Death of the Alliance of American Football

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Tackle football without helmets won't cut it, there are thousands of guys playing and paying just to play amateur football.  Tackle football with helmets is so interwoven into the American sports fabric, no reason to try anything else.

 

And baseball was once so interwoven into the American sports fabric that it seemed they'd never have a serious competitor.

 

The only constant in the universe is change.  Football is not magically exempt from that.

[GDAWG]

55 minutes ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Looks like the next franchise will be St. Louis:

 

The other city that lost an NFL team to L.A. could be getting a team in a new league.

Via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, both the Alliance of American Football and the XFL have contacted the Rams’ former home “to explore availability and interest.”

Per the report, a third, yet-unnamed league has approached St. Louis. It’s a group of former NFL players hoping to build ownership groups in various different markets.

New XFL Commissioner Oliver Luck said earlier this week on #PFTPM that roughly 30 cities are under consideration for teams in the league that launches in 2020. The AAF has identified seven of its eight inaugural cities, including San Diego; co-founder Charlie Ebersol said on #PFTPM that the AAF already has decided on the eighth city.

 

My guess is that the AAFL wants to beat the XFL to the punch in St. Loo.

 

30 cities for the XFL? Really, Ollie? Is Jersey City being considered? (nothing against JC, but my ex lives there.)

 

By the way. I've met Oliver Luck several times. He is one of the biggest, most self-assured a**holes I have ever met. For all his talent (practicing lawyer in both the US and Germany), his contacts, etc. he is absolutely one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. He hops from job to job — West Virginia AD (why are they in the Big 12? Well the ACC didn't want them but that's where they belong), Houston Dynamo, Frankfurt Galaxy, WLAF/NFL Europe (he did absolutely nothing for the league), etc. He also hires his own incompetent relatives for primo jobs. Good luck to the XFL with a self-aggrandizing bastard. He will tank the XFL too then run to the next job.

 

I wonder if anyone ever asks Oliver Luck "will your son ever play a full season?"

[gosioux76]

56 minutes ago, NYC Cosmos said:

30 cities for the XFL? Really, Ollie?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the XFL is considering franchises in 30 cities. He's just saying they've cast a wide net, which would suggest -- at that volume of choices -- that they're looking at some non-traditional metro areas. 

[Wings]

 

1 minute ago, gosioux76 said:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the XFL is considering franchises in 30 cities. He's just saying they've cast a wide net, which would suggest -- at that volume of choices -- that they're looking at some non-traditional metro areas. 

You're not wrong.

[NYC Cosmos]

That would be typical Ollie...all bulls**t.

 

[NYC Cosmos]

Who knows what league will be successful, although the AFL is still breathing (barely). If the AAFL and XFL survive, will there be a merger? This reminds me of 2 professional soccer leagues starting in either 1967 or 1968. They finally realized 2 teams in Chicago, LA, New York etc. wasn't going to work, hence the NASL.

[gosioux76]

13 minutes ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Who knows what league will be successful, although the AFL is still breathing (barely). If the AAFL and XFL survive, will there be a merger? This reminds me of 2 professional soccer leagues starting in either 1967 or 1968. They finally realized 2 teams in Chicago, LA, New York etc. wasn't going to work, hence the NASL.

The conspiracy theorist in me wants to think that this whole AAFL v. XFL thing is a stunt cooked up by Ebersol and McMahon. Create this mirage of a rivalry as a false narrative to drum up intrigue -- kind of like in  pro wrestling -- and then join forces to combat the NFL. But I'm just a fan of conspiracy theories. 

[Gold Pinstripes]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

And baseball was once so interwoven into the American sports fabric that it seemed they'd never have a serious competitor.

 

The only constant in the universe is change.  Football is not magically exempt from that.

There's good change, and bad change. Good change isn't overreach, or failure to involve players in the safety issue. Bad change would be getting rid of kickoffs, and enacting dumb rules changes like the helmet lowering rule. It's not difficult to have a much safer game while keeping the essence of football.

[Mac the Knife]

On 6/6/2018 at 12:11 PM, MJWalker45 said:

Nicknames will probably be revealed early December when there's that bit of a lull in college football. 

If they wait that long, they'll have made a serious marketing error, as they'll have missed out on the Christmas sales season.

