--- Original Message --- From: Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Frozen Four sites/warm climes/Alabama >That practical consideration shouldn't be ignored, although the degree of >emphasis on $$$$ could be relaxed slightly on a once- in-a-great-while basis. >Nobody should suggest the NCAA tournament embark on a multi-year road tour >through nontraditional, unprofitable areas just to preach the gospel. But >neither should they reject the occasional use of good viable venues because they >don't meet the "my back yard" test. Anaheim didn't ruin college hockey despite >all the bellowing and neither would a return to Anaheim. Weed out poor choices >from the Anaheim/New Orleans/Atlanta/Santa Fe/Yuma/Oklahoma City/Reno/San >Antonio/Roswell/Jackson Hole/Tucumcari list, but don't just throw them out en >masse. I remain utterly unconvinced that having the Final Four every four years in a place that doesn't have any other college hockey does anything to build interest in the game in those locations. What purpose would it actually serve? As far as I could tell in Anaheim, there weren't any locals (defined as people who aren't alumni of a hockey playing school who were already interested in the game) paying any attention, and I have a really hard time that anyone in the area remembers. I can understand why you or Tony Buffa would like to see the tournament in your neck of the woods, and that's a legitimate interest. So, too is the idea that some people would like to take a warm weather vacation, even though I don't share it. But this idea that a one-time occurence of three hockey games being played in a town is going to generate any long-term interest is completely manufactured; barring the presentation of any actual evidence, I think that it ought to be dismissed as a rationale for doing this. J. Michael Neal