginning of the season from a central location in each conference. It's not perfect, but with 40 guys, $200 per ticket plus a $1000 bus ride to and from the airport may be a lot cheaper than paying $500 per ticket with only a week or two notice. This still leaves the at-large teams in the cold, which brings me to the following:

I readily admit it has a lot of holes in its logic, and is basically communism, is to spread the cost of traveling to nationals among the teams coming, within reason. Flights, buses, standard hotels, rental cars, etc. A team like A&M has a much lighter commitment monetarily than other teams, simply because of the geography, not because of their fundraising abilities.

[Timbalaned]

I went with take a game away and only have one consolation. That being said, I don't think it should be just the predetermined game. Let the coaches pick that one game to play against a team they normally wouldn't play and that way they can decide the intensity of the game as well.

[UofMLaxGoalie11]

My ideas for budgeting.
One suggestion that might help things as they currently stand, is that each conference with an AQ could purchase one set of cheap tickets at the beginning of the season from a central location in each conference. It's not perfect, but with 40 guys, $200 per ticket plus a $1000 bus ride to and from the airport may be a lot cheaper than paying $500 per ticket with only a week or two notice. This still leaves the at-large teams in the cold, which brings me to the following:

I readily admit it has a lot of holes in its logic, and is basically communism, is to spread the cost of traveling to nationals among the teams coming, within reason. Flights, buses, standard hotels, rental cars, etc. A team like A&M has a much lighter commitment monetarily than other teams, simply because of the geography, not because of their fundraising abilities.

One idea for the tickets might be that the conference buys the tickets early in the season, then the team that wins the AQ buys the tickets from the league. Perhaps any extras can be sold to other coaches, parents and other fans within the conference. If there are any shortages, the team can buy the extra tickets and spread out the difference amongst their players. I think that might be a good way to cut costs. That statement has absolutely no research or basis of fact beyond my simple understanding of pricing for airline tickets.

As far as the consolation games, I think either dropping one game or keeping them the same is the way to go. Granted that most teams are not going to be taking them nearly as seriously as some people would like them to, I think they are worthwhile. Guaranteeing games is a good thing in my eyes. I think the teams that are lower seeded or from weaker conferences are always looking for a game against better opponents and the stronger teams can run the bench and get game time for the 3rd or 4th line guys, since they are the future of the program. I know that if I went to TX and lost 2 games, I sure wouldn't want to sit around for 3 days just watching the other teams go at it.

[Sonny]

This is a good topic and something that I've wrestled with for a few years as the tournament has evolved.

Personally, I think the amount of consolation games we play (3) is a bit excessive. But I'm also sensitive to the coaches' complaint about what to do with your team for the long week if you lose on Day One (Tuesday) and don't fly home to Sunday after the National Championship Game.

My suggestion - I think you should get one final consolation game for the Seniors and Non-Starting Players if you lose on Day One (Opening Round) or Day Two (Quarterfinals).

That would mean if you lost on Day One in the opening round you would only get one more game that week (for a total of two games, not three). If you lost on Day Two in the quarterfinals, you would get one more game on Thursday (for a total of three games).

I really liked this year's tighter schedule which concluded all consolation bracket games by Thursday afternoon. That left Friday and Saturday for the semis and finals ONLY. It really allowed our tournament and media staff to recharge after some long days (Tuesday & Wednesday were killers), and reset for the big games in the main stadium.

[Campbell]

Is the problem with the consolation games? I imagine this post is in regard to what happened at this year's championship, but that seems to be more a problem with teams understanding the level of commitment expected of them, rather than a problem with the consolation game structure. As far as having them at all, I think every team going to nationals should plan on winning and therefore plan on staying the entire week. Knowing that if you lose you are still guaranteed a few games is nice since you have booked the flights and hotel and theoretically have made arrangements to miss class/exams.

One thought I had, and I don't know if it is even feasible, is to have a losers bracket where there is a declared winner. Obviously it wouldn't mean that much, but it would give losing teams another goal to aim for. This might heighten the competitiveness of the consolation games. However, it might also take away from teams being able to use these games as experience for younger players or to try various set ups. Personally, I don't see why it is so difficult for teams to just come and play, win or lose. In that regard it is no different than any other tournament you go to, you know how many games you play if you win, and you know how many games you play if you lose.

[John Paul]

This is an issue we've struggled with for the past few years. Originally, the tournament played out a full consolation bracket and finished with every team playing for spots 1-8 (then 12, then 16). Once we were at 16 teams, that system involved 4 games for every team except those that lost the first day (they played 3). As the event got better and teams "professionalized" their approach to it, the overwhelming sentiment was to stop playing out the brackets and just create interesting matchups. At the same time, many teams complained about playing too many games once they had lost.

