First of all, I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.  Nothing on the
NCAA website, nothing in the Globe, nothing on USCHO.  Did I miss it, does
the Herald have a scoop, or are they being sloppy?  The fact that the writer
immediately assumed that the Fleet was a logical candidate (it my opinion it
ain't) for an NCAA Regional suggested to me that the writer may not know
what he's talking about.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Regional setup.  I agree with
Cheryl that attendance in the West baffles me, but that Albany and Worcester
work fine in the East; I also think that Providence and Lowell would work
for Regionals, with perhaps the new rink near Princeton another possibility.
I think that with the Frozen Four becoming more and more difficult to
attend, that the Regionals provide great hockey for those who can't travel
far.
 
To me, playing games on-campus is too much of an advantage to the higher
seeded team, and it's especially unfair since seeding is such an inexact
science.  It also smacks of a Division 3 or minor sport type concept.  NCAA
D1 hockey is big time now.
 
I also think that we've seen the last of the package deals that Wendy
complains about.  Rinks like Albany and Providence are just too small for
the Frozen Four, and if the NCAA realized that they could fill an 18000?
seat arena in California and sell out Providence a year in advance, they
never would have put finals in Albany or Providence.  Sites that work well
for the Regionals are just too small for the Finals, and sites that are big
enough for the finals are just too big for the Regionals.
 
Clay
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.