Arena Football News & Updates

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Which two leagues are you referring to?  

NAL and IFL. 7 teams in the NAL and 14 currently active in the IFL.I know there are other leagues out there but they don't really have the exposure these two do. And FCF doesn't count because those teams have  one coach for all of the teams calling plays that fans vote on. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

15 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

19 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Which two leagues are you referring to?  

NAL and IFL. 7 teams in the NAL and 14 currently active in the IFL.I know there are other leagues out there but they don't really have the exposure these two do. And FCF doesn't count because those teams have  one coach for all of the teams calling plays that fans vote on. 

 

Ah, OK.  I thought you were talking about the AFL and another league.

 

Anyway, I don't know what the relationship is between the IFL and NAL; but I assume that it cannot be all that cordial, or else they would already have worked out an arrangement to reduce expenses for all.  (Though both leagues agree that they want nothing to do with the Spokane Shock!)

 

Still, that would be for the best.  Maybe the appearance of a new AFL will spur some future talks.

[Gary]

I read somewhere that the Albany Empire and Jacksonville Sharks want to stay in the NAL. Same with the Barnstormers and Rattlers staying in the IFL. Unless the new AFL want a team in Phoenix, they would have to start a new team in the area. Maybe in the Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale? 

[GDAWG]

 

[BrySmalls]

A day late, but still applies nontheless:

[MJWalker45]

23 hours ago, Gary said:

I read somewhere that the Albany Empire and Jacksonville Sharks want to stay in the NAL. Same with the Barnstormers and Rattlers staying in the IFL. Unless the new AFL want a team in Phoenix, they would have to start a new team in the area. Maybe in the Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale? 

That's why i wonder if the plan is to grab all of the NAL, since they'll be using the patented rebound nets, and then possibly poach a couple teams from IFL, CIF and then create a few more. 

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

That's why i wonder if the plan is to grab all of the NAL, since they'll be using the patented rebound nets, and then possibly poach a couple teams from IFL, CIF and then create a few more. 

The formerly patented rebound nets.

[pluggerplugger1]

I couldn't be more thrilled at this news - the AFL was a huge part of me getting into sports in the mid-00's as a kid. I just hope they're able to find a sustainable model. For many of the reasons already stated, I'm not holding my breath. Still, I'm hopeful they can reach the peak they had around '05-'07.

 

It'd be great if they could get some "legacy" brands in the fold, like what the USFL did last year. That may be asking for too much, but long live the San Jose SaberCats!

[GDAWG]

3 hours ago, pluggerplugger1 said:

I couldn't be more thrilled at this news - the AFL was a huge part of me getting into sports in the mid-00's as a kid. I just hope they're able to find a sustainable model. For many of the reasons already stated, I'm not holding my breath. Still, I'm hopeful they can reach the peak they had around '05-'07.

 

It'd be great if they could get some "legacy" brands in the fold, like what the USFL did last year. That may be asking for too much, but long live the San Jose SaberCats!

 

the Sabercats are one of the legacy brands that are inactive, so it's quite doable.  It's going to be quite difficult for the AFL to convince the Iowa Barnstormers and Arizona Rattlers of the IFL and Albany Empire, Carolina Cobras, Jacksonville Sharks and Orlando Predators to leave the NAL.  

[buzzcut]

Long Live...Major. Indoor. Tiddlywinks.

 

J/K

In all honesty, it would probably be best for the AFL to wait for both the XFL and USFL to implode before resuming play. And if it does resume, create 16 new teams entirely if some of the legacy clubs don't jump back.

[Sykotyk]

On 2/5/2023 at 1:19 PM, buzzcut said:

Long Live...Major. Indoor. Tiddlywinks.

 

J/K

In all honesty, it would probably be best for the AFL to wait for both the XFL and USFL to implode before resuming play. And if it does resume, create 16 new teams entirely if some of the legacy clubs don't jump back.

 

Depends which direction the AFL takes. If they go back to their original summer schedule and leave the late winter and spring schedule for the XFL, it opens up a lot more options.

