I've read some of the negative comments about U.S. College Hockey Magazine
and would like to add my own thoughts.  There have been problems in the
past with timeliness and content.  However, I believe that some major
steps have been taken to improve both.
 
USCHM can't be like Sports Illustrated and have something in your hands that
is only 2-3 days old.  With some changes that have gone into place this
year, however, the magazine is dramatically more current than in the
past.  I received my first issue a week and a half after I submitted my
article.  That's pretty good for this type of market.
 
What encourages me even more is the near-total rebuilding of the magazine's
content.  Three of the four Division I conferences have new writers: Paula
Weston for the CCHA, Scott Lauber for Hockey East and myself for the ECAC.
 
I'm not egomaniacal enough to comment on myself, but I've loved Paula's
work on U.S. College Hockey Online.  I still get jealous every time I
reread her feature on Michigan fandom.
 
And I think Scott is a terrific writer.  His work with the BU Free Press
last year was consistently strong, he has a great feature on Tom Noble in
the current BU program and has some really good pieces in the first issue
of USCHM.
 
I think all may agree that in the past USCHM fell short of the
mark.  How far short will vary from one person to the next.
 
But I'm looking at this year's first issue and I really like what I see.
 
I think it would be unfortunate to continue to judge the magazine by
its past shortcomings.  People really should be evaluating what U.S. College
Hockey Magazine is doing now.  And what it's doing now is some very good
work IMO.
 
I'd be interested in seeing comments from subscribers who have read this
year's first issue.  My guess is that they see a big improvement and feel
they are getting their money's worth.
 
Dave Hendrickson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.