Bob,
" [T]he Maize and Blue's arch-enemy of state institutions," which is Michigan State, does have hockey and it is in East Lansing, not Berkeley.
Nathan Hampton
University of California, Riverside, B.S. 1976
University of California, Santa Barbara, M.A. 1985, Ph.D. 1987
-----Original Message-----
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List on behalf of Bob "
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 5:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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
>
>
>
>
|
