ECAC Finals Weekend not on TV

[adamw]

It's not that I don't understand that. All I'm saying is that the league could have gotten creative and come back with better bids. If AC is the most appealing bid they can get to bring back to the schools, then the league office has failed. Besides, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Cornell as one of the three that voted against AC. Furthermore, my use of here was probably not specific enough, as it referred to not only the location of the tournament, but the lack of the TV contract, the horrid officiating, and the all around state of the league generally not doing anything to improve its situation.

*Example of the kind of creative thinking that would have been appreciated. Perhaps the league could have tried the NHL network. They show Canadian Junior Hockey in America on a regular basis, and almost all of their nightly coverage is just NHL tonight hours and hours on end. Did anyone ever consider that perhaps they might televise the ECAC tournament?

Sorry to be blunt, but you're being clueless ... For one, in response to something you said up thread - what are you referring to when you say Atlantic Hockey has a TV contract?

Next ... How do you know the league didn't try NHL Network?  Again, NHL Network was not sending its own crew down to do it. ECAC would have to buy time to do just the championship game, on Saturday afternoon, and payh $50,000 to do it -- something the schools are not willing to do.

Next ... The league cannot "get creative and come back with better bids" ... What do you suggest they do? Go to the arena managers and hold them hostage until they bid?  Which place would you have liked this to be?  Any reasonable place in the Northeast bid ... Atlantic City put up the most money ... the ADs voted for it over any other option.  End of story.

Honestly - all of these criticisms betray a large ignorance of the issue.  It's easy, simplistic and wrong to sit here criticizing the league office without knowing the ins and outs of the how it works, and what the league office has done to try. Ultimately, these schools - collectively - are just not popular enough to warrant any network being that motivated to make it work.  I love the ECAC - have covered it for over 20 years - and I run CHN by the way ... and fact is, we go where the coverage and eyeballs demand.  Just like television does.  Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?  Who beyond Cornell fans care in enough numbers to give any TV network an incentive to carry games. NBC Network only got something like 48,000 viewers for Harvard/Yale. Which is basically a 0.0 rating.

I've written more articles in my life defending the hockey in the ECAC than I care to count anymore. No one would love the league to be more wildly popular than me. But reality is reality - and I know the people involved and the efforts that are made.

There's so much more that could be said ... but I suppose if you're hell bent on blaming the league office for the lack of interest, then it doesn't much matter what I say.

[adamw]

Schafer does an incredible job getting kids to come to Cornell instead of higher profile programs or major junior A.  I think you could tell from his quote: "One of the reasons we went [to Atlantic City] was that is gave us a great guarantee to be on T.V. It's really disappointing for our fans and alumni base that depends on those T.V. games. It's a big failure of our league not to have those games on T.V. [The league] needs to look at why this happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."; Schafer feels someone did not do their due diligence, I agree.  Cornell Ice Hockey is far and above the best supported and followed program in the Ivies and ECAC.  I would like to see if we can swim with the other big boys.

This is a complete misquote ... IF you are quoting this from an article somewhere, then that article is misquoting Schafer.  He never said they picked Atlantic City to get a "great guarantee to be on TV" .... You, or someone, added "to be on TV" to that quote  They went to Atlantic City to get a "great guarantee" ... meaning - GURANTEED $$.  Up front.  It had nothing to do with TV.

[adamw]

Besides, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Cornell as one of the three that voted against AC.

I will take that bet. I take PayPal.

[jtn27]

Cornell needs to have the guts to let the ECAC know they are willing to walk if things do not improve.  Play in Hockey East; you think Hockey East would not want Cornell?-fantasy-.   Kids today want to be seen and I believe an issue like this will be used as a recruiting detriment for all ECAC hockey schools.   Schafer does an incredible job getting kids to come to Cornell instead of higher profile programs or major junior A.  I think you could tell from his quote: "One of the reasons we went [to Atlantic City] was that is gave us a great guarantee to be on T.V. It's really disappointing for our fans and alumni base that depends on those T.V. games. It's a big failure of our league not to have those games on T.V. [The league] needs to look at why this happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."; Schafer feels someone did not do their due diligence, I agree.  Cornell Ice Hockey is far and above the best supported and followed program in the Ivies and ECAC.  I would like to see if we can swim with the other big boys.

That will never happen, except in some sort of scenario where the level of play in the ECAC becomes so diluted that it loses its auto-bid to the NCAA Tournament. While Hockey East would probably love to have Cornell and the large fan base that comes with it, I highly doubt they would want Harvard, Yale, or any of the other Ivies, and I can't see Cornell leaving the other Ivy League teams behind. The 6 Ivies with DI college hockey come as a package.

[Chris '03]

Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?

Yes. And I cringed.

[jtn27]

Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?

Yes. And I cringed.

