terminate season (all teams) = honorable approach

[ChampionOfSteel]

Refund everyone's money for those regular season games that have yet to be played. Can the playoffs too.

We did it your way, now save face and do it my way for 2008.

No parity, no evenly matched games = no support. You guys need to figure out why that is. Do scrimmages in the offseason to resolve how much of this is due to talent parity vs. the game system itself...or some other reason.

I just hope the barn in Marion is wide-enough for the Mayhem to be in UIF for 2008.

You can't go wrong with the NIFL game system (hint to the CIFL owners).

[tony-o]

The CIFL has had troubles, but they shouldn't do something that radical.

[ChampionOfSteel]

The CIFL has had troubles, but they shouldn't do something that radical.

Have you seen this weekend's scoreboard?

[Dogs-Glads-Xtreme]

Ml91, I see you talking about the CIFL and I see you have the NY Dragons as your Avator, but why don't you post on the CIFL boards and come down to some Revolution games?

[exit322]

Um...that's one of the dumbest comments I've seen. "Let's terminate the entire season because of a couple screwups."

Yeah, that's real bright. Let's completely ruin every team by not finishing the season, because that's better than an 86-0 game.

Not every fan that went to Worcester felt gypped by the contest (yes, a lot of them did, I realize, but not everyone). But everyone's gonna feel gypped if the teams don't finish their seasons, refund or not.

[preeths]

Oh yeah, Josh, but it's just that simple. You can just refund all the money paid so far by fans and sponsors. All you have to do is take it out of the refund account. What's that? There is no refund account? Most of that money is already used? Then I agree, it's not even a possibility. On the other hand, such an idea is apparently enough to get you invited on the CIFL radio show, though.

[WorcShark]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but ML91, has there been any interested in putting a AFL2 team in Providence at all?

[Dogs-Glads-Xtreme]

Well okay I did not know you lived that far.

[Jamie]

You can't go wrong with the NIFL game system (hint to the CIFL owners).

How's that been working out for them?

[exit322]

<sarcasm>Well, duh, Jamie. It's obviously the talent disparity causing the bad NIFL scores, while the CIFL game system sucks.

You know, because New England would have given up 38 points and only scored 52 or so on "Steubenville" with the NIFL rules. I mean, come on.</sarcasm>

[Dogs-Glads-Xtreme]

Oh come on guys, we all know that the best thing the NIFL Bunch, could probably make a nice spinoff of the Brady Bunch, was the rulebook.

[mintjohn]

I was not too impressed with the rules system of the CIFL either. The NIFL does have a good system, they just are a terrible league from a management perspective.

[ChampionOfSteel]

I was not too impressed with the rules system of the CIFL either. The NIFL does have a good system, they just are a terrible league from a management perspective.

Agree with you on the NIFL game system. It's the greatest. The league management sucks.

What troubles you with the CIFL system? I really like the CIFL game system while I'm watching a game. The problem is I look up at the scoreboard a moment later and the losing team cannot catch up and we aren't even in the 3rd quarter! That is my complaint.

Did I mentioned the games I've seen don't involve Port Huron?

Leagues outside of the CIFL don't have a parity rule in place in regards to putting limits on the number of players in a certain age range but they don't have statistically the blowouts like the CIFL. That is why it is hard for me to believe poster exit322. There are 2nd and 3rd tier levels in the CIFL that have their own blowouts. It's just not one tier (Port Huron) beating up on everyone else.

I'm wondering if the 7 (and 6) man game was thoroughly experimented and then discarded by these other 8-man leagues that have come into existence, because they were unable to keep their 7 (or 6) man games suspenseful during these experimental games? It's too damn easy to blowout your opponent if you have a slight speed advantage, etc.

Keep in mind, the other leagues on this planet do not have age limits, and yet...the CIFL has multiple tiers of blowouts not just in its 1st year, but carried over into its 2nd year. That is not randomness to me.

***-This brings me to another point: Eric/Kevin/exit322, how did you guys come up with your current game system? Did you have experimental scrimmages or did you just make up some rules and go with it back in 2005?

[exit322]

It was created and worked on during the season with a few tweaks in place to help smooth things out.

Just like every other indoor league. No one's ever done any experimental scrimmages since the AFL in the late 1980s.

Your argument is still poor beyond belief.

The 7-man idea hasn't ever been tried simply because the AFL did 8-man, and everyone else felt that to be considered legitimate they had to do 8-man, too...that has been proven wrong, though I don't anticipate anyone else trying anything beyond 8-man.

And really...how's that NIFL rule set working out? The problems there are the same (though magnified) as the CIFL in terms of poor owners running teams. There's second-tier blowouts and third-tier blowouts there, too. Why can't teams come back in the third and fourth quarters in the NIFL (and APFL, since they have almost the same exact rulebook) when they're down by 20 or so at halftime? You need to explain this before you can make ANY argument about any other system. You love the NIFL system, yet it's just as blowout-prone as the CIFL's, based on their even higher scoring margins.

[mintjohn]

I like the NIFL system because it was balanced. There was a steady mixture of pass and run. The CIFL games I have seen seem to be almost all pass, except when the qb runs.

When I watched NIFL games (a few years back, when they were legitimate), it felt like the closest thing to the outdoor game that happened to be indoors.

I cannot stand the AFL's LB in the box rules. In the NIFL the LB's have a little more ability to move. I could not stand all the passing in the AFL either-it actually got boring to watch TD after TD- a defensive stop was exciting!

I like the CIFL though, although I was not happy with the overexpansion. However, they seem to care about the fans. Its not perfect, but it has potential.

[exit322]

And that's weird how the CIFL games are all pass, because the LB rules are even more open to allow teams to run the ball.

I think you may be able to credit that to a poor set of RBs in the league. Teams with a good line and good RB are able to establish a run game...just not many teams have that.

[Ducej11]

There are a couple of teams that do run the ball quite a bit more than most. Look at Rochester and Kalamazoo. Rochester runs the ball about 35% of the time.

[mintjohn]

OK thanks, I am going by what I have seen in person.

[Ducej11]

I am surpised that more teams dont utilize the running game. With it being 7 on 7, there is a lot more room to run the ball as apposed to passing. Thats why when its 8 on 8, its tougher to run, too many players in a small area, not enough creases.

[exit322]

I do think it's because of the talent at RB - not many of them usually want to play indoors because the 50-yard game is perceived as a thrower's game (even with UIF/NIFL-style leagues out there since 1998 ).