olivier in france

UFL team logos?

Recommended Posts

This league does have a legitimate chance in being successful . I understand if they stay around for at least 3 seasons they are back at even in making up for their starting losses. The approach the UFL has is being very smart about things , learning from past miscues and starting small to grow bigger unlike the XFL, and USFL that grew far to fast or tried to make to much of a change to the game of football ( plus adding a blend of WWE) it got a stigma and they couldn't work, or just simply trying to take on the NFL head to head can really not be done anymore, the UFL realizes this and is in a way working with them , along with helping themselves . But they really need a better TV contract then Versus to really be a marketable brand, I guess we will just wait and see.

Has the fact that they are playing a fall schedule registered with you? That pretty much means they are taking on the NFL head to head.

Has the fact that they pretty much confirmed they are not going for top talent (read: NFL caliber) and early on started courting the NFL as a partner to become a feeder league registered with you? One has to be pretty dense to assume that any league that *gasp* plays in the Fall is trying to compete with the NFL. I guess by your logic, College and High School football are also trying to compete with the NFL.

To Claystation: I think the Versus contract is pretty solid for an untested brand-spanking new league. Remember, the NHL also has a tv deal with them. It's not like they're televising games on some obscure network. Sure, it doesn't carry the same weight as ESPN, but for a second tier fledgling league, it's a good deal.

Michael Vick's NFL caliber talent...

not any more and he goes to the league by default

he doesnt have to sign with them but if he wants to he can

OK...Vick may have lost a step. Vick may not command top dollar. He may not be a good quarterback. But...setting aside the "pariah" issue, he would be a perfectly good running back in the NFL today. Indeed, the "pariah" issue is pretty much the only reason he isn't on a NFL roster at the moment.

/Would a "minor/developmental" league stick teams in New York and Los Angeles? At least one with any brains?

he would never have any success at runningback in the nfl

first off he is too skinny to be a nfl running back and anyways his running style isnt that of a runningback

Ummm....6 ft, 215 lbs. Sounds right to me for a Tailback. Also running style can be correctable, especially if he is playing the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as a response about the UFL playing a fall schedule, They are doing so without playing on sundays and going after major collegiate players, not playing in NFL stadiums or trying to redefine the game of football like failed leagues before.

Now don't read to far into it I know the AFL was able to do that but that was a different time and era , the post merger NFL is a juggernaut that can really not be challenged head to head anymore. ( ask WFL, USFL, XFL, ) It's not all about playing in the spring or the fall or how many Leagues can put a team in the same city . We need a more modernized minor or developmental which from the way they are set up and the fact they want to put teams in Non NFL cities will be a change and something to look forward to as long as they know their place. As for Versus , I really have no problem with them being on Vs I just don't know how many how holds carry the channel . I have it I have direc TV , that still doesnt mean someone on ATT or Time Warner or Comcast will have it , my point is they could run into the NFLN problem, from a National network stand point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as a response about the UFL playing a fall schedule, They are doing so without playing on sundays and going after major collegiate players, not playing in NFL stadiums or trying to redefine the game of football like failed leagues before.

Now don't read to far into it I know the AFL was able to do that but that was a different time and era , the post merger NFL is a juggernaut that can really not be challenged head to head anymore. ( ask WFL, USFL, XFL, ) It's not all about playing in the spring or the fall or how many Leagues can put a team in the same city . We need a more modernized minor or developmental which from the way they are set up and the fact they want to put teams in Non NFL cities will be a change and something to look forward to as long as they know their place. As for Versus , I really have no problem with them being on Vs I just don't know how many how holds carry the channel . I have it I have direc TV , that still doesnt mean someone on ATT or Time Warner or Comcast will have it , my point is they could run into the NFLN problem, from a National network stand point.

When did the Jets, Giants, and 49ers move? :blink:

People with Comcast have Versus. Unfortunately, Comcast's advertising is such that people with Comcast as their provider may not realize they have Versus for many months. Such as moi. (They've been my provider since August, only realized I have Versus in April.)

