Jump to content

XFL 2020 Season


ozzyman314

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

This will be doomed to fail though, for two reasons. The first is that he vastly over-estimates the "moral guardian" folks who aren't watching due to anthem protests and "criminal" players. The second that he's failed to learn the most important lesson from XFLv1; that pro football fans simply aren't interested in watching an inferior product.

Here you go, this is exactly what I was going to say. I personally know of three people who said, "I'm never watching football again, the players are so disrespectful!" And then a couple weeks back, asked me if I wanted to go to their houses and watch the playoffs. Turns out, most people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. The NFL has survived numerous scandals, conspiracies, etc. At the end of the day, people just want to watch football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

And that’s why I can’t help but wonder what he thinks his target audience really is. 

The announcement's vague statements about players being respectful, not signing players with legal issues, etc. makes me think he's trying to target those who believed that football (and America) had some perfect time in the past where everyone was a one-dimensional patriot. You know, kind of like how some people felt the current administration was going to take us back to this time that has never existed.

 

Granted, I do agree that the NFL can be complicated to follow. There are a lot of rules. But even the XFL's original intent to be a "rules light" product didn't work. The very first injury was the result of this. And all the games ended up being extremely boring, low-scoring affairs. Or boring blowouts. The problem was, as it turns out, you need rules. Without them, you have a boring, second-rate product, like the original XFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Here you go, this is exactly what I was going to say. I personally know of three people who said, "I'm never watching football again, the players are so disrespectful!" And then a couple weeks back, asked me if I wanted to go to their houses and watch the playoffs. Turns out, most people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. The NFL has survived numerous scandals, conspiracies, etc. At the end of the day, people just want to watch football.

 

Ex-fricken-actly! For all the talk about people boycotting the NFL because of anthem protests?

 

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2018/01/03/nfl-ratings-decline-espn-fox-nbc-network-tv

 

Quote

The positive news—and there is positive news: Sunday Night Football was the most-watched show in primetime in viewership and trounced the top scripted series (CBS’ Big Bang Theory) by four million viewers. SNF had the highest adult 18-49 rating (6.1) among any show for the 10th consecutive fall season and accounted for eight of the 10 most-watched primetime telecasts between Sept. 7, 2017 and Dec. 25, 2017 (Fox’s World Series games were the other two). ESPN’s Monday Night Football was the No. 1 show on cable TV (ahead of The Walking Dead and HBO's Game of Thrones). And Crupi pointed out in a recent story that, according to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, NFL games accounted for 37 of the year's top 50 broadcasts, or nearly three-quarters (74%) of the most-watched programs on TV. That marked a 32% increase compared to 2016, when the NFL had 28 of the top 50 most-watched programs, and was flat versus the 37 top broadcasts the NFL had in the previous year.

 

The NFL is still going strong. So Vince is in for a shock if he thinks getting players to stand for the anthem will get a significant number of people to tune into the XFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another major issue with the first XFL was it wasn't taken seriously as a sporting league. It was treated, well, like wrestling. Or a UFC match. It was seen more as a "weekly special" than anything else. Despite what I thought was actually pretty professional coverage on TNN (remember that?), I don't think any major sports network ever really talked about the XFL. Newspapers rarely, if ever, even showed scores.

 

The problem, of course, was Vince. It was hard to look at the XFL and its original ideas and not assume it was driven by storylines and fixed outcomes just like wrestling. Every time a XFL game ended with a major come-from-behind win, you couldn't help but wonder if that was the setup all along. There was zero evidence for any of this, but some sports historians have commented that had the XFL never been associated with Vince, it might have worked. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

Ex-fricken-actly! For all the talk about people boycotting the NFL because of anthem protests?

 

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2018/01/03/nfl-ratings-decline-espn-fox-nbc-network-tv

 

 

The NFL is still going strong. So Vince is in for a shock if he thinks getting players to stand for the anthem will get a significant number of people to tune into the XFL.

The other problem is the league isn't starting up until 2020. The public has a very short memory. Remember when every September, the NFL scandal was the "Redskins have a racist name!" It was talked about for a few weeks then forgotten about once the season really got going. Frankly, the whole "the players are kneeling!" never struck me as anything more than just more manufactured, non-controversy. And, just as I expected, the longer the season went on and we started to see teams get into playoff position, the less and less it became a talking point. Now, it has found itself being discussed exactly where I expected it would be: conservative radio shows that keep finding "evidence" with every passing week of the war on religion, conservatism, etc. Just noise, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Anyway, my point is, two years is a long time between announcement and product. I would be amazed if anthem protests are still a thing by then. If they are, it will just be hot air just like the annual Redskins discussion has become. Now, had the XFL somehow been ready to go as soon as this spring, maybe it would have a chance. I know that wouldn't be possible logistically, but then why not make the announcement next year, or even in early 2020 and be ready for a fall launch (or w/e he plans to start up the league).

