> rotates in on the Deuce and ESPN now and then.  He assured me that while
> they tend to hate whiners, complainers, and nitpickers, they are
constantly
> impressed and gratified when they receive constructive comments from
> knowledgeable fans, even when it's to point out that they said something
> wrong.
 
Ultimately, though, it will come down to advertising dollars.  Note that
this is not the same thing as ratings.  The "under a 1 share" stat is not
important, because the directedness of that 1 share should be highly
attractive to plenty of advertisers.  Relative to ESPN's other audiences
(in fact relative to any TV audience), college hockey does impressively
along education / income demographics, and it should be an easy sell to all
of those folks who put ads in THN, on ESPN's pro broadcasts, etc.
 
Plenty of sports continue to get TV air time more for specialized
advertiser dollars than for a large fan base.  Is there even one person on
this planet who follows the Paul Mitchell pro beach volleyball tour?  (OK,
OK, but is there one if you exclude the jiggle factor?)
 
I'm not saying college hockey will or even should move in this direction
(in fact, I'm against intertwining college athletics even more tightly with
corporate advertising).  But the opportunity to garner more hours will come
from advertisers' perceived opportunity, and that isn't equivalent to high
ratings.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.