Death of the Alliance of American Football

[agentrygraphics]

Unfortunately I feel like these spring leagues don't "get" one of the biggest (bigger?) reasons the XFL tanked...poor quality of football. If you're going to go big, you'd better PLAY big too.

 

If you're going to call yourself a minor league, do so, because it sets an expectation in the viewing audience's mind that, yes...these players have a way to go. They are developing into pros. However, touting yourself as a Spring League "full of guys that didn't make the cut in the NFL or CFL" is noble...but again, there's a reason these guys didn't make it. You're essentially watching NFL practice squad rejects cosplay as pros (sorry for being harsh) on network TV...which after watching the XFL is not pretty. The AAF might have grand ideas of being a league of Kurt Warners, but they ought to be careful because more times than not the leagues end up being full of John Averys (who? Exactly...he was the leading rusher in the XFL in its final season).

 

Listen, I'm all for giving guys a chance to develop...but I don't think this league nor the XFL is the way to do it. I like the rule changes and experiments...but The NFL needs to have a vested interest in the league like they did in NFL Europa. I think the dying years of NFL Europa got it correct in that players were put in that league by teams to get better (I thought it was great how they had the patch of the NFL team that owned their contract rights on their...sleeve?). When you were watching, you knew that Kurt Warner, tho taking snaps for the Amsterdam Admirals, had NFL interest and had a possible pipeline to get there. There were walk-ons, sure, but at least scouts were looking at them. 

 

TL;DR - Bring the NFL Europa concept home and call it NFL 2 or The Minor League of American Football or NextFL.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

16 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

With only the go-for-2 option, that play is really worth more than it should be. 

 

Two points seems right; the 2-point conversion is inherently much harder to achieve than a kicked extra point. If the extra-point play from scrimmage were worth only one point, then failure at it would be too easy to overcome. Two failed 2-point conversions can produce a four-point deficit, one which cannot be made up with a single field goal. 

[FightingGoldenDevil]

Jared Allen is involved so a team in Minnesota could happen. Spring up here isn't kind so it could be a home field advantage type of look

[agentrygraphics]

I can see it now in 2020..."AAFter the dust settled: The fall of the Alliance of American Football"

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Two points seems right; the 2-point conversion is inherently much harder to achieve than a kicked extra point. If the extra-point play from scrimmage were worth only one point, then failure at it would be too easy to overcome. Two failed 2-point conversions can produce a four-point deficit, one which cannot be made up with a single field goal. 

 

Scoring the TD is the hardest part (in theory), so that should count for a ton more than the "bonus", which is worth 33.3%. Getting a TD from the two yard line is worth 33.3% as much as a 90-yard drive?  Not in my eyes.  I kinda think the whole extra point / bonus idea is antiquated and obsolete anyway.  It does create drama when a team misses an XP and then has to go for two late to tie, but IMO a game shouldn't come down to what are essentially bonus plays.

 

I'd rather just make TDs worth 7 (so more than 2 FGs) but then if you want more, you can choose from one-or-more options (maybe the only viable option is to run a play from the two) and "bet" a point or two on it.   So for example:  if you're down by 8 and score a TD, you can bet 1 point on the conversion, and get either 8 or 6 points out of it.  If you're down by 9, you could bet two points on the conversion, and walk away with either 5 or 9.  Everyone loves gambling.

 

 

[dfwabel]

Here's the deal, I'm going to link to the Reddit site of the likely now defunct MLFB, who conducted three drafts in February 2016.

 

Would you really watch and pay to see games with rosters like this or similar?

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/majorleaguefootball/comments/43nkxx/mlfb_team_depth_charts_following_draft/

 

Round 1: An eight player "Franchise Draft"

https://www.reddit.com/r/majorleaguefootball/comments/42y0ty/mlfb_2016_inaugural_draft_franchise_draft/

 

Rounds 2-40: A "Territorial Draft" as the eight franchises were to be based on regional talent

Rounds 41-69: A "National Draft" for the rest of the roster spaces (and they planned a Free Agent draft which never occurred)

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I'd rather just make TDs worth 7 (so more than 2 FGs) but then if you want more, you can choose from one-or-more options (maybe the only viable option is to run a play from the two) and "bet" a point or two on it.   So for example:  if you're down by 8 and score a TD, you can bet 1 point on the conversion, and get either 8 or 6 points out of it.  If you're down by 9, you could bet two points on the conversion, and walk away with either 5 or 9.  

