This is the UFL! (XFL/USFL Merger)

[Sec19Row53]

14 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Just throwing out ideas for the UFL to mask the horrendous attendance numbers of Ford Field

How about finding a place that wants to attend? Moving them Western Michigan in hopes that people would make a 2.5 hour drive is stupid. They aren't making that long of a drive now - why would they do it to go someplace else to see them????

 

Seriously - WTF?

[DCarp1231]

14 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

How about finding a place that wants to attend? Moving them Western Michigan in hopes that people would make a 2.5 hour drive is stupid. They aren't making that long of a drive now - why would they do it to go someplace else to see them????

 

Seriously - WTF?

Jeez, you’re super hypercritical of a team based in Detr— oh wait.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Are there no colleges in and around Detroit with stadiums that seat 5000? 

 

That's the kind of place that this team should be looking to rent.

[TheAnt755]

I mean... there's stadium the Keyworth Stadium that is close to Detroit, but it only have almost 8k seats and I honestly don't know they'll allow the Panthers play there.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyworth_Stadium

[Sykotyk]

48 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Are there no colleges in and around Detroit with stadiums that seat 5000? 

 

That's the kind of place that this team should be looking to rent.

Tom Adams Field at Wayne State is just 2.6 miles from Ford Field and holds 6,000. But then you're capped at 6,000 at an outdoor stadium.

 

 

[McCall]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Just throwing out ideas for the UFL to mask the horrendous attendance numbers of Ford Field

By playing in stadiums in random non-markets? What sense does that make? Just because a town has a football stadium doesn’t make it a viable market for professional football. If they can’t succeed at Ford Field, move them out of Michigan altogether to another city.

[McCall]

58 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Are there no colleges in and around Detroit with stadiums that seat 5000? 

 

That's the kind of place that this team should be looking to rent.

If they’re looking for a 5K seat stadium where they’re at, then they need to move to another city because they aren’t succeeding there.

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Jeez, you’re super hypercritical of a team based in Detr— oh wait.

No. I'm supercritical of an idiotic idea.

 

I didn't really expect you to answer the question I asked, but I'll try again. If people in Detroit aren't attending games now, what makes you think moving  them 2.5 hours away will make more of them attend? Remember - that's what you said here:
Would there actually be enough fans willing to make the 2.5-3 hr trek outside of Detroit to see a spring league football game? Enough to fill 1/3 of the stadium?

[DCarp1231]

6 minutes ago, McCall said:

By playing in stadiums in random non-markets? What sense does that make? Just because a town has a football stadium doesn’t make it a viable market for professional football. If they can’t succeed at Ford Field, move them out of Michigan altogether to another city.

Tell that to Houston. A team who has to fight every season apparently to get a home field

[DCarp1231]

2 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

No. I'm supercritical of an idiotic idea.

 

I didn't really expect you to answer the question I asked, but I'll try again. If people in Detroit aren't attending games now, what makes you think moving  them 2.5 hours away will make more of them attend? Remember - that's what you said here:
Would there actually be enough fans willing to make the 2.5-3 hr trek outside of Detroit to see a spring league football game? Enough to fill 1/3 of the stadium?

You probably could’ve said “no.” Sometimes a simple one word response says a million.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

38 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Are there no colleges in and around Detroit with stadiums that seat 5000? 

 

Tom Adams Field at Wayne State is just 2.6 miles from Ford Field and holds 6,000.

 

Perfect. The Panthers should jump on that.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

But then you're capped at 6,000 at an outdoor stadium.

 

That's not a problem. The Panthers can deal with that issue if they ever gets to the point where a 6000-seat stadium is too small.

 

 

39 minutes ago, McCall said:

If they’re looking for a 5K seat stadium where they’re at, then they need to move to another city because they aren’t succeeding there.

 

No way. St. Louis and D.C. are outlier,s. For any other team, filling a 5000-to-6000-seat stadium would be excellent.

 

This league needs to embrace reality. By playing in more appropriately-sized stadiums, the teams would pay a lot less in rent, while presenting a much better-looking spectacle. And, in the unlikely event that one of these stadiums proves to be too small, even that would be a good thing, in terms of creating demand for tickets.

 

If the league were to put a team in New York (I'd prefer it to be either the Hitmen or the Guardians rather than the Generals), it should look into renting Fordham's stadium (7000), or Icahn Stadium on Randall's Island (5000) — or even the stadiums at Wagner College (3000) or at St. John's University (2000).  Again, the key word here is "reality".

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Tell that to Houston. A team who has to fight every season apparently to get a home field

 

They had to go to Rice Stadium because TDECU Stadium on the University of Houston, was undergoing major renovations.  They plan on being back there in 2025.

[McCall]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Perfect. The Panthers should jump on that.

 

 

 

That's not a problem. The Panthers can deal with that issue if they ever gets to the point where a 6000-seat stadium is too small.

 

 

 

No way. St. Louis and D.C. are outlier,s. For any other team, filling a 5000-to-6000-seat stadium would be excellent.

 

This league needs to embrace reality. By playing in more appropriately-sized stadiums, the teams would pay a lot less in rent, while presenting a much better-looking spectacle. And, in the unlikely event that one of these stadiums proves to be too small, even that would be a good thing, in terms of creating demand for tickets.

 

If the league were to put a team in New York (I'd prefer it to be either the Hitmen or the Guardians rather than the Generals), it should look into renting Fordham's stadium (7000), or Icahn Stadium on Randall's Island (5000) — or even the stadiums at Wagner College (3000) or at St. John's University (2000).  Again, the key word here is "reality".