 

9 hours ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Per the report, a third, yet-unnamed league has approached St. Louis. It’s a group of former NFL players hoping to build ownership groups in various different markets.

 

By the way. I've met Oliver Luck several times. He is one of the biggest, most self-assured a**holes I have ever met. For all his talent (practicing lawyer in both the US and Germany), his contacts, etc. he is absolutely one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. He hops from job to job — West Virginia AD (why are they in the Big 12? Well the ACC didn't want them but that's where they belong), Houston Dynamo, Frankfurt Galaxy, WLAF/NFL Europe (he did absolutely nothing for the league), etc. He also hires his own incompetent relatives for primo jobs. Good luck to the XFL with a self-aggrandizing bastard. He will tank the XFL too then run to the next job.

The part I've denoted in red is the most interesting thing I've seen in this thread in several days.

 

Oliver Luck is arrogant?  Perhaps.  I know a lot of smug people who work for the NFL or its teams.  That doesn't render them incompetent by any means, however.

 

2 hours ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

There's good change, and bad change. Good change isn't overreach, or failure to involve players in the safety issue. Bad change would be getting rid of kickoffs, and enacting dumb rules changes like the helmet lowering rule. It's not difficult to have a much safer game while keeping the essence of football.

 

Agreed, though sometimes revolution rather than evolution is necessary.  The NFL took 36 years to adopt the 2-point conversion after the NCAA, and just added the concept of the Defensive Return and one-point Safety within the past two or three.  Those are minor, but in their own way, revolutionary changes.  I'm not sure if eliminating kickoffs is good or bad to tell the truth, but at least it isn't nibbling around the edges (which the NFL is doing with their recent change to kickoff rules).  The only issue I have with what either is doing is that in most games, punts outnumber kickoffs and are, save one minor factor (the running, unimpeded start vs. impediment at the LOS) just as dangerous.

[dfwabel]

3 hours ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

There's good change, and bad change. Good change isn't overreach, or failure to involve players in the safety issue. Bad change would be getting rid of kickoffs, and enacting dumb rules changes like the helmet lowering rule. It's not difficult to have a much safer game while keeping the essence of football.

The kickoff is virtually a nothing play in the NCAA and NFHS since when the ball hits the endzone untouched, it becomes dead and a touchback is automatic. It's been like that for a couple of decades.

 

It's the most dangerous play in the game and one of the shortest at every level and lowest likelihood of points scored; that's why this league is not having onside kicks.

[verno]

On 3/20/2018 at 12:03 PM, mr.nascar13 said:

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/alliance-of-american-football-to-kick-off-after-super-bowl/2018/03/20/f3ac7db8-2c4f-11e8-8dc9-3b51e028b845_story.html?utm_term=.66e7db0a451a

As a high school defensive end, l can attest that the three point stance isn't more dangerous. Was just talking with my twenty nine year old brother who was a RT, and he can see that the three point stance could lead to more head injuries. His theory is that the three point stance sorta loosens up the thrust movement quicker,  which he believes can lead a lineman to be more likely to decide to utilize the head. I personally don't buy that theory. 

 

I ran weak side defensive end, opposed to LTs and optional TEs. Rarely saw any TE set in any other stance than two-point. And that LT, generally set three-point. I actually loved LTs in three-point, l would look at the top of their set hands to see their "lean." Left forearm to side of LT's helmet followed very quickly with right forearm to the base of his neck!!! It didn't always work, l weighed 195lbs, but I had 3% body fat and was very strong!! A little more red on the inside of LT's hand, l'm thinking inside draw or counter. But l never thought a lineman in the four-point stance was going to block more "fundamentally sound." Human nature doesn't work that perfectly

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:41 PM, dfwabel said:

The kickoff is virtually a nothing play in the NCAA and NFHS since when the ball hits the endzone untouched, it becomes dead and a touchback is automatic. It's been like that for a couple of decades.

 

It's the most dangerous play in the game and one of the shortest at every level and lowest likelihood of points scored; that's why this league is not having onside kicks.

We don't remove something just because it's dangerous, kickoffs still provide highlights in both high school and college football. This idea we can have a safe version of tackle football is beyond stupid. Too many ways to significantly make the game safer without taking away from the structure of the game. The history of football has too many important plays and players who starred on kickoffs. This situation is classic overreach, as the NFL is listening more to their lawyers than common sense. Youth football can eliminate kickoffs, but it's foolish elsewhere. The "safe spaces" movement is at play here as well. 

