mr.nascar13

Introducing the Alliance of American Football

Recommended Posts

I'm not really sure what any of that response had to do with what I was talking about, but I'll gladly be quoted or liked for a post anytime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 9:51 AM, 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. 

 

Umm, the current CBS agreement has the initial game and the championship game on terrestrial CBS plus a game per week on CBSSN.

 

Therefore, about 75% of their games are NOT on either terrestrial TV or CBSSN.

 

How the frick will they make $$$?

 

In addition, if there's a 40 man roster at $5K/game per player plus the coaching staff.

 

They must gross $4 million per game at the gate just to meet game costs.

 

I have no idea how the gate has them coming close to breaking even as that's doubled per game to satisfy both teams.  An average ticket price of $35 cannot got this done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Umm, the current CBS agreement has the initial game and the championship game on terrestrial CBS plus a game per week on CBSSN.

 

Therefore, about 75% of their games are NOT on either terrestrial TV or CBSSN.

 

How the frick will they make $$$?

 

In addition, if there's a 40 man roster at $5K/game per player plus the coaching staff.

 

They must gross $4 million per game at the gate just to meet game costs.

 

I have no idea how the gate has them coming close to breaking even as that's doubled per game to satisfy both teams.  An average ticket price of $35 cannot got this done.

They're really going all in on gambling in every facet possible (including live-action play-by-play fantasy football with payouts), or they're expecting HUGE sponsorships to cover a big portion of it. They claim they have money to go 10 years building it up. But even UFL had games on TV more than this.

 

Out of sight, out of mind. That's the fate of the AAF with the public.

 

My guess is Atlanta-Phoenix will be the first game. The two biggest markets out there. East and West. Play at the Georgia State Stadium seats about 25-30k or whatever would make for the "Sam Boyd Stadium" type crowd XFL had in 2001 for their kickoff. Anywhere else, hordes of open seats will make it look like no one cares. San Diego may work, but unless SD really embraces it a la Baltimore with the CFL, I can't see SDCCU Stadium looking packed.

 

I'm surprised they think airing their games on their app as acceptable. Airing them on a CBS Sports app or Youtube TV, etc, would work better. Their app is going to face the same problem their games are. They need to advertise their app to get people to watch their games. So, they're still going to have to advertise. It'd almost be easier just to take a wash on getting those other games aired by some well-known streaming medium than their own app. If that app isn't perfect, people will turn away. If it's too bulky or cumbersome, they'll turn away.

 

Another axiom:

 

Keep it simple, stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AAF could have used Twitch as part of streaming.  The NBA G-League streams on Twitch as does a plethora of Pro Wrestling promotions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dfwabel said:

I have no idea how the gate has them coming close to breaking even as that's doubled per game to satisfy both teams.  An average ticket price of $35 cannot got this done.

 

They won't.  But they've no doubt factored that in.  These are guys who based their decision to go forward with this project looking at financial projections that tell them they're going to spend $X amount of money to operate through year one, during which they're going to generate $Y in revenue.  Y never meets X in year one; all reasonable businessmen understand this.  In the USFL's case, they actually exceeded Y in year one, but in doing so they spent X times around 2.3.

 

The yellow flag goes up if $Y doesn't materialize in year one - if they miss their own projected revenue mark.  If the gap between Y and what they actually take in is marginal (say, within 10%), it's not time to throw in the towel, but to make adjustments.  If it's a considerable gap?  That throws up a red flag, as something is really wrong with your venture that needs immediate course correction.

 

I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that both AAF and XFL have $X figured out pretty well.  Bill Polian has enough behind the scenes savvy to look at expenses are on the football side of the equation, see where cuts can be made without hurting the on-field product substantially, etc.  Vince McMahon has been down the path before, and he actually nailed both $X and $Y for 2001, which is why he was unafraid to go forward for a second season.  Pardon the pun, but in this equation, $Y will be the "X" factor.

 

4 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

They're really going all in on gambling in every facet possible (including live-action play-by-play fantasy football with payouts), or they're expecting HUGE sponsorships to cover a big portion of it. They claim they have money to go 10 years building it up. But even UFL had games on TV more than this.

 

Out of sight, out of mind. That's the fate of the AAF with the public.

 

My guess is Atlanta-Phoenix will be the first game. The two biggest markets out there. East and West. Play at the Georgia State Stadium seats about 25-30k or whatever would make for the "Sam Boyd Stadium" type crowd XFL had in 2001 for their kickoff. Anywhere else, hordes of open seats will make it look like no one cares. San Diego may work, but unless SD really embraces it a la Baltimore with the CFL, I can't see SDCCU Stadium looking packed.

