I recall that Spartan Stadium was the natural choice at the time not
only because it was a Spartan that spawned the idea, but Michigan State
had the artificial turf that was necessary to support the rink and
Michigan had natural turf.  That the situation is now reversed naturally
spawns some chatter about whether Michigan should go for a record hockey
crowd of 112K.  But Mike's point about the unusual suitability of
Spartan Stadium is right on.  It's an outdoor stadium that lets fans be
close to the field.  Proabably the only person who could see a puck at
midfield in Michigan Stadium from the last row would be a guy with a
sniper scope.

I haven't been in Fenway, but I'd say "big", "available" and "willing"
are the least of the things that deserve consideration.  The main
consideration might be the size of the video screen on the scoreboard
that fans will actually use to watch the game.

Bob Griebel
Michigan


M Stock wrote:

> Clay,
>     I tend to agree with you.  Spartan Stadium seats more people
> than either Fenway or the stadium in Edmonton.  However the
> "field" area is much smaller than either, just barely big enough
> to hold a regulation U.S. football field and sideline areas.
> With a 10 to 15 drop off from the first row of seats to the
> stadium floor and  overhanging upper decks the view for hockey
> wasn't bad at all.  The only gripe I had was poor lighting.
>     We were seated around the 40 yard line about 30 rows up.
> That put us about 100 yards from center ice so you could barely
> see the puck.  Conditions would be much worse in a baseball
> park, with the seats so far away from the ice.
> Mike
>