Rumors on ECAC expansion

So does anyone have any rumors/predictions on the ECAC changes?

I predict that the ECAC will not announce a decision by the supposed July 1 deadline.

HAAAAAA
I agree.

There was a thread on USCHO to the effect of, "don't expect a decision before mid-July."

I'd rather they taken their time and get it right.

Which will come first?
ECAC announcement or
MLB announcement of relocation of the Expos?
(I went to an Expos game a few weeks ago. Orlando Cabrera was signing autographs in the pavillion lobby area).

Oh, the ECAC announcement. Definitely. I don't think they'll ever make up their minds about Les Expos.

I'd put money on the Expos announcement coming first, and hopefully, they'll send them to Vegas, where they belong.

Why do you say they "belong" in Vegas? LV is growing very rapidly, but I'm not sure it's clear that the city will support a major franchise. But aside from fan and financial support is the gambling issue. Considering the game's stance on gambling (which I feel is completely appropriate) the Lords of Baseball will think long and hard before putting a major league team there.

I should take a look and try to figrue out how long the 51's (AAA affiliate of the Dodgers) have been in Vegas and whether there was any controversy about establishing a team there.

I saw a bit about this on ESPN the other night. They mentioned that the guy who owns the Sacramento Kings also owns the Palms hotel. The league insisted that he remove the NBA from the hotel's sports book. I'm sure MLB would at least try to do something similar regarding its games, though they would have less leverage.

I still think DC is the obvious choice, if there's a suitable owner/stadium/financing situation. Yes, they've lost the Senators twice, but I suspect that had as much to do with the fact that the teams sucked than with the ability of the area to support a franchise (or another franchise). The proximity of the Orioles probably didn't help but I suspect a National League team could coexist more readily with the O's than the old AL Senators.

Yes, it's baseball season.

maybe if the hotels buy all the expos tix as comps for gamblers they can sell out every game and vegas can support a franchise?

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

I saw a bit about this on ESPN the other night. They mentioned that the guy who owns the Sacramento Kings also owns the Palms hotel. The league insisted that he remove the NBA from the hotel's sports book. I'm sure MLB would at least try to do something similar regarding its games, though they would have less leverage.
[/q]
I was in Vegas a couple months ago, and there was an active debate in the newspapers about the possibility of the Expos coming there. It was pretty much a given that if it were to happen, there would be no more MLB betting. Nobody really seemed to care much about that, since that's not where the real money is in the sports books.

This line of thinking made me wonder what happened when UNLV was a factor in the NCAA basketball tourney. Apparently, there was a ban on any betting on Nevada teams until 2001.

[www.reviewjournal.com]

[q]I was in Vegas a couple months ago, and there was an active debate in the newspapers about the possibility of the Expos coming there. It was pretty much a given that if it were to happen, there would be no more MLB betting. Nobody really seemed to care much about that, since that's not where the real money is in the sports books.[/q]If they did stop betting on MLB, especially if it was actually a law and not just an informal understanding, then I think it would be much more likely to happen. Still wouldn't be either my first choice or my first bet for the Expos, but more likely.

Well, Las Vegas grew over 83 percent in population from 1990 to 2000. By 2010 the population will be bigger than say, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, all of which have teams (yes, they're not doing well). On top of that, you have tourists coming through all the time looking for things to do, and a major league baseball game in a nice stadium is going to be high on that list, especially during the day, when tourists are waking up from their hangovers and aren't ready to go to shows or gamble yet.

As for the gambling...it's legal in Montreal, and MLB has had a team there for years...I don't think the Casino de Montreal has a sportsbook, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if casinos in Vegas were willing to take baseball off their sportsbooks, after all, betting on baseball is not nearly as popular as football or basketball and the traffic that a baseball team would generate would likely offset any losses incurred by taking baseball off the books.

If it comes down to D.C. or Vegas, I say Vegas. The Orioles are good enough for D.C.

I don't really think many tourists are going to put a ballgame high on their list of things to do when they go to Vegas. I would also be very surprised if they played a lot of day games given the climate. Oh, I suppose they might build a dome (adding $100 million or more to the stadium cost, but they're still not likely to play a lot of day games. For reference, the 51's only play day games on Sundays (though that's typical of the minors).

Just as importantly, tourists are not going to help the TV/media revenue stream and they wouldn't be buying team merchandise.

Re: gambling in Montreal. I didn't realize that gambling is legal in Montreal. But I'd bet not many people travel to Montreal specifically to gamble. Lot's of folks do in Vegas. So the comparison isn't relaly fair.

