I think you forgot the Kohl Center, World Arena, and REA. :)


-----Original Message-----
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Arik Marks
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WCHA in Lynah


> It isn't for "whatever" reason; it's for money.  And, as much as a lot
> of people like to denigrate money as a reason, this isn't all that
> surprising or out of bounds.  The fact that the NCAA does some wretched
> things motivated by the $$, there are legitimate reasons.
>
> I don't know how it is at Cornell, but the University of Minnesota
> athletic department is supposed to be self-supporting.  (I have my
> doubts about whether it really is, but that's the theory.)  Because of
> that, they need to maximize revenue.  The Gophers can sell out Mariucci
> Arena, selling about 10,000 tickets at $25 per.  Because of this (and
> they are not unique among western schools) they can pay Cornell's travel
> expenses, give them a guarantee of more money than Cornell would get
> from selling out Lynah, and still pocket a goodly chunk of change.
>
> Some of the Hockey East schools have recently built arenas large enough
> that it makes sense to schedule home-and-homes, and a number of WCHA
> schools have been doing so, as the Gophers did with BU the last couple
> of seasons.  So long as the ECACHL schools have such tiny rinks, it
> would be irresponsible of the Minnesota athletic department to schedule
> games there.  Until such time, Cornell plays at Mariucci, they meet at a
> neutral site tournament, or they don't play at all.
>
> J. Michael Neal
>

Cornell does not play Western teams too often because they refuse to play
anyone who won't go home and home with them.  We want the home gate and the
home-ice advantage too.  The big teams out west with the big  rinks do have
a fiscal responsibility, but they are also chicken-shits, not unlike Duke,
Syracuse and others in D1 hoop that schedule lots of home games against
sub-100 RPI ranked teams.  Why take the risk of losing?

You argue that it doesn't make fiscal sense to go to play a home and home
against a team that has a small building.  That is illogical.  Regardless of
the opponent in a home and home series, you get your revenue for your two
home games and you have your travel costs to the two road games.  Your
travel costs don't vary AT ALL by the size of the competitors rink.  This
isn't the NHL where there is revenue sharing!  The only way it makes fiscal
sense is to never travel and to pay a partial guarantee for someone
desperate enough to come to your sainted buildings.

As long as there are teams wanting to say "oh look where we played at" or
"oh we needed the money" we'll still have this problem.  Much as I love Red
at Michigan, he's very arrogant about not needing to go anywhere.  It may be
true, but arrogant it is.

So stay behind your financial arguments.  I think your teams are just
chicken-shit.  Ask Jack Parker after his last home and home with Cornell.
He got blasted 4-1 and 5-1 in Lynah in 02-03 and said he didn't anticipate
the storied rivalry being resumed any time soon.  Think it had anything to
do with getting wiped out two in the row on the road? (That BU team was good
too, lost to UNH in HE tourney final and to UNH in NCAA round of 8)

I think every college hockey player should have the chance to play in the
"Mecca's" of the college hockey world during their career, be that Mariucci,
Lynah, Yost, Whittemore, and whatever else you've got out west that's truly
worth it.

Enough for now,

Arik Marks