This is the UFL! (XFL/USFL Merger)

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

A Tom Brady owned Panthers team just might be the push the franchise needs to get good attendance numbers

Explain that logic. Why would people who don't attend the Panthers now suddenly attend because the owner went to UM?

 

Why do you think people attend games? How far down the list (or in this case, up on the list) do you think the owner is?

[GDAWG]

So apparently Tom Brady was there to do a practice run with Kevin Burkhardt.  

[DCarp1231]

23 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Explain that logic. Why would people who don't attend the Panthers now suddenly attend because the owner went to UM?

 

Why do you think people attend games? How far down the list (or in this case, up on the list) do you think the owner is?

Unfortunately for you, it’s not that serious.

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Unfortunately for you, it’s not that serious.

Thanks - I missed your sarcasm. I guess when I see somebody putting forth an idea, I assume they actually think it's an idea.

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Explain that logic. Why would people who don't attend the Panthers now suddenly attend because the owner went to UM?

 

Why do you think people attend games? How far down the list (or in this case, up on the list) do you think the owner is?

"Legitimacy". People are lemmings who follow the crowd. There's a reason 'celebrities' and 'influencers' are a thing.

 

There's a reason 3 million people follow Tom Brady on Twitter and 14.9 million on Instagram.

 

And it's not because he posts a lot of insightful things for his followers.

[Sec19Row53]

12 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

"Legitimacy". People are lemmings who follow the crowd. There's a reason 'celebrities' and 'influencers' are a thing.

 

There's a reason 3 million people follow Tom Brady on Twitter and 14.9 million on Instagram.

 

And it's not because he posts a lot of insightful things for his followers.

How many of those people would go to a football game because he's the owner? How many of them are near enough to do so?

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

How many of those people would go to a football game because he's the owner? How many of them are near enough to do so?

You don't think more people would even be aware such a team even exists?  And a few of them might go to a game? You think there was no reason The Rock was the face of the XFL last year and not Gerry Cardinale?

[GDAWG]

 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

You don't think more people would even be aware such a team even exists?  And a few of them might go to a game? You think there was no reason The Rock was the face of the XFL last year and not Gerry Cardinale?

The Rock was the face of it because he invested in it. Do I think his presence made a difference in attendance? Only slightly.  I mean, look at the numbers. What did it matter? He's likely a bigger star given Hollywood than Brady is. So what sort of attendance bump do you get from Brady as owner.

 

 

You said it yourself - maybe a few more would attend. That's not enough.

[Red Comet]

 

[DCarp1231]

Do we think the league expected the playoff teams to clinch so early? Especially Birmingham?

[MJWalker45]

4 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

How many of those people would go to a football game because he's the owner? How many of them are near enough to do so?

Probably more than go to games hoping the Rock will show up. And there are a few folks that still do that. I think a valid comparison would be Wrexham. I'm sure some people people don't even bother going to see the team, they're hoping to see Ryan Reynolds. 

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

The Rock was the face of it because he invested in it. Do I think his presence made a difference in attendance? Only slightly.  I mean, look at the numbers. What did it matter? He's likely a bigger star given Hollywood than Brady is. So what sort of attendance bump do you get from Brady as owner.

 

 

You said it yourself - maybe a few more would attend. That's not enough.

So, why not the other two primary (and larger) investors being the face instead of the third wheel smallest investor of the three? Oh, it's because he's well known and has fans already who will get their league in front of their faces if only because they follow him on social media. Nobody follows the other guy. Oh wow, he runs an investment firm. I'm sure the groupies go crazy for him.

 

And 'few' was being facetious. 3 million on Twitter, almost 15 million on IG. You think ESPN and local media aren't going to follow him? You think Colorado got a lot of attention because the nation felt they were going to be one of the top teams in college football? No. It was Deion that drew the attention.

 

[TheAnt755]

11 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

A Tom Brady owned Panthers team just might be the push the franchise needs to get good attendance numbers

That could be interesting...

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Do we think the league expected the playoff teams to clinch so early? Especially Birmingham?

This early, probably not. One of the flaws with the 8-team, 2-division setup is that you can get teams eliminated (or clinched) and make the later rounds uninteresting.

 

I still think if not for the USFL/XFL rivalry for the division setup, these spring leagues need to ditch the divisions and go with one 8-team field and take the top four. You don't need to have a balanced schedule. Keep the schedules the same if they want. The only game that really matters now is STL-SA in Week 10 and that just determines who hosts the same matchup the very next week.

 

Birmingham (8-0) (@ SA W9, v. MICH W10)

Michigan (6-2) (1-1, @ Birmingham W10)

St. Louis (6-2) (1-1, v. SA W10)

San Antonio (6-2) (1-1, v. BIR W9, @  STL W10)

-----

DC (3-5)

Houston (1-7)

Memphis (1-7)

Arlington (1-7)

 

In the current setup, Birmingham's W9 game matters for just Birmingham. If they win, it makes Michigan's game on Sunday meaningless. If Birmingham wins, it doesn't affect San Antonio.

 

If Birmingham loses to San Antonio, it doesn't matter if STL wins or loses. Because the winner in Week 10 wins the XFL Division. And if Birmingham does lose, it setups up the Week 10 matchup, that if Michigan were to win after winning in Week 9, for both teams to finish 1-1 head-to-head and 5-1 in conference games. Next tie-breaker will be Strength of Victory.  Both teams have the same schedule and if they finish 8-2 would have the same opponent wins in the 1-1 head-to-head matchup. They both would have lost to the other, and both would have lost to San Antonio.

