A New Lynah

[CowbellGuy]

RedJeff wrote:
One point - can someone ask our CURRENT players what they think/what they thought when they were being recruited?  I'm real curious to hear what they have to say.

Not going to name names, but I know of one player who decided not to attend one of those unpleasant Boston schools in favor of Cornell after seeing a game at Lynah.



Post Edited (10-22-03 16:04)

[CUlater]

Of course, the facilities at Lynah are in a different category than the atmosphere at Lynah.  That's the reason the top recruits are the ones invited to the Harvard game.

According to one guy who has helped with recruiting for 20 years, the facilities do matter (and have impacted recruiting in the past -- not just official visits, but also when junior teams play at Lynah), just as the atmosphere matters.  That's why this coach and the past coaches have always looked for ways to improve the facilities without damaging the Lynah atmosphere. And as other have also pointed out, there are plans in existence for this which are being discussed.

[jtwcornell91]

Greg wrote:
(1) The seating/playing area should remain EXACTLY as it is, except section C's seats should be replaced by benches and the section revert to students.  Never lose a prospect to a more intense game atmosphere.

Are you allowing for a grandfather clause that would allow us young oldsters to keep our spots in C if we're willing to stand with the young'uns?

(3) There should be even more tradition/success paraphrenelia, and recent championships and achievements should be given greater prominence, without devaluing the historical stuff.  Hang the two NCAA banners at center ice with spot lights on them as the Holy Grail to aspire to, but also hammer in that this team has done a lot JUST last year, and this is no dinosaur -- it's alive!  Never lose a prospect to a slicker promotional campaign.

Before they re-made the banners, they were all white aside from the two red national championship banners, which really stood out.  Since they're using the red/white color code to distinguish men's from women's titles, the 1967 and 1970 NC banners just look like all the rest.  I'd like to see a white border added to them, so they stand out better (perhaps also making them slightly bigger).  I'd also prefer if we got rid of the banners for every NCAA Tournament appearance, perhaps replacing them with Frozen Four banners (which would only mean taking down 1986, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2002 if my reckoning is correct--all but one of those years has other banners anyway), but I don't suppose that's likely to happen until we run out of real estate in the rafters.

[kingpin248]

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

I'd also prefer if we got rid of the banners for every NCAA Tournament appearance, perhaps replacing them with Frozen Four banners (which would only mean taking down 1986, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2002 if my reckoning is correct--all but one of those years has other banners anyway), but I don't suppose that's likely to happen until we run out of real estate in the rafters.

Also 1981.  I like this idea as well.



Post Edited (04-15-03 15:45)

[Greenberg \'97]

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

Before they re-made the banners, they were all white aside from the two red national championship banners, which really stood out.  Since they're using the red/white color code to distinguish men's from women's titles, the 1967 and 1970 NC banners just look like all the rest.  I'd like to see a white border added to them, so they stand out better (perhaps also making them slightly bigger).  I'd also prefer if we got rid of the banners for every NCAA Tournament appearance, perhaps replacing them with Frozen Four banners (which would only mean taking down 1986, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2002 if my reckoning is correct--all but one of those years has other banners anyway), but I don't suppose that's likely to happen until we run out of real estate in the rafters.

Since every ECAC championship banner automatically comes with an NCAA tournament banner, I see how it's somewhat redundant to hang both for a given year.

However, it's a major accomplishment to make the tournament without receiving the autobid, since that means that the team ranked in the national top 16.  Take last year... would you have the 2002 team merely recognized by an Ivy Title?

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

The presence of real fan support does play into the decision.  I had the chance to speak to Jon Gleed's mother while waiting to get into the stands in Buffalo.  She said that for a player seeing a game at Lynah while being recruited is a major influence on their choice.

JH

[CUlater]

Not to mention that recruits are much more likely to value NCAA tourney participation over any other factor represented by a banner (particularly when they're being recruited by non-ECAC schools).

[ugarte]

[Q] Take last year... would you have the 2002 team merely recognized by an Ivy Title?[/Q]  
And 1991 wouldn't even get that.

[Rob Komorowski \'03]

I'm surprised no one has metioned this, but I have thought  lot about it after losing to St. Lawrence 2 years in a row and to Haaavaad in Lake Placid. The olympic sized ice there seemed to really tired out some of our guys' legs out there, compared to teams that at leats play on nHL sized rinks.

While I think that Lynah's smaller ice surface gives us a great advantage seeing as we are a hard hitting checking team, we seem to be at a big disadvantage when we go to play at bigger rinks for regionals.

This is why I think that if we want to field a better team for tournament play, the ice sould be NHL sized so that our guys are used to skating more and playing on a large ice surface.

Any thoughts on this?..I mean obviousl I would never want Lynah to change at all...I love how close we can be to the action and how loud it can get...but in a perfet world..wouldn't we want our guys better adapted to play on the larger ice surfaces seen in the Tourney?

Rob

[DeltaOne81]

While the steep, close seating may make it seem otherwise, Lynah *does* have NHL size (200 x 85) ice. Now, if you were suggesting we should play on Olympic ice, I'd have to kill ya ;-).

-Fred

[Rob Komorowski \'03]

Wow...I guess I've just always heard and thought that Lynah was smaller...

Oh well I'm a moron..

oh and yeah I wasn't in any way suggesting olympic size

[Greg Berge]

Lynah seems to "play small"...  the closeness of the crowd, the intensity of the players...  Maybe the boards are loose and the puck gets stuck in the corners a lot, I dunno.  Lynah has always felt more cozy than any ice except the old Gahden.

[KeithK]

The ice at Lynah is 200x85, which is NHL size (though I suppose I haven't actually measured it myself...)  But does anyone know the radius of curvature of the corners?  A rink can be normal size along the main axes but small due to very rounded corners.

[Mike Nevin \'87]

While I wish I had two more seats so I could bring my kids to games, I think that Lynah is probably the right size rink.  If it were larger to the point that seats were easy to come by, then the commitment required to get seats would drop, the true fans would be diluted, and the Lynah experience wouldn't be the same.  

I think the fact that the same students are in the same coveted seats game after game adds a lot to the creativity and ritual of the place.  Its almost like the ritual of having to wait in line and make a commitment helps breed Lynah faithful.  

Build a rink for 3824 fans, and you get 3824 fans all the time.  Build a rink for 6000, you might get 6000 fans for Harvard, and a half empty, apathetic rink most of the time.

I think adding seats on the scoreboard end, and making the facilities world class for players makes a ton of sense.

[Al DeFlorio]

Keith K '93 wrote:
A rink can be normal size along the main axes but small due to very rounded corners.

A la the old Boston Arena prior to Northeastern's renovating it.  There were no corners.