In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Kenneth Michael Baker <[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>You are absolutely right indeed!  College Hockey is something that is
>becoming extremely big at the 44 or so universities that have it.
 
This is the problem, there are only 44 or so Division I schools that
have ice hockey. It's irrelevant that college hockey is big with
college hockey fans because that's to be expected (as with any sport).
The networks want to attract as large an audience as possible. Having
44 teams is not an incentive to broadcast ice hockey. I bet more than
44 schools have lacrosse teams, yet you don't see lacrosse on network
TV.
 
Baseball is far more popular than ice hockey in the United States,
yet college baseball gets only a fraction more media attention than
ice hockey. So, to expect college hockey to be viable on network TV
is nothing but a fantasy, much less a dream.
 
The market simply is not large enough to make the venture profitable
for the major media outlets. You have to have something to market to
the public before there will be people interested in seeing what you
have. California and Texas, they don't have any Division I teams, do
they? So why would a network want to show something that only small
markets are interested in?
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins               "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine                                  -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
[log in to unmask] ____________________________________________