HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Haeussler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
John Haeussler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 18 May 1995 11:47:00 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Hockey-Ler and US COLLEGE HOCKEY MAGAZINE writer
Chris Lerch commented...
>Hockey-L's John Haeussler also writes for USCHM. We're taking over the
>media, I guess ;)
 
Just doing a little freelance work.  Don't look for me
in USCHM next season.  Chris is a regular contributor,
as is BU's Neil Goldberg.  If Chris and Neil posted all
of their articles to Hockey-L, there would be very little
reason to look at USCHM other than the pretty pictures.
 
Fwiw...I contributed an article in early February touting
Brian Holzinger for the Hobey Baker Award and an
interview with LSSU's Jeff Jackson near the end of the
regular season.  If I can locate the disk, I'll attempt to
post these articles to Hockey-L soon.  If you were one
of the few that read the Holzinger article in USCHM,
please read the version I post because the USCHM
version managed to get botched up.  (Yes, I'm pointing
the finger away from the writer and toward the editor. :-)
 
IMO, USCHM had a weak season in 1994-95 after a
promising start in the second half of 1993-94.  Much
of the problem was timing.  I just received the April 1
issue (including Chris Lerch's interview with Brian
Cavanaugh) this week.  Yep, those who follow college
hockey via USCHM have just learned who the ten
Hobey Baker finalists are and what twelve teams
comprise the NCAA Division I tournament field.  I
imagine we'll know the Hobey and NCAA winners
by early June. :-)
 
The timing fiasco is partially a result of having the
publication printed by a different company this year,
but I think USCHM has other problems as well, most
of which I attribute to the publisher and editor.
 
I was admittedly disappointed in my dealings with
USCHM (which has no bearing on anyone else),
but I was also disappointed as a reader of the
publication.
 
 
John H
U Mich

ATOM RSS1 RSS2