At 02:08 PM 12/30/96 -0700, Greenie wrote:
>I'm sure this discussion has gone around the block before, but what's the
>deal with the "coverage" of college hockey this year on the 'net, and
>especially here on Hockey-L?
We have covered this before, perhaps you were not on the list during the
fall when we hashed this over?
It isn't up to USA Today or USCHO to provide coverage to the lists, it is up
the the members of the list to provide the coverage.
>I mean, did NOBODY *see* the BU-North Dakota games this weekend? Through
>the list, USCHO and USA Today, I haven't seen any game recap anywhere,
>except for Tony's report (which he gathereed by listening to the radio).
>
>How about the CC-UNH matchup? Not even a single post to the list, except
>for a two-sentence post stating what anyone could glean from a score
>listing. As of Monday, 1pm mountain time, not even a box score could be
>found on USCHO.
I can't speak for USA Today, but they are probably in a similar position.
USCHO can only put up boxes that the schools send to them. If there is no
box, than the fault lies with CC, UNH or the tournament people for not
sending the proper media outlets the box score. I assume USA Today is in a
similar position. It certainly is not the fault of the companies involved.
>Or the fifth-longest game in NCAA history -- the 3 OT (presumably)
>nail-biter between Cornell and Providence? At least this one made it to
>USCHO, but NO comments on Hockey-L????
Remember that this is the holiday season, and many people are away from
school, work and home and that some posters are not going to be able to
post. There is a significant Cornell contingent here on the list, and in
due time that will be recognized.
BTW, the game was three overtimes. The first overtime was five minutes,
then the next two were slated for 20 minutes.
>There has been a a small group of people that have been posting excellent
>game recaps, opinions, and analyses of leagues and teams, and to those of
>you that have been, I thank you very much.
As do I. But other people need to step up and do the work as well. People
come and go, take on other jobs or even put themselves in positions were
they cannot post comments. The lists need to absorb that and others need to
step up.
List members also have to create a professional forum where users are not
flammed for having their opinion. If a new list member steps up with an
opinion and is flammed, he/she likely will not post again. This happens all
too frequently.
>But where are the others? For those of you that have directed your efforts
>to USCHO, why does it seem that you now favor USCHO over the list? I
>understand that you want to see USCHO succeed, but what about your "roots"
>here on Hockey-L and all the reasons the list was created?
I am not going to speak for everyone, and forgive me for addressing this
generally.
Let me pose this question, why don't Steve Klein and Jon Barkan post all USA
Today's box scores to the info list?
I'm not singling out USA Today, I'm simply drawing the comparison. USCHO
takes some degree of flack because it is a hockey site, by hockey people who
are also members of this list, but the idea is the same.
USCHO is a company, not some hobby page that a bunch of people work on.
There are copyright issues with material on USCHO, just as there would be in
any newspaper.
>[and a side note to the USCHO folk -- why does the "message board" exist?
>Isn't that what Hockey-L is for?]
USCHO does not exist to promote the lists. This is an important point
because while many of the people who work with USCHO are list members, USCHO
is not an extension of the list, it is not part of the lists in any way.
USCHO is not, "HOCKEY-L Online".
As far as the "roots"..
Remember that the roots of this list is in discussion. It is my feeling, as
I've said on HOCKEY before, that the future of the lists is in discussion.
The most ironic part of this discussion is that for years people have
complained about wanting more coverage of college hockey. Now a service has
popped up, USCHO, that when coupled with what USA Today is doing, provides a
significantly increased amount of coverage for college hockey. Both sides
provide high quality professional material to users, for FREE. No
subscription prices to either service like ESPNet et al.
So now that we've achieved that goal, people complain that it takes away
from the lists. To some small degree it does, but instead of blaming USCHO
or USA Today for a decrease in traffic on the lists, the lists need to look
within itself and that is where it will be most beneficial.
What I mean is this, for awhile after this discussion started last fall,
some people stepped up writing recaps. Some of those kept with it, some of
those have not. Ask them why they stopped. Again, remember that some
people are on vacation and unable to post.
