Why not be smart and move to SPRING?

[Sam Hill]

Point is: you don't know that.

The USFL was well-capitalized, had a major TV contract, challenged the NFL for actual talent (because they could) and presented itself as a major league in major markets.

And the sports landscape of 1983 was very different than today in terms of competition and expectations.

I'm not sure an alternative football league can make it in either season because of the costs involved in starting it up and the plethora of competition (not just from sports, but from everything else). It's not as simple as "Be smart, move to spring, that's the smart move, of course it will work." That's ridiculous. This product might not work anywhere, anytime.

Or do I need to remind you that, despite its higher ratings (than the UFL, oh boy) - which dropped every year - and attendance, the USFL lots scads of money and limped to the finish in its third year? Regardless of whether or not it had decided to move to the fall, it might not have made it. I know we all have fond memories of it, but come the hell on.

[preeths]

Like Sam, I can't say for sure that the spring would work for an alternative professional football league. There are tons of challenges that would have to be met and overcome, and some of them might even be insurmountable. What should have been readily apparent is that there is absolutely no room in the fall for an alternative pro football league and there hasn't been for quite some time. The UFL owners have poured a bucket full of money into the league, and they did so, in my opinion, with no realistic hope of a return. I feel that money would have been better spent, and would have produced more results, in the spring. Would it have been enough to establish a viable league? I don't know. But I believe they'd be at more than four teams, would have more interested owners, more media exposure (can they have any less?) and probably not be as far in the hole as they are now.

It's a shame. After a slow start, the UFL has done a lot of things well with almost nothing to show for it.

[Sam Hill]

And what, exactly, would lead one to believe the UFL could out-do the XFL in the spring?

The XFL had a major television contract (you couldn't get much more major than the one they had, which showed nearly every game nationally), twice as many teams as the UFL (some in major markets and major stadiums), got on the cover of Sports Illustrated, averaged about 25,000 a game in attendance, paid its players a pittance (QBs $5k/week, Ks $3.5k/week, everybody else $4.5k/week, without health insurance) and still lost $70 million.

But someone thinks if the UFL moved to the spring, they'd just naturally do well? It might very well be that you can't start another football league in this day and age because of the expense and the saturation of football in this country. Surely, in this economy, it was idiotic to try. It might be that you'd be dumb to try regardless.

[preeths]

That major television contract proved to be an albatross around the XFL's neck. Ultimately, it didn't draw ratings on NBC, but that shouldn't have been a surprise at a time when even the venerable Monday Night Football was struggling to stay on network TV. Why would people tune in on Saturday nights (a bad night for ratings anyway) for minor league football? TV money may be one of the factors that simply can't be overcome today, good economy or bad: an alternative pro football league needs TV money, but it doesn't appear likely to find any spenders. The XFL's ratings on UPN and TNN were decent, on the other hand, and had UPN not tried to overplay its hand with WWE, the XFL may have soldiered on for at least one more season, but just how much are cable nets or secondary networks willing and able to spend? TV is the part of the equation that just may not work.

It's also easy to point out the UFL has taken an entirely different tack with the NFL, preferring to play nice, something the XFL had no interest in doing. I think that alienated some fans as well. The UFL ownership is obviously more patient as well, as they've withstood big losses and scant media coverage for three years now in the vain hope the league will turn around.

The economy really is a clincher, though. I know the UFL delayed a year hoping things would improve, but again they misjudged the situation, just as they did with the NFL lockout.

[Minor League Man]

And they are officially considering it:
http://www.ufl-football.com/spring

[aclb]

What a great and unique idea?


see:WFL, USFL, WLAF, RFL, SFL, XFL

[jwalters]

I havent chimed in on this in quite some time but I do think everyone should at least take the UFL survey. I think the league is too top heavy in salaries to succeed even in the spring but at least they are asking. As far as the question about whether there are enough leagues to pull old film from for an alternative football network I think there are.

Margate Entertainment/tv4u owns the rights to the old TVS, Score, and FNN broadcast of the WFL, the American Football Association, and the Minor League Football System. They provide many over the internet for free already so I cant see them throwing a fit if given the opportunity to broadcast again. There is also a gigantic backlog of Arena Football League games that were not covered by major networks. Those would also be available. If you add the various other indoor leagues and some of the better semi-pro leagues and teams such as the Racine Raiders you would have plenty of material. But what I know from working in the tv industry is that even if you have really good programming you cant always get providers to carry it. What we see on tv is given to us because of business politics. So unless one of the big boys starts the network it wont happen. But it could happen because there is enough material.

[sportsaddressbible]

The UFL would definately be better if it played a Spring/Summer schedule with maybe the championship game in early to mid Sept before college football really kicks in.

In the Fall you have the NFL, college & HS football, the NHL and NBA (supposedly) starting, etc.

In these times of economics, well, too much going on for fans $$.

The USFL did very well in the Spring. Look at Denver with its big crowds. As another person stated, then the UFL can go into NFL cities. The USFL's big problem WAS Donald Trump.

There is so much talent out there for the UFL to drawn on with NFL draft pick cuts, former NFLer cuts, and players who got passed up from the NCAA and NAIA.

Look even at the XFL, it did really good. The XFL just tried to be too much like the WWF and then realised too late that the fans really liked the quality of play (and the cheerleaders!).

Why hasn't the UFL tried to go into Birmingham, Memphis (WFL & USFL strongholds), San Antonio, Oklahoma City and maybe Salt lake City.

Heck, if the UFL finds 10-14,000 exiting, a team in NYC at the new Randall's Island facility would be a good choice, or in the Carolinas around Raleigh-Durham.

