Steve Klein wrote:
 
 
"...most of the time, you're fighting legitimate content decisions based on
local coverage demands.
Why do most of us want more college hockey in the big papers or on ESPN?
Ego. We want OUR sport to be recognized as more important than it may really
be in the greater scheme of things, whether it's Boston or Chicago or even
East Lansing, Mich., where I worked for 10 years with one of the best
college hockey writers in the business, Neil Koepke.
In the greater scheme of things, do we REALLY believe that college hockey
deserves all that more coverage in the Boston Globe? That's really something
only the locals and students in the area can answer -- if they can put aside
their inherent bias of being a college hockey fan."
 
Steve, there are several good point here.  My beef with ESPN/ESPN 2 is what
they DO cover.  There's more of a market for the "World's Strongest Man"
competition (especially those competitions that are a couple of decades old)
than there is for college hockey?
 
Then there's the ESPN 2's announcers for last season's championship game.
These guys called the championship game an "appetizer" for the games that
evening--the NCAA Basketball Final Four, which weren't even airing on ESPN!
 
Yes, most of the time, market demand dictates what's shown/covered.  And I
have no knowledge of the whole Boston Globe situation.  But it's not just
ego that makes me think that college hockey deserves television coverage;
often television creates demand, and not the other way around.
 
By the way, I completely agree with your assessment of Neil Koepke.  Good
guy, good writer.
 
Paula C. Weston
Girl Reporter
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.