>   After I posted the Kennedy quote this morning,and was putting the article
> on my wall,something struck me.  Kennedy said that the committee's interests
> were with the group selling the tickets,rather than the TV coverage.  What I
> get from that statement is that the NC$$'s first priority was the sale of
> tickets,rather than the exposure college hockey would gain from being on TV.
 
Think for a second. *IF* the game is not a sellout (or relatively close
to a sellout) and *IF* the games were to be televised, then people may
opt to stay home and watch the game on the tube and not go to the game
in person. Then, the arena is less likely to sell out.  If you (the
NCAA) didn't take the curtousy to *NOT* broadcast the game, the I, as a
sporting venu, would likely not bid for the tournament again. And it
won't take long before this word gets around, and it will become hard
to get an arena.
 
That is why there is often blackouts on local events (local TV stations).
Ticket sales have to take priority. The college hockey playoffs are a
national event, so you need to go beyond a local blackout. The basketball
tournament is a sellout, so that's not a good example. If it wasn't a sellout,
then they would need to do the same thing.
 
Going after the TV contract is money grubbing.
 
Derek Snyder
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady NY
[log in to unmask]