Frozen Four at Ford Field?

[Lauren '06]

[Q]"Outside of the games themselves and you'll see this for the 2009 Super Bowl, everything we do will be designed around the outdoors," said Wickett. "The convention center has a two-tier deck and that's an area that could be used for the Hobey Baker ceremony and we can bring the Hat Trick in on boats. A lot of what we do in Tampa is take advantage of our weather and our water and we've built a lot around the weather.[/Q]
 ::yark::

I've been to Tampa a few times.  The only thing that sticks out in my mind was miles and miles of adjacent gentlemen's clubs downtown.

[Jordan 04]

[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:

 [Q2]"Outside of the games themselves and you'll see this for the 2009 Super Bowl, everything we do will be designed around the outdoors," said Wickett. "The convention center has a two-tier deck and that's an area that could be used for the Hobey Baker ceremony and we can bring the Hat Trick in on boats. A lot of what we do in Tampa is take advantage of our weather and our water and we've built a lot around the weather.[/Q]
I've been to Tampa a few times.  The only thing that sticks out in my mind was miles and miles of adjacent gentlemen's clubs downtown.[/q]

I thought Tampa did an excellent job hosting Super Bowl XXXV, and there was a heck of a lot more to do than strip clubs.

The Florida Tournament (yes, I know it's not in Tampa) is also a great experience, mixing hockey and beach weather in the middle of the "winter."

I think Tampa is a fine choice.  Traditional? Obviously not.  But it sure as hell beats Buffalo.

[Will]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

 Like social security, I didn't earn it and I don't need it, but I'm damn happy to get it.  Party at my house in 2009.[/q]

We're going to hold you to that. :-D

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 I'm talking about the fact that it's home arenas with Olympic size ice. It's not whining when it's patently unfair.[/q]

Why is home arenas with Olympic size ice more unfair than home arenas with NHL-sized ice?

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 [Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 I'm talking about the fact that it's home arenas with Olympic size ice. It's not whining when it's patently unfair.[/Q]
Why is (are) home arenas with Olympic size ice more unfair than home arenas with NHL-sized ice?[/q]Maybe because most teams don't play on them.

[DeltaOne81]

Yeah, Jim pretty much hit the nail on the head. I think you're mostly playing devils advocate, JTW, because I think you know that. The fact is that the schools that have Olympic home rinks have plenty of experience throughout the year playing on smaller rinks too. While there are a number of teams who play on NA rinks who have little to know experience for years on end playing in Olympic facilities (hmmm, anyone care to name one? I'm sure they're out there ).

The other argument is that if the FF is always held on NA size rinks, then how can you hold the earlier rounds on Olympic and consider it all consistent and fair.

If they really feel they have to, then I have to bend to that economic reality, but I think the time has come to try without it for a while and see how the financials work out. AHL rink in Milwaukee, to be Peoria, Chicago, Detroit, Grand Rapids - throw in the *occassional* NA size home rink. And heck, I see no reason why they can't use NHL rinks for regionals - I think they could support it. They're using the Pepsi Center next year (not Arena (well okay, that too), Center). If it works, hopefully we'll see a movement towards that too. I think they can set up a good rotation w/o giving anyone a huge home advantage.

[KeithK]

I think John is making the point that it's unfair to play any NCAA games on a team's home ice, regardless of the size of the ice.  Michigan plays on NA ice and it's plenty unfair that they have hosted many regionals through the years.

[DeltaOne81]

I don't disagree, but it's even *more* unfair if it's Olympic, against a team that doesn't usually (or hardly ever) play on that surface. Sure, I'd love to see it never be at anyone's home site, but I'll put up with the occassional Engelstad or Yost in exchange for no Olympic size - preferrably even that as rarely as possible, or never though.

However, playing at Engelstad or Yost isn't really much more unfair than playing at the XCel or any other arena in a home city. Maybe a little, but not much more, and I'm willing to put up with that. CC, Wisc, and Minn in a two year span is total bullshit though.