This says that Harvard has averaged 95% attendance this season (it also says RIT has averaged 111%). That can't be right. Where did you find the attendance info?

[Chris '03]

Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?

Yes. And I cringed.

This says that Harvard has averaged 95% attendance this season (it also says RIT has averaged 111%). That can't be right. Where did you find the attendance info?

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/1112/boxes/mharyal1.m11

No game in the series cracked 2k. CU women did better than that.

ETA: Harvard's numbers you cite may include the game at Fenway. (attendance 9k)

[pfibiger]

I think you could tell from his quote: "One of the reasons we went [to Atlantic City] was that is gave us a great guarantee to be on T.V..."

This is a complete misquote ... IF you are quoting this from an article somewhere, then that article is misquoting Schafer.  He never said they picked Atlantic City to get a "great guarantee to be on TV" .... You, or someone, added "to be on TV" to that quote  They went to Atlantic City to get a "great guarantee" ... meaning - GURANTEED $$.  Up front.  It had nothing to do with TV.

http://www.uscho.com/ecac-blog/2012/03/12/1051/

"One of the reasons we went [to Atlantic City] was that is gave us a great guarantee to be on TV.  It's really disappointing for our fans and alumni base that depends on those TV games. It's a big failure of our league not to have those games on TV."

Maybe it he was misquoted, but flyersgolf isn't playing a game of telephone here. The quote's right out of the USCHO article that appears to have specifically called coaches to get quotes about this.

[flyersgolf]

AdamW I really appreciate your feedback, it is great to have you on here,  I copied and pasted directly from the article.

[jtn27]

Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?

Yes. And I cringed.

This says that Harvard has averaged 95% attendance this season (it also says RIT has averaged 111%). That can't be right. Where did you find the attendance info?

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/1112/boxes/mharyal1.m11

No game in the series cracked 2k. CU women did better than that.

ETA: Harvard's numbers you cite may include the game at Fenway. (attendance 9k)

I think you may be right about Fenway. The page I linked to says that it includes "home games" played at other sites. So that explains Harvard's abnormally high attendance.

[adamw]

Maybe it he was misquoted, but flyersgolf isn't playing a game of telephone here. The quote's right out of the USCHO article that appears to have specifically called coaches to get quotes about this.

OK. Well, that article is inaccurate.  I was on the same conference call - I have the same quote from Schafer. It came from the conference call with coaches on Monday morning.  Nate Owen misunderstood what Schafer was saying and added the "to be on TV" on his own because maybe that's what he thought Schafer meant. Schafer never said that.

[adamw]

Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?

Yes. And I cringed.

This says that Harvard has averaged 95% attendance this season (it also says RIT has averaged 111%). That can't be right. Where did you find the attendance info?

Our page that you linked (thank you) is unfortunately inaccurate on the percentages when teams plays games that are considered home games, but are not in their home arena. RIT, for example, played a game at Blue Cross Arena that got a big crowd, skewing the percentage. As someone else rightly pointed out, the Fenway game against Union also skewed Harvard's percentage.

[css228]

It's not that I don't understand that. All I'm saying is that the league could have gotten creative and come back with better bids. If AC is the most appealing bid they can get to bring back to the schools, then the league office has failed. Besides, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Cornell as one of the three that voted against AC. Furthermore, my use of here was probably not specific enough, as it referred to not only the location of the tournament, but the lack of the TV contract, the horrid officiating, and the all around state of the league generally not doing anything to improve its situation.

*Example of the kind of creative thinking that would have been appreciated. Perhaps the league could have tried the NHL network. They show Canadian Junior Hockey in America on a regular basis, and almost all of their nightly coverage is just NHL tonight hours and hours on end. Did anyone ever consider that perhaps they might televise the ECAC tournament?

Sorry to be blunt, but you're being clueless ... For one, in response to something you said up thread - what are you referring to when you say Atlantic Hockey has a TV contract?

Next ... How do you know the league didn't try NHL Network?  Again, NHL Network was not sending its own crew down to do it. ECAC would have to buy time to do just the championship game, on Saturday afternoon, and payh $50,000 to do it -- something the schools are not willing to do.

Next ... The league cannot "get creative and come back with better bids" ... What do you suggest they do? Go to the arena managers and hold them hostage until they bid?  Which place would you have liked this to be?  Any reasonable place in the Northeast bid ... Atlantic City put up the most money ... the ADs voted for it over any other option.  End of story.

Honestly - all of these criticisms betray a large ignorance of the issue.  It's easy, simplistic and wrong to sit here criticizing the league office without knowing the ins and outs of the how it works, and what the league office has done to try. Ultimately, these schools - collectively - are just not popular enough to warrant any network being that motivated to make it work.  I love the ECAC - have covered it for over 20 years - and I run CHN by the way ... and fact is, we go where the coverage and eyeballs demand.  Just like television does.  Did anyone check to see the attendance at Harvard this past weekend?  Who beyond Cornell fans care in enough numbers to give any TV network an incentive to carry games. NBC Network only got something like 48,000 viewers for Harvard/Yale. Which is basically a 0.0 rating.

