Aifl = Nifl

[ChampionOfSteel]

Based on the Ghostriders situation, the AIFL is as poorly organized as the NIFL.

I was hoping as a minimum the AIFL was the same or better than the UIF.

You guys in charge of the AIFL suck.

[PIONEERSFAN101]

When the AIFL starts folding massive amounts of teams and losing them to other leagues and having multiple teams fold a week before the season starts, then they are equal..

The teams here in PA are doing good in the AIFL.

[Sykotyk]

The Northern teams are fine. In the south, the big trouble spot is Asheville which was a last minute improvisation to keep from having a traveling team again.

I've been to three AIFL game so far, two NIFL games, and almost all of Ohio Valley's UIF home schedule last year, the best league is UIF, followed by AIFL, and a distant third, NIFL. Already they had Charlotte and Hammond fold. Schedules reworked days before games, and absurd scheduling that appears only the work of delusional psychiatric patients.

Sykotyk

[Rocky]

The AIFL is in big trouble with Haines having his fingers (and small pocketbook) into far too many teams. That league is just waiting to crash and burn.

The NIFL has major problems, with CS being central and her 'expansion', at best, suspect. I prefer goofy, but suspect works.

I thank GOD for Billings/Tri Cities/Wyoming and now my own Rapid City for making a decent core of teams out of the NIFL tempest. If only the league were different.

[rams80]

They'll make a good West division for the UIF in 2007

[Sykotyk]

Yes, they would. And I'm sure Tri-Cities would as well. Although they might jump to AF2 to join Spokane and Everett.

Sykotyk

[Rocky]

The UIF couldn't make inroads with Wyoming and Billings last year. I doubt they will this year, but who knows? Tri Cities won't go af2. The owner has seen the cost.

I suspect you'll see the majority of the AIFL get swallowed up by the UIF or the GLIFL in the years to come.

So, if the thought was the AIFL=NIFL due to the strong finding greener pastures, I'd completely agree that is possible.

[BananaCat]

Here's how I see it:

The indoor/arena football markets are exploding right now, and I think they'll continue to do so. As such, most of the leagues are trying to set themselves up to dominate it now (NIFL, AIFL) to be in better position later. Those leagues don't care as much about stable teams/finances/management, as much as they do having a team in place no matter how bad it's run/operated. Each of those leagues seem to have 5/6 strong and stable teams, and the rest just plain garbage. They don't mind getting suckers as owners and taking their money. While it would seem in the short term that their leagues are thriving to the casual observer, upon closer look they are no more stable than a house of cards. To think they can last operating like this is a longshot gamble in my opinion.

So far, I like the way the UIF is concentrating more on having as many stable teams as they can, and not expanding as fast as they can. More teams will come over time. Slow and stable growth will win out over the other leagues in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I think the UIF is going about it the right way so far.

I like the AF2, I really do. I just think the AFL could help them out with costs, instead of the other way around. I think the AF2 is destined to fail if it continues on like it is. Hopefully changes will be made.

GLIFL and IFL seem to be happy in the areas they are now. They may expand slowly over the years, but I don't seem them going all out and foresaking overall quality like the NIFL and AIFL are doing.

The APFL is basically three good teams and the rest a bunch of semi-pro teams masquerading as pro-teams. This league isn't really striving for anything other than that either.

The next 10 years will tell the tale on how all these leagues will fare. Most of them won't be around is my guess. I think two will probably survive and some others pop up. We may get an indoor super-league in the future, but I think we'll have a lot more individual regional leagues as well. Either way, I'll follow every league there is, but enjoy some more than others.

[Sykotyk]

The one prohibitive point to the AIFL teams going to other leagues is travel. The teams can exist on 1,500-2,000 a game because of travel and playing in markets generally not fit for other leagues (I'll forego the NIFL since unfit means no one to put out the money). I don't see a team in Steubenville in any other league. Although I think highly of the UIF, they're not cost-effective for most of the AIFL's northern cities, and probably for the Greyhounds as well. Cheap travel, small regionalized groups of teams, is what was talked about so much in what is needed for indoor football.

And now there is such a league that follows through with that belief, and there's nothing but naysayers. The other good point about the regionalized AIFL is that if a team in the south, for instance, folds, it doesn't screw everyone's schedule, just that division, and with the travel being less, the cost of creating a road-team or running the folded club as a road team is much cheaper.

A minor league indoor football team never should have to charter a plane for road games, or travel overnight unless at the absolute worst, for a late round playoff game or the championship.

Sykotyk

[Rocky]

I'm not a naysayer of the regional approach. Quite the contrary, if you go back through our long history of me defending indoor football and the less-expensive cost structures against, if I recall, you Syk. :)

I'm a naysayer of Haines.

[Sykotyk]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Haines, but he did create a league that got Erie, Canton, and Steubenville into indoor football. And returned it to Johnstown.

Although the AIFL has two divisions, I care primarily about the North. Not until the championship will I look much at what's going on in the south. An 8-team round robin league is what the AIFL North is, and completely self sufficient, despite what goes on in the south.

Sykotyk