Death of the Alliance of American Football

[Mac the Knife]

On 5/23/2018 at 9:30 AM, ltp74 said:

I think Ebersol is moving faster because he wants to take advantage of the sports betting ruling, if he's up and running next year as states get their sports books online he'll be the only one running the sport everyone likes to bet on while the NFL and NCAA are in the off seasons. McMahon is bringing back the XFL due to his ego, the thought that live events equal ratings then big tv contracts and that the Trump voters will flock to his league because he's forcing his players to stand for the National Anthem. McMahon and the XFL name has a 747 worth of baggage associated with it, there's no way that Ebersol or anyone starting up a spring league could have any association with them.

 

Ebersol couldn't have anticipated the gambling court ruling outcome, nor could McMahon despite the initial pre-launch announcement video referring to "padded roulette."  A lot of people (correctly) surmised that PASPA would be struck down, but no one would be foolish enough to start a venture of this magnitude expecting that to be the case.

 

I'm not sure exactly why McMahon's returning the XFL, but he doesn't have the baggage you believe he does.  The original XFL was a generation ago, Vince is a sports entertainment impresario, and virtually everyone who remembers the original league, including those involved in its launch, can point to some very specific causes for its failure with 18 years hindsight.  The mistakes made in 2000-2001 aren't likely to be repeated.  I'm not saying XFL will work, or that AAF won't for that matter; but anyone paying attention to how these guys are going about things is seeing that one is seemingly making the same mistakes made by leagues organized by people who've never done it before - and that the other is doing as much as possible under the radar; the sports promoter equivalent of a kid who knows not to touch the top of the stove.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 4:26 PM, WideRight said:

I think the "big" name coaches will help to provide a sense of legitimacy to the league.  Quality of play will matter quite a bit.  That is where the XFL failed.  They had no preseason and very short camps and the teams were just not ready to play.  I think if the leaguewide average is 20,000 they are in great shape.  

 

The issue most of these leagues have, and I include WLAF in this, is that by the very nature of the game you are going to have some team(s) that goes 2-8, 1-9 or 0-10 and how do you get fans to go to those games late in the year.  People will rally around a winning team, even if it is a minor league team, but to be minor league, with no name players and only a coach's reputation to sell tickets, that is the issue.

 

I think a single-entity system helps with this, because every ticket sold in Orlando helps to keep Atlanta afloat, but in the end, if the games are close and the play is good, and a few names come out of the league and make it to the NFL and are successful there (a la Kurt Warner) the league can draw in a range that will keep it afloat (20-30k).  But they better plan for there to be a few stinker teams with bad records and worse crowds, and not jump on the relocation/contraction bandwagon too soon.  Commit to those markets so fans can commit to the teams, even when they are bad in season 1 or 2. 

 

By the way, i still wish they were open to having 10 teams instead of 8, because someone in the St. Louis, Sacramento, New Orleans, Louisville, Oakland and San Antonio pool is going to get left out, and I think all of those markets could work for the AAF.  Maybe they do well in year 1 and add 2 teams in year 2. 

 

The name coaches help until a ball's kicked off for the inaugural game.  They might help sell tickets in some of the markets, and they might impact the quality of play.  But ultimately it's up to the quality of the product on the field.  We're in agreement vis-a-vis the single entity approach, though I think there's a third way (the first being a traditional franchise model, the second single entity) that would work better than both.

 

Whatever AAF does, they will destroy their credibility if they relocate teams within the first three years.  Having franchises relocate after just one or two years makes an entire league look unstable; minor leagues can get away with it to an extent, top-level leagues can't.

 

18 hours ago, LogoFan said:

Long-term survival, no.  But I could see this going for several years if done correctly, and so far it's looking good for them, IMHO.  It really is reminding me more of the USFL as these are serious football guys with lots of experience in the game, where the XFL not run by a "football guy" and the UFL was horribly bungled from the start.  And then there was the A11FL which gave us cool logos for teams that never had anyone working for them...lol.

