Joseph M LaCour <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> Like Keith I agree that the ice should be free from advertising, but with
> the cost of a full ride at a private school approaching 30K/year,
> ANYTHING that helps defray the cost of the program should be examined.
>
> Who knows, maybe in the (far distant) future we'll see advetrtising on
> the sweaters just like little kids' unis.  Imagine, at the National
> championship seeing "Murphy's Gas & Go" vs "Sergie's Pizza".  The thought
> sickens me.
 
These two things seem to contradict each other -- "school is expensive so
anything that helps defray the cost should be examined" vs "the thought of
sponsors on college jerseys sickens me".  Unless you are saying that is
where you draw the line -- and certainly everyone draws it at a different
point.
 
That is important to note.  Just in this forum, we have people complaining
about this use of advertising and that one -- but virtually *all* agree
that some advertising is okay and *none* agree on where to draw the line.
 
At any rate, I was trying to figure out what it is that bothers people
about this stuff, including why it is ok for us to send our eight year olds
out on the ice wearing someone's name on their backs, but we get bothered
when it happens with 20 year olds.
 
And the only thing I can come up with is this.  When it is our kids, and we
know how much it costs for them to play (because we are writing the checks
and buying the equipment), we welcome any help we can get.  We know how
much it is needed.
 
When it comes to college, the vast majority of us have no concept of the
financial situation, and our unfamiliarity leads us to think when we see
CCM on the jerseys that someone must be making a boatload of money.
 
The reality is that in most cases, there is no difference.  For some
people, having sponsors on their kids' backs is the difference between them
being able to play hockey and not.  And for some schools, having sponsors
involved to the extent that they are is the difference between playing
hockey and not -- or playing D1 hockey and playing at a lower level.
 
Just as a parent goes along with the advertising to help keep his costs
down and his family within budget -- or to minimize the loss -- an AD does
it to keep his or her costs down and minimize the school's loss.
 
I will reiterate something I said before.  When you factor in all of the
costs and all of the money brought in from ticket sales, advertising, etc.,
most college hockey teams lose money.  You can probably count the ones that
make money on one hand, if not a couple of fingers.
 
Also -- I think of the players who play for our program as "our kids" (even
though I am only 10 years or so older than most of them).  *They* are the
ones our responsibility is to.  Not the people who draw their own arbitrary
line against sponsorship.  Suppose I know that ads on the boards are going
to help pay for a nice new building for them to play in, or that maybe this
year the jersey sponsorship will pay for sticks and other equipment that
wasn't in the budget.  It is easy for me to decide which side I am going to
support.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                [log in to unmask]               *HMM* 11/13/93
*****          Color Voice of Merrimack Hockey WCCM 800 AM          *****
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
>>>    U.S. College Hockey Online http://www.uscollegehockey.com/     <<<
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.