Death of the Alliance of American Football

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

I thought I shared this before, but I can't seem to find where I might have said it, so if I'm repeating myself, I apologize.

 

Keep in mind these were rumors that were going around with people I was close with in the AAF, and I have no evidence to back them up, but they were rumors that persisted the entire season and I trust the sources to the point that I'm 99% sure if season 2 had happened, these rumors would have come to pass.

 

I think everyone, in and out of the league, knew with almost 100% certainly that if the AAF made it to a second season, Salt Lake would have relocated. But there was a possibility of staying in Salt Lake for year 2, but it would not be at Rice-Eccles. Apparently the AD "hated" the Stallions and imposed a lot of rules and regulations on them, hence the lack of painting the field. Rio-Tinto and LaVell Edwards was thrown out there, but I never heard anything specific from anyone at Salt Lake, just from other teams. If they were to leave Salt Lake, I never heard of any possible landing spots.

 

Speaking of which, Memphis also seemed to struggle with their home venue. According to at least two colleagues of mine, Memphis was exploring the possibility of relocating to Nashville for year 2 and playing their home games at Vanderbilt Stadium.

 

As for Atlanta, well, we felt that if we didn't get a .500 record, that we'd be the Charlotte Legends. But that was more of a joke than anything anyone official was saying. As far as I knew, Atlanta was not planing on moving for season 2.

 

So yeah, a few rumors about relocation for anyone that might have been interested.

 

Nashville would have probably been worse for the Express, as Nashville FC joins MLS in 2020. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

The AAF was a minor league because they did not compete for players or coaches who were expected to be on NFL payrolls. They were picking up scraps and rejects. They were minor league because literally every talking head affiliated with the league specifically promoted them as a minor league.

 

Please note that I have not disputed that the AAF was a minor league. I have simply argued that its being a minor league does not preclude it from being an important national story.

 

(By the way, the AAF's players were minor league; but its coaches, not so much.)

 

[Red Wolf]

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Please note that I have not disputed that the AAF was a minor league. I have simply argued that its being a minor league does not preclude it from being an important national story.

 

(By the way, the AAF's players were minor league; but its coaches, not so much.)

 

 

The only important story about the AAF at this point is its failure and the fallout caused by its failure. Minor leagues don't generally warrant highlights on SportsCenter or whatever. I mean, why didn't ESPN cover when the Little Rock Rangers lost to NTX Rayados in the US Open Cup? Was it some nefarious agenda?! ALMOST CERTAINLY!

[Gothamite]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Please note that I have not disputed that the AAF was a minor league. I have simply argued that its being a minor league does not preclude it from being an important national story.

 

You, perhaps not.  But others have. 

 

And you are the one making the interesting argument that this particular minor league alone was “an important national story” and that it was unethical for ESPN to treat this minor league the same as all other minor leagues.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

And you are the one making the interesting argument that this particular minor league alone was “an important national story”

 

I said no such thing.  In fact I mentioned another minor league, namely, the XFL. 

 

On 6/16/2019 at 8:57 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.

 

Does every minor league deserve inclusion in highlights and the ticker? Of course not. But the AAF, unlike most minor leagues, had coaches with serious histories at the sport's top levels: NFL head coaches and coordinators; head coaches in the CFL and the USFL and at major college programs.  Combine this with the league's national television exposure, and you've unequivocally got yourself an important national story.  By these standards, both the AAF and the XFL qualify.

 

What I labelled as unethical and even as corruption was the act of a network basing inclusion of the league's highlights in its news show on the existence or non-existence of a broadcast deal with the network, rather than on the legitimate criteria given above.

[dfwabel]

17 hours ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

Speaking of which, Memphis also seemed to struggle with their home venue. According to at least two colleagues of mine, Memphis was exploring the possibility of relocating to Nashville for year 2 and playing their home games at Vanderbilt Stadium.

 

As for Atlanta, well, we felt that if we didn't get a .500 record, that we'd be the Charlotte Legends. But that was more of a joke than anything anyone official was saying. As far as I knew, Atlanta was not planing on moving for season 2.

 

So yeah, a few rumors about relocation for anyone that might have been interested.

Leaving Memphis for a Nashville which would have a Predators team in the stretch run of their regular season plus a Nashville SC in its inaugural season at Nissan Stadium indicates to me that they had less economic sense that I was crediting them with from the start . And that's in addition to Vanderbilt sports and the Sounds too.

[MDGP]

14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

But the AAF, unlike most minor leagues, had coaches with serious histories at the sport's top levels: NFL head coaches and coordinators; head coaches in the CFL and the USFL and at major college programs.

 

The coaches with serious histories who are so relevant and in-demand nowadays that only one of them had a head coaching gig at any level since 2011, and Mike Riley's Nebraska 2015-2017 tenure was known for being one of the worst stretches in school history. Steve Spurrier and a bunch of failed coaches with a low quality product really didn't warrant ESPN giving it airtime.