The NFL has a perfectly fine developmental system. It's called NCAA Division I. Indeed, they already have teams playing full fall schedules in Hartford, Orlando, and Las Vegas, as well more than 100 other locations in the top flight alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as a response about the UFL playing a fall schedule, They are doing so without playing on sundays and going after major collegiate players, not playing in NFL stadiums or trying to redefine the game of football like failed leagues before.

Now don't read to far into it I know the AFL was able to do that but that was a different time and era , the post merger NFL is a juggernaut that can really not be challenged head to head anymore. ( ask WFL, USFL, XFL, ) It's not all about playing in the spring or the fall or how many Leagues can put a team in the same city . We need a more modernized minor or developmental which from the way they are set up and the fact they want to put teams in Non NFL cities will be a change and something to look forward to as long as they know their place. As for Versus , I really have no problem with them being on Vs I just don't know how many how holds carry the channel . I have it I have direc TV , that still doesnt mean someone on ATT or Time Warner or Comcast will have it , my point is they could run into the NFLN problem, from a National network stand point.

When did the Jets, Giants, and 49ers move? :blink:

People with Comcast have Versus. Unfortunately, Comcast's advertising is such that people with Comcast as their provider may not realize they have Versus for many months. Such as moi. (They've been my provider since August, only realized I have Versus in April.)

The NFL has a perfectly fine developmental system. It's called NCAA Division I. Indeed, they already have teams playing full fall schedules in Hartford, Orlando, and Las Vegas, as well more than 100 other locations in the top flight alone.

Correct me if im wrong but isnt Versus owned by Comcast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as a response about the UFL playing a fall schedule, They are doing so without playing on sundays and going after major collegiate players, not playing in NFL stadiums or trying to redefine the game of football like failed leagues before.

Now don't read to far into it I know the AFL was able to do that but that was a different time and era , the post merger NFL is a juggernaut that can really not be challenged head to head anymore. ( ask WFL, USFL, XFL, ) It's not all about playing in the spring or the fall or how many Leagues can put a team in the same city . We need a more modernized minor or developmental which from the way they are set up and the fact they want to put teams in Non NFL cities will be a change and something to look forward to as long as they know their place. As for Versus , I really have no problem with them being on Vs I just don't know how many how holds carry the channel . I have it I have direc TV , that still doesnt mean someone on ATT or Time Warner or Comcast will have it , my point is they could run into the NFLN problem, from a National network stand point.

When did the Jets, Giants, and 49ers move? :blink:

People with Comcast have Versus. Unfortunately, Comcast's advertising is such that people with Comcast as their provider may not realize they have Versus for many months. Such as moi. (They've been my provider since August, only realized I have Versus in April.)

The NFL has a perfectly fine developmental system. It's called NCAA Division I. Indeed, they already have teams playing full fall schedules in Hartford, Orlando, and Las Vegas, as well more than 100 other locations in the top flight alone.

Correct me if im wrong but isnt Versus owned by Comcast?

Yes. Which makes that channel's plight all the more unpleasantly pitiful. It took a wikipedia search of the channel to realize this, and then a process of experimentation to learn if I actually had it in my package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jets /Giants & 49ers have not moved but the NY NFL teams play in jersey as the Niners of course play in monster park. But the last I knew UFL New York is supposed to play at Citi field , they are actually football in NYC and UFL San Francisco will play at AT&T park so they are not going to be playing in NFL stadiums .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jets /Giants & 49ers have not moved but the NY NFL teams play in jersey as the Niners of course play in monster park. But the last I knew UFL New York is supposed to play at Citi field , they are actually football in NYC and UFL San Francisco will play at AT&T park so they are not going to be playing in NFL stadiums .

But these are NFL markets. Which is not a good idea n'est-ce pas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as a response about the UFL playing a fall schedule, They are doing so without playing on sundays and going after major collegiate players, not playing in NFL stadiums or trying to redefine the game of football like failed leagues before.

