Nadine is doing a great job with #1 & #2. And although it's outside of my view, I suspect she's excelling at #3 as well. She's quite brilliant, you know.
agreed, and let’s certainly hope on #3.

Nadine is doing a great job with #1 & #2. And although it's outside of my view, I suspect she's excelling at #3 as well. She's quite brilliant, you know.
I'm good with this characterization.I agree, and I don't see your position and mine being too far apart, based on past discussions.
I don't read Sierra as saying that. Supporting the status quo is one thing. But I don't believe that this implies a reflexive opposition to improvements. Of course I'll let my hockey sibling speak for herself.The current poster's view seemed to be more along the lines of women's hockey players shouldn't expect anything more than this.
The OSU Ice Rink was at the bottom of the Men's CCHA. Now I always cringe a little when criticizing the Ice Rink. I've had so much fun in that building over the years, both on and off the ice. But truth be told, it's always been a plain-to-ugly building on the outside. Fan amenities have always been limited. Back in the CCHA era, the locker rooms were deplorable.I can't speak to what kind of buildings other CCHA teams were playing in during that era, but I know that most of the teams that were in the WCHA when I first realized that tOSU played men's hockey didn't have the caliber of arena that they do now.
In terms of physical plant, that's accurate. But we are not at the bottom in terms of in-game atmosphere and home ice advantage. As I've posted on numerous occasions. Some more detail below.In the current women's WCHA, the Buckeyes' home is at the bottom. The St. Thomas rink isn't big, but it isn't ancient, and a replacement is in the works.
I'll buy that. Another example showing we mostly agree.Your point that some of the Minnesota programs promote hockey disproportionately is valid. If tOSU was still in its prior position of trying to compete for home ice in the WCHA quarters without realistic dreams of the NCAA tourney, then what you have for a building might be acceptable. Once you join the conversation for, "Who has the top program?" then a subpar facility becomes a drag on the sport as a whole.
"Embracing the charm of what they have" is a spot-on description. Wordsmith ARM nails it again. And I also agree that the Ice Rink is not analogous to Fenway Park.The Buckeyes fans have done a good job of embracing the charm of what they have, but we aren't exactly talking about Fenway Park in terms of tradition.
Mausoleum Hockey: Just Say No!...I do agree that we have an intimate setting for our games and with the packed crowds we have been getting lately, the atmosphere beats the crap out of teams that play in 5,000 seat arenas but there are only 100 people there ... as Pgb put it, mausoleum hockey.
OK, being grounded is a good thing. But not that well grounded!I did talk to someone at the game tonight who assured me and Hockeybuckeye that a new facility was on the way and to just be patient. I told him I just hope I am still on this side of the ground when it gets built ... LOL.
Okay; I'll defer to your opinion on this.I don't read Sierra as saying that.
I kind of agree with you. But ...In terms of physical plant, that's accurate. But we are not at the bottom in terms of in-game atmosphere and home ice advantage. ... Mausoleum Hockey vs. The Ugly Building? In all sincerity, give me the Ugly Building.
OK, being grounded is a good thing. But not that well grounded!
Now I don't want to be too macabre. But maybe you've just unearthed the one argument in favor of Mausoleum Hockey. (winking emoticon here)
I hope Webster is OK, she took a hard shot to the ice late in the game and did not return. It looked like she was off to the side of the bench with ice on her right arm / wrist but it was difficult from the distance to be certain if I saw that correctly.
Awesome!President Carter was interviewed during the men's game, and it was extremely eye opening. He addressed the issue of new arenas (that's right arenas...plural) head on. Said that The Schott is too big for the men and the Ice Rink is too small for the women. He specifically said (and this is the jaw dropping moment) that while the "assessment period" is still ongoing that he really believes that there's "a need for two new sheets." In the context, he clearly meant two new arenas.
Awesome! And if the new President can make it official during his "honeymoon period," it will be a dream come true.
The only thing I'd add is that I wouldn't sweat out the distinction between two arenas vs. two ice sheets. To the best of my knowledge, Ridder (UofM) & LaBahn (UW) are both in their own buildings, but both are connected by tunnels to the Men's Hockey Ice Sheet. I'd describe that as two arenas but one unified facility. It's not the only way to do it, but it's certainly a solution that would work for me.
