>Larry Haag, Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY wrote:
>
> 1) The fans who cannot make it to games in person still get to see some Maine
> hockey.  Why should the local Maine fans be hurt by the NC$$ ruling?  (My
> brother and nephews have watched many more games on TV in Waterville than they
> have seen live in Orono.)
 
Part of the penalty is to reduce to program's exposure.  Broadcasting in
any form
would allow the program to benefit and reduce the impact of the
decision.
 
> 2) One or more charities receive money that could be put to good use.  Who
> knows how many might benefit from this?
 
Why not donate the ticket sales from the area if this is such a good
use?  Just
as valid an argument as #2.  But again, it dilutes the penalty imposed
if any
broadcast would be allowed.
>
> 3) TV stations that carry the games collect advertising revenue, advertisers
> get new customers, etc. (capitolism at work...).
 
Somehow the station will fill the time slot and sell the ad spots.
(Capitalism
at work...).
>
> 4) The NC$$ could even take a cut.  (Don't they get a piece of the action
> anyway?)
 
The NCAA gets as much as it wants. Don't suggest new income sources to
them.
 
The Black Bears will survive this decision, they will continue to field
a
good team despite the penalty, and they will have a shot at the tourney
in
the spring of 98.  Keeping the 93 chanpionship is about as good a deal
as
the fans could expect from the NCAA.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.