 

Ah, this is a good idea. Risking some number of points would be a very interesting innovation. However, I think that this rule would put so much pressure on coaches that no league would ever adopt it.

[MadmanLA]

One thing working in Ebersol's favor is that he has big credible names in place at the top, and are guys that aren't too far removed from pro football themselves.  You know Vince McMahon is calling up guys that haven't been involved in some sort of pro football in years, just sitting at home living out their golden years, to run his teams.

[Sec19Row53]

34 minutes ago, MadmanLA said:

One thing working in Ebersol's favor is that he has big credible names in place at the top, and are guys that aren't too far removed from pro football themselves.  You know Vince McMahon is calling up guys that haven't been involved in some sort of pro football in years, just sitting at home living out their golden years, to run his teams.

Do you watch a game because of Stan Kronke, or Jared Goff?

 

I'd argue your point is irrelevant where it will matter - eyeballs on the product.

[BBTV]

57 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Ah, this is a good idea. Risking some number of points would be a very interesting innovation. However, I think that this rule would put so much pressure on coaches that no league would ever adopt it.

 

It's a shame that the new XFL seems to be so opposite of everything the original was intended to be, because conversion gambling would have been perfect for it.

 

Could you imagine - down by 14, and you get a touchdown, so you're now down 7.  You probably still have time to get the ball back and go for another score, OR you could gamble all 7 points and try to tie it on the conversion, so you either tie the game or are still down 14 with little-to-no shot of winning.

 

Maybe there should be some limit - like you could only gamble up to 3 or 4 points.  Or it's tiered - a 4 point gamble starts from the 4, while a 2 point starts from the 2, or something like that.  If you want to be 7, then your QB has to be blindfolded.

[The_Admiral]

Can you use your one allotted gorilla play on the daily double?

[WideRight]

Several things come to mind with this new league.

 

1) I really want to see where the money is coming from, and are they ready to lose about 100 million a year for a while.   You have to be prepared for that.

 

2) You also have to be prepared to prop up (not relocate) whichever team or teams in the league start off with crappy seasons.  One of the worst part of many startup leagues is that teams are constantly moving, which makes it hard for anyone to trust enough to invest their time/money being a fan.

 

3) I like many of the names being associated with the football side of things, but want to see more linked to the TV and Financial side.

 

4) How do they deal with absolutely horrible weather in February and March?  Do you limit the teams to those states where it is not so bad or play in domes?  

 

5) Apart from the financial backing issue, which is where most leagues fail, the other big item is franchise location.   Do you go for larger TV markets to make CBS happy (NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Denver, etc.) but at the risk that attendance will be miserable because those cities also have NBA, NHL and MLB?  Or do you go for second tier cities that may do better at the box office but not draw big TV crowds?  Can a league pretend to be a big deal if it is made up of Louisville, Norfolk, Memphis, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Sacramento?  My guess is that they are going to try to go with the large market but smaller venues if possible.   

 

I would recommend they consider weather (or dome), mid-sized stadiums if they can, and a range of mostly NFL cities for TV.  So, a quick list for me would be these:

 

Detroit (Dome)

Minneapolis (Dome)

Indianapolis (Dome)

St. Louis (Dome)

New Orleans (Dome or Tulane Stadium)

Atlanta (Dome or Ga. Tech)

Miami (FIU stadium)

Orlando (UCF Stadium)

Raleigh-Durham (Duke, UNC or NCState)

San Antonio (Dome)

Dallas (SMU Stadium)

Houston (U. of Houston or Dome)

San Diego (Qualcomm)

LA (StubHub)

Portland (Providence Park)

Salt Lake City (Rio Tinto or U. of Utah)

 

I just don't see how you can put a team in NY, Philly, DC, or Boston with an open air stadium in February & March, so there goes the huge NE TV market. 

 

 

[tigers]

12 hours ago, agentrygraphics said:

Unfortunately I feel like these spring leagues don't "get" one of the biggest (bigger?) reasons the XFL tanked...poor quality of football. If you're going to go big, you'd better PLAY big too.

