** Reply to note from Mike Kahn <[log in to unmask]> 04/09/96 1:23pm -0400
> Greg Berge wrote:
> >
> > As much as I loathe the NC$$, I can't see any reason why there'd
> > be a "conspiracy" against hockey.
>
> Although I didn't intend to imply "conspiracy" I can see where you
> thought that's what I meant. That said, however, I really wonder
> what the reason could be? Why does the NC$$ treat college hockey as
> if it is a zit? I think that the generic hockey fans of the country
> WOULD watch - say - a game of the week, as was shown by my father in
> law. Hockey fans LIKE HOCKEY, period.
Why are we (the sport and its fans) treated like a zit? Because we are.
We're just popular enough to be noticable (like a zit on the tip of your
nose) but not popular enough to be a face full of zits, and corporate
America makes more money off a face full of zits than it does off an
isolated zit. And that, I believe, is the real problem. Corporate America
can't make enough money off of us.
Why has women's basketball become so popular in recent years. In part
because the NCAA wants to prove they aren't a bunch of old white men, but
also because Corporate America has dicovered it can make a profit by
sponsoring (advertising) the games. Although there are probably more hockey
fans than women's basketball fans in this country, consider where "we" are
located relative to "them". As much as we hate to admit it hockey,
especially college hockey, is a regional sport. There were no teams in the
playoffs from Southern California (the second largest TV market in the US),
Chicago (third largest; UIC RIP), Houston (4th largest?) Dallas, Atlanta,
Seattle, etc. Why would a corporation sponsor an event that has no direct
ties to three of the four largest TV markets in the US? I don't remember
which teams were in the women's basketball tournament, but there were some
from Texas, Southern Cal, Georgia, etc. Because Coporate America is more
likely to reach a casual fan in LA, Dallas, Houston or Chicago, with
women's basketball than they are with college hockey, they sponsor women's
basketball.
We can't blame ESPN for their lack of coverage of college hockey. They
broadcast what they can make a profit on. The other day I was channel
surfing and momentarily stopped on ESPN2 to catch some scores. They were
showing swamp racing. My wife walked in the room and asked "What in the
hell is that"? What it was, was what ESPN could find to broadcast at that
time of the day and week and make a profit on. If we could get ADs to
schedule hockey games at 2:30 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we'd probably
see a lot more hockey on the tube. But because we compete with more popular
sports on Fridays and Saturdays we aren't likely to see more hockey on the
tube (nationally) anytime soon.
Unless we can prove to ESPN (or some other national broadcaster) and
coporate sponsors that they can make more money by broacasting college
hockey rather than skeet shooting, swamp racing or college golf, and I
don't think we can, we aren't going to be on TV regularly.
While increasing the number of teams is one way to increase the
popularity/profitablility of the sport, is it fair to make students bear
the additional expense of creating and supporting these programs? I suppose
we could sell our souls to the corporate devil, but then we'd have to watch
the Poulan/Weed Eater/USF&G/CarQuest/Blockbuster Video Final Four. Swoosh!
On the banks of the Red Cedar there's a school that's known all,
Their specilaty is farming and those farmers play...HOCKEY!
_______________
/ _________ \
| / \___|
| \____________ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
\____________ \ THE Pioneer Land Grant College
___ \ |
| \_________/ |
\_______________/
Michael Smar ([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.
|