 

The only thing I see about AAF that reminds me of the USFL are the coaching hires; and in fact, AAF has already surpassed the USFL with regard to hiring "name" coaches.  But that's going to prove a double-edged sword.  Because with all these name head coaches, fans and particularly the media are going to be ratcheting up their expectations regarding the quality of the on-field product from the outset.  So instead of having a USFL 1983-like launch, where people had nominal expectations and were pleasantly surprised when they learned that guys like Jim Mora, Dick Coury, Steve Spurrier and Rollie Dotsch could coach; they may have a 2019 launch where people have expectations that can't be met, resulting in an XFL 2001-like drop in interest and perhaps even downright mockery.

 

A11 was an interesting case.  They contacted me and offered me a slot on their Board of Directors based on my creation of USFL.info - which by and of itself was an immediate red flag.  You don't offer seats on your governing body to someone you've never met, no matter what they might bring to the table.  When I declined, they offered to buy my rights to the USFL-related domains I held at the time.  They offered me 4 50-yard line, lifetime season tickets for any team in the league.  I retorted that if they were serious about acquiring them, they'd come back with a serious offer; I also made three counter-offers, telling them I'd accept any one of them:  (i) a straight up, $100,000 payment for each domain they wanted, (ii) a 5% ownership stake in any team they established using one of the domains (e.g., if they launched an Arizona Wranglers team, I'd give them arizonawranglers.com in exchange for 5% of the team), or (iii) exclusive franchise rights in the State of North Carolina, which would've required that anyone desiring to put a team in Charlotte or Raleigh would have to buy an option to do so from me, then get league approval for the franchise.

 

Two of those wouldn't have cost them a dime (and in retrospect, would've resulted in "losses" by me, as I'dve lost the domain and got nothing to show for it); and the one that they should've taken - the $100,000 cash buyout - it was obvious they didn't have the capital to pull off.  When they responded that those weren't suitable options for them, that ended the discussion.

[dfwabel]

Quote

And Rick Neuhiesel is the coach, I mean, this is hilarious, unbelievable. I can't wait. To me, I think that the next league would come in would have to partners with Netflix. Or partners with Hulu or one of those as you can stream the games and you actually have revenue coming in. How is this going to make it, Tate Frazier (co-host)? Like I would think the league would be a developmental league of coaches and young people so that the can supplement the other levels, but these are guys who have already been doing this a long time. Like Brad Childress left a job in the NFL to become the head coach of the Atlanta team and Rick Neuhiesel was playing guitar on the set of the CBSSN on college football in the afternoon and now he's going to coach a pro team?

 

And Bill Polian is still going to do ESPN and this league? I don't know how he does it. There must be two Bill Polians.

- Michael Lombardi on The Ringer NFL Podcast from May 21, 2018

 

Lombardi is poor when with a contract with a NFL team, but when he's out of the league and talking to Simmons and a podcast, he's typically right.

[Mac the Knife]

You know who would make an absolutely great television partner for a new pro football league, provided it had any interest in doing it again?

 

HBO.

 

And yes, I said "again," because in the very, very early days of HBO's existence, they broadcast WFL games.  No one seems to have footage of it, but they did air them.  Could you imagine HBO doing it now though?

[BBTV]

23 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

You know who would make an absolutely great television partner for a new pro football league, provided it had any interest in doing it again?

 

HBO.

 

And yes, I said "again," because in the very, very early days of HBO's existence, they broadcast WFL games.  No one seems to have footage of it, but they did air them.  Could you imagine HBO doing it now though?

 

Itd be cool because they’d make the games part of a bigger thing, like hard knocks but for the whole league 

 

not sure how smart it would be putting a new league on a channel that requires subscriptions and $15-$20 / month to watch. 

[Mac the Knife]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Itd be cool because they’d make the games part of a bigger thing, like hard knocks but for the whole league 

 

not sure how smart it would be putting a new league on a channel that requires subscriptions and $15-$20 / month to watch. 

