Brian Wilantowicz wrote:

> Now I wouldn't mind traveling to Alabama...somewhere that I would
> otherwise probably not visit,,,to see the Frozen Four,  Or...how about
> Omaha?  I got a chance to see a UNO game there in 2000 and had a good
> experience.  I don't quite remember the capacity of the Civic Center
> though.

Having driven the 657 miles (each way) to Omaha four times to see college
hockey in 2001, I'd say that's an excellent choice.  NCAA baseball fans have
found Omaha worthy for 50 years and I regret I didn't have the time on the
first three trips to tour the city like I did the fourth time.  However, the
Civic Center only holds about 8,500, so the city is viable only if the other
rink is large enough for a 2007 championship weekend.  If so, it would be
fuller than what I saw in Albany last spring and certainly fuller than what
I drove 950 miles to see last January at the Schott, already selected as a
future championship venue.


> Point is these are places maybe not so well known for tourism but having
> the tournament there would give those communities an opportunity to show
> that they strongly support college hockey.  Because that is what it
> should really be about anyway...college hockey...the Frozen Four...and
> not economics or glitz.

How does restricting tournament venue locations to those communities which
are already considered to ardently support college hockey "give those
communities an opportunity to show that they strongly support college
hockey"?  Wouldn't a community have to be one that's NOT already considered
an ardent supporter of college hockey in order to logically receive the
"opportunity to show that they strongly support college hockey"?


> I must preface this by saying that I did not attend the games in Anaheim
> and maybe I would feel diferently if I had.  Those that did attend the
> games may be able to shed some light on the Anaheim community's support
> of the Frozen Four there.  I actually seem to remember that most posts
> were favorable. This is not meant to bash California, Florida, Texas or
> wherever...I understand there are many good college hockey fans in parts
> of the country where there aren't any D1 teams.  But if I want to go to
> Disneyland or the beach I would book a trip to go there.  If I wanted to
> see the NHL Dallas Stars play I would go to Dallas.

I suppose I would too, but that's 31 miles away and I don't bother going
that far for pro hockey.


> The Dallas community's support of the Stars does not say much about it's
> support of college hockey.  All you need to do is look at the metro NYC
> area to figure that just because a city supports its NHL franchise does
> not meanit supports college hockey.

Actually, comparing my experience while living for 15 years in Greenwich
Village with the two years I've been in Fort Worth, I'd say you couldn't
have chosen a comparison which fails your point more.  Although I suggested
Dallas with tongue in cheek, I later realized it should be the leading
candidate if the NCAA again considers an Anaheim-type interest-generating
venue to be a worthy strategy.  From what I've seen, the Stars didn't merely
generate a new goon-tactics fight-loving NHL fan following, they generated a
community interest in hockey that's manifested itself in an explosion of new
high school hockey teams.

Dallas is the BEST place to showcase a college hockey event to tap a growing
potential supply of college hockey players from a population with no local
college hockey to grab the kids' focus.   The response the Stars stimulated
in the local community is just waiting to be duplicated on behalf of college
hockey.


> I am simply in favor of having the NCAA tournament at or near a location
> where there are at least a sizeable number of college hockey fans and
> strong support from the community.  I sympathize with those college hockey
> fans that have limited coverage of the sport.  I am hard pressed to even
> find short blurbs in the newspaper on college hockey games.

I'm hard pressed to find eggs where nobody has placed any chickens.  In some
places, I understand the farmer thought chickens didn't belong there because
he didn't already see eggs lying around the area.  Self-proving circular
logic.

Last weekend, I was one of those college hockey fans who deserved sympathy
for having limited coverage of the sport.  I didn't find even short blurbs
on college hockey games in a local newspaper that reports only the combined
Thursday-Sunday results and revised standings of one college conference in
the Monday afternoon paper only, no boxes, no commentary, no stories.  I was
stuck at Mom's in Saginaw Michigan, in a state with only seven Division I
college hockey teams eligible for the NCAA tournament, 90 miles from UMich,
110 miles from the Joe Louis Arena that sells out at 19,985+ for EVERY
UM-MSU game, and 60 miles from the Spartan Stadium in which the world record
of 74,455 for attendance at a hockey game was set five months ago.

When I got back to Fort Worth on Monday night, I immediately brought myself
up to speed on everything that happened in college hockey all over the
country last weekend.

To my knowledge, my native metropolitan area of Bay City/Saginaw/Midland,
from which it never took me more than 2 hours to hitchhike to Ann Arbor,
hasn't contributed a pair of skates to Michigan's team since I laced up with
the freshman squad 40 years ago, but I may have missed some while I've been
away.  Last night, Michigan crept up to 4th in the PWR with their starting
goalie of the past four years from Choctaw, Oklahoma.  I wonder how many DFW
lads might be recruited if their focus was suddenly turned on to college
hockey.  Surely, plenty right in the middle of hot college hockey country
aren't interested.


> But on the other hand I am glad that college hockey is not driven by
> economics or the media as much as basketball and
> footbal are.  I can also usually buy tickets to an excellent game within a
> few hours from me without going broke.
>
> OK enough of my ranting...just my opinion....

Anaheim was in 1999.  The next championship venue not already selected would
be used in 2007.  Here's the only question I think deserves a reasoned
response about why the "proven college hockey interest zone" is the ONLY one
that can be considered for NCAA venues:

     Why should a suggestion, either serious or half serious, about
     something which could be a worthy strategy one time out of eight
     be addressed with a rant about why things can only be one way
     eight times out of eight?

I just don't get it.  What is it about the thought of breaking out of the
mold for a worthy reason once in a great while that begs to knock the idea
down?

boB