Vicki Price writes:
 
>On April 7, 1999, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Look, I admire your devotion to a sport that you rarely see,
>>however should the NCAA be catering to a minority like you at the >expense
>of all the fans in the eastern and central time zones?  I >was thinking of my
>water polo comment today and, as I recall, >there are teams out here who do
>play water polo.  So maybe their >tournament should be in Vermont, or maybe
>Boston, at Harvard! At >least there are some people here who actually see the
>sport.
>
>
>Greg,
>
>You're making lots of assumptions here, or you just didn't know that I'm a
>Minnie local. I can see college hockey at home, in Wisconsin, and North
>Dakota whenever I want, and I do. I lived in the Los Angeles area in the
>80's. So, I shared the experience of California road (solely for hockey)
>travel when my son was only a mite. Local club teams flew to the Midwest and
>east coast for tourneys and a chance to see a college game. That was our only
>route to advanced competition. We were always broke because of it.
>
>I appreciate and understand how you feel.. I disagree though.   Having the
>final four out west (once in a while) could eventually  garner the interest
>to boost local college programs. College hockey won't grow just being
>exclusive to hockey-hot-bed regions.
 
A sport only grows if there is regional interest in it.  If there was
enough interest in hockey out there, the Kings and the Ducks would sell out
every night, the colleges would have varsity teams and high schools would
be playing the sport.  None of that is happening.  My memory is that USIU
dropped hockey, the California Golden Seals (remember them?) moved and
there has been no clamor for expansion anyplace else on the west coast.
>
>>>was a novelty to most of the newspapers readers. It appeared to >be a way of
>introducing the sport to the natives, not very >encouraging to see for most
>college hockey diehards.
 
What's not very encouraging is that the rudiments of the sport have to be
introduced and the venue it is done through is the national championship.
Let the area build a fan base, then there would be justification for
hosting the tournament there.
>
>Your use of "novelty", "native" and "minority" smacks geographic bias.
>Perhaps your "diehard" zeal disqualifies any possibility of recognizing
>potential for other college hockey growth areas.
 
"Growth area" is a loaded term.  They have pro hockey in England too, so I
guess that it is a "growth area" as well.  Hey, if southern California
grows into an area where there is fan support for college hockey, I've got
no problem with it.  But you have to admit there is none now.
 
New venue (the Pond).. far
>from home..crucial game... I can understand your trepidation. I wouldn't
>discount the West Coast for future development (a new division) and maybe a
>Frozen Four sponsored by Stanford or UCLA in 2008. A Southern Frozen Four in
>Alabama, 2012.. Huntsville already has a strong hockey tradition. Then your
>complaint will be that college hockey is diluted and impure. Midwesterners
>call that East Coast Puritanism.
 
I always love people like you who can actually read my mind, even if it is
incorrectly.  We'll talk in 9 years and see how Stanford and UCLA are
doing, OK?
 
Greg Ambrose
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.