Some people feel the need to flame, and thus drive posters away. There are
many former prolific posters on this list now, who have been soured by
flames and other inappropriate remarks.
In keeping with the "roots" theme, and that HOCKEY-L is rooted in a high
level of discussion, what stops users from discussion USCHO or USA Today
material? Absolutely nothing. Every week USCHO previews every game
involving a member of one of the four Div. I conferences, I suppose every
person on this list agrees with every prediction made? Those previews are
put up on the site by Wednesday at latest, and I am 100% sure that if you
questioned Dave, Paula, Jayson or Jim on their picks that they would address
them, or at the very least it is a stepping stone to a worthwhile discussion.
Again, people see it fit to complain about USCHO, but they totally miss a
great opportunity to FURTHER discussion on the lists by addressing points
brought up on the site. No you can't reprint the article, but if you
disagree with something that is written how hard is it to write a paragraph
synopsis of your issue and address it? Every correspondent has list access,
if for no other reason, than to address such issues.
Another example.. you mean every person on this list agrees with everything
Adam Wodon says on his show? If you disagree, I'm sure Adam would respond
as well.
My point ladies and gentlemen is simple. HOCKEY-L is about discussion, and
there is a wealth of material to discuss every week, but it is list members
who are not bringing the issues up and not the people at ATR, USCHO or USA
Today.
As far as informational postings, again that is up to the people on the list
to do. Two years ago when I started posting Maine recaps, I did so because
no one else was doing it. It is up to other members of the list to say, "My
team deserves coverage" and steps up and does it. People must look within
when there is a lack of posting, and not place blame elsewhere.
>Admittedly, I'm a bit selfish when I say that I feel somewhat "abandoned"
>by some of the members and moderators of Hockey-L that now focus on the
>USCHO web site. It seems that nowadays the only time we hear from Mike or
>Dave is when there is some silly flame war occuring, and they feel
>compelled to step in and break up the fight.
I'm not going to speak for Mike or Dave, but remember one thing. No one
person on this list is going to be around forever. Don't "expect" or
"depend" on someone else to make a posting, you make the posting yourself.
People leave, go on vacation, have personal issues or any number of other
factors that contribute to their activity. Don't place blame on someone
here. People expect that Mike has an answer to everything or whatnot, but
Mike is human like everyone else and a day will come when Mike is no longer
on this list.
Again, don't pass the blame. It is up to everyone individually to make this
list what they can. No one should ever feel like they are required or
expected to make postings, and that includes Mike and Dave. If that is
happening, the list is clearly moving in a dangerous direction.
>Last season it was nice to be able to check mail on a Sunday afternoon, and
>read about the previous evening's games -- and then actually engage in
>DISCUSSIONS about them. You know, asking questions, pointing fingers, you
>name it. Now I need to roam around the net, checking the web (which, from
>home is often PAINFULLY slow) -- and I'm still not finding what seemed to
>be in abundance last year on Hockey-L.
Encourage others to make posts and engage in discussion, but don't blame the
services out there, or the people at those services. There are plenty of
people from each school on this list to make the list go, and those people
are the ones who need to step up, and the list itself has to become more
friendly toward encouraging new postings and posters.
>Now before anyone jumps up and asks me "just what the heck have YOU done
>for Hockey-L lately?" -- I'll tell you, I've done nothing, which doesn't
>make me any better than others out there. Then again, I've only been able
>to see ONE game in person (Northeastern vs. BU in October), and was unable
>to get near a computer. I've seen only one game on TV -- the Denver Cup
>(Denver/Yale), and that was in a bar. You know, no volume, screen to small
>and far to make out names, begging the bartender to keep the NASCAR race
>off the screen and leave the hockey on).
>
>Believe me, the second I get a dish I'll be active again.
I look forward to it, as I'm sure others do. Please take a step back and
realize that the list does not revolve around a couple people, and
understand that, just like you will be active when you get a dish, we must
encourage other people who have such access to stand up and be noticed.
---
Deron Treadwell ([log in to unmask])
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
