Nationalizing Indoor/Arena Football successfully

[PIONEERSFAN101]

We need something similar to the NCAA; a governing body to oversee the 80 or so indoor and arena teams we currently have (exluding the AFL) Now of course, the AF2 would never give up their rebound nets, so I also propose two divisions/Conferences: the Net Division and No Net Division. Each would have its own regions (there'd be a Net Northeast and No Net Northeast, for example) Markets would pick either Nets or no nets. However, a set of rules for everything else would have to be agreed on. Playoffs would be similar to those in NCAA Division I-AA or II football. The top x amount of teams from each region play games within their regions for a chance to go to the national bracket. A playoff format could be worked out later, but it would end with a championship game between the Net and No Net Conferences. Highest seed would host and the game would be played with their rules. (or they could play with the away team's net/no net rule to even out the advantage a little bit)

This would also be awesome for teams, as travel expenses would be EXTREMELY low.

A governing body would consist of current league presidents and severa committees, a la NCAA.

I know this will probably never happen, but think about if it did. It'd be just like college football season, only indoors. And a TRUE CHAMPION OF ALL OF INDOOR/ARENA BALL could be declared. Most fans would have several teams they could watch each weekend, so you'd think everyone would be in the money.

Thoughts?

[newtothegame]

Don't some leagues use a different amount of players on each side. How would this affect the league(s)?

[tony-o]

The only league like that is the GLIFL, but don't expect them to budge.

A national body might work. However I would let each team play their league games with their league's rules. Then after those leagues seasons are over certain teams will get a chance to play for a championship with a certain set of rules that differ from every league.

[gonzo13]

Yes, the GLIFL only has 7 men on the field for each team, so there would have to be an across the board mandate on the number of players. There are also many rules that vary from league to league. The number of players on an active roster, the uno, some leagues can fake a fieldgoal, some can't, some leagues pay players more than others. All of these things, along with some others that I'm sure I'm leaving out right now would have to be hammered out and used by every "conference." The biggest drawback is the fact that as much as we all hate it, these small market teams are going to come and go. Even in the AFL, how many of those teams are 10 years old or more? A team can't survive more than a couple of losing seasons. At this level, (unlike college football where other sports and donors can pay the tab even if your team sucks) you have almost got to win to put people in the seats and pay the bills. So we would never have a "Vanderbilt" that perennially stinks. So sooner or later we would dwindle back down to one normal sized league again.
But in order to keep from being a total parade rainer.... I would love to see a nation wide indoor football league (notice I didn't say "National Indoor football league") with 80 teams. That way we would know that one team is the best there is. And next time somebody said" the IFL is better than the UIF" the response could be "well we'll find out come playoff time"

[yellowpages]

You'd be surprised by the talks that are taking place behind the scenes. I do not believe that you will see a unified governing body that oversees all of indoor football. But, you will begin to see cooperation between leagues...combined championships, all-star games, etc. I believe the regionalization of leagues will be more common as we've seen this offseason.

The NIFL made a big mistake by filing their lawsuit against several other leagues. Their failures during the season and the defection of teams have also had an affect. Instead of destroying the other leagues, they have brought about their own demise, and in turn, have unified everyone else.

[Tatonka]

I'm in favor of keeping leagues regionalized, concentrating on a particular part of the country.

Reading some of Mr. Haines' comments in the recent press releases in Danville and Springfield though clearly indicate he is still looking to make the AIFL a national league. I don't see them cooperating with other leagues to form any alliances.

I could be wrong, and I frequently am, but the AIFL, unless these new "owners" are able to exert a large amount of control, is slowly going down the NIFL path.

[Jammer]

When (or if) the PIFL gets off the ground they are suppose to have 7 players per side.

[Freedom]

Unless they have already made changes, the PIFL rules say 8 men to a side.

[SignGuyDino]

If you remember, CS tried to sue every league with her "patent." While the AIFL caved, the other leagues didn't and frankly it hurt every league including the NIFL.

What these leagues SHOULD do is establish a uniform set of rules, and split the costs of a "public patent."

Then any league can use those rules.

Keep these leagues regional though. If the GLIFL doesn't budge don't go with them unless you're willing to cave and play 7 a side.

[preeths]

No patent is needed. Anyone can play the game indoors, using their own rule set. Some may still need to be shown that the indoor football patent is unenforceable, but it will come out in time.

[gonzo13]

If you start dividing up territory and designating them for specific leagues, you start flirting with anti-trust laws.

[Geoff]

Just tell the league to remain bus leagues and don't set specific areas they must stay in.