Jim Love <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Craig Roberts wrote:
>   ....
> > Check out the Gophers on the Web at http://www.gophersports.com
> > Or call the Diet Coke Gopher Sports Hotline at (612) 626-STAT
>
> <mount soapbox>
>
>   I know that college sports has now crossed a Rubicon re: their incestuous
> relationship with the marketeers (and there'll be no turning back), but it
> still pains me to see to what degree so many of the 'Big State U's (including
> my own beloved UNH, better classified as a 'Little State U', or "Rhode
>Island,
> New Hampshire, what's the difference") have succumbed to the lure/pressure of
> advertising dollars.  Pristine white boards are now as rare as hen's teeth
> even in the college game, and while I've grudgingly accepted the privilege
> (since transmuted into a right) of the TV contractor of record to juggle
> start times to its (but not necessarily the fans') benefit, the "Diet Coke
> Gopher Sports Hotline" just doesn't sit well with me.  Leigh Montville
> (former Boston Globe sports columnist) had a piece on CNN-SI some weeks
> back lamenting the stampede to spot-market "anything and everything in
> sport," and noted the sad, inevitable capitulation of the Rose Bowl to the
> marketeers.  Is there nothing our own colleges/universities won't sell
> naming rights to in the headlong pursuit of yet more $$$.  At what point
> is enough enough ??
>
> <dismount from soapbox>
 
Jim, I know you're a hopeless idealist :-), but let me weigh in on the
other side of things here.
 
A lot of the things you're talking about take money to make them happen or
to make them of the quality you want to see.  Sponsorship of bowl games
helps pay the teams, and as we all know, the more money, the better the
chance that a bowl will land a high quality team.  (even the Rose Bowl
might not have been able to continue the special tradition it has of
matching those two conference champions if it was not competitive
money-wise with the other bowls out there.)  Plus there are the expenses
associated with holding a football game in front of 106,000 people.  Sure,
the organizers are making money, but last I heard the US was one of those
countries where people generally did not begrudge others making a profit.
:-)
 
On a much smaller scale, and something I know more about, is the way this
issue relates to college hockey.  If you listen to Merrimack broadcasts
you'll hear that this portion of the game and that one are brought to you
by various advertisers, we have the "<insert sponsor here> Coach's Corner"
and the "<sponsor's name> Intermission Report", and this season we hope to
add the "<sponsor's name> Warrior of the Game".
 
What is interesting is that since we have started offering these "title
sponsorships" as we call them, we seem to have landed more advertising.  I
remember the days when we didn't have more than one or two sponsors for a
*whole* broadcast -- and that was before we started doing things like this.
But is is easier to procure advertising when you tell the sponsor, every
night when people listen to hear who the player of the game is, they're
going to hear your name.
 
And what that means is that we can bring in more money to pay for the
broadcasts.  If we didn't do things like this, we might not be able to
broadcast the games.  It's a small price to pay.  And it is expensive to
broadcast games on the radio.  You have to pay for the air time, the
equipment, an engineer back at the station, the on-air "talent" (such as it
is), the line rental fee on the road, and other miscellaneous expenses.
 
I look at the ads on the boards the same way.  We all know it costs a lot
of money to run a D1 hockey program, and most programs don't make money
despite all the ads you see.  Still those ads help make the loss less
severe.  And when you're talking about schools that play in very expensive
new buildings like UNH does, well, the ads on the boards go some of the way
towards making that possible.  If Merrimack is going to build a new rink
soon, and I am pretty sure they will, and ads on the boards are considered
necessary and factored into the whole financial equation, then I am all for
it.  I'll take ads and a new rink over what we have now and no ads.
 
I don't know the situation with Minnesota's sports hotline but I dare say
that isn't free to produce and maintain.  If calling it the "Diet Coke
Gopher Sports Hotline" helps them to pay for it and justify doing the work
to make information available to Gopher fans in that manner -- apparently
free if you're within the local calling area -- then that's not a bad thing.
 
So I wouldn't worry about it.  Think about what you're getting and what it
would be like that if you decided to keep sponsors out.  I don't think the
end result would be an improvement.
 
On a related note, it looks like broadcast.com (nee Audionet) is beginning
to charge a lot more money to people who want to use their services to
broadcast events.  It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this
has on the schools that have been using broadcast.com to air their hockey
games, especially the smaller schools.  Again, it isn't free, and in fact
far from it now, perhaps partly because broadcast.com just went public and
is now accountable to shareholders.  The schools that continue to do it are
going to have to find some way to either justify the cost or do other
things to cover it, and increased sponsorship may be one of the answers.
But other schools may find that it just is not feasible.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                [log in to unmask]               *HMM* 11/13/93
*****          Color Voice of Merrimack Hockey WCCM 800 AM          *****
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
>>>    U.S. College Hockey Online http://www.uscollegehockey.com/     <<<
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.