|
Post by fulldaddy on Aug 21, 2008 15:38:30 GMT -5
I heard a whisper coming from a north by northwest wind gust that the boys are having a hard time agreeing on the rules for the new league. Sounds like the IFL guys see their brand of football as the best and think they are the premier feeder for A1. What do you guys think? I am a bit biased but I love the UIF style of football - it is in my opinion the best style and true to the game of football. We already have arena 1 and 2 - do we really need an arena 3?
|
|
|
Post by everstar19 on Aug 21, 2008 16:57:51 GMT -5
I've never experienced a UIF game but appartenly the rules are quite different. I think both sides knew it was gonna be a hard road to comprise, because both leagues worked so hard to get where they are today and they don't want to lose their league's idenity in the process.
They need a mediator, that's the only way it's gonna get done.
I know that IFL games are fast paced and high scoring, it makes the game uber exiting!
E_19
|
|
|
Post by milwaukee on Aug 21, 2008 18:32:47 GMT -5
af2 will always be the number feeder to the AFL, because they have the same rules. The IFL will probably be more of a feeder to the CFL
|
|
|
Post by Doom on Aug 21, 2008 20:13:50 GMT -5
ewwwww af3, make me sick,seriously I'm a big supporter of the bandits but if we switch over to those trashy rules i probably wont be attending very many games, when i could watch the same thing online for free, jmo on that
|
|
|
Post by fulldaddy on Aug 22, 2008 9:50:31 GMT -5
When we merged in 05 with Peoria, Tenn Valley, and the others - we went through this same thing. You had powerful personalities all together in a room hammering these things out. It took weeks prior to the league meetings to close to figuiring it out.
To the credit of guys like Cowdry, Adams, and other "Arena" guys - they made consessions for the greater good so to speak and the rules did not change much. They all had prior experience in the "indoor" style which is what I refer to as the UIF rules.
The UIF has sent guys to the AFL, NFL, and CFL as I am sure the IFL did. The statement that the style of play makes players more attractive to the AFL doesn't mean s--t to me. If your players are playmakers and make a s--t load of plays and the organization tries to help promote them - they are going to get signed by a league that pays them what they are worth. BOTTOM LINE.
Sioux Falls, Sioux City, and Omaha are very balanced football teams and like to run the football. All 3 have guys in the AFL, 1 has a RB in the NFL.
I want to see a style of play that allows you the CHOICE to throw the ball every down or run the rock 25 times a game.
|
|
statman
Cleans the Towels
Posts: 16
|
Post by statman on Aug 22, 2008 15:53:35 GMT -5
"I want to see a style of play that allows you the CHOICE to throw the ball every down or run the rock 25 times a game." - fulldaddy
Amen to that.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 22, 2008 16:29:12 GMT -5
I love the UIF style of football - it is in my opinion the best style and true to the game of football. Everytime I post the EXACT SAME SENTIMENT, I have to read some ridiculously lame rebuttal from a known antagonist in a state east of here. Irregardless, YES, the U I F style is the truest style to the real game of football. If it came down to having yet another AFL copy floating around, I wouldn't even bother with it. I have the Grand Rapids Rampage, a nice leisurely ride up the road. And the RUSH 20 minutes away.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 22, 2008 16:34:13 GMT -5
The UIF has sent guys to the AFL, NFL, and CFL as I am sure the IFL did. The statement that the style of play makes players more attractive to the AFL doesn't mean s--t to me. If your players are playmakers and make a s--t load of plays and the organization tries to help promote them - they are going to get signed by a league that pays them what they are worth. BOTTOM LINE. Sioux Falls, Sioux City, and Omaha are very balanced football teams and like to run the football. All 3 have guys in the AFL, 1 has a RB in the NFL. I want to see a style of play that allows you the CHOICE to throw the ball every down or run the rock 25 times a game. Agree 1,000,000%.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 22, 2008 17:11:04 GMT -5
af2 will always be the number feeder to the AFL, because they have the same rules. in addition to the fact it's the same company.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 22, 2008 19:59:09 GMT -5
I'd rather see the NIFL's on-field rule set adopted in full.
Close to the UIF's, but their tweaks made it a faster game. More motion, better kickoff rule (midfield cuts in half the number of OOB kickoffs).
|
|
|
Post by afan on Aug 23, 2008 5:52:53 GMT -5
I don't know the NIFL rules, but I was honestly just as entertained watching the Warlords (IFL), the Stealth (AF2), the Aviators (APFL) and the Wild (UIF) - the indepedent season was not so entertaining. I don't think the average fan really knows or cares much of the difference between the rules. To me, it's not about the "purest" form of the game. It isn't NFL. It's a whole different game. And I am okay with either type of game.
Speaking with friends at work this week further comfirmed that - out of several conversations that I had following the announcement of the new head coach - people that had seen the news, not one could even tell me the name of the league - either the IFL or UIF. Not one, and they had all attended games.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 23, 2008 16:00:16 GMT -5
I don't know the NIFL rules, but I was honestly just as entertained watching the Warlords (IFL), the Stealth (AF2), the Aviators (APFL) and the Wild (UIF) - the indepedent season was not so entertaining. I don't think the average fan really knows or cares much of the difference between the rules. To me, it's not about the "purest" form of the game. It isn't NFL. It's a whole different game. And I am okay with either type of game. Speaking with friends at work this week further comfirmed that - out of several conversations that I had following the announcement of the new head coach - people that had seen the news, not one could even tell me the name of the league - either the IFL or UIF. Not one, and they had all attended games. That's cool. But SOME of us actually understand the game of football . REAL football. That is why it is called Indoor Football. It is FOOTBALL, played INDOORS. Not Mr. Fosters mickey mouse davis game of gimmicks and handcuffed defense. Pity the poor folks that don't know what league they're watching, they probably can't remember where their car is parked either. and that's okay too.
|
|
|
Post by afan on Aug 23, 2008 18:13:17 GMT -5
luckily, we have a relatively small parking lot in Wichita ;D
|
|
|
Post by afan on Aug 24, 2008 10:12:07 GMT -5
At the severe risk of being attacked for simply not hating AF2: I still don't think that most average fans here care which rules. I haven't stood at the door and asked as they entered. But I have seen the steady decline in attendance. Maybe it was just the excitement in the early years of the game here. The Warlords (IFL) did okay I think compared to the Stealth (AF2). Every time we change leagues or owners, things just went farther down. I know AF2 has burned a lot of bridges. But Wichita was a different situation. As far as being true to the game of football, not a concern personally. College and NFL are true football. Arena and indoor are (to me) totally different games BASED on the sport of football. Not attempts to watch the "real thing" inside. I appreciate them as such. I'll still support the Wild, but if they were to ever decide to go AF2 (which I don't see happening) - I'd still support them.
|
|
|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 24, 2008 11:14:09 GMT -5
Yes they do, because the af2 rules are clear as day to people especially when what your watching is pass every **** down....
|
|