The Texas Split Begins

[tony-o]

[quote=""secg""]You can paint it however you wont, but yes the SIFL is a step down from the IFL. The SIFL is a regional league, to the IFL's national league status. However, I'm not saying thats a a bad decision; I am indifferent on that subject some teams are just smaller and can flourish in a league with smaller markets.[/quote]

A regional league is not really a step down from a national league, as much as it seems like it. To put it a different way, being fiscally responsible is not really a step down from the league with inflated egos.

Not to mention that the SIFL, while billing itself as a regional league, encompasses a very large region. If the other Texas IFL teams jump, we basically have a Confederacy national league and a Union national league if we were to put this in Civil War terms (Richmond being an obvious exception to the rule). The IFL is sharing their footprint with three leagues and has to depend on reputation over finances to lure in any team in an overlapping area. The SIFL does not have that problem; if a team wants to set up shop in the south then they really only have one choice.

[Gene Duryea]

In many ways, you make a good argument.

On the other hand ... In 2009, Austin was the solid number 2 team in the SIFL. In 2010, they struggled in the IFL.

That does point to the possibility of a serious step up in the competitive level of play in the IFL.

[Over the Top]

It could be a sign of a step up in competition for sure, but it could also be adapting from the offensive minded league to a defensive minded league?

Hasn't all of the old Intense Football league teams struggled for the most part under the UIF, I mean Indoor Football League rules? I am just saying, maybe it is more of a rules/coaching philosophy rather then a big talent difference

[super390]

[quote=""Over the Top""]It could be a sign of a step up in competition for sure, but it could also be adapting from the offensive minded league to a defensive minded league?

Hasn't all of the old Intense Football league teams struggled for the most part under the UIF, I mean Indoor Football League rules? I am just saying, maybe it is more of a rules/coaching philosophy rather then a big talent difference[/quote]

No, the SIFL is just low-rent. And the IFL Texas teams seem to be overrated. I couldn't get attendance numbers for some of them, but the ones I found were mediocre despite the fact that they're always playing natural rivals. I can't understand how football of any form here in Texas could create so little excitement, but these guys pulled it off.

[tony-o]

[quote=""Gene Duryea""]In many ways, you make a good argument.

On the other hand ... In 2009, Austin was the solid number 2 team in the SIFL. In 2010, they struggled in the IFL.

That does point to the possibility of a serious step up in the competitive level of play in the IFL.[/quote]

That was the 2009 SIFL. That included the Florida Kings and Houma Conquerers, now teams that are struggling to make it in semi-pro football. I think the Texas Hurricanes are too, but I can't be certain. Columbus and Albany are much better teams, as was Greenville before their implosion. Austin may have been somewhere between #3 and #5 in the 2010 SIFL, but I can't say for sure because I'm not sure how Austin's 2010 roster compares to their 2009 roster.

[Caballo Diablo]

[quote=""Gene Duryea""]In many ways, you make a good argument.

On the other hand ... In 2009, Austin was the solid number 2 team in the SIFL. In 2010, they struggled in the IFL.

That does point to the possibility of a serious step up in the competitive level of play in the IFL.[/quote]
There was a huge difference throughout the entire Austin franchise from 2009 to 2010. The owner closed his checkbook and stepped away from scene. The front office was reduced to only 2 people and their hands were tied on all aspects of the organization. Zero marketing, no housing or other perks to attract players. After a great expansion year it was almost like the owner had lost interest.

[Caballo Diablo]

[quote=""super390""] I can't understand how football of any form here in Texas could create so little excitement, but these guys pulled it off.[/quote]
Texas is huge on the 100 yard game, from Pop Warner, High School, College, and NFL, but the 50 yard game not so much. I tried for years to figure it out and have given up and just accepted it.

[exit322]

Any team moving decision is 100% based on financial reasoning, not anything else.

As for Wyoming, remember...attendance was at least 1,500 a game higher when htey were 5-9 in the NIFL every year than now when they're 13-1 in the AIFA. Fun > Let's go Boise State in the WAC.

[roozy]

even 3-11 and 4-10 produced more BIS for the Cavalry. Part of the reason, was that we were almost always in every game with a chance to win. Nobody got out of Casper without knowing they were in a dogfight. And that made it great for the fans.... better than a 50 point blowout. I was never able to sit against the back of my seat then... and the voice never existed after a game. Now, the last several years have produced a more laid back less exciting game day experience.

[exit322]

[quote=""roozy""]even 3-11 and 4-10 produced more BIS for the Cavalry. Part of the reason, was that we were almost always in every game with a chance to win. Nobody got out of Casper without knowing they were in a dogfight. And that made it great for the fans.... better than a 50 point blowout. I was never able to sit against the back of my seat then... and the voice never existed after a game. Now, the last several years have produced a more laid back less exciting game day experience.[/quote]

I didn't remember you going 3-11. The IFL will be good for the Cavalry.