--- 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