|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 24, 2008 11:23:18 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. Shh! Don't break their little hearts that 99% of fans don't care about the rules that are played! I still think they should have, for one of the independent games, just played Wild defense vs *** offense - drives start at the 10 for the other team; team that scores more wins. Please when my wife goes to games(completely football dumb) Can tell I'm sure most people can tell. People don't go to FOOTBALL games because they've never seen football before and if you've seen football before I'd say you'd know more than nothing about rules. So what happened to staying off the boards, maybe you should try to move on if this is so tough for you to get along with folks and realize your not the only one who knows something about Indoor football and the history of it
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 24, 2008 21:02:40 GMT -5
My semi-scientific study was in Rochester when I was with the CIFL.
Talked with about 30 fans during that game that weren't online personalities. Of the 30, *two* realized the Raiders and Brigade (an AF2 team for three years) weren't in the same league. Most of the rest didn't notice the game (A) missed nets and (B) had two fewer players on the field.
Even the long-time Brigade/Raiders fans I talked to noted there wasn't all that much of an appreciable difference in the games. Even though in rule set, they're nothing alike, fans that saw years of both didn't really notice a difference.
Sioux Falls' office would have put together a great team with a great following regardless of the rules they play. Any team that fails "because of the rules" is using those as an excuse to hide their own failures. Any fan that thinks using arena rules would kill a league is finding an excuse for if/when the IFL ends up failing.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 25, 2008 22:24:15 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. There's something about the NIFL/UIF ruleset that appeals to the folks in Sioux Falls. You may throw them out of the scientific study as the high score in gymnastics
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 26, 2008 7:12:44 GMT -5
There's something about the NIFL/UIF ruleset that appeals to the folks in Sioux Falls. looks like the mods are on the same page. ;D so it isn't just me. of course I already knew that
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 26, 2008 12:42:49 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. There's something about the NIFL/UIF ruleset that appeals to the folks in Sioux Falls. You may throw them out of the scientific study as the high score in gymnastics The only issue, of course, being that SF hasn't ever had another version of the game to see. Doesn't matter - that organization would have success regardless of the rules played. They'd find a way to draw 3000 fans a game in the APFL. I will always argue that rule differences really aren't going to deter much in the way of fans. Certainly in instances where cities have had different rule sets (Louisiana/Corpus/Odessa/Wyoming/Rochester/Peoria/Huntsville/Miami Valley/Steubenville), failures have been due to the organizations, not the rules. I like the indoor (NIFL, mostly) rules best, and of course I've got a soft spot for the CIFL rulebook that I wrote, but for player development, unfortunately the arena-style rules are probably better.
|
|
karhu34
Cleans the Towels
Posts: 10
|
Post by karhu34 on Aug 26, 2008 13:07:48 GMT -5
I disagree that the arena rules help develop players better. Although that rule set does help develop arena bound players better. What would have happened to Fred Jackson? Without the indoor rules that allow for a running game, I doubt that his chance would have come the way it did. For those that believe there is not a great difference, the run game with the indoor rules should be proof enough of the difference. Not that one rule set is better than another, just depends on your preference. I prefer the indoor rules. A passing game, a running game and defensive schemes that matter....Oh it sounds like football, not just a 7 on 7 drill.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 26, 2008 13:27:26 GMT -5
You didn't mention FW exit? Home of the UIF, NIFL, AF2, and CIFL . . . I'll agree with you though, FW has failed repeatedly and it never had anything to do with the fans, league or rules. It was OWNERSHIP each time. And when it comes to screening ownership, all four leagues I mentioned have done a crappy job in Fort Wayne. (Mix in bad ownership and a change of rules and then you have a real disaster happening. (Fusion football anyone?) Getting back on topic, as an indoor football enthusiast, make the IFL rules as much like indoor football as possible. Two pass happy leagues are enough. Make the IFL indoor football. The IFL *is* indoor football, unless they decide to move all their teams outside. Which I don't think is in the plans. What's the other pass-happy league? CIFL had some pass-happy teams, but FW played Lexington a number of times in the NIFL/UIF as well. The CIFL had some run-first teams as well (but no, FW with a broken-down Rocky Harvey was not one of them). The failures in FW were all owner-related. The CIFL holds all kinds of fault for giving Ellis a second chance as well.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 26, 2008 15:30:16 GMT -5
You didn't list the AFL in your original list.
The InFL used the arena rules to a pretty good level of success. Though fans on here like the indoor-style rules (me included), it will be the better route to move more guys up to the AFL (unless the IFL has plans to develop for other football leagues, or no plans to develop guys at all) to use the arena-style rules...indoor fans can't hang their hats on one Buffalo running back forever.
|
|
|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 26, 2008 17:27:16 GMT -5
Are you just gonna keep saying what you want to say until somebody say's your right or what?? This topic is over we'll know we should stay with indoor rules not arena or pass happy rules so move on!
|
|
|
Post by milwaukee on Aug 26, 2008 17:55:31 GMT -5
I think there shouldn't be that many pass happy teams in the CIFL, you should be able to run the ball well in the CIFL because its 7 on 7.
I think the AIFA is most most pass happy Indoor Football League
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 26, 2008 20:32:21 GMT -5
Some teams in the CIFL had to resort to throwing a bunch because they didn't have the line or backs to run the ball (Muskegon was a great example of this).
The AIFA and InFL were about equally pass-happy.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux72 on Aug 26, 2008 21:16:36 GMT -5
In the NFL you have a number teams that rely heavily on their passing game. You also have a number that rely mostly on their running game. Then there are those teams that incorporate an equal amount of both. I personally would like to see the IFL develop a ruleset that allows for this same type of flexibility within the indoor game. And I believe that by creatively combining the best elements of the United rules with the best elements of the Intense rules that this can be accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 26, 2008 21:34:34 GMT -5
In the NFL you have a number teams that rely heavily on their passing game. You also have a number that rely mostly on their running game. Then there are those teams that incorporate an equal amount of both. I personally would like to see the IFL develop a ruleset that allows for this same type of flexibility within the indoor game. And I believe that by creatively combining the best elements of the United rules with the best elements of the Intense rules that this can be accomplished. Truth be told, if that's your goal, then the league should proably adopt the UIF rule set verbatim. That exists there (though I'd like to see the extra motion and few other tweaks from the NIFL rulebook, as that did open up the game a bit more for passing downfield) already.
|
|
|
Post by milwaukee on Aug 26, 2008 22:10:47 GMT -5
The Bonecrushers were a good example of that too in 2008, they will have a much better team in 2009. There new head coach should be announced soon!
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 27, 2008 9:12:43 GMT -5
I'd agree on that - I do like the rouge rule (not the AIFA version, the NIFL version).
Part of the UIF's more defensive style was the one fewer motion men and a couple other rules - but a bigger part was the fact they had better defensive teams. This is something that if the UIF rules are kept may still be an issue.
One thing I'd like to see that would loosen things up is the CIFL tight-end rule (uncovered lineman with an eligible number is automatically eligible to go out for a pass). I do think that would open up offenses a hair, and it does add quite a bit more strategy, especially if a team has a big guy that can catch the football.
|
|