Edward Moller and Mike Machnik both bring up some good
points in discussing the effects of arenas and facilities on the
success of a Div. 1 program.
 
Although facilities are part of the decision process that a
player considers, I certainly woudn't expect it to be the
only -- or even the most important -- one.  For most players,
I think the coaching staff is probably a more important
consideration, and Mike's observations about Merrimack's
recruiting success provide evidence for this conclusion.
 
Obviously, different schools have much different considerations
in making these decisions.  For example, Michigan Tech's
MacInnes Student Ice Arena isn't "state of the art" by today's
standards (even though it was when it was built in the early
70's).  However, it wouldn't make sense for MTU (a school
of 6,500 students in a town with about 10,000 residents) to
build a 12,000 seat arena!  (The current arena has a capacity
of 4,000.)  Instead, Tech has embarked on an expansion and
renovation of the off-ice facilities, such as locker rooms, training
areas, etc., so that players will have "state of the art" facilities
in the places that matter to them.
 
The other part of the renovation is to expand the press box
facilities to allow games from Houghton to be televised.
Finally, MSN will no longer have an excuse to avoid Houghton
in their broadcasts of Minnesota games!  (Of course, many
of us have always suspected that the real reason was that
they're afraid of getting snowed in. :-)
 
New arenas can be a wonderful way to enhance a school's
program, and congrats to North Dakota on their success in
obtaining the support to build one.  However, an arena does
not make a hockey program, and a decision to build one
shouldn't be made assuming that other parts of the program
can be neglected.
 
Garrett Lanzy (Michigan Tech '84)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.