New League - More Details

The Southern Indoor Football League (SIFL) forum
VinnyTheViper
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:09 am

New League - More Details

Post by VinnyTheViper » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:37 pm

OK, I will attempt to layout the facts as best as I know them or believe them to be true at this point. Prior to this point, I have spoken largely in generalities because they were on-going negotiations that would not allow me to reveal anything more specific. There are still issues that I can not talk about or simply do not have knowledge of at this point. As to my creditability, I will say that I am a fan first and foremost, a fan who does have a close relationship with his team, a fan who has spent a decade assisting numerous teams in my market (Huntsville, Alabama) in an effort to keep this enjoyable sport on the field. Now to the details:

1. This will be a new league, the member teams are currently working through legal issues to get the league up and running. Expect a league announcement around the middle of September that will fill in all of the details.

2. The league will consist of two conferences or entities, one in the southeast and the other in Texas. The two groups will play their regular season schedules within their respective groupings, no cross play during the regular season. The champions of the two entities will meet one another in a championship game, this will be the only game which will feature a matchup between the team groupings.

3. The league currently consists of 12 teams, but this number could rise slightly, possibly to 14 teams. I believe of the twelve teams, three are new teams and nine are existing teams. I am not going to get into specific teams lists because there are still on-going negotiations with teams but I can say that every team in the list has either been discussed or at least had rumors spoken about them somewhere on this message board over the last month.

4. Thom Hager was made a financial offer for the rights to the SIFL by the exiting owners, obviously, as a result of these recent developments, the offer was not accepted. To make it clear, neither Thom Hager or Gary Tufford will have anything to do with this new league, zip, nothing.

5. On the issue of league stability, a Board of Directors approach will be utilized. Yes, there will be a league commissioner that will be in charge of the day to day league operations. League issues will be resolved by the Board of Directors, each team will have a vote on the BOD. Yes, this format has been utilized by other leagues, and the skeptics will say what they will, but let me point out a difference that must be mentioned about the makeup of the ownership in this league. Some of the owners in this league have other interests outside of football, they run companies or have their own businesses within their communities, they realize their primary source of income from those efforts, not football, they are not necessarily doing this to make money, they are simply trying to give something back to their communities in the form of entertainment. A group of the owners were so upset over what happened last season that some sort of action had to be taken, otherwise there was no sense in even going forward. How will this new league turn out? Nobody really knows, only time will tell, but these guys have to be at least given credit for do something radical to change the status quo.

6. Arena rules will again be utilized, net rules will likely not be put into effect until the 2013 season.

7. Valid arena leases and and a line of credit or bond must be established with the league prior to a team’s admission to the league.
Last edited by VinnyTheViper on Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:48 am, edited 3 times in total.

jerry101jlh
Site Admin
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm

Post by jerry101jlh » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:48 pm

Again Vinny, nobody is questioning the intent of these owners and I have said for some time they would be stupid to remain a part of a Hager ran SIFL. But intent is just that, intent. They certainly have my blessing on the right to give this a shot and if they screw it up, well, they won't be the first.

I have my doubts about including the new Texas league, but that's just because I know that leadership all to well. One year here, another there, and so on and so forth. Some people will never be happy and that leagues leadership certainly falling in that area in my opinion. At least they are being kept separate, so if they leave after one or two years won't directly affect the rest of the group.

coachingubigr
Site Admin
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:16 am
Location: Charlotte NC

Post by coachingubigr » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:01 pm

Let's make it official already!

VinnyTheViper
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:09 am

Post by VinnyTheViper » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:12 pm

What the owners are trying to attempt with this effort reminds me a lot of how and why the UIF got started back in 2005. A group of owners that were tired of getting hijacked by someone or something every time the turned around. The UIF was formed a group of owners that were conerned about the game, the UIF stood on its own merits until, unfortunately they merged with the IFL. If the new league gets even close to what I observed with the UIF experience, then I will be happy. Any comparisons being made that this league will turn out to be just another UIFL, SIFL, or IFL operation, I am certainly not willing to go even remotely down that path because I do not think that those are the intentions of this group at all, they will leave all of the fly by night antics to the other guys. I agree with you on the Texas comment, probably my biggest reservation going into this new structure but at least it is almost like two separate entities functioning as one, certainly easier to break apart if the are issues downstream.

jerry101jlh
Site Admin
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm

Post by jerry101jlh » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:23 pm

"VinnyTheViper" wrote:What the owners are trying to attempt with this effort reminds me a lot of how and why the UIF got started back in 2005. A group of owners that were tired of getting hijacked by someone or something every time the turned around. The UIF was formed a group of owners that were conerned about the game, the UIF stood on its own merits until, unfortunately they merged with the IFL. If the new league gets even close to what I observed with the UIF experience, then I will be happy. Any comparisons being made that this league will turn out to be just another UIFL, SIFL, or IFL operation, I am certainly not willing to go even remotely down that path because I do not think that those are the intentions of this group at all, they will leave all of the fly by night antics to the other guys. I agree with you on the Texas comment, probably my biggest reservation going into this new structure but at least it is almost like two separate entities functioning as one, certainly easier to break apart if the are issues downstream.


But Vinny I would argue this, the IFL is nothing more than the UIF with a new name, same rules, same type of governing body. And the UIF not unique in its conception either, took almost to the T how the NIFL was set up minus the leadership. if you go tried and proven, this new league ought to adopt the IFL formula as it is the only one proven to work long term so far. I'm saying they could do worse than just adopting the IFL business plan.