 

I'm surprised they think airing their games on their app as acceptable. Airing them on a CBS Sports app or Youtube TV, etc, would work better. Their app is going to face the same problem their games are. They need to advertise their app to get people to watch their games. So, they're still going to have to advertise. It'd almost be easier just to take a wash on getting those other games aired by some well-known streaming medium than their own app. If that app isn't perfect, people will turn away. If it's too bulky or cumbersome, they'll turn away.

 

Another axiom:

 

Keep it simple, stupid.

Charlie Ebersol is almost certainly the primary factor behind the lack of terrestrial television.  And in truth?  It's not as dumb a play as it would seem.  The median age of an NFL television viewer is now 49 years old, for NCAA football it skews even older (at 52), and no sport has a median viewer age below 40 (NBA is at 42, MLS at 40).  At least half of potential AAF television viewers are out of the most prized age demographic, so why use a medium that doesn't reach them?  The app concept is interesting, in that they'll have direct metrics they can pitch to potential corporate partners for year two (presuming they get that far).  But it's also a double-edged sword; if no one bothers with the app?  They're hosed.  If people download the app and are turned off by things like pre-roll ads, excessive pitches for gambling venues, etc.?  They'll delete it, and they're hosed.

 

I agree that an online direct to consumer content methodology would work for them, but the app concept may prove a significant failure point.  I'm not in the AAF's target demographic so I'm not for them to worry about, but I'm not going to download some app just so I can watch second tier pro football.  If they made the games available via their website, even on an ad-supported basis though?  I'd probably at least give them a few looks to check out the product.

 

As for first games sites, I'm guessing that's a decision that will be made at the last possible moment based on ticket sales - whichever house is most full gets the honor.  I could see it being Atlanta, San Diego, Salt Lake City, or one of the yet to be named cities (:cough: St. Louis :cough:).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears Birmingham is the next one in. It should be no surprise as any football league outside of the NFL usually always has Orlando, Memphis and Birmingham as clubs. This means there should only be one more spot available. I heard somewhere they are trying to keep teams in the South so Im thinking either Texas or Louisiana to fill the gap between east and west. The Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Yulman Stadium in New Orleans, Independence Stadium in Shreveport, TDECU Stadium in Houston, or the Alamodome in San Antonio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

It appears Birmingham is the next one in. It should be no surprise as any football league outside of the NFL usually always has Orlando, Memphis and Birmingham as clubs. This means there should only be one more spot available. I heard somewhere they are trying to keep teams in the South so Im thinking either Texas or Louisiana to fill the gap between east and west. The Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Yulman Stadium in New Orleans, Independence Stadium in Shreveport, TDECU Stadium in Houston, or the Alamodome in San Antonio.

 

I am actually surprised they went with Birmingham. First off they are stuck in Legion Field for 2 seasons, which is far too big (will look bad on TV) and while their USFL attendance was solid, they did not do as well in the XFL or CFL expansion, which makes me think that folks there are not too keen on yet another attempt at a non-NFL league.  

 

It makes more sense to me for them to go to St. Louis (still in pain after NFL departure) or New Orleans (nice outdoor 30,000 seat stadium at Tulane).

 

My guess is that the next team has to be either Texas (San Antonio, Dallas or Houston as you list) or Northern California (San Jose or Sacramento).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know if their preference is to play outdoors only? If it is then that eliminates St. Louis and San Antonio. I'm guessing Las Vegas, Houston or possibly the Bay Area/Sacramento (Not counting on it though) as the 8th team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dilbert said:

It appears Birmingham is the next one in. It should be no surprise as any football league outside of the NFL usually always has Orlando, Memphis and Birmingham as clubs. This means there should only be one more spot available. I heard somewhere they are trying to keep teams in the South so Im thinking either Texas or Louisiana to fill the gap between east and west. The Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Yulman Stadium in New Orleans, Independence Stadium in Shreveport, TDECU Stadium in Houston, or the Alamodome in San Antonio.

 

Las Vegas used to be on that list.

 

No to a Dallas team in the AAF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacramento's stadium is not ready. Playing where the Republic plays may be a bit dicey. 

 

Here we go again with B'Ham.....

 

Americans...Vulcans...Stallions...Barracudas...Bolts. What makes anyone think this time will be different? Bad choice folks, bad choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Sacramento's stadium is not ready. Playing where the Republic plays may be a bit dicey. 

 

Here we go again with B'Ham.....

 

Americans...Vulcans...Stallions...Barracudas...Bolts. What makes anyone think this time will be different? Bad choice folks, bad choice. 

It's an obscure American law that requires non-NFL leagues to have teams in Memphis, Birmingham, and Orlando. It sure would be dumb to start a league off illegally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sac did get a team it would most likely play at Hornet Stadium 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

It's an obscure American law that requires non-NFL leagues to have teams in Memphis, Birmingham, and Orlando. It sure would be dumb to start a league off illegally. 