 

You know, I thought about that as well, but HBO's ubiquitous enough that they could promote it as premium programming - a hook to get subscribers, a la "The Sopranos" or "Game of Thrones."  An 8 team league would provide 8 hours of live programming every week in the form of games, plus the potential for an hour long behind the scenes program to air throughout each season.  Filling 9 hours a week out of 168 with specialty programming that can't be had anywhere else could easily be worth $100 million a year to a premium subscription service like an HBO or Showtime; they've been known to invest that much in boxing rights in a year and get nowhere near that much programming, to that broad an audience, out of it.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

You know, I thought about that as well, but HBO's ubiquitous enough that they could promote it as premium programming - a hook to get subscribers, a la "The Sopranos" or "Game of Thrones."  An 8 team league would provide 8 hours of live programming every week in the form of games, plus the potential for an hour long behind the scenes program to air throughout each season.  Filling 9 hours a week out of 168 with specialty programming that can't be had anywhere else could easily be worth $100 million a year to a premium subscription service like an HBO or Showtime; they've been known to invest that much in boxing rights in a year and get nowhere near that much programming, to that broad an audience, out of it.

 

"real" sports just aren't always as interesting as worked "sports" like WWE, because sometimes the action just doesn't live up to the hype, teams just stink, players just aren't talented, etc.  I don't think HBO would want to show "real" sports.  They'd want to create storylines by profiling guys on each team that might be battling with some issue, or had some tragedy in their life, or just had somethine else notable happen to them, then focus on them during the game and have the announcers keep commenting about whatever it is.  

 

Really for it to be an "HBO" show, they'd have to maybe not "script" it, but really manufacture / produce interest.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 26/05/2018 at 3:25 PM, Mac the Knife said:

You know who would make an absolutely great television partner for a new pro football league, provided it had any interest in doing it again?

 

HBO.

 

And yes, I said "again," because in the very, very early days of HBO's existence, they broadcast WFL games.

 

Just by luck I happened across this pdf on a site called SportsVideo.org. It appears to be a list of sporting events shown by HBO from its first day, November 8, 1972, through to the end of 1976.

 

I have no idea if it is reliable; and I realise that it is not entirely applicable to the present discussion.  But I thought that I would take the opportunity of the mention of HBO to offer it for our consideration.

[The_Admiral]

18 pages, huh.

[NYC Cosmos]

Now you have six with San Diego. Who is left? The south and west are locked away. That leaves two large media markets the league needs.

 

I like Sacramento. Would San Jose work? If it is Sacramento, that brings you to 9. Where does the final team play? New York? Chicago? Or will they use the final two slots for major markets? You need major media markets in the east and/or midwest. It depends on what the CBS contract says.

 

If the league works out, then next year St. Louis I am sure would get strong consideration for a team. So would Columbus. I would even go to Mexico City. It depends on new investors and media coverage and of course, gate. CBS won't be happy if it shows a game where the stadium is ⅔ empty.

 

If the league was smart, and I mean very smart, they would expand by 2 teams next year and cap it at that, if they expand at all. The USFL was completely and utterly dumb by expanding by six teams and shuffling teams around. If they had expanded by 2, then Memphis would have been one team and maybe Jacksonville. 14 teams, with Jax/Memphis/Tampa Bay in a rivalry. You already had NJ/Philly/Boston as rivals, and everyone hated Chicago. They should have allowed rivalries to fully form.

 

if the league survives, and that is a big if, I am sure they would consider Europe in the future. Times are different now. NFL E paved the way for much more interest in the game. For a Euro division, you would have to go where teams have done well over the years – Stockholm, Geneva, London of course, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan/Bologna and even Hamburg and Marseilles, but then you have French cultural laws to deal with. Madrid may or may not work. Amsterdam, Glasgow/Edinburgh, Barcelona, Berlin, Cologne, Dublin, and Munich would never work. On the other hand, Red Bull was interested in a team and would have put it in Salzburg. 

 

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Now you have six with San Diego. Who is left? The south and west are locked away. That leaves two large media markets the league needs.

 

I like Sacramento. Would San Jose work? If it is Sacramento, that brings you to 9. Where does the final team play? New York? Chicago? Or will they use the final two slots for major markets? You need major media markets in the east and/or midwest. It depends on what the CBS contract says.

 

If the league works out, then next year St. Louis I am sure would get strong consideration for a team. So would Columbus. I would even go to Mexico City. It depends on new investors and media coverage and of course, gate. CBS won't be happy if it shows a game where the stadium is ⅔ empty.

