ESPN "30 FOR 30" Series

[Saintsfan]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

[leopard88]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

[Saintsfan]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

[Sodboy13]

The XFL failed because the games were bad, Vince marketed it as Smashmouth football and it was anything but. The quailty of play was bad, some of the rules were silly like no kickoff, and that dash for the ball seemed to get someone injured every week, and the mixture of WWE style nicknames did not mixwell with the regimented style of traditional football.

Once again, perception is trumping reality.

- A player was injured on the first-ever dash for the ball. That was enough to create the perception of "players constantly getting hurt doing this." It was also, to my knowledge, the only time it happened.

- There were all kinds of kickoffs in the XFL. Starting the game, after a score, starting the second half, just like "regular" football.

- You are correct on the "Smashmouth" problem. The "No Fair Catches" rule was hyped heavily, but no one bothered to mention the accompanying 5-yard Halo rule until it came into play on the field. I'm sure that felt like bait-and-switch for a lot of folks. The other problem with the "Smashmouth" angle was referees had a tendency to keep their flags in their pockets on late hits to the QB. That's why 7 of the 8 teams in the league finished the season with their second- or third-string quarterbacks taking the snaps.

As someone who watched at least one game during each of the 12 weeks of the XFL, followed the league since its announcement in February of 2000, and have read up on the league since its demise, I can assert that there are a multitude of reasons why it failed. Events don't have to be made up, nor does history have to be misremembered, to explain its demise.

On a side note, and straying dangerously close to being on-topic, the XFL would be far better suited to the 30 on 30 treatment. The USFL deserves something much more feature-length, or multi-part, to truly cover what happened. I noted the omissions in Tollin's doc - The vagabond Breakers, the failing Federals, the Arizona-Chicago franchise swap, the success in Jacksonville, the moves and mergers forced in '85 because so many teams knew they couldn't compete in the fall, to name just a few - and I thought, well, there's another full hour, right there.

[NJTank]

USFL could fill five hours and still not be complete, I would be interested in a full accounting of their history.

[Jigga]

USFL could fill five hours and still not be complete, I would be interested in a full accounting of their history.

http://usfl.info/

(Thanks, Mac)

[HedleyLamarr]

Which Arena League is this?? The one that is 'working to resume play in 2010'? The UFL? How long is that going to last? The CFL, that uses whole other rules?

I guess my model in my head is a kind of small scale WLF or NFL Europe, and plenty of teams were happy to pack talent off to NFL Europe for development. As I said earlier, the development teams would be there own organisation, NFL teams wouldn't be able to force a team to do anything other than release a player.

Its a hypothetical that won't ever happen, mainly due to financial reasons, but I think the idea could be made to work if the NFL wanted it to.

The Arena League is whatever the hell the af2 is calling themselves these days.

The NFL doesn't need a developmental league. Why would a team, lets say the Falcons, want to send a player to a developmental team that won't be using any of the schemes the Falcons use? How does this particular player really develop?

With all the offseason activities the teams do these days, the need of a developmental league is nonexistant. Football fans certainly wouldn't pay money to watch a vastly inferior product on the field.

The UFL's purpose isn't to compete with the NFL (at least, it won't be for the forseeable future). It's just another league for players who aren't good enough to play in the NFL to keep playing.

[Saintsfan]

Which Arena League is this?? The one that is 'working to resume play in 2010'? The UFL? How long is that going to last? The CFL, that uses whole other rules?

I guess my model in my head is a kind of small scale WLF or NFL Europe, and plenty of teams were happy to pack talent off to NFL Europe for development. As I said earlier, the development teams would be there own organisation, NFL teams wouldn't be able to force a team to do anything other than release a player.

Its a hypothetical that won't ever happen, mainly due to financial reasons, but I think the idea could be made to work if the NFL wanted it to.

The NFL doesn't need a developmental league. Why would a team, lets say the Falcons, want to send a player to a developmental team that won't be using any of the schemes the Falcons use? How does this particular player really develop?

With all the offseason activities the teams do these days, the need of a developmental league is nonexistant. Football fans certainly wouldn't pay money to watch a vastly inferior product on the field.

On the first point, many NFL teams sent players to NFL Europe to play for independent teams. And it helped there development.

I think fans would pay to watch teams if they were placed in the correct locations. Were n to talking crowds of 60,000, but I could imagine perhaps 30,000 turning up to watch a well marketed league, in the right markets, that has some relevance.

[dfwabel]

The original airing on 10/27, "Muhammad vs. Larry", I thought was the best one of aired to date. I think partly because the filming of the event was in the can for over two decades and what needed to be talked about was "the aftermath" with the writers, Dundee, and Dr. Pacheco. that was a documentary like it should be, no narration. Plus the clips from every fight shown is rarely aired in total. Holmes/Norton II, Ali/Spinks I and II are just youtubes.

[BrySmalls]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

Major League Soccer back in 1996. Before that there were different soccer leagues (USISL (and its offshoots) and the APSL or A-League) claiming to have the top league in the States. And before those leagues there was NASL.

