The UFL Part II: Not Your Daddy’s Football
Monday, August 3, 2009 22:26
The DIS Special Examination Division or DISSED–me, my two rescued Pit Bull mixes, and my Russian friend, Stolichnay–has been assigned to write a four part series on the United Football League. The first part can be found here: http://www.deepintosports.com/2009/07/25/ufl-united-football-league-nfl-competition-success-problems/
Take a look at the UFL website. Has all the trappings of a slickly produced movie with some big name stars, great production values, and an interesting premise.
Unfortunately, after you open the pretty wrapping what you see smells like funky leftovers.
You can pretty it up with all the fancy, upbeat language you want. Football is football. The absolute most–if everything worked out the way the website predicts–the UFL can ever be is minor league football, a feeder system for the NFL, where the highest level of American football is played.
Assume for a moment, NFL players currently suspended by Herr Roger Goodell–Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, Pac-Man Jones–find a home in the UFL. We will end up with a handful of elite players playing against men who couldn’t make the practice squad of NFL teams.
This begs the question: If you are going to create a league unto itself, one seemingly doomed to inferior status from the get-go, why play in the fall and go head to head with the behemoth NFL?
I’m not sure the UFL could honestly answer that question because the league doesn’t know what it wants to be, at least according to its mission statement:
To fulfill the unmet needs of football fans in major markets currently underserved by professional football by providing a high quality traditional football league comprised of world class professional football players. The UFL will serve the communities with pride, dedication and passion, and uphold a leadership role in the development of football worldwide. The UFL will provide every fan with an affordable, accessible, exciting and entertaining game experience.
I don’t know what dictionary these guys are working off of but in the Gairzo dictionary “underserved” means an area only partially served by a given provider, be it the government or professional football.
How the hell does the NFL underserve New York and San Francisco? Those two metro areas sell out 32 games a year with two teams in each metro area. Las Vegas is the hub of football gambling. You can walk into any casino any football Sunday and watch any game you want. Phoenix is underserved. Oklahoma City is underserved. For god’s sake, Los Angeles is underserved.
Fortunately, the crack UFL executive team addresses that inherent contradiction:
In its “Premiere” season, the UFL will have four teams playing in seven cities. The four teams selected for 2009 are Las Vegas, New York, Orlando and San Francisco. The additional cities where games may be played include Hartford, Los Angeles and Sacramento.
Nice. So instead of the Avengers of the AFL, the second largest television market in America can watch the inaugural season of a minor league football club really headquartered in San Francisco–or is it Vegas?
Rumor has it the guy who wrote the UFL’s business plan provided the same crack service for the Bad Newz Kennelz.
Despite my sarcasm, I try to remain open-minded and want to believe successful businessmen have integrity–WAIT! I just got a sharp pain in my chest from writing the previous sentence.
Given the economic quicksand this country has been forced to muck through by America’s most successful businessmen, I’m convinced 99.8% of corporate honchos would mutilate their grandma to make more of a profit than the next guy.
Something fishy is going on here. I’m kind of wondering if failure isn’t exactly what the UFL and the NFL are planning for the league especially in the short term.
We’ll explore what we think the NFL really has up its sleeve with the creation of the UFL next week.
Last week featured the first three of our Top Nine List of ideas the UFL must implement to be a success. Here are the next three:
6.) Each UFL team must play forty-five convicted felons. Then we will see pundits write stories about the handful of players who obey the law every day—you know, the pussies. How their law-abiding lifestyle brings the team down and engenders bad “locker room chemistry.” How their selfish conformity affects the youth of America by creating an intolerable civilized society. We might begin to sympathize with the criminal millionaires who insist they shouldn’t be role models.
5.) All UFL Referees must weigh at least 270 pounds. What we are looking for here is the potentially thrilling, random coronary during a game winning drive. Vegas could get a lot of action. “Tonight’s referee, Burt Schmidlap, had a pregame meal of meat loaf and cheese mac. He’s sweating cannonballs and panting like a St. Bernard in Death Valley. He looks about ready to go.” Here, the camera would cut to shots of the Ref’s wife anticipating the life insurance pay-off and the Allstate agent mopping his brow in fear of departing with the huge check. Oh, the humanity!
