Parent
From: email@hidden (Women-in-Hockey Digest)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #125
Reply-To: women-in-hockey
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
Women-in-Hockey Digest Wednesday, February 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 125
In this issue:
Re: competition
Re: Women's Pro Hockey League
Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
Re: Shannon Miller Discussion
Re: competition
Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
Re: Evaluating Team Canada Players
Re: Women's Pro Hockey League
Re: Evaluating Team Canada Players
Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
Women's Pro Hockey
Re: competition
=======================================================================
Unsubscribe:
Help:
or
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:03:58 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: competition
At 3:33 PM -0800 2/10/98, email@hidden wrote:
> My complaint
> is the figure skating, no offense to it or anything but CBS is covering it 10
> nights of the 17, not including TNT's coverage.
Figure skating is a money sport. Also (not coincidentally) a glamour
sport. High profile sports get high profiles....
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:15:46 -0400
From: Gary Goldberg MD
Subject: Re: Women's Pro Hockey League
Actually, Mr. Saunders is really stretching it if he thinks that reasonable
people are going to commit to buying tickets for games before there has
been any credible indication that there will actually be a functioning
league that is ready to begin a competitive season by November 1, 1998.
The hype is a little overwhelming and, I am afraid, this shallow attempt to
try to cash in immediately on the initial exposure that women's ice hockey
is receiving with its appearance in the Nagano Winter Olympics, is just
going to do the sport a lot of harm in the long run. Let's give the sport
some time to develop at the college level, to generate a decent cadre of
quality players, before shoving it into the limelight with a 'pro' league
at a point when the real period of gestation is only just beginning.
- --GG
><<
> Amherst, NH - Following its announcement of five franchise site finalists,
> Women's Professional Hockey League, Inc. is preparing to open waiting lists
> for those interested in purchasing tickets for games scheduled to begin next
> fall. >>
>
>After all the emails (and newspaper, magazine articles, etc) that women;s
>pro hockey was still YEARS away....................... is this treally true?
>Or just a nasty, viscious rumor to serve no purpose other than to torture us?
>
>Forget about buying tickets..........how does one try out for a spot on one of
>these teams??
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:27:32 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
In a message dated 98-02-10 23:51:27 EST, email@hidden writes:
<< As an avid hockey
player as well as a member of the 1976 Olympic Luge team, I like watching
both on TV. I agree that CBS' coverage is lame, but I think it's more
about their coverage than whether they're showing more luge, more women's
hockey, or more snowboarding (which I could care less about). When I
competed, luge got about 30 seconds of air play on CBS and then it was only
the men who were shown. The fact that the American women came in 6, 7 and
8 (from what I heard) is a terrific accomplishment. I'd rather CBS (or the
other networks) showed more of the sports in general, and less of the
commercials and "up close" stuff. >>
Leave it to me, to stick my skate in my mouth!!
I think that we all have valid points. While, I personally don;t see the
attraction to watching more than a few minutes of luge (Or curling, or
whatever) there are people who like it.
I'm gonna go out on a limb - we need more CHOICES so the viewrs can decide
what we want to watch. FCC, scmeff CC. Why does only 1 network cover this?
How about each network showing different events? Or more cable stations
covering the events? It;s not as if all of these stations don't have staff &
equipment over there anyway. Anyone rememeber the pay-per view of the summer
olympics of a few years ago? I think that flopped becuase they charged to
damn much for it. How about if the pay-per view channels get some sponsors,
show a few commercials, and charge a REASONABLE amount to watch it?
Just a few thoughts....
Jill
# 77 Brooklyn Blades
"Only you can prevent hockey stick fires."
p.s. I like the "Up Close Stuff." I even like some of the commercials (esp
the Cammi Granato one for AT&T.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:07:08 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Shannon Miller Discussion
At 2:10 PM -0800 2/10/98, Tammie Weigl wrote:
> My fervent hope is that one day, to paraphrase a thought from Martin
> Luther King, that we won't judge people by the color of their skin,
> their faith or their sexual preference...