As long as they don't put a stadium in Loudoun County *directly* on my commute route (as some yahoos are proposing), I don't care. It's pointless to put it in DC, the population there is split between people who can't afford MLB and people who work until 11 pm and can't get to MLB. NoVa isn't a terrible idea, but there's no good place for a stadium, roads are already a nightmare, and state and local is still rabidly tax averse.

I would say give it to Portland, but there's no way they can support a team.

The solution is to fold it, along with about 7 other franchises.

they should go to Puerto Rico, where they played the first half of their home season last year to sold out crowds.

They sold out a stadium less than half the size of every other MLB stadium. Average attendence was 14,222 over 22 games. They didn't reach that number this year. I'm sure D.C., Vegas, and Portland could do that given the chance. Especially if they only had to do it for 22 games.

[q][Puerto Rico] sold out a stadium less than half the size of every other MLB stadium. Average attendence was 14,222 over 22 games. They didn't reach that number this year. I'm sure D.C., Vegas, and Portland could do that given the chance. Especially if they only had to do it for 22 games.[/q]Not to mention the fact that the avergae income in Puerto Rico is significantly lower than in any of the stateside options. So the community would generate nearly enough revenue to support a major league team.

I say keep Montreal in Montreal and fold Florida and Tampa Bay.

I say drop back down to 16 teams, get rid of divisions and playoff rounds. Back to the good old days! (and hopefully have the Yankees win 20 championships in 40 yars like they did from '23 to '62).

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

I say drop back down to 16 teams, get rid of divisions and playoff rounds. Back to the good old days! (and hopefully have the Yankees win 20 championships in 40 yars like they did from '23 to '62).[/q]

Back to the days of the Evil Empire...

Q: What's the difference between a Yankee Stadium hot dog and a Fenway hot dog?

A: You can buy a Yankee Stadium hot dog in October.

3 more days
any bets

I read an article a while back on sports franchises and Vegas that made a lot of sense...

If you're a casino owner, why would you want a franchise in town? It gives the locals somethings else to do than go to your casino. And it gives the tourists something else to do than go to your casino. 3-4 hours in a stadium is 3-4 hours not cranking slots. And frankly, not too many additional people will come to Vegas to see pro sports.

I bet they don't announce it that soon.

I bet the dissolution of the CPA will go more smoothly than the ECAC expansion....

The recent article on USCHO says the final meeting to decide will be Tuesday, 7/6, and the announcement may happen later that week.

[www.uscho.com]
link

still no announcement from the conference call about the expansion. just about the new head of officials and his to do list

Jayson Moy gives it his best shot at figuring out who has the best shot at getting into the ECAC. He comes out with only one team - Quinnipiac - for a two-year probationary period till they show they can get their rink built. An interesting look at the factors officials are probably considering and just some more fuel for the speculation fire while we wait:

[www.uscho.com]

I like the idea of a probationary period for any new member. I don't think it would impact their recruiting very much, and it would incentify them to do something other than bottom feed and bask in whatever reflected glory the ECAC offers. Not that I'm thinking of a team from Schenectady or anything.

Moy's column is bull. He applies equal weight to each category, which isn't the case. He doesn't calculate how much money each respective school is planning to pump into its athletic program in the short term and over the long term given its financial/endowment strength. He doesn't capture the intangible factors with regard to each school's history and relationship with the other ECAC schools. He doesn't factor in other hockey venues -- i.e. alternative game sites -- for all the schools cited. And he doesn't know what each school promised behind closed doors. Yale wants no part of QU going to the ECAC and on and on and on --

[Q]kesiwick Wrote:

Moy's column is bull. He applies equal weight to each category, which isn't the case. He doesn't calculate how much money each respective school is planning to pump into its athletic program in the short term and over the long term given its financial/endowment strength. He doesn't capture the intangible factors with regard to each school's history and relationship with the other ECAC schools. He doesn't factor in other hockey venues -- i.e. alternative game sites -- for all the schools cited. And he doesn't know what each school promised behind closed doors. Yale wants no part of QU going to the ECAC and on and on and on -- [/q]


My reaction exactly. Holy Cross would be the best fit, academically and geographically. Proximity to Boston is a big plus, too. But then...this is the ECAC.

I wonder if the school presidents will have much say in this? If so I'm sure the Ivy League ones would strongly favor Holy Cross which is a decent school over the others which all seem pretty second-rate.

I wonder how much input school presidents will have? I'm sure the Ivy League ones would strongly favor Holy Cross which is a decent school over the others which all seem pretty second rate.

[q]Moy's column is bull.[/q]Oh come on, you're being way to harsh. He's using a simplified analysis to to look at the situation and speculate as to what will happen. He can't know the closed door things and trying to properly weight each of the individual factors is pointless when you don't know how the committee will do it.