Now don't read to far into it I know the AFL was able to do that but that was a different time and era , the post merger NFL is a juggernaut that can really not be challenged head to head anymore. ( ask WFL, USFL, XFL, ) It's not all about playing in the spring or the fall or how many Leagues can put a team in the same city . We need a more modernized minor or developmental which from the way they are set up and the fact they want to put teams in Non NFL cities will be a change and something to look forward to as long as they know their place. As for Versus , I really have no problem with them being on Vs I just don't know how many how holds carry the channel . I have it I have direc TV , that still doesnt mean someone on ATT or Time Warner or Comcast will have it , my point is they could run into the NFLN problem, from a National network stand point.

When did the Jets, Giants, and 49ers move? :blink:

People with Comcast have Versus. Unfortunately, Comcast's advertising is such that people with Comcast as their provider may not realize they have Versus for many months. Such as moi. (They've been my provider since August, only realized I have Versus in April.)

The NFL has a perfectly fine developmental system. It's called NCAA Division I. Indeed, they already have teams playing full fall schedules in Hartford, Orlando, and Las Vegas, as well more than 100 other locations in the top flight alone.

Not to pick nits, but the Jets and Giants play in Joisey. The UFL New York team will most likely play in CitiField (I believe they also mentioned Yankee Stadium as a possibility, but I doubt they'd have the cash to lease there). I'll give you San Fran, but that's the only UFL market that currently has an NFL team.

Witty comment about the NFL's development system, but this isn't about what's good for the NFL, it's about why the UFL has a chance to succeed (as long as it doesn't get USFL delusions of grandeur syndrome and switches focus). And furthermore, the NCAA doesn't even benefit the NFL financially because it doesn't receive any revenue from it. Now, a joint venture with the UFL could prove to be profitable.

P.S. Cablevision subscribers get Versus too. So that's two major cable provider plus a satellite provider that offer the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1. Not to pick nits, but Giants Stadium is closer to Manhattan than Citi Field, at least according to Mapquest :blink:

Point 2. Did the NFL benefit financially from NFL Europe or the World League of American Football? More importantly, did they benefit financially from their attempted partnership with the Arena League? Sure the NCAA doesn't generate revenue for the NFL, but it doesn't cost them or their ownership groups a dime either. You can't say the same about the above examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed , But it NFL Europe expanded the development of the 2nd & 3rd String giving the NFL more experience at lower depths which it helped in a age of the NFL's talent pool being depleted with 4 expansion teams in less then 10 years. That may not seem like alot but you have a space for 212 players opened up and it really effected the depth at some positions . NFLE and Arena helped that out , not financially , but with more players getting playing time then they normally would, I know Im saying this the best but i think you should get the idea of what Im saying . As for the UFL NYC team and UFL SF , i agree they are in NFL markets , but logically they must have a team in a major city ( which most of all are now NFL Cities) to survive , I really don't see San Franisco over LA or some of the other cities out there but I really doubt the Jets or Giants will see this New York team as a threat , Same goes for SF .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL won't be expanding for awhile, so that talent depletion issue should not need to be addressed. Besides, if the NFL goes capless, the franchises that call the shots in the league will not have to worry about depth for awhile, and the ones that will....don't call the shots. (If you know what I mean.) On the other hand though, I don't think the NFL got enough players out of NFL Europe or the AFL to justify the financial loss. It may help you catch one or two "leakers" or "late bloomers", but are those players good enough to justify the continued expenditure.

The fall schedule also hurts for development; the season isn't long enough for young players to learn two different seasons and contribute at the same time. This also ignores the injury risk; if the young player goes down in the fall, he's done for the NFL season as well-if he goes down in the spring, there's time for them to heal. If you want to be a pure developmental league, you must play in the spring.

I agree they don't threaten the NFL teams. Conversely, however, the NFL teams very much pose existential threats to the UFL teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article yesterday about the UFL: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2009-07-12-ufl_N.htm

