|
Why/How
Apr 20, 2009 23:21:35 GMT -5
Post by kratos on Apr 20, 2009 23:21:35 GMT -5
Why and How is the APFL still around? They dont make that much money(from what I hear on these boards) that means they arent in it for money and that also goes with how. How can they survive? They also arent in it for the fans either... Or else they would improve their league. I mean The SIFL is less than 1 year old and I think they are better than APFL.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 10:02:47 GMT -5
Post by CF4L on Apr 21, 2009 10:02:47 GMT -5
the APFL is around because as a business model it just MAKES SENSE for the legit (Iowa, Kansas, and Springfield) teams in the league.
Dues are small/non-existant and these teams are able to focus on garnering fan bases and interest within their community than paying the league to NOT do what they say they will do (you know, like the IFL, AIFA, CIFL, SIFL).
As a fan of the Iowa Blackhawks who do play in the APFL, I'm not really happy they play in the APFL. I'd rather see a higher level of competition and more stability throughout their league. With that being said, there are people in that organization whom I consider friends after many years of being around indoor football and I will support them no matter where they are.
It's a money thing, plain and simple. There are reasons the APFL is still around and it is because of money. If the Wolfpack, Blackhawks, or Koyotes were to go to the Indoor Football League AT THIS POINT they would die a quick death because the IFL demands so much money to do so little that it just doesn't make sense.
As the Blackhawks continue to build a fan base and in turn build finances, maybe they will make a move to a different league. I'm not in a position to say if that will happen or not.
I think your biggest mistake, kratos, is looking at the APFL as a whole. To many fans of the member teams, the APFL is just there to send teams to play our favorite team and then in the end crown a champion (Kansas Koyotes have been the only champion).
As far as your "in it for the fans" comment...what LEAGUE is? Certainly not the IFL.
I'm 100% positive my Iowa Blackhawks are in it for the fans.
I would take the Blackhawks over ANY other team in ANY other league.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 10:58:13 GMT -5
Post by msantamaria on Apr 21, 2009 10:58:13 GMT -5
Ehhh, I don't know about that. For all the crap the IFL gets about an inability to properly update their website (and deservably so), we are talking about a league that still dones outdated 2008 standings on their website, a headline of last year's APFL championship (which featured a team that hadn't played for over 2 months), and no schedule for the 2009 season.
Did I mention that the season starts in what, 5 days?
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 11:05:23 GMT -5
Post by CF4L on Apr 21, 2009 11:05:23 GMT -5
Ehhh, I don't know about that. For all the crap the IFL gets about an inability to properly update their website (and deservably so), we are talking about a league that still dones outdated 2008 standings on their website, a headline of last year's APFL championship (which featured a team that hadn't played for over 2 months), and no schedule for the 2009 season. Did I mention that the season starts in what, 5 days? what don't you know about? I said I'd take the Blackhawks over ANY other team in ANY other league. I stand by that.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 11:18:34 GMT -5
Post by msantamaria on Apr 21, 2009 11:18:34 GMT -5
Ehhh, I don't know about that. For all the crap the IFL gets about an inability to properly update their website (and deservably so), we are talking about a league that still dones outdated 2008 standings on their website, a headline of last year's APFL championship (which featured a team that hadn't played for over 2 months), and no schedule for the 2009 season. Did I mention that the season starts in what, 5 days? what don't you know about? I said I'd take the Blackhawks over ANY other team in ANY other league. I stand by that. Well, you acted like the shortcomings of an entire league trickled down to individual teams in one instance, yet supported an organization that comes from this joke of a league because 'they care about their fans'. Plenty of teams from the IFL and beyond care about their fans, too. Of course, it's entirely possible that I just misinterpreted your point, too.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 20:25:49 GMT -5
Post by exit322 on Apr 21, 2009 20:25:49 GMT -5
Story time. When I was the CIFL's Director of Communications (when it was then known as the GLIFL), at a Rochester game, I had the following exchange with a few fans at a Rochester game:
"How are you liking the GLIFL?"
"It's a great time, but they need to do better marketing. We've had this team for eight years and no one knew about it for the last four years."
"No, the Raiders aren't the same as the Brigade. We actually play a form of the game called "indoor" football; the Brigade played "arena" football."
"Oh, I didn't notice there was a difference."
---If fans don't recognize the lack of two players on the field and the lack of nets, let alone the obvious discrepancies between the AF2's professionalism level and the GLIFL's, I highly doubt they're going to recognize the APFL as being any less legitimate as the IFL.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 21:19:06 GMT -5
Post by phydeaux72 on Apr 21, 2009 21:19:06 GMT -5
It's not the league's responsibility to care about the fans.
It's the team's resposibility to care about the fans in their respective markets.
It's the league's resposibility to care about the teams.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 21:21:22 GMT -5
Post by exit322 on Apr 21, 2009 21:21:22 GMT -5
It's the league's responsibility to help the teams learn how to effectively operate, so that they're capable of working up a fan base.
