|
Post by pcraider86 on Sept 12, 2011 14:27:05 GMT -5
What do you think of the UFL strategy of rsn for tv?
I am waiting to see if they are going to stream or not, because last year on NESN it was a virtual blackout. if this is the case then alot of fans will be in the dark
|
|
|
Post by broncofan on Sept 12, 2011 16:41:10 GMT -5
The UFL has a TV strategy? I haven't seen something for sure confirming they are on RSNs.
|
|
|
Post by markmoseley on Sept 12, 2011 17:42:58 GMT -5
This was posted today on ufl-football 'The Sacramento Mountain Lions, of the United Football League, and Comcast SportsNet California today announced their television coverage for the 2011 United Football League season. It will feature the broadcast team of Sacramento sportscasters GRANT NAPEAR and MIKE LAMB, former NFL coach JERRY GLANVILLE, former Cal and NFL quarterback MIKE PAWLAWSKI and radio personality DAN DIBLEY. Comcast SportsNet California will begin its coverage of Mountain Lions football on Saturday, September 17, when the Mountain Lions host the Las Vegas Locomotives, at 7:30 p.m. from Hornet Stadium at Sacramento State.' www.ufl-football.com/news/mountain-lions-home-games-will-air-comcast-sportsnet-california-seasonI think they've givin up trying to get a national TV deal & they probably told the teams to get their own deals locally. 3 days before kick off & the only other ufl-football mention of game coverage is that of local sports radio
|
|
|
Post by broncofan on Sept 13, 2011 12:31:25 GMT -5
Considering Glanville is in the mix, it kind of sounds like the league set it up. Course if that is true, will there be any others?
|
|
|
Post by pcraider86 on Sept 13, 2011 15:16:55 GMT -5
Just joinednighthawks nation and tj says that there is no tv contract each team is working on getting broadcasted locally
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Sept 13, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
Amazing how rosy everything looked at the beginning of this year. 6 teams, 10 game season, on the verge of the NFL lockout, and the likelihood of a big tv contract with a major network. Less than 9 months llater we have 4 teams, a 6 game season, a bunch of missed opportunities during the lockout, and 2 days before the opening kickoff and individual teams are scavenging for local airtime. It's really depressing to watch unfold.....
|
|
|
Post by broncofan on Sept 13, 2011 19:33:34 GMT -5
Amazing how rosy everything looked at the beginning of this year. 6 teams, 10 game season, on the verge of the NFL lockout, and the likelihood of a big tv contract with a major network. Less than 9 months llater we have 4 teams, a 6 game season, a bunch of missed opportunities during the lockout, and 2 days before the opening kickoff and individual teams are scavenging for local airtime. It's really depressing to watch unfold..... Does make you wonder, that's for sure. Either they bet everything on something that didn't work (lockout), or there really just wasn't the interest in the UFL they thought there was. Course it could be some of each. What's annoying is this probably means no streaming, in which case I probably won't be able to see one game.
|
|
|
Post by J. Myrle Fuller on Sept 13, 2011 22:23:18 GMT -5
I'm surprised they were able to swing CSN, given that it's the same company that owns Versus and all... but yeah, it was pretty much writing on the wall that once NBC was bought out by Comcast and the whole HDNet lawsuit came about last year, that this year was not going to be good for national coverage, especially for paying coverage. The lack of teams in New York and San Francisco like they had when they first signed the contract hurt them even more. The only chance they would've had was for Discovery to take a flyer on them on their new Velocity and/or 3net channels, but it appears they never approached them.
I won't rule out streaming just yet, nor would I rule out any more RSNs and radio channels announcing deals in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Sept 14, 2011 7:09:26 GMT -5
If we can't at least see them streamed online then I think the small national fanbase they built will crumble and fade away. Here's hoping the SFL will get with at least online streaming next year.
|
|
|
Post by pcraider86 on Sept 14, 2011 10:52:24 GMT -5
right now the SFL looks more stable than the UFL. SFL at least never promised anything so there is little expectation. The UFL continues to be moving backwards. The 1st game in TD Ameritrade park with the best franchise they got taking on the most marketable coach only being available on radio is pathetic. sorry guys I don't want to sound like a nay sayer but after season 1 I was a Sentinal fan(moved) then season 2 aTusker(folded) season 3 a NIghthawk or Destroyer was going to decide after watching how they play this year and finding out it's not televised. Makes me feel like I have wasted 2+ years following. I hope the UFL & the SFL can both survive.