[VDizzle12]

14 hours ago, Lafarge said:

 

The coaches with serious histories who are so relevant and in-demand nowadays that only one of them had a head coaching gig at any level since 2011, and Mike Riley's Nebraska 2015-2017 tenure was known for being one of the worst stretches in school history. Steve Spurrier and a bunch of failed coaches with a low quality product really didn't warrant ESPN giving it airtime.

 

If ESPN wanted to ignore the AAF all together that is one thing. But to go from completely ignoring them and then doing a victory lap when they failed? It's just a frontrunner mentality that network has. Hypothetically, it would be like ESPN ignoring the 2016 Falcons that entire season. No highlights, no mentions of them whatsoever. Then spending the whole month after the Super Bowl mocking them for giving up a big lead and losing to New England. They love it when the underdogs fail. 

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

If ESPN wanted to ignore the AAF all together that is one thing. But to go from completely ignoring them and then doing a victory lap when they failed? It's just a frontrunner mentality that network has. Hypothetically, it would be like ESPN ignoring the 2016 Falcons that entire season. No highlights, no mentions of them whatsoever. Then spending the whole month after the Super Bowl mocking them for giving up a big lead and losing to New England. They love it when the underdogs fail. 

 

A league that was poor quality and had basically nothing new or interesting to show, and quite frankly bad viewership numbers, isn't going to get coverage on SportsCenter (there were absolutely articles about it on the website, so ESPN wasn't just completely ignoring it).

 

However, when we later learned this league and its founding was full of insane amounts of potential fraud and lies that involved the owner of a major professional team, and how that plays into the constant trend of leagues failing to make a mark in America's most popular sport, it became newsworthy and something people were interested in.

 

I'm not one to defend ESPN or its programming, but acting like they were in the wrong here is ridiculous because basically nobody cared about the league until it was gone. And none of this is even remotely relevant to that example you gave.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Lafarge said:

A league that was poor quality and had basically nothing new or interesting to show, and quite frankly bad viewership numbers, isn't going to get coverage on SportsCenter

 

In fact none of those things were true about the AAF.  The overall level of play was quite good.  The elimination of kickoffs and extra points, the mandatory 2-point conversion, and the replacement of the onside kick with a play from scrimmage were all new and interesting.  And the viewership met or exceeded projections, with ratings on the opening weekend on CBS that beat a nationally-televised NBA game.

[dfwabel]

Birmingham, Memphis, Atlanta, and Salt Lake weren't good. Birmingham scoring consisted of Trent Richardson one and two yard TD plunges and Perez didn't throw a TD pass until March 17. Atlanta was DOA from the day Children's jumped ship. Three of those teams averaged less than 300 yards of offense per game; they same game which promised more "action".

 

And to all interested, here is the link to the AAF's Video Highlights License, so you can see how much any network highlight show could air and what would you have replaced to show Trent Richardson gain 2.93 ypc. This should take you to their PDF.

 

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://shop.aaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-Alliance-Video-Highlights-License.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiBqdfzwPbiAhXHjVkKHbW-DkYQFjAEegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2_CyggZL7QxExuD2kreMaW

 

Excerpt (but formatting parentheses and Roman numerals here stinks, but here you go):

Quote

Limitations  on  Rights  to  Use  Highlights  in  Regularly  Scheduled  News  Programs,  Sports  Wrap-Up Shows  and  Continuous  Loop  News  Services:  

(a) Subject  to  the  restrictions  set  forth  in  this  License,  television  networks  and  stations  have  the  right  to use  Highlights  in  their  Regularly  Scheduled  News  Programs  and  Sports  Wrap-up  Shows  as  follows:

(i) during  the  period  from  the  start  of  the  Broadcast  Window  until  twelve  (12)  hours  after  the conclusion  of  the  Broadcast  Window,  up  to  a  total  of  six  (6)  minutes  of  Highlights  per  program from  completed  AAF  games;  provided  that  no  more  than  two  (2)  minutes  of  Highlights  per program  may  be  from  any  one  such  completed  AAF  game;  OR

(ii)  during  any  period  outside  the  period  described  in  clause  (i)  above  (i.e.,  more  than  twelve  (12) hours  after  the  conclusion  of  the  Broadcast  Window  and  prior  to  the  re-commencement  of  the Broadcast  Window),  up to a total  of  two (2)  minutes  of  Highlights  per  program  from AAF games played  during  the  preceding  seven  (7)  days.

 

(b)   Subject  to  the  restrictions  set  forth  in  this  License,  television  networks  and  stations  have  the  right  to use  Highlights  in  their  Continuous  Loop  News  Services  as  follows: (i) up  to  fourteen  (14)  plays  per  half-hour  segment  from  AAF  games  played  during  the  preceding seven  (7) days in  a  continuous loop  news service  with  a  thirty  minute  “wheel”  format;  OR (ii)  up  to  seven  (7)  plays  per  fifteen  minute  segment  from  AAF  games  played  during  the  preceding seven  (7) days in  a  continuous loop  news service  with  a  fifteen  minute  “wheel”  format.

1

 

[MDGP]

30 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

In fact none of those things were true about the AAF.  The overall level play was quite good.  The elimination of kickoffs and extra points, the mandatory 2-point conversion, and the replacement of the onside kick with a play from scrimmage were all new and interesting.  And the viewership met or exceeded projections, with ratings on the opening weekend on CBS that beat a nationally-televised NBA game.

