|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 17, 2009 0:14:50 GMT -5
You're kidding yourself, talent levels in leagues do vary. Alaska has some talented players (need more) and bad coaching. The previous head coach knew what he was doing when he departed before the season began.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Jun 17, 2009 7:22:21 GMT -5
You're kidding yourself, talent levels in leagues do vary. Alaska has some talented players (need more) and bad coaching. The previous head coach knew what he was doing when he departed before the season began. Talent level in leagues do vary, I agree. AF2 teams would maul the best any of the indoor leagues have to offer, except those few that are AFL-player laden. Chicago would have success in the AF2. Billings probably would as their roster could make the transition. That's why Lexington has been successful. Doesn't change the fact Chicago would absolutely roll the IFLers when they started trying.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 17, 2009 12:51:00 GMT -5
You're kidding yourself, talent levels in leagues do vary. Alaska has some talented players (need more) and bad coaching. The previous head coach knew what he was doing when he departed before the season began. Talent level in leagues do vary, I agree. AF2 teams would maul the best any of the indoor leagues have to offer, except those few that are AFL-player laden. Chicago would have success in the AF2. Billings probably would as their roster could make the transition. That's why Lexington has been successful. Doesn't change the fact Chicago would absolutely roll the IFLers when they started trying. Pure opinionated. AF2 plays no defense. Chicago has talent, but no competition. If they choose to play with the big boys, then we can see how they really are. Until then, they're just posers like the Kansas Koyotes.
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Jun 17, 2009 14:56:16 GMT -5
big boys? Why would they move to say, the IFL when they'd end up having to pay more for a lesser quality league?
Hopefully the SFS take a walk and create a new league and have Chicago join up.
That'd be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Jun 17, 2009 16:10:33 GMT -5
I won't argue the merits of any league, but to make an arguement that the IFL id of lesser quality than the CIFL is lunacy.
Sure teh IFl is far from perfect, but thee made darn sure everyone of their member teams will have insurance from now on.
I don't think the IFL is one and done, nor do I think that the Storm will lead a revolt. the Storm front office knows that they alone caused "the issue". Other than that, really the other issues are pretty normal for an indoor league. Doesn't make them right, but pretty normal.
Too many ownerships thinking about making money, not enough caring about what's good for he game. that alone spells the ultimate doom for all of indoor football. The IFL is not beyond repair, it just needs to be run in a professional manner but someone who's not GETTING A CUT on expansion fees and other league wide deals.
hummmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Jun 17, 2009 17:22:18 GMT -5
good point Texxx. I should have added "equal or lesser quality."
Either way, the teams in the IFL aren't getting what they pay for. I'd say most other leagues are getting more bang for their buck.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 18, 2009 12:34:30 GMT -5
big boys? Why would they move to say, the IFL when they'd end up having to pay more for a lesser quality league? Hopefully the SFS take a walk and create a new league and have Chicago join up. That'd be fun. A new league will probably happen. Do any of the leagues have staying power? The AFL is done after a quarter of a century of play. No league is safe. We won't know how things shake out until the offseason, but right now the best teams on the field overall are in the IFL. A new league could be fun, depending on how it's done. No one seems to take into account history and so the mistakes keep happening over and over and probably would with a new league as well.
|
|