IFL off season

[America]

http://media.tri-cityherald.com/images/sportstc/sports10logo.jpg

Fever coach, owner look to improve

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/07/09/1086421/fever-coach-owner-look-to-improve.html
By Jeff Morrow, Herald sports editor

KENNEWICK WA-- With just 2 1/2 months to put an indoor football team together, coach Adam Shackleford led his Tri-Cities Fever to a 7-8 record this season.

Imagine what he could do with a full offseason -- 6 1/2 months.

"We're actively recruiting," said Shackleford. "We're hitting the phones hard. We're talking to agents, trying to sell the Tri-Cities. It's a good place to play."

It was in the second half of this season, after a 1-5 start.

"This year, we struggled with experience, especially early," he said. "But I knew it would happen. There was not one guy (on the opening day roster) who had ever played for me before."

And don't forget, when Shackleford took over as coach -- after then-coach Pat O'Hara signed to lead Orlando in the AFL -- there really was no Fever roster.

"Last year, every other team already had a 30-player roster frozen," said Fever owner Teri Carr, who made the decision in the offseason to pull out of the planned second tier of the AFL into the Indoor Football League.

"When I took the job, we had six guys under contract," said Shackleford. "Those guys had to re-sign because we moved from the af2 to the IFL. And some of them didn't want to re-sign. It was a whirlwind, crazy month, signing 41 guys and getting them into camp."

It ended up working, as the team made the playoffs for the first time in four years.

"I think we got some things accomplished this year," Shackleford said. "The back half of the season was obviously better for the team than the first half."

For the 2011 season, Shackleford is looking to keep a core of 12 to 16 players from this past season's squad, and then finish the roster with some solid rookies.

"You win football games in the offseason recruiting," Shackleford said. "We're just recruiting hard and trying to get these local (Northwest) guys to sign."

He said he wants to get players from the University of Washington, Washington State and Eastern Washington University, among other Northwest schools.

"I always felt the key to success was not letting guys go in your backyard," he said.

Shackleford said he and his staff are scouring the NFL cut lists from the lastest round of mini-camps, trying to build the 30-man roster into 45. He said six contracts are out now for consideration.

Meanwhile, Carr also feels good about this season. She and her husband, J.R., were the original owners of the franchise in 2005 before selling, then buying back in for the 2010 season.

"I think it was a positive thing across the board," she said. "I would like to see more support from the community."

But she knew the team had to rebuild its reputation with the Tri-Cities community after a few years of struggling in the af2.

"It was so bad," she said. "We knew we had some rebuilding to do. But you know, what we've got is a good, diehard base of fans."

And she is pretty high on the IFL.

"There are more stable teams and ownership groups in this league (than there were in the old National Indoor Football League that the Fever was in for 2005-06)," Carr said. "(The IFL) does a better job across the board of running the league. They've got people doing the things the right way. People who oversee football operations are qualified to do so."

NOTES: The IFL league meetings are set for Sept. 8-10, when Carr said the league will look at applications for new franchises. Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania has already been accepted. ... Carr said it was highly unlikely Anchorage would get another team. The league folded the Wild franchise this season when bills went unpaid. ... What that does to Fairbanks is unknown. "I feel bad for (Fairbanks owner) Ricky (Bertz). Alaska and Fairbanks were supposed to share the costs of visiting teams flying in to play up there. But when Alaska folded, Ricky was caught holding the bill for a lot of that." ... The IFL's final four is set with the conference championships Saturday. The United Conference final has the Wichita Wild at the Sioux Falls Storm set for 5:05 p.m., while the Intense Conference final pits the Arkansas Diamonds at the Billings Outlaws at 6 p.m.

[America]

Initial tryout for Tucson entry in IFL set for July 17
http://azstarnet.com/sports/article_df28ec80-f462-5957-a16a-d6151958c8cf.html

Fiday, July 9, 2010 12:00 am

Tucson's new entry in the Indoor Football League will hold its first tryout July 17 from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Pima East campus.

The tryouts will be run by former Wildcat Glen Howell, owner of Howell Athletics, and Pete Russell.

The team will announce its team logo and name July 14.

Chairman and majority owner Mario J. Wiggins said the new organization will be ready for the season, which will run from late February through July 2011.

"Everything is moving forward according to plan," he said. "We're about to reveal our team name and move in our office. This is my best staff yet. Everyone is highly motivated and working very hard."

Former Arizona standout David Adams is a team consultant.

For more information, visit the team's website at www.tucsonifl.com. The Indoor Football League consists of 25 teams located across the United States, from Alaska to Washington, D.C.

[indoor fan]

I thought Tucson had not been "officially" accepted in the IFL and that their ownership group fell apart. Sounds like Mario is looking to make some fast cash and then vanish.

[tiogaman]

That is exactly what I think...

[newiflfan]

Wow, I think we have a new worst website in the IFL. :rolleyes:

West Michigan, step aside! Tucson has supplanted you! :infun:

[Rooster]

I thought Tucson had not been "officially" accepted in the IFL and that their ownership group fell apart. Sounds like Mario is looking to make some fast cash and then vanish.

Strange indeed that they felt the need to throw together a tryout. Did I miss something, did they hire a coach? Do they have a staff in place? Why no full bios on the leadership team? As an expansion team, maybe they should go to the championship game of the league they want to play in, to shake hands and kiss babies as they are still waiting for formal voting process at league meetings Sept 8-10, instead of literally throwing together a tryout.

If there is one good thing to come out of this it is the fact they have very little advertising for this proposed tryout so hopefully not too many guys show up. Maybe then Mario decides to pack it in as this whole attempt in Tucson is pointless. I can see why Dart decided to move shop elsewhere.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

Their application was accepted, just like they "accept" all applications at McDonalds, but they don't let just anyone filp the burgers.. wait bad example.. wait, Alaska, Western Michigan.. maybe not such a bad analogy after all.

[indoor fan]

You would think the IFL "brass" would have a problem with them using their logo on their websiite, if they were not approved. Or maybe the IFL approves anybody who submits an application to join their premiere league .......

[jerry101jlh]

Agreed, new worst website. I am sure this was a quick effort to get something up since the original site owned by those departed, but a little more professional planning needed to be done rather than just throw up some 3rd rate crap as a a stop gap measure.

Again agreed, if not officially in, then that needs to be made more clear. If they are "officially" in then the IFL has a major problem, AIFA type problem, a team sitting on an island much like Wyoming. Does the IFL now just allow any teams in that fit logistically so Tucson has somebody to play or does Tucson suffer too high travel costs in playing teams say in Washington or Texas?

Once again I'm afraid the IFL has jumped the gun and moved a head too fast. My biggest gripe on the IFL is their lack of careful planning in the expansion department, too many teams not qualified and appearing to look quantity, not quality. If this direction continues, 2011 will be worse than 2010 in the financially troubled teams department.

[Fez]

Well... If they actually play in the IFL I will drive down for a game or two. Should be interesting.

[America]

Which city would you most like to see the IFL expand to for the 2011 Season?

Albuquerque, NM
Bakersfield, CA
Boise, ID
Everett, WA
Fresno, CA
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Las Vegas, NV
Lexington, KY
Toledo, OH


Vote: http://www.goifl.com/

[indoor fan]

Which city would you most like to see the IFL expand to for the 2011 Season?

Albuquerque, NM
Bakersfield, CA
Boise, ID
Everett, WA
Fresno, CA
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Las Vegas, NV
Lexington, KY
Toledo, OH


Vote: http://www.goifl.com/

Interesting that Tucson and Reno are not on the list. Does this mean they are already accepted and approved?

[jerry101jlh]

Interesting that Tucson and Reno are not on the list. Does this mean they are already accepted and approved?

I don't think you can read anything into this poll other than maybe areas the IFL is looking at. I think Las Vegas can be translated as actually meaning Reno at this point.

[preeths]

Maybe not. Though the Reno folks were originally looking at Vegas, I'm told there is now a different Las Vegas group.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

How many time must indoor football fail in Houston before it permananatly gets taken off the map. It's going to take more time and money pimping the team than it's worth in a NFL city. Same then with indy

Boise, good
Lexington... would be sweet, if they could find an arena other than Rupp, or get a decent lease deal. Toledo and Evrett fit very nicely into the existing footprint.

[Caballo Diablo]

How many time must indoor football fail in Houston before it permananatly gets taken off the map. It's going to take more time and money pimping the team than it's worth in a NFL city.

?? Houston has an NFL team ?? :D

[Ozman]

CD, You have to be kidding?! Of course Houston has a NFL team. Its taking baby steps every year for having a better team record on its way to the Superbowl someday. There are so many true Houston fans in the Houston area, thats why they don't attend indoor football games.

[super390]

CD, You have to be kidding?! Of course Houston has a NFL team. Its taking baby steps every year for having a better team record on its way to the Superbowl someday. There are so many true Houston fans in the Houston area, thats why they don't attend indoor football games.

Actually, I live in Houston and for some reason I've never been able to generate a passion for the Texans. Too much negative NFL history in this city, perhaps. The Gamblers were the last local team I felt strongly about.