No league does this.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 22:15:08 GMT -5
Post by Doom on Apr 21, 2009 22:15:08 GMT -5
this thread is already DE-railed, so i might as well add a little something i think, As far as the APFL goes, the one and only team the majority of people care about is the iowa blackhawks.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 21, 2009 23:47:09 GMT -5
Post by msantamaria on Apr 21, 2009 23:47:09 GMT -5
Story time. When I was the CIFL's Director of Communications (when it was then known as the GLIFL), at a Rochester game, I had the following exchange with a few fans at a Rochester game: "How are you liking the GLIFL?" "It's a great time, but they need to do better marketing. We've had this team for eight years and no one knew about it for the last four years." "No, the Raiders aren't the same as the Brigade. We actually play a form of the game called "indoor" football; the Brigade played "arena" football." "Oh, I didn't notice there was a difference." ---If fans don't recognize the lack of two players on the field and the lack of nets, let alone the obvious discrepancies between the AF2's professionalism level and the GLIFL's, I highly doubt they're going to recognize the APFL as being any less legitimate as the IFL. LOL! Keep typing that out enough times and you might start actually believing it.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 22, 2009 0:46:58 GMT -5
Post by Banana Cat on Apr 22, 2009 0:46:58 GMT -5
Story time. When I was the CIFL's Director of Communications (when it was then known as the GLIFL), at a Rochester game, I had the following exchange with a few fans at a Rochester game: "How are you liking the GLIFL?" "It's a great time, but they need to do better marketing. We've had this team for eight years and no one knew about it for the last four years." "No, the Raiders aren't the same as the Brigade. We actually play a form of the game called "indoor" football; the Brigade played "arena" football." "Oh, I didn't notice there was a difference." ---If fans don't recognize the lack of two players on the field and the lack of nets, let alone the obvious discrepancies between the AF2's professionalism level and the GLIFL's, I highly doubt they're going to recognize the APFL as being any less legitimate as the IFL. LOL! Keep typing that out enough times and you might start actually believing it. LOL...he already does. A small sampling of fans doesn't mean that's true for most fans either. The APFL, let me tell you, no one that's been to an APFL game will mistake it for another league. The Blackhawks are a class act and deserve better, but sometimes you have to settle for what you can afford. Back to the original question on the thread, the APFL is still around because they keep costs way down and it shows. Players don't get paid unless you play for the Koyotes or Blackhawks, and some of the Koyotes haven't been paid in the past either. No frills at the games, the game itself is basically the show (which is fine with me). The Blackhawks actually had a replay on the big screen going for many years which was very nice, but had to cut back on that recently. The owner of the league and the Koyotes, Ralph Adams, basically started the league to showcase his own team and stacks the deck (except for the Blackhawks) by bringing in semi-pro teams that really have no chance to compete with them. The one year that they lost they kicked out the best team (Wichita Aviators) so that they could still claim their minuscule title...lol. edited once to fix grammar error
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 22, 2009 7:14:35 GMT -5
Post by exit322 on Apr 22, 2009 7:14:35 GMT -5
If the quality of a league mattered, why are the CIFL teams in the IFL losing fans?
If the quality of a league mattered, why aren't all the ex-UIF teams drawing better than they did when they were NIFL teams?
If the quality of the league mattered, why aren't all AF2 teams wildly outdrawing IFL teams?
If the quality of the league mattered, why do three APFL teams outdraw numerous IFL teams (including Wichita until they had the whole "brand new arena" thing to pique a bit of interest)?
If the quality of the league and competition mattered, why hasn't Wyoming's attendance fallen any more than all the non Sioux Falls teams?
You mean, the quality of the team might outrank the quality of the league? Surely, you jest! I will stand by my original argument. Fans rarely care about the league they're in. No more than the handful of IFL apologists on here were thinking "OH THANK YOU GOD THE OMAHA BEEF ARE IN THE IFL!!!"
If a team is well-run and provides a product fans want to see, fans will come see it. It's really that simple. And you don't need an alphabet soup league designation to get to that point.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 22, 2009 7:22:25 GMT -5
Post by exit322 on Apr 22, 2009 7:22:25 GMT -5
what don't you know about? I said I'd take the Blackhawks over ANY other team in ANY other league. I stand by that. Well, you acted like the shortcomings of an entire league trickled down to individual teams in one instance, yet supported an organization that comes from this joke of a league because 'they care about their fans'. Plenty of teams from the IFL and beyond care about their fans, too. Of course, it's entirely possible that I just misinterpreted your point, too. Thank you, Captain Obvious. For all your bluster about how the IFL is so great, it's the team that draws fans, not the league. Thank God for that, too, because the IFL hasn't been able to improve any of the non-UIF teams' attendances this year. The Blackhawks consistently draw the same core group of fans with a relatively stable attendance increase from year to year. Really, though, is Kansas winning every year that much worse than Sioux Falls winning every year. At least the APFL doesn't use the pretense that they're not scripted.
|
|
|
Why/How
Apr 22, 2009 11:14:20 GMT -5
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Apr 22, 2009 11:14:20 GMT -5
Who here has ever tried to disagree with your point man, you've made it 10,000 times.
WE KNOW THE IFL HAS WORK TO DO..
now, knock if the FSCK off, it's getting rather old. we are all here as fans of our teams, and rather than merely saying the IFL sucks, we try to offer specific criticism and offer resolutions, or things we'd like to see done to get better.
to end this topic once and for all. the APFL exists because Ralph Adams' ego and checkbook allows it to.
END OF FREAKING STORY
|
|