 

If the league was smart, and I mean very smart, they would expand by 2 teams next year and cap it at that, if they expand at all. The USFL was completely and utterly dumb by expanding by six teams and shuffling teams around. If they had expanded by 2, then Memphis would have been one team and maybe Jacksonville. 14 teams, with Jax/Memphis/Tampa Bay in a rivalry. You already had NJ/Philly/Boston as rivals, and everyone hated Chicago. They should have allowed rivalries to fully form.

 

if the league survives, and that is a big if, I am sure they would consider Europe in the future. Times are different now. NFL E paved the way for much more interest in the game. For a Euro division, you would have to go where teams have done well over the years – Stockholm, Geneva, London of course, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan/Bologna and even Hamburg and Marseilles, but then you have French cultural laws to deal with. Madrid may or may not work. Amsterdam, Glasgow/Edinburgh, Barcelona, Berlin, Cologne, Dublin, and Munich would never work. On the other hand, Red Bull was interested in a team and would have put it in Salzburg. 

 

With that mid-February start Columbus and Chicago would have to be on the road at the start of the year and probably work a deal with Ohio State and Northwestern to use their indoor practice facilities. That will be the biggest issue for northern teams if they go north of Memphis. Not so much gameday but making sure the players can get the reps they need ahead of games when the Midwest is still getting snow.

[Wings]

I'm still going with the idea that they're concentrating on the west and south for now. 

[NYC Cosmos]

23 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

With that mid-February start Columbus and Chicago would have to be on the road at the start of the year and probably work a deal with Ohio State and Northwestern to use their indoor practice facilities. That will be the biggest issue for northern teams if they go north of Memphis. Not so much gameday but making sure the players can get the reps they need ahead of games when the Midwest is still getting snow.

 

23 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

With that mid-February start Columbus and Chicago would have to be on the road at the start of the year and probably work a deal with Ohio State and Northwestern to use their indoor practice facilities. That will be the biggest issue for northern teams if they go north of Memphis. Not so much gameday but making sure the players can get the reps they need ahead of games when the Midwest is still getting snow.

I don't think that weather is an issue. If memory serves me, the first Denver Gold game was played in a snow storm. I think in season 2, Oklahoma played with sleet on the field. If the AAFL wanted to play in warmer weather, then locate all the teams in the south and southwest. And it depends what the CBS contract says. I believe ABC had a stipulation that a certain number of teams had to play in "major broadcast markets" thus you had the Generals, Outlaws, Gamblers and Express. Does CBS have a similar stipulation? Atlanta, San Diego, Phoenix, and Orlando fit the bill. The question is whether people in Chicago and New York will watch if they don't have teams. The answer – no of course not. 

 

As for Columbus, if the Crew moves to Austin, Texas (and I hope they don't), the Crew facilities would be available. Chicago would work something out. Here are cities I feel should/will get a franchise (either with the remaining two slots or in the future)

 

Chicago

New York

St. Louis

Columbus

Sacramento (if they Railyards project ever gets done)

Birmingham (Legion Field was rumored to get an update soon)

San Antonio

Washington DC

Los Angeles (given the right stadium situation)

Portland

Dallas (Frisco)

Oakland (when Raiders move)

Mexico City

 

[WideRight]

I still hold to the idea that the Feb. start removes any chance of the Northeast or Midwest getting teams.  It is crappy weather for the most part at least into early April and that is the entire season. The USFL had enough big name players and a long enough season to make it work. I don't see an 8 team 10 week season taking that risk.  

 

If domes are not out out of the question, then St. Louis and San Antonio seem the top choices for teams 7-8.  If not then I would be looking at Sacramento, San Jose, Portland, Albuquerque and maybe Dallas as a long shot in the west.  Louisville, New Orleans, Birmingham, Raleigh or A 2nd Florida team in the East.  

[dfwabel]

Martz's staff in San Diego include:

 

Offensive Coordinator: Jon Kitna

Defensive Coordinator: Larry Marmie

TJ Houshmandzadeh, Dre Bly, Jackie Slater, and Kitna's brother are also on staff.

