Quantifications

[Richard Stott]

Sometime in the early 70s the CUAA made a study of expaning Lynah.  The two main plans they came up with were 1.  Extending the seats around the west end, and 2. Lifting the roof and adding more rows behind the aisle --  as in Bartels.  They also looked at putting in ice (temporary) in Barton Hall!  They didn't do anything which suggests that the final conclusion was that none of these were very good options.

But I'm convinced that they could sell out a larger rink -- they routinely had crowds of 4,800 in Lynah for big games in the 60s and 70s.   (Don't ask me how.)   There are plenty of students and lot of townies who would buy season tickets if they could, and I suspect that would continue even if we had losing teams.  (Even in bad years, the great majority of seats were sold, people just weren't coming to the games.)    It would be tragic if we lost Mike becuase of the facilities.  The new president is a Cornellian, maybe he might take some interest in Cornell athletics, unlike Rhodes and Rawlings who seemed happy to be a place where, unlike Michigan and iowa, the alumni were not constantly carping about football, basketball, etc.  -- neither seemed to pay much attention to Conrell sports.

[DeltaOne81]

Greg,

Well I've seen picture of the old UConn rink and the new one's certainly better. After all, it's indoors (and not just covered). They're lobby area is nice albeit indeed for a small crowd. The rink itself is just a hulking space, all made out of aluminum (so it's coooold), with about 4 or 5 rows of alumnum seats on an aluminum floor. They essentially said "Let's build a box and put in some ice and benches." It's better then the old place, it works for their needs, but it's hardly a nice place. Just warning against the garbage can idea (which I know what sarcastic anyways).

[Adam \'01]

I agree with those who have pointed out that "new facilities" doesn't have to have anything to do with expanded seating.  Remember, seating is a fan issue, not a player issue.  Instead it would make sense to improve what the players and coached interact with on a daily basis.  Things like locker rooms, weight rooms, and offices.

If things like a sparkling new building or plush seating are going to attract recruits, then the recruits are sort of missing the point.  We are not a Big Ten school, we shouldn't have to act like it.  Sure innovation is a key component of the Ivy League, but so are class, dignity, and tradition.

[CUlater \'89]

"I agree with those who have pointed out that "new facilities" doesn't have to have anything to do with expanded seating. "

Exactly.  Further, Schafer himself said on The Sporting Life with Jeremy Schaap this past Saturday that he loves the atmosphere at Lynah and wouldn't trade it for any of the newer facilities.

[Greg Berge]

One of the ways the attendance figures got so high in the late 60's was the SRO, ostensibly for the walkway behind the stands.  Cornell eliminated all standing room tickets when they built the Field House (I assume because of fire code but have no idea why -- Lynah is neither more nor less safe now).  Also, because there were tickets not corresponding to seats, and because student tickets were general admission, they used to cram untold numbers of kids into each row.

But attendance isn't a problem, and during mediocre years an empty building means the death of all crowd energy and cheer tradition.

[nyc94]

There are so many exits from Lynah that I can't believe it's a real fire trap.  I know that isn't the same thing as being up to code but I seriously think you could empty that place in 5 minutes.