Rochester Done?

[Kicker3]

[quote=""Buffalo Super Fan""]I read a rumor on another arena football board that a ownership group put in for a Buffalo, New York arena football af2 restart league team in 2012? Anyone hear anything about Buffalo, New York and af2 starting up again in a second tier to the AFL one? Also I wonder if that is Bob and Thurman Thomas group again like last time just wondering if anyone heard anything? Let's Go Buffalo[/quote]


Believe me Thurman Thomas was never a part owner of the Raiders

[storm2010]

[quote=""indoor fan""]So the IFL losses half of it's playoff teams, including the top teams, and you call it "tightening up the footprint"? What is tightening about a leagues best teams leaving?


With Corpus Christi, Sioux City, Billings and now Rochester leaving, the IFL has taken about five steps back. These teams were some of the most successful indoor football franchises, on and off the field.

The IFL now consists of mid level and expansion indoor teams. Don't look now, but the SIFL has surpassed the IFL, as the premiere indoor league.[/quote]

Half it's playoff teams? Cmon! Corpus was dog ****! they were a .500 team in a cup cake division. Sioux City hasn't sniffed the playoffs for years. Rochester was a shaky program that tried to fold late last season but found out they would lose their letter of credit so they finished out. Billings is a tough loss, no denying that! As an outsider having no clue (indoor fan) it may appear the IFL has taken a step back but reality is that they have added the cream of the crop from the AIFA and cut the bottom part of the IFL. Jockying for position. Sioux Falls, Omaha, Wichita, Green Bay, Amarillo, Bloomington, Chicago, etc.. The best franschise still reside in the IFL!

I do know that our owner has stated to me that when the Storm's roster is complete, they will play anybody, anytime, anywhere, any league.... I can't wait to read the OSC come December

[daytonadan]

Yawn. Ants arguing over penis size.

Are you guys watching this Chile mine rescue. This is truly the amazing stuff.

[Hockey]

[quote=""daytonadan""]Yawn. Ants arguing over penis size.

Are you guys watching this Chile mine rescue. This is truly the amazing stuff.[/quote]

33 guys in that mine, thats more people then an AIFA play off game.

[IndoorExpert]

[quote=""indoor fan""]Oh wait.....it's ok to bash other leagues and make absurd attempts to compare the IFL to the AFL, but when your league starts to crumble, it's not ok to criticize?

IFL fans can't have it both ways. As I have said all along, the IFL has come to reality, which it is no different than any of the other indoor leagues.

BTW, things are looking great for the 2011 AFL season. I'll check back to the OSC in December.[/quote]

I am a huge supporter of several indoor football teams. However, I have to agree with some of the posts that have been written about the IFL. Indoor Fan is a huge IFL hater and an AFL supporter. We all know that. However, he is somewhat right with this rant.

The IFL looked to be a huge front-runner for most stable league early this off-season. However, with all of these established franchises leaving, it appears the IFL is not the big brother any longer. The additions of Reading and Wyoming looked great when they happened. Now it doesn't look so good with Rochester, Billings, Sioux City, CC, Abilene, San Angelo, Austin, Arkansas, and West Michigan leaving. The only teams from that list that should be out is West Michigan and Arkansas based on off-field problems.

The AFL played all of their games. No bad publicity for the most part. They added back Kansas City and one of the best franchises in the history of (indoor/arena) football in San Jose. The TV production was very good even though it was just one game on Friday nights. Now teams are returning to two very good areas in Atlanta and New Orleans where fan support has always been good. Spokane won the championship which was previously an af2 team which kind of legitimizes the whole combining of teams. I have to give the AFL a very high mark for their first year back as well as their first off-season. I have to agree with Indoor Fan here.

So I have to end by saying it is time to start criticizing the IFL with the same scrutiny as all the other leagues. We can no longer claim this is a step in the right direction. Anyone who is saying that is just as much a homer as Indoor Fan is for the AFL. Let the true discussion begin..............

[jerry101jlh]

[quote=""IndoorExpert""]I am a huge supporter of several indoor football teams. However, I have to agree with some of the posts that have been written about the IFL. Indoor Fan is a huge IFL hater and an AFL supporter. We all know that. However, he is somewhat right with this rant.

The IFL looked to be a huge front-runner for most stable league early this off-season. However, with all of these established franchises leaving, it appears the IFL is not the big brother any longer. The additions of Reading and Wyoming looked great when they happened. Now it doesn't look so good with Rochester, Billings, Sioux City, CC, Abilene, San Angelo, Austin, Arkansas, and West Michigan leaving. The only teams from that list that should be out is West Michigan and Arkansas based on off-field problems.

The AFL played all of their games. No bad publicity for the most part. They added back Kansas City and one of the best franchises in the history of (indoor/arena) football in San Jose. The TV production was very good even though it was just one game on Friday nights. Now teams are returning to two very good areas in Atlanta and New Orleans where fan support has always been good. Spokane won the championship which was previously an af2 team which kind of legitimizes the whole combining of teams. I have to give the AFL a very high mark for their first year back as well as their first off-season. I have to agree with Indoor Fan here.