 

 

[Needschat]

Read on the interwebs, several people have put forth a joking name for San Diego.  It's a joke but hey, it may work.

San Diego Coryells.  

[GDAWG]

47 minutes ago, Needschat said:

Read on the interwebs, several people have put forth a joking name for San Diego.  It's a joke but hey, it may work.

San Diego Coryells.  

 

Or the San Diego Panthers because 60% of the time it works....every time. 

[Gothamite]

6 hours ago, Needschat said:

Read on the interwebs, several people have put forth a joking name for San Diego.  It's a joke but hey, it may work.

San Diego Coryells.  

 

Hey, an online trickster got the San Diego soccer team to adopt an Anchorman joke for its name, so why not?

[Mac the Knife]

On 5/30/2018 at 12:51 PM, NYC Cosmos said:

Now you have six with San Diego. Who is left? The south and west are locked away. That leaves two large media markets the league needs.

 

I like Sacramento. Would San Jose work? If it is Sacramento, that brings you to 9. Where does the final team play? New York? Chicago? Or will they use the final two slots for major markets? You need major media markets in the east and/or midwest. It depends on what the CBS contract says.

 

If the league works out, then next year St. Louis I am sure would get strong consideration for a team. So would Columbus. I would even go to Mexico City. It depends on new investors and media coverage and of course, gate. CBS won't be happy if it shows a game where the stadium is ⅔ empty.

 

If the league was smart, and I mean very smart, they would expand by 2 teams next year and cap it at that, if they expand at all. The USFL was completely and utterly dumb by expanding by six teams and shuffling teams around. If they had expanded by 2, then Memphis would have been one team and maybe Jacksonville. 14 teams, with Jax/Memphis/Tampa Bay in a rivalry. You already had NJ/Philly/Boston as rivals, and everyone hated Chicago. They should have allowed rivalries to fully form.

 

I don't think that weather is an issue. If memory serves me, the first Denver Gold game was played in a snow storm. I think in season 2, Oklahoma played with sleet on the field. If the AAFL wanted to play in warmer weather, then locate all the teams in the south and southwest. And it depends what the CBS contract says. I believe ABC had a stipulation that a certain number of teams had to play in "major broadcast markets" thus you had the Generals, Outlaws, Gamblers and Express. Does CBS have a similar stipulation? Atlanta, San Diego, Phoenix, and Orlando fit the bill. The question is whether people in Chicago and New York will watch if they don't have teams. The answer – no of course not.

 

I still hold to the idea that the Feb. start removes any chance of the Northeast or Midwest getting teams.  It is crappy weather for the most part at least into early April and that is the entire season. The USFL had enough big name players and a long enough season to make it work. I don't see an 8 team 10 week season taking that risk.  

 

I took the liberty of combining a few of these for sake of my own sanity...

 

Locked away?  In what sense, exactly?  If you think it means they're somehow shutting the XFL out of those markets?  You need to re-think this.  The only way that happens is if AAF gets what's publicly referred to as a "stadium exclusivity clause" and privately known as a "blocker clause" in their stadium deals.  Those are usually only afforded to the NFL, and even then?  At a fairly steep cost.

 

AAF in Orlando?  XFL can simply play in the other stadium in town - in fact, they can go schedule games in direct competition with AAF if wanted.

AAF in Atlanta?  XFL wasn't going there anyway.

AAF in Phoenix?  XFL wasn't going there anyway.

AAF in Memphis?  XFL can simply play there in the weeks while the Memphis AAF team is on the road.

AAF in Salt Lake City?  XFL likely wasn't going there anyway, but if they chose to, there are several alternate stadium options nearby.

AAF in San Diego?  See Memphis.

If St. Louis isn't one of the final two AAF markets, I'd be floored.  And if they don't put one there for 2019, they'll never get a chance to.

And if you're going to put a team in Northern California, San Jose's not a bad option; but despite the stadium, Oakland would be a better one.

 

CBS doesn't give two  about whether the AAF makes it or doesn't.  They have so little vested in AAF that they could jettison the league without batting an eye, and to their credit AAF recognizes this and hasn't (and likely won't) try to placate CBS by putting teams where they won't work.  I also know that even thinking about expanding a league that can't even announce its original eight markets is absurd.  They aren't thinking that far ahead, and sports fans certainly shouldn't be.

