>I have a question about the NCAA Regional sites for this year...I just
>received the 1993-94 Clarkson schedule poster (thanks, Brian), and I nticed
>it said for the West Regional, "Michigan State's Munn Arena"...now, asume that
>Michigan State makes the tournament, and is seated between 1 and 4 in he West
>(which is likely to happen, if the preseason polls are correct)...theywould
>get to play at home, and thus this is no longer a "neutral site"...wha
>justification did the NCAA give for this?
Jeremy, I thought this was a rhetorical question. :-) One only needs to
substitute dollars for vowels in the name, as in NC$$. I'm from the East, but
I can figure out the NC$$ has had a problem with the West Regional at the Joe.
As I remember the '92 version had the Joe doing its imitation of this year's
Shea Stadium. And I don't think the attendance this year was exactly inspiring
either. Perhaps the Michigan crowd out there can offer some explanations, but
apparently the Regionals just don't draw out West, at least in Michigan. As a
result the NC$$ has returned the semis to campus arenas, (I believe Wisconsin
has the 1995's, and I bet Minnesota wins the 1996's,) out West. Actually the
situation isn't that much different from this year's East regional. Everyone's
paper tiger, RPI, could end up playing their semifinal games at the
Knickerbocker Arena (I know, just that little thing called an NC$$ bid), which
for all intents and purposes would represent home ice for the Engineers.
All in all IMO The NC$$ grows the sport better by playing the Regionals on
"neutral" ice. In order to expand the fan base the NC$$ needs to expose other
areas to collegiate hockey. The problem is when the areas don't respond to the
exposure. (What a great choice of words.) I would think there are other
arenas in the Midwest or West that might attract a crowd to see the semis, but
apparently the NC$$ opted for the bird($$) in the hand?
_
"NYS // Hockey"
Go 'Gate // Brian Morris
Go RPI // Albany, NY
______// [log in to unmask]
(______/
|