 

If you're going to call yourself a minor league, do so, because it sets an expectation in the viewing audience's mind that, yes...these players have a way to go. They are developing into pros. However, touting yourself as a Spring League "full of guys that didn't make the cut in the NFL or CFL" is noble...but again, there's a reason these guys didn't make it. You're essentially watching NFL practice squad rejects cosplay as pros (sorry for being harsh) on network TV...which after watching the XFL is not pretty. The AAF might have grand ideas of being a league of Kurt Warners, but they ought to be careful because more times than not the leagues end up being full of John Averys (who? Exactly...he was the leading rusher in the XFL in its final season).

 

Listen, I'm all for giving guys a chance to develop...but I don't think this league nor the XFL is the way to do it. I like the rule changes and experiments...but The NFL needs to have a vested interest in the league like they did in NFL Europa. I think the dying years of NFL Europa got it correct in that players were put in that league by teams to get better (I thought it was great how they had the patch of the NFL team that owned their contract rights on their...sleeve?). When you were watching, you knew that Kurt Warner, tho taking snaps for the Amsterdam Admirals, had NFL interest and had a possible pipeline to get there. There were walk-ons, sure, but at least scouts were looking at them. 

 

TL;DR - Bring the NFL Europa concept home and call it NFL 2 or The Minor League of American Football or NextFL.

 

What would be even smarter is that they should help one of these leagues to establish itself and use it as an NFL 2 and blow the other off the park.

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, WideRight said:

Several things come to mind with this new league.

 

1) I really want to see where the money is coming from, and are they ready to lose about 100 million a year for a while.   You have to be prepared for that.

 

2) You also have to be prepared to prop up (not relocate) whichever team or teams in the league start off with crappy seasons.  One of the worst part of many startup leagues is that teams are constantly moving, which makes it hard for anyone to trust enough to invest their time/money being a fan.

 

3) I like many of the names being associated with the football side of things, but want to see more linked to the TV and Financial side.

 

4) How do they deal with absolutely horrible weather in February and March?  Do you limit the teams to those states where it is not so bad or play in domes?  

 

5) Apart from the financial backing issue, which is where most leagues fail, the other big item is franchise location.   Do you go for larger TV markets to make CBS happy (NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Denver, etc.) but at the risk that attendance will be miserable because those cities also have NBA, NHL and MLB?  Or do you go for second tier cities that may do better at the box office but not draw big TV crowds?  Can a league pretend to be a big deal if it is made up of Louisville, Norfolk, Memphis, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Sacramento?  My guess is that they are going to try to go with the large market but smaller venues if possible.   

 

I would recommend they consider weather (or dome), mid-sized stadiums if they can, and a range of mostly NFL cities for TV.  So, a quick list for me would be these:

 

Detroit (Dome)

Minneapolis (Dome)

Indianapolis (Dome)

St. Louis (Dome)

New Orleans (Dome or Tulane Stadium)

Atlanta (Dome or Ga. Tech)

Miami (FIU stadium)

Orlando (UCF Stadium)

Raleigh-Durham (Duke, UNC or NCState)

San Antonio (Dome)

Dallas (SMU Stadium)

Houston (U. of Houston or Dome)

San Diego (Qualcomm)

LA (StubHub)

Portland (Providence Park)

Salt Lake City (Rio Tinto or U. of Utah)

 

I just don't see how you can put a team in NY, Philly, DC, or Boston with an open air stadium in February & March, so there goes the huge NE TV market. 

 

 

Any new league playing where a current NFL (or other Big 4) sport is basically handing the established team millions.

Ever since the WFL and USFL, the NFL learn well so when the stadium boom from 1996-2003 came, they mostly wrote more favorable leases which either have their own shell corporation act as the facility management company and/or agreed with the municalpity that for non-NFL events the team receives the few million dollars then splits a percentage with the municalpity

[WideRight]

So if you don't want to contribute to the NFL (and that assumes an adversarial position which McMahon might take but I don't think Ebersol will) then you are limited to soccer-specific stadiums and college stadiums (beer sales issues).  That wipes out nearly all the domes, which means you are now either praying for really mild winters in the North or you are building this league entirely in the South and the West Coast.  

 

It is one of the reasons I would argue that a season of late March through July is bettern than February through May. 

[MJWalker45]

12 hours ago, WideRight said:

Several things come to mind with this new league.

