mr.nascar13

Death of the Alliance of American Football

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Bill Polian sounded more subdued and calm than Ebersol.

It wasn't his money, or so it was written/previously reported to make it seem.

Wickersham and the co-writer indicated that Polian had a title of co-founder, but was more of a creative consultant. 

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


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

 

But we just got done criticizing ESPN for trying to push an agenda?

Sometimes it can be a bit of both. It can be that in the case of the AAF they choose not to give it as much attention as they could.  It's also likely, actually pretty obvious according to the ESPN article, that Ebersol did not engage the networks as aggressively as he could have to get them to buy in to coverage. When you appear to be more upset about not having your first meeting in a private room than you are about figuring out how to distribute players it would have affected how networks would view you if they heard about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also had no idea that the NFL had vetted Tom Dundon when the Carolina Panthers were for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Sometimes it can be a bit of both. It can be that in the case of the AAF they choose not to give it as much attention as they could.  It's also likely, actually pretty obvious according to the ESPN article, that Ebersol did not engage the networks as aggressively as he could have to get them to buy in to coverage. When you appear to be more upset about not having your first meeting in a private room than you are about figuring out how to distribute players it would have affected how networks would view you if they heard about it. 

The AFL and ESPN have an agreement to show games on ESPN3.  Yet we don't see three minutes of  highlights on SportsCenter over the weekend and rightfully so.

https://www.arenafootball.com/article/afl-espn-2019

Share this post


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

The AFL and ESPN have an agreement to show games on ESPN3.  Yet we don't see three minutes of  highlights on SportsCenter over the weekend and rightfully so.

https://www.arenafootball.com/article/afl-espn-2019

I'm not sure what makes it rightfully so, but you would think if they want people to use the ESPN3 app that you'd highlight the sports that are on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'm not sure what makes it rightfully so, but you would think if they want people to use the ESPN3 app that you'd highlight the sports that are on it. 

If SportsCenter is 44 minutes of highlights in an hour,with NBA, NHL (2 minutes), MLB, NFL and either NCAA Football/Basketball are part of a broadcast, how much time should've been given to a first year football league which until their initial week was known to be a league which paid CBS/CBSSN for air time? And whose boss publicly said they would be aired on both TNT and NFLN before it was actually signed?

 

:censored:, NFLN took their money yet NFLN shows really didn't care and that's their real target. NFLN Total Access didn't give a $hit and it wasn't because they weren't paid as that became apparent later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'm not sure what makes it rightfully so, but you would think if they want people to use the ESPN3 app that you'd highlight the sports that are on it. 

 

But then we get into the “ESPN is using its platform to promote its own sports programming!” complaint.

 

Better they keep them separate.  Sports that deserve coverage on SportsCenter get coverage on SportsCenter regardless of whether ESPN broadcasts them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 4:29 PM, Gothamite said:

 

USL1 games are compelling.  You yourself know that NASL games were sometimes compelling. 

 

None of this is incompatible with “minor league”.

 

I will try one more time, because this is bothering me.

 

The appelation "minor league", when it comes to football, simply means "not the NFL". So, then, you are arguing that any league that is not the NFL does not merit being covered on news shows simply by virtue of it not being the NFL. That can't be right. This argument is far below your customary standard of reasoning

 

Considering the financial backing that this particular minor (i.e.: non-NFL) league appeared to have accumulated, and considering the calibre of players and most especially the calibre of coaches that it had signed, and considering the fact that its games were shown nationwide (with respectable ratings), this league certainly rated inclusion in national sports news shows (again: even though it was not the NFL, and was therefore, by definition, a "minor league").

 

Let us note that the XFL will be a minor-league as well, in that it, too, is not the NFL. It shares with the AAF the high calibre of coaches; and we can presume that its players will be of a similar calibre to those of the AAF. Also, the XFL, like the AAF, will have its games shown nationally.  By virtue of these factors, it is safe to assert that the XFL will also merit inclusion in national sports news shows.

 

But, whereas ESPN did not include AAF highlights in its news show, it will surely include XFL highlights, despite the two leagues being identically situated. The only difference is that ESPN is the network that will be showing the XFL's games.

 

This is clearly not an appropriate criterion on which to base the decision of whether to include a league's highlights in the news show. If you are seriously defending this practice, then that makes the second position that you have taken up that is far beneath your usual standards, this time on ethics.