 

One, the original plan for the AFL was to be an offseason tenant for NBA and NHL venues. So, the XFL markets will be done about the same time the AFL is starting. The USFL isn't much of a threat except for Birmingham (doubtful for the AFL anyways), Memphis (also doubtful), Canton (that old arena in town is not an option, at all), or Detroit (not likely to be an option as the Fury never had success at the Palace and without Illitch's support the Drive wouldn't have either).

 

Two,  the AFL has some key markets, if small, where in house attendance will be great, and some interest from NFL owners once again. If NFL bylaws haven't changed, the NFL owners are once again allowed to own AFL teams in their home markets. I don't think we'll see Jones ever have another one after what happened with the Desperados and the knockoffs that tried to play afterwards. But, it's a possibility.

 

If they are starting new and either enticing old markets back or starting competing teams I could see:

 

Orlando, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, Des Moines, Albany, Nashville, Cleveland and Indiana as frontrunners for markets that had good numbers before, and if they actually market as 'big league' will return to the arena to support the new teams (some preferably with throwback monikers and not all starting with new names).

 

Other markets could be St. Louis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and even Little Rock. If they're thinking of other small markets to help fill in the 16, there's Spokane, Loveland CO, Albuquerque, Amarillo, Norfolk, Fort Wayne, Worcester MA, and Rockford IL.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

10 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Other markets could be St. Louis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and even Little Rock.

 

The Milwaukee Mustangs drew extremely well by AFL standards, averaging about 14,000 at the Bradley Center for most of their existence from 1994 to 2001.  This includes a winless first season in which the team ranked third in the league in average attendence.

 

On five separate occasions, the Mustangs at the Bradley Center outdrew the Brewers at County Stadium on the same day.

 

DATE        MUSTANGS  BREWERS
1995-05-26    12,474   11,054
1996-04-25    15,147    6,707
1996-06-14    15,710   14,404
1998-05-08    17,111   14,711
1999-04-28    13,101   11,441

 

So Milwaukee might be a pretty good city for a team in the revived AFL.

 

[fortunat1]

Speaking as a Milwaukee resident, I don't think that fan interest will be the primary issue for a local AFL team. Most of the city has allegiance to the Packers, but can't attend games due the long trip up to Green Bay and the price of tickets. Providing these fans with a reasonably priced local opportunity to consume live football should be successful in theory, because it finally gives them the opportunity to attend competitive football while still maintaining their allegiance to the Packers.

 

As mentioned above, the lack of a stadium is the main vice keeping Milwaukee from actually getting a team. I'm sure that an AFL team could draw decent attendance from fans who hold views similar to mine, but the lack of a venue makes it unlikely that we can secure a franchise.

[Sec19Row53]

19 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Milwaukee Mustangs drew extremely well by AFL standards, averaging about 14,000 at the Bradley Center for most of their existence from 1994 to 2001.  This includes a winless first season in which the team ranked third in the league in average attendence.

 

On five separate occasions, the Mustangs at the Bradley Center outdrew the Brewers at County Stadium on the same day.

 

DATE        MUSTANGS  BREWERS
1995-05-26    12,474   11,054
1996-04-25    15,147    6,707
1996-06-14    15,710   14,404
1998-05-08    17,111   14,711
1999-04-28    13,101   11,441

 

So Milwaukee might be a pretty good city for a team in the revived AFL.

 

Compare the latter day Milwaukee Iron/Mustangs to the same timeframe Brewers and get back to me with a new opinion

[Sec19Row53]

1 minute ago, fortunat1 said:

Speaking as a Milwaukee resident, I don't think that fan interest will be the primary issue for a local AFL team. Most of the city has allegiance to the Packers, but can't attend games due the long trip up to Green Bay and the price of tickets. Providing these fans with a reasonably priced local opportunity to consume live football should be successful in theory, because it finally gives them the opportunity to attend competitive football while still maintaining their allegiance to the Packers.