With no arena league around, there is a wealth of legit talent available for the league that should help its profile. People keep ragging on their decision to play in the fall but my question to them is why is the spring so much better? Is there any anecdotal evidence that spring leagues are better off. It's not like the USFL, XFL or Arena leagues are still around, they all played in spring. If you look at how college football on TV has developed it has gone from games only on Saturdays to games on Sat. and Thur to now where late in the season games are on virtually every day of the week and people tune in. My point with this is the UFL will supplement NFL during the week when no games are going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While its true that leagues have failed that have played in the spring, that doesn't mean it is better to start in the fall... simple logic indicates that if you are starting a league and intending to compete with a very successful, established league, you are setting yourself up to fail. Which is why they are probably trying to position themselves as a "farm" league for the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This league does have a legitimate chance in being successful . I understand if they stay around for at least 3 seasons they are back at even in making up for their starting losses. The approach the UFL has is being very smart about things , learning from past miscues and starting small to grow bigger unlike the XFL, and USFL that grew far to fast or tried to make to much of a change to the game of football ( plus adding a blend of WWE) it got a stigma and they couldn't work, or just simply trying to take on the NFL head to head can really not be done anymore, the UFL realizes this and is in a way working with them , along with helping themselves . But they really need a better TV contract then Versus to really be a marketable brand, I guess we will just wait and see.

Has the fact that they are playing a fall schedule registered with you? That pretty much means they are taking on the NFL head to head.

Has the fact that they pretty much confirmed they are not going for top talent (read: NFL caliber) and early on started courting the NFL as a partner to become a feeder league registered with you? One has to be pretty dense to assume that any league that *gasp* plays in the Fall is trying to compete with the NFL. I guess by your logic, College and High School football are also trying to compete with the NFL.

To Claystation: I think the Versus contract is pretty solid for an untested brand-spanking new league. Remember, the NHL also has a tv deal with them. It's not like they're televising games on some obscure network. Sure, it doesn't carry the same weight as ESPN, but for a second tier fledgling league, it's a good deal.

Michael Vick's NFL caliber talent...

not any more and he goes to the league by default

he doesnt have to sign with them but if he wants to he can

OK...Vick may have lost a step. Vick may not command top dollar. He may not be a good quarterback. But...setting aside the "pariah" issue, he would be a perfectly good running back in the NFL today. Indeed, the "pariah" issue is pretty much the only reason he isn't on a NFL roster at the moment.

/Would a "minor/developmental" league stick teams in New York and Los Angeles? At least one with any brains?

he would never have any success at runningback in the nfl

first off he is too skinny to be a nfl running back and anyways his running style isnt that of a runningback

Ummm....6 ft, 215 lbs. Sounds right to me for a Tailback. Also running style can be correctable, especially if he is playing the position.

I will tell you right now, Vick is too fragile and too fumbleitis-afflicted to be a running back ANYWHERE. There have been numerous situations where he'd be running with the ball and fumble for no apparent reason. Vick would be a disaster at RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Article yesterday about the UFL: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2009-07-12-ufl_N.htm

With no arena league around, there is a wealth of legit talent available for the league that should help its profile. People keep ragging on their decision to play in the fall but my question to them is why is the spring so much better? Is there any anecdotal evidence that spring leagues are better off. It's not like the USFL, XFL or Arena leagues are still around, they all played in spring. If you look at how college football on TV has developed it has gone from games only on Saturdays to games on Sat. and Thur to now where late in the season games are on virtually every day of the week and people tune in. My point with this is the UFL will supplement NFL during the week when no games are going on.

Except, as you yourself just admitted, games are going on. Typically on a cable sports network that more people get than Versus. For a variety of reasons you're not going to get this "large" fanbase to tune in. Indeed, banking on midweek TV numbers is a fool's errand. There is not enough of a qualitative difference on the field (both are minor leagues) to overcome ESPN's presence. Also, there just aren't enough degenerate (and I include myself in this category) sports fans who will simply watch a low-level football game in the middle of the week because it's football and it's on.

As for talent....ummm...a decent chunk of the football fanbase doesn't consider the AFL's talent to be "legit." That is one of many reasons why there was no AFL season this year.

--------------------------------------------

Flame....it figures that he never had one of those games against the Rams. <_< You make it sound like he's Tony Banks 2.0 or something though, was he really that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flame....it figures that he never had one of those games against the Rams. <_< You make it sound like he's Tony Banks 2.0 or something though, was he really that bad?

