|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 7:10:38 GMT -5
I liked this rule as well. The CIFL game system was better than I expected . . . . . . too bad the teams and owners were not. The CIFL will be back in 2009 Yeah, I wouldn't bet money on that. I'm pretty sure Jeff and Eric are getting tired of everything going on.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 7:43:36 GMT -5
Difference in scoring could have a lot to do with rushing League - pass yds/game - rush yds/game IntFL - 193.5 - 31.46 UIF 147.9 - 72.02 more than 200% more rushing yards in the U ~34% more passing in the IntFL 27% more scoring. in the IntFL I think the number of plays per game probably had more to do with it here. The InFL clock did stop after a TD/before PAT, if I remember right. That adds a dozen plays a game right there. Clock-wise, running really isn't going to eat up as much more clock here as it does in the NFL. Until the last minute/90 seconds, the clock doesn't stop after a pass (and with a 25-second clock, it takes a couple ticks longer to get the ball back to the line). And as bad as some UIF passing games were at times, it can be quicker in some senses to score more via the run. Now, of course, downfield passing is going to get you more scoring quicker than running the ball. But a number of the IFL teams did employ a lot of short passing, which would eat up a clock not unlike running the football.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 7:51:49 GMT -5
Scratch that. It must be the passing...IFL teams on average ran 649 plays in the regular season. UIF teams on average ran 648.
IFL teams had a little more success on kick returns, probably aided by the 20-yard-line rule in the UIF (one thing they just absolutely can not carry forward to the new IFL). But yeah, the passing appears to be the major difference. Not sure why InFL games take so much longer in real time, then, since more plays aren't run.
This doesn't change the thought, though, that you CAN (and perhaps SHOULD) pass in the fourth quarter with a lead, since the clock doesn't stop until the end of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 28, 2008 8:33:14 GMT -5
Scratch that. It must be the passing...IFL teams on average ran 649 plays in the regular season. UIF teams on average ran 648. IFL teams had a little more success on kick returns, probably aided by the 20-yard-line rule in the UIF (one thing they just absolutely can not carry forward to the new IFL). But yeah, the passing appears to be the major difference. Not sure why InFL games take so much longer in real time, then, since more plays aren't run. did you notice the large disparity in penalties. those would stop the clock. Either the refs in the IntFL were better versed in the rules (insert laughter here) or the play was inherently more undisciplined. I cannot say as my entire IntFL experience consists of 2 games. I'll agree with Josh that the UIF has survived the war of attrition, but to have survived this long they had to be doing something right. I think that's the part he's missing, or refusing to admit. Lou, let me publicly tell you to calm down a bit. I think sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees. Josh has told us the truth from a view point we cannot match. he's lost a team near and dear to his heart (if I recall correctly) when he Hounds folded. He's worked on the inside of a start-up league, although the reviews appear mixed on his performance, I think his heart was in the right place. but let's be real guys. The reality is that all of these leagues could co-exist if everyone would put football before their own ego's. Financially the new IFL is a 3rd tier league, although tied for 2nd in talent and gameplay. There's no way to topple the AFL. but the AFL has priced itself out of reach for a lot of casual fans to get good seats. I looked as getting tickets when Grand Rapids traveled to KC. I would have spent the equivalent of one Storm season ticket for 2 seats in the lower level. that's where the IFL can actually become more popular than arena1. keep the ticket prices affordable. off my soap box now.. both sides have been warned.. go back to your corners and come back out swinging. but let's keep it clean.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 9:08:09 GMT -5
did you notice the large disparity in penalties. those would stop the clock. Either the refs in the IntFL were better versed in the rules (insert laughter here) or the play was inherently more undisciplined. I cannot say as my entire IntFL experience consists of 2 games. I'll agree with Josh that the UIF has survived the war of attrition, but to have survived this long they had to be doing something right. I think that's the part he's missing, or refusing to admit. Lou, let me publicly tell you to calm down a bit. I think sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees. Josh has told us the truth from a view point we cannot match. he's lost a team near and dear to his heart (if I recall correctly) when he Hounds folded. He's worked on the inside of a start-up league, although the reviews appear mixed on his performance, I think his heart was in the right place. I noticed the penalty disparity, but thought it was related to the number of plays ran (more plays, more penalties, problem solved) - granted, the penalties will contribute to more actual snaps, so the number *is* a bit higher. But the pass game appears to have been the big difference-maker. My performance was slighly-above-average with the then-GLIFL, but that's probably again due to an attrition factor. I was better to the average because the average was terrible. Plenty of things I could've done to be better, but the pay-for-time wasn't there, and I simply couldn't get things done the way they needed to. Plenty of things I wished I could've put together, but it simply did not happen. I've been asked if I'd get back into the sport in that function - truth be told, I'd think about it, but that opportunity isn't going to come, so there's no point in dwelling on it. The UIF has survived the war of attrition because they haven't screwed up badly enough *not* to. It's been a terrible few years for the sport, and the UIF has been able to survive losing half their members over that time. The NIFL, AIFL, and probably CIFL (and I'd guess within two years the AIFA)...have not. The IFL makes both the InFL and UIF members a whole lot stronger, and they absolutely have to take advantage of the instability that currently plagues this sport. So far, I have not seen things changing, but I liked what Winfrey did in the InFL last year, and I think he's going to do well with the football ops in the IFL. Communications still stinks everywhere, though.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 15:33:54 GMT -5
Lou, let me publicly tell you to calm down a bit. I think sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees. Josh has told us the truth from a view point we cannot match. he's lost a team near and dear to his heart (if I recall correctly) when he Hounds folded. He's worked on the inside of a start-up league, although the reviews appear mixed on his performance, I think his heart was in the right place. Personally, I think the Hounds were one of the teams the UIF should've forgotten about when the league formed. They were on very shaky ground at that point, and it certainly didn't get any better for them after joining the UIF. On the CIFL - there's a market for it, but the league totally misplayed that. Marion, the CIFL's most successful team, is in too small an area to go to a more expensive league - and I'd guess there won't be a viable more inexpensive one around a whole lot longer.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 28, 2008 15:34:18 GMT -5
can you argue that any of the other leagues did "it" better over the last four years?