 

These leagues need to try new markets but they keep going back to those three cities.  I don't get it.  I'd like to see a Non-NFL football league try cities like Albuquerque, El Paso, Hartford, Honolulu, Louisville, Mobile (if they want a team in Alabama) or Columbus.  I don't understand why leagues don't go to those cities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

These leagues need to try new markets but they keep going back to those three cities.  I don't get it.  I'd like to see a Non-NFL football league try cities like Albuquerque, El Paso, Hartford, Honolulu, Louisville, Mobile (if they want a team in Alabama) or Columbus.  I don't understand why leagues don't go to those cities. 

Honolulu?

You just illustrated your naivety.

 

As poorly as New Mexico's athletic department seems to be run, ABQ is still a Lobos basketball market, just like the Cardinals are to Louisville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Americans...Vulcans...Stallions...Barracudas...Bolts. 

You forgot the Birmingham Fire of the WLAF...

91firepantsawayrs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just waiting around to see the nicknames and logos. Watch them do the utterly stupid thing and call each team Alliance (Alliance Orlando, Alliance San Diego, etc.) with the same A logo on each helmet but in different colors and the city name on the front of the jersey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B-Rich said:

You forgot the Birmingham Fire of the WLAF...

91firepantsawayrs.jpg

I was trying to remember them just a week ago! I couldn't remember which team it was, but I was trying to show a friend of mine those helmets because there's a high school team here that used to have poorly designed flames on their helmets. A bit random, but thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B-Rich said:

You forgot the Birmingham Fire of the WLAF...

91firepantsawayrs.jpg

I like the redo with the Rhein Fire. The darker flames and the merlot/burgundy color matched well compared to the rather usual red/yellow/orange color combinations.

 

As for the AAF. It just feels like they really didn't do their homework here. Is there ONE person in Birmingham who is going to say "Yeah, this time it's going to work?" At best, you're hoping for huge walk-up crowds in one of the worst venues. With the new UAB venue being built, the XFL has a better shot at it in the future. But, even then. This market is scorched Earth.

 

As someone else pointed out: Hartford, Syracuse, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, New Orleans (Tulane's stadium), Little Rock, San Antonio/Austin, Lincoln/Omaha, etc are markets that could be a focus for a league looking at outside-the-box locations that might legitimately be starved for a taste of professional football. Instead, it's right back to the same markets that have been tried again and again and again and again and again, etc.

 

And if St. Louis does get a team, which is possible, STL/MEM/BIR/ATL makes a great foresome. But in their wisdom, would probably split STL/MEM east and west just as the first XFL did Memphis and Birmingham despite being obvious that the two closest teams should probably get a home-and-home since there's some cultural animosity to help drive interest. And worse, to put that as Week 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

As for the AAF. It just feels like they really didn't do their homework here. Is there ONE person in Birmingham who is going to say "Yeah, this time it's going to work?" At best, you're hoping for huge walk-up crowds in one of the worst venues. With the new UAB venue being built, the XFL has a better shot at it in the future. But, even then. This market is scorched Earth.

 

As someone else pointed out: Hartford, Syracuse, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, New Orleans (Tulane's stadium), Little Rock, San Antonio/Austin, Lincoln/Omaha, etc are markets that could be a focus for a league looking at outside-the-box locations that might legitimately be starved for a taste of professional football. Instead, it's right back to the same markets that have been tried again and again and again and again and again, etc.

 

And if St. Louis does get a team, which is possible, STL/MEM/BIR/ATL makes a great foresome. But in their wisdom, would probably split STL/MEM east and west just as the first XFL did Memphis and Birmingham despite being obvious that the two closest teams should probably get a home-and-home since there's some cultural animosity to help drive interest. And worse, to put that as Week 1.

 

Absolutely.  As soon as Orlando was confirmed, I honestly thought Birmingham was going to be the next market announced.  On the one hand I'm surprised they took this long; on the other hand, I'm surprised they're acting this predictably with markets.  For me, Atlanta and Salt Lake City have been the only ones I've been truly surprised to learn of, and I think only the latter will prove a good fit.

 

Divisional alignments now become interesting, but if you look at the location of the first seven cities, logic points you to only one place:

 

Eastern Division:  Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, Orlando

Western Division, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Antonio

 

But then again, these guys have picked Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, Orlando and Phoenix, so it's entirely possible they'll wind up in San Jose, Portland, or some other city where people hear the news that the AAF is coming, shrug, then go about their daily lives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wings said:

Just waiting around to see the nicknames and logos. Watch them do the utterly stupid thing and call each team Alliance (Alliance Orlando, Alliance San Diego, etc.) with the same A logo on each helmet but in different colors and the city name on the front of the jersey. 

They came out already and said they would have unique names. Hopefully they can get some decent logo designers on standby so they don’t look like ABA 2000. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now