In a message dated 96-06-25 23:21:31 EDT, you write:
 
>OK, and what's in it for the US Army to become a sponsor for the Hobey
>Baker Award ?  We (you and I taxpayers) certainly won't make money off it,
>and it can't be solely because the legendary Mr. Baker was in the Army.
 
The difference is the level of money involved.  I would bet that the Army's
expenditures on the Hobey Baker are miniscule compared to what it would take
Disney to promote the Final Four.  Besides, the objectives are subtly
different.  Disney wants to get ahold of anyone who will pay them money.  The
Army is trying to recruit the best people possible into giving them three
years of their lives (plus time in the Reserves).  In this sense, a small
investment in the image of the Hobey might make sense for them even though it
does not bring financial rewards.
>
>Southern California in April is much more appealing to the "I might try it"
>crowd who could be swayed by promotion to see the college game rather than
>the pro$.
 
I really think that this will only work if there is some way that they are
already hooked into the sport during the regular season.  Without a local
team, I think that is highly unlikely.
>
>I asked before, I think, isn't the college hockey championship the 3rd most
>attended championship the NC$$ conducts (all rounds) ?  Why wouldn't they
>salivate at the chance to pair up in promotion with the Mouse ?
 
Oh, that college hockey would, I don't doubt.  (Though I think that it's long
term benfits would be negligible.)  What I'm asking is why the Mouse would
want to hook up with college hockey.
 
For hockey to be the third most attended championship in the NCAA, you would
have to exclude football.  To be sure, they don't have a 'National
Championship Game', but to discount their whole post-season would be a
misnomer.  By itself, the Rose Bowl probably draws more fans than the whole
college hockey tournament.  Simply calling hockey the third (or fourth) most
attended event is misinformative.  The drop-off from #2 (either football or
basketball) to #3 (baseball) is enormous.
 
In fact, college baseball offers a cautionary tale that hockey should take a
look at.  The guys with the metal bats have, on their own terms, gone through
a huge growth in popularity in recent years.  Nevertheless, we have not
become inundated with information on the sport.  And the cost has been huge.
 Rather than reducing the regional disparities in the sport, the growth has
widened the gap beyond recognition.  A decade ago, Michigan and Minnesota
(along with Maine and Notre Dame) were national baseball powers.  One or two
of them were routinely in the eight team College World Series and they hosted
regionals all the time.  That has all changed.  It is years since a regional
was held farther north than Wichita or Lexington, Ky.  Ditto for northern
teams being in the Series.  Granted, Michigan melted down due to internal
problems, but the trend is not pretty.  The days when Michigan produced a
bushel of Major Leaguers (Barry Larkin, Hal Morris, Chris Sabo, Jim Abbott
and Scott Kamieniecki all played on the last Wolverine team to go to the
Series) are over.  The Gophers have produced a couple (Brent Gates and Dan
Wilson) recently, but nothing like they used to.
 
Simply put, expansion and growth is not necessarily a way to end the regional
nature of college hockey.
 
J. Michael Jackson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.