Basically Moy's article does a perfect job for what it's really trying to do - fill the news gap before the ECAC decision is announced and provide some food for discussion on off season discussion boards.

BTW - The analysis, with all it's limitations, does emphasize that SH and Mercyhurst are very much long shots, Niagara has a chance based on hockey success, Q is banking on it's new rink proposal and HC has the academic advantage. Not that these things are terribly new and exciting, but at least he has them correct (with some numbers on academics).

i think there should be a poll about this.. my money is on holy cross.

No one has ever cited any evidence that Yale doesn't want QU in the ECAC. Yet there is evidence declaring the opposite -- i.e. Wayne Dean's comments in support of QU.

I vote for Niagara.
HOWEVER, I sense this is will not happen because Niagara is too far from the other schools geographically.

I felt Moy's analysis completely missed the geographic fit aspect.

t-h*ere is a poll but i cant access it on uscho from this computer to give u the link

USCHO is reporting that it's down to Quinnipiac and Holy Cross.

[www.uscho.com]

I'm betting it will be holy cross

[q]I'm betting it will be holy cross[/q]Considering that it's been reduced to two and we're past the announced decision date, I'd bet both schools have advocates among the ECAC AD's. By all reports (er, rumors) Harvard and Dartmouth at least want HC. But if it were that simple then they'd have made the decision already. McDonald and his rink plans have probably impressed some, not to mention the fact that Q would give 18 scholarships while HC would give none.

[sports.yahoo.com]

not sure if u guys saw this. i was confused by the wording. i originally thought the author meant they TURNED DOWN the offer but i now i realize they were turned down


i see the info is in the uscho article as well. so it is one, both, or none. we shall see

[board.uscho.com]

link to poll

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
...not to mention the fact that Q would give 18 scholarships while HC would give none.
[/q]
Good reason for picking Holy Cross. League champs, best academics, and need-based aid only.

[q]Good reason for picking Holy Cross. League champs, best academics, and need-based aid only.[/q]I see your point and I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm just saying that in terms of long term competitiveness, Q would have an easier time with scholarships than HC without. That might sway some people (esp the non-Ivies) considering how Union has fared in the league.

The New Haven register is reporting that Q has been recommended to join the ECAC. HC has also been tentatively recommended, based on a commitment to upgrade it's women's program.

[www.nhregister.com]

(The article requires registration: uscho/uscho).

There's been a bunch of talk on the USCHO board about this. From the article I'm not convinced that it means what it might seem to. It's not clear to me that a decision has been made. Does recommended mean that both are accepted? Or does it just mean that they haven't been rejected like MC, NU, and SH?

We'll have to wait and see...

According to the article, it means that the Committee made the recommendation but "(t)he recommendation must first be approved by the ECAC’s policy committee, which is expected to meet in August."

The article makes it sound like the decision has been made to accept both schools. "...the process is not completed until the policy committee signs off on the recommendation — or, in the unlikely event that it radically amends it..." The author or his sources are saying that it's very unlikely that the recommendation will not be accepted. This may all be true. But if this was essentially a done deal why wouldn't the league announce the decision considering that we're already two weeks past the original deadline? If you need to get the policy committee to meet, why not schedule an ad hoc meeting to get the issue settled?

Based on the info we have, I prefer to remain skeptical.

The USCHO piece is reporting that Quinnipiac has been recommended and that the Policy Committee could meet imminently. They are also reporting that Holy Cross was denied admission because it would not commit the same level of scholarship monies to its womens program as its mens program. Not that gender equity in sports is not a very important issue but it sounds like they were really looking for some way to say yes to one and only one school.

Holy Cross commits $0 in scholarship monies for the men's program. I find it hard to believe the womens program can't match that.

[q]Holy Cross commits $0 in scholarship monies for the men's program. I find it hard to believe the womens program can't match that.[/q]The USCHO article says that HC wasn't willing to commit to the same kind of financial aid packages for women as for men. That indicates that HC has preferrential aid for athletes even if they don't have full rides.
Later it also says "not willing to commit the same kind of resources" which could also refer to team budget, travel expenses, recruiting expenses, coaches salries, etc.

HC supposedly has no preferrential aid. So I would guess that that part of the article is a mistake. I can definitley believe the later resurces part.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:Later it also says "not willing to commit the same kind of resources" which could also refer to team budget, travel expenses, recruiting expenses, coaches salries, etc.[/q] Am I supposed to believe that the budgets for M and W hockey are the same at Cornell?

Budgets? No. But financial aid is apparently the issue.

Well, it's official now. Q is in starting in '05. Check USCHO for the (non-)story.