 

The only thing the USFL was obligated to do under their ABC contract was to keep teams in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and even when the league dropped Chicago after 1984, that didn't trigger a termination by ABC.  I guarantee you CBS has no such obligation imposed on AAF, because CBS isn't paying AAF a dime up front; and they certainly aren't paying enough to force them into deciding where certain teams are located.

 

A February start may preclude the AAF from playing in certain markets, but that'll be yet another clear dividing line between it and the XFL.  The XFL will willingly go into cities like New York, Chicago, Columbus, Boston, Detroit, Portland, etc., and proclaim "Football is supposed to be played in bad weather sometimes... our guys are tough, and the AAF guys are a bunch of pansies."  And with some demographic groups?  They'll eat that up.

[Gold Pinstripes]

23 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

I took the liberty of combining a few of these for sake of my own sanity...

 

Locked away?  In what sense, exactly?  If you think it means they're somehow shutting the XFL out of those markets?  You need to re-think this.  The only way that happens is if AAF gets what's publicly referred to as a "stadium exclusivity clause" and privately known as a "blocker clause" in their stadium deals.  Those are usually only afforded to the NFL, and even then?  At a fairly steep cost.

 

AAF in Orlando?  XFL can simply play in the other stadium in town - in fact, they can go schedule games in direct competition with AAF if wanted.

AAF in Atlanta?  XFL wasn't going there anyway.

AAF in Phoenix?  XFL wasn't going there anyway.

AAF in Memphis?  XFL can simply play there in the weeks while the Memphis AAF team is on the road.

AAF in Salt Lake City?  XFL likely wasn't going there anyway, but if they chose to, there are several alternate stadium options nearby.

AAF in San Diego?  See Memphis.

If St. Louis isn't one of the final two AAF markets, I'd be floored.  And if they don't put one there for 2019, they'll never get a chance to.

And if you're going to put a team in Northern California, San Jose's not a bad option; but despite the stadium, Oakland would be a better one.

 

CBS doesn't give two  about whether the AAF makes it or doesn't.  They have so little vested in AAF that they could jettison the league without batting an eye, and to their credit AAF recognizes this and hasn't (and likely won't) try to placate CBS by putting teams where they won't work.  I also know that even thinking about expanding a league that can't even announce its original eight markets is absurd.  They aren't thinking that far ahead, and sports fans certainly shouldn't be.

 

The only thing the USFL was obligated to do under their ABC contract was to keep teams in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and even when the league dropped Chicago after 1984, that didn't trigger a termination by ABC.  I guarantee you CBS has no such obligation imposed on AAF, because CBS isn't paying AAF a dime up front; and they certainly aren't paying enough to force them into deciding where certain teams are located.

 

A February start may preclude the AAF from playing in certain markets, but that'll be yet another clear dividing line between it and the XFL.  The XFL will willingly go into cities like New York, Chicago, Columbus, Boston, Detroit, Portland, etc., and proclaim "Football is supposed to be played in bad weather sometimes... our guys are tough, and the AAF guys are a bunch of pansies."  And with some demographic groups?  They'll eat that up.

 

I think all demographic groups enjoy real football, or football the way it was meant to be played. They understand there are other ways to make the game safer without overreaching rules changes, and the AAF made a tactical mistake by eliminating the kickoff. We can talk about markets and TV, but the overall product must be strong. Chipping away at the foundation of the sport is dumb, and the NFL's product is becoming diluted. Nobody attends football games to see only kickoffs, but removing a staple of the sport since the 1880s is moronic. 99.9 % of fans don't enjoy seeing players getting hurt, or hearing about some former pros having problems(we don't hear about the ones doing well), but there's a recognition of the inherent violence of a volunteer activity played by men old enough to make the decision to join the military. Tackle football has many more positives than negatives, and player safety isn't a binary issue. No reason to change the sport radically in order to make it safer.

 

      

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

I think all demographic groups enjoy real football, or football the way it was meant to be played.

 

Without helmets?   Yep, I’m down for that.