Over-Expansion?

[mvhcpa]

The GLIFL/CIFL was given proper kudos for being one of the best conceived, planned, and executed indoor football leagues of the last season. It played all its games, and the one financially-problemed franchise (I can't remember which) was dealt with properly and timely.

We have seen problems with over-expansion in leagues of all types. The CIFL has more than doubled itself (from 6 to 14, right?) in size for its second season. My question (and it is a question, not a presupposition) is this: Is large team-number expansion for a league always over-expansion, with the same problems no matter what? or, if expansion is properly done, is the number of new teams coming in just a number?

The second question would have to be, what are the criteria for "proper" expansion? I'm sure financial vetting of owners along with regional travel concerns would be two, but are there more? and if only strong owners in properly constructed regions are let in, would it then be the case of "the more the merrier" with no real upper limit to new teams coming in in any particular year?

I guess with a larger number of teams, no matter how carefully vetted, the likelihood of team folding is simply numerically greater--is that the only drawback if a proper expansion is made? and does it even matter if one or two teams fold each year after giving it their best shot, as long as they wait till the end of the season to do it?

Finally, did the CIFL meet whatever criteria we can decide upon to be proper expansion, and how will they do next year as a league?

Michael Val
(who now realizes what a stupidly long question this turned out to be--but still would like to hear some opinions if y'all want to give 'em!)

[Tatonka]

I think that the leagues who expand for the sake of having "X" number of teams, will always be "over"expanding. When you go out and predict "our league will have 64 teams in 2007" you are setting yourself up for failures. THAT is my definition of overexpanding.

Don't forget, 2 of the 8 new CIFL teams are not true expansion teams, they are holdovers from another league. So true "expansion" doubled the original number. If there were 6 new teams for the '06 season, would it not be safe to say adding 6 more for '07 sounds completely normal? If a half dozen for year one was not overdoing it then how is another half dozen in year two?

Unfortunately, we can't predict where or when an ownership group or market will fail. You always go into it with the best of intentions. We have never put a number out there and said "that's our goal, that's the number we have to get to for next season." I mean, we were satisfied with going into this upcoming season with an odd number of teams just because the league front office was not going to force the issue with just any group who might not be qualified just to make the schedule even. That's doing a disservice to your other franchises and to the fans. It was just a fortunate turn of events that led the 14th franchise to us just in the nick of time.

[11HP20]

The term over expansion is only used by three groups of people. The first group are those looking for an excuse. The second group is filled by those who fall for such a sorry excuse. The third group talks of the other two groups.
There is no such thing as over expansion. There is on the other hand irresponsible expansion. Expansion without purpose or direction. After this fails people use the term over expansion.
Tatonka I think your league is doing a fine job. Anyone who would accuse the CIFL of over expansion is either ignorant or a detractor.

[mvhcpa]

Anyone who would accuse the CIFL of over expansion is either ignorant or a detractor.

I hope you didn't think I was accusing the CIFL of over-expansion. My question about over-expansion really became more of a philosophical one as I was writing it, rather than a concrete one limited to the CIFL, and y'all two respondents pretty much answered it for me--thanks!

Michael Val
(who wonders if anyone else has any observations to share on this matter)

[11HP20]

Mvhcpa, two things. I didn't think you were saying the CIFL was over expanding. You had good and direct questions in your post. I've just heard the opinion of some that the CIFL was in danger of over expansion. Sorry to give the impression that I might be getting on you for your post.

Second thing is a question. Are you the Mahoning Valley Hitmen's Certified Public Accountant?

[nksports]

Over expansion is kind of a two-part question.

1. are there so many team in a league that administration becomes unwiedly? Will travel costs alone bring down the league?
That's a test the NIFL and AIFL failed for the past couple of years. Even AFL has had that problem at times. af2 has also overdone it at times.
From what I've seen of the CIFL, the teams it picked up (such as Steubenville and Troy) fit very well. 14 teams isn't too bad. There is a long stretch from the east coast teams to the Illinois teams. Keep the east teams together and the west teams together, and you keep travel in check.

2. are there so many teams that you can't find quality players?
This is actually a problem in pro hockey. For pro football, there are over 700 college teams and about 50,000 college players.

