This is all starting to remind of NHL expansion (shudder)

Submitted by 93Grad on November 20th, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Anyone else fearing that college football is currently getting Bettman'ed?  Hockey thought the way to grow was to expand into southern and western markets who don't care and can't sustain succesful franchises and in doing so bascially ruined all that made hockey unique and turned off many of the most loyal of fan bases.

 

I fear college football is headed in the same direction. The things that people love about college football: tradition, rivalries, conference affiliation, are all going to be sacraficed so Bettm...Delaney can show the owners...I mean college presidents that there is growth.  Why not just do away with conferences all together and start calling things the NCAA-North, etc.

 

This is just so short-sighted and stupid and it looks way too much like what hockey did when they opted for the immediate cash grab that franchise fees brought in.  Now they have their 3rd work stoppage in a decade because all those new owners could not compete with the traditional franchises. 

 

Yuck.

Comments

mgobaran

November 20th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^

I was just thinking this while commenting on another thread..

Bettman flooded the NHL with crap teams in good TV Markets. They can't sell tickets, half the teams are losing money and the League is about to fold. I wouldn't underestimate Delany in being able to find out a way to have 2 B1G lockouts in 6 years either.

BlueinLansing

November 20th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^

you are correct, college football is not being watered down.

 

However the OP is correct in that tradition and rivalries are being thrown out the window in pursuit of the dollar.

Prior to expansion of the NHL, tradition and rivalry was a very large part of the NHL experience.  Perhaps its been too long now for people to remember what the old NHL was like.  But it was quite different than the generic game played today.

French West Indian

November 20th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

Bettman was attempting to expand by creating teams out of thin air.  Totally different.

Also, I think that people are getting confused.  Although the Big Ten is expanding, what is really happening in college football is a continusing push towards a centralization of power.  We'll eventually get down to four big conferences. Then maybe three.  Then just two and at that point it's really just one.

robpollard

November 20th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^

If Maryland and Rutgers football didn't exist before yesterday (i.e., didn't have D1A college football - they were effectively like the Univ of Chicago), would it have mattered to the typical B1G viewer/fan? I would gather for the large majority, while they may have casually watched them for a Thursday night game or something, if the last 20 years of Maryland and Rutgers football were wiped off the planet, it wouldn't have materially mattered -- the B1G/Michigan fans still would have enjoyed college football just as much. We would have gone to the same Rose Bowls, won the same Heismans, had the same UTL, etc.

Now, with them in our conference, they exist when they didn't before. They now matter to me, when I really didn't give them a second thought before. They are effectively the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Nashville Predators, and now my Detroit Red Wings will have to play these two new teams more often, in place of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Boston Bruins.

So in essence, Delany has "created" these teams for Michigan fans. The games we schedule (and don't schedule) and the chances of us winning the conference, etc have changed b/c of this expansion.

mGrowOld

November 20th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^

No...I wasn't fearing the NCAA going full-Bettman.

UNTIL NOW!  

Actually that's a very good comparison (once I stopped to think about it) that you've made.

Alton

November 20th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^

This is starting to remind you of NHL expansion?  That's an optimist's perspective.  This is all starting to remind me of the real estate bubble.

Tha Quiet Storm

November 20th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

Same here. This expansion just for expansion's sake seems a lot like the "boom" phase of a business cycle. It just doesn't seem sustainable.

Although some schools are trying to schedule better non-conference opponents, ticket prices remain high and rising, and there do seem to be a rash of empty seats (not just students) in stadiums around the country. Last year's BCS games had record low ratings (the new playoff system will probably solve this, but it's not a guarantee). And, as Dave Brandon noted on 60 Minutes, only 22 of the 125 1-A football programs are breaking even or in the black.

College Football has been my favorite sport since I began following sports, but the last couple of years have changed that. I can't stand the tearing apart of traditional rivalries, loss of regional identity, and the NCAA's arbitrary, ad hoc approach to everything. Michigan will always be my favorite sports team (more than all my other favorite teams combined), but I don't find myself watching football from noon to midnight on Saturdays like I used to. If there are a significant number of fans like me, I suspect this bubble will pop, maybe by the end of the decade. Who knows what the landscape will look like afterwards.

UofM-I-Hart

November 20th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^

Dude get over it. They're gonna do what they're gonna do and there's nothing we can do to stop it. NOBODY is going to quit watching college football for this reason alone regardless of what happens. It is what it is, adapt to it and enjoy what we are given.

UofM-I-Hart

November 20th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^

Accept that things change. Always have and always will. Were the traditions in the 1960's the same as 10 years before that? No. Were things the same last year as they were 5 years ago? No. Things HAVE to change and they always have. Every tradition was new at some point in time. They have to be MADE. Jesus, boggest bunch pf cry baby fans ever pn this bpard makes me sick.

Hannibal.

November 20th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^

This is a lot worse than NHL expansion.  The NHL didn't approach expansion with anywhere near the same level of hubris as the Big Ten is approaching expansion.  More importantly, and I could be mistaken about this, the NHL teams don't share their local TV revenue equally.  So the Rangers and Red Wings aren't hurt badly by the addition of deadweight to the league.  The Big Ten, on the other hand, shares all bowl revenue and TV revenue. Deadweight hurts.

FreeKarl

November 20th, 2012 at 2:52 PM ^

As much as people want to complain NHL expansion was largely successful. Labor disputes have hurt the league worse than anything(if you want to argue that these were caused by expansion than you may have a point).