|
|
Post by jwolf on Aug 12, 2011 7:53:48 GMT -5
proposed divisions for 2012:
8 teams:
SFL WEST:
Austin Somebodys
Little Rock Ironmen
Mobile Gladiators
New Orleans Jazz
SFL EAST:
Daytona Beach Racers
Florida Tuskers
Fort Lauderdale Barracudas
Michigan Coyotes
6 teams:
SFL WEST:
Austin Somebodys
Michigan Coyotes
New Orleans Jazz
SFL EAST:
Daytona Beach Racers
Florida Tuskers
Fort Lauderdale Barracudas
Anybody see this differently?
|
|
|
|
Post by broncofan on Aug 12, 2011 9:04:15 GMT -5
Silly as it sounds I wouldn't count out the Las Vegas Gamblers. Now whether they can make it work travel wise is another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Aug 12, 2011 9:11:13 GMT -5
Nope, really can't count out anybody for next year at all. My divisions were based solely on the most up to date info I heard from an actual league official (in this case the HC of the Barracudas). We all definately know how much things can change when it comes to expansion, but other thatn Austin and a 3rd FL city the only ones mentioned were Little Rock and Mobile. Maybe those are the only places with interested investors IDK. I remember you earlier on here talking about an LV investor ready to go, but given the penny pinching travel costs of the SFL perhaps they persuaded him to Mobile or another city. It's gonna be fun to watch the league shape up during the off season.
|
|
|
|
Post by pcraider86 on Aug 12, 2011 9:18:29 GMT -5
The SFL season 1 reminds me of how the old negro leagues in baseball ran for quite a few years. But with a little more marketing and a few more investors it could be a good alternate league especially if they stay in the spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by pcraider86 on Aug 12, 2011 9:21:44 GMT -5
If they could pull off a 2 team expansion and video streaming of games in year 2 would be a tremendous leap forward. I hope they don't expand to fast and fizzle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Aug 13, 2011 8:50:44 GMT -5
If they could pull off a 2 team expansion and video streaming of games in year 2 would be a tremendous leap forward. I hope they don't expand to fast and fizzle. I agree. Having 6 stable teams plus video streaming would be better than 8 shaky ones. Haven't alot of us on here had this conversation before about another league? lol |
|
|
|
Post by J. Myrle Fuller on Aug 13, 2011 9:22:08 GMT -5
If they could pull off a 2 team expansion and video streaming of games in year 2 would be a tremendous leap forward. I hope they don't expand to fast and fizzle. I agree. Having 6 stable teams plus video streaming would be better than 8 shaky ones. Haven't alot of us on here had this conversation before about another league? lol Probably. But for every UFL that took it perhaps too slowly, there's another league out there run by Andrew Haines (AIFL, and now the UIFL) that has tried to expand far too quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by whaler4life on Aug 16, 2011 10:19:54 GMT -5
With 6 teams the league can show steady improvement without spreading their funds too thin. I would recommend keeping Vegas on the burner for another year or two. Right now they have the locos to fulfill their football needs, putting an SFL team there would be expensive and pointless. Only put teams where there's a demand (Austin, Orlando).
|
|
|
|
Post by broncofan on Aug 16, 2011 10:42:46 GMT -5
With 6 teams the league can show steady improvement without spreading their funds too thin. I would recommend keeping Vegas on the burner for another year or two. Right now they have the locos to fulfill their football needs, putting an SFL team there would be expensive and pointless. Only put teams where there's a demand (Austin, Orlando). I understand you points, but what do you do of you have owners with money in places like Las Vegas, or even LA, which was also mentioned a few times. Do you tell them they have to wait, and risk having them change their minds? You can run the risk the other way and end up having too many league owned teams. |
|
|
|
Post by whaler4life on Aug 17, 2011 10:16:37 GMT -5
[/quote]
I understand you points, but what do you do of you have owners with money in places like Las Vegas, or even LA, which was also mentioned a few times. Do you tell them they have to wait, and risk having them change their minds? You can run the risk the other way and end up having too many league owned teams. [/quote]
Well no, of course you put teams there if you have investors lined up. I didn't think there were any investors in LA or LV at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Aug 17, 2011 13:50:55 GMT -5
As near as we can tell they have interested investors in Vegas and Austin waiting for a team. At least that's whats been reported so far....
|
|