Most who set out to start a league just decide what it is "they" want or "they" want to get out of it instead of looking at all leagues, past and present, to see what worked and what didn't. There is enough information out there that to create a stable league that using your own brain cells to create a new idea just stupid. Not saying this is what this group is doing, but commenting.

But still to include the Texas group when one can clearly see how one ownership there appears not to ever be content would give cause to question the smarts of those starting this new league.

exit322
Site Admin
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:03 pm
Location: Massillon, Ohio
Contact:

Post by exit322 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:04 pm

"jerry101jlh" wrote:But Vinny I would argue this, the IFL is nothing more than the UIF with a new name, same rules, same type of governing body. And the UIF not unique in its conception either, took almost to the T how the NIFL was set up minus the leadership. if you go tried and proven, this new league ought to adopt the IFL formula as it is the only one proven to work long term so far. I'm saying they could do worse than just adopting the IFL business plan.

Most who set out to start a league just decide what it is "they" want or "they" want to get out of it instead of looking at all leagues, past and present, to see what worked and what didn't. There is enough information out there that to create a stable league that using your own brain cells to create a new idea just stupid. Not saying this is what this group is doing, but commenting.

But still to include the Texas group when one can clearly see how one ownership there appears not to ever be content would give cause to question the smarts of those starting this new league.


There's at least cause for the long-term viability of such an operation, anyways.
What are you doing here?

VinnyTheViper
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:09 am

Post by VinnyTheViper » Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:38 pm

"jerry101jlh" wrote:But Vinny I would argue this, the IFL is nothing more than the UIF with a new name, same rules, same type of governing body. And the UIF not unique in its conception either, took almost to the T how the NIFL was set up minus the leadership. if you go tried and proven, this new league ought to adopt the IFL formula as it is the only one proven to work long term so far. I'm saying they could do worse than just adopting the IFL business plan.

Most who set out to start a league just decide what it is "they" want or "they" want to get out of it instead of looking at all leagues, past and present, to see what worked and what didn't. There is enough information out there that to create a stable league that using your own brain cells to create a new idea just stupid. Not saying this is what this group is doing, but commenting.

But still to include the Texas group when one can clearly see how one ownership there appears not to ever be content would give cause to question the smarts of those starting this new league.


This is where we have vastly divergent opinions in terms of league quality, my association with the UIF was under the leadership of Dakota Crow, the reputation of the league was centered around the quality of the franchises, the individual teams were probably more important than the league itself in terms of establishing a reputation. It was not until the the UIF merged with the IFL that I found that the league went downhill with teams folding, the fly by night antics had certainly creeped back into the equation, I find little or no satisfaction in the leadership provided by Benizio. The person that you were questioning in Texas portion of the quation, are you sure that that person is really calling the shots? When I look at the landscape, I see at least one other prominent individual involved in ownership of potential Texas based teams. Finally, you are correct, the model that the new league is attempting is nothing new, others have utilized the same structure, but it is not the structure that will ultimately dictate quality, it will be the character of the individuals that are involved, I would far rather have a league largely filled with individuals of character than a league filled with a few characters, one has the ingrediants where success has a chance, the other is simply a recipe for disaster.
Last edited by VinnyTheViper on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

jerry101jlh
Site Admin
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm

Post by jerry101jlh » Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:05 pm

"VinnyTheViper" wrote:This is where we have vastly divergent opinions in terms of league quality, my association with the UIF was under the leadership of Dakota Crow, the reputation of the league was centered around the quality of the franchises, the individual teams were probably more important than the league itself in terms of establishing a reputation. It was not until the the UIF merged with the IFL that I found that the league went downhill with teams folding, the fly by night antics had certainly creeped back into the equation, I find little or no satisfaction in the leadership provided by Benizio. The person that you were questioning in Texas portion of the quation, are you sure that that person is really calling the shots? When I look at the landscape, I see at least one other prominent individual involved in ownership of potential Texas based teams. Finally, you are correct, the model that the new league is attempting is nothing new, others have utilized the same structure, but it is not the structure that will ultimately dictate quality, it will be the character of the individuals that are involved, I would far rather have a league largely filled with individuals of character than a league filled with a few characters, one has the ingrediants where success has a chance, the other is simply a recipe for disaster.


If the one I'm thinking about in Texas is not calling the shots, he will leave with his teams sooner than later. As to the stability of the UIF vs. the IFL. It has been said the UIF too conservative under Crow and the owners wanting more expansion than Crow seemed able to generate, so therefore a change. Agreed some moves by the IFL to bring in teams has not paid off, but one can hardly blame that on Benizeo since it's the teams that vote to allow a team in or not. And I will go back to what several IFL owners have told me, Benizeo does a good job with in the parameters of what the owners pay him to do.

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:52 pm

The UIF faced the same problem the IPFL did years before: it was shrinking, not growing. There were reasons for that. I know some owners criticized the UIF league office for being pretty expensive. With about twice as many teams, I don't think the IFL employs any more people.

exit322
Site Admin
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:03 pm
Location: Massillon, Ohio
Contact:

Post by exit322 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:43 pm

"jerry101jlh" wrote:If the one I'm thinking about in Texas is not calling the shots, he will leave with his teams sooner than later. As to the stability of the UIF vs. the IFL. It has been said the UIF too conservative under Crow and the owners wanting more expansion than Crow seemed able to generate, so therefore a change. Agreed some moves by the IFL to bring in teams has not paid off, but one can hardly blame that on Benizeo since it's the teams that vote to allow a team in or not. And I will go back to what several IFL owners have told me, Benizeo does a good job with in the parameters of what the owners pay him to do.


If Dittman isn't running the show, I give him no more than two seasons before he leaves to run the show.
What are you doing here?

Post Reply

Return to “SIFL”