There is a corporate dullness to the Texans that I think goes straight back to the owner. All the owners in this town seem to want their players to be good citizens who stay out of trouble. It is a far cry from Bud Adams and Bum Phillips' all-convict secondary. Or the way the Gamblers would go for it on 4th down with a 35 point lead.

But Houstonians are obsessed with their city being important, so indoor football is a tough sell. I think if the AFL were back to its old strength and TV presence, it would seem important enough. But in order to work, it would have to exploit the growing distance of the western suburbs from the sports stadiums by locating at the arena in Cypress - yet carry a "Houston" name. Downtown is out - the Toyota Center website openly proclaims its rental fee is $60,000 a night. At the very end of its short life the AF2 Copperheads were beginning to reach 4000 per game in Cypress.

Hard to see that happen in the IFL the way it is now.

[newiflfan]

CD, You have to be kidding?! Of course Houston has a NFL team. Its taking baby steps every year for having a better team record on its way to the Superbowl someday. There are so many true Houston fans in the Houston area, thats why they don't attend indoor football games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

[Caballo Diablo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Thanks for the help. I figured with double ?? before and after plus the cheesy grin it wouldn't confuse or insult anyone.

Hey Ozman, I live about three and a half hours from the 8th wonder of the world, the Astrodome. Attended Oiler games for over 20 years and like super390 never got excited about the Texans. Not smacking them, just saying. I have been to some games though. I also went to Gambler games and thouroughly enjoyed them.

As for the 50 yard game, yes the Houston Market has always been rough. The AFL Thunderbears never caught on and became a travel only team. I attended games for both the NIFL Katy Copperheads and the af2 Texas Copperheads. The SIFL Pirates problems were more from within the team than the league. By the looks of their venue they must have thought it was a 25 yard game - lol

I would love to see a successful 50 yard Houston team but a suburb might work better than the city proper.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

Hasn't the IFL learned anything yet in my opinion? Here is my opinion yes or no for a potential IFL team to potentially work.

Albuquerque, NM No AIFA maybe?
Bakersfield, CA No AIFA maybe?
Boise, ID No AIFA maybe?
Everett, WA No failing badly in the NLL indoor lacrosse and they won the
NLL championship and still couldn't draw in the NLL. AIFA maybe?
Fresno, CA No AIFA maybe?
Houston, TX Yes
Indianapolis, IN Yes good sports city.
Las Vegas, NV No I hope this is a joke? Not even the AIFA. They don't support UFL football champion Locos?
Lexington, KY No AIFA maybe?
Toledo, OH Yes nice new arena good sports city they support the Mud Hens IL
for years and the Walleye ECHL now.
Buffalo, NY Yes good sports town.

So we have Buffalo, Houston, Indianapolis and Toledo the Green Bay of the IFL if it was up to me. Also if it was up to me I am throwing out subspect IFL franchises and cities that aren't either large enough or good enough of a sports town take your pick IFL fans. Let's clean up the IFL to get it on a more even plane with the AFL in my opinion. Let's Go Buffalo

[jerry101jlh]

Always interesting to me to hear others opinions on where teams should be. To think at this point the IFL should make moves to equal themselves with the AFL is interesting, but only that, interesting. The IFL is filled with mostly midsize to smaller cities and can't just jump up to larger ones, plus cost of being an upper level league like most perceive the AFL to be involve costs including player salaries most IFL teams couldn't afford and add to any instability the league already faces.

One thing most fans agree upon is stability, so to say this team or that should go AIFA is against that rule since the AIFA is far from stable and has shown teams they set up on shaky ground.

On specific areas, Albuquerque, Bakersfield, Boise, Everett, Fresno, Lexington, and Lexington. All are right sized for current IFL markets. Everett did support its one venure into indoor football, but support fell off when they joined the af2. Boise has yet to show support for a team. Albuquerque failed in the AIFA, but who knows. Bakersfield and Fresno might work. Toledo also should work.

Houston has failed as a market for indoor football and even the larger original AFL and the af2. Buffalo would require a larger budget for marketing than most current IFL teams making it suspect as to going there. Indy, don't know, might work as indoor and arena ball seem to fare well in the midwest. Las Vegas would be a big gamble, require large marketing budget.

[indoor fan]

Hasn't the IFL learned anything yet in my opinion? Here is my opinion yes or no for a potential IFL team to potentially work.

Albuquerque, NM No AIFA maybe?
Bakersfield, CA No AIFA maybe?
Boise, ID No AIFA maybe?
Everett, WA No failing badly in the NLL indoor lacrosse and they won the
NLL championship and still couldn't draw in the NLL. AIFA maybe?
Fresno, CA No AIFA maybe?
Houston, TX Yes
Indianapolis, IN Yes good sports city.
Las Vegas, NV No I hope this is a joke? Not even the AIFA. They don't support UFL football champion Locos?
Lexington, KY No AIFA maybe?
Toledo, OH Yes nice new arena good sports city they support the Mud Hens IL
for years and the Walleye ECHL now.
Buffalo, NY Yes good sports town.

So we have Buffalo, Houston, Indianapolis and Toledo the Green Bay of the IFL if it was up to me. Also if it was up to me I am throwing out subspect IFL franchises and cities that aren't either large enough or good enough of a sports town take your pick IFL fans. Let's clean up the IFL to get it on a more even plane with the AFL in my opinion. Let's Go Buffalo

To say that the IFL could get on the same level as the AFL is laughable. The IFL is on the same level as the AIFA, and needs to focus on staying ahead of the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. I don't know if expansion is in the best interest of the IFL for 2011. Maybe make sure all teams complete the season and make payroll first.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

To say that the IFL could get on the same level as the AFL is laughable. The IFL is on the same level as the AIFA, and needs to focus on staying ahead of the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. I don't know if expansion is in the best interest of the IFL for 2011. Maybe make sure all teams complete the season and make payroll first.

Indoor fan it is only my opinion. With my plan standards would be raised so we aren't talking the way things are done now with the IFL and that is why the midsize to small markets couldn't stay in my opinion in most cases. If you disagree with my opinion fine it is your opinion and I respect everyone opinion. But to say it is laughable is off base if you read my post things wouldn't be the same like now under my plan.

Remember the way I would do things in my opinion would put a end to this nonsense that is going on presently in the IFL. Also if it was me AIFA, CIFL and SIFL would go away. The only thing that would stay from those three leagues is the AIFA football which I would have the IFL use as there football for marketing purposes to fans like the old ABA red, white and blue basketball so the AIFA football would be the IFL signature football.

Remember this in only one persons opinion my own. I stand by what I posted there is room enough in my opinion for two arena/indoor football leagues in my opinion. I call it a Buffalo Super Fans checks and balances. Because indoor fan understand I am against all monopolies in sports like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NCAA BCS.

This is only one persons opinion but I bet you if more of these leagues used common sense the sports fan would be better off in my opinion and so would the owners in these leagues. I love how fans bicker back and forth oh our AFL league is way better then the IFL. I have news for you look at it objectively the AFL isn't going great either. I am a AFL man because Buffalo had a team in the old AFL the Buffalo Destroyers but lets not act like the AFL is to cool for the room compared to the IFL. The AFL has failed once already.

The AFL and IFL under one umbrella of seperate leagues but with a understanding to handle things like men or women what have you will would go along way in my opinion. Meaning no poaching of teams between the two leagues. No battles but on the football field. My plan would create a World Series or Super Bowl of indoor football between the two leagues for the football fan. So each year you would have a national championship game between the AFL and the IFL. The IFL first needs to catch up with some of my ideas but overtime it would be good for the fans.

Atleast the fans wouldn't be wondering each year if they do or don't have a team which in my opinion is far too often is the case for both leagues AFL and IFL. Also your proablely thinking BSF you idiot the leagues play different rules it can't be done already thought of that.

What I would do is AFL rules one half IFL rules one half. Coin flip determines whos rules get played in the important second half so the coin flip to start the game would have all the fans interested right from the start in my opinion. If the AFL and IFL worked together to put something together that is special for the top let's say 50 to 75 top markets in the US maybe 16 to 20 teams in each league. 16 to 20 in the AFL and 16 to 20 in the IFL and no more half baked leagues with no money those are gone under BSF plan.

If you want indoor fan to start over with the IFL fine that is what I am basically doing. But if you want me to endorse a AFL monopoly for the future of arena/indoor football no I am completely against the idea of the AFL having a monopoly like the NFL we football fans allowed the NFL owners to screwed that up years ago in my opinion not letting the AFL stand on its own with there own name AFL and NFL like AL and NL in my opinion under a major league heading.

I am to young to remember the AFL but I agree with the oldtimer in my Buffalo area the AFL shouldn't have went to AFC we are AFL and always will be in Buffalo with the Buffalo Bills. I loved the AFL throwback games last year for the AFL 50th anniversary.

The Arena football league because they had a monopoly for years and screwed up that for the fans in my opinion not again if it was my call which it isn't. Lastly IFL fans remember I will always try to do what I feel is best for the fans. I might not always be right more wrong then right but my heart is in the right place. Monopolies aren't good in my opinion for sports fans. The best times I had as a fan was growing up in the 1970's as a kid with choice of two major basketball leagues NBA and ABA, two hockey leagues NHL and WHA, two football leagues NFL and WFL then in the 1980's NFL and USFL.