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Sept 14, 2011 14:18:19 GMT -5
I'm with you PCraider. I put so much emotional investment in the UFL that past 2 years that, at this point, every missed opportunity they have just pisses me off. I feel like a great product has been mismanaged and wasted, and that now we have to watch it go through its death throes, withering and fading away. So much promise and potential wasted! It's almost too painful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by J. Myrle Fuller on Sept 14, 2011 18:25:41 GMT -5
right now the SFL looks more stable than the UFL. SFL at least never promised anything so there is little expectation. The comparisons between the UFL and the SFL are quite interesting. Clearly the SFL is starting from a much lower base point; they barely register as professional at the level they're at now, and some of the bold commitments (8 teams, nationwide presence), while certainly not as bad as the laughable actions of the likes of Joe Faber, have been quite far off from what is plausible for an upstart league that appears to be funded by Mr. Hulthwaite himself. He's probably doing OK financially, not that far in debt, thanks to the fact that the player and coach registration fees alone probably paid for a good portion of the players' salaries. Hulthwaite has had the league live within its means, which unfortunately has led to it being mired in obscurity. Compare this with the UFL. Unlike the SFL, the UFL had tens of millions of owner capital-- the combined wealth of Bill Hambrecht, Bill Mayer, Paul Pelosi and Rob Ryan. However, they didn't do any effective cost analysis. They were paying CFL/XFL/practice squad salaries, well below NFL standards (so no real stars) but on par with or above any pro league. However, they didn't calculate how much money would need to be brought in to support those salaries, or how big they could keep their rosters, resulting in their rosters being too big. Paying 100 players (50 each team) $6000 a game would require 30,000 fans paying $20 a piece-- a number no non-NFL league has ever achieved across the board-- and that doesn't even count overhead or workman's comp. They also assumed there'd be a paying TV contract, which, going by history, was foolish to even assume would be possible with only four teams in mid-sized markets spread so far apart. They assumed owners would flock to them, but as seen with Sternberg, Speros, and Theismann they weren't able to keep the ones they landed. For all the talk of businessmen running this league, they don't seem to be running this business that well. No sense of awareness of expenses, grossly overestimated revenues, and the end result is a league struggling to survive. For all of Hulthwaite's flaws, he seems to be running his league as a business far better than the people at the UFL. He just needs more money and backing. His four teams are mostly close together, which means if he builds up the product some more, he could actually succeed in getting a regional TV deal that doesn't cost money. His region is an area that supports spring and summer ball, see for instance Birmingham and Memphis pro sports teams of the past. As a viable long-term product, the SFL looks far better than the UFL.
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Sept 16, 2011 17:55:51 GMT -5
right now the SFL looks more stable than the UFL. SFL at least never promised anything so there is little expectation. The comparisons between the UFL and the SFL are quite interesting. Clearly the SFL is starting from a much lower base point; they barely register as professional at the level they're at now, and some of the bold commitments (8 teams, nationwide presence), while certainly not as bad as the laughable actions of the likes of Joe Faber, have been quite far off from what is plausible for an upstart league that appears to be funded by Mr. Hulthwaite himself. He's probably doing OK financially, not that far in debt, thanks to the fact that the player and coach registration fees alone probably paid for a good portion of the players' salaries. Hulthwaite has had the league live within its means, which unfortunately has led to it being mired in obscurity. Compare this with the UFL. Unlike the SFL, the UFL had tens of millions of owner capital-- the combined wealth of Bill Hambrecht, Bill Mayer, Paul Pelosi and Rob Ryan. However, they didn't do any effective cost analysis. They were paying CFL/XFL/practice squad salaries, well below NFL standards (so no real stars) but on par with or above any pro league. However, they didn't calculate how much money would need to be brought in to support those salaries, or how big they could keep their rosters, resulting in their rosters being too big. Paying 100 players (50 each team) $6000 a game would require 30,000 fans paying $20 a piece-- a number no non-NFL league has ever achieved across the board-- and that doesn't even count overhead or workman's comp. They also assumed there'd be a paying TV contract, which, going by history, was foolish to even assume would be possible with only four teams in mid-sized markets spread so far apart. They assumed owners would flock to them, but as seen with Sternberg, Speros, and Theismann they weren't able to keep the ones they landed. For all the talk of businessmen running this league, they don't seem to be running this business that well. No sense of awareness of expenses, grossly overestimated revenues, and the end result is a league struggling to survive. For all of Hulthwaite's flaws, he seems to be running his league as a business far better than the people at the UFL. He just needs more money and backing. His four teams are mostly close together, which means if he builds up the product some more, he could actually succeed in getting a regional TV deal that doesn't cost money. His region is an area that supports spring and summer ball, see for instance Birmingham and Memphis pro sports teams of the past. As a viable long-term product, the SFL looks far better than the UFL. Well said J Myrle! I'm hoping both the UFL and the SFL ultimately succeed. Let's just hope Huthwaite's personal tastes don't include the private jet lifestyle Huyghue seems to enjoy. At the owner's and the league's expense too. But if he does at least it's Huthwaite's money. Yes, he may just be using the right business model to succeed. Though I hope he doesn't go too cheap with the marketing of the SFL. It's already non-existant so far.
|
|
|
Post by pcraider86 on Oct 15, 2011 20:39:19 GMT -5
Is today Oct. 15, 2011 the end of the UFL? a weekend with both games being must wins and no tv spotchy radio. people laugh at other leagues but I have never seen a product that was so good on the field that Oct night 2 years ago could be so mis-managed to where I finally just don't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by jwolf on Oct 15, 2011 21:41:16 GMT -5
Is today Oct. 15, 2011 the end of the UFL? a weekend with both games being must wins and no tv spotchy radio. people laugh at other leagues but I have never seen a product that was so good on the field that Oct night 2 years ago could be so mis-managed to where I finally just don't give a damn. My Veetle doesnt work so Im reduced to watching cell phone clips from a guy posting them on UFLA. I cant believe the UFL has come to this.....
|
|