USFL 2023 Season

[Cujo]

7 hours ago, See Red said:

Bummer because the actual play feels better than the XFL (imo, anyway) and the broadcasts are better but the empty stadiums just kill my interest. 

 

XFL's gameplay is fine and they give you at least 2 (of 4) competitive games a week. No problem with the action they give us on the field.

 

However their broadcast gets a grade of D from me. The announcers are adequate. But the production, it's quality is pretty poor. Anytime a bigtime play or penalty occurs, they'll either be A) late in giving you replay 2) have bad replay angles or C) not even give you replay at all. The giant white score bug that takes up 1/5th of the screen has grown on me, but still not a fan.

[Sodboy13]

ESPN is regarded as the gold standard of sports television, but over the last several years they've been quietly cutting corners in production over all their properties. It's little things like using cheaper cameras or running skeleton crews so the colors or audio aren't balanced properly, or maybe the graphics don't look as great or get wonky sometimes. It's the sort of thing you wouldn't probably pay much mind to, or you'd just assume it's your cable feed or stream being a little off or whatever. But then you get something like the split NHL deal, and you realize that Turner is just putting out a better version of the same product week upon week, when so many people assumed it was the ESPN half of the deal that would make the league look better.

 

At this point, with their focus on acquiring properties and then presenting them on the cheap to the best of their ability, ESPN is a lot like the Fanatics of sports television.

[Sykotyk]

26 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

ESPN is regarded as the gold standard of sports television, but over the last several years they've been quietly cutting corners in production over all their properties. It's little things like using cheaper cameras or running skeleton crews so the colors or audio aren't balanced properly, or maybe the graphics don't look as great or get wonky sometimes. It's the sort of thing you wouldn't probably pay much mind to, or you'd just assume it's your cable feed or stream being a little off or whatever. But then you get something like the split NHL deal, and you realize that Turner is just putting out a better version of the same product week upon week, when so many people assumed it was the ESPN half of the deal that would make the league look better.

 

At this point, with their focus on acquiring properties and then presenting them on the cheap to the best of their ability, ESPN is a lot like the Fanatics of sports television.

Vast majority of ESPN's expenses are the rights fees they pay out. With cord cutting harming their carriage rates, they cut corners on everything. The fact a handful of big name on air talents still work for ESPN is amazing. But even then you'd think ESPN would be able to draw a ton of highly motivated and capable graduates every year just to get ESPN on their resume to find local work. It's not the gold standard it was before. It's not even bronze. The worst thing is that the bigger the property the less likely they'll put anything against it on their underling networks. Unless it's things like The Mannings or the All 22. They can't risk undercutting their own programming. So most cable companies are paying ESPN for several channels when they only show one major thing at a time. Then they're tied up with things like SEC Network or how they treated NHL when they went to OLN that makes their position as Sports News network to Sports Propaganda network. 

 

Remember Playmakers and how the NFL forced them to cancel a surprisingly success and honestly unique show. Because they couldn't risk their biggest rights fee having an issue with them. 

[See Red]

I don't know -- it's not even an ESPN-being-cheap thing to me.  Maybe it's that I just associate their announcers with mid-tier college football too much for them to seem "professional" to me.  It's the guys that do, like, games against FCS teams on the SEC Network or Thursday night ACC games.  But at least some of it's the directive.  This might be a silly complaint and I can't even quite put a finger on what it is, but they're too excitable and too rah rah XFL.  Too much stuff like, if it's a 9 point game late, "this game would be over in the NFL but not in the XFL" that makes the different rules feel gimmicky.  Also, they can f*** off with the constant mention of spreads and over/unders.

