RPI's home crowd:
The opinion of one of the WRPI guys.
(No equations, I promise!!)
Does RPI have the best fans at home? No.
Do they have the worst? No.
They fall somewhere in the middle. Now, for the people out west, the
only arena I've seen a game at is Air Force, so I have really nothing to
compare RPI to in terms of the western teams. So some of the
comments I make may not hold up in the western conferences. I can
only speak of what I've seen.
The Houston Field House, even on its worst nights, is more lively than
a lot of other places. Thompson Arena at Dartmouth comes to mind
immediately, since I'll be there Friday. Nice arena, quiet crowd. Then
again, looking at the Big Green this year, there is not much to cheer
about. I haven't been impressed with the home crowds at Merrimack,
Colgate or Brown either.
Then there are great places. The Gutterson Fieldhouse is awesome, as
is Lynah Arena. I get a thrill just going to those two places.
Now, why isn't RPI the best:
1. The arena. It's big, in terms of capacity, the biggest in the ECAC,
and the East except for UMass-Amherst, BC and Northeastern.
Coincidentally, I've never been to any of those arenas. It's also big size
wise. You could fit 5,200 seats in a smaller building, by getting rid of
the walkway in front of the seats and moving it behind and taking those
awful seats out of the corner and moving them towards the ice. What
would that do? Move the crowd closer to the action. All the really
loud crowds in the east have the crowd close to the ice. Lynah is small
for 3,800 people, Gutterson puts people right in on the action.
Princeton and Harvard are great also, and it's impossible to be far from
the action. But that happens at RPI, so it's tougher for the crowd to
project itself. Clarkson's crowd was louder in Walker (1800 capacity)
than it is in Cheel (3000), so the arena size plays a factor. It
discourages people from trying to get into the game when their previous
attempts go for naught.
2. Crowd composition. Townspeople, and older folks, tend to be
quieter than students and alumni. RPI has a higher percentage of the
former. Nothing you can do about this, nor do you want to do. I
appreciate the support everyone gives RPI.
3. Band. The Pep Band's location is poor. They are on a stage at the
end of the ice BELOW the top of the glass. Much of the sound they
produce goes directly into the glass and bounces back. Doesn't make
for good acoustics. Either raise the stage or move the band to seats
above the glass so they can project better. No one else puts their band
in such a bad location.
4. Preparation. Yes, the fans at other schools are better prepared,
particularly Cornell and Vermont. At Vermont, during the play-down
round in 1992 Pete Ungaro and I (the WRPI crew that night, along
with Pete's then-girlfriend, Pam the She-Nazi) were amazed that the
student section was filled 45 minutes BEFORE the puck dropped.
That's how seriously they took their job(?). Next RPI home game,
watch how many students are still filtering in as the announcer starts
the opening proceedings. Also, many schools, and I'll cite Cornell and
Vermont again, perform their cheers and rituals so well they must
practice them. Excellent organization on the students' part would
produce a much better result overall. Ask yourself what little things
happen at an RPI game the average person wouldn't know. Except for
the "Sieve" chant following a goal and the "You suck" when the
opposition is introduced, nothing really happens. Go to Vermont and
Cornell to see how it should be done.
After writing this, I can't wait to be at the Cathouse on Saturday. I
love that place.
Anyway, the crowd isn't as bad as people think. During the
quarterfinals at Harvard in 1992 I sat next to Ralph Slate in the RPI
section of the stands and I think he'd agree, the RPI contingent was
really loud, maybe more than the Harvard crowd. So moving us to a
smaller arena helped a lot. Now, if the RPI fans could just rehearse
some new cheers. . . .
See, no equations. I keep my promises.
Kurt Stutt
[log in to unmask]
|
