Responses in **

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Michael Neal [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Regional rinks


>>Ah, so you think that all of the schools that play on the big ice should
be the ones that have to adjust.  You are so intent on wrapping yourself
in victimhood that you don't think that it goes the other way, too.
Since there are schools that play on the big ice, some regionals should
be on them, too.  Tough.  In all honesty, I see nothing wrong with
seeing what teams are good enough to win on both ice surfaces, and
saying that that makes for a better champion.

**OK, let's make it proportional representation - 8/58 is ~14%, so 1 in 7
regionals can be on a big sheet. But what you leave out is that the western
cluster of big sheets gives all western teams far more experience on those
size sheets.  There are what, 2-3 in the east?  And is there anyone who
would argue that it's easier to adjust up than adjust down in size of ice?



Also, Adam Wodon's article contained a giant inconsistency.  He started
out by saying that diversity was a great thing, and that an all WCHA
Frozen Four was too bad, because it lacked variety.  He then went on to
say that all regionals should be played on the small ice.  I guess Adam
is all for advocating variety when the other choice is to have all of
the teams he rooted for lose.  He's not so good about advocating variety
when the alternative is getting things completely the way he wants.

**Nice try.  Diversity of competition is good- lets see games pitting
contestants we haven't seen play each other.  It's more interesting, and
it's god for the fan base.

** But variety in arenas is not a good thing, and it's not contradictory.
If half the arenas were big and half small (ice wise) then fine, lets let it
alternate.  But the reality is that only ~14% play on the big sheet. So it
makes it an unfair playing field (pun intended) with benefits to those with
the big sheet.



Would the Gophers have won that game at Lynah?  Tough to say, since it
would have been a different game, but I'll accept your judgement.  So
what?  No one has come down from the heavens and declared that whichever
team is better on the small ice is, self evidently, the better hockey
team.

**Well you showed your smarts on this one.  I wasn't saying that the small
sheet shows the better team, merely that in this case with two closely
matched teams, home ice makes a big difference.  And anyone who says that
these teams weren't closely matched is a moron. We're talking 2-1 in OT in a
home game, not 5-0 in a neutral game.


If Minnesota is going to win the title, they are going to have to
beat at least one small rink team on the small ice.  Some of us take
that as a challenge rather than something to whine about.

Nobody screwed you.  Get over it.
J. Michael Neal

**Nobody screwed me. Can't wait to hear you bitch and moan when UM gets sent
to some eastern location next year.  Oh wait, there are no Eastern regionals
scheduled EVER at this point for campus locations.  They are all neutral
sites!  I am shocked.

**And I was perfectly happy when my Michigan squad got home ice against UND
in '98 while I was at school there - happy that we got to win that way - but
absolutely certain that UND got screwed in that matchup. Having seen both
sides of this, I can see the inequity.  You, sir, are 1) ignorant in seeing
how the small concentration of these rinks benefits you, and 2) just
arrogant.

**It's a shame that anyone has to argue over this at all.  Settle on one set
of rules, play em on neutral ice surfaces and most of this goes away.

Arik Marks