[Saintsfan]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

Major League Soccer back in 1996. Before that there were different soccer leagues (USISL (and its offshoots) and the APSL or A-League) claiming to have the top league in the States. And before those leagues there was NASL.

NASL didn't exist anymore, and the other leagues hardly match up to what the MSL has become.

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

[BrySmalls]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

Major League Soccer back in 1996. Before that there were different soccer leagues (USISL (and its offshoots) and the APSL or A-League) claiming to have the top league in the States. And before those leagues there was NASL.

NASL didn't exist anymore, and the other leagues hardly match up to what the MSL has become.

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

MLS is independent of USL. Some of the core clubs from the USL First Division (Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps) have made or are in the process of making the jump to MLS and with another club (Montreal Impact) also interested in joining MLS. So MLS fits the "new league, independently founded" criteria since there was already a de facto top tier soccer league (USISL's A-League) existing before MLS had their first match. So saying that "the other leagues hardly match up to what the MLS has become" is absurdity in itself due to example that was presented. In American football sense, it's like the AFL merging with the NFL, just on an extremely far lesser scale.

[Saintsfan]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

Major League Soccer back in 1996. Before that there were different soccer leagues (USISL (and its offshoots) and the APSL or A-League) claiming to have the top league in the States. And before those leagues there was NASL.

NASL didn't exist anymore, and the other leagues hardly match up to what the MSL has become.

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

MLS is independent of USL. Some of the core clubs from the USL First Division (Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps) have made or are in the process of making the jump to MLS and with another club (Montreal Impact) also interested in joining MLS. So MLS fits the "new league, independently founded" criteria since there was already a de facto top tier soccer league (USISL's A-League) existing before MLS had their first match. So saying that "the other leagues hardly match up to what the MLS has become" is absurdity in itself due to example that was presented. In American football sense, it's like the AFL merging with the NFL, just on an extremely far lesser scale.

I would suggest that its far from a merger. I still don't think the MLS fits as a league that has usurped an already existing league. For a start, the A league had only existed for 1 season before the MLS came in. Which to me is hardly well established. What there was not before the MLS was a long term league with any history or entrenched support. Which is the point.

[BrySmalls]

Actually the real reason the XFL failed was because it was fake. I don't mean in the WWE sense, I mean in the sense of it being a completely invented league, without any history or back story or anything. Its why in the long run the AFL needed to merge with the NFL, its why the ABA failed eventually.

Wouldn't that be true of any new league?

When was the last new league, independently founded, in a sport that already has an established league, that lasted? (Save for breakaway leagues like the English Premier League).

Major League Soccer back in 1996. Before that there were different soccer leagues (USISL (and its offshoots) and the APSL or A-League) claiming to have the top league in the States. And before those leagues there was NASL.

NASL didn't exist anymore, and the other leagues hardly match up to what the MSL has become.

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

MLS is independent of USL. Some of the core clubs from the USL First Division (Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps) have made or are in the process of making the jump to MLS and with another club (Montreal Impact) also interested in joining MLS. So MLS fits the "new league, independently founded" criteria since there was already a de facto top tier soccer league (USISL's A-League) existing before MLS had their first match. So saying that "the other leagues hardly match up to what the MLS has become" is absurdity in itself due to example that was presented. In American football sense, it's like the AFL merging with the NFL, just on an extremely far lesser scale.

I would suggest that its far from a merger. I still don't think the MLS fits as a league that has usurped an already existing league. For a start, the A league had only existed for 1 season before the MLS came in. Which to me is hardly well established. What there was not before the MLS was a long term league with any history or entrenched support. Which is the point.

Fair enough.

[Mac the Knife]

USFL could fill five hours and still not be complete, I would be interested in a full accounting of their history.

http://usfl.info/

(Thanks, Mac)

Y'know, I bought a couple new laptops a few weeks ago... Jigga, you owe me a keyboard for one of 'em now - I literally did a spit-take when I read this for some reason.

Incidentally, USFL.info had a substantial jump in new visitors to the site in the time since the program aired - with over 3,000 unique visitors last Wed-Fri alone (and 1,200+ Wednesday). The previous single day high? Around 90. LOL

[Mac the Knife]

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

I disagree. It's not impossible; it's just always been done in a fashion that's ultimately ensured failure. Personally I think that each of the big four sports (baseball, football, basketball and hockey) are capable of having a viable competitor to the established leagues in those sports, without a need to merge into the existing entities.

Major League Baseball, oddly enough, would be the most ripe for such a competitor IMHO. Despite having 30 teams in 26 metropolitan markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the Bay Area each having two), a competitor could emerge provided it was properly managed, properly branded. There are enough markets out there right now (mostly currently served by AAA affiliates) that could support a major league level franchise.

Next readily capable to be taken on? The NBA. Again 30 franchises, but the depth of talent that's available in the sport (thanks to small roster sizes) makes it at least plausible that an 8- or 10-team competitor could emerge.

The error that EVERY nationwide pro sports league has made (with, oddly enough, the exception of the UFL) has been to either (a) over-promote the product as something beyond what it really is, and/or ( over-spend on talent to 'hit the ground running' rather than develop it in-house. An MLB competitor would be able to compete on a similar level within five years if it took a two-pronged strategy of developing its own talent plus raiding the AL and NL for free agents; an NBA competitor would take longer perhaps, but could do it within ten.