There are about 150 pro football teams in the US (NFL-Europe is included in this argument) and roughly 5,500 pro players. So I would say there is a pretty good pool of upper level football players to go around.

[mvhcpa]

Second thing is a question. Are you the Mahoning Valley Hitmen's Certified Public Accountant?

...that gave it away? :D

SHHHHHHH!!!! Oh No, the IRS is coming after me now! :eek:

Michael Val
(who is a CPA in the Florida Keys, but wouldn't touch JT's books with a hundred-foot pole!)

[mvhcpa]

...but with what is going on in the CIFL recently, I think some more discussion might be relevant.

I think that we identified in the earlier discussion the circumstances when rapid expansion (or any expansion) could be considered "over-expansion" and I think we agreed at the time that the number of new teams by itself does not indicate an over-expansion. However, with the recent trouble, I have to ask the questions again:

1) Did the CIFL over-expand?

2) If so, what made the expansion an "over-expansion"?

I'm not following the league that closely, so I don't think I have knowledgable enough opinions to answer. I bet exit322 might have some relevant insights, though.

Michael Val
(who is interested in hearing what y'all think!)

[exit322]

Overexpansion occurs when that next new team brought in isn't of acceptable quality to be a benefit to the league.

Summit County, Chicago (original ownership; the current owners look good), Chesapeake, and Springfield are all problems right now, though apparently Gettys was such a great con that he fooled everyone (never talked to him, wouldn't know).

The word from the league office was that all of these teams were well-funded enough to not be an issue. Unfortunately, I didn't check with the league to make sure what the "well-enough funded" meant, or to see what the actual funding was, but I think we've easily learned the answer on all of them. It appears that the league took the owners by their word without any real financial checks (I was never able to get a "how much does this owner have" when I asked, though it was never important enough for me to press the issue). That's where overexpansion occurs.

Battle Creek was the problem franchise in 2006. Sadly, I don't know that the league learned anything from the Crunch, either.

[exit322]

Steubenville's being managed by the QB's dad solely because he wants his son to get game film.

There's no financial backing with the team, other than the occasional car wash. Steubenville's in huge trouble, but credit to Martin Maiuri for trying to get this awful situation through this year.

[cRUSHer]

The term over expansion is only used by three groups of people. The first group are those looking for an excuse. The second group is filled by those who fall for such a sorry excuse. The third group talks of the other two groups.
There is no such thing as over expansion. There is on the other hand irresponsible expansion. Expansion without purpose or direction. After this fails people use the term over expansion.
Tatonka I think your league is doing a fine job. Anyone who would accuse the CIFL of over expansion is either ignorant or a detractor.

ROFLMAO :lol:
it's actually funny.:-P

Three groups. no less.

Oh wait...
The 4th group.
Those who CAN see the forest for the trees.
There. That's four groups.There are four groups.

oh wait ....
The 5th group.
Those who don't sugarcoat.
There . That's five groups. There are five groups.

oh wait...
The 6th group
Those NOT in denial.
There. That's six groups. There are six groups.

oh wait...

[exit322]

Over-expansion occurs, again, when that next owner brought in stinks. Period.

I think an argument can be made that that "next owner" in the CIFL stunk pretty badly, and sadly in more than one case.

We definitely have a case of 'over-expansion' here in 2007.

[Minor League Man]

Over-expansion occurs, again, when that next owner brought in stinks. Period.

I think an argument can be made that that "next owner" in the CIFL stunk pretty badly, and sadly in more than one case.

We definitely have a case of 'over-expansion' here in 2007.
And you were the same guy who defended the CIFL's massive expansion for this year!

Now tell me, did you actually believe that, or were you just paid to do it because you were the (GL/C)IFL Media Relations Director?

[exit322]

And you were the same guy who defended the CIFL's massive expansion for this year!

Now tell me, did you actually believe that, or were you just paid to do it because you were the (GL/C)IFL Media Relations Director?

I relied on highly faulty information from the league office.

"Oh, they've got money, don't worry" probably doesn't well substitute a background check.

That said, it was my job (but I wasn't paid to do it, don't worry) to portray in a good light what the league had done.