 

The AAF is making a mistake, and the XFL can capitalize. The players have a major role to play in their own safety, and that's not happening at the NFL level. In the end, the marketplace will decide. 

[Mac the Knife]

10 hours ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

We don't remove something just because it's dangerous, kickoffs still provide highlights in both high school and college football.

The NFL moved back extra points because kickers had mastered them at their previous distance, and because they were deemed too boring to watch.

 

If that's the level of the bar that needs to be cleared?  Kickoffs should've been outlawed 50 years ago.

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 6/12/2018 at 9:32 AM, Mac the Knife said:

The NFL moved back extra points because kickers had mastered them at their previous distance, and because they were deemed too boring to watch.

 

If that's the level of the bar that needs to be cleared?  Kickoffs should've been outlawed 50 years ago.

Kickoffs can be one of the most exciting plays in the sport, it was always a mistake to move up the kickoff spot to encourage move touchbacks. Too many great games, players, and moments happened on kickoffs to eliminate it. And if anybody thinks this lunacy is going to stop at kickoffs, I've got swampland in Florida for sale. More dumb moves are right around the corner, the NFL is going to be surprised at how many fans are upset.

[Mac the Knife]

I don't disagree with that assessment.  If you're going to have kickoffs, have runbacks as well.  In fact, go full CFL and essentially make the runback occur by awarding a single point to the kicking team for touchbacks in kick and punt situations.  I was just saying that if you're arguing that player safety is the reason for making the change?  The NFL has made rule changes based on far lower (in my opinion) prioritized criteria.

 

I think fans may be (operative words there, "may be") losing interest in the NFL due to a lot of factors, but individual rule changes aren't among them.  No one took such umbrage with the addition of the 2 point conversion that in 1994 fans were rumbling about boycotting the league.  Same with the defensive return/one-point safety additions a few years ago, nor with the relocation of kickoff spots or extra point kick placement. 

 

The NFL's biggest problem is that its overexposed, the product of decades of self-important, self-generating hype and an on-air product quantity that expanded from a relatively confined but dependable 3-game a week schedule fans could watch (i.e., one or two terrestrial networks airing a 1:00 Sunday game, followed by a 4:00 game that created a doubleheader for one of the two networks; with ABC's Monday Night Football wrapping up the week within a nice, tight, 36 hour time frame, tops... to a 24/7 content delivery platform (NFL Network), a Thursday night game, occasional Sunday morning games from London or Saturday afternoon games once college football season ends, then the 1:00/4:00 network doubleheader/single game games, then a Sunday night national game for NBC, and then the Monday Night game on ESPN.  That's up to 7 games to choose from (out of 16) each week and the ability to watch six during a five day span... and that's presuming you don't have NFL Sunday Ticket, in which case you could theoretically catch all 16 games every week. 

 

It's simply too much exposure for a league that since the days of Pete Rozelle has touted itself as being as American as mom, Chevrolet and apple pie.  That exposure has to some degree resulted in other American traits being exposed:  domestic violence, selfishness and lack of humility, occasional hypocrisy and blatant, unending greed.  And when people see that - even though they themselves may be guilty of some of it - they're turned off.  The NFL can't control its own messaging like it used to be able to, meanwhile they've expanded their exposure in ways that help that messaging get out of control on them.

[Gothamite]

On 6/11/2018 at 10:39 PM, Gold Pinstripes said:

The "safe spaces" movement is at play here as well. 

 

 

Yeah, you’re right.  Trying to minimize long-term brain injuries is for fragile snowflakes.  Real men don’t want to live past fifty anyway. 

[Gothamite]

On 6/15/2018 at 1:26 PM, Mac the Knife said:

The NFL's biggest problem is that its overexposed, the product of decades of self-important, self-generating hype and an on-air product quantity that expanded from a relatively confined but dependable 3-game a week schedule fans could watch (i.e., one or two terrestrial networks airing a 1:00 Sunday game, followed by a 4:00 game that created a doubleheader for one of the two networks; with ABC's Monday Night Football wrapping up the week within a nice, tight, 36 hour time frame, tops... to a 24/7 content delivery platform (NFL Network), a Thursday night game, occasional Sunday morning games from London or Saturday afternoon games once college football season ends, then the 1:00/4:00 network doubleheader/single game games, then a Sunday night national game for NBC, and then the Monday Night game on ESPN.  That's up to 7 games to choose from (out of 16) each week and the ability to watch six during a five day span... and that's presuming you don't have NFL Sunday Ticket, in which case you could theoretically catch all 16 games every week. 