There were definitely some times when he'd make me go crazy due to some erratic decision making and the aforementioned fumbleitis. He'd put the ball down and juke his way into sacks or tackles, he'd fumble with nobody within a 5 yard radius (one game I remember was against the Browns a few seasons ago. Vick fumbles after the gust of someone running by hits him, loses his helmet, FIXES HIS DU-RAG, and luckily a Falcons lineman recovers it. I may be exaggerating about the du-rag part, but he definitely took his time getting back up.), or pull up lame while running and miss a few plays.

He was great for the Falcons and at the time I wouldn't have had any other QB play for the Falcons because of his enormous ceiling of potential back then, but watching him run the ball for all of his career so far, it'd be a miracle if he were to ever switch to RB. I'd give him a much better chance at WR simply because he has the speed and moves to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fall schedule also hurts for development; the season isn't long enough for young players to learn two different seasons and contribute at the same time. This also ignores the injury risk; if the young player goes down in the fall, he's done for the NFL season as well-if he goes down in the spring, there's time for them to heal. If you want to be a pure developmental league, you must play in the spring.

I don't see how having a player play a full season in the spring and then immediately thrown into NFL off-season workouts without having time to rest and heal would be better than having them play in the fall, get a proper offseason and join the workouts on the same page physically as the rest of the team.

By your logic MiLB should play in the winter and the AHL should play in the summer.

Also, there just aren't enough degenerate (and I include myself in this category) sports fans who will simply watch a low-level football game in the middle of the week because it's football and it's on.

You clearly haven't watched some of the games ESPN shows during the week. There must be enough people who do for them to bother broadcasting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fall schedule also hurts for development; the season isn't long enough for young players to learn two different seasons and contribute at the same time. This also ignores the injury risk; if the young player goes down in the fall, he's done for the NFL season as well-if he goes down in the spring, there's time for them to heal. If you want to be a pure developmental league, you must play in the spring.

I don't see how having a player play a full season in the spring and then immediately thrown into NFL off-season workouts without having time to rest and heal would be better than having them play in the fall, get a proper offseason and join the workouts on the same page physically as the rest of the team.

By your logic MiLB should play in the winter and the AHL should play in the summer.

Point 1. Baseball and hockey careers, on average, are longer than football careers. It's not really worth it to sacrifice an entire year in the "minors" on the hopes that they become a depth player in football. It is, however, more worthwhile in hockey because even if the entire year is spent down there, they have a lengthy career to look forward to.

Point 2. Baseball and hockey season are much longer than football season, permitting greater time for a player to develop and be called up at various points throughout the year. The NFL season's 4 months, and the UFL chews up a big chunk of that concurrently. Rookies just won't have the time to adapt to the NFL.

Point 3. Baseball and hockey have (pretty much) one parent for each affiliate minor league team. That allows the team to directly control the instruction, playing time, and development of each player, as well as ensures that they know the parent's playbook and playing style and can immediately contribute if called up. The UFL as currently constituted does not. Which means the NFL parent has no control over playing time, training, and development. The player might as well be lost for the season because he has to learn another playing system before being able to contribute in the NFL. Conversely if these guys are on your practice squad, that control once again exists.

Also, there just aren't enough degenerate (and I include myself in this category) sports fans who will simply watch a low-level football game in the middle of the week because it's football and it's on.

You clearly haven't watched some of the games ESPN shows during the week. There must be enough people who do for them to bother broadcasting them.

I just admitted to falling into the category of "degenerate sports fan who will watch a low-level football game in the middle of the week because it's football and it's on." Damn near all of their games were on in my apartment last fall. I also know that there aren't many of us, because in order to hit this level, you have to be excessively introverted/borderline-past borderline Aspie and don't feel compelled to sleep. I have been informed repeatedly that my behavior is abnormal, and I'm inclined to believe that.

As for why ESPN shows the games in the first place...the alternatives are Poker, the MLS, or some fringe sport that nobody even cares about. Or Sportscenter I guess. (In other words, they show football by default.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be one of those jerks who watches it just because it's football and it's on. At least you're not alone, Rammie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll be one of those jerks who watches it just because it's football and it's on. At least you're not alone, Rammie.

Same here. I will watch a random ass college football game between two barely FBS teams on Wednesday night just because it's college football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.