>> They will throw their money at the biggest schools, making the rich,
>>richer.
>
>Well, as long as the sport remains truly amateur, this shouldn't make
that
>much difference.
 
Since I assume you know that college basketball and football are
amateur, you must be making a commentary on the word "truly" ---
Otherwise, you must know this is already the case in those sports.
 
 
>There are three levels: programs without the resources or
>will to support an adequate program, programs with such will and
resources,
>and programs with a super-adundance of such will and resources.  With
proper
>watchfulness of ethical standards, there should be not that much
difference
>between schools of the latter types.  I am not suggesting subsizing
schools
>of the first type -- if you literally cannot afford it or don't want to
be
>there, then don't do it in the first place.  But when it comes to a
true
>student-athlete's chosing between schools of the latter types, his/her
own
>academic/professional/social preferences will often outweigh a simple
>consideration of who has more money to throw around.
 
Welcome to Fantasy Island!
 
Take a look at what happened in football and basketball and tell me
where there's a difference.
 
Teams like NC, Duke, Michigan, UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, etc.... got
more and more powerful than ever before.  Big huge schools that got TV
money thrown their way.  They were thus on TV more often, creating more
exposure --- meaning kids growing up said, "Hey, I wanna play there" ---
or the money allowed them to build great new buildings, another huge
recruiting tool (see "Carrier Dome")
 
If college hockey gets more popular, and advertisers want in, then this
dynamic is inevitable.  I'm not saying I like it -- I'm ambivalent.
 
Mike Machnik has been harping for years to ensure Merrimack gets
included in enough HEA Games of the Week.  He knows as much as anyone
how these things happen and why -- and that's still on a very small
scale.
 
 
>>  (it's inevitable, brace yourself - just a matter of when).
>
>I disagree *absolutely*.  Nothing destructive is ever inevitable --
that's
>simple defeatism.  Life *is* standing up for and working on behalf of
your
>beliefs.  If college football and basketball had had organized and
motivated
>defenders, they would not have become sewers.  The college hockey
community
>has many, many such defenders, and there is no reason to predict that
they
>cannot keep the sport vital.
 
That's all well and good ... but there's no way we'll be able to have it
both ways if you think about it realistically whatsoever.  Please give
me one scenario whereby a lot of money comes into the sport, popularity
grows and the further creation of a distinct caste system DOESN'T
materialize. You can create one, but it will have a lot of holes.
 
 
>An example from a different world: I love in an absolutely lovely
city --
>and it has *only* remained that way because decades ago the populace
moved
>to severely restrict growth within various zones around the outlying
area.
>The result has been managed growth without unsightly sprawl or
weakening of
>the general level of civic conduct.  Rich developers still have a place
here
>, and they make their immense bundles, but they don't leave the area an
>unaesthetic dust bowl in the process.  Everyone benefits.  Here,
capital
>does what its best at, but doesn't destroy what it touches.
 
Lovely story ... but time and time again, efforts for national or
regional TV packages in college hockey have been thwarted because major
networks don't want to have to show Clarkson and Lake State all the
time.  They want to show Michigan and Michigan State --- huge names,
huge alumni bases, bigger ad revenue.   We in the college hockey world
know how great a game between Cornell and BU can be -- but the rest of
the world could give a hoot.
 
Is it realistic that we will educate the world?
 
Even if you took the TV revenue and split it with all the member
schools, regardless of how many games of theirs were one -- it still
would create an exposure discrepency, which is a huge deal in terms of
recruiting.  As it stands now, the biggest, nicest buildings are owned
by the biggest, richest schools.  When Clarkson builds the equivalent of
Mariucci and gets all their games on regional cable TV, then come back
to me.
 
 
> There are plenty of other urban landscapes which are utterly desolate,
in
>large part because the locals felt they were powerless to defeat the
>onrushing forces.  It is only nice here because a sufficient number of
>motivated people acted.
 
Aren't you in Salt Lake City?  Not to get sidetracked, but that is not
exactly the height of diversity.
 
 
>We can do the same thing in college hockey -- all it takes is
imagination
>and optimism, and the occasional healthy reflex to give the "bigger is
>better" types the finger.
 
If that's the way you want it --- that's OK.  If we are all willing to
have the sport remain the way it is right now, then the problem of the
rich getting richer can be abated ... although I think the "problem" is
already there.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.