[McCall]

5 hours ago, See Red said:

I don't know -- it's not even an ESPN-being-cheap thing to me.  Maybe it's that I just associate their announcers with mid-tier college football too much for them to seem "professional" to me.  It's the guys that do, like, games against FCS teams on the SEC Network or Thursday night ACC games.  But at least some of it's the directive.  This might be a silly complaint and I can't even quite put a finger on what it is, but they're too excitable and too rah rah XFL.  Too much stuff like, if it's a 9 point game late, "this game would be over in the NFL but not in the XFL" that makes the different rules feel gimmicky.  Also, they can f*** off with the constant mention of spreads and over/unders.

That's because they're also acting as pitchmen for the league. Same thing with FOX and the USFL. They're trying to hype it up to attract viewers, when all the while, we want it treated like a legit football league. THAT would be the ultimate sales pitch. One way would be to stop with the damn in-game sideline interviews.  Those are the things that make it feel gimmicky.

[Skycast]

As a legacy USFL fan that graduated high school in 1986 and went to many Tampa Bay Bandits games back in the day I have a strong affinity for the team identities of the league. I watched at least some portion of almost every game in last season and did the same for the XFL reboot this season and am now moving between the two leagues until the XFL wraps up.

 

I gotta say that last season the lack of fans in the stadium for the USFL didn’t really bother me. I totally understand the reason behind the hubs, it makes sense, it’s a move to help the longevity of the league. Great thinking and a great idea…let’s make it last.

 

BUT…after watching, and more appropriately hearing, the XFL games this season the lack of fans and the crowd noise that goes along with that shines a giant beacon on the empty USFL stadiums. At this point I think they need to muddle through this season and if they don’t move all the teams to a home stadium next year it may just be the nail in the coffin.

[Cujo]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

One way would be to stop with the damn in-game sideline interviews.  Those are the things that make it feel gimmicky.

 

The other day during the St. Louis vs Las Vegas game, ESPN split-screened action on the field with a no-name social media influencer FOR THE ENTIRE THIRD QUARTER. The in-booth announcers were more concerned about how he was enjoying the game and his senseless sideline commentary than the game itself. I get it for one or two plays -- but for twenty whole minutes??? Completely killed the game for me. Has to be the worst thing ESPN's done in-game to this point.

[See Red]

4 hours ago, McCall said:

That's because they're also acting as pitchmen for the league. Same thing with FOX and the USFL. They're trying to hype it up to attract viewers, when all the while, we want it treated like a legit football league. THAT would be the ultimate sales pitch. One way would be to stop with the damn in-game sideline interviews.  Those are the things that make it feel gimmicky.

 

I didn't get that feeling from the USFL. Granted, I've only watched three or four games and two had Menefee and Klatt and they're probably the cream of the crop as far as spring football announcers so far. Felt like they referenced different rules, etc. mostly when something that happened on the field needed to be explained, and not really in a this way is better kind of way.  Maybe USFL rules are just more in line with NFL and CFB in general?  I don't know... like I said, I can't quite put a finger on what bothers me about the XFL commentary.

 

I do agree that sideline interviews and lockeroom access and all make it feel gimmicky and really add nothing. I'd say the same about hearing playcalls.  It's fine to have the audio but don't focus on it, don't have Greg McElroy explain the terminology before the play, etc.

 

And you're absolutely right about just treating it like a legitimate football league.  To me, the appeal to these leagues is just more football, so I want rules/presentation/commentary as familiar feeling to the NFL as possible because whatever the NFL does clearly works.  There's things I think most people would like to change about the NFL (make kickoffs relevant again, fix officiating, put a chip in the ball) but beyond those, don't fix what isn't broken (do we really need double forward passes?).  Feel like the USFL does this better.  But also, like I said, the lack of crowds makes it hard to get into.

[Cujo]

Please end this experiment.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

The other day during the St. Louis vs Las Vegas game, ESPN split-screened action on the field with a no-name social media influencer FOR THE ENTIRE THIRD QUARTER. The in-booth announcers were more concerned about how he was enjoying the game and his senseless sideline commentary than the game itself. I get it for one or two plays -- but for twenty whole minutes??? Completely killed the game for me. Has to be the worst thing ESPN's done in-game to this point.