I'm going to make an assumption that when our season is completed there will be the media coverage and it would only be logical some reporters will inquire to the powers that be where are we with the promised women's arena.
I'm going to make an assumption that when our season is completed there will be the media coverage and it would only be logical some reporters will inquire to the powers that be where are we with the promised women's arena.
I've heard some opinions when speaking with others why not make the new arena for both the men and women.
We all know the old rink is too small but we have a tremendous atmosphere because we sell out and fill it.
If we build a 5000 seat arena for both teams to share wouldn't that put the women in the same situation the men are currently in, that it's too big for them?
I'm familiar with this decision. It's interesting and relevant. I am glad you brought it up. But it's not similar.I kind of agree with you. But ...
When a similar question came up for the MN HS girls (oversized Xcel Energy Center or Ridder Arena for Girls HS Tournament), they wanted to play in the NHL rink versus the college rink packed full of atmosphere. They wanted to play where the boys played.
I once attended a Buckeyes/Mavericks game at All-Seasons. Can't say I recall the pulled out bleachers; I suppose they were fully set up when I was there. Never skated on that ice sheet, so I can't comment on the quality of the ice. IIRC, there was a concession area at one end of the rink, that was walled off with large windows. So if you wanted, you could watch the game through the windows, in a warmer environment. A quirk with some selling points. Anyhow, I can understand and agree that the Maverick Women needed to move.I don't really have a problem with "ugly" per se. Remember back to when Mankato was still playing in All Seasons Arena? Nobody claimed that the OSU's barn was the worst then. It wouldn't be accurate to say that it didn't have seating, because there were a few rows of bleachers, some of which were pulled out so that people could sit on them.
Never been to a Lindenwood game on their campus. But hiding the puck under the boards? Wow. Metal staircase? Bet the staff in charge of skate sharpening loved that feature of the building.When Lindenwood came to town, it held the 60 people in attendance fine. If the Gophers were in town and 300 showed up to watch, it was a challenge. There were all sorts of walls and overhangs that could come into play. My favorite was the year that the Zamboni door (which was behind and to the right of one goal) wasn't closing properly, so there was a gap beneath it. When a team got stuck in that zone and couldn't get a clear, a defender would just stuff the puck under the door. The refs would have to allow a change, because there wasn't a rule forbidding intentionally hiding the puck under the boards. To get to the ice, depending on what locker room they were put in, teams might have to either descend the long, metal staircase that came down one wall, or tromp through the paying customers in the concession area. There must have been a lot of players over the years who thought, "This would have been the worst arena in my HS conference."
Admittedly the roof is too low. It causes a couple of otherwise unnecessary stoppages per game.Never been to your home, so I can't say if it's just unsightly, or if it impacts play.
The latter. Especially after the renovations made in preparation for the arrival of the Women's D-1 team. (25 years ago)I hate watching men's regionals that are held in arenas where the ice degrades so badly that skill teams have to make a play in the first 10 minutes of a period, because the ice won't allow skating, much less puck handling while skating, thereafter. If the ice is good, the boards/glass yield mostly true bounces...
Thumbs Up & LOL. The cringe-worthy part is the Visitors Locker actually was that bad in the '80s and '90s....and the players can change/shower in a room that isn't out of a prison movie, then I can tolerate other cosmetic issues.
Thanks. Me too, of course.Ultimately, I hope you get a new rink that your players deserve.
If you hear today's podcast on USCHO, you'll hear it from someone that lives it everyday ... I think Jen Gardner makes the point very clear. Rinks don't matter if you're trying to be elite and win championships. OSU is a football school that's playing for a national championship every year. No other school that has womens hockey has to deal with that. Careful what you wish for. I heard during covid 10 plus sports were on the chopping block and womena hockey would be one of them. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now with NIL tOSU needs every dollar to compete with the others who don't have womens hockey. Again, Jen Gardner states it very clearly on where she and the Buckeye womens hockey team stands.
I do understand you frustration. Hopefully this article will cheer everyone up.
https://www.therinklive.com/pro/pwhl...team-minnesota