 

As mentioned above, the lack of a stadium is the main vice keeping Milwaukee from actually getting a team. I'm sure that an AFL team could draw decent attendance from fans who hold views similar to mine, but the lack of a venue makes it unlikely that we can secure a franchise.

I've been a season ticket holder since forever. I've driven to GB from SE Wisconsin for nearly every game since 1992. Given the traffic on gamedays, I'm not alone in that feeling about the drive. I'd argue it is less the cost of tickets than the availability, given that they are all sold to season ticket holders.

On the reverse of this, I was a season ticket holder to the Green Bay Blizzard for 5 years and made that drive for home games, so if someone WANTS to do it, it isn't an issue.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Compare the latter day Milwaukee Iron/Mustangs to the same timeframe Brewers and get back to me with a new opinion

 

I realise that the second iteration of the Mustangs, after the Iron came over from the defunct af2, drew a fraction of the first version.  And of course the Brewers' attendance skyrocketed when they moved into the new park, so no AFL team will be outdrawing the Brewers.

 

Still, what the Mustangs achieved at their height is notable.

 

 

20 minutes ago, fortunat1 said:

I'm sure that an AFL team could draw decent attendance from fans who hold views similar to mine, but the lack of a venue makes it unlikely that we can secure a franchise.

 

The Bucks' current arena cannot be used for Arena Football?

 

[fortunat1]

22 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I've been a season ticket holder since forever. I've driven to GB from SE Wisconsin for nearly every game since 1992. Given the traffic on gamedays, I'm not alone in that feeling about the drive. I'd argue it is less the cost of tickets than the availability, given that they are all sold to season ticket holders.

On the reverse of this, I was a season ticket holder to the Green Bay Blizzard for 5 years and made that drive for home games, so if someone WANTS to do it, it isn't an issue.

You're right about the ticket availability; my reasoning should've been articulated a little better. The lack of accessibility to tickets is a major deterrent for local residents who do desire to go to games. Regardless of why Milwaukee citizens don't attend Packers games, I'm sure that they wouldn't be major issues with a local AFL team.

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Bucks' current arena cannot be used for Arena Football?

 

In all honesty, I have no clue. I'm not familiar with what types of requirements indoor football has and if the Fiserv Forum could even meet them. Attendance, desire from the Forum itself, and other monetary factors may also make it impractical to play there, should the physical requirements be met. I'm not familiar with any of this though, so hopefully someone can provide a more accurate/more complete answer.

[Sec19Row53]

2 minutes ago, fortunat1 said:

You're right about the ticket availability; my reasoning should've been articulated a little better. The lack of accessibility to tickets is a major deterrent for local residents who do desire to go to games. Regardless of why Milwaukee citizens don't attend Packers games, I'm sure that they wouldn't be major issues with a local AFL team.

In all honesty, I have no clue. I'm not familiar with what types of requirements indoor football has and if the Fiserv Forum could even meet them. Attendance, desire from the Forum itself, and other monetary factors may also make it impractical to play there, should the physical requirements be met. I'm not familiar with any of this though, so hopefully someone can provide a more accurate/more complete answer.

I think the Forum would make an AFL team a third-tier tenant at best, behind the Bucks, Marquette, and likely any other events (i.e., concerts). Panther Arena (the former MECCA) could be  better, but that puts you behind the Admirals and Panthers, plus events.

[GDAWG]

So unsurprisingly, there are issues with the two time defending NAL Champions Albany Empire.

 

We are hearing talk Albany's days... - Indoor Football Insiders 24/7 | Facebook

 

Players, coach off the team, more turmoil for the Antonio Brown-led Albany Empire; sources | WRGB (cbs6albany.com)

 

[MJWalker45]

7 hours ago, GDAWG said:

So unsurprisingly, there are issues with the two time defending NAL Champions Albany Empire.

 

We are hearing talk Albany's days... - Indoor Football Insiders 24/7 | Facebook

 

Players, coach off the team, more turmoil for the Antonio Brown-led Albany Empire; sources | WRGB (cbs6albany.com)

 

Antonio Brown led? That sounds like trouble before the other issues.