I've written more articles in my life defending the hockey in the ECAC than I care to count anymore. No one would love the league to be more wildly popular than me. But reality is reality - and I know the people involved and the efforts that are made.

There's so much more that could be said ... but I suppose if you're hell bent on blaming the league office for the lack of interest, then it doesn't much matter what I say.

1) I'm referring to the fact that their final will be televised, per Brian Sullivan's USCHO article.
2) Creative would be along the lines of what RPI did for Big Red Freakout. Let RPI TV do the production, like they're planning to anyway, and then just give the feed away, or pay whatever small fee a regional cable network wants to force on it. It is worth the investment.d
3) Creative in terms of rinks could be anything. If you're going out of the league footprint, why not Hershey, PA and its hockey specific arena? What about doing something totally different and holding the tourney in Canada? Or if the radical idea of staying inside the league footprint is in play, then how come I've never heard Scranton-Wilkes Barre brought up once? And as another poster suggested, why not just hold the tourney at Lynah, or Lynah and Houston? It may not be as glamourous, but it'd certainly be functional to have a rotation of the 3 largest buildings in the league (Correct me if I'm wrong, Lynah, Houston, and Thompson, or if you'd prefer to not be in NH, Ingalls). Even Matthews is a better option than what we have.

There are two ways to handle problems in life, you can just sit back and give up, or you can do something about it. All I'm saying is how is the league ever going to gain any traction, or any popularity, if it just accepts that it will never do so. There is no shame in trying and failing, Its the apparent lack of an attempt to even try that bothers me. And I know its totally unrealistic, because we'd never jeopardize the cash machine that is Ivy League status, but maybe the ECAC isn't the way to go if they aren't willing to put in the effort to raise the league profile. Yes the issue is that the leagues profile and popularity is not high enough, but you refuse to ask if it really has to be that way. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. And that's why the league should get creative. Perhaps a league wide streaming package would keep alumni more connected, because its a real hassle to pay each school a fee for each game you watch out of league. Perhaps the solution is nothing I've mentioned above, or even perhaps there is no solution. But when I look and see that the AHA final will be televised, and that "ECAC hockey will be the only Division I league without a TV partnership for its title game", I see one conference that found a way to get things done, even if it cost them money, and another league, which is home to superior hockey and far more recognizable institutions, that basically gave up, or got outmaneuvered by the AHA. Either of which is quite frankly embarrassing.

A few quotes from Brian Sullivan's article - I have seen that perhaps these are misquotes, but the general sense backs up the feeling that the league should have been able to find a TV deal for at least the Final, if not the Semi-Final.

Mike Schafer, Cornell:  "One of the reasons we went [to Atlantic City] was that is gave us a great guarantee to be on TV.  It's really disappointing for our fans and alumni base that depends on those TV games. It's a big failure of our league not to have those games on TV. [The league] needs to look at why this happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Don Vaughan, Colgate:  "It's extremely disappointing [that there were issues with the network]. I didn't find out about it until a couple weeks ago. I find it hard to believe that a network would not want to pick up the championships, especially with the quality of the opponents in the games."

Ted Donato, Harvard: "It's always nice to be on TV; I think it's a great exposure for the student-athletes involved. They're certainly deserving of [it]."

Union's Rick Bennett declined to elaborate on the issue, saying that was a question for the league office.

So clearly, people far more informed than me feel as though the league could have done something with regards to a TV partnership for the Final,

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and will openly admit you probably know far more about this situation than I ever will, but I do believe that there is legitimate reason to be frustrated at the league office. I shudder to think of a world where asking for creativity in problem solving is "clueless" and "simplistic". If you're telling me that there is absolutely nothing more they can do to market the league, fine then, but is it wrong to suggest they may actually be able to do something? And if they may actually be able to do something about it, why is it wrong to expect them to do whatever they can. I think where we disagree is on our expectations of the league office. I want them to be more Gary Bettman, and less Bud Selig.

[The Rancor]

there are so many good arenas in the northeast, from Hartford to Bridgeport to Syracuse to Atlantic city, and they are all good, and more or less centrally located. Only Atlantic City truly offers a destination and attractions, even if its not so family friendly. which is a problem, i think.

[Trotsky]

Well, I guess we will know a little better at the end of this tournament, when they announce that (a) as planned, we will be returning in 2013 (rabble rabble rabble), (b) keep your eyes open for developing information on future venues (golf clap) or (c) the ECAC is proud to announce a ten year extension with Boardwalk Hall (city burned to ground; end of dilemma).