 

I watched AAF games, I didn't want it to fail, but the play was not good. Football begins and ends with line play, as much as people ignore it. When arguably your best statistical player had 366 yards in 8 games at 2.9 yards per carry, and every quarterback who was eligible as a league leader was sacked at least once per game, that's a sign of horrendous line play, and that's just not good football. 

 

Also most of those things you describe aren't all that new or interesting. We've seen mandatory 2-point conversions in college overtime for years. Starting with no kickoffs is equivalent to touchbacks, which occur in the NFL more than half the time anyways. I will give you the onside kick one, as someone who is all for the 4th and 15 plan, I did find that interesting. 

 

Strong television viewership, which I find debatable (400,000 per game wouldn't make it a top 50 show on a weekend) doesn't mean anything when your expensive football league isn't making money on your TV rights deal. In game attendance and merchandise is where they needed to make their money, and there clearly wasn't the interest in going to games or purchasing merch to a level remotely necessary to even make it to the end of the season.

 

The opening weekend beating an NBA game also doesn't mean much, the XFL ratings for the first week were great too. That's just novelty that quickly wore off, just like it did for the AAF.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

If ESPN wanted to ignore the AAF all together that is one thing. But to go from completely ignoring them and then doing a victory lap when they failed? 

 

You misspelled “started covering the league the very minute it did something newsworthy.”  

[Red Comet]

ESPN has effed up a lot of things in the last decade. Mainly trying to justify hilariously overpaying the NBA for broadcast rights by making half the highlights/news focus on the NBA....all year round. Not covering a minor league aside from the hit on Bercovici and the league's collapse revealing that Chris-chan could've ran the league better is not one of those mistakes. 

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, Red Comet said:

ESPN has effed up a lot of things in the last decade. Mainly trying to justify hilariously overpaying the NBA for broadcast rights by making half the highlights/news focus on the NBA....all year round. Not covering a minor league aside from the hit on Bercovici and the league's collapse revealing that Chris-chan could've ran the league better is not one of those mistakes. 

 

\When NFL Season starts, everyone on ESPN will be picking New England to win the Super Bowl. 

[AustinFromBoston]

24 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

\When NFL Season starts, everyone on ESPN will be picking New England to win the Super Bowl. 

You forgot the part where one of their key plays goes down, so they cast "doubt" on their Super Bowl aspirations, all so Patriots can build themselves up as the "underdogs nobody believed in."

[Red Comet]

58 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

\When NFL Season starts, everyone on ESPN will be picking New England to win the Super Bowl. 

 

Oh, there will be one person who picks the Chiefs or Saints to be "different" but aside from that, said teams might as well not exist unless they're playing New England/Pittsburgh/Dallas/Green Bay. 

 

Now let's talk more about the Patriots for the other half we aren't focusing on the NBA. NHL? Never heard of it!

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, Red Comet said:

 

Oh, there will be one person who picks the Chiefs or Saints to be "different" but aside from that, said teams might as well not exist unless they're playing New England/Pittsburgh/Dallas/Green Bay. 

 

Someone ALWAYS picks the Chargers as well. Everyone's always sleeping on the Chargers except that one guy who noticed a little known gem on the roster named Phillip Rivers.

[Red Comet]

The point is, ESPN doesn't even focus on the teams in major leagues that are in "flyover country" (or teams like the Chargers that manage to fail to sell out a soccer stadium somehow) unless they have to (i.e. having a generational talent like a Patrick Mahomes). Why the hell would they focus on a minor league they had no TV contract with?

 

 

Am I bitter that ESPN doesn't focus on the Chiefs unless some talented but "troubled" player makes an ass of himself or commits a felony (pre-Mahomes anyway)? Yeah, a little. But, because of that I go out and seek media that focuses on the things I want to focus on. And you find that there are far more talented enthusiasts who do it for free then there are professionals getting paid millions. Gotta love the Internet.

[MJWalker45]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/aaf-tom-dundon-70m-refund-bankruptcy

Dundon wants his money back and I don't see how he'll get it if the assets are still less than the losses. 

“Even though AAF executives told DCP (Dundon Capital Partners) its contribution would get the AAF through the first season, those executives knew at the time of the execution of the Term Sheet that the AAF would likely need an additional $50,000,000 (including League revenue) on top of DCP’s investment of up to $70,000,000 to get through the first season,” the filing said, as first reported by The AthleticOpens a New Window.. “The AAF and its executives never disclosed this information to DCP.”

 

Dundon’s filing further alleges that AAF executives claimed that the league could complete its first season using just $55 million of his initial investment, with the rest in reserve for future seasons. However, Dundon said that a review of the league’s finances revealed it had more than $13 million in debt that it did not reveal prior to his investment."

 

I'm starting to believe as fact that Charlie cooked the books when he talked to Dundon. Or was Ebersol still naively thinking his original investor, who's since flown the coop somewhere, was still going to support them like he said he would.