From a planning and execution standpoint, cutting consolation games back was necessary as soon as we added the B Division and started running a better semifinal and final event. We don't have the manpower or the money (not to mention the number of officials) to play consolation games on the last two days.

I think it's safe to say that most teams, especially at A, would prefer to head home as soon as they lose. Unfortunately, since all teams need to plan their trip based on a schedule that goes through the final, that's not often possible. The consolation games remain now mostly to keep teams occupied. From a planning, manpower and budget standpoint, the best situation would be to have no consolation at all. If we get more feedback that that's what teams want, that's what we'll do. Until then, we'll probably continue to run it as it was run this year - which seemed to be the best overall schedule we've ever had operationally.

[Hi-Line Lax]

I've never played a consolation game, but I can understand how these games can lose meaning. I'd at least like to be guaranteed 2 games, after making all the plans to travel, but maybe mix it up a little by the end of the week. How about something like a mixed game or seniors game that would at least create some more bonding amongst teams... getting to know guys on other teams has always been one of my favorite parts of the tournament.

Speaking from the Missoula standpoint, I can't say that I like any ideas about a "central location" for flights or shared responsibility for travel costs... teams need to take care of this on their own. A "central location" for the PNCLL would be something like Spokane maybe (with an airport) or more likely Portland (a 12 hour bus ride for the Grizzlies... that's halfway to Dallas anyway). I wouldn't be opposed to the league chipping in with maybe a portion of the conference tournament revenue (if there is any) to help a little with the teams going to Nationals, but that's about all the support I would think to be feasible. The bottom line is that if you want to go to Nationals, start fundraising right now and you shouldn't have a problem paying for the trip.

[Has No Left]

I think it's safe to say that most teams, especially at A, would prefer to head home as soon as they lose. Unfortunately, since all teams need to plan their trip based on a schedule that goes through the final, that's not often possible.

But it would be if we abandoned the current 5-day tournament and went to regional play, just like the NCAA tournament. It would be less costly to losers, but would put an increased financial burden on winners. In my opinion, I believe that most who would move forward into the "A" winners bracket and eventually to a "Final Four" would be most able to absorb the increased cost if you look at the history of the programs who have actually made it to the "Final Four". From a financial point of view, a CSU/BYU/UCSB/Oregon Final Four in Salt Lake, Denver or Portland would bring in quadruple the attendance we had in Dallas - that's guaranteed.

[CATLAX MAN]

From a financial point of view, a CSU/BYU/UCSB/Oregon Final Four in Salt Lake, Denver or Portland would bring in quadruple the attendance we had in Dallas - that's guaranteed.

What.....no game in CA?

[The Hammer]

We all have our opinions on what the consolation games mean to the ousted teams.

I believe a two game guarantee is a good idea. Lose your first game, have one more "scheduled" game. If a team or teams would like to have more games, Have those teams schedule the games themselves along with finding the officials and pay for those expenses out of their own pockets. That way if one team wants to leave there shouldn't be any sour grapes.

[CATLAX MAN]

How about reducing the consolation games by one and having an all-star game chosen from the best players of the non-semifinal teams? That type of game might have some interest for the players and fans and would also reduce the total number of games played at the tourney.

[Has No Left]

From a financial point of view, a CSU/BYU/UCSB/Oregon Final Four in Salt Lake, Denver or Portland would bring in quadruple the attendance we had in Dallas - that's guaranteed.

What.....no game in CA?

Ok, the Pit, but no couches allowed!

[Dan Wishengrad]

My team made one trip and one trip only to Nationals, in 2002. We got hammered by CSU in the opening round, as expected. Playing Texas A&M and Virginia Tech in the consolation round "made" the trip for us, despite losing both those games also. Just being at nationals and getting tourney experience is a treasured opportunity for those teams that get there rarely, if ever. Those of you who make the pilgrimage every year grow a little more jaded, and a lot less enthusiastic about the "meaningless" non-winners-bracket games. But teams committed to be there for the entire week without the focus on playing games can get into trouble.

If every team were guaranteed only two games, that would mean consolation games on Day 2 for the Day 1 losers only. Day 3 would be open, and many more losers would opt for flying home. So how about, instead, do as CATLAXMAN suggests and play an MCLA All-Star game or "Senior Showcase" -- Play it in the stadium Thursday late afternoon and then have a big parking lot BBQ or MCLA banquet afterwards. Just my two cents...

[Zeuslax]

I wonder if we would be having this discussion at all if Irvine stayed. The tournament seems to be getting better and better each year. In many respects it is still a very young tournament and things seem to be shaking out. IMO, many of the things that are happening are typical growing pains. I'm not defending anyone’s actions however, but I think we would be foolish if we didn't anticipate some of these issues.

I guess that I'm trying to say make expectations clear and communicate them to all the teams. For some teams they need things spelled out and lack some of the critical thinking ability about the “larger picture”. If it ain’t broke.........