 

Next tie-breaker is net points in all games among conference teams. Birmingham is +93, Michigan is +36.  Birmingham would drop a minimum of 2, Michigan rises a minimum of 2. That means in the two games Michigan has to make up 53 more points. Including the head-to-head game.  Even if Michigan wins by 20 and Birmingham were to lose by 20 in Week 9, Michigan still would need to beat Birmingham by 9 to take the tie-breaker.

 

So, that Week 10 game would just be deciding who hosts the very next week even if Michigan can pull that type of point-diff comeback.

 

Under the 8-team setup, Birmingham and San Antonio have a lot to play for in Week 9. Neither can really afford to take the loss. In Week 10, the MICH-BIR and SA-STL games would be huge for seeding and not necessarily be previews of Week 11 matchups that set who hosts where.

[DCarp1231]

Surely if and when the league expands to 10 teams, they’ll have the Top 3 in each division go to the playoffs with the 1-seed getting a bye.

[Sykotyk]

12 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Surely if and when the league expands to 10 teams, they’ll have the Top 3 in each division go to the playoffs with the 1-seed getting a bye.

I was hoping they'd have 10 if only to break the monotony of every league since XFL 2001 seeming to love the 8-team, 2-division setup so-much. They could've gone the CFL route and have the 3v2 semifinal. But it almost feels like they're just trying to get the playoffs over with as fast as possible.

[MJWalker45]

8 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

I was hoping they'd have 10 if only to break the monotony of every league since XFL 2001 seeming to love the 8-team, 2-division setup so-much. They could've gone the CFL route and have the 3v2 semifinal. But it almost feels like they're just trying to get the playoffs over with as fast as possible.

I think they don't have access to the stadiums past a certain point. I also think league size determines how many playoff teams you go with. It's why NFL Europe went straight to the championship game when they had 6 teams involved. 

8 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

This early, probably not. One of the flaws with the 8-team, 2-division setup is that you can get teams eliminated (or clinched) and make the later rounds uninteresting.

 

I still think if not for the USFL/XFL rivalry for the division setup, these spring leagues need to ditch the divisions and go with one 8-team field and take the top four. You don't need to have a balanced schedule. Keep the schedules the same if they want. The only game that really matters now is STL-SA in Week 10 and that just determines who hosts the same matchup the very next week.

 

Birmingham (8-0) (@ SA W9, v. MICH W10)

Michigan (6-2) (1-1, @ Birmingham W10)

St. Louis (6-2) (1-1, v. SA W10)

San Antonio (6-2) (1-1, v. BIR W9, @  STL W10)

-----

DC (3-5)

Houston (1-7)

Memphis (1-7)

Arlington (1-7)

 

In the current setup, Birmingham's W9 game matters for just Birmingham. If they win, it makes Michigan's game on Sunday meaningless. If Birmingham wins, it doesn't affect San Antonio.

 

If Birmingham loses to San Antonio, it doesn't matter if STL wins or loses. Because the winner in Week 10 wins the XFL Division. And if Birmingham does lose, it setups up the Week 10 matchup, that if Michigan were to win after winning in Week 9, for both teams to finish 1-1 head-to-head and 5-1 in conference games. Next tie-breaker will be Strength of Victory.  Both teams have the same schedule and if they finish 8-2 would have the same opponent wins in the 1-1 head-to-head matchup. They both would have lost to the other, and both would have lost to San Antonio.

 

Next tie-breaker is net points in all games among conference teams. Birmingham is +93, Michigan is +36.  Birmingham would drop a minimum of 2, Michigan rises a minimum of 2. That means in the two games Michigan has to make up 53 more points. Including the head-to-head game.  Even if Michigan wins by 20 and Birmingham were to lose by 20 in Week 9, Michigan still would need to beat Birmingham by 9 to take the tie-breaker.

 

So, that Week 10 game would just be deciding who hosts the very next week even if Michigan can pull that type of point-diff comeback.

 

Under the 8-team setup, Birmingham and San Antonio have a lot to play for in Week 9. Neither can really afford to take the loss. In Week 10, the MICH-BIR and SA-STL games would be huge for seeding and not necessarily be previews of Week 11 matchups that set who hosts where.

I believe Michigan - Birmingham is already locked in at Birmingham due to field availability, so that Week 10 game could be a dud. 

[Sykotyk]

39 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I think they don't have access to the stadiums past a certain point. I also think league size determines how many playoff teams you go with. It's why NFL Europe went straight to the championship game when they had 6 teams involved. 

I believe Michigan - Birmingham is already locked in at Birmingham due to field availability, so that Week 10 game could be a dud. 

That's tough. 

 

That's one reason the XFL 2001 crossover  was a good idea. Helped avoid a late season rematch. And whatever game it is was only the second time they played. It back fired when the Demons upset the Rage and had the Million Dolllar Game held at LA Coliseum. 

[burgundy]

15 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

You said it yourself - maybe a few more would attend. That's not enough.

 

So what is "enough", and why is minor league football expected to draw so many more people than other minor league sports? The league-wide attendance average for the AHL this past season was 5,920, and that was a record high. The top team, Cleveland, averaged 10,347. For baseball, the IL averaged 6,061 and the PCL averaged 5,762, with their top teams averaging 7,990 and 7,048 respectively.

 

So while Michigan's numbers could certainly be better, it seems pretty in line with minor league attendance numbers.