4.) Before each game, only the players will be allowed to tailgate AND All said tailgating must take place on the field of play. Imagine the excitement of inebriated 300-pound linemen running into hot barbecue grills, spewing embers, brawts and burgers everywhere. Players would not only have to block and tackle opponents, but giant coolers of beer and potato salad. Fireworks would become quaint memories of a bygone era.
TEAM PROFILE
As of this writing the UFL still has not named their teams. Even if they do get around to that task within the month, the DISSED team will still suggest much cooler names and/or mock the names the NF–I mean UFL bosses come up with.
Our pick for the name of the UFL’s desert entity…
THE LAS VEGAS DONS
Team Logo – A silk suited thug sporting a fedora and violin case.
First alternate – The LAS VEGAS PIT BOSSES
The logo could still be a silk suited thug with bulldog jowls, only wearing a spiked collar.
My Personal Favorite – The LAS VEGAS BANDITS. Team uniforms would all be numbered ‘777′. The logo would be a slot machine wearing a burglar mask.
Head Coach – Jim Fassel All you need to know about Fassel can be found in his UFL bio:
Fassel took a break from coaching when he was hired as color commentator on NFL Sunday Night Game broadcasts for the Westwood One Radio Network and also served as a color analyst on ESPN.
Bullshit. Fassel, like all four coaches in the UFL, flamed out as an NFL head coach after a prolonged, 7-year stint with a stable, loyal franchise. He finished 5 games over .500 and his one Super Bowl team was embarrassed by a Trent Dilfer led Raven’s squad. Of course, that only means Jimbo is a better football coach than 99.99777 of the schmucks reading this–just lousier than the .00233 who are otherwise busy coaching NFL teams.
What’s your favorite name for the UFL’s Vegas franchise?
What do you think the league is supposed to be?
What’s really going on here?
We’ll tackle those questions next week…
25 Responses to “The UFL Part II: Not Your Daddy’s Football”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nate Barlow
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 1:29 am
My personal favorite – The Las Vegas Lost Wages (for all those ex-cons relegated to the UFL no longer making their NFL salaries)
Gairzo
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Love it. There seems to be no interest in the UFL.
Maybe next week.
Ron
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 3:41 am
"Love it. There seems to be no interest in the UFL."
That comment made me laugh out loud. :) I am curious to know why you vested in the failure of the UFL? What is your motive? If you have already written the league off as a failure, then why are you vested enough to feel "love" for the fact that the two people who have posted here so far (yourself and the other guy) have no interest in the league?
My understanding about the goals of the UFL is that it is starting small to contain costs but hopes to bring in better players in future seasons as the league grows. Overspending has killed past start-up leagues and probably the most relevant lesson we can learn from the USFL of the 1980's is that shelling out a bunch of cash for a bunch of NFL caliber starters doesn't necessarily elevate your revenue to where you need it to be. Any start-up league is almost certain to lose money in the early going. The UFL has indicated that it is fully prepared to take loses in season one and that the league is ultimately a long-term investment. There will be a natural inequality between the UFL and NFL to start , but I seriously doubt the UFL's long term goal is to serve a master.
Furthermore, the UFL chose the Fall because their market research indicated that more consumers would have an interest in the league during the fall season (especially in the "underserved" markets). The track record of past Spring start-up leagues would seem to support that because the XFL and USFL both lost significant sums of money operating in the Spring, and many others like the AAFL never even took the field. It is also important to remember that the UFL will not be competing directly with the NFL for television revenue as games will be aired in different time slots.
New York was chosen as a franchise location because the league would not be able to secure a TV contract otherwise since New York is the largest media market in the world. In addition, the Jets and Giants both have long wait lists for season tickets. San Francisco was chosen as a market because the 49ers are relocating to Santa Clara, which is 45 miles south of the city.
In regards to Adam "Pacman" Jones, I believe the UFL has eliminated the possibility of him playing for the league (as well as some other NFL outcasts). Vick is a slightly different story. He has served his time (when so many other celebrities seem to be able to avoid jail time).
