--- Original Message ---
From: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: Frozen Four sites/warm climes/Alabama

>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 guessing that that should read "shouldn't 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.

Ditto.  I just don't see any actual evidence or real
likelihood that the particular useful purpose being
cited here is anything other than notional.  There may
well be other useful purposes, but simply stating this
one doesn't make it so.

>I'm just not convinced that those who
>quickly dismiss the latter gave it the consideration
it deserves,

And, since I didn't do so, we're in agreement again.
I would, however, ask you to actually support this
particular consideration rather than simply asserting
it.

>especially people from Minnesota (even if they are
transplants from a
>better place) who don't know the nontraditional areas
they're talking
>about.

Well, that's a very nice ad hominem attack, but it
doesn't serve any valuable rhetorical purpose.
Particularly since, in this case, it isn't even
factually true.  My mother's family all lived in
Dallas (Plano, actually) until two years ago, and I
visited frequently.  My cousins are even huge sports
fans.  And yet, in none of my visits, did I see any
evidence that they, or anyone else, were even
potentially interested in college hockey.

And, even if there are some people who are potentially
interested in the game, how is it that you think that
playing three games there is likely to advance that
potentiality into reality?  Has this happened in
Anaheim?

>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.

I don't think that there's any particular risk, as
such, except that the attendance for a particular
tournament will go down; long-term, I think that the
effect would be negligible.  But that also applies to
the benefits.  Absent a full-season presence in a
location, three days of hockey just isn't likely to
drum up that much interest.

>  What is certain is
>that folks in traditional territory will have to go
to more trouble.

Well, yes.  And, absent any particular benefit, why
would it be in the interest of the NCAA or college
hockey in general, to make it more difficult to most
of the fan base to attend the games?

Now, granted, a number of people have expressed an
interest in using this as an opportunity to take a
warm weather vacation.  That would be a benefit.  It
happens to be one that I don't share, since I'm not
really interested in a warm weather vacation during
April (that's far too close to summer, which I hate
even up here), but it is nonetheless real.  I'm not at
all sure that that one benefit equals the cost, for
the fans taken as a whole, but it is there.  If there
are other benefits, I'd love to hear about them, but
I'll have to think that there's actually something to
them.

J. Michael Neal