[Trotsky]

Ah, but that's perfectly fair.  Like the Olympics themselves -- if you have the money to build the facility, you get to host. ::rolleyes::

(Snarky observation that the concentration of wealth destroys equal access to the "free" market in everything from shoes to elections, omitted.)

[nyc94]

Does anyone know who the host institution is for the Bridgeport regionals?  I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the USCHO article.

[DeltaOne81]

If I had to guess, I'd guess Sacred Heart, which would make a whole lotta sense.

However, I'd be wrong - http://yalebulldogs.collegesports.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/062305aaa.html

[cbuckser]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 Does anyone know who the host institution is for the Bridgeport regionals?  I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the USCHO article.[/q]

Yale is the host.
http://www.ecachockeyleague.com/news/men

Edit:  Sorry, Fred, for the redundant post.

[DeltaOne81]

No problem. And not just Yale, but Yale and Fairfield. Gotta wonder if the bid goes back to when FF had DI hockey, or if they're just doing it for the heck of it.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 I think John is making the point that it's unfair to play any NCAA games on a team's home ice, regardless of the size of the ice.  Michigan plays on NA ice and it's plenty unfair that they have hosted many regionals through the years.[/q]

Actually, my point is that both ice sizes (and anything in between) are allowed by the rules (and in fact Olympic is still officially preferred), so ice size shouldn't be a dermining factor in the acceptability of a regional site.  It would be like saying it's unfair to hold the all-star game at Fenway because NL players are unfamiliar with its angles, or claiming that a National League team playing on astroturf has an unfair advantage in the World Series because their home field's playing surface is less familiar to the AL team than vice versa.

The unfairness of neutral site playoff games being held at non-neutral sites is a separate question from the size of the playing surface.  It may be a disadvantage for our style of play if a regional is held on Olympic ice, but as long as it's not the home rink of one of our opponents in the regional, claiming unfairness makes us look like crybabies.  We already get enough unwarranted accusations of whining; let's not give Western fans a legitimate case on that front.

Imagine the following scenario: we host a lacrosse regional at Schoellkopf, Syracuse gets sent to that regional, it rains that day, and we win.  How do you think we would respond to the inevitable Orange whining?

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote: [Q2]KeithK Wrote:
 I think John is making the point that it's unfair to play any NCAA games on a team's home ice, regardless of the size of the ice.  Michigan plays on NA ice and it's plenty unfair that they have hosted many regionals through the years.[/Q]Actually, my point is that both ice sizes (and anything in between) are allowed by the rules (and in fact Olympic is still officially preferred), so ice size shouldn't be a dermining factor in the acceptability of a regional site.  It would be like saying it's unfair to hold the all-star game at Fenway because NL players are unfamiliar with its angles, or claiming that a National League team playing on astroturf has an unfair advantage in the World Series because their home field's playing surface is less familiar to the AL team than vice versa.

The unfairness of neutral site playoff games being held at non-neutral sites is a separate question from the size of the playing surface.  It may be a disadvantage for our style of play if a regional is held on Olympic ice, but as long as it's not the home rink of one of our opponents in the regional, claiming unfairness makes us look like crybabies.  We already get enough unwarranted accusations of whining; let's not give Western fans a legitimate case on that front.

Imagine the following scenario: we host a lacrosse regional at Schoellkopf, Syracuse gets sent to that regional, it rains that day, and we win.  How do you think we would respond to the inevitable Orange whining?[/q]Well, I still think it's more unfair.:-) Not illegal, just unfair. Baseball players play at all kinds of parks, with all kinds of angles and surfaces (yes I know that too many of them are cookie cutter the same), and those angles and surfaces do not generally effect virtually every minute of the game, like rink size does. SU, while favored by its style of play in their indoor "field", practices and plays outside on a regular basis (and yeah, I do think it would be unfair for us to host a lax regional and play in it, but much less unfair than in hockey, considering all of the above and the fact that ticket availability would not be a problem).

So, I stick by unfair, not illegal.