To Tony Buffa:
 
I guess I'm one of those naysayers but, I'm curious.  What criteria are you
using to describe Anaheim as "not that bad".  That it didn't snow (like it
did in Milwaukee in '93) or that the freon didn't explode (like in
Cincinnati).  On the other hand, no one in Anaheim gave two s**ts about
college hockey.  We stayed at the Westin, once of the host hotels and had
to confirm that, yes, colleges actually do field hockey teams.  And how
about the numerous choices (not!) for dining between semifinal games.
 
And as for the games drawing very well.  None of the three games was sold
out.  The afternoon semifinal probably had no more than 8-9,000 people in
the stands and, no matter what the NCAA has for a "paid attendance", the
final had no more than 14,000.  It seemed to me that it was a long way to
go to prove a point that Southern California (or Orlando or San Jose) is
not the place for the hockey finals.
 
 
>Given the evangelistic bent of many college hockey fans, as well as the
>grossly insufficient seating available in Providence this year, I should
>think that most (if not all) of us would favor large venues in interesting
>locales that could become hockey hotbeds in the future. Assuming that the
>ice-making machinery works.
>--jeff partnow
 
Jeff, please tell me what the criteria will be for an "interesting locale
becoming a hockey (college, I hope) hotbed".  The places I have had heard
mentioned are Orlando, San Jose, Nashville, Dallas and Atlanta.  Other than
the fact that four of the five have NHL teams, what advances has the sport
made at the grass roots level to justify plunking the finals down among an
unsuspecting populace?
 
For those of you who want to travel to interesting locales, no problem.  Go
but be sure that its not on the weekend of the Phrozen Phour.
 
Greg Ambrose
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.