Whenever I hear this talk about a Big 10 conference or super conferences,
I always wonder where that would leave the other, non-big name schools.
The argument seems to be (big name schools playing) = (big media attention)
= (big money) and that translates to being good for college
hockey.  But that equation automatically excludes smaller schools who
either can't or won't compete when the $$'s get that big.
 
For me, one of the greatest things about college hockey is the competition
between small and large schools.  It is one of the few athletic arenas
where student body population and size of the athletic budget are
secondary to the game; where history and tradition mean more than
advertising contracts.
 
I have appreciated the coverage USA Today has given college hockey this
year and I also know that if it isn't profitable, they won't continue
to do it.  But, I fear the more college hockey panders to corporate
America the sooner we get divided into haves and have nots.  And I
probably won't care to go to the USF&G Phinal Phour to watch Michigan play
UCLA in 2010.
 
--
Matt Wickey                                 LSSU '86
CIMLINC Inc.                                NCAA Champs 88 92 94
[log in to unmask] (w)                 Go LAKERS!
[log in to unmask] (h)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.