Lynah

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Changing an existing structure to allow for expansion, that unfortunately forces an advantage is quite acceptable, especially if that advantage is not universally accepted by the community.

I can live with myself.  How 'bout the rest of you?

[KeithK]

[Q]Changing an existing structure to create an advantage is "gamesmanship" of the lowest order and should be expressly forbidden at ALL rinks.[/q]Yes.  But unfortunately I doubt it is.

[ithacat]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

 They had "NCAA Runner-Up" banners hanging at Mariucci.  I thought they looked weak.  Kind of like saying "Me too!"[/q]

Or is it, "me, two" :-D

[billhoward]

Rich has a point. The NCAA could decree that if a college spends more than say 10% of the value of the rink on renovations that includes the home team locker rooms (and other work) then it has to allocate X square feet for the visitors with Y many showers, a bench for a skate sharpener, telephone, internet connection (that works), etcetera. This wouldn't remove the home ice advantage, not by a long shot, but it would level the, so to speak, playing field ever so slightly.

It's kind of fun to hear about how coaches in days of old would turn up the heat to 90 degrees in the visitor locker room but it's also borderline unfair. We've just spent the last five days discussing some of the unfairnesses of Mariucci.

[DeltaOne81]

Yeah, I actually do mostly agree with Rich here. I don't know about "the lowest order", that's pretty damn harsh. But I think Cornell has plenty of a home ice advantage and doesn't need to worry about getting anymore. And I've just never liked rinks with opposite benches - no reason to suck ever bit of advantage out of home, there's already enough.

I could "live with it", but I'd never like it.

[Jacob '06]

I at least hope there is going to be glass between the penalty box and our bench. Harvard's setup is ridiculous where the home "penalty box" is actually just an extension of their bench with a different door. I think that at least should be banned from college hockey.

[KeithK]

[Q]Greenberg '97 Wrote:

Of the two formats, having the benches on opposite sides of the ice is the design recommended by the NCAA.[/q]I don't know where you see this.  Rule 1, Section 9 a. "Players' Bench" (2005 edition) states: Benches may be situated on opposite sides or on the same side of the rink, in which case the two teams should be separated by a substantial distance."  I don't see anything recommending either layout in this section.  (To be honest I thought there was a recommendation in the book for the same side layout but maybe that was in an older version of the rules?)

If there were a gamesmanship rule Cornell could probably circumvent it based on the following statement (same section as before): "The benches should be placed... conveinent to the dressing rooms."  Clearly the current design isn't convienent to dressing rooms and the proposed renovations would do so, at least for the Cornell side.

[ninian '72]

[Q]Mike Wrote:

 Anybody know when the renovation of lynah rink is going to start. Is it this off-season or next.


My input on the renovation is dont do it. Lynah rink has tradition. I think if we try to make it look like a western style rink with box seats and everything it will take away from the atmosphere.[/q]

And don't forget those unwashed masses who can't get into today's rink, because there aren't enough seats. :-/  What is this sacred icon Lynah has become?  The atmosphere and tradition come from the team and the fans in the building, not the building itself!

[billhoward]

The solarium/walkway around the outside of Princeton's Hobey Baker are fine. You get used to it. It's one more way to expand a rink without tearing down the rink.

[KeithK]

[q]The atmosphere and tradition come from the team and the fans in the building, not the building itself![/q]Yes, but the building contributes.  Anyone who has been to both Cheel Arena and Walker knows that the facility makes a difference in the atmosphere.

[DeltaOne81]

Yeah, the building contributes, no doubt, but I don't see how any proposed renovations would effect that. The rink structure itself would be identical, but some extra seats up top, and a walkway beyond that you could maybe actually... walk in!  :-O

The character of Lynah is critical, but I don't see how the details are.

[Rosey]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

The character of Lynah is critical, but I don't see how the details are.[/q]
Agreed, strongly.  I'd personally like the walkways at the top to be more than 3 feet wide, as I'm sure the IFD would as well.   As long as the low roof is kept intact, the sight lines preserved, and the student section seating remains benches (as opposed to seats), it sounds great to me, especially since the student section will be reunited.  Finally!

Cheers,
Kyle

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Will Wrote:

 [Q2]mjh89 Wrote:

 Yea, I've been thinking that too. A team with Cornell's history doesn't need to hang a banner everytime we play in the NCAA tournament.[/Q]
Perhaps, but I think it should still be noted within the rink, like keeping the NCAA Tournament listing on the wall.[/q]

How about we modify the NCAA tournament banner to say how far we got, i.e.,

1967: Champions
1968: 3rd Place
1969: Finalists
1970: Champions
1972: Finalists
1973: Fourth Place
1980: Fourth Place
1981: Quarterfinalists
1986: Quarterfinalsts
1991
1996
1997: Quarterfinalists
2002: Quarterfinalists
2003: Semifinalists
2004: Quarterfinalists

[Steve M]

I think they should do it that way just so Rich gets annoyed when he visits Lynah. ;-)

[Molly]

I think that condensing all the NCAA appearances onto one banner would would sort of detract from the championship years buried in the list.  Another option is to do something similar to the TBRW front page, where finishes are listed by year on separate banners.

Personally, I'm a minimalist--Ivy, ECAC, NCAA championship banners do credit to Cornell's history while avoiding "banner craziness".