 

The real reason, as mentioned, is that the next CBA expires in 2020. And Vince is probably hoping for a lockout like in 2011. That was exactly what the United Football League was hoping for, a lockout that would cancel games, making sure the UFL was thus the only option for football. In theory, games get lost in 2020, here comes the XFL to save the day. The problem is, that's just not going to happen. The NFL is too big and makes too much money to lose even one game. Even the NBA's lockout resulted in a 66-game season, not good by any means, but still the majority of the season. But the NFL is much bigger than even the NBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Quillz said:

The announcement's vague statements about players being respectful, not signing players with legal issues, etc. makes me think he's trying to target those who believed that football (and America) had some perfect time in the past where everyone was a one-dimensional patriot. You know, kind of like how some people felt the current administration was going to take us back to this time that has never existed.

 

Indeed.  And that’s why I think he didn’t actually learn from past mistakes. 

 

The original XFL was “let’s go back to when football was tougher.”   This new one seems to be “let’s go back to when black people had to show us more respect.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

Indeed.  And that’s why I think he didn’t actually learn from past mistakes. 

 

The original XFL was “let’s go back to when football was tougher.”   This new one seems to be “let’s go back to when black people had to show us more respect.”

Yeah, very much the vibe I was getting. I saw some people talking about how the XFL would bring back "pure" football. Wow, sounds an awful lot like when Don Lewis wanted to start a totally not racist all-white basketball league because people were getting tired of "streetball" in the NBA.

 

If people really wanted to watch "pure" football, then they'd want leather helmets, an era where field goals were worth more points (and more important) than touchdowns, and a million other rule changes that would result in an almost entirely unrecognizable game. I wonder how many people realize how drastically football has changed in rules and play style from roughly the 1920s to now.

 

What I think the XFL should do, and they actually did do this in the original run, is try out some various rule changes. For example, the CFL has a rule I like, where 51+ yard field goals are worth 4 points instead of 3. Thus, this creates scenarios where risking a longer field goal might be worth the reward. I would like to see that in the XFL. The original incarnation adopted the "Action Point" rule that the World Football League had. If the XFL wants a simplified set of rules, adding some rules that the NFL may or may not ever adopt could at least make for a different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GDAWG said:

Heard "The Smarks" podcast talk about this.  Their picks of cities for the XFL though is stupid and includes places like Denver, Las Vegas, Seattle, New Orleans and Nashville, all cities with NFL teams.

Yeah, this is odd. The original XFL at least went with cities that didn't have NFL teams at the time (Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Birmingham, etc.) Obviously the Rams have returned to LA, and the Raiders are due to play in Vegas next season. So I don't know why Vegas would targeted. Or any of the other listed cities. I mean sure, living in SoCal, I like both the Dodgers and Angels, but that's the result of them having existed for decades, playing in different leagues and thus having different rivalries. So I can get being a fan of, say, the Broncos and Denver XFL, but the problem is the latter is starting fresh. Not only does the league need to prove it works, the team needs to be engaging on-field and build up meaningful rivalries. That takes a long time. You'd think the new XFL would purposely go to cities without any pro football, kind of like how the original AFL worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

"the CFL has a rule I like, where 51+ yard field goals are worth 4 points instead of 3"

 

Are longer touchdowns also worth more points than "regular" touchdowns?

That I don't know. But I will say that despite some ridicule, I'm actually a really big fan of the CFL in general. Fewer downs, less time between play calling, you can't end games with a QB kneel (the ones that people don't protest), and the field is longer. I would imagine some of the rule changes (like the one I mentioned about longer field goals being worth more points) is likely to balance out what I consider a somewhat faster paced game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quillz said:

That I don't know. But I will say that despite some ridicule, I'm actually a really big fan of the CFL in general. Fewer downs, less time between play calling, you can't end games with a QB kneel (the ones that people don't protest), and the field is longer. I would imagine some of the rule changes (like the one I mentioned about longer field goals being worth more points) is likely to balance out what I consider a somewhat faster paced game.

 

So if a team starts at the 50, and only makes 5 yards, they should be rewarded with more points than a team that actually goes 40 yards? Longer field goals being worth more rewards failed offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

 

So if a team starts at the 50, and only makes 5 yards, they should be rewarded with more points than a team that actually goes 40 yards? Longer field goals being worth more rewards failed offenses.

I'm not familiar enough with the CFL to comment on aspects of the game like that. I just like the idea that if a team does attempt a longer field goal (from midfield or beyond) and it succeeds, they get one more point than usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince's initial plan to get into football was to buy the Toronto Argonauts. When that fell through? He came back with a proposal to buy the entire CFL. In what wrestling blogger Scott Keith aptly referred to as "a bizarre Dr. Evil revenge scheme." 

 

15 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

"the CFL has a rule I like, where 51+ yard field goals are worth 4 points instead of 3"

 

Are longer touchdowns also worth more points than "regular" touchdowns?

No such rule about longer field goals being worth more exists in the CFL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Vince's initial plan to get into football was to buy the Toronto Argonauts. When that fell through? He came back with a proposal to buy the entire CFL. In what wrestling blogger Scott Keith aptly referred to as "a bizarre Dr. Evil revenge scheme." 

Didn't the NFL try to merge with the CFL at one point?

