ozzyman314

The XFL may be making a comeback

Recommended Posts

Im  already cheering for the Guardians, if this xfl lasts for more than one season, then i changing my signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will last longer than a season. If 550$ million isn’t enough to keep this league going for 3 seasons at the very least then any future attempts at alternative football leagues shouldn’t be attempted ever again!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, mkg74 said:

It will last longer than a season. If 550$ million isn’t enough to keep this league going for 3 seasons at the very least then any future attempts at alternative football leagues shouldn’t be attempted ever again!!

The majority of the cash burn is occurring now and started when Vince hired Oliver Luck through the end of the season because they have no TV revenue. The hiring of coaching staffs (with health insurance), renting of offices, and filling the full time ancillary jobs like ticket sales is burning cash with little revenue. and unlike the AAF, they won't be paying production costs, but in lieu of that expense, they have a tiered system of minimum salaries with QBs being paid much more and another tier of players, plus a "Bonus" system in place which will actually play players (instead of the AAF's claims of a social media bonus or their claim of scholarships). 

 

Selling apparel does not given them much revenue as the royalties are less than 15 cents per dollar of retail cost.  They need to sell tickets and prices haven't been announced yet and won't be until next month. 

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


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

Im  already cheering for the Guardians, if this xfl lasts for more than one season, then i changing my signature.

 

I hurried to changed my sig to include the logo of the New York Streets because I was convinced that the team would last only the one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to the actual sport, I'm reading that the XFL draft is supposedly in mid-October (which isn't that far away), but there hasn't been any date or other news that I can find. Anybody know anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maroon said:

So to the actual sport, I'm reading that the XFL draft is supposedly in mid-October (which isn't that far away), but there hasn't been any date or other news that I can find. Anybody know anything else?

Look for them to hold it between October 17-26, but know that mid-October is important for NFL teams and their future better talent.

Know that mid-October NFL includes...

 

Quote

Mid-October

Beginning on the sixth calendar day prior to a club’s seventh regular season game (including any bye week) clubs are permitted to begin practicing players on Reserve/Physically Unable to Perform and Reserve/Non-Football Injury or Illness for a period not to exceed 21 days. Players may be activated during the 21-day practice period, or prior to 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the day after the conclusion of the 21-day period, provided that no player may be activated to participate in a Week 6 game.

 

At any time after six weeks have elapsed since a player was placed on Reserve/Injured or Reserve/Non-Football Injury/Illness, each club is permitted to designate two players for return from either list to the club’s 53-player Active/Inactive List.

 

A player who is “Designated For Return” must have suffered a major football-related injury or non-football-related injury or illness after reporting to training camp and passing his preseason physical examination and must have been placed on the applicable Reserve List after 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the day after the final roster reduction.

 

A player whom the club wishes to designate for return is permitted to return to practice for a period not to exceed 21 days. The club is required to notify the League office that the player has been “Designated For Return” on the first day the player begins to practice. The player cannot be returned to the Active/Inactive List until eight weeks have elapsed since the date he was placed on Reserve.

 

October 15-16

Fall League Meeting, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

October 29

All trading ends for 2019 at 4:00 p.m., New York time. 

October 30

Players with at least four previous pension-credited seasons are subject to the waiver system for the remainder of the regular season and postseason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this yesterday. The XFL should try something that makes their game wildly different from the NFL. My pitch - eliminate punts. If it's fourth down and you're on your own side of the 50 then you have to go for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make officiating less excruciating, and you'd have an intriguing TV product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminate PAT's. go for 2 after every TD. The AAF had this right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I was thinking about this yesterday. The XFL should try something that makes their game wildly different from the NFL. My pitch - eliminate punts. If it's fourth down and you're on your own side of the 50 then you have to go for it. 

 

3 minutes ago, mkg74 said:

Eliminate PAT's. go for 2 after every TD. The AAF had this right!

 

Two good ideas.

