Satow, Clay wrote:
 
> It's interesting to think about the effect of in-line. I think that it will
> be interesting to see whether in-line takes on a life of its own, that is,
> whether in-line skating and in-line hockey, rather than being a stepping
> stone to ice hockey, becomes an end in itself.  After all, ice hockey is
> still dependent on reliable natural ice, or scarce and expesive time in an
> ice rink.  In-line requies only an open space, with a reasonably flat and
> level surface.  One of the reasons that basketball exploded was that very
> little is needed by way of a playing; in fact, so little that it became an
> "urban sport."  Will all those 'bladers become ice hockey players, or will
> some people who might otherwise have become ice hockey players become full
> time in-line players?  Will in-line hockey become an urban and/or warm
> climate geography version of ice hockey?
 
In-line hockey won't become like basketball, because ice time is only one of
the ways that hockey is more expensive.  For basketball, 5-10 guys just need 1
ball; in-line still needs expensive skates, plus less expensive (for the
beginner) sticks and pads.
 
I also suspect that in-line will always remain the junior sibling, if only
because the ice version came first.  If ice hockey maintains its presence in
Sun Belt areas, that's always going to remain what everyone looks to.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.