Am I the only one thinking this...

The United Football League (UFL) forum
User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:35 pm

[quote=""preeths""]The main problem with the XFL, tear away all the bluster and hype, was that it was dependent upon primetime ratings at a time when even the venerable Monday Night Football was struggling to stay on network television.[/quote]

That's true.

Plus - and I honestly believe this - McMahon as a polarizing figure helped them at first, but really hurt them when things went south. His bravado was great to get attention early, and there were those who said "Wow, he's done great things with wrestling, if anybody can do this, he can."

And when things went south and he didn't handle them particularly well (plus...he didn't really know how to run an actual football league), he was hoisted on his own petard, by many of the same people.
Again, as far as attendance and the ability to get multiple TV deals, I think the XFL shows that the spring is a better option than the fall. That league had to average about 25k per game, too.
And they did, and they still lost a bajillion dollars. The cost of starting up anything, plus the fact that football is a really expensive sport, took care of that.

There's one theory, though, and it was advanced by the USFL folks as part of the ill-fated move to the fall: That fall is when more people are thinking about and "living" football. Yeah, there's a lot of football to compete with, but they felt that if you were going to do it, at least do it when interest in football was demonstrably the highest.

Of course, the USFL was so screwed up by that point with its infighting that it wasn't healthy by the time it got to that point. We never did get to see what would have happened in the fall of 1986.
You're right, though, you can't count on primetime ratings on network TV to carry a minor league.
Plus, they put games on the absolute worst night of the week to draw the demographic they were seeking.
That was a flawed business plan from the start, no matter who's doing the marketing. We could also probably throw in Arena Football. Their overspending led them down a dark road, but fans showed an interest in watching it in the spring.
That they did. NBC promoted it relentlessly, gave it big-league treatment. The ratings weren't a lot, but their attendance did get a boost. In the end, it didn't help them.

As for the UFL, they should be so lucky as to find out what will happen in the fall of 2011. I feel that when their TV deals run out, if they're still drawing 10-12,000 a game, they're toast.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

mrsummitcitypigskin
Site Admin
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:05 pm

Post by mrsummitcitypigskin » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:24 am

[quote=""OVWarriorPlayer""]I agree whole heartedly[/quote]

I gotta stick with my guns Mr. Preeths and OV Warrior.
Spring is no time for outdoor football, unless it's spring
practice for college ball. Spring is Basketball tourney
time, Baseball opening and of course our beloved indoor
game. I respectfully disagree...

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:20 pm

I've never believed that March Madness is the insurmountable obstacle some think it is. The NFL, on the other hand, is, especially when you combine it with college and high school ball. And early season baseball? I don't see that as much of an obstacle, either. There just isn't any room left in the fall.

SignGuyDino
Site Admin
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:33 am
Location: Fletcher, NC
Contact:

Post by SignGuyDino » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:34 am

The very first two days of the NCAA tourney owns the tv. After that weekend though, all but 16 teams are gone. Not that big a factor.
Never make anyone a priority that makes you an option.

Post Reply

Return to “UFL”