 

The first suggestion I'd make would be to eliminate offensive pass interference.  I'd also like to see the adoption of the CFL's one-yard neutral zone.  This would give teams a better chance on fourth-and-1 or fourth-and-2 (especially necessary if they couldn't punt); and it might help lessen the impact that linemen constantly suffer at the line of scrimmage.

 

Another borrowing from the CFL that I'd love to see would be lengthening the end zones to 20 yards deep, so as to allow receivers a better chance to run into it and catch a long bomb, and also so as to lessen the likelihood that a quarterback who is backed up to his own endzone will step out the back of the end zone for a safety.

 

Finally, one foot inbounds should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No tie games

Share this post


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

The first suggestion I'd make would be to eliminate offensive pass interference.  I'd also like to see the adoption of the CFL's one-yard neutral zone.  This would give teams a better chance on fourth-and-1 or fourth-and-2 (especially necessary if they couldn't punt); and it might help lessen the impact that linemen constantly suffer at the line of scrimmage.

 

You've brought up wanting to eliminate OPI before, and I don't really understand why. Mostly because I feel like I've gone multiple seasons without seeing that called. Did something traumatic happen in your fanhood? I also don't think offenses need any more help on 4th-and-short.

 

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Another borrowing from the CFL that I'd love to see would be lengthening the end zones to 20 yards deep, so as to allow receivers a better chance to run into it and catch a long bomb, and also so as to lessen the likelihood that a quarterback who is backed up to his own endzone will step out the back of the end zone for a safety.

 

How often does that even happen? I can think of like two times in history that I've seen that. The other reasoning is fine I guess, but it feels like the bolded is a case of solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:
4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The first suggestion I'd make would be to eliminate offensive pass interference. 

 

You've brought up wanting to eliminate OPI before, and I don't really understand why. Mostly because I feel like I've gone multiple seasons without seeing that called. Did something traumatic happen in your fanhood?

 

You've not seen offensive pass interference called? In years? It's not that rare. I watch very little of the NFL; but I'm sure I saw it a few times in the AAF, and it comes up in CFL games.

 

Anyway, while I thank you for your sincere concern about my emotional well-being, I can assure you that nothing traumatic has befallen me. My objection to offensive pass interference is philosophical; the logic just doesn't hold up.

 

It's the offence's ball; therefore, when an offensive player and a defensive player go up for a pass, the rules should not treat them as equal. The rules should favour the offensive player; he should have much greater leeway than the defensive player has, in terms of permissible contact.

 

This would not prevent defensive players from making plays. A few days ago I saw a clip of a play in which a Detroit Lions receiver was called for offensive pass interference on a play in which a Chargers defensive back made an interception.

 

On the practical level, what getting rid of offensive pass interference would accomplished would be to further incentivise long passes, including passes into coverage, because the receiver would have the ability to defeat that coverage by pushing off the defensive back.

 

 

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

I also don't think offenses need any more help on 4th-and-short.

 

Don't they, though? Going for it on 4th-and-1 or 2 is not nearly as common as it might be. Teams elect to punt in that situation far more often than is ideal from a spectator's standpoint. Making the act of going for it that much more attractive would lead more teams to take the risk. And the greater likelihood of short yardage conversion would make even more sense when taken alongside @McCarthy's suggestion of getting rid of punts.  (Also, let's not forget that the bigger neutral zone likely mitigates the severity of the constant blows to the head that linemen endure.)

 

 

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:
4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Another borrowing from the CFL that I'd love to see would be lengthening the end zones to 20 yards deep, so as to allow receivers a better chance to run into it and catch a long bomb, and also so as to lessen the likelihood that a quarterback who is backed up to his own endzone will step out the back of the end zone for a safety.

 

How often does that even happen? I can think of like two times in history that I've seen that. The other reasoning is fine I guess, but it feels like the bolded is a case of solving a problem that doesn't exist.

