[quote=""gridirontime""]As you see though it's not just about the league you play in, it is the entire team from the front office to the players and the owner who are ultimately responsible for the exsistance of the franchise. That's why we the SHOCKWAVE fans are passionate about our team we have all these in place now for a successful year, And did so. So why not fight for this we feel so strong about?
[/quote]
I have no issue with that. S.D is obviously a strong and proud organization.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.
Indoor fan=Shriver+Gary
[quote=""AllAces""]I have no issue with that. S.D is obviously a strong and proud organization.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
I can go along with that.
I certainly don't mean to take anything away from semi-pro players. If I were in their shoes I would take advantage of every opportunity to play. But by the same token, when semi-pro teams get matched against professional indoor teams, the semi-pro team usually gets handled. And a matchup like that should not be considered a professional championship.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
I can go along with that.
I certainly don't mean to take anything away from semi-pro players. If I were in their shoes I would take advantage of every opportunity to play. But by the same token, when semi-pro teams get matched against professional indoor teams, the semi-pro team usually gets handled. And a matchup like that should not be considered a professional championship.
Just when I thought I was out....They pull me back in.
-
gridirontime
- Site Admin
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:50 pm
[quote=""gonzo13""]I can go along with that.
I certainly don't mean to take anything away from semi-pro players. If I were in their shoes I would take advantage of every opportunity to play. But by the same token, when semi-pro teams get matched against professional indoor teams, the semi-pro team usually gets handled. And a matchup like that should not be considered a professional championship.[/quote]
This whole semipro agrument is stupid. It's a minor league division at best, you can't call any of the leagues I.E (AFL 2, WIFL, AIFL, UIFL, and of course The NIFL) professional! They are all semi pro meaning that this is not their true profession or job, Where their lone income is made. So please stop with that arguement!
I certainly don't mean to take anything away from semi-pro players. If I were in their shoes I would take advantage of every opportunity to play. But by the same token, when semi-pro teams get matched against professional indoor teams, the semi-pro team usually gets handled. And a matchup like that should not be considered a professional championship.[/quote]
This whole semipro agrument is stupid. It's a minor league division at best, you can't call any of the leagues I.E (AFL 2, WIFL, AIFL, UIFL, and of course The NIFL) professional! They are all semi pro meaning that this is not their true profession or job, Where their lone income is made. So please stop with that arguement!
Let's look at the dictionary for the definition of the word 'professional.' Make sure to read 2-c closely, just in case.
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
The only one of these where the paid indoor leagues don't really meet it is B, as it's likely most players won't have football as their permanent career. That said, A "participating for gain" qualifies. C, "receiving financial return," also qualifies. Players paid to play, even for just $200, are in fact professional.
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
The only one of these where the paid indoor leagues don't really meet it is B, as it's likely most players won't have football as their permanent career. That said, A "participating for gain" qualifies. C, "receiving financial return," also qualifies. Players paid to play, even for just $200, are in fact professional.
What are you doing here?
[quote=""exit322""]Let's look at the dictionary for the definition of the word 'professional.' Make sure to read 2-c closely, just in case.
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
The only one of these where the paid indoor leagues don't really meet it is B, as it's likely most players won't have football as their permanent career. That said, A "participating for gain" qualifies. C, "receiving financial return," also qualifies. Players paid to play, even for just $200, are in fact professional.[/quote]
That is correct. The truth is that the vast majority of semi-pro players are not paid at all, have their own insurance (if any) and have to buy their own equipment.
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
The only one of these where the paid indoor leagues don't really meet it is B, as it's likely most players won't have football as their permanent career. That said, A "participating for gain" qualifies. C, "receiving financial return," also qualifies. Players paid to play, even for just $200, are in fact professional.[/quote]
That is correct. The truth is that the vast majority of semi-pro players are not paid at all, have their own insurance (if any) and have to buy their own equipment.
OurSports Central - //www.oursportscentral.com
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
Also, there is more to the compensation than the $200-$250 per game (depending on the league). All living expenses for the players are covered. They are put up in hotels or apartments and get three meals a day. I would most certainly consider that a primary "true profession" during the season.
Many players will seek a second job for additional money to help with bills and lifestyle expenses.
If San Diego is not doing this for their players, maybe they should renegotiate (for next year, of course).
Many players will seek a second job for additional money to help with bills and lifestyle expenses.
If San Diego is not doing this for their players, maybe they should renegotiate (for next year, of course).
-
indoor fan
- Site Admin
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:31 pm
[quote=""AllAces""]I have no issue with that. S.D is obviously a strong and proud organization.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
I do believe SD beat Beaumont twice and Wyoming. Are you saying that Beaumont and Wyoming are not legit teams. They played each team twice, home and away.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
I do believe SD beat Beaumont twice and Wyoming. Are you saying that Beaumont and Wyoming are not legit teams. They played each team twice, home and away.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.
[quote=""indoor fan""]I do believe SD beat Beaumont twice and Wyoming. Are you saying that Beaumont and Wyoming are not legit teams. They played each team twice, home and away.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.[/quote]
I said, "other than the one." I meant that Wyoming is the only team that qualifies as a quality opponent against S.D. this year. In my opinion, Beaumont did not bring a significant challenge to the field this year.
I will also say that that failure of S.D. and Casper to get together again is significant. Casper beat S.D. very early in the season, when they weren't in shape and had not developed a rhythm as a team. Then, later S.D. beat Casper.
Did Casper win because they were playing an inexperienced team? Did S.D. win solely because they had home field advantage? Or, did S.D. develop into a dominant team vs. Casper?
I think a final game would be very telling. It's too bad that could not have been worked out.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.[/quote]
I said, "other than the one." I meant that Wyoming is the only team that qualifies as a quality opponent against S.D. this year. In my opinion, Beaumont did not bring a significant challenge to the field this year.
I will also say that that failure of S.D. and Casper to get together again is significant. Casper beat S.D. very early in the season, when they weren't in shape and had not developed a rhythm as a team. Then, later S.D. beat Casper.
Did Casper win because they were playing an inexperienced team? Did S.D. win solely because they had home field advantage? Or, did S.D. develop into a dominant team vs. Casper?
I think a final game would be very telling. It's too bad that could not have been worked out.
[quote=""indoor fan""]I do believe SD beat Beaumont twice and Wyoming. Are you saying that Beaumont and Wyoming are not legit teams. They played each team twice, home and away.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.[/quote]
What about no-loss Fayetteville? Plus, Wyoming and SD look neck-and-neck to me. But thank you for finally telling us why this is so important to you.
San Diego is the best team in the NIFL.[/quote]
What about no-loss Fayetteville? Plus, Wyoming and SD look neck-and-neck to me. But thank you for finally telling us why this is so important to you.
OurSports Central - //www.oursportscentral.com
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
[quote=""AllAces""]I have no issue with that. S.D is obviously a strong and proud organization.
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
very well said and we look forward to our new season!!
The only thing S.D. lacked this year was quality opponents (other than the one). That is the only reason you are in a position to need to "fight" to legitimize your success.
Next year, with legitimate opponents, you will not need to fight for anything. This argument will actually be proven on the field. No one will be able to deny your successes.[/quote]
very well said and we look forward to our new season!!
SHOCKWAVE CAN'T BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!
http//:www.sandiegoshockwave.com
http//:www.sandiegoshockwave.com
