No one on this list wants to hear this, but I think we sometimes get
self-involved to the point that we lose touch with reality. And the reality
is that Division I college hockey consists of 43 schools, a majority of them
not even Division I schools. I was stunned to be reminded on the list that
only Wisconsin and Minnesota are Division I schools from the conference
(WCHA) that has won more NCAA titles than any other.
 
I've always been in favor of anything that broadens our sport's base. If
that means schools in Alaska or satellite schools in Nebraska, great. But I
have to admit that the idea of a Big Ten conference has always appealed to
me, and that the concept of a super conference is equally appealing if we
want our sport to:
     -- Receive increased television coverage.
     -- Be "mentioned" in Sports Illustrated.
     -- Not be treated disrespectfully by a no-name incompetent studio host
on ESPN.
     -- Receive coverage in a major daily like the Chicago Tribune other
than when a program is going down the tubes.
 
When I covered hockey at Notre Dame in the early '70s, the only way I got
stories on the front sports page was by threatening the basketball writer
(we all did desk work) that I'd play his stories exactly as he played
hockey. Did the prime coverage help? For three of the four seasons I covered
the Irish, crowds of more than 4,000 were not uncommon, and ND had several
of more than 4,700 (OK, it was Wisconsin!). Coverage and play in the media
does make a difference.
 
And, sad to say, coverage (or play of the stories) at Michigan State has
diminished at my former paper in Lansing, where I was sports editor until
last June. And that's with one of the best college hockey beat reporters,
Neil Koepke, in the business.
 
The ESPN coverage of the championship game was an insulting joke. You almost
have to think that ESPN wants to dump college hockey and was trying to
insult the NCAA (when you look at the numbers, do you think WE matter?). WHO
WAS THAT STUDIO HOST? Someone's kid? Why did college hockey fans have to
suffer the basketball mouths between periods? Why did ESPN put nothing into
added production of the event, like some interviews or added graphics? When
you consider how cooperative the coaching fraternity has been with USA TODAY
Online this season, you have to know that ESPN just didn't ask, just didn't
care, just didn't bother. The best moment came when Brian Bonin spent a few
minutes in the booth (a true Hobey Baker moment if ever there was one). We
all know how well ESPN can do things. But we also saw how poorly it can do
things too (if it wants to?).
 
There's a tradeoff in our sport, and it's time for the league commissioners
to sit down TOGETHER and GET IT TOGETHER. Given the institutional
responsiblity to gender equity that all schools have (how's that for
political correctness?), hockey is too expensive AND too-male participation
rich to expand. That's the reality. If you want a sport that gets big-time
attention (ESPN, SI, big-city dailies), you need big-time name recognition.
That means Wisconsin and Minnesota play Michigan and Michigan State. not ...
(no way I'm going to name anybody here!). Then, the sports will get some
attention (maybe). Of course, in such a super-league, there won't be any
super records. The same would be true in football or basketball if the top
10-12 teams in the country all played each other. So, that's a drawback you
have to consider.
 
I've thrown out a bunch of ideas here. None are meant to be disrespectful to
anyone or any school, so let's not make a flame war out of this. Let's deal
with the ideas, which may be good, bad or ugly. Let's have a constructive
debate, keeping in mind that this list respresents the best and most
thoughtful of college hockey fans. People who make decisions read this list,
even if they don't participate. Let's give them something to think about.
 
I think the crux of the debate (as I am posing it) is:
 -- Do we want to consolidate the top 20-25% schools in college hockey and
maybe (but not necessaily) double or triple the attention the game receives?
 -- Or do we want to broaden the base of the sport, as unlikely as that may
be given the current climate in athletics?
I've always favored the latter, but now I'm starting to think that I may
have been a foolish idealist. Of course, had I not held and shared that
philosophy with the real movers and shakers in the sport (people like the
late Ralph Romano at UMD, Bob Johnson at UW, Lefty Smith at ND and Ron Mason
everywhere he has been), there would be no hockey at Wisconsin, no revival
at Notre Dame, no growth at schools like Lake Superior State, Maine and, who
knows, perhaps Ohio State (big enough to get The Swoosh from Nike).
 
Just my thoughts on a sport I truly love. I hope you'll share yours.
Steve Klein
 ----------
Was I the only one to notice that this past week's Sports Illustrated did
not have a SINGLE mention of Michigan's title win???  We've made comments
here over the last couple of years of how our sports seems to have gotten
better (although we've still got a long ways to go!) media coverage, with
ESPN2 doing several games and Sports Illustrated giving press to
individual players (e.g. Mike Grier) and running an occasional "Inside
College Hockey" column.  This, however, is the first time I can EVER
remember that NO mention was made of the college hockey championship game.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.