Let them compete like McDonald's and Burger King that is the American way in my opinion. Choice for the sports fan is a good thing in my opinion. So we can agree to disagree indoor fan. Let's Go Buffalo

[Buffalo Super Fan]

Always interesting to me to hear others opinions on where teams should be. To think at this point the IFL should make moves to equal themselves with the AFL is interesting, but only that, interesting. The IFL is filled with mostly midsize to smaller cities and can't just jump up to larger ones, plus cost of being an upper level league like most perceive the AFL to be involve costs including player salaries most IFL teams couldn't afford and add to any instability the league already faces.

One thing most fans agree upon is stability, so to say this team or that should go AIFA is against that rule since the AIFA is far from stable and has shown teams they set up on shaky ground.

On specific areas, Albuquerque, Bakersfield, Boise, Everett, Fresno, Lexington, and Lexington. All are right sized for current IFL markets. Everett did support its one venure into indoor football, but support fell off when they joined the af2. Boise has yet to show support for a team. Albuquerque failed in the AIFA, but who knows. Bakersfield and Fresno might work. Toledo also should work.

Houston has failed as a market for indoor football and even the larger original AFL and the af2. Buffalo would require a larger budget for marketing than most current IFL teams making it suspect as to going there. Indy, don't know, might work as indoor and arena ball seem to fare well in the midwest. Las Vegas would be a big gamble, require large marketing budget.

jerry101jlh my plan would be done overtime I agree you couldn't do it in a year or rushed. Yes the important thing is having acceptable standards in both leagues. Also the AFL in my opinion proablely still is spending too much money for my liking and the IFL not enough in my opinion. There are still too many shakey franchises in the AFL in my opinion.

The key here is choice for the sport fans and allowing enough cities access to the arena/indoor game but with good owners not fly by night. If you have two solid leagues that cuts down on fly by night leagues. We will still get them but if most of the country is covered by the AFL and IFL then most in my opinion will ignore the other leagues as simpley minor leagues. Let's Go Buffalo

[indoor fan]

Indoor fan it is only my opinion. With my plan standards would be raised so we aren't talking the way things are done now with the IFL and that is why the midsize to small markets couldn't stay in my opinion in most cases. If you disagree with my opinion fine it is your opinion and I respect everyone opinion. But to say it is laughable is off base if you read my post things wouldn't be the same like now under my plan.

Remember the way I would do things in my opinion would put a end to this nonsense that is going on presently in the IFL. Also if it was me AIFA, CIFL and SIFL would go away. The only thing that would stay from those three leagues is the AIFA football which I would have the IFL use as there football for marketing purposes to fans like the old ABA red, white and blue basketball so the AIFA football would be the IFL signature football.

Remember this in only one persons opinion my own. I stand by what I posted there is room enough in my opinion for two arena/indoor football leagues in my opinion. I call it a Buffalo Super Fans checks and balances. Because indoor fan understand I am against all monopolies in sports like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NCAA BCS.

This is only one persons opinion but I bet you if more of these leagues used common sense the sports fan would be better off in my opinion and so would the owners in these leagues. I love how fans bicker back and forth oh our AFL league is way better then the IFL. I have news for you look at it objectively the AFL isn't going great either. I am a AFL man because Buffalo had a team in the old AFL the Buffalo Destroyers but lets not act like the AFL is to cool for the room compared to the IFL. The AFL has failed once already.

The AFL and IFL under one umbrella of seperate leagues but with a understanding to handle things like men or women what have you will would go along way in my opinion. Meaning no poaching of teams between the two leagues. No battles but on the football field. My plan would create a World Series or Super Bowl of indoor football between the two leagues for the football fan. So each year you would have a national championship game between the AFL and the IFL. The IFL first needs to catch up with some of my ideas but overtime it would be good for the fans.

Atleast the fans wouldn't be wondering each year if they do or don't have a team which in my opinion is far too often is the case for both leagues AFL and IFL. Also your proablely thinking BSF you idiot the leagues play different rules it can't be done already thought of that.

What I would do is AFL rules one half IFL rules one half. Coin flip determines whos rules get played in the important second half so the coin flip to start the game would have all the fans interested right from the start in my opinion. If the AFL and IFL worked together to put something together that is special for the top let's say 50 to 75 top markets in the US maybe 16 to 20 teams in each league. 16 to 20 in the AFL and 16 to 20 in the IFL and no more half baked leagues with no money those are gone under BSF plan.

If you want indoor fan to start over with the IFL fine that is what I am basically doing. But if you want me to endorse a AFL monopoly for the future of arena/indoor football no I am completely against the idea of the AFL having a monopoly like the NFL we football fans allowed the NFL owners to screwed that up years ago in my opinion not letting the AFL stand on its own with there own name AFL and NFL like AL and NL in my opinion under a major league heading.

I am to young to remember the AFL but I agree with the oldtimer in my Buffalo area the AFL shouldn't have went to AFC we are AFL and always will be in Buffalo with the Buffalo Bills. I loved the AFL throwback games last year for the AFL 50th anniversary.

The Arena football league because they had a monopoly for years and screwed up that for the fans in my opinion not again if it was my call which it isn't. Lastly IFL fans remember I will always try to do what I feel is best for the fans. I might not always be right more wrong then right but my heart is in the right place. Monopolies aren't good in my opinion for sports fans. The best times I had as a fan was growing up in the 1970's as a kid with choice of two major basketball leagues NBA and ABA, two hockey leagues NHL and WHA, two football leagues NFL and WFL then in the 1980's NFL and USFL.

Let them compete like McDonald's and Burger King that is the American way in my opinion. Choice for the sports fan is a good thing in my opinion. So we can agree to disagree indoor fan. Let's Go Buffalo

The AF2 may be back soon. The IFL could compete and be on the same level with the new AF2 teams.

[America]

Expansion regionally to help current IFL teams in ones own Division will reduce travel costs greatly and will aid in keeping teams afloat and help them build towards the future. When teams have to travel (fly) great distances and have to pay for lodging and meals while away is costly. When you lose games you lose fan support. So if you add high travel costs your breaking the bank and you get less quality home games from teams hurting.
Bus rental travel and team meals for a 2 or 3 hour ride is much cheaper. Save the long distance travel for the playoffs.

[Caballo Diablo]

To say that the IFL could get on the same level as the AFL is laughable. The IFL is on the same level as the AIFA, and needs to focus on staying ahead of the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. I don't know if expansion is in the best interest of the IFL for 2011. Maybe make sure all teams complete the season and make payroll first.
See, this is the type of statements that are laughable, as you put it.

I'm sure you visit ArenaFan and have read all of the discontentment of the AFL 1.0 fans. Some of them (not me) have stated the 1.0 was nothing more than a minor league and their minor league the af2 was bush league. They are pointing out many things that are unprofessional, not just the product on the field. Paying $200 more in salary doesn't make that much difference, the few making $1,000 doesn't affect much either. What is different is the AFL perks such as housing, meals, jobs, and larger under the table payments than most Indoor teams.

The AFL 2.0 is far below the AFL 1.0 and closer to the af2 in business structure, salary, and product. The group that bought the name "AFL" is the same group that ran the af2.

While I agree Indoor leagues need to do a better job of vetting new owners and franchises instead of letting unqualified groups in and praying it all works out. Yes, they need the fees and closer markets for travel but the end doesn't justify the means.

Let's go back to who is Running the AFL 2.0, the af2 group. Last season they had a couple of long time teams fold. Quad Cities and Florida only made it through the season because the league took them over. Which was a good thing but doesn't change the fact that ArenaBall and it's current leadership has it's own skeletons in their closet. This was a league over a decade old, not in their 2nd year like the IFL.

The AFL 2.0 is not leaps and bounds ahead of anyone. Will they be in a few years? Maybe. Some of the old guard owners returning will be good but will probably also create a larger separation from the upper and lower echelon of teams. We all know Mr. Fry isn't shy about spending money and even supplying the team with a private jet. There's no way most of the AFL 2.0 teams can keep up with it. Heck, many of the the AFL 1.0 teams couldn't.

The current AFL has some pathetic teams, like all leagues. So if the AFL 2.0's minor league the af2 was considered bush league what will the AFL 2.0's lower tier (developemental league as they call it) be like?

At this time no league has the right to puff out their chest and declare superiority in the sport. AFL 2.0 fans like to say there's a big difference between ArenaBall and Indoorball, which I agree with. They're different styles, different animals if you will. Yet they get all up in a tizzy when AFL 1.0 fans and even some of the players say there's a big difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0. And what did the homer af2 fans tell these players? They attacked them and told them not to let the door hit their backside. And yes, some of them were AFL 1.0 stars.

If you're better just because you lose millions more than the next league, some would call it delusional. Is losing the most really a good thing for the business or sport itself?

They all have problems and need to work on improvement, but they're all just minor league niche leagues ignored and laughed at by the masses. It's time for the actual fans to stop beating each other over the differing nuances.