I have two hopes, myself. One is that some day, questions like these
become so irrelevant that I don't have to step on them as List Mom.
And the *other* hope is that we finally get to the point where Cammi
Granato becomes known as Cammi, not Cammi-Tony's-Sister. Of course, as
far as most of the country is concerned, two years ago, they hadn't
even heard of her, so we're making positive steps.
But there's a way to go...
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:05:07 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: competition
At 7:50 PM -0800 2/10/98, email@hidden wrote:
> I find some fault with this observation. I have felt that CBS has
>been doing a pretty good job
> of covering most of the events at the Olympics and giving fairly
>balanced coverage.
Well, no offense, but you're the first person *I've* talked to who's
even remotely happy with CBS's coverage. But tastes differ, and that's
okay.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:19:31 -0600 (CST)
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
>I'm gonna go out on a limb - we need more CHOICES so the viewrs can decide
>what we want to watch. FCC, scmeff CC. Why does only 1 network cover this?
The Olympic Committee awards coverage of the games on a country by country basis through a
bidding process. They are having to deal with a new concept with the internet because the
internet does not have country boundaries. You can conceivably watch a sport in the future on
the internet from a location in Canada, France, whereever. This means that the Olympic committee
has to rethink their process and how the games are covered in the future. Whether it on a pay-
per-event basis, or through ads or via a network, they are the deciding factor.
The pay-per-view channel did fail because they didn't get enough subscribers at the time. Maybe
now is the time or at least the next Olympics. The only way to get this changed is to let the
Olympic committee know of you dissatifaction and try to get them to changed and if they are
having to rethink the whole process, now is the time to tell them.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:09:33 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Evaluating Team Canada Players
Marc -
Whew. My post was a few weeks back, but I'll go for it anyway.
- - Firstly, I'd hate to make any assertion that a large number of people on
this list are from Ontario. In fact, I wouldn't dare to make any such
assertion without having the subscription list in my hands, as well as a
geographical survey that I doubt the List Moms have. The number of writers
who chime in asking about or discussing women's hockey in locales all over the
continent tend to suggest otherwise.
<>
On the contrary. Athletic performance is athletic performance. My point
about Bird was simply that he was, at the time of the 1992 Olympics, a once-
supremely great player reduced by wear and tear to flashes of his old
brilliance, capable of putting up a marvellous game once in a while. How this
circumstance is not relevant to hockey I don't know ... for it's relevant not
only to hockey but to EVERY sport.
Secondly, it's a proven fact that peak athletic performance comes around age
27-28. We see many older stars still perform at a high level of play, but
they're the exceptions that prove the rule. For every quality player still
competing in his or her mid-thirties, there are a dozen contemporaries long
retired. Using the NHL for comparison, James is a contemporary of Christian
Ruutuu, Gord Kluzak, Gerard Gallant, Craig Simpson, Steve Smith, Sylvain
Turgeon, Jimmy Carson, Mikko Makela, Ulf Dahlen, Peter Zezel, Dan Quinn, Mario
Gosselin, Ed Olczyk, Gary Leeman ... all once quality players, some very fine
players indeed, all gone from the NHL, some LONG gone. Well, okay, given that
the Canucks are in sad shape, maybe they'll give Zezel a regular shift.
This isn't to say that Mikko Makela is the NHL player that comes to mind when
I think of Angela James -- far from it. But it IS to say that there's nothing
weird about older stars losing a step. Whether James has/had the two-way
skills and the temperament to fit onto a checking line or for spot duty I do
not know. The coaching staff apparently felt she did not.
- - Bevan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:56:27 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Women's Pro Hockey League
<< Let's give the sport some time to develop at the college level, to generate
a decent cadre of quality players, before shoving it into the limelight with a
'pro' league at a point when the real period of gestation is only just
beginning. >>
(nods reluctantly) The more so in that I recall the press release of a few
months ago quoting Mr. Saunders on how the league is to be financed.