Nate Barlow
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Ha! Funny being referred to as the other guy.
Just because I made a joke about a potential team name does not mean I'm vested in the UFL failing. That's just my personality, sarcastic, trying to be funny. I would actually like to see the UFL succeed (heck, I attended the XFL championship game, and I believe that so-called brand of football is far inferior to what the UFL will be). But I am suspect of the UFL's chances for success. The history of so many other leagues does not bode well. While I'll accept your reasoning for New York receiving a team, why not Los Angeles over San Francisco? It's the second largest market and doesn't have any team–a much bigger example of an underserved market than the Niners moving to Santa Clara.
Gairzo
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Well, one of the UFL staffers wrote in—and I’m betting he also worked for the NFL at one time. I know that because he has no sense of humor and spews clap-trap about market research.
Let’s quote Ron exactly: “Love it. That comment made me laugh out loud. :) I am curious to know why you vested in the failure of the UFL? What is your motive? If you have already written the league off as a failure, then why are you vested enough to feel "love" for the fact that the two people who have posted here so far (yourself and the other guy) have no interest in the league?”
Yo, Ron “Love it.” Was my compliment to Nate for a great nick-name for the UFL’s Las Vegas team. My next sentence was my smart-ass way of saying the points I’ve made in the first two columns, and will make in the next two, are proven by the total lack of interest from our small but loyal—and growing—readership.
Lighten up dude. BTW, maybe your post will get us some more action. Thanks.
On your other points…
I think your being very hopeful or naieve. I’ll tackle head-on why I think the UFL was hatched by Roger and the boys in the next couple weeks. If you believe that market research, I have condos going up in Death Valley, you gotta get in on. Oh, and our market research has shown, folks really don’t want AC in the new digs because, you know, it’s a “dry heat.” Geeze.
Your point about New York is laughable. Yeah, all those Jet & Giant fans pining for a Sunday ticket are gonna be throwin parties to watch scrubs play football. Fact is, LA is barely the second largest market. Fact is, the UFL’s TV contract is with VERSUS. They’re so desperate for programming they’d pay for the right to show dwarves playing Putt-Putt.
I guarantee you if athletes the caliber of Jones and Vick want to play, the UFL will let them. They'd be stupid to turn any legit player down. I think this enterprise serves a distinct definable purpose; I'll explore that theory next week.
If you’re mad now, you are really gonna hate the next two columns.
Nate Barlow
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
And I will love them.
Considering that we've received many comments even on articles about sports outside the American Big 4, the lack thereof on the UFL is very telling.
Gairzo
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Good point. We got lots of comments on Alan's articles on Armstrong and our stuff on Tiger and tennis.
I try to get people involved–naming teams, making lists…
Nate Barlow
says:
August 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
And, rightly or wrongly, Americans only pay attention to cycling once a year during the Tour de France.
Swimming? This may be the first non-Olympic year it's generated significant discussion.
Tennis and golf at least have a constant audience, but nothing compared to football (whether that be college or pro).
And the UFL? With two articles in two weeks (so far), we're covering it at least as much–if not more–than the major sports sites! And if they are covering it more than I can see, it's certainly not making headlines.
In there lies the crux of the UFL's problems.
Ron
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 12:35 am
It was certainly funny to see a declaration that there was absolutely no interest in the UFL after only two posts that were from the two guys who write the editorials.
The UFL certainly has an uphill battle, but they also have key individuals (to include investors, executives, and coaches) that in my view give the league a fighting chance. Lack of credibility was a big problem with the XFL.
Your guess is as good as mine regarding Los Angeles, but I have to imagine the UFL has reason to believe there will be a following in San Francisco because the league did a great deal of market research before choosing the franchise locations for season one. The other factor could be ownership. Paul Pelosi (husband of speaker Pelosi) is the owner of the San Francisco franchise, and he is based in San Francisco. Mark Cuban has long been rumored to have laid claim to the ownership rights of a Los Angeles franchise, which I suspect we may see in season two. And for what it is worth, the San Francisco franchise will be playing one of its home games in Sacramento.
