> It's too bad that something couldn't have been worked out to at least
allow
> for a reduced slate of games.  Dropping HE altogether seems like a
drastic
> course of action.
 
This was my reaction, as well.  It isn't as if HE is going to be hard-assed
about it.  Realistically, they have zero leverage in this situation; they
have to take what they can get.  I'm surprised NESN didn't try to at least
preserve *some* presence.  The unhappy conclusion is that they weren't just
losing money; they were likely hemorraging it.  Otherwise, certain
compromise positions suggest themselves:
 
Would the teams or the league be willing to help defray the production
costs?  (If these are really a big deal -- I would think they mostly lose
because they could be putting another licenseto-print-money syndicated
fly-fishing program in those slots...)  Would HE be willing to make any
revenue for Rights contingent on NESN seeing dollar one? Would NESN be
willing to carry a reduced slate (at a reduced loss) just for the local
area good will?  Why not discuss it, at least, and *why* announce they are
abandoning HE during a season in which they're already committed to a slate
of HE games?
 
More suspicious minds than mine can concoct a rationale for how the timing
or manner of this announcement benefits *somebody*, but to me it seems to
have been impolitic and/or dumb.
 
 
Greg Berge
Let's Go Red!
Defending league champs and sharing first place on Christmas Day, '96.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.