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 15:37:58 GMT -5
can you argue that any of the other leagues did "it" better over the last four years? I feel the IFL was stronger at the very least in 2008. Communications was better, attendance was comparable, and the IFL didn't lose any teams between 2007 and 2008. And no, it has nothing to do with the rules played. :-P The AIFA had a rather subpar year with the same rules the InFL used.
|
|
|
Post by gusher on Aug 28, 2008 15:51:44 GMT -5
The Intense did a good job of updating their website and tracking player transactions/player eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 28, 2008 16:07:47 GMT -5
ok so the UIF is at worst 2nd
that means the top two leagues in indoor football have joined and this is going to fail, how?
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 28, 2008 16:13:59 GMT -5
ok so the UIF is at worst 2nd that means the top two leagues in indoor football have joined and this is going to fail, how? Egos. Same way everything else fails. Will there be disagreements when the two leagues want to do various things "their way," such as the rules? Certainly the IFL could be successful for an awful long time. But definitely, the two entities making up the IFL could have a falling out and the thing goes away in a year. Both leagues *are* comprised of owners that left other leagues when things weren't to their liking. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WASN'T THE RIGHT MOVE (because in both cases, leaving the NIFL was). They did it once - there's obviously precedent to do it again. UNLIKE IN THE CIFL, if the IFL does fail as an entity, it won't kill teams (if the CIFL fails, half the league has nowhere else to go).
|
|
|
Post by gusher on Aug 28, 2008 16:18:55 GMT -5
Hey I don't have a dog in this race... but I do not see a personal attack. If exit's signature is what has people panties in a wad.
"I'm glad for the UIF fans, now being able to again proclaim they're involved with the "premier" indoor football league. Hopefully it doesn't backfire on the InFL teams.
Pretending for two years like that had to be terrible beyond terrible. Lying to yourselves all the time - just a huge crack to an ego."
Not sure where it was PERSONAL unless your ego makes you think he is talking about you.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 28, 2008 17:00:17 GMT -5
ok so the UIF is at worst 2nd that means the top two leagues in indoor football have joined and this is going to fail, how? Egos. Same way everything else fails. Will there be disagreements when the two leagues want to do various things "their way," such as the rules? Certainly the IFL could be successful for an awful long time. But definitely, the two entities making up the IFL could have a falling out and the thing goes away in a year. Both leagues *are* comprised of owners that left other leagues when things weren't to their liking. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WASN'T THE RIGHT MOVE (because in both cases, leaving the NIFL was). They did it once - there's obviously precedent to do it again. UNLIKE IN THE CIFL, if the IFL does fail as an entity, it won't kill teams (if the CIFL fails, half the league has nowhere else to go). So, if I am to deduce correctly, all indoor football that doesn't use nets is doomed to fail? Exit, here's my final take man.. There's two ways in life to do things, you can try your damnedest to prop up the status quo, play with in the rules, and build the best sandcastle within the confines of someone else's sandbox or You can cut your losses, pick up your ball and build your own sandbox to play in, build up a sandbox worthy of your peers wanting to join you in a collaborative effort, and build the best darn sandbox in the world or sandboxes. you see my point. The merger of these two leagues is just what indoor football needs. They've all seen the ego's before. And they should have all learned from past experiences not to repeat history. I think they have some soul searching to do with regards to style of play, but they'll get it done I have no doubts. Doomed to fail.. I'm sure the same was said for decades about the NFL, and AFL...
|
|
|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 28, 2008 18:22:59 GMT -5
Hey I don't have a dog in this race... but I do not see a personal attack. If exit's signature is what has people panties in a wad. "I'm glad for the UIF fans, now being able to again proclaim they're involved with the "premier" indoor football league. Hopefully it doesn't backfire on the InFL teams. Pretending for two years like that had to be terrible beyond terrible. Lying to yourselves all the time - just a huge crack to an ego." Not sure where it was PERSONAL unless your ego makes you think he is talking about you. That's because they were deleted Oh and the time ran out on the clock!
|
|
|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 28, 2008 19:50:30 GMT -5
I agree as that's what was bothering the most as we have these guy's posting things in here that they don't have to and you have guy's like that who will just say well I have an in so I know everything about everything.
|
|