Ron
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I am not affiliated with the UFL, but I do have more faith in their market research than your own. Bill Hambrecht, Tim Armstrong, and Bill Mayer didn't become millionaires on bad investments, but it isn't my money anyhow. I am definitely hopeful that the league pans out because I like the concept.
Some of those Giants and Jets fans commute an hour from the city into New Jersey to pay out the ass for tickets that are always sold out. Maybe you're right, maybe no one will come to games in the city. We'll find out soon enough. Regardless, the league is already funded through season two and owners are not relying or expecting profits in season one. They have acknowledged that the UFL is a long-term investment and the league will have to build a brand.
In addition to having putt-putt with Dwarves, Versus also has the NHL and WEC. It does have a modest viewership of something like 700 million subscribers. The UFL isn't counting on NFL sized ratings in season one. One of the XFL's major problems was that it fell far short of meeting the ratings demands of NBC sponsors. Airing XFL games in prime time network slots was far too ambitious for a start-up league. Advertisers on Versus have lower ratings expectations that would be more realistic for a new league, and if the UFL accumulates a viewership it has a chance to grow with the Versus network and open up the possibility of another TV contract on a more popular cable channel. Starting smaller is the smart way to go.
Ron
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Right, because the entire sports world has it's sights on your website. lol
Ron
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:30 am
It won't be a problem. I get the impression season one is expected to be a stepping stone to season two, which is already funded. You won't see the colossal loses in the UFL's first season that you saw in the XFL and whatever loses the UFL does sustain in season one are spread out among more investors (4 franchise owners and two league owners) instead of just just two owners like the XFL )Vince MacMahon and NBC).
Nate Barlow
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:35 am
I don't have that kind of ego, and would never assume that many people were looking at the site into the stats proved such. All I can do is look at the facts in front of me, and until you chimed in (and I appreciate the fevered discussion, that's what it's all about, right?), there was significantly more chatter and commenting on here about sports Americans generally ignore than the UFL… and the UFL is still football, regardless of any derogatory comment made herein about the league.
Nate Barlow
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I agree that starting small is a wise-step, and that the Versus deal/advertisers comes with a lot less in the way of expectations than did NBC with the XFL. But even for a league which has publicly declared it expects to lose money in the first year, I find the lack of attention and media coverage somewhat alarming in regards to its long-term success. I went searching for recent articles and while there were several mentions, most were along the lines of "this could be an option for Michael Vick" in a Vick-centric article–very few that actually focused on the league itself.
A couple months ago the lack of coverage was not that big a deal. But we're getting awfully close to football season and it still is generating as much buzz as baseball's minor leagues… less, in many regards, since you're always hearing about baseball players coming up or being sent down to the minors.
I, like you, would like to see the league succeed (even if were to operate basically as a minor league–why shouldn't football have those?). One more option for a sport I greatly enjoy. I'm just more doubtful than you are. If there were a team in Los Angeles, I'd go to games. That is still the one decision more than any other I don't understand. LA, second largest media market in the country, does not have NFL team–could there be a better place for the UFL to set a team?
Ron
says:
August 6th, 2009 at 2:16 am
There is a slew of articles about the league that pop up in google alerts every day, and I think the league is relying on that kind of free publicity to some extent. Even if the Vick were not to sign with the UFL (which I suspect he probably will) he's already done a great deal to make mainstream sports media take notice. My understanding is that the league will be spending on advertising primarily in each of the team markets. Versus will also be actively marketing the league. I agree that the league could be doing more to promote itself, but they don't seem too worried about it I guess because they cut their loses significantly by having only 4 teams. According to league excecutives, the money is already in the bank for season two plus they have commitments from more investors for more franchises in season two. I believe they are just anticipating season one will help to build to a better season two.
Gairzo
says:
August 7th, 2009 at 5:42 am
So Ron, Honest question…
What is your connection to the league? I think you bring a lot to the table…
Do you see any problems with the UFL execs mostly having NFL pedigrees?
Do you believe the UFL isn't a product of Goodell and friends?
Ron
says:
August 7th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Thanks, Gary. I have written a few positive editorials about the league and am a fan of the concept but have no direct affiliation.