 

We've all seen passes that were too long, and that were caught beyond the back of the end zone. The only reason we don't see it more is that players are trying to avoid having that happen. The point of enlarging the end zone would be to change the risk calculation, which would, in turn, change decisions. Also, with a 20-yard end zone, teams inside the red zone could more easily run real pass plays (not just screens), and so would have more weapons to choose from.

 

Finally, you don't often see quarterbacks step out of the back of the end zone because quarterbacks are reluctant to take that risk. With a deeper end zone, a quarterback of a team bottled up near their own goal line could elect to risk dropping back in situations that he wouldn't even consider now.

 

Please realise that the point of these tweaks is not necessarily to solve a "problem", but, rather, to alter the probabilities of success of various types of plays, and so to change the incentives and the risk/reward calculations. Watching how coaches and players respond to these changes would be interesting, and, I believe, great fun. The question was how can the XFL distinguish itself from the NFL and present a more exciting product; and these are concrete suggestions toward that end.

 

P.S. - Get rid of intentional grounding, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You've not seen offensive pass interference called? In years? It's not that rare. I watch very little of the NFL; but I'm sure I saw it a few times in the AAF, and it comes up in CFL games.

 

Anyway, while I thank you for your sincere concern about my emotional well-being, I can assure you that nothing traumatic has befallen me. My objection to offensive pass interference is philosophical; the logic just doesn't hold up.

 

It's the offence's ball; therefore, when an offensive player and a defensive player go up for a pass, the rules should not treat them as equal. The rules should favour the offensive player; he should have much greater leeway than the defensive player has, in terms of permissible contact.

 

This would not prevent defensive players from making plays. A few days ago I saw a clip of a play in which a Detroit Lions receiver was called for offensive pass interference on a play in which a Chargers defensive back made an interception.

 

On the practical level, what getting rid of offensive pass interference would accomplished would be to further incentivise long passes, including passes into coverage, because the receiver would have the ability to defeat that coverage by pushing off the defensive back.

 

I've seen it called. I'm just saying that there have been seasons where I don't recall seeing it called once. It's a fairly rare penalty. It's like the safety of penalties. Offensive players successfully catch passes through defensive pass interference sometimes, but that's not a reason to get rid of that penalty. Plus, offensive players already have greater leeway than defensive players when going for the ball. The rules are constantly changing, almost always to favor the offense other than like when they got rid of force outs.

 

Offenses already go for lots of long passes these days. I don't think they need any help with at least trying those plays. There's so much offense these days that it's offending football purists as it is.

 

10 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Don't they, though? Going for it on 4th-and-1 or 2 is not nearly as common as it might be. Teams elect to punt in that situation far more often than is ideal from a spectator's standpoint. Making the act of going for it that much more attractive would lead more teams to take the risk. And the greater likelihood of short yardage conversion would make even more sense when taken alongside @McCarthy's suggestion of getting rid of punts.  (Also, let's not forget that the bigger neutral zone likely mitigates the severity of the constant blows to the head that linemen endure.)

 

Coaches fear failure, that's the reason why they don't go for it. It's not because offenses need actual help to get 4th-and-short conversions beyond needing coaches that aren't a bunch of cowards.

 

12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

We've all seen passes that were too long, and that were caught beyond the back of the end zone. The only reason we don't see it more is that players are trying to avoid having that happen. The point of enlarging the end zone would be to change the risk calculation, which would, in turn, change decisions. Also, with a 20-yard end zone, teams inside the red zone could more easily run real pass plays (not just screens), and so would have more weapons to choose from.

 

Finally, you don't often see quarterbacks step out of the back of the end zone because quarterbacks are reluctant to take that risk. With a deeper end zone, a quarterback of a team bottled up near their own goal line could elect to risk dropping back in situations that he wouldn't even consider now.

 

I was just referencing the QB's stepping out of the back, not the passing into the endzone portion. Personally, I prefer the greater danger for an offense backed up that far. It builds tension for the offensive team and excitement for the defensive team at the prospect of a safety. The biggest actual issue you have here would be the logistics of fitting larger endzones into American stadiums unless you're planning on making the regular play field smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.