Lingerie Football League on OSC?

Shootmaster_44
Site Admin
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:45 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Lingerie Football League on OSC?

Post by Shootmaster_44 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:03 am

Over on UFLAccess.com there was some mention that this site should cover the Lingerie Football League. So I figured I'd ask what the reasoning was that the league was not covered here? I'm not necessarily advocating coverage if the league doesn't warrant it, but figured I'd ask why it isn't covered?

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:29 pm

My guess is because it's not a legitimate sporting competition. Its sole purpose is to titilate.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against titilation, mind you. It absolutely has its time and place and the free market will decide if the league itself will actually succeed.

But the amount of "coverage" these "teams" get is likely as scant as their wardrobe.

Also, not that I am condemning that.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

Shootmaster_44
Site Admin
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:45 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Post by Shootmaster_44 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:41 pm

[quote=""Sam Hill""]My guess is because it's not a legitimate sporting competition. Its sole purpose is to titilate.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against titilation, mind you. It absolutely has its time and place and the free market will decide if the league itself will actually succeed.

But the amount of "coverage" these "teams" get is likely as scant as their wardrobe.

Also, not that I am condemning that.[/quote]

Initially it was. But in watching the competition, you can tell the women are trying to actually play. Over the course of the Bowl games and now the league, there has been a shift away from models and into more athletic players. There are a few players from the IWFL/NWFA (or whatever the big women's outdoor league is now) playing in the league. Also, the majority seem to have sports backgrounds possibly not beyond high school, but they aren't simply paid to look pretty.

But I agree that local coverage isn't huge from what I've seen. But then again I don't live anywhere near a team, closest to me is Seattle and that is about a 18 hour drive. But the question did raise an interesting point when I saw it. So I was curious.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:17 pm

I'm certain there are players in the LFL who are deadly serious about it and are competitors. I take nothing away from them or what they're trying to do. But this site is about collecting coverage into one focal point and I'm not sure there's much coverage to collect.

What would happen, do you think, if they suddenly put all the LFL players into actual football uniforms with pads?
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:05 pm

"We expect a crowd of 20,000-plus, standing room only," (LFL founder Mitch Mortaza) said back in December when the championship game was announced.

They got 3,000....and the tickets were free.

The competitors themselves obviously take it seriously. The world does not.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

Trish_lvs_Baltimore
Site Admin
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Baltimore, Md.

Post by Trish_lvs_Baltimore » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:18 pm

I'm not a lesbian or anything, but this is some really good brand of football. The team here where I live (The Baltimore Charm) sucks terribly, but it's still entertaining to watch.
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. Founded 1908.
The First and Always The Finest

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:36 pm

[quote=""Trish_lvs_Baltimore""]I'm not a lesbian or anything[/quote]

It would be okay if you were.

Really.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

Hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:37 am

Post by Hockey » Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:04 am

LFL has a real national TV deal. That makes them more successful then most of the sports covered by OSC. Perhaps they are too "big league".

Shootmaster_44
Site Admin
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:45 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Post by Shootmaster_44 » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:59 am

[quote=""Hockey""]LFL has a real national TV deal. That makes them more successful then most of the sports covered by OSC. Perhaps they are too "big league".[/quote]

Though is MTV2 better than being on Versus like the NLL? Granted the LFL is probably the only league on here (aside from the CFL) to have all their games broadcast nationally. The UFL comes close but I don't think NESN is available nationally. But I doubt they are too "big league" especially since the NLL, MLS and WNBA are covered. All three of those leagues have extensive coverage, games broadcast nationally and have highlights featured on Sportscenter/Sportscentre (TSN).

I think it probably boils down to the availability of local coverage as to why they aren't on here. But it would be interesting to hear from Paul himself as to why they aren't covered.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:45 pm

[quote=""Hockey""]LFL has a real national TV deal. That makes them more successful then most of the sports covered by OSC. Perhaps they are too "big league".[/quote]

So you consider an edited, tape-delayed version of each game, with Tom Dore and Sean Salisbury pretending it's an actual competition, on MTV2, late on Friday nights, to be "a real national TV deal?"

Really? Honestly? That's your idea of "a real national TV deal?"
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

Post Reply

Return to “Women's Football”