Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Arena Football...

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Kirk Is

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 4:46:52 PM2/22/04
to
Anyone like Arena Football? Clearly it's a smaller game in a number of
ways, but still, it seems kind of entertaining. Looks like it's getting
some coverage on NBC.

I wonder why its managed to hang around for 15 years while the XFL just
imploded?


--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Being 'in a state of nudity' is not an inherently expressive condition."
--Sandra Day O'Connor, in a ruling upholding a ban on nude dancing

dle...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 22, 2004, 10:38:27 PM2/22/04
to
Kirk Is <kis...@mezzo.eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<gr9_b.709$X2.3...@news.tufts.edu>...

> Anyone like Arena Football? Clearly it's a smaller game in a number of
> ways, but still, it seems kind of entertaining. Looks like it's getting
> some coverage on NBC.
>
> I wonder why its managed to hang around for 15 years while the XFL just
> imploded?


The AFL has survived, as opposed to the XFL, exactly because it was
NOT (and still is NOT) trying to be the XFL. Yes, it is a different
"game" that outdoor football, but, it is it's own game. It's not
trying to be different to "stick it" to the NFL, like the XFL was. It
doesn't see itself as a competator or "better" than the NFL, just a
different game played during a different time of year (they won't be
pulling any USFLs and move to the fall). 9 NFL owners now partially
or fully own current or upcoming teams. And as the first two weeks
have shown, it is at least as popular as the NHL, if not surpassing
it. ABC got a 1.8 and 1.3 the last two weeks for the NHL (including
the ASG the first week), the AFL got a 2.1 and 1.7 (both times the AFL
actually being shown head to head against the NHL game). In Chicago,
the Chicago Rush game got a 2.1, the Blackhawks got a 1.4 (granted,
the Hawks suck this year, but, it's still probably a surprising result
to many). So, don't worry that it's going away, enjoy the AFL!

Dave Carlson
ArenaFan.com

Drew Volpe

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 12:23:27 PM2/23/04
to
Last time we met, dle...@yahoo.com <dle...@yahoo.com> had said:
> Kirk Is <kis...@mezzo.eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<gr9_b.709$X2.3...@news.tufts.edu>...
> > Anyone like Arena Football? Clearly it's a smaller game in a number of
> > ways, but still, it seems kind of entertaining. Looks like it's getting
> > some coverage on NBC.
> >
> > I wonder why its managed to hang around for 15 years while the XFL just
> > imploded?
>
>
> The AFL has survived, as opposed to the XFL, exactly because it was
> NOT (and still is NOT) trying to be the XFL. Yes, it is a different
> "game" that outdoor football, but, it is it's own game.

Also, the AFL has always been happy to be small-time. The XFL was
swinging for the fences. They spent a ton of money in the hopes of
making it big and needed to make a ton of money to survive. Had their
expenses been as modest as the AFL, they would've been fine with the
revenue they made.


dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Robert Goodman

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 4:46:16 PM2/23/04
to
<dle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a66cbf9d.04022...@posting.google.com...

> Kirk Is <kis...@mezzo.eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:<gr9_b.709$X2.3...@news.tufts.edu>...

> > Anyone like Arena Football? Clearly it's a smaller game in a number of
> > ways, but still, it seems kind of entertaining. Looks like it's getting
> > some coverage on NBC.

> > I wonder why its managed to hang around for 15 years while the XFL just
> > imploded?

> The AFL has survived, as opposed to the XFL, exactly because it was
> NOT (and still is NOT) trying to be the XFL. Yes, it is a different
> "game" that outdoor football, but, it is it's own game.

Unfortunately it's not different enough for my tastes. I spoke about this
to Jim Foster, the impresario of Arena football, the year they went
national, and I understand his reasoning even if I don't like the result.

For instance, Mr. Foster pulled his punch re the walls & screens. He had
the idea for the patented end screens to come down to the floor, but was
persuaded not to because of fears a player would get a hand caught and sue
over the injury. And initially the side walls had no legitimate purpose in
the game at all; there was a boundary stripe considerably in-floor from
them. The only use of the walls seemed to be mean-spirited "boarding" of
opposing players. Later changes have made the side walls more relevant, but
most types of balls hitting them are still dead.

And when I heard the game was going to be 8 a side, I commented that it was
going to be congested. That's why the rules are so tricky & limiting; with
that many players in so little space, the only way to get much offense is to
limit defenses. Mr. Foster explained that with fewer players than that, it
wouldn't look as much like field football to have spectator appeal. So
there was a deliberate effort to not make the game too different, to its
detriment IMO.

Punches were pulled in the substitution rules too, by making exceptions to
the 2-way player principle.

It's also pretty clear by now that the additional point for a drop goal (2
for a conversion, 4 from the field), although it worked in the early years
for some teams to use it, hasn't been enough of an incentive for any teams
I've seen lately to use it instead of the place kick. That being the case,
they should've considered by now outlawing the place kick.

If I were doing it, I'd have it as Cage Match Football and it'd look more
different from field football. Details if you're interested.

BTW, Arena football was inspired by indoor soccer, as Foster has said.

> It's not
> trying to be different to "stick it" to the NFL, like the XFL was.

And even the XFL didn't take enough chances on changing the game.

Robert in da Bronx
fan of women's, minor league, and rugby football


Robert Goodman

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 4:51:51 PM2/23/04
to
"Drew Volpe" <donte...@bulk-email-lists.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc3kdoe.2j...@hcs.harvard.edu...

> Also, the AFL has always been happy to be small-time. The XFL was
> swinging for the fences. They spent a ton of money in the hopes of
> making it big and needed to make a ton of money to survive. Had their
> expenses been as modest as the AFL, they would've been fine with the
> revenue they made.

Plus, the TV-oriented XFL was squeezed into a crappy time of year by the NFL
& AFL. When Arena football began, its season was a little later than it is
now; I don't know when they started playing in Feb. Anyway, the XFL
squeezed into that gap, which was pretty awful for stadium conditions
outside the Sun Belt.

Robert


0 new messages