[indoor fan]

First off, there is no such league as the AFL 2.0. I have searched and searched, but it does not exist. The AFL has been around for over 20 years and is currently having a great season and the 2011 season looks ever better.

As far as talent, most of the current AFL rosters a filled with 2008 AFL players, mixed in with new talent that would be playing in 2010 AFL.

I agree the 2010 AFL overall talent is below the 2008 talent level, but it will move closer in 2011 and beyond.

The IFL is at the same talent and salary level as the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. In fact, the IFL experienced many of the same problems as the other indoor leagues (lets not forget El Paso, Alaska, Maryland and W. Michigan).

Trying to compare the IFL to the AFL, is like trying to compare the CFL to the NFL. Slightly different game with different salary and talent levels. Capish!

[Bouncer_Texxx]

Trying to compare the IFL to the AFL, is like trying to compare the CFL to the NFL. Slightly different game with different salary and talent levels. Capish!

LOL.. who's delusional, really?

IF ANY of the AFL 2010 (aka AFL 2.0) were making a full time living wage on above the table payments, we could begin to discuss this. As it stands right now, the AFL 2.0 is merely a more expensive, minor league arena based 50 yard football league that holds some of the top echelon talent at QB and WR due to the offensive friendly rules.

you delusion that the 2010 AFL is the 20 year old league and game is the same as Browns fans after 1995.

The IFL is what it is. the AFL 2010 (aka 2.0) is what it is. They are indeed similar but not the same.. one claiming superiority over the other is asinine. Neither of them has the manure properly arranged to say anything. They've both steaming plies of fail, the AFL's just costs you more to sniff it.

[indoor fan]

LOL.. who's delusional, really?

IF ANY of the AFL 2010 (aka AFL 2.0) were making a full time living wage on above the table payments, we could begin to discuss this. As it stands right now, the AFL 2.0 is merely a more expensive, minor league arena based 50 yard football league that holds some of the top echelon talent at QB and WR due to the offensive friendly rules.

you delusion that the 2010 AFL is the 20 year old league and game is the same as Browns fans after 1995.

The IFL is what it is. the AFL 2010 (aka 2.0) is what it is. They are indeed similar but not the same.. one claiming superiority over the other is asinine. Neither of them has the manure properly arranged to say anything. They've both steaming plies of fail, the AFL's just costs you more to sniff it.

Fail........nice try Bouncer. You must not have been following the AFL nor the IFL this year. There is a huge difference in talent level, etc.

[Indoorfootballguy]

Fail........nice try Bouncer. You must not have been following the AFL nor the IFL this year. There is a huge difference in talent level, etc.

No there isn't, the AFL and IFL are very close in Talent Level. Look at how bad Utah, OKC, Dallas, Bossier/Shreveport, and Iowa are doing this season and also Orlando is having a down year. IFL teams like Sioux Falls, Billings, Arkansas, Wichita, etc could easily beat those teams. I would go as far as saying Billings and Sioux Falls could beat Utah, OKC, and Bossier/Shreveport in a blowout. The top IFL teams are very good and could compete with and beat some AFL teams as I mentioned. The Talent Level is very close.

Yes, teams like Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Tampa Bay, etc are above the best IFL teams, but the AFL would be a lot better off having Billings, Sioux Falls, Wichita, Omaha, Green Bay, Chicago(Slaughter), Bloomington, Rochester, or Amarillo rather than Utah, OKC, and Bossier/Shreveport the way those teams have been performing in the AFL this season. Dallas has had injurying problems, otherwise they would be doing better.

My point is, the IFL and AFL are close in Talent Level with a slight edge to the AFL.

[Indoorfootballguy]

http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=4057878

This link is just one of the many examples of many IFL players getting a chance in the NFL, CFL, and UFL. And you IFL haters wonder why IFL players get as many if not more oppurtinites with NFL, CFL, and UFL teams than AFL players do.

There are many players that are starting in the AFL simply just because of there name, while there are players starting in the IFL that should be starting in the AFL in place of those guys. Like West Michigan WR Bryan Pray, Billings WR James Walton, Wichita WR Clinton Solomon, Billings QB Chris Dixon, etc.

For an example, Antoine Burns is the best WR on the Iron, but he was not starting, because one, Damian Harrell has been in the AFL a long time, two, Nate Forse has been in Landsee's system for a year, and three, Tiger Jones is Chris Greisen's guy.

And now that Burns is starting in place of Forse, because of injury, he is playing awesome.

John Dutton, Damian Harrell, Lawrence Samuels, many players on Iowa, many players on Utah, and many players on Bossier/Shreveport should not be starting in the AFL.

[Caballo Diablo]

First off, there is no such league as the AFL 2.0. I have searched and searched, but it does not exist. The AFL has been around for over 20 years and is currently having a great season and the 2011 season looks ever better.
First off, I know you're not that ignorant. I've explained many times why I use the 1.0 and 2.0. It spearates the two eras when discussing or comparing the AFL. It's not a smack.

The NAME AFL has been around for over 20 years. The previous AFL folded, they went bankrupt when the af2 leadership forced them into it. The af2 leadership started an EXPANSION business, corporate entity if you will. They won the bid at the BANKRUPTCY auction for the name and intellectual property of the folded league.

The current AFL is much closer to the af2 in salary, business structure, and product than it is to the previous AFL. That's not a smack either, I've loved the af2 for the past decade.

You call 2010 a GREAT season? Compared to what? It's great as far as what the af2 teams, fans, and markets were getting. Not so much in the AFL markets and for their fans. I hope 2011 will bring improvements but it will never reach the level of the previous AFL. It can't unless you overspend the way Baker did.



As far as talent, most of the current AFL rosters a filled with 2008 AFL players, mixed in with new talent that would be playing in 2010 AFL.
Could you give us a breakdown of the 15 rosters? I thought lots of af2 guys were playing in the AFL this season. How many are from Indoor leagues or 50 yard rookies? How many total played in the 2008 AFL, then how many were starters and how many were backups or situational players?

Not smacking, just disagree with your comparrison of the 1.0 and 2.0.

I agree the 2010 AFL overall talent is below the 2008 talent level, but it will move closer in 2011 and beyond. It's far below and we don't know if it'll ever get real close. You've seen the players posting on AF, they're very disenfranchised with how many things have gone. Many came back to help the league grow and because they loved the game. They (the players) say many previous players won't return.

ArenaBall won't get first attention from players wanting to play whether it's for a shot to advance or because of the love for the game. Previously they saw the career paychecks and were willing to give it a go, the af2 was desired over the Indoor leagues because they could move up to a real paycheck. I think many talented players will either forgo the 50 yard game or just pick a team closest to where they live no matter the initials of the league.

The previous rich owners coming back to the AFL is a doubled edge sword. They do bring some cred and more fees for the league. Will the lesser financed owners be able to compete with them? Where will the better players congregate? To the owner with the nicer housing, more meals at better restaurants, jobs, cars, larger monetary compensation through other channels? Can the af2 owners and expansion guys really afford to battle the guys like Fry?

Will several of the 2010 teams have to drop out or return to the lower developemental league if it ever starts up? Many of the previous af2 teams are struggling now with the over flow of red ink and increased cost of doing business. The smaller markets can't do much until the economy picks up so their fans have more discretionary income and local business increase their advertising budgets. The stuff we see on the field is but a small part of the business.

The IFL is at the same talent and salary level as the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. In fact, the IFL experienced many of the same problems as the other indoor leagues (lets not forget El Paso, Alaska, Maryland and W. Michigan).
Why do you always throw El Paso in with the failures? They did pretty darned well both on and off the field. You know why they folded, their owners tax/fraud problems forced him to get out of the sport. He had stepped into help a struggling San Angelo by purchasing half the team, their other owner bought out his share and continued on this season. Two of his other teams were bought and continued on. El Paso had an interested local owner that backed out at the last minute. The only reason El Paso went dark was a local owner couldn't be found in time, not because they were a failure.

So the league saved 3 1/2 teams and lost one in this circumstance, pretty good if you ask me. The af2 had to take over two longtime teams mid-season last year so they wouldn't fold before the season was over. Great job by the league but ArenaBall owners are not above the problems of the other leagues. How many teams has ArenaBall gone through over the years, over 120? Looks like they've all had their skeletons and poor vetting.

Salary? - lol Yeah a couple hundres dollars doesn't mean that much and definitely doesn't double the talent. What is talent anyways besides an abstract view instead of an absolute.

How many Heisman winners were NFL busts? How many high round draft picks that NFL scouts gushed over their "Talent" were busts. look at the Vigilantes, many thought it was an allstar roster that would cakewalk through the season. How did that work out for them.

All leagues have former NFL players and send their players to NFL camps. Big deal, yes it's a shot to get noticed but most know they're just camp bodies. Ok, 22 years for the AFL and 10 for the af2, over 120 different teams, how many made an NFL roster and stayed for at least a full season? Sure, we can list a handful but the percentage of players with NFL talent is miniscule.



