Disturbing letter to editor

[BGFan]

puckster,

Yes, the hockey program plays against some biggies, but ask many students about Lake Superior St, Ferrris St, Nebraska-Omaha and they probably will say 'who the hell is that?' They play those schools, big and small, because there are so few teams that play Div I hockey, that they have play each other. You think OSU, UM, MSU, ND would be coming to BG to play if they had other options?

That's a baseless argument because hockey fans know the schools that they play.

But Rick, just the way you phrased that gets to my point. "hockey fans". There just aren't enough of them. Yes, I know you and all the others here know who those schools are, but the majority of the students don't. And I would venture to say that there are a lot more that only recognize OSU, UM, MSU for their 'brand' and have no idea if there hockey teams are even any good.

Here's another thought regarding fans. It would be interesting to see what the breadth of the fan base is. That is, how many different fans come to hockey games vs basketball games. I know hockey has a serious hard core nucleus of fans. But how many casual fans that come out a couple times a season to see a game. And compare that to basketball. I have know idea what the results would be, but I think it would be interesting study of the fan base.

Hockey picks up new fans every year which is why they continue to outdraw men's basketball year in and year out. If you look at attendance figures even when the basketball team was winning, hockey outdrew them or at the very least matched their figures. Sorry, but those are the facts. LSSU, NMU, Ferris, etc, may not draw the new fans, but when they come to see Michigan, many come back to see the others.

You're basing your arguments on pure conjecture because it's what you believe to be true without ever having attended a game. Come to a game....compare the student section there to one at a basketball game and you'll see what I mean.

[Warthog]

You're basing your arguments on pure conjecture because it's what you believe to be true without ever having attended a game. Come to a game....compare the student section there to one at a basketball game and you'll see what I mean.

You're right, I'm just making most of this up based on what I perceive. Never been to a hockey game, so I can't make judgements about who attends.

But I still believethat basketball has FAR more casual fans than hockey. That is, they may not attend all the games, they at least follow the team by listening to the game, reading stories in the newspaper, knowing who the players are. Hockey seems to be more focused with a smaller number of fans. Those fans are very serious about their hockey, no doubt about it. But I think most are like me... Know we have a hockey team, have no idea who we play week to week and only know the teams record after stumbling upon the CCHA standings in the Sunday sports section.

[murphdogg]

Yes there are probably more casual fans at basketball games, but what does that say when hockey almost always has higher attendance? It says that the serious fans of hockey outnumber the serious and casual fans of basketball here

[NWLB]

Sports feed off each other at BGSU.

Not many schools can wrap a true triple header, such as when BG has basketball, hockey, and football, or men and women's basketball followed by a hockey game to cap the night.

I recall when hockey scores got louder cheers than some of what was going down on the football field during home games.

No, not all BGSU fans are hockey fans, but a lot are. And I know there are a lot of old farts especially, that pre-date the rise of the hockey state in BG, who are half resentful or at the least, utterly unable to grasp why it is popular. There are some younger farts that can't get it either, but that is another story.

But I see no reason to expect any funds to see their way to any other sport were Hockey to be lost, and only foul and bitter angst among many BGSU fans, if not all of them.

I do think hockey draws better than basketball when all else is equal. I think its a younger sport that does better locally. I know for a fact it is a sport that drew exceptionally well outside of BG to boot. When times weren't so lowly, consider how many hundreds of BGSU fans turn-out at road games in Columbus? We drew nearly 2000 at one alumni event back at the Chiller once. Darn near got into a riot with some drunk or stupid OSU fans as I recall.

I don't recall such regular season support even in 20 win seasons for the men's basketball team.

[Warthog]

Yes there are probably more casual fans at basketball games, but what does that say when hockey almost always has higher attendance? It says that the serious fans of hockey outnumber the serious and casual fans of basketball here

I think you missed my point that casual basketball fans don't always go to the game. What I was trying to say was that while there may be 1,500 fans at a BB game, maybe 750 are hard core fans, 750 are casual fans, but there are another 10,000 casual fans at home listening, checking box scores, etc. For hockey, there may be 2,000 fans at the game, of which 1,750 are hard core fans, 250 are casual fans and another 1,000 at home listening to the game, checking box scores, etc. Therefore total BB fans = 11,500; total hockey fans = 3,000. I have idea if this is true, but that would be my perception. (And I'm probably wrong )

[gmartin]

Another thing to remember is that BG was real good in hockey way back when the nation was following hockey more. The '84 Olympics were huge for US hockey when we won. Basketball and football are much more popular sports and easier to grab fans with than hockey at this point in time I think. LSSU being good at one time or another means nothing to most casual fans. Outside the small circle of hockey fans , no one knows jack about these other small teams that are really good. I bet more people know about out women's basketball dynasty than know that BG won a NC in hockey 24 years ago. I guess what I'm saying more or less is , building up really good programs in football or basketball brings more notoriety and potentially more money to the university than success in hockey. If BG this year , somehow got on a ridiculous run and got the Frozen Four and won nobody would know anything about it except the huge college hockey fans. Hockey just isn't covered like other sports cuz more people in more areas are attracted to sports they have a chance of being able to play themselves. Its sucks but its the truth. I know its a baseless argument to most of you but it's just a thought.

Didn't know Soviet Union winning the GOLD MEDAL in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, changed the way US looked at hockey. But maybe the US winning the GOLD in Lake Placid in 1980 changed how we viewed hockey. I swear, FB could you at least get the facts before you make any more posts!!! And did I win the 75.00?

