LAWeaver

Death of the Alliance of American Football

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Not going to lie. Watching AAF has made me wonder how it would have turned out if NFL Europe was a stateside league instead of overseas. From my recollection most people were satisfied with the quality of play in NFL Europe. Would the football fans of San Antonio, Memphis, Birmingham, Orlando, etc have accepted official minor league status back then?

1

Aside from team executives or family members of the players at the time, just who are "most people"?  Americans didn't care.

 

Get real.

 

UTSA hit the field in 2011, but had years to start the program. They school got approval in January 2009, less than 18 months after NFLE folded.  Birmingham still wouldn't have cared as they were at the end of their Tubberville love after the 2004 Auburn season and pre-Saban.  Memphis was still a college basketball town and spring pro football would've failed against John Calipari's Tigers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orlando clenched playoff birth after manhandling Atlanta again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11416 in Attendance. I couldn’t tell while watching the game if that many people were there. Some pretty crafty camera work to hide poor attendance?? I’ve questioned some AAF attendance figures already this season and this game is definitely one to question. Other than that. Great Looking Game. Liked the Legends White Jerseys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mkg74 said:

11416 in Attendance. I couldn’t tell while watching the game if that many people were there. Some pretty crafty camera work to hide poor attendance?? I’ve questioned some AAF attendance figures already this season and this game is definitely one to question. Other than that. Great Looking Game. Liked the Legends White Jerseys. 

 

I was there, and there were at least 11,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

I was there, and there were at least 11,000 people.

It was hard to tell on TV. These low camera angles are annoying to say the least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mkg74 said:

It was hard to tell on TV. These low camera angles are annoying to say the least. 

 

If there really had been 11,000 people there, the cameras would have been positioned to show you every last patron. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If there really had been 11,000 people there, the cameras would have been positioned to show you every last patron. 

 

Like the Commanders game going on now. They're saying 30,000 and while I don't see it being that full, it's still impressive for the AAF. 25,000 or so is believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If there really had been 11,000 people there, the cameras would have been positioned to show you every last patron. 

On the flip side. It’s nice again to see a good crowd at an AAF game. I don’t know how San Antonio is doing it but big props to them. Plus it’s refreshing to have normal camera angles again Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If there really had been 11,000 people there, the cameras would have been positioned to show you every last patron. 

 

Surprisingly, there were less cameras this week. The last few games have been broadcasted by CBS Sports, today it was TNT. There were at least six less cameras in operation with them than CBS. So I'd imagine that their coverage was not as extensive as CBS. That may account for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Antonio doesn't have a NFL,NHL,or MLB team and has embraced their AAF team as have San Diego and Orlando. The rest of the teams. Not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pauly said:

San Antonio doesn't have a NFL,NHL,or MLB team and has embraced their AAF team as have San Diego and Orlando. The rest of the teams. Not so much. 

Does the USL team or any other minor league teams in San Antonio get supported as well as the Commanders have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

Surprisingly, there were less cameras this week. The last few games have been broadcasted by CBS Sports, today it was TNT. There were at least six less cameras in operation with them than CBS. So I'd imagine that their coverage was not as extensive as CBS. That may account for that.

 

Football provides plenty of slow moments for one of those cameras to pan across a crowd.  So long as TNT brought more than one camera to the stadium, they should have been able to show off all those spectators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Does the USL team or any other minor league teams in San Antonio get supported as well as the Commanders have been?

The soccer team averaged 6900 a game last year. I can’t imagine the others approach the Commanders in terms of support. They’ve outdrawn the USFL WLAF CFLUSA teams by far as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rules question.

 

As I understand it, defences can have either five, six, or seven men on the line, depending upon how many receivers the offence lines up. So, in order for the defence to have seven men on the line, the offence must line up with at least three receivers.

 

In light of this, how was Atlanta able to put so many men on the line of scrimmage late in the game when it made a desperation attempt to block Orlando's last punt? Orlando certainly didn't have three receivers in its offensive formation as it prepared to snap to the punter. So how could Atlanta have had more than five players on its defensive line?

Share this post


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

San Antonio doesn't have a NFL,NHL,or MLB team and has embraced their AAF team as have San Diego and Orlando. The rest of the teams. Not so much. 

 

Which team do you think would be the first to move or fold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sucks to be Salt Lake. Competitive team, but ends up losing games they could have realistically won.