 

That guy, Donald De La Haye, is not a "no-name social media influencer".  He is a former Division I college player.  He's qualified to offer analysis on an XFL game.

 

What's  more, De La Haye's story is worth telling.  He was thown off the UCF team for monetising his "Destroying" YouTube channel.  And now YouTube is his career.  He's the Jomboy of football, except with high-level playing experience.  De La Haye beat the system, and his success is a feel-good success story.

[Cujo]

23 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

That guy, Donald De La Haye, is not a "no-name social media influencer".  He is a former Division I college player.  He's qualified to offer analysis on an XFL game.

 

What's  more, De La Haye's story is worth telling.  He was thown off the UCF team for monetising his "Destroying" YouTube channel.  And now YouTube is his career.  He's the Jomboy of football, except with high-level playing experience.  De La Haye beat the system, and his success is a feel-good success story.

 

Destroyer. Yup, that's who it was.

 

All that stuff you just mentioned about his football background and life story ESPN FAILED TO MENTION ONCE. It really just came off like they were interviewing a dollar store Jake Paul who knew nothing about the sport, just chasing social media views for the XFL. "What's the vibe like on the sidelines?" "Tell us what you're up to" "How about these St. Louis fans!"

 

But in the end, I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Joe Biden: You don't split-screen an interview for an entire quarter of play like that. That was a huge disservice to the fans and the players.

[GDAWG]

Attendance from Canton.  The league has no St. Louis or DC:

 

[McCall]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That guy, Donald De La Haye, is not a "no-name social media influencer".  He is a former Division I college player.  He's qualified to offer analysis on an XFL game.

 

What's  more, De La Haye's story is worth telling.  He was thown off the UCF team for monetising his "Destroying" YouTube channel.  And now YouTube is his career.  He's the Jomboy of football, except with high-level playing experience.  De La Haye beat the system, and his success is a feel-good success story.

All of that doesn’t matter when it interrupts our viewing of the game. THAT’S why we watch football. If he’s acting as a commentator for the game, fine. But if he’s just promoting his channel and they’re talking about other stuff outside of the game we’re watching, it’s nonsense, gimmicky and irrelevant.

[McCall]

Wait, I thought Pittsburgh and New Jersey were the two Canton-based teams. Yet the Michigan-Philadelphia game, evidently the two Detroit-based teams, are also playing their game in Canton. What’s going on? I’m lost.

 

This whole league set-up is one confusing, convoluted mess.

[GDAWG]

2 minutes ago, McCall said:

Wait, I thought Pittsburgh and New Jersey were the two Canton-based teams. Yet the Michigan-Philadelphia game, evidently the two Detroit-based teams, are also playing their game in Canton. What’s going on? I’m lost.

 

This whole league set-up is one confusing, convoluted mess.

 

Luke Combs (Country Music star) concert at Ford Field.  

[Sykotyk]

56 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Attendance from Canton.  The league has no St. Louis or DC:

 

Hey that's me

[Sykotyk]

17 minutes ago, McCall said:

Wait, I thought Pittsburgh and New Jersey were the two Canton-based teams. Yet the Michigan-Philadelphia game, evidently the two Detroit-based teams, are also playing their game in Canton. What’s going on? I’m lost.

 

This whole league set-up is one confusing, convoluted mess.

USFL knew that Detroit wasn't able to host this week and wanted a doubleheader. It's technically a Philly home game. 

[Cujo]

3 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Hey that's me

 

You're at the game?

 

Q: Are they adding artificial crowd noise over the PA speakers? Or is that just for tv?

[GDAWG]

4 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Hey that's me

 

Got that off XFL Board.  

[Sykotyk]

54 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

You're at the game?

 

Q: Are they adding artificial crowd noise over the PA speakers? Or is that just for tv?

No added noise. The fans were vocal but they were individually noticeable.  Like you could see individual shouts. A lot of player families were there.

 

The crowd that was there was into it. But the game was so so bad.