Major League Soccer had the right idea - promote it as a major league from the get-go, but put the idea in your fan base's head that it's going to take time to develop... and that despite significant financial losses, the league isn't going anywhere until it does. MLS has probably lost a half billion dollars developing its brand, but in doing so they have, over time, developed the best soccer product in the United States. It can be done in other sports - it just takes patience, common sense marketing, and really really deep pockets to achieve.

[Saintsfan]

The point being that when a national professional, high quality league exists, it is impossible to challenge that, whilst maintaining long term independence.

I disagree. It's not impossible; it's just always been done in a fashion that's ultimately ensured failure. Personally I think that each of the big four sports (baseball, football, basketball and hockey) are capable of having a viable competitor to the established leagues in those sports, without a need to merge into the existing entities.

Major League Baseball, oddly enough, would be the most ripe for such a competitor IMHO. Despite having 30 teams in 26 metropolitan markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the Bay Area each having two), a competitor could emerge provided it was properly managed, properly branded. There are enough markets out there right now (mostly currently served by AAA affiliates) that could support a major league level franchise.

Next readily capable to be taken on? The NBA. Again 30 franchises, but the depth of talent that's available in the sport (thanks to small roster sizes) makes it at least plausible that an 8- or 10-team competitor could emerge.

The error that EVERY nationwide pro sports league has made (with, oddly enough, the exception of the UFL) has been to either (a) over-promote the product as something beyond what it really is, and/or ( over-spend on talent to 'hit the ground running' rather than develop it in-house. An MLB competitor would be able to compete on a similar level within five years if it took a two-pronged strategy of developing its own talent plus raiding the AL and NL for free agents; an NBA competitor would take longer perhaps, but could do it within ten.

Major League Soccer had the right idea - promote it as a major league from the get-go, but put the idea in your fan base's head that it's going to take time to develop... and that despite significant financial losses, the league isn't going anywhere until it does. MLS has probably lost a half billion dollars developing its brand, but in doing so they have, over time, developed the best soccer product in the United States. It can be done in other sports - it just takes patience, common sense marketing, and really really deep pockets to achieve.

My point is that an old established league has real advantages over an upstart league which will always work in the favor of the established league. The succesful upstarts realise this and join the established league (see American League baseball, AFL, ABA in various ways). The rest collapse.

Its all looked up in history (imagine watching a league with a totally different history from the league Babe Ruth played in, or Michael Jordan or Vince Lombardi coached in.) The same works in other sports, its why the majors in golf and tennis are so important. Think money is important? Well look at it this way, when a pro tennis circuit was set up, the majors were still the majors, and the pros eventually came back to play in the big 4 once the open era began. Look at how long the Players Championship has kept the 'Fifth Major' title in golf. Its never going to be the real 5th major, because it doesn't have the history. No Nicklaus or Palmer or Player or Snead stories.

[Jimmy!]

The original airing on 10/27, "Muhammad vs. Larry", I thought was the best one of aired to date. I think partly because the filming of the event was in the can for over two decades and what needed to be talked about was "the aftermath" with the writers, Dundee, and Dr. Pacheco. that was a documentary like it should be, no narration. Plus the clips from every fight shown is rarely aired in total. Holmes/Norton II, Ali/Spinks I and II are just youtubes.

Agreed. Loved it. Dundee and Pacheco really caught my attention. I knew Ali was on the decline then, but I didn't realize how bad.

My question at the end was, if everyone involved knew he was in bad shape BEFORE the Holmes fight, why did the Berbick fight go on?

[dfwabel]

The original airing on 10/27, "Muhammad vs. Larry", I thought was the best one of aired to date. I think partly because the filming of the event was in the can for over two decades and what needed to be talked about was "the aftermath" with the writers, Dundee, and Dr. Pacheco. that was a documentary like it should be, no narration. Plus the clips from every fight shown is rarely aired in total. Holmes/Norton II, Ali/Spinks I and II are just youtubes.

Agreed. Loved it. Dundee and Pacheco really caught my attention. I knew Ali was on the decline then, but I didn't realize how bad.

My question at the end was, if everyone involved knew he was in bad shape BEFORE the Holmes fight, why did the Berbick fight go on?

$$$. Outside of Angelo Dundee, who was working with Ray Leonard at the time, Ali was their employer/"meal ticket". Pacheco stepped aside after The Thrilla in Manila to eventually start working with NBC, but all those other guys really had nothing but "The Champ".

[HedleyLamarr]

Anyone been keeping up with these films?

ESPN took a bit of a hiatus to air college basketball, but the last few included the story of Hank Gathers/Paul Westhead, the trial of Allen Iverson, and tonight's two films: one about Ricky Williams, and the one that caught my interest..."Silly Little Game", which was about this group of folks in Philadelphia that came up with the idea of Rotisserie Baseball, which spawned the creation of fantasy sports.

I couldn't believe that the concept of fantasy sports has been around since 1980.