Community contributions? A pro league survives on gate receipts, advertising
and corporate sponsorship, not on fund raising drives ... especially if you're
looking to place teams in hockey saturated New England and Quebec. I remember
when this subject did come up a few months back, and one person said in
support that the UNH women's team had crowds of as many as a thousand people.
Perhaps at UNH, but when perennial women's hockey power Northeastern doesn't
draw more than a few hundred fans to free games, I mistrust expectations that
people will pay $10 a head to flock in numbers insufficient to support any
men's pro team.
The climate was so different for the women's basketball leagues. The interest
is there -- good heavens, ESPN's been broadcasting regular season women's
collegiate games in prime time for years, damned near every high school in
America has a girls' basketball team (and has had for half of the century at
least), and enough colleges play Division I women's basketball to maintain a
credible thirty-two team tournament.
By contrast, in hockey, there aren't thirty-two varsity PROGRAMS between
Canada and the United States, and probably not many more than that (if that
many) high school girls' teams. It's painful to hear how many of the Olympic
team players had to register under boys' names as kids in order to get ice
time, and no national network is falling all over itself to broadcast even the
ECAC finals.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:58:22 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Evaluating Team Canada Players
At 11:09 PM -0800 2/10/98, email@hidden wrote:
> - Firstly, I'd hate to make any assertion that a large number of people on
> this list are from Ontario. In fact, I wouldn't dare to make any such
> assertion without having the subscription list in my hands, as well as a
> geographical survey that I doubt the List Moms have.
Well... I did a very quick look -- about 15% of the addresses on this
list are ".ca" addresses, and those addresses are populated by Ontario
and British Columbia in about equal proportions, with other provinces
being much smaller groups. As far as I can tell, all of the provinces
have at least one member, and we also have members from the Northwest
Territories.
I don't think the Canadians on this list are dominated by Ontarians.
They may be the largest group, but B.C. makes it close.
We also have addresses from Korea, Sweden, Turkey, Switzerland, the
United Kingdom, Finland, and Argentina. An interesting set of countries
(but this is only the ones that are noticable by easy examination. I'm
sure there's a lot of .com and .net addresses that go off continent...)
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:11:07 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
<< Why does only 1 network cover this? >>
Because one network plays a zillion dollars in order to gain
exclusive rights. You don't think that the side boards in Aquawing and the
other ice venues say "Nagano 1998" instead of the Japanese lettering because
CBS damn well tells them it is to be that way? If I had a zillion dollars to
blow to enforce what I wanted to see, it'd be non-stop hockey and figure
skating with commercial breaks after the skating and before the "marks" (my,
what an apt term) are posted.
I don't, and we are also deluding ourselves if we presume that uninterrupted
hockey games are what the viewing audience wishes to see. They are not. If
the viewers preferred sporting competition to fluff pieces with just enough
carefully edited and managed event soundbites to inject a sense of drama,
that's what they'd get.
Good heavens, what would people say even now was the most riveting part of the
1996 Summer Games? 95 out of a hundred, Kerri Strug ... hyped with the utmost
of drama in a situation where, in point of fact, the Russians had to have a
near-impossible score from ALL their remaining performers in order to overtake
the United States for the team gymnastics gold ... where, in point of fact,
their eventual score was short of the mark even had Strug declined to attempt
that last vault at all ... and where, in point of fact, the network was well
aware of it all long before the competition was broadcast. They knew full
well that the Americans had won the gold, that Strug's vault was irrelevant to
the outcome, but (very skillfully) portrayed her performance as the most
gallant self-sacrifice since the last Tom Clancy book.
That's what the Olympics are all about now, because that's what the viewers -
most who are NOT sports fans - want to see.
- - Bevan
------------------------------
Date: 11 Feb 98 00:54:13 PST (Wed)
From: Chuck Collins
Subject: Re: Luge and Hockey/ TV Coverage
acdcpc wrote:
> The pay-per-view channel did fail because they didn't get enough subscribers at the time. Maybe
> now is the time or at least the next Olympics. The only way to get this changed is to let the
> Olympic committee know of you dissatifaction and try to get them to changed and if they are
> having to rethink the whole process, now is the time to tell them.