Share this post


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

I will try one more time, because this is bothering me.

 

The appelation "minor league", when it comes to football, simply means "not the NFL". So, then, you are arguing that any league that is not the NFL does not merit being covered on news shows simply by virtue of it not being the NFL. That can't be right. This argument is far below your customary standard of reasoning

 

To which I say: Oh, piffle.  😛 

 

The AAF was a minor league not because it was not the NFL, but because it was not trying to be the NFL.  Unlike the AFL, which set out from the beginning to be a competitor, the AAF never had the organization, the business plan, or the money to do so.

 

In fact, by the end of its short existence the AAF was reduced to publicly begging the NFL to take it on as a developmental league.  Not only was it a minor league, it was utterly desperate to become the NFL’s minor league.

 

So yes, any league that does not compete for players or coaches or sponsors or stadiums or markets with the NFL is by definition a minor league. (Some that hypothetically do compete could still be a minor league, but that isn’t the case here.). You want to be treated like a major league?  Then be a major league. 

 

There seems to be this misconception that “minor league” is somehow equivalent to “morally inferior”.  It’s not.  Minor league sports are wonderful.  I am utterly besotted with Forward Madison FC now, but I don’t think Sports Illustrated or Bleacher Report should give them the same level of coverage that they give to MLS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 3:17 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Nonsense. The games were compelling. Equally important, the stories were compelling: Trent Richardson, Garrett Gilbert, Steve Spurrier, Luis Perez, the return of Manziel, the embrace of the Commanders by San Antonio, the participation by several former NFL coaches, the rule changes, etc.

 

ESPN's act of ignoring the AAF's games might have made sense from the perspective of corporate interests. But from the sports journalism standpoint, this represented a dereliction of duty.

 

Frankly, we probably cannot expect any better from corporate media. But an honest observer ought to be able to recognise this impropriety.

Each of the bolded are neither in NFL camp rosters no on Indoor teams as I post this.

 

Sing Naked Eyes!

 Or do we have to use Spoon?

 

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


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

The appelation "minor league", when it comes to football, simply means "not the NFL".

If I were starting a league, and I threw enough money around that I consolidated many of that year’s NFL free agents and high-to-mid-round draft picks into the small number of teams in my league, then I think most people would be forced to admit that it was a competing major league. The AAF was mostly guys that were practice squad level or below, with a dash of more talented guys on their fifth chances.

Share this post


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

If I were starting a league, and I threw enough money around that I consolidated many of that year’s NFL free agents and high-to-mid-round draft picks into the small number of teams in my league, then I think most people would be forced to admit that it was a competing major league. The AAF was mostly guys that were practice squad level or below, with a dash of more talented guys on their fifth chances.

Which nobody really wants to pay between $10-45 do see play even with unlimited booze and free parking

Share this post


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

 

To which I say: Oh, piffle.  😛 

 

The AAF was a minor league not because it was not the NFL, but because it was not trying to be the NFL.  Unlike the AFL, which set out from the beginning to be a competitor, the AAF never had the organization, the business plan, or the money to do so.

 

In fact, by the end of its short existence the AAF was reduced to publicly begging the NFL to take it on as a developmental league.  Not only was it a minor league, it was utterly desperate to become the NFL’s minor league.

 

So yes, any league that does not compete for players or coaches or sponsors or stadiums or markets with the NFL is by definition a minor league. (Some that hypothetically do compete could still be a minor league, but that isn’t the case here.). You want to be treated like a major league?  Then be a major league. 

 

There seems to be this misconception that “minor league” is somehow equivalent to “morally inferior”.  It’s not.  Minor league sports are wonderful.  I am utterly besotted with Forward Madison FC now, but I don’t think Sports Illustrated or Bleacher Report should give them the same level of coverage that they give to MLS. 

 

I have been to Texas Rangers games and then games of their Double A affiliate The Frisco Roughriders.  The Roughriders games are a lot more fun than the Rangers games. 

Share this post


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

 

I have been to Texas Rangers games and then games of their Double A affiliate The Frisco Roughriders.  The Roughriders games are a lot more fun than the Rangers games. 

And..Want a cookie or a sticker?

Those in Birmingham went to an Iron game and a Barons game, yet it failed.  Memphis Express had a fan or four see both them and the AAA team.  Both football teams failed. We can have homeboy talk about the lack of attendance for the Legends too.

 

 

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.