Trying to compare the IFL to the AFL, is like trying to compare the CFL to the NFL. Slightly different game with different salary and talent levels. Capish!
I always try and compare the 1.0 to the 2.0, sometimes even compare the early AFL to the later AFL but try not to compare different leagues. They're different animals, different business structure, financing, rules, etc. We can compare to local diner to fancy restaurant, some will tell you the expensive meal was better while others prefer the home cooking of the diner. It's all personal preference and perspective. Are the more expensive gourmet burgers really better than the regular ones at the corner greasy spoon?

If you're talking the 1.0 I agree, they were better and more talented roster wide than the Indoor leagues. If you're talking the 2.0 then they all belong in the same niche basket of alphabet soup. No better no worse and it all comes down to either personal preference in the style difference or who is closest to your house. It's much easier to enjoy the game face to face and you need a team within traveling distance for that.

And for your information there's plenty of Canadians that'll tell you the CFL is better than the NFL.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

See, this is the type of statements that are laughable, as you put it.

I'm sure you visit ArenaFan and have read all of the discontentment of the AFL 1.0 fans. Some of them (not me) have stated the 1.0 was nothing more than a minor league and their minor league the af2 was bush league. They are pointing out many things that are unprofessional, not just the product on the field. Paying $200 more in salary doesn't make that much difference, the few making $1,000 doesn't affect much either. What is different is the AFL perks such as housing, meals, jobs, and larger under the table payments than most Indoor teams.

The AFL 2.0 is far below the AFL 1.0 and closer to the af2 in business structure, salary, and product. The group that bought the name "AFL" is the same group that ran the af2.

While I agree Indoor leagues need to do a better job of vetting new owners and franchises instead of letting unqualified groups in and praying it all works out. Yes, they need the fees and closer markets for travel but the end doesn't justify the means.

Let's go back to who is Running the AFL 2.0, the af2 group. Last season they had a couple of long time teams fold. Quad Cities and Florida only made it through the season because the league took them over. Which was a good thing but doesn't change the fact that ArenaBall and it's current leadership has it's own skeletons in their closet. This was a league over a decade old, not in their 2nd year like the IFL.

The AFL 2.0 is not leaps and bounds ahead of anyone. Will they be in a few years? Maybe. Some of the old guard owners returning will be good but will probably also create a larger separation from the upper and lower echelon of teams. We all know Mr. Fry isn't shy about spending money and even supplying the team with a private jet. There's no way most of the AFL 2.0 teams can keep up with it. Heck, many of the the AFL 1.0 teams couldn't.

The current AFL has some pathetic teams, like all leagues. So if the AFL 2.0's minor league the af2 was considered bush league what will the AFL 2.0's lower tier (developemental league as they call it) be like?

At this time no league has the right to puff out their chest and declare superiority in the sport. AFL 2.0 fans like to say there's a big difference between ArenaBall and Indoorball, which I agree with. They're different styles, different animals if you will. Yet they get all up in a tizzy when AFL 1.0 fans and even some of the players say there's a big difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0. And what did the homer af2 fans tell these players? They attacked them and told them not to let the door hit their backside. And yes, some of them were AFL 1.0 stars.

If you're better just because you lose millions more than the next league, some would call it delusional. Is losing the most really a good thing for the business or sport itself?

They all have problems and need to work on improvement, but they're all just minor league niche leagues ignored and laughed at by the masses. It's time for the actual fans to stop beating each other over the differing nuances.

Good post CD I agree with you. Indoor fan CD is basically posting what I was trying to say and my feelings of what is going on with the sport of arena/indoor football today. The mine is bigger or better then yours isn't good for the sport or the fans in my opinion. Let's all work together to find a solutions to make the sport better for everyone involved. Let's Go Buffalo

[indoor fan]

No there isn't, the AFL and IFL are very close in Talent Level. Look at how bad Utah, OKC, Dallas, Bossier/Shreveport, and Iowa are doing this season and also Orlando is having a down year. IFL teams like Sioux Falls, Billings, Arkansas, Wichita, etc could easily beat those teams. I would go as far as saying Billings and Sioux Falls could beat Utah, OKC, and Bossier/Shreveport in a blowout. The top IFL teams are very good and could compete with and beat some AFL teams as I mentioned. The Talent Level is very close.

Yes, teams like Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Tampa Bay, etc are above the best IFL teams, but the AFL would be a lot better off having Billings, Sioux Falls, Wichita, Omaha, Green Bay, Chicago(Slaughter), Bloomington, Rochester, or Amarillo rather than Utah, OKC, and Bossier/Shreveport the way those teams have been performing in the AFL this season. Dallas has had injurying problems, otherwise they would be doing better.

My point is, the IFL and AFL are close in Talent Level with a slight edge to the AFL.

Uhh...maybe those teams are having down years because they're playing other AFL players with AFL talent. A majority of AFL teams rosters are comprised of 2008 AFL players. The rosters don't lie. Sure you can give your opinion about certain players "should" be in the AFL, but they are not (same can be said for the NFL).



The IFL is on the same talent and salary level as the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. The AFL's talent level is between the indoor leagues and the UFL (closer to the UFL). The rosters don't lie.

[Caballo Diablo]

The IFL is on the same talent and salary level as the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL. The AFL's talent level is between the indoor leagues and the UFL (closer to the UFL). The rosters don't lie.
You don't make sense.

The Indoor leagues are lower because of salary? The AFL salary isn't noticably above them. 225 to 400 is the same tax bracket - lol

If this is what determines things how can you even remotely compare the 1.0 and 2.0 ? That salary is much further than 2.0 to Indoor. Yeah, 200k vs 2 mil. Your theory just puts the 2.0 in with all the alphabet leagues - lol

Ok, here's another one.

Bob works for ABC company while Tom works for CBA company, both companies manufacture a similar product and both workers have a similar job description within their companies. Bob makes $12 per hour while Tom makes $15. Can we factually say Tom has more talent or is a better employee due to the pay difference?

The AFL player (not counting the franchise guys) gets $175 more per game x 16 weeks = $2800. Now this is $2800 more per year or really $53.85 per week. It seems most can save the $2800 by just playing for a local team than moving away from their family and living on the road part time.

The salary difference from league to league has been rendered moot and does not prove theirs a talent or production difference.

[indoor fan]

You don't make sense.

The Indoor leagues are lower because of salary? The AFL salary isn't noticably above them. 225 to 400 is the same tax bracket - lol

If this is what determines things how can you even remotely compare the 1.0 and 2.0 ? That salary is much further than 2.0 to Indoor. Yeah, 200k vs 2 mil. Your theory just puts the 2.0 in with all the alphabet leagues - lol

Ok, here's another one.

Bob works for ABC company while Tom works for CBA company, both companies manufacture a similar product and both workers have a similar job description within their companies. Bob makes $12 per hour while Tom makes $15. Can we factually say Tom has more talent or is a better employee due to the pay difference?

The AFL player (not counting the franchise guys) gets $175 more per game x 16 weeks = $2800. Now this is $2800 more per year or really $53.85 per week. It seems most can save the $2800 by just playing for a local team than moving away from their family and living on the road part time.

The salary difference from league to league has been rendered moot and does not prove theirs a talent or production difference.

I don't understand the 1.0 or 2.0 nonsense your talking about. These leagues do not exist.

The AFL has the most talent of all the 50 yard leagues and pays the most. How hard is that to comprehend? Geez.

[super390]

Well, let's look at this empirically. While IFL fans seem to be saying that the new AFL is hardly any better than the AF2, we know that the AF2 teams that joined the new AFL did spend more money on players, while the four AF2 teams that joined the IFL at best had a little less, and with a couple of them experiencing big attendance dropoffs might have been even further squeezed for talent:

Arkansas
2009: 11-5
2010: 11-3

Amarillo

2009: 3-13
2010: 11-3

Green Bay

2009: 10-6
2010: 10-4

Tri-Cities

2009: 3-13
2010: 7-7

Now I know Tri-Cities was late in making the jump and had little time to get its roster back together. I also know all the players had been under AF2 contracts and had to be resigned in a hurry. While Green Bay and Arkansas didn't improve much from being very good teams, it's hard to make big jumps when you were already winning 2/3 of your games. Arkansas, though, fell apart financially in 2010 and I've read that paychecks were getting missed, yet it improved.

Above all, all these teams had to learn to play what I keep hearing is a different sport with superior defense and running. If that's really true, that must be a significant handicap. Yet by the end of the season they were all playing very well.

So it looks like the AF2 on average was a significantly superior league to the IFL. I guess Caballo Diablo was right that salary levels don't prove much since those leagues paid about the same.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

blah blah blah ARENA FOOTBALL RULEZ!!!! LOLZ n00b

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt308/agitoStrife/argument_invalid.jpg

[Micah008]

Next time, can you guys have this IFL vs AFL discussion in a new thread? Some us just don't care either way, and want information about the league we follow.

This thread was supposed to be about the IFL, and changes being made in the offseason with teams, league, rules, etc.

Thanks.

[exit322]

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt308/agitoStrife/argument_invalid.jpg

My God, no one has ever stepped up at this level to prove an argument like this. The only way it can be topped is the famed Chewbacca Defense. Luckily for Texxx, Johnnie Cochran is dead.