A couple things about the quality of players:
1. The quality of players will increase if consumers give it a chance and the UFL is able to grow. Consumers decide whether or not the UFL fails or succeeds just as they decide whether or not the NFL fails or succeeds. I anticipate there will be some competition for NFL free agents in the UFL's second season, but we're not likely to see the UFL sign NFL "stars" anytime soon.
2. Michael Huyghue (the commissioner of the UFL) made a great point about the early UFL talent pool. Huyghue maintains that the talent level between the top half of an NFL roster and the bottom half of an NFL roster is not as distant as people think. I know that you will immediately question his logic in your head, but he provides a compelling illustration of why. Huyghue was the the Vice President of Operations for the Jacksonville Jaguars from 1994 to 2001 (the initial years of the teams existence). The Jaguars had 4 out of 6 winning seasons and went to the AFC Championship in only their second season (an accomplishment for which Huyhgue is largely credited). As with any NFL expansion team, Huyghue had to build the Jaguars with players off of the bottom half of other NFL rosters. Mark Brunnell was a third stringer on another NFL roster before he was picked up by the Jaguars. Huyghue was able to build a successful franchise out of younger players that were hungry but just hadn't had much of an opportunity yet. In addition, the Carolina Panthers managed to go to the NFC championship that same year and also in only their second season of existence. So, Huyghue maintains that it is possible to create competitive pro football teams by competing with the NFL for free agents that would normally occupy the bottom half of NFL rosters.
I definitely do not believe the UFL is a product of the NFL. I believe the UFL is playing possum in hopes that the NFL won't do anything to undermine them. Each of the four franchises were bought for $30 million by individual team owners, and the two league owners have invested somewhere between $20 million and $40 million at this point. You don't invest that kind of money in a league that you intend only to be a developmental league for the NFL. I think we can all benefit from some real competition for the NFL. I say, give the league a chance.
Nate Barlow
says:
August 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Ron, I admire your passion for a league that has yet to play a game, the true measure of both its value and viability. What about the league inspires such fervor in you? Would love to have some of that enthusiasm wear off on me.
Gairzo
says:
August 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Well, Ron, please give my next two columns a read. We disagree on several questions, but the discussion should be lively.
The Jaguars and Panthers were given extra draft picks and I believe other teams couldn't protect their entire rosters and they had owners willing to spend way beyond the franchise fees.
Huyghue is right about the talent disparity being smaller than most people think, but he'll have a problem paying UFL first stringers a fraction of what NFL subs make–if the numbers I've read are correct.
Ron
says:
August 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Well, for starters, the vast differences between this start up league and ones I have seen in the past. Where the UFL has experienced former NFL executives Michael Huyghue (Commissioner) and Frank Vuono (COO), the XFL had Vince McMahon. Where the UFL has several millionaire investors committed to more than one season, the XFL had two investors that bailed out after one season of losses. Where the UFL has Dennis Green and Jim Fassel, the XFL had Ron Meyer and host of other head coaches that had never been head coaches in the NFL. Say what you will about Dennis Green, but he has accomplished more than most of the head coaches in the NFL today.
In addition, although I love NFL football, I am not entirely fond of the NFL as a corporation. I think the NFL has evolved into a league that does not have the work ethic it once did. Look at the Washington Redskins, for example. NFL players go to Washington to retire now because Dan Snyder overpays them to underachieve. Dana Stubbefield, Jason Taylor, and Bruce Smith are just a few of many who fizzled out in Washington. Getting signed by the Washington Redskins is like winning the lottery.
Ron
says:
August 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I believe you are right in pointing out that the Jaguars and Panthers did have advantages that other NFL expansion teams did not, but Michael Huyghue has indicated the UFL will also have access to some of these "sleepers" on NFL rosters. NFL free agency and salary caps have helped make that possible. Michael Huyghue has been managing player contracts for probably close to two decades, and I think the intention is to undercut the NFL by offering guys at various "pay grades" a little more than the NFL would offer them.