 

3 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

 

Which team do you think would be the first to move or fold?

Atlanta. Putting the Legends right in an NFL city was an odd choice. Being one of the worse teams in the league isn't helping either.

 

The Hotshots are sort of in the same boat being in a metro area with an NFL team. However, they could easily relocate to Tucson and not have to change any of their branding. Their present saving grace is the fact that they're one of the contenders in the league (SN: tomorrow's Fleet vs Hotshots game is pretty goshdarn important as far as the playoff race goes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

Surprisingly, there were less cameras this week. The last few games have been broadcasted by CBS Sports, today it was TNT. There were at least six less cameras in operation with them than CBS. So I'd imagine that their coverage was not as extensive as CBS. That may account for that.

 

3 hours ago, mkg74 said:

It was hard to tell on TV. These low camera angles are annoying to say the least. 

 

The aaf hires out a crew to broadcast the games. Would make sense to use the bare minimum. The afternoon game was scheduled for B/R and my guess no changes to the broadcast were made once it was put on TNT.

 

They also seem to heavily favor the sky cam. And for some it appears they're using two. One lower than the other. And using one of the fixed cameras or a possible second sky cam as the dedicated sideline angle rather than using a camera rig on the sideline that moves up and down the field. It's better for fans attending, but not as good for fans on TV. 

 

33 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

A rules question.

 

As I understand it, defences can have either five, six, or seven men on the line, depending upon how many receivers the offence lines up. So, in order for the defence to have seven men on the line, the offence must line up with at least three receivers.

 

In light of this, how was Atlanta able to put so many men on the line of scrimmage late in the game when it made a desperation attempt to block Orlando's last punt? Orlando certainly didn't have three receivers in its offensive formation as it prepared to snap to the punter. So how could Atlanta have had more than five players on its defensive line?

As far as I'm aware, the main rule is no more than 5 can rush. I wasn't aware of a rule on starting position for those 5. As for the rule, it's clear that at least a few times the officials have missed it. 

 

15 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Sucks to be Salt Lake. Competitive team, but ends up losing games they could have realistically won.

 

Atlanta. Putting the Legends right in an NFL city was an odd choice. Being one of the worse teams in the league isn't helping either.

 

The Hotshots are sort of in the same boat being in a metro area with an NFL team. However, they could easily relocate to Tucson and not have to change any of their branding. Their present saving grace is the fact that they're one of the contenders in the league (SN: tomorrow's Fleet vs Hotshots game is pretty goshdarn important as far as the playoff race goes).

Phoenix and Atlanta were head scratchers. At least the stadium in Atlanta made sense a bit. Playing at GT might have been wiser. True football stadium, and a better location. Getting to GS Stadium wasn't easy when it was Turner Field for baseball. I can't imagine mass transit working better as a small event takes place. At least for a small crowd parking might be better. 

 

Arizona should have been in Tucson. If TV was so important. I don't think being in Phoenix would matter much to a fan watching in TV in Arizona or elsewhere. But might draw more fans in person when Tucson finally has their own pro football team. 

 

As for San Antonio, they didn't have the upper bowl open and am a bit surprised if the lower bowl is big enough to hold 30k. I was there once years ago at the Alamodome. At least it has great sidelines. No curved seating areas. 

Share this post


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

San Antonio doesn't have a NFL,NHL,or MLB team and has embraced their AAF team as have San Diego and Orlando. The rest of the teams. Not so much. 

 

San Diego has extra incentive to be a success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, The Stallions could relocate to the Carolinas and keep their identity intact. I hope SLC gets one more crack at it. I know it's a poor excuse however its been a long brutal Winter here, we go through this type of winter every 5 years or so. We are usually in the high 30's-  low 40's(more rainy than snow) by February the heavy snow months are in late November December and January. Try to move their games to Rio Tinto and it's pretty much guaranteed they could put at least 15,000 p/game in a 22,000 venue. We have a good team too, cut out the lousy mistakes and we are 5-2 at worst 4-3. 

 

Atlanta. Dead in the water, too many sports teams there. Drawing lousy in a 25,000 and i'm very sorry but i dont believe any of their attendance figures for their home games. A truer 10,000 would make GSA Stadium look fuller....Move them to Louisville,kill the Legends monicker. Rename them Louisville Kings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.