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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?