Michael, I remain utterly convinced that the idea of having the Final
Four every four years in a place that doesn't have any other college
hockey should be dismissed outright.  I'm also convinced that having the
Final Four every eight years in such a place should be dismissed if it
doesn't serve any useful purpose.  I'm just not convinced that those who
quickly dismiss the latter gave it the consideration it deserves,
especially people from Minnesota (even if they are transplants from a
better place) who don't know the nontraditional areas they're talking
about.  I'm also not convinced that the FFs in traditional territory are
such a work of perfection that there's really as much risk incurred in
an Anaheim-type approach as folks want to imply.  What is certain is
that folks in traditional territory will have to go to more trouble.

As for my convenience, I expect to be long gone before the earliest
event could possibly arrive in my current neighborhood and I don't
expect to pass up FFs between now and then if I want to go.  I do have
sympathy for Tony, but, . . . hey, if he isn't willing to walk to
Boston, screw 'im.

boB


[log in to unmask] wrote:

> --- Original Message ---
> From: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Frozen Four sites/warm climes/Alabama
>
> >That practical consideration shouldn't be ignored,
> although the degree of
> >emphasis on $$$$ could be relaxed slightly on a once-
> in-a-great-while basis.
> >Nobody should suggest the NCAA tournament embark on a
> multi-year road tour
> >through nontraditional, unprofitable areas just to
> preach the gospel.  But
> >neither should they reject the occasional use of good
> viable venues because they
> >don't meet the "my back yard" test.  Anaheim didn't
> ruin college hockey despite
> >all the bellowing and neither would a return to
> Anaheim.  Weed out poor choices
> >from the Anaheim/New Orleans/Atlanta/Santa
> Fe/Yuma/Oklahoma City/Reno/San
> >Antonio/Roswell/Jackson Hole/Tucumcari list, but
> don't just throw them out en
> >masse.
>
> I remain utterly unconvinced that having the Final
> Four every four years in a place that doesn't have any
> other college hockey does anything to build interest
> in the game in those locations.  What purpose would it
> actually serve?  As far as I could tell in Anaheim,
> there weren't any locals (defined as people who aren't
> alumni of a hockey playing school who were already
> interested in the game) paying any attention, and I
> have a really hard time that anyone in the area
> remembers.
>
> I can understand why you or Tony Buffa would like to
> see the tournament in your neck of the woods, and
> that's a legitimate interest.  So, too is the idea
> that some people would like to take a warm weather
> vacation, even though I don't share it.  But this idea
> that a one-time occurence of three hockey games being
> played in a town is going to generate any long-term
> interest is completely manufactured; barring the
> presentation of any actual evidence, I think that it
> ought to be dismissed as a rationale for doing this.
>
> J. Michael Neal