On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, [log in to unmask]" "Nathaniel C. Malen wrote:
>
> Overall, regional interest has to be removed and just give college hockey a
> while and people all across the country will enjoy it.
>
Actually,  ESPN airs most events based on how much a sponsor will pay.
That's what we in college hockey must address.  Do we sell our own
sponsorship to create a package?  Do we reach into conference budgets?
Do we have each school pay?
 
You can't tell me that more people give a rip about the "X-treme Games"
or America's Cup than do college hockey.  Won't believe it.  Those
outfits have big sponsor money behind them,  and,  thus they have a
package with ESPN.  It has less to do with being a regional sport than
the amount of money we can throw at ESPN.
 
I think that college hockey must look at spending money to make money.
In a conversation with T. Mees at the East Regional,  I was told that
ESPN is interested in more "Great College Rivalries" games for next
year on the Deuce (that may just be his opinion).  That's a great place to
start.  Put MSU-UM on the Deuce.  Get UM-UW on there. Get Harvard-Yale on
national TV.
 
First and foremost, however, the four conferences must come to an
agreement about which way to go with TV.
 
As a marketing person up against an OHL team, I can tell you that the OHL
is burying college hockey for raising sponsorship money and doing things
to promote its game. No people from the OHL (players and staff alike)
aren't knuckle-draggers like we tend to portray them.
 
I suppose I'm rambling,  and probably wrong,  but the issue is not just
TV.  The issue is marketing college hockey in general.  We need to create
money so that we can spend it. The four conferences need to create a
unified plan and identity for the sport.
 
And just for you guys that wonder what the Soo is like in April:  There's
still a small pile of snow in my yard.
 
Scott Monaghan
Lake Superior State University