The XFL last year had only 2 teams average below 12k per game (one of them was Vegas playing in a dump of a stadium at your recommended smaller capacity). This league can easily get in at least the 15k if in the proper markets. Y'all are the same ones saying "one season isn't enough to decide to relocate these teams drawing poorly", yet seem to think it's a good enough barometer to decide the that this league should be settling for 6k-capacity stadiums.

[McCall]

9 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Tell that to Houston. A team who has to fight every season apparently to get a home field

Research is a wonderful tool, my friend.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

The XFL last year had only 2 teams average below 12k per game (one of them was Vegas playing in a dump of a stadium at your recommended smaller capacity). This league can easily get in at least the 15k if in the proper markets. Y'all are the same ones saying "one season isn't enough to decide to relocate these teams drawing poorly", yet seem to think it's a good enough barometer to decide the that this league should be settling for 6k-capacity stadiums.

 

There is no downside to aiming low. If a 5000-seat or 6000-seat stadium proves too small, then the league gets the PR benefit of reporting sellouts.

 

That makes more sense than paying exhorbident rental fees for stadiums that the teams cannot possibly fill, while at the same time degrading the televised product.

[McCall]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

There is no downside to aiming low. If a 5000-seat or 6000-seat stadium proves too small, then the league gets the PR benefit of reporting sellouts.

 

That makes more sense than paying exhorbident rental fees for stadiums that the teams cannot possibly fill, while at the same time degrading the televised product.

"Selling out". A 6k-seat stadium. 

 

Or just put them in markets that may be more successful. When you put them in small capacity stadiums with no other option around, you're conceding that this market does not have what it takes to support a team in this league. At that point you look to other markets. Not try and change the optics to fool people into thinking it's successful. Like how Arlington fooled you into thinking the 'DR' logo was the better helmet option and now you defend it mercilessly, when everybody else knows it's crap, just because you can't be wrong. If they're wrong on some of these markets, they need to own it and fix it, not cover it up.

[MJWalker45]

17 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Would there actually be enough fans willing to make the 2.5-3 hr trek outside of Detroit to see a spring league football game? Enough to fill 1/3 of the stadium?

I think they want to keep the team as close to the center of Detroit as possible because they don't see this as viable. Unless they did research that says a move here will be worth the loss of access to Detroit is worth the cost, they probably won't consider either of these. 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

27 minutes ago, McCall said:

38 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

There is no downside to aiming low. If a 5000-seat or 6000-seat stadium proves too small, then the league gets the PR benefit of reporting sellouts.

 

That makes more sense than paying exhorbident rental fees for stadiums that the teams cannot possibly fill, while at the same time degrading the televised product.

"Selling out". A 6k-seat stadium. 

 

Selling out a 6000-seat stadium would be a worthy accomplishment in any minor league in any city. Equally important, it would look very good on television.

 

Having those sellouts would justify moving up to the next level of stadium. Skipping this step is folly; worse, it's expensive folly, in terms both of wasted rental fees and of damaged public perception.

 

 

27 minutes ago, McCall said:

Like how Arlington fooled you into thinking the 'DR' logo was the better helmet option and now you defend it mercilessly, when everybody else knows it's crap, just because you can't be wrong.

 

The Renegades' R logo is beautiful; moreover, it makes for a great helmet logo in a sport that has far too few letter-based logos.  Memphis should take note, and swap the aesthetically pleasing M logo that it currently relegates to the sleeve with that incongruous speedboat thing that replaced the wonderful old riverboat on the helmet.

 

Also, as has been pointed out many (many!) times, the Renegades' logo is clearly not a "DR" because that logo did not even exist at the time when the team was called the Dallas Renegades.

 

Finally, I can definitely be wrong, for example, in my estimation of the intelligence — not to mention the intellectual honesty — of certain people.

[McCall]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Selling out a 6000-seat stadium would be a worthy accomplishment in any minor league in any city. Equally important, it would look very good on television.

 

Having those sellouts would justify moving up to the next level of stadium. Skipping this step is folly; worse, it's expensive folly, in terms both of wasted rental fees and of damaged public perception.

 

 

 

The Renegades' R logo is beautiful; moreover, it makes for a great helmet logo in a sport that has far too few letter-based logos.  Memphis should take note, and swap the aesthetically pleasing M logo that it currently relegates to the sleeve with that incongruous speedboat thing that replaced the wonderful old riverboat on the helmet.

 

Also, as has been pointed out many (many!) times, the Renegades' logo is clearly not a "DR" because that logo did not even exist at the time when the team was called the Dallas Renegades.

 

Finally, I can definitely be wrong, for example, in my estimation of the intelligence — not to mention the intellectual honesty — of certain people.

So you think this league can be successful purely on perception rather than practice? This renders any other opinion you just made moot. But if you can't see the 'DR', that's on you. Whether it was released in 2020 or not, that was designed for the DALLAS Renegades, not Arlington.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 minutes ago, McCall said:

So you think this league can be successful purely on perception rather than practice?

 

A full smaller stadium is not merely perception; it is a significant contributing factor to the quality of the broadcast presentation. The league can be successful if its television ratings can continue to attract sponsorships, and if those ratings allow the league to continue to sell its television rights to major networks. Revenue from attendance is unimportant by comparison.

 

 

16 minutes ago, McCall said:

Whether it [the Renegades' current logo] was released in 2020 or not, that was designed for the DALLAS Renegades, not Arlington.

 

No, it emphatically was not. If that R logo had been a "DR" designed for the Dallas Renegades, then that logo would have been used by the Dallas Renegades.  However, by the time that R logo came into existence, the name Dallas Renegades was gone, and there was thus no need for any "DR" logo. Kindly stop railing against objective reality.