 

I think the CFL is a good example of how to make a NFL competitor: by being different. I think the CFL is well aware that its talent level is far below the NFL, and many of its rule changes sometimes come off as silly (there's an infamous game on YouTube you can watch where both sides rally the ball back and forth for like 2 minutes because you can't do a QB kneel). But the point is, none of that matters to the CFL. It's not a NFL competitor and never tried to be. It offers a product that is recognizable but distinct in its own way. It also has a slightly different season structure, and the Gray Cup is a multi-day affair that makes it almost as significant as the Vince Lombardi Trophy or the Stanley Cup.

 

I don't get the impression the XFL is attempting something like that. It's instead going for the "here's how the NFL should be!" angle. And it just won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Didn't the NFL try to merge with the CFL at one point?

If it was going to happen? It would have been in the 1950s and 1960s when two leagues played some inter-league exhibitions.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/23/nfl-cfl-teams-used-to-meet-in-the-preseason/

 

The CFL got creamed, save for the one time the CFL and AFL played. And Hamilton beat Buffalo :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

 

So if a team starts at the 50, and only makes 5 yards, they should be rewarded with more points than a team that actually goes 40 yards? Longer field goals being worth more rewards failed offenses.

 

First of all, the rule doesn't exist in the CFL. I believe Quillz meant NFL Europe, which had 50+ yard field goals worth 4 points.

 

Second of all, I don't think it "rewards failed offenses" as much as it rewards an excellent kicker and adds a further element of risk in attempting a long field goal. Most coaches would punt on 4th-and-4 from the 40. I think the 4-pointer would make more than a few reconsider. Maybe the threshold should be 55 yards instead of 50 - I don't have statistics for this, but I feel like 55 yards is the point where a field goal becomes "very long" instead of just "long." I think of a 53-yarder as long, but a kick that most NFL kickers should make. 56 or 58 is a different story. Obviously the % of successful field goals should decline with distance, but I'd be willing to bet that number drops off much more significantly from 56 to 57 than it does from, say, 52 to 53.

 

Of course, you could have silly situations where teams down 4 intentionally lose yardage in order to kick a 4-pointer instead of a 3. I think rules could be created to discourage that... but then again, I'm not sure exactly how it could be enforced. Intentionally running a play to go backwards is pretty easily identified. How would you differentiate between a "legitimate false start" and an "intentional false start" so you'd lose 5 yards and be able to kick a 4-point field goal?

 

Do you also dislike the 3-point line in the NBA?

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

First of all, the rule doesn't exist in the CFL. I believe Quillz meant NFL Europe, which had 50+ yard field goals worth 4 points.

 

Second of all, I don't think it "rewards failed offenses" as much as it rewards an excellent kicker and adds a further element of risk in attempting a long field goal. Most coaches would punt on 4th-and-4 from the 40. I think the 4-pointer would make more than a few reconsider. Maybe the threshold should be 55 yards instead of 50 - I don't have statistics for this, but I feel like 55 yards is the point where a field goal becomes "very long" instead of just "long." I think of a 53-yarder as long, but a kick that most NFL kickers should make. 56 or 58 is a different story. Obviously the % of successful field goals should decline with distance, but I'd be willing to bet that number drops off much more significantly from 56 to 57 than it does from, say, 52 to 53.

 

Of course, you could have silly situations where teams down 4 intentionally lose yardage in order to kick a 4-pointer instead of a 3. I think rules could be created to discourage that... but then again, I'm not sure exactly how it could be enforced. Intentionally running a play to go backwards is pretty easily identified. How would you differentiate between a "legitimate false start" and an "intentional false start" so you'd lose 5 yards and be able to kick a 4-point field goal?

 

Do you also dislike the 3-point line in the NBA?

That’s a false-eqivalency, given the non-linear nature of offense in basketball. Passing the ball away from the basket makes sense. In football, the goal is to move toward the goal line and if a touchdown is not scored, a field goal can be attempted.  The reward for moving closer to the goal line is a higher-percentage kick.  As amusing as it would be to see teams intentionally try to lose yards, being rewarded more for making it to the 34 than the 10 is silly.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2018 at 12:58 PM, Raptorman415 said:

The No Fun League vs the eXtremely Fun League. I'm glad to see that the NFL finally has a rival.

A rival that is still two years away from even playing a single down? Let alone a guarantee it can even survive one full season...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sc49erfan15 said:

Do you also dislike the 3-point line in the NBA?

Actually, I don't like basketball or the NBA, so I don't care, but if prompted, I would have to say I don't like the 3 point shot.

 

Again, if kicking a long field goal is hard so you have to award more points, do you say the same about touchdowns? It's harder to pull off an 80 yard TD pass than a 10 yard one, should a longer TD be worth more points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

Actually, I don't like basketball or the NBA, so I don't care, but if prompted, I would have to say I don't like the 3 point shot.

 

Again, if kicking a long field goal is hard so you have to award more points, do you say the same about touchdowns? It's harder to pull off an 80 yard TD pass than a 10 yard one, should a longer TD be worth more points?

I have no idea why we’re even discussing this. This entire line of discussion started when someone claimed that field goals over 50 yards were worth more in the CFL.

They are not. That statement wasn’t true. 

 

So now that we’ve cleared that up? We can stay on topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.