[jerry101jlh]

The IFL has problems that need addressing, one of them not the level of competition with in the league nor the quality of player that chooses the IFL over other leagues. I doubt very seriously the AFL will be on the IFL list of topics in off season meetings.

So on with the discussion of what issues the IFL needs to address and how they make their product better.

[indoor fan]

The IFL has problems that need addressing, one of them not the level of competition with in the league nor the quality of player that chooses the IFL over other leagues. I doubt very seriously the AFL will be on the IFL list of topics in off season meetings.

So on with the discussion of what issues the IFL needs to address and how they make their product better.

Thank you Jerry. Finally someone here with some sense. This is exactly my point. I am a fan of the IFL. I think the IFL is the best of the indoor leagues. My problem is when a very, very, very few people try and say the IFL is on the same level of the AFL, which it is not.

The IFL had the same problems as the other indoor leagues. ie teams folding, failed player and staff salaries being met, etc. Not to mention the prospects of a "hodge podge" organization in Tucson, on the way. It appears the IFL is on the path of the minor indoor leagues.

The IFL needs to focus on keeping ahead of the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL and stop trying to reach the level of the AFL, for now.

Time to move on. IFL fans can watch the AFL playoffs on NFL Network.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

The IFL has problems that need addressing, one of them not the level of competition with in the league nor the quality of player that chooses the IFL over other leagues. I doubt very seriously the AFL will be on the IFL list of topics in off season meetings.

So on with the discussion of what issues the IFL needs to address and how they make their product better.

for the 10,000 foot view... less talk more action...

scrap the "national" tv deal unless by some miracle it is actually on a network with a "household name", and instead financially assist teams with getting their product on television in the local market where it might grow a teams fanbase.

less expansion, let's ensure existing teams are financially stable and competitive on the field.

continue regionalized scheduling...

it's time to micromanage for a season.. let's ensure that La Crosse, Green bay, Amarillo, Arkansas return next season (i'd say 3 of those are likely to be gone one way or another) let's make sure that the SIFL and the potential afl feeder league don't poach teams away

[Bouncer_Texxx]

My problem is when a very, very, very few people try and say the IFL is on the same level of the AFL, which it is not.

All most of us are trying to say is that the two leagues, this year as they currently exist are way closer than ever before. There might even be some overlap (top of ifl to bottom of afl) in team strength and talent (no argument on the money, it is what it is).

We just want "you" (afl fanbois) to admit that you're not watching the same league you were in 2008, and that the AFL is again just a minor league. Almost AAA to the IFL's almost AA status if you want a baseball analogy. Gonzaga used to be a nobody, until they got a chance to play the Duke's and Kentucky's.. now they're somebody... I'm just sayin...

The only reason I hate the AFL is the arrogance of the Arena fan, plain and simple. Rather than accepting a different game and embracing what could be a productive relationship between the leagues, the brass, and the fans have set up the "I'm superior to you" kool-aid stand...

Like the Versus commercial says..."the theory of competition says that just because they're the strong doesn't mean they can't get their a**es kicked"

[indoor fan]

All most of us are trying to say is that the two leagues, this year as they currently exist are way closer than ever before. There might even be some overlap (top of ifl to bottom of afl) in team strength and talent (no argument on the money, it is what it is).

We just want "you" (afl fanbois) to admit that you're not watching the same league you were in 2008, and that the AFL is again just a minor league. Almost AAA to the IFL's almost AA status if you want a baseball analogy. Gonzaga used to be a nobody, until they got a chance to play the Duke's and Kentucky's.. now they're somebody... I'm just sayin...

The only reason I hate the AFL is the arrogance of the Arena fan, plain and simple. Rather than accepting a different game and embracing what could be a productive relationship between the leagues, the brass, and the fans have set up the "I'm superior to you" kool-aid stand...

Like the Versus commercial says..."the theory of competition says that just because they're the strong doesn't mean they can't get their a**es kicked"

I don't think anyone has ever said the 2010 AFL is at the same level as the 2008 AFL (even though many of those same players are playing).

My question to diehard IFL fans is why can't you just admit the AFL is a higher level league than the IFL? It's almost as if a few IFL fans suffer from "short man syndrome". Just get over it.

Sure, you could argue, that the CFL Grey Cup champion could beat the St. Louis Rams, but that does not make the CFL at the same level as the NFL.

I think we can all accept your baseball anology as the AFL is AAA and the indoor leagues are AA.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

I think we can all accept your baseball anology as the AFL is AAA and the indoor leagues are AA.

Right, the leagues have set them selves up on different financial tiers, but the talent difference is negligible. No one is making a full time living wage playing football inside any arena regardless of the ruleset this season. The teams and talent... there's a lot of crossover. The AFL's 2010 leading receiver was an average receiver, at best, in the IFL in 09. Conversely an 2008 AFL pine rider has lit the IFL up in the last two years and looks like Clinton Solomon might be playing outdoors this fall, what's Ben up to after the season?...Different games, different skillsets needed, plain and simple... talent argument invalid, except maybe at QB although IFL QB Ben Sankey got invited to UFL Omaha's mini camp.

Different games, yes... different levels..define levels... if AAA used aluminum bats and AA used wood how do you accurately compare the two leagues based off salaries and stats? you can't.

[preeths]

My question to diehard IFL fans is why can't you just admit the AFL is a higher level league than the IFL? It's almost as if a few IFL fans suffer from "short man syndrome". Just get over it.

My question is why can't you just drop it or take it to another thread? This thread has twice been derailed by this same tired argument. Get over it yourself. Accept that there is a difference of opinion, and until such time as player talent is quantifiable, a difference of opinion will remain. The world will continue to spin and we can get back to discussing the IFL in this thread.

[preeths]

less expansion, let's ensure existing teams are financially stable and competitive on the field.

Okay, how do you do that? Let's say I'm from Bismarck and I want to place a team in my hometown. Does the IFL say, "Thanks, but no thanks. We have a team near Grand Rapids that needs some cash, though." Who's going to do that?

[Bouncer_Texxx]

Okay, how do you do that? Let's say I'm from Bismarck and I want to place a team in my hometown. Does the IFL say, "Thanks, but no thanks. We have a team near Grand Rapids that needs some cash, though." Who's going to do that?

Good question... if teams are gone, teams are gone. But I'm afraid with investors like Tuscon we're scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "talent pool" so to speak. Which is more important to the IFL, working to keep Sioux City, Arkansas, Amarillo, Green Bay, from changing leagues, or inventing whole divisions full of expansion teams in the Southwest (a historical indoor football wasteland, save Arizona of the AFL) and the Northeast? So we can have more paper MVP's out of Richmond and Lehigh Valley when the real heart and soul of this league is connected by interstates 90 and 29?

If you're going to build, I'd say peruse geographic areas that make sense like La Crosse and Kent(no matter how they got there) were in 2010. Fargo, Bismark, WYOMING (C'mon man let it go), Council Bluffs, Topeka... places that fit within reasonable busing distance (10hrs or less) of an existing team. It's not a perfect plan but, to me is sure seems better than freaking Tuscon.

[indoor fan]

Right, the leagues have set them selves up on different financial tiers, but the talent difference is negligible. No one is making a full time living wage playing football inside any arena regardless of the ruleset this season. The teams and talent... there's a lot of crossover. The AFL's 2010 leading receiver was an average receiver, at best, in the IFL in 09. Conversely an 2008 AFL pine rider has lit the IFL up in the last two years and looks like Clinton Solomon might be playing outdoors this fall, what's Ben up to after the season?...Different games, different skillsets needed, plain and simple... talent argument invalid, except maybe at QB although IFL QB Ben Sankey got invited to UFL Omaha's mini camp.

Different games, yes... different levels..define levels... if AAA used aluminum bats and AA used wood how do you accurately compare the two leagues based off salaries and stats? you can't.

You gave the baseball analogy yourself???? Makes since. The CFL and NFL are different games, but the NFL has more talent. Indoor and Arena football are different, but the AFL has more talent. Here is the hierarchy of professional football leagues:

1. NFL
2. CFL
3. UFL
4. AFL
5. IFL
6. AIFA
7. CIFL
8. SIFL

Done! Bring this thread back to the IFL.

[robster2001]

Okay, how do you do that? Let's say I'm from Bismarck and I want to place a team in my hometown. Does the IFL say, "Thanks, but no thanks. We have a team near Grand Rapids that needs some cash, though." Who's going to do that?

This, of course, is why the IFL (as well as every other minor pro sports league) will continue to have issues with bad franchises.

The league has no power -- it can't tell a potential owner that a franchise would fit better in a different location. It can either accept the franchise (and then try to retrofit the league to make it work -- see "AIFA West") or turn down the chance to make a dollar or two in franchise fees.

There are some, on this and other threads, who think the IFL's problem is that the commissioner gets a cut of expansion fees and thus there is even less quality control. While that may be true, I suspect the greater issue is the "more teams means a better league" fallacy that's haunted minor pro sports for as long as there's been minor pro sports. Eventually, some leagues will figure out that less is more, and focus on smaller regions with a core of stable franchises. I'm not expecting it any time soon, sadly.

