Yes, that's it. Wisconsin's logo is there in that spot because they are the
host school. The ice markings and board "ads" followed the same template in
all the sites. For example, Michigan Tech's logo was in the same location on
the ice at the Midwest regional. It's the NC$$ being its usual anal
retentive self.

At the West Regional, I was amused to see that it was UND's school logo
(which is the letters U, N and D with a flame inside the "D") rather than
the athletic logo (the Indian head) that was placed on the ice. Perhaps they
figured that the Indian head being displayed in the arena 15,000 times was
enough. ;-)

John

On 4/7/06, Mark Lewin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I believe the Wisconsin logo was displayed because they are the sponsoring
> school of the Frozen Four.  The fact that they are playing in it is purely
> coincidental.  The RPI logo was on the ice of the Pepsi Arena since they
> were sponsors of the Eastern Regional and I believe I saw BU's logo in
> Worcester while watching on TV
>
> On 4/7/06, Sara M. Fagan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Something different - I enjoyed watching the games yesterday.  I was
> > surprised to see the Wisconsin logo so prominently displayed on the
> ice.  I
> > was rooting for Wisc. but I must admit I didn't think it seemed very
> nice.
> >
> > At the end of the Maine-Wisc. game it started to get a little
> nasty.  What
> > did people think of that?  Was it mostly Maine's frustration or was
> there
> > something else going on there?
> >
> > Sara
> > SLU '77
> > Let's go SAINTS!!!
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Mark Lewin <[log in to unmask]>
> > > I'm the one who started complaining about this for this year. although
> > I'm
> > > sure someone else would have , if I hadn't.  This does not affect me.
> I
> > am
> > > retired and had the luxury of watching the games on TV.  But it wasn't
> > that
> > > long ago that I was a working stiff and had to tape the afternoon
> game.
> > > Then, of course, when I got home, I either had to tape the second game
> > > (because, of course, the announcers of the second game always
> announced
> > the
> > > results of the first game), or, I had to watch the first game while
> > taping
> > > the second game (which, of course, assumes that one has two VCR's or
> > DVR's
> > > or whatever).
> > >
> > > As far as the Bob Hamilton's comment:  yes, we can create filters. In
> my
> > > case with Google mail, I would have to create a label,  create a
> filter
> > and
> > > then auto archive the message. Otherwise the header shows.  But this
> is
> > > missing the whole point .
> > >
> > > I was not suggesting that we suppress someones constitutional right to
> > free
> > > speech or even the freedom of the press. I have no idea how many
> people
> > are
> > > on the list that may have taped the game.  I have no idea how many are
> > not
> > > in a position to avoid looking at their email for a day or two while
> > they
> > > catch up on  watching games on tape.  And I have no idea how many
> people
> > are
> > > "unsophisticated" users and may not have the knowledge about how to
> > create
> > > filters or folders  for their email accounts.
> > >
> > > The point is this. There is a  reason most of us are on this list as
> > opposed
> > > to joining the testosterone boys on the USCHO fan forum.  There are a
> > whole
> > > lot of good, knowledgeable people on the fan forums but I just get
> sick
> > and
> > > tired of the know nothings who rant and rave and bully and act like
> > > adolescents.  We don't have that on this list which is what makes it
> > > special. The difference is courtesy; we're supposed to show it and we
> > should
> > > expect it in return. Rather than  forcing some unknown number of
> people
> > to
> > > create folders and filters on their email during playoff time,
> wouldn't
> > it
> > > be easier as well as more courteous to just adopt a convention that
> > message
> > > headers should not show scores or who wins or loses. The body of the
> > message
> > > can say anything it wants, it's just the header that ruins it for
> some.
> > > Would it be so difficult to do that just for the sake of your fellow
> > list
> > > viewers?
> > >
> > > On 4/7/06, Dr. Bob Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thought I would send this now to avoid having to spoil the fun in
> the
> > > > future.  And as a warning of the seriousness of this issue should a
> > > > clairvoyant be a member of the list.
> > > >
> > > > Some straightforward options seem available for those wishing to
> > easily
> > > > resolve conflict among list membership.
> > > > 1)  Have a Hockey L folder which does not have to be opened, as has
> > just
> > > > been mentioned..
> > > > 2)  Use the convention of an information post, such as the reporting
> > of
> > > > scores from Charlie Shub.  As I recall, the post subject contains I:
> > which
> > > > can be used as a filter on incoming mail to send these to their own
> > > > folder.
> > > > Seems this was agreed by list participants at one time.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Hamilton
> > > >
> >
>



--
John Edwards
I used to put quotes here.