Actually, I believe there was only one problem with the pay per view
red / white / blue channel: they charged too much. To repeat myself, at
$39, I'd subscribe in a minute. At $190, which if memory serves me was
what they wanted to charge, then discounted it down to about $125, I'll pass.
Does anybody remember what they charged for movies on Videotape when VCRs
first became a consumer item? Most movies were priced at $79.00 or more.
Now you can buy movies on video between $12 and $20. That's a more sensible
price.
Unfortunately, the red / white / blue channel idea holds a place in marketing
history together with the Edsel, Howard the Duck, the Texas Instruments
Personal Computer and the Spruce Goose. I suspect we'll never see it again.
- - Chuck Collins
P. S. I like the Luge.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:57:11 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: Women's Pro Hockey
Hello,
As president of Women's Professional Hockey League, Inc., I feel it is
important I clear up a few misconceptions that are out there about our company
and our mission. Please allow me a few minutes to clearly explain the
motivation behind our project.
We are not by any means trying to "cash in" on the tremendous exposure the
sport is receiving from the Olympics. That is an unfair statement by someone
unfamiliar with our organization. Women's Professional Hockey League, Inc. is
composed of a group of people, including players like Erin Whitten, Karyn Bye,
Katie King, and many others who are interested in creating greater opportunity
in the sport of women's ice hockey. In fact, that is our mission. To create
greater opportunity at all ages and skill levels of the game. To that extent
we have been working with the likes of USA Hockey and The Women's Sports
Foundation to ensure our program meets the needs of not only our athletes, but
the sport itself.
We are not trying to be a WNHL. The model we have used falls more along the
lines of men's major junior hockey in Canada. Unfortunately, no such program
exisits for the world's finest women's hockey players. As a result, many have
indicated that after the Olympics, they will retire. They will leave the game
that has been so important in their lives thus far. Ask yourself, what
message does that send to the thousands of young women and girls out there
that may choose to participate in women's ice hockey? If you're not one of
the fortunate 20 to make the national squad in your country, where do you go
to compete after college? Where do you train for the 2002 games? I know
several world class players who are unexpectedly facing those questions on a
daily basis right now.
As for being financed by "public contributions", it appears as if I have been
misquoted. Unfortunately it is impossible to ensure we are always fairly
represented. Our organization is a grassroots organization. We are
establishing support networks in each of the communities in which we hope to
operate. This means local facility operators, sponsors, and jobs for our
players who may need them. Of course we hope to sell hot dogs and soda, t-
shirts and hats. But those are only small pieces of the giant puzzle. We are
also working with major national sponsors, USA Hockey, and private investors
like Jack McGregor (founder of the Pittsburgh Penguins).
We are not trying to sell tickets at this moment. We have had an influx of
requests for information since our announcement last week. We simply wanted
to provide those who would like the opportunity to put their name on a list to
do so. That's all. We are not asking anyone to "buy" tickets at this time.
We just recently celebrated the second anniversary of the project. We are
very excited that we are moving ever closer to our inaugural game on November
1st. I urge everyone to give us a chance to make a full-statement about our
operation after we have selected franchise sites. Thanks to all those who
have shown their support.
Sincerely,
Ed Saunders
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:15:55 -0400
From: Debbie Minden
Subject: Re: competition
>
>Figure skating is a money sport. Also (not coincidentally) a glamour
>sport. High profile sports get high profiles....
Just a point. I have 11 year old twin girls. One plays PeeWee hockey on a
boys team, and one figure skates, and is working on her double jumps. Jess
goes out in full armour, while Margot goes out in Spandex to throw her body
again and again into the air and onto the ice working at her sport. Figure
skating may be higher profile, but don't forget, both are sports, both are
women (girls) and both deserver our respect.
Debbie
***********************************************************
Debbie Minden
email@hidden
215-635-4817
------------------------------
End of Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #125
*************************************