|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 8, 2010 16:21:56 GMT -5
How would you rank the current indoor football leagues, in terms of quality of teams, players, play, overall experience, or any criteria you want to throw in?
AIFA APFL CIFL IFL SIFL UIFL
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 8, 2010 16:24:29 GMT -5
Right now I have:
1. IFL 2. SIFL 3-5. AIFA/CIFL/UIFL (too many unknowns for me to separate them at this time) 6. APFL
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 8, 2010 16:27:23 GMT -5
The reason I have APFL in sixth is that most teams don't pay their players which makes it just a step above semi-pro. A few teams pay some of their players, but that's it. There's nothing wrong with semi-pro, but since this is about pro leagues that's a minus for me.
|
|
psx234
Team Captain
Posts: 281
|
Post by psx234 on Sept 8, 2010 18:05:06 GMT -5
1. IFL 2. SIFL 3. CIFL - they at least know what they want, they may not be able to hold on to teams for the long term but they aren't expanding over their ability like the AIFA. 4-5. AIFA//UIFL (too many unknowns for me to separate them at this time) 6. APFL
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 16, 2010 14:39:50 GMT -5
From Oursportscentral:
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Sept 16, 2010 17:49:17 GMT -5
APFL has the best model in indoor football.
/Fact.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 16, 2010 18:37:15 GMT -5
That's ONE vote for the APFL.
If all the players were paid I'd think your argument of that being a fact would hold more merit.
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Sept 16, 2010 20:41:13 GMT -5
Not lying to the players about being paid or not I believe makes all the difference here.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Sept 16, 2010 22:08:01 GMT -5
Semi-pro ball is fun too, but I argue it is more fun to play than watch (I also feel that way about all sports that aren't football or women's billiards). I'm not calling the APFL semi-pro, but some of it's teams are so it's a hybrid. It's all about the level of competition and proficiency for me. The higher the level of pay the players receive, the better the competition in said league. I will watch all the leagues, but the better the competition the better chances are you will see better players, better play, expanded playbooks, and fewer miscues overall. It's a shame that each league seems to have problem teams/owners/gm's/etc, but overall a league is judged on not only the problem childs but everything in-between and all the way to the top. I'm glad you are a proponent of the APFL, they need all the support they can get. If you're looking for a league to get things done at low cost, they are the league for you. You usually get what you pay for though. All the leagues have work to do, but the IFL is on a good track and the one to beat.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Sept 17, 2010 13:06:06 GMT -5
The problems with the APFL, is that in it's simplicity it fails to attract quality ownership and players. To be sure they may well be great people, but there's a reason Chuck Wright isn't starting in Omaha or even Sioux City. They routinely have employed the use of substitute semi-pro teams to fill out schedules, and even the profitability is marginal or questionable
|
|