Huyghue has also said there are a number of NFL players in their later 20's that are still worthy of an NFL roster spot but get bumped for younger players, due to injury, due to salary cap, or a host of other reasons. I think many of those guys will be targeted by the UFL. I think there were something like 1000 NFL free agents that were available for the UFL draft a few months ago. The UFL will sort through those players as well as any players cut from NFL camps/pre-season, and condense the best players into 4 rosters for the first season. But, going forward I think the league tends to be a little more ambitious in terms of acquiring talent.
I think the bottom line is that if someone can jump that hurdle that many other leagues since the AFL of the 1960's have failed to do, it will be good for football because it will remind the NFL that the consumer is really King.
What did either of you guys think about the fact that the fumble ruling at the end of Super Bowl XLIII was not reviewed after the fact?
Nate Barlow
says:
August 10th, 2009 at 12:28 am
The UFL does seem to have many elements going for it that previous alternatives to the NFL did not (although I still question their city selection). And I don't think many people would object to your criticism of the NFL as a corporate entity. There is a lot to dislike there, no matter how much you enjoy the product.
I think the biggest obstacle for the UFL right now is one of branding. Why should someone watch the games? What makes the league unique, different, intriguing? Like what the XFL did or not, you knew how the changes to the game and how they positioned themselves. Same with the Arena League. The UFL's changes are pretty minimal. And much of the UFL's schedule is on Saturday and Thursday, two days (especially the former and partially the latter) associated with college football. Sure the UFL is not positioning itself as a direct competitor to the NFL, but in scheduling many games on those days, it is establishing itself as a competitor to the well-entrenched NCAA Football (bet the Wednesday and Friday games fare better in terms of ratings).
In regards to the Super Bowl fumble, it should have been reviewed. I've seen far less questionable plays reviewed… I don't care how sure you are, on that a critical a play in the biggest game of the year, you have to review.
Ron
says:
August 10th, 2009 at 5:58 am
I absolutely agree about the review of that fumble ruling. It was absolutely clear that there was no review by the referee and as a matter of consistency there should have been a review. But, the NFL doesn't particularly care because it knows it is the only game in town and can do whatever the hell it wants.
I agree that there is widespread disappointment in the NFL for a variety of reasons. And, in a free market, when you are disappointed with the way a company does business you support a competitor. The XFL was far too inadequate for many people to support it, but I see the UFL as being vastly different for reasons previously stated.
I think many people agree that the XFL's changes were too drastic or downright bad. I think the UFL's rule changes are on target because it did little to change the game but got rid of a few NFL rules that many people do not like (e.g., tuck rule, and absolutely no group celebrations even in the endzone). Also, an innovation like the chip in the ball that will allow for exact ball placement is a pretty good one. How often have you seen a bad spot in the NFL?
The UFL is airing games in season one on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights to test all of those nights (both in regards to ratings and attendance). The results will probably have a strong influence on season two. Again, the UFL has already covered it's loses for season one.
You may have a point about San Francisco being a tough market, but when the 49ers do move 45 miles south to Santa Clara how is that going to impact fans in the city? If too many tailgaters get a few too many DUI's driving 45 miles back to the city, it may force those fans to make some adjustments. Having a UFL franchise in the city may draw some strong ties with San Fran football fans over time. The league views its whole concept as a long-term investment.
Nate Barlow
says:
August 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I've felt chips should be in balls for years–the question being how many and what placement, since one in the middle obviously does not suffice in case the tip of the ball makes it across, but neither does two in the tips in case the side makes it across… you get the picture.
With those considerations in mind, I don't think San Francisco is a bad place for a team, but I do think SF would have been better as a second year city. I have trouble buying any argument placing a team in a greater metropolitan area already servicing two NFL teams, when Los Angeles, the second largest media market in the country, doesn't have any. LA is ripe for the picking!
Ron
says:
August 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Yeah, I do not know enough about the technology to know how they will tackle that issue, but I believe the concept is good.
LA has also had a worse track record with start-up leagues probably because of greater interest in sports like basketball. The Las Vegas franchise will play one home game in Los Angeles this season to test interest there. I agree that the UFL has to enter that market, it didn't have a willing investor this time, though.