>        The game on 200 x 100 ice is simply quite a bit different than on
>200 x 85 ice.   When I said this two years ago after watching all three
>ECAC teams get blown away in the first round of the regionals  --  after
>spending the weekend before at Lake Placid  --  not many people bought into
>that theory.   But I still respectfully disagree.   It had a lot to do with
>it.   I watched Clarkson totally dominate Minnesota at Worcestor,  only to =
lose
>2-1 because they had gotten out of the habit of taking the abuse and going
>to the net  --  like you must on the smaller surfaces.
 
I'm not sure I follow your arguement.  You're saying that Clarkson played
on smaller ice all year, developed a successful style on that surface, went
to Lake Placid, changed their gameplan, and were stuck with that for the
regionals?  In two games they were able to forget a season of conditioning,
despite having gone home to practice on smaller ice for a week?
 
I agree it's not easy to change styles back and forth, but if they managed
to adopt an entirely new style at Lake Placid in only two games, how long
should it take them to revert to their own style a week later?  What if one
year they play in NCAA games on olympic size ice?  Then having played at
Lake Placid would have been an advantage.
 
I think there are more important reasons for changing the site of the
tournament, like location.  It's not much more convenient for schools than
Boston (with the exception of the North Country, and mayber Vermont, the
drive is about the same or longer), and is limited as far as interst=E5te
accessbility, large non affiliated crowd, etc.
 
Paulette Dwen
Cornell '89
Let's Go Red!