[jerry101jlh]

What leagues, all leagues, not just the IFL need to do is explore other revenue sources so not dependent on franchise fees or team dues. Once a league can be self supporting it will be in a better position to pick and choose.

[preeths]

But one of the great problems is that less can also mean closer to extinction. At its end, the IPFL had a core of solid teams, but it didn't have enough of them. To a degree, I think that's the problem UIF faced a couple of years ago. Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing that more is always better, but there is some truth that there is strength in numbers.

I personally don't think Tucson is going to happen by itself, unless it agrees to underwrite travel costs. Didn't the league only announce a "letter of intent" signing or something of that sort, i.e. not an expansion, but an intent to expand?

[preeths]

What leagues, all leagues, not just the IFL need to do is explore other revenue sources so not dependent on franchise fees or team dues. Once a league can be self supporting it will be in a better position to pick and choose.

What are some of those revenue sources and what should the leagues do? Leagues have done an awful lot to try to secure national sponsors. That's why some strive for a national footprint and others make television a priority.

[jerry101jlh]

What are some of those revenue sources and what should the leagues do? Leagues have done an awful lot to try to secure national sponsors. That's why some strive for a national footprint and others make television a priority.

I would disagree, leagues have done little to nothing in the way of securing sponsorships. I know from personal experience it can be done and without much effort, although would take two or even more years to actually see a decent payback. But before most bigger name sponsors buy in, leagues have to prove stability.

A national footprint isn't that necessary either and in my opinion tv contracts a waste of time and resources when payback is so little.

[preeths]

But the money is the important part! Sure, leagues can get sponsorships if they virtually give them away, but that does nothing to address the "revenue sources" issue you brought up. I talk to a lot of people with a lot of different leagues, and securing decent paying, national sponsorships is not an easy task. A lot of folks have plans to get them and very few actually work.

Make no mistake, a national footprint does indeed open up a few more doors, and television means additional eyes to see sponsor logos and such. We can't pretend that either factor makes no difference. They do. The real question is if either avenue is worth the cost.

[super390]

While I may have sounded like I was bashing the IFL in my previous post, that doesn't mean that the IFL game can't be a superior local TV product to the AFL. I just can't judge because I don't have the means to see the games on my TV. The argument is that none of these leagues look good on TV. But think of all the people who grew up watching the NHL done by local TV production teams, like the Los Angeles Kings broadcasts that I somehow used to see in New Mexico. They couldn't have had great camera work, or Olympic-level producers. We were all watching interlaced video on tiny screens back then.

Given the argument that indoor is more running and defense than arena, the local cameramen might have an easier time with it. The sponsors are local and they benefit more from exposure on local affiliates than small national cable channels. The problem is that the announcers are almost certain to be idiots. I mean, real boobs who will screw up the players' names, the name of the visiting team, explanation of key rules unique to indoor football. TV announcers in other sports gain experience moving from local radio to TV, or college broadcasts to pro.

If you can fix this problem then there's plenty of airtime to fill. Every TV station in America can now divide itself into up to five standard-definition subchannels, or an HD channel and one or two SD subchannels. Channel 11 here in Houston mostly uses its subchannel for weather, but it also does MLS games and puts some effort into it. Production costs are going down, and those channels are just going to fill up with minor league hockey - done badly - if no one else steps up.

[Caballo Diablo]

I don't understand the 1.0 or 2.0 nonsense your talking about. These leagues do not exist.

The AFL has the most talent of all the 50 yard leagues and pays the most. How hard is that to comprehend? Geez.
I've wondered that for awhile, even after explaining you still don't get it. 1.0 = previous and 2.0 = current. I can send a tutor over if you want.

You never address and question, sorry but I tend to believe the opinions of the players, coaches, and owners, over yours. They're living the game and your "Pays the most" is meaningless to them when it's insignificant. It's the better perks (wink wink) that they like.

[Caballo Diablo]

IFL fans can watch the AFL playoffs on NFL Network.
Nope, my cable provider doesn't even offer it. Not that I want it though.

[Caballo Diablo]

If you can fix this problem then there's plenty of airtime to fill. Every TV station in America can now divide itself into up to five standard-definition subchannels, or an HD channel and one or two SD subchannels. Channel 11 here in Houston mostly uses its subchannel for weather, but it also does MLS games and puts some effort into it. Production costs are going down, and those channels are just going to fill up with minor league hockey - done badly - if no one else steps up.
I never understood why more teams in all leagues don't pursue local options. There's ton's of crap on the public acces stuff that no one watches and many channels available. Let the fans in existing markets watch road games instead of chasing the illusive dream of being nationaly accepted by the masses.

[preeths]

CD, I was just about to chastise you for leading the thread astray, but at least you got back to the IFL in your last post. I tend to agree with your viewpoint, not only in regards to television, but in regard to revenue in general. Teams need to raise it locally. Waiting on the league to start providing for them will drain most of their coffers first.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

Thank you Jerry. Finally someone here with some sense. This is exactly my point. I am a fan of the IFL. I think the IFL is the best of the indoor leagues. My problem is when a very, very, very few people try and say the IFL is on the same level of the AFL, which it is not.

The IFL had the same problems as the other indoor leagues. ie teams folding, failed player and staff salaries being met, etc. Not to mention the prospects of a "hodge podge" organization in Tucson, on the way. It appears the IFL is on the path of the minor indoor leagues.

The IFL needs to focus on keeping ahead of the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL and stop trying to reach the level of the AFL, for now.

Time to move on. IFL fans can watch the AFL playoffs on NFL Network.

Indoor fan if the AFL is so good then they should prove it on the field play against the IFL in exhibitions etc if not the AFL should go home stop puffing out it's chest because they have accomplished nothing in my opinion AFL but live off the legend of the past original AFL.

See I have no team in this race but talk is cheap so what the AFL spends more money then the IFL the difference isn't that great like it once was in the original AFL in my opinion of watching both games.

I think CD point that alot of you are missing is it isn't like the IFL taking on the NFL the difference for the extra money isn't as much as some of you think talent wise. I think that is the point CD and others are trying to make and I trend to agree with that. The difference between $200 and $400 a game whats that. Plus some players will play on a IFL team over a AFL team if it is there home city remember were talking very little difference in money not the $40,000 to $100,000 contracts that use to be in the old original AFL.

Indoor fan if you have confidence that the AFL is so superior you wouldn't be trying the convidence everyone on a IFL board in my opinion you would just know it. Your a good indoor fan indoor fan but this new AFL isn't the old AFL in my opinion. I like the new AFL but it isn't like the old AFL in my opinion.

I personally agree with CD the difference talent wise isn't much for the extra money spent by the new AFL. AFL prove it and play on the field which I have said from the beginning play in a National Indoor Championship game against the IFL if the AFL is so tough you have nothing to worry about then will you AFL owners and players. Put it on ESPN2 or Versus TV and I will watch as a arena/indoor football fan. I am a arena/indoor fan and I want a championship game between the two leagues AFL and IFL. Settle it on the football field it would be great for the sport of arena/indoor football in my opinion.

Or is the new AFL living off past glory of the original AFL and wouldn't touch playing the IFL because there is alot to lose and the new AFL might not come out on top? You guys decide if you ask me the AFL owners are plain scared if there to chicken to play the IFL. If it was me and I thought I was the best I would want the game if I am the AFL to pound the IFL. By pounding them yearly you prove your the best arena/indoor football league in the US in my opinion. Don't talk about it do it. I can't stand the way college football is where everyone is scared to play a Boise State at Boise as a example why your afraid you might lose? Let's Go Buffalo

[preeths]

Back to the topic at hand, what should the IFL do in the offseason?

[newiflfan]

I would like to see the IFL have a set of big offseason team financial meetings. Have each team meet individually with IFL officials to detail finances from the previous season (what went well, what didn't), and then detail finances for the upcoming season.

I think they should also force all teams to set aside enough money for player pay into its own separate escrow account, prior to the start of each season. That way players know their money is safe, and the team could even earn a little bit of extra money in interest.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

I would like to see the IFL have a set of big offseason team financial meetings. Have each team meet individually with IFL officials to detail finances from the previous season (what went well, what didn't), and then detail finances for the upcoming season.

I think they should also force all teams to set aside enough money for player pay into its own separate escrow account, prior to the start of each season. That way players know their money is safe, and the team could even earn a little bit of extra money in interest.

In a perfect world, you'd be right. I think a lot more of the league lives closer to "paycheck to paycheck' however. Socking it away ahead of time isn't much of an option. Much like your everyday family placing a years worth of car payments aside in January.

Where "indoor fan" and the rest of us are disagreeing it to him the league delineations are black and white, the rest of us see shades of gray.

The IFL's 2010 issues were largely due to financial instability of a few teams, and the inability of other teams to want to spend money. were Arkansas and Amarillo just biding their time until they could hope to get into the afl d-league? Does the AFL have enough clout and pull to support a d-league in 2011? I'm thinking not, but that's for ANOTHER THREAD IN A DIFFERENT FORUM... the IFL needs to work to address the reasons the Texas teams want to leave, again... certain owners having a lot of pull at the league level

[indoor fan]

I've wondered that for awhile, even after explaining you still don't get it. 1.0 = previous and 2.0 = current. I can send a tutor over if you want.

