You wrote  "this list can discuss sports-related topics an NFL sports board
couldn't hope to address.  The benefit of gathering supporters of schools
from the Ivy League and small colleges with great academics couldn't take
place if NCAA hockey didn't have that mix of participants, . ."  which
seemed in wording quite restrictive.  Then in the last few lines you
revealed more.  Having been at Berkeley for a number of years, it seems our
list does do not need an unfounded "huge chauvanistic coup".

While I understand this is an elite D1 only college hockey list, there is
lots of ice hockey being played at other institutions.  Berkeley has had a
strong club hockey team for a number of years.  In fact, the big issue these
days is that the ice rink in the Berkeley area may fold.  So this is not an
issue without an edge at this time.

Another part of this list is that it helps keep all of us better informed
about hockey issues.  And it seems that instead of coups, d-1 programs
benefit from the talent that pushes up from other than D-1 teams.  I recall
an all NCAA first team goal tender one year had spent most of his college
career as a member of the university's club team.  Just hoping to provide a
bit of clarification here.

Bob Hamilton
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2006 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Bands my behind.


>I second Nathan's comments on civil liberty.  Sara's initial post
>provided a windfall benefit nearly as great as either of the times she
>sold me her Frozen Four tickets.  This list can discuss sports-related
>topics an NFL sports board couldn't hope to address.  The benefit of
>gathering supporters of schools from the Ivy League and small colleges
>with great academics couldn't take place if NCAA hockey didn't have that
>mix of participants, . . . or we hadn't fooled smart guys like Smith and
>Rowe into thinking they'd get rich maintaining this list for free, . . .
>or held championships at God-forsaken places like The Pond to keep Tony
>interested.
>
>There are topics related to homerism I'd love to see debated here.
>Colleges should have a unique focus on sports issues.  If serving the
>institution's primary purpose is the justification for allowing sport in
>college settings and promoting character in its student body is one of
>those primary objectives and "fair play" is one of principles sport is
>supposed to teach, why would promoting rather than reducing home field
>advantage be a strategy considered proper in academic settings?  That
>homefield advantage is a practical reality that can't be completely
>eliminated in favor of perfect fairness isn't the same as saying it
>should be promoted.
>
>Frankly, I think a college whose law school supported ethnic diversity
>in admissions when everyone else headed in the opposite direction is the
>ideal candidate to spearhead elimination of homefield advantage (that's
>*why* we let their band director dance).  And Arik, maybe the same
>fixation with the the Maize and Blue's arch-enemy of state institutions
>didn't exist when you were in Ann Arbor, but the chance to one-up
>Berkeley using a sport they don't even have is a huge chauvanistic
>coup.  We can't pass up chances like that.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>Nathan Hampton wrote:
>
>>On 3/13/06 1:07 PM, "Arik Marks" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can't believe that of all the topics for people to discus this time of
>>>year there is so much discussion of this topic.  (I think the old
home-team
>>>regional hosts and ice-size debates would be more welcome at this point!)
>>>There is a pretty clear set of rules, as people have outlined previously,
>>>which leave it up to the rink and the refs to take care of.  And home
teams
>>>can and will use the rules to their best advantage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>There is a big difference here. As for "regional hosts and ice-size" those
>>are just part of the rules of the game, and cannot be changed no matter
how
>>much bitching goes on. But the taking of a cowbell into a rink is a
>>different matter (though in some respects no different if you see it as a
>>rule someone used to their advantage). The use of a cowbell, prohibited by
>>the NCAA or home arena ushers (e.g. Feminazis), is a restriction of
>>individual liberties which some people are not willing to surrender. These
>>are things worth fighting for, these are rules worth changing. Freedom
>>requires eternal vigilance, and the cowbell is the symbol of that freedom
>>which the NCAA is attempting to squash. Where the regional is played and
how
>>big the ice do not infringe upon my liberties or freedoms. If the person
>>besides me wants to clang their bell as a freedom of expression then I
>>should be willing to fight for their ability to do it regardless of if I
>>agree with that expression or not. Unless the clanging of the cowbell
>>infringes upon public safety, welfare, health or morals, then I see no
>>reason for the NCAA (e.g. State) to infringe upon it.
>>
>>Whatever happened to good old fights in the stands, anyway?
>>
>>Nathan Hampton
>>
>>
>>
>>