Problem with any league, you need a decent TV/Cable deal and the UFL didn't have one. had minor sponsors.

Also, the UFL admin was not very transparent. You could never get through to them. They need to be more fan friendly.

Hey, anyone caught a Lingerie FB League game in person? Just saw the Seattle Mist game Friday nite in Seattle (Kent). Packed house with 5,000+. Good FB and damn, those gals are hot in their short, shorts and garters around their thighs. Great, great entertainment!

[Sam Hill]

[quote=""jwalters""]I havent chimed in on this in quite some time but I do think everyone should at least take the UFL survey. I think the league is too top heavy in salaries to succeed even in the spring but at least they are asking. As far as the question about whether there are enough leagues to pull old film from for an alternative football network I think there are.

Margate Entertainment/tv4u owns the rights to the old TVS, Score, and FNN broadcast of the WFL, the American Football Association, and the Minor League Football System. [/quote]

Questions I would have would be:
1 - How many WFL tapes actually have survived to the present day? You can own the rights to something, that's great. But you have to have the actual tapes, and they have to still be broadcast quality.
2 - Is the AFA to which you're referring the minor league from the 1980s? How many of those tapes do you think survived?
3 - The Minor League Football System apparently played for two years (1989 and 1990). Same question, how many of those survived, how many are broadcast quality, and, perhaps most importantly....
4 - Someone's going to watch the Pocono Mountaineers and the New Jersey Oaks from July 18, 1989? Really? Someone's going to watch that? And games like it?

They provide many over the internet for free already

I've seen one - the last several minutes of a Jacksonville/Chicago WFL game from 1974. If there are others, I haven't seen them on their site.

so I cant see them throwing a fit if given the opportunity to broadcast again.

Let me ask you this: if you had something gathering dust in your closet...and someone thought there was an opportunity for them to make money off it...you wouldn't necessarily "throw a fit," but you'd want to be cut in, probably, wouldn't you? And the "throwing a fit" is really the smallest part of the equation here. It's more "do the tapes exist, are they broadcast quality and would anyone watch it?"

There is also a gigantic backlog of Arena Football League games that were not covered by major networks. Those would also be available.

And I bet they'd be awesome! Arena football...not covered by major networks...from the late 80s...people would watch that all day long!

If you add the various other indoor leagues and some of the better semi-pro leagues and teams such as the Racine Raiders you would have plenty of material.

And again...who's going to watch it? You want to see the Racine Raiders? Really?

But what I know from working in the tv industry is that even if you have really good programming you cant always get providers to carry it.

First, you're right about that (though I still call shenanigans on you working in the TV industry), but I wouldn't call the Racine Raiders "really good programming." Use your head for a minute, would you, please?

What we see on tv is given to us because of business politics. So unless one of the big boys starts the network it wont happen. But it could happen because there is enough material.

Let me put it to you this way: There is no way on God's green earth someone says "I can get the rights to show the Minor League Football System from 1990, let's start a network around it." No way. Won't happen. Won't ever happen. Americans love football, but they love NFL and college football.

Idiotic idea.

The USFL did very well in the Spring.

And by "very well," you mean "lost millions and limped to the finish line in its final spring season."

Look at Denver with its big crowds.

There was Denver. They averaged 40k (who knows how many paid). Jacksonville drew well. Tampa Bay drew well. Others did not. The vast majority of USFL teams did not, and therefore, lost lots of money. But, hey, look at Denver with its big crowds from 28 years ago.

As another person stated, then the UFL can go into NFL cities. The USFL's big problem WAS Donald Trump.

Good luck going into NFL cities, UFL. Dumbest thing I've ever heard. And Trump was a very visible problem for the USFL and the fact too many owners listened to him was a huge part of their demise. But it wasn't as if they were doing fantastically otherwise. The revisionist history is just amazing here.

There is so much talent out there for the UFL to drawn on with NFL draft pick cuts, former NFLer cuts, and players who got passed up from the NCAA and NAIA.

And no one wants to watch them play, obviously. They're not NFL quality. Not everybody is. That's the way it just works.

Look even at the XFL, it did really good.

And lost $80 million dollars and drew some of the lowest ratings ever seen in sports television.

The XFL just tried to be too much like the WWF and then realised too late that the fans really liked the quality of play (and the cheerleaders!).

The "quality of play" was really not good in the XFL. Very few of those players went on to play in the NFL and CFL.

Why hasn't the UFL tried to go into Birmingham, Memphis (WFL & USFL strongholds), San Antonio, Oklahoma City and maybe Salt lake City.

Gotta have an owner, don't you? I mean, you don't just award teams to cities. I think at this point Birmingham and Memphis would be a bit skeptical. And justifiably so.

Heck, if the UFL finds 10-14,000 exiting, a team in NYC at the new Randall's Island facility would be a good choice, or in the Carolinas around Raleigh-Durham.

The infrastructure of Randall's Island (and it's not a good football facility) makes it unlikely that would be a good place for a UFL team. Raleigh-Durham, fine, whatever. Carter-Finley? Is that what you're thinking?

Problem with any league, you need a decent TV/Cable deal and the UFL didn't have one.

If they'd sold twice as many tickets, they'd likely have a TV deal today. But they - and people like you - keep thinking it works the other way around. As if networks, in this day and age, are just going to throw money at something because it's football, when it's been proven that they can't draw good crowds in most places.

But, hey, there's always the MLFS from 1989.

[super390]

You know, Sam, that the USFL took the vote to move to the fall before the 1985 season was played. Therefore half the teams were lame ducks that season, and the fans knew it. That's why attendance collapsed. If they'd never taken the vote, they had big ABC TV contracts waiting for them in the spring.