You never address and question, sorry but I tend to believe the opinions of the players, coaches, and owners, over yours. They're living the game and your "Pays the most" is meaningless to them when it's insignificant. It's the better perks (wink wink) that they like.

This argument only makes sense in "fantasy land", because there is no such thing as 1.0 or 2. whatever. Only the AFL exists on record, that I can find.

To stay on topic....yes, the IFL should strive to become more like the AFL someday. To do that, they would need to increase their talent level and stability of teams. Until then, the IFL is much closer to the AIFA, CIFL and SIFL, than the AFL.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

This argument only makes sense in "fantasy land", because there is no such thing as 1.0 or 2. whatever. Only the AFL exists on record, that I can find.

To stay on topic....yes, the IFL should strive to become more like the AFL someday.


1. quit baiting us. We know what you're trying to do, and you know what we mean. you're new name is Cleveland until you admit it.

2. the worst thing the IFL could do it strive to be the AFL. The AFL's current and former business model is completely suspect.

[indoor fan]

1. quit baiting us. We know what you're trying to do, and you know what we mean. you're new name is Cleveland until you admit it.

2. the worst thing the IFL could do it strive to be the AFL. The AFL's current and former business model is completely suspect.


You mean teams not folding or being able to pay staff and players salaries? I think the IFL should strive to complete these items first.

[indoor fan]

Nope, my cable provider doesn't even offer it. Not that I want it though.

I'm sorry CD, I feel bad for you. That's the equivalent of still having dial up ISP. Stay positive, things will pick up for you.

Unfortunatly your missing some great AFL and CFL action.

[preeths]

Indoor fan, you're taking a break from the boards until you can control your compulsion to derail threads in the IFL forum.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

Back to the topic at hand, what should the IFL do in the offseason?

Put a team in Buffalo, New York but I am bias on that subject preeths. I would really like a IFL team in Buffalo so my city can play the IFL Rochester Raiders as rivals like we do in IL baseball and NLL indoor lacrosse. See that is why I think the IFL is a good idea because Buffalo and Rochester are so close together as cities.

Also some IFL fans would be a surprise to learn Buffalo and Rochester are about the same size metro population I am talking about. Buffalo is thought of by some fans as bigger because we have NFL and NHL but actually were about the same size now with Buffalo losing population faster then Rochester so Rochester has caught up in metro size to Buffalo about 1 million people give or take a few. Just a little nugget for those IFL fans that might think the IFL wouldn't be the right fit for a city like Buffalo.

Plus Thurman Thomas owns part of the Rochester Raiders IFL. Thurman Thomas calls Buffalo home now. I wonder if he would be interested someday owning a IFL team in Buffalo on his own with investers. Just a thought because he was involved once trying to bring a AF2 team to Buffalo with one of the former Rochester Raiders owners a few years ago. Let's Go Buffalo

[jerry101jlh]

Others may look at it differently, but I don't see Dittman leaving the IFL as a bad thing. Here you have an owner than that shown when he can't have things his way, he takes his ball and goes home. But that aside and this being a conversation of what the IFL needs to address in the off season it does open up the question of the leagues stability and what owners need to do to make things more stable. If other Texas teams follow suit, what does that mean?

Other subject on getting national sponsorships. Granted other leagues may have tried and again I am talking from personal experience. This takes time, not something that happens in one season. Revenue won't be plentiful early on, but requires a dedicated effort to this project. In my opinion you don't go after the big names, but smaller national brands and even wannabes. You might see some willing to come on board and trade out services or product only to begin with, but with even brand you sign, makes it easier to get the next one. Also requires hiring someone who has real experience and a track record in buying national sponsors, someone who knows the ins and outs of the program. This should not be an added expense as this person generally is a commission only type.

I don't feel that television deals garnish enough income to make them worth the time, but one might consider a real push on internet broadcasting of all games. Not talking the b2Network stuff that is basically game film, but quality broadcasts. If a league produces its on own games it controls the advertising and gets near 100% of the revenue. Streaming games or any content is starting to take hold, becoming the new TV of sorts and with viewers being able to connect to their TV with their computers opens up this area for quality game programming.

A league has limited avenues on generating revenue outside of team dues and expansion, but any revenue gained through other sources is helpful to the cause.

[NatePreds05]

In a perfect world, you'd be right. I think a lot more of the league lives closer to "paycheck to paycheck' however. Socking it away ahead of time isn't much of an option. Much like your everyday family placing a years worth of car payments aside in January.

Where "indoor fan" and the rest of us are disagreeing it to him the league delineations are black and white, the rest of us see shades of gray.

The IFL's 2010 issues were largely due to financial instability of a few teams, and the inability of other teams to want to spend money. were Arkansas and Amarillo just biding their time until they could hope to get into the afl d-league? Does the AFL have enough clout and pull to support a d-league in 2011? I'm thinking not, but that's for ANOTHER THREAD IN A DIFFERENT FORUM... the IFL needs to work to address the reasons the Texas teams want to leave, again... certain owners having a lot of pull at the league level

Securing money up front from each team for their players is the only way to ensure all players get paid. It has been successful in the af2 and the new AFL. It also allows for league wide group insurance for players which brings insurance costs down. And then there will never be a ThunderHawks like situation with few being paid or being paid lower than the normal weekly pay. It also makes it easier when an Alaska type situation happens.

[jerry101jlh]

Securing money up front from each team for their players is the only way to ensure all players get paid. It has been successful in the af2 and the new AFL. It also allows for league wide group insurance for players which brings insurance costs down. And then there will never be a ThunderHawks like situation with few being paid or being paid lower than the normal weekly pay. It also makes it easier when an Alaska type situation happens.

What you say is 100% right, unfortunately I don't see IFL or any other of the big 4 owners voting to make that happen. Its simply the right thing to do to protect your product (players) and for the sport in general.

Take away the high cost of entry and operating costs and the af2 had some very good ideas going for them. And I am not pro AFL/af2, just feel some of their ideas were very good.

[Bouncer_Texxx]

Like i said.. it's the riht thing to do, but I don't think any of us could afford to put the money for all of our annual truck payments into the piggy bank in janurary... you're talking about $73,500 in cash available... which maybe isn't much to some of these teams, but I dare say that's a huge chunk of change to others..

[jerry101jlh]

Like i said.. it's the riht thing to do, but I don't think any of us could afford to put the money for all of our annual truck payments into the piggy bank in janurary... you're talking about $73,500 in cash available... which maybe isn't much to some of these teams, but I dare say that's a huge chunk of change to others..

To be honest if I were an owner and even though agree "right thing to do" I do not know if I would vote for it, especially if my war chest wasn't the richest around.

[newiflfan]

Maybe that "money up front" should be a requirement to field a team. I know that won't happen, but I can dream.

[newiflfan]

Making the post in this thread because this is something that the team did in the offseason...

I happened to take a look at the West Michigan ThunderHawks website yesterday. They appear to have ticket prices for 2011 posted. If accurate, they are going to charge $40 for front row seats, and $25 for the 'level' of seats beyond that. Do they actually think they're going to get people to pay those prices? This is the team that last season averaged barely 500 per game when they charged a flat $10 price for ANY seat!

[thunderhawkfan]

Making the post in this thread because this is something that the team did in the offseason...

I happened to take a look at the West Michigan ThunderHawks website yesterday. They appear to have ticket prices for 2011 posted. If accurate, they are going to charge $40 for front row seats, and $25 for the 'level' of seats beyond that. Do they actually think they're going to get people to pay those prices? This is the team that last season averaged barely 500 per game when they charged a flat $10 price for ANY seat!



I saw what you are talking about but you look half way down the page and it states all seats are only $10.00. It appears that ownership has learned nothing from last year and they are still a joke, just like the web site. I was really hoping for some change for the better. I just hope they have put player and coaches pay aside so we don't have the same thing happen as last year. It will be hard enough to talk players into playing for the team and if they stop paying them, the players will leave faster than last year. To this point, they are doing nothing as far as damage control from the bad reputation they earned last year. I just don't understand how they expect to make it in Grand Rapids. The Rampage are still way more popular and they don't even exist and haven't played in years. It is a real shame because the Grand Rapids area is a great area for minor league sports. If we only had an owner with a brain.

[Minor League Man]

I'm just hoping some new team owner will emerge to assume the Grand Rapids Rampage name and resume play in the AFL...

[newiflfan]

I'm just hoping some new team owner will emerge to assume the Grand Rapids Rampage name and resume play in the AFL...

Since this isn't the right board, I'll keep my thoughts real brief on the subject, but I would wonder if the poor showing by the ThunderHawks might keep somebody on the fence in the specific situation you mentioned.

Even though the ThunderHawks ownership/front office really only have themselves to blame for what happened in 2010, I could see the whole situation possibly misleading one to believe that Grand Rapids just isn't a good fit for not-outside football.

[newiflfan]

Wow, the ThunderHawks seem to have redone their website. And wow, are there some examples of poor spelling on it.