I have to side with Michael in this little debate.  There is absolutely no
evidence that I have been shown that the Anaheim NCAA's produced any
interest in that area for college hockey.  If Bob can produce some evidence
that interest in fielding varsity hockey perked up at institutions such as
USC, UCLA, UC-Irvine or any other greater LA college/university because of
that Frozen Four, I will be glad to acknowledge the error of my ways.

Besides the hockey, which ended on a very sour note for this UNH fan, my
memories of that weekend are Disneyland (which is really a small Magic
Kingdom @ Disney World), driving to Newport Beach (that was nice) and my
wife and daughter taking a tour of Beverly Hills (now that's hockey
related!).  And, of course, the absolutely tackiness (no other way to
describe it) that was Anaheim itself.  And Bob wants the tournament to go to
Oklahoma City?!?

Hockey, never mind college hockey, is a regional sport.  It is not like
NASCAR, because that "sport" has a national TV contract and an incessant
marketing plan.  As Michael correctly points out, there is no way that a
three day tournament which imports 90% of the spectators will all of a
sudden create interest in the locale where it is played.  It would be like
have the All-England cricket matches plunked down somewhere in the US.  It
just won't work.

I say keep the tourney in those towns that appreciate having it and will
know how to market it.  My favorites are St. Paul, Milwaukee and, of course,
Boston, but any town that knows what college hockey is all about is fine by
me.

Greg Ambrose

> From: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:50:04 -0600
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Frozen Four sites/warm climes/Alabama
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>> Michael, I remain utterly convinced that the idea of
>> having the Final
>>> Four every four years in a place that doesn't have
>> any other college
>>> hockey should be dismissed outright.
>>
>> I'm guessing that that should read "shouldn't be dismissed outright"?
>
> No, trust your eyes!  Every four years would be silly.  Every eight
> years isn't an unreasonable suggestion and should be considered.  Even
> talknig about it every four years is too often.  I'm ready to move on to
> something else.
>
> boB