So I have to end by saying it is time to start criticizing the IFL with the same scrutiny as all the other leagues. We can no longer claim this is a step in the right direction. Anyone who is saying that is just as much a homer as Indoor Fan is for the AFL. Let the true discussion begin..............[/quote]

I will not argue that the IFL deserves just as much scrutiny as any other league, but I think you have to look beyond face value on some teams leaving or being left behind. I'll leave it at that, but Arkansas didn't fold, but relocated to Allen, Texas.

[IndoorExpert]

[quote=""jerry101jlh""]I will not argue that the IFL deserves just as much scrutiny as any other league, but I think you have to look beyond face value on some teams leaving or being left behind. I'll leave it at that, but Arkansas didn't fold, but relocated to Allen, Texas.[/quote]

Arkansas didn't pay players and coaches this past season. Relocating to a tougher market doesn't impress me in the slightest. Allen, Texas supports the Dallas Cowboys and will not embrace a small team. If they had problems in Arkansas where they used to be one of the better attendance teams in the af2, why would it get any better as an expansion team in Texas with no initial fan support or sponsorships?

Face value is these teams are folding and changing leagues. That doesn't make the IFL look any better. You write these "Over a cup of coffee", and point out everyone's bad business. How come you have this bias towards the IFL? The truth is the IFL is losing a ton of good teams, and twisting it into a positive will not make it fact.

I am a full indoor supporter, but the truth is what it is. I was fully impressed with the IFL at the beginning of this off-season. However, I have taken a few steps back in my confidence of what is happening in the League. Now it is time to see division alignments, and schedules. This will give us a better indication of the what is going to happen. I would love to see your next article reporting factual information on the IFL's recent shortcomings. If not, we will all see your bias towards the IFL.

[jerry101jlh]

[quote=""IndoorExpert""]Arkansas didn't pay players and coaches this past season. Relocating to a tougher market doesn't impress me in the slightest. Allen, Texas supports the Dallas Cowboys and will not embrace a small team. If they had problems in Arkansas where they used to be one of the better attendance teams in the af2, why would it get any better as an expansion team in Texas with no initial fan support or sponsorships?

Face value is these teams are folding and changing leagues. That doesn't make the IFL look any better. You write these "Over a cup of coffee", and point out everyone's bad business. How come you have this bias towards the IFL? The truth is the IFL is losing a ton of good teams, and twisting it into a positive will not make it fact.

I am a full indoor supporter, but the truth is what it is. I was fully impressed with the IFL at the beginning of this off-season. However, I have taken a few steps back in my confidence of what is happening in the League. Now it is time to see division alignments, and schedules. This will give us a better indication of the what is going to happen. I would love to see your next article reporting factual information on the IFL's recent shortcomings. If not, we will all see your bias towards the IFL.[/quote]

Now I never said the move to Allen was a good one, just that Arkansas did not fold, but relocated. From a travel standpoint its a good move, but that doesn't mean this is what I would call a quality team either. I have pointed out in an article or two that Arkansas did little to gain any fan base and a move to a tougher market not good if they continue to not market as they have in the past.

Are there losses recently in the IFL that hurts, yes of course, especially Sioux City and Billings, but I don't see most of the others as being huge league killing losses, especially if you look at each team and take into account attendance, marketing, and all the rest. The core foundation of the IFL with returning teams and new ones still strong and losses not as heavily felt as maybe some might think. I can say the same for the CIFL and SIFL at this point as well.

To say I'm biased may not be that far off as my roots in this sport can be traced back to my involvement with more current IFL teams than ones in any other league, but when I've seen something I questioned I pointed it out. Up until recently I've had more doubts on what was happening in other leagues and for the most part still do, but I don't see the IFL losses quite the same way as maybe some others do.

I do welcome being called on the carpet and enjoy the debate. Makes little difference what any of us say here anyway as leagues will just do as they want regardless of how we see it.

Tomorrow I am addressing the IFL losses as I see them along with how I compare those losses to what I see in the other leagues.

[IndoorExpert]

I will look forward to seeing what you write about. I know that the leagues don't care what we think is right and just. If they did, we probably wouldn't be having this debate. I think all losses from every league is huge for the sport in general. Bouncing from league to league isn't a positive. Teams folding and burning markets and fans isn't positive. However, I dont have a problem with a business man that says he has had enough of Minor League sports because it isn't a great investment.

[jerry101jlh]

[quote=""IndoorExpert""]I will look forward to seeing what you write about. I know that the leagues don't care what we think is right and just. If they did, we probably wouldn't be having this debate. I think all losses from every league is huge for the sport in general. Bouncing from league to league isn't a positive. Teams folding and burning markets and fans isn't positive. However, I dont have a problem with a business man that says he has had enough of Minor League sports because it isn't a great investment.[/quote]

And we can agree. At least in I look forward to what I have to say also lol. I do agree that any loss is major to the sport, but some losses should never have been started to even be a loss if you know what I mean. As to league jumping. Overall it looks bad, but some teams just are better suited to one league as opposed to another. Maybe because the model better fits an owners idea of how things should be or maybe just because it improves a travel budget.

But lets be honest, even though we can agree no loss is a good loss, how can anyone say a team that draws only a few hundred season after season is good for the sport or a team that leaves unpaid bills good for the sport?

Let me add that leagues have to do what they feel is in their best interest whether we agree or not, but at the same time shouldn't what is good for a league also be viewed by those leagues as good for the sport in general?