>> I'm going to send a second letter after the tournament is over, in which
>> I'll show my  gratitude again for their coverage and give some friendly,
>> constructive criticism on how to improve the coverage in the future.  I
know
>> it's important not to flame them but it's also important to let them know
>> how they can improve.
>
> No offense but these guys have been doing hockey for a long time.
>I thought they did all right. They are entitled to a few mistakes, and
>they spend most of their time covering the NHL. So what if they got a few
>things wrong, I doubt Steven E. any of the staff would take much weight in
>your comments. The game were of high quality and I thought for the most
part
>the comments of the announcer were pretty good. They talked about the end
>line, no red line, and everybody hits. I think you might see these
>changes in the NHL in the future as they want to get more offense into
>the NHL. I thought the NC$$ did a pretty good job putting on a good title
>series. Thanks ESPN you did great. However, I did not see RI play in
>either game on thursday. :)
 
 
I didn't mean to imply they did a bad job.  I thought they did an okay job,
but
it was far from perfect (I know everyone can't always be perfect, but every
business should strive to be).  The main goal of the e-mail was to show
support for college hockey.  The critique of the telecast was secondary and
small, and I really don't care if they listen to it.  The more ESPN gets
e-mails
concerning college hockey, good or bad, the more it will be on their minds
come scheduling time.  Assuming, of course, that they don't just have some
intern reading the e-mails and then deleting them :).
 
Jim Walker
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.