3) I like many of the names being associated with the football side of things, but want to see more linked to the TV and Financial side.

5) the other big item is franchise location.   Do you go for larger TV markets to make CBS happy (NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Denver, etc.) but at the risk that attendance will be miserable because those cities also have NBA, NHL and MLB?  Or do you go for second tier cities that may do better at the box office but not draw big TV crowds?  Can a league pretend to be a big deal if it is made up of Louisville, Norfolk, Memphis, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Sacramento?  My guess is that they are going to try to go with the large market but smaller venues if possible.   

 

I would recommend they consider weather (or dome), mid-sized stadiums if they can, and a range of mostly NFL cities for TV.  So, a quick list for me would be these:

3) The Ebersoll's have a lot of wasta in broadcasting and CBS Sports will prefer this to snowboarding. That will help with the broadcast side. Financially it could be that using smaller college stadiums that will permit beer sales could help them out. 

 

5) I think MLS stadiums and NFL stadiums will be out of the picture, only because unless the NFL is actually involved owners that control their own stadiums won't want to let another league borrow them without a ridiculous write up. MLS teams don't like to have to deal with state playoffs in their stadiums I can't see anyone other than Portland which uses field turf signing off on football games at the start of the year as well. Going back to finances, we'll probably see teams in smaller venues where possible and only areas with a proven love for all football will us stadiums above 35,000 seats. I could see teams placed in Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California, Texas and Louisiana since the weather is milder there than in the Northeast and Midwest. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Everytime I open this thread it lands in the middle of that giant mock draft.

[kroywen]

With all the controversy around the NCAA not paying players, and the relative short length of football careers, I still think the best avenue for one of these startup football leagues is to specifically brand themselves as a developmental football league, and to allow teams to sign/draft players from the time of their high school graduation. You'd be looking at teams consisting of:

• High school graduates looking to get paid ASAP rather than going to college
• College players who either want to make the jump to a professional league or are unhappy with their playing time at the college level
• College grads who were cut from NFL rosters

There is a gap in football that doesn't exist in hockey or baseball, and is being eliminated in basketball via the G League - a place for guys who have exhausted their college eligibility but aren't currently on NFL rosters to play meaningful, competitive football, with the intent of getting on an NFL roster. A league that is explicitly developmental in nature would serve that purpose; the proposed AAF and new XFL don't really do that.

 

While the majority of a developmental league's players would probably be post-grad players, a professional developmental league might be able to attract some solid HS grads away from the NCAA as well. Having a centralized league fund for signing big-name high school prospects might help attract some legitimate NFL prospects to the league, to play out ~three years while awaiting their NFL eligibility to kick in. No, you'd never attract most top-tier high school talent away from FBS football, but you can get some guys who have legitimate NFL-level talent if you pay them solid money.

 

Timing might be difficult, but late summer/early fall, with Friday/Saturday games? Basically, during the NFL preseason and first few weeks of the regular season, maybe? That way, a guy performing well in the developmental league might get signed by an NFL team early in their season.

 

It's not perfect, but I'd guess it'd be a much better business model than the AAF or the XFL.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I don't get the talk about the weather.  This is football and not baseball we're talking about, right? In football the weather doesn't matter.  Indeed, some people prefer to watch football in the snow and the cold. (The techinical term for such people is "nutcases"; but they exist in abundance.)

As long as it's not snow by the foot that makes travel impossible, winter weather is not an issue. If some new league fails, it will fail for reasons having nothing to do with the weather.

[MJWalker45]

40 minutes ago, kroywen said:

While the majority of a developmental league's players would probably be post-grad players, a professional developmental league might be able to attract some solid HS grads away from the NCAA as well. Having a centralized league fund for signing big-name high school prospects might help attract some legitimate NFL prospects to the league, to play out ~three years while awaiting their NFL eligibility to kick in. No, you'd never attract most top-tier high school talent away from FBS football, but you can get some guys who have legitimate NFL-level talent if you pay them solid money.

Regardless of pay, most high schoolers aren't big enough to deal with players getting cut from NFL, CFL and Arena League squads. If they actively chase after high school players the AAF would be looked at as desperate for players and that would affect the league negatively. I think it should be avoided at all costs since high schoolers can't enter the NFL until 3 years after they graduate high school.