[murphdogg]

Yes there are probably more casual fans at basketball games, but what does that say when hockey almost always has higher attendance? It says that the serious fans of hockey outnumber the serious and casual fans of basketball here

I think you missed my point that casual basketball fans don't always go to the game. What I was trying to say was that while there may be 1,500 fans at a BB game, maybe 750 are hard core fans, 750 are casual fans, but there are another 10,000 casual fans at home listening, checking box scores, etc. For hockey, there may be 2,000 fans at the game, of which 1,750 are hard core fans, 250 are casual fans and another 1,000 at home listening to the game, checking box scores, etc. Therefore total BB fans = 11,500; total hockey fans = 3,000. I have idea if this is true, but that would be my perception. (And I'm probably wrong )

The only problem with that is that BG does not draw revenue from people listening at home or checking box scores. Its nice that we would have lots of fans, but it doesn't help us in the wallets, which is the most important thing right now

[Warthog]

Point taken, but I would add that BB then has more potential dollars out there. That is, with more casual fans, there is a greater potential of them attending should the team be doing well.

[NWLB]

Point taken, but I would add that BB then has more potential dollars out there. That is, with more casual fans, there is a greater potential of them attending should the team be doing well.

I think we've seen that thought play out, and the numbers don't support it.

Casual fans equates to those likely to put their butts in the seats, and historically the hockey team can and does draw more of those in good times.

If this were about hypothetical big crowds, they would be building the Stroh Center with 10,000 seats. They are not doing so exactly because they can't draw much better than they do.

[sbkbghockey]

to make this worse I just saw a new forum post with the latest sad news. It looks like BG is putting off the renovations to the ice arena!

[pdt1081]

I think you missed my point that casual basketball fans don't always go to the game. What I was trying to say was that while there may be 1,500 fans at a BB game, maybe 750 are hard core fans, 750 are casual fans, but there are another 10,000 casual fans at home listening, checking box scores, etc. For hockey, there may be 2,000 fans at the game, of which 1,750 are hard core fans, 250 are casual fans and another 1,000 at home listening to the game, checking box scores, etc. Therefore total BB fans = 11,500; total hockey fans = 3,000. I have idea if this is true, but that would be my perception. (And I'm probably wrong )

Not since Bart Davis was doing play by play has the hockey games been broadcast on an FM radio station that can be heard clearly outside the city limits (96.7). Whereas the football and basketball teams had 107.7 till it moved to Ottawa and went defunct, and were supposedly in talks with 103.7 to be the new "Flagship Station of Falcon Athletics minus hockey, of course." I can listen to 103.7 all the way to Ann Arbor if I'm going north. And almost to Columbus going south.

[jpfalcon09]

I know several folks have mentioned that hockey has a better chance of winning a national title than football or basketball, and I am not trying to argue against that. But a few thoughts arise out of that.

First, is that the most important thing about a program? Yes, winning a national championship would be great, but is that how you judge the success of the program? What about academic standing? Graduation rates?

Second, if winning a national championship is what it is all about, why not invest all of our athletic budget lacrosse or something, steal the coach from Johns-Hopkins or Duke and win it all?

Third, winning a national title is also a function of the number of teams competing. How many Div 1 hockey programs are there? How many basketball programs? Simply looking at the numbers, then yes, it is easier to be the best of 50 or 60 teams than it is out of 350.

While graduation of student athletes should be the primary focus of the athletic department and the respective coaches, the success of a program is always ultimately judged by wins and losses, it's simple as that. I understand where you're coming from, but a talented hockey player isn't going to look more at his chances of graduating than having a chance to play professionally after college.

The second point is grasping for straws, but I understand the gist of it. The national championship is obviously something the university and the hockey program is extremely proud of. In my mind, the university needs to be doing more for that reason, due to the tradition the program has had, and that it once was a national powerhouse that dominated the CCHA. With the university's push of football, that has become less important and you see what has transpired with the hockey program in terms of priority. As I said in my earlier post, the fact that I can watch NHL games and see more pros from BGSU than I do in the NFL, reinforces to me that hockey is a legitimate sport that the university needs to promote.

The last part of your post can be argued. With fewer D-1 hockey programs, you would expect the talent pool to be better throughout each school, rather than the dilution that is found in college basketball. Junior hockey factors into this somewhat, as good players will forego a chance at an education to gain more professional experience, but generally the crop of players in college hockey is comparable to the junior ranks. BGSU has shown the ability to recruit top notch players, even in the last 7-8 years. Whitmore, Foster, Matsumoto, the Sigalets, Bieksa, etc. can compete with the best in college hockey. The same can't be said for men's hoops and basketball.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think those opinions are part of the reason why the hockey program has fallen so far down the priority ladder of the university.

[Warthog]

As I said in my earlier post, the fact that I can watch NHL games and see more pros from BGSU than I do in the NFL, reinforces to me that hockey is a legitimate sport that the university needs to promote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bo ... ity_alumni

Looking over this list, I think I counted 8 current professional hockey players, and one must be a minor league team.

But I don't know how accurate it is because it only list 3 current NFL players, when in fact there are 6. (Mruczkowski, Lichtensteiger, Suisham, Campbell, Pope, and Sanders) And Jacobs, Magner, Harris and Redd all played/are playing in some form of Arena football.

[bgbill]

it may be time to reflect on BG hockey

[NWLB]

Geez Bill, for the love of god, don't go into so much detail.