I realize that the month of February is pretty slow (once signing day has come and gone), but still do we need all of the chatter?

The MAC is a very stable conference (most conferences aren't stable now) and there is no reason for the MAC to do anything silly out of desperation.

We have a nice compliment of 14 football teams and 12 basketball.

Our football teams were 4 - 1 in bowl games this past season.

Our hoops are okay, down some from years ago, but still not too bad (the West will be back soon, I think).

I read threads created by posters from other conferences possibly facing big issues (plus some created by Kitton, who never met an expansion or merger thread he didn't like) and wonder:

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE MAC?

The best the MAC can do is be neutral like Switzerland and not get caught in any conference war fares...

+1,000,000

Any MAC team would be crazy to even think about leaving (Don't care about Temple, they're not a MAC team).

Think I'm right (or maybe I could be proven wrong) but I believe all of the expansion will HURT the conferences doing it.

Television or playoffs shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog.

Four examples which I think are relevant:

1). Attendance at ACC men's basketball is down for 4 straight years (Washington Post article). I blame expansion for diluting the product. This will be a bigger problem going forward.

2). Although a bit removed from college athletics, the NHL expanded in the early '70s in a way which I believe nearly killed the league. They had a league which was 6 teams (Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Toronto and Montreal). Instead of expanding slowly (e.g., add Philly, add Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc. TWO AT A TIME) they essentially doubled their league at once. Further expansion for television got to be silly. Cities which had NO history with hockey were added. I followed the NHL as a kid. I no longer follow the NHL.

3). The B1G has expanded very slowly and expansion (e.g., PSU) has helped that conference grow. Notre Dame was sought as a FB power. Nebraska is a good FB fit. No 'reaches'. No massive infusions. They add schools which bring a lot to the table.

4). MAC added Temple which has been a definitive positive for football. Temple has been a very good team, plays top opponents, and has done bowl games.

(02-12-2012 06:45 AM)zibby Wrote:  +1,000,000

Any MAC team would be crazy to even think about leaving (Don't care about Temple, they're not a MAC team).

Zibby:

"If it isn't broke, don't..."

The NHL expanded oddly because the Norris family owned part or all of 4 of the teams and kept rejecting expansion long past the time it should have been done, so they were stuck having to add a bunch in the late 60's. Then, because they had waited so long, they had to add a few more because of the new WHA league to block them (NYI, for example) Then, when the WHA folded, they took 2-3 of the stronger teams so they wouldn't have stars as free agents. I'll grant that the recent moves in the Sunbelt were poorly vetted and planned.

It was absolute idiocy that cities like Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Buffalo didn't have professional hockey until 1970.

(02-12-2012 07:48 AM)bronconick Wrote:  The NHL expanded oddly because the Norris family owned part or all of 4 of the teams and kept rejecting expansion long past the time it should have been done, so they were stuck having to add a bunch in the late 60's. Then, because they had waited so long, they had to add a few more because of the new WHA league to block them (NYI, for example) Then, when the WHA folded, they took 2-3 of the stronger teams so they wouldn't have stars as free agents. I'll grant that the recent moves in the Sunbelt were poorly vetted and planned.

It was absolute idiocy that cities like Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Buffalo didn't have professional hockey until 1970.

Nick, you're right.

I now remember that the 6 team expansion was not for a 'national' league but to head off the WHA.

That's how Minneapolis-St. Paul ended up going from ZERO to TWO teams at once. Just like the fight for Dallas in the NFL / AFL days - Dallas Cowboys and Dallas Texans (AFL - later became the K.C. Chiefs).

Of course, one could say that the WHA took advantage of most of the country without major league hockey and created a league to enter 'new markets'.

(02-12-2012 07:01 AM)emu steve Wrote:  2). Although a bit removed from college athletics, the NHL expanded in the early '70s in a way which I believe nearly killed the league. They had a league which was 6 teams (Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Toronto and Montreal). Instead of expanding slowly (e.g., add Philly, add Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc. TWO AT A TIME) they essentially doubled their league at once. Further expansion for television got to be silly. Cities which had NO history with hockey were added. I followed the NHL as a kid. I no longer follow the NHL.

The current NBA is another good example of this.

(02-12-2012 07:48 AM)bronconick Wrote:  It was absolute idiocy that cities like Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Buffalo didn't have professional hockey until 1970.

They had professional hockey. Just not NHL hockey.

(02-12-2012 02:56 PM)bullsnotbills Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 07:48 AM)bronconick Wrote:  It was absolute idiocy that cities like Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Buffalo didn't have professional hockey until 1970.

They had professional hockey. Just not NHL hockey.

I think you are off a few years per Wikipedia. Minn. and Philly were part of the '67-'68 expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL

I would have done something like Philly-Washington in the mid-early 60's, next Minnesota and St. Louis. Buffalo and Ottawa or Pittsburgh. Not sure when Ottawa would have been large enough. Then a LA/Vancouver/San Fran/Seattle to make a western division.

(02-12-2012 04:10 PM)bronconick Wrote:  I would have done something like Philly-Washington in the mid-early 60's, next Minnesota and St. Louis. Buffalo and Ottawa or Pittsburgh. Not sure when Ottawa would have been large enough. Then a LA/Vancouver/San Fran/Seattle to make a western division.

I'm not sure about Washington.

In the 60s, Washington was a very different city than today.

Philly and Miinnie first.

Then maybe Buffalo and St. Louis.

And then maybe 5 years later: LA/SF/Vanc and say Denver.

(02-12-2012 05:21 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(02-12-2012 04:10 PM)bronconick Wrote:  I would have done something like Philly-Washington in the mid-early 60's, next Minnesota and St. Louis. Buffalo and Ottawa or Pittsburgh. Not sure when Ottawa would have been large enough. Then a LA/Vancouver/San Fran/Seattle to make a western division.

I'm not sure about Washington.

In the 60s, Washington was a very different city than today.

Philly and Miinnie first.

Then maybe Buffalo and St. Louis.

And then maybe 5 years later: LA/SF/Vanc and say Denver.

good point about Washington. But, I think Denver was similar, a fairly small place. Plus, that was a lot of travel for back then.

So we have an off-topic thread about why there are so many off-topic threads. Cool.

Denver was given a hockey team in the NFL but it was moved (I think it became NJ but I am having a hard time remembering right now).

(02-13-2012 07:11 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Denver was given a hockey team in the NFL but it was moved (I think it became NJ but I am having a hard time remembering right now).

it was decided that a hockey team in the NFL just caused too many fights and slashing calls for NFL games went up at an alarming rate.

(02-13-2012 07:11 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Denver was given a hockey team in the NFL but it was moved (I think it became NJ but I am having a hard time remembering right now).

Good call

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Rockies_(NHL)

70s weren't an ideal economic time for sports franchises and expansions.