 

 

I could not agree more. Over-saturation has taken the NFL from one or two cant-miss events each week to a confusing glut.  It’s just background noise.  And as you skip some of it, you realize that you can skip more without noticing. 

 

I’d add that the NFL is also a victim of its greatest success.  Fantasy football, which originally drove so much interest to the games, has proven a double-edged sword as the elevation of stats and highlights has made the games themselves superfluous.

 

The minute the NFL introduced a channel where you could only watch the last few plays of a scoring drive is the day they de-valued their own product.  Who cares about long, sustained drives or tracking the flow of a single game when you can bounce around from one touchdown to another, divorced from any context?

 

Why bother to watch two-plus hours of commercials and some football in between when you can watch or stream the very best plays, all the while receiving on your phone updates for the players you “own”?

 

In trying to find a reason to make fans watch every game, the NFL has instead found a way to encourage fans to not watch any games.

[GDAWG]

I have friends who used to play football and some of them have sons and they are trying to steer their sons into sports like baseball and basketball as those sports are safer.

 

An issue I think that is overlooked when it comes to the NFL is it's belief that they can make the game international with games in London and Mexico City, which is asinine, especially in Europe.  The NFL is not the #1 American sports league overseas (that would probably be the NBA) but the NFL probably thinks otherwise.  Plus they totally botched the anthem policy (in comparison, the NBA has the same policy in that players must stand for the anthem, but that is a more collaborative effort between the league and the NBA Players Association plus the NBA has a lot of foreign players).  

 

For me, I was a diehard NFL fan, as the games would be "can't miss" for me, but over the last few years, I've become more into the NBA.  The NBA isn't perfect, but to me, at this point, it's better than the NFL.  I used to get mad if I missed any NFL game, but now if I miss it, no big deal.   

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:33 PM, Mac the Knife said:

On 6/8/2018 at 6:28 PM, Gold Pinstripes said:

There's good change, and bad change. Good change isn't overreach, or failure to involve players in the safety issue. Bad change would be getting rid of kickoffs, and enacting dumb rules changes like the helmet lowering rule. It's not difficult to have a much safer game while keeping the essence of football.

 

Agreed, though sometimes revolution rather than evolution is necessary.  The NFL took 36 years to adopt the 2-point conversion after the NCAA, and just added the concept of the Defensive Return and one-point Safety within the past two or three.  Those are minor, but in their own way, revolutionary changes.  I'm not sure if eliminating kickoffs is good or bad to tell the truth, but at least it isn't nibbling around the edges (which the NFL is doing with their recent change to kickoff rules).  The only issue I have with what either is doing is that in most games, punts outnumber kickoffs and are, save one minor factor (the running, unimpeded start vs. impediment at the LOS) just as dangerous.

 

Radical suggestion: get rid of punts, too, as well as extra points. On 4th down, teams would have to go for it or try a field goal. And, after each touchdown (worth 7), the other team would just start from the 20.

 

At first I imagined eliminating field goals as well (and just living with the snarky comments about football no longer having anything to do with the foot). But leaving only one way to score (apart from the rare safety) would produce too many tie games.

 

I think plenty of people would enjoy a game that consisted almost entirely of plays from scrimmage, even on 4th-and-long when outside of field-goal range.

 

And you could make those plays from scrimmage a lot safer by adopting the CFL's one-yard buffer, and also by outlawing the three-point stance.

 

 

[NYC Cosmos]

Here is a funky thought. of extra points, a bar would come up ⅓ of the way. If the kicker nails that window, its 2 points. If it is above that crossbar, it is worth a point. The bar can be automatic. push a button and the bar comes down from inside the goalpost. easy technology when you think of it.

 

I like the one-yard buffer rule, but the defense is going to want something in return. 

 

Looks like San Antonio will be the eighth and final team.