IFL in major talks with several national TV networks

[Fran]

If the IFL could get a national TV deal it would be great for the league and I would defintely watch the games.


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... ome-Arena-

"Bob put the money into the team, and I ran the football operations," said McCarthy, who added the IFL is "in major talks" with several national TV networks, including Versus, CBS, and ESPN regarding a TV deal, which could help the Raiders turn a profit for the first time.

[Micah008]

It is also interesting that this article says "The 14-game season begins on the road against the Chicago Slaughter on Feb. 27"

Has there been a schedule announced? Or is it potentially coming really soon?

[Caballo Diablo]

[quote=""Micah008""]It is also interesting that this article says "The 14-game season begins on the road against the Chicago Slaughter on Feb. 27"

Has there been a schedule announced? Or is it potentially coming really soon?[/quote]

It should be coming very soon. The sched is 99% complete and that is the correct weekend.

[SignGuyDino]

As to the IFL TV claims:

1. Versus: Most credible frankly, but those of us on DirecTV wouldn't get to see it.
2. espn. Yeah. Right. "The Ocho's" not really out there, you know.
3. CBS. See #2. Better off claiming a deal with Fox Regionals.

[raider22]

with 26 markets the IFL is a good option, af1 has more major markets but has to fight a bad perception. the addition of kent(seattle), and chicago is major for the IFL, and the stlye of play also benefits the IFL, arena ball may be great in person but as a tv sport it sucks to many 1 or 2 play drives it seems like bullsh** on tv. And to many "give me" underneath throws where dbs are assisting on the middle motion.

[Bcarlson1]

This RB played for Sioux Falls in the IFL and now he is on the Buffalo Bills as a contributing tailback with the Bills. Who will be the next NFL player(s) to come out of the IFL? Seeing these games on network television would be excellent. Where else can you watch a 26 team league that spans from Alaska to Maryland?

[phydeaux72]

This TV deal sounds pretty far fetched and it's the first I've heard about it.

[raider22]

as far fetched as it may seem, a yr ago it was laughable to think,

[daytonadan]

One of these days, indoor football owners will focus on initiatives other than putting minor league football on television where practically no one outside of their markets will even bother to acknowledge its existence, hence the AFL, XFL and even hockey.

Instead of stroking their egos, they'll focus more on improving their product in their respective community and increasing their revenue so players don't have to risk life and limb for $200 a game.

And that will be a good day, indeed.

Same old things, year after year.

[Gene Duryea]

Attempting to obtain a modest TV contract is not necessarily a bad thing. They just have to go into it with their eyes wide open.

Two major mistakes the old AFL made ...

1. Allowing the minimum player salaries to rise, based on the fact that they were receiving royalty money from NBC. Even after they lost the NBC contract, the minimum salary stayed the same.

I'm not saying that the players shouldn't have been rewarded with a share of the TV money. Only that it should have been a bonus situation rather than a contractually obligated part of the minimum pay.

2. After losing the NBC deal, the AFL was a bit too eager to reach a replacement deal with ESPN. This allowed ESPN to wrangle them into a situation where the AFL put up a good portion of the money to pay for an expensively produced show and was supposed to receive a share of the profits. But ESPN kept plowing all the money into making the show look better and the few actual profits were ever declared. So the AFL spent a lot and got little or nothing back.

If the IFL keeps its goals modest, an interesting little TV deal could be possible.