Hi Mark and all,

Mark's description of the geographically-challenged Norton sounds like a
New Yawka's view of the US, a famous cover on the magazine "New Yorker"
that has been around as a poster for years.. .shows the view west from
Manhattan, beyond the Hudson is "Jersey" then a lot of haze ...
somewhere is Chicago, then some hills and beyond that SF to the N and LA
to the South, or is it vice versa... :-)

To her dying day, my Mom thought Chicago was a separate state ... I went
to grad school in Illinois and she asked if we ever drove into the state
of Chicago.  Needless to say  she never went 60 miles from NYC in her life.

As for the broadcasts, I got the impression these guys were hungry for
some hockey, any kind, and were truly excited the college game was
getting this exposure. It may not last, but at least for one moment,
some NHL diehards may have come to realize there is another game out
there ... perhaps more fun to watch?

Will be looking in on Sat. Hope the stands are full.

Tony Buffa

RPI '64

===============

Mark Lewin wrote:

>There's nothing wrong with Bob Norton that a geography lesson wouldn't
>cure. With Bob, the game would have been like the Westminster dog
>show. You would have known every player's pedigree; where he went to
>high school or prep school, who his coaches were and where he played
>pee wee.  Also, you would have come to realize that Grand Forks is
>actually on the North Shore near Gloucester and that Denver is out the
>Mass Pike just beyond Worcester.
>
>I agree with a previous poster. I thought that the NHL announcers were
>decent. They made numerous comparisons between college hockey and the
>NHL and compared many players to NHL counterparts but that's to be
>expected.  Besides, they probably got a great deal.  NHL announcers
>were probably easy to come by this year
>
>
>
>