The Home of Arena Football Fans since 1998

ArenaFan.com :: View topic - League rankings
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ    SearchSearch  ProfileProfile  Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  
League rankings
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TargetToad
Starter

Joined: 31 May 2017
Location: Lutz, FL
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject: League rankings Reply with quote

So for the Arena/Indoor league spectrum, it seems to be...

Majors: AFL, Jacksonville, and Arizona
AAA: Jacksonville's and Arizona's farm leagues
AA: CIF
A: AAL
Rookie: everything else.

Please comment if you have a different order
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:53 am    Post subject: Re: League rankings Reply with quote

TargetToad wrote:
So for the Arena/Indoor league spectrum, it seems to be...

Majors: AFL, Jacksonville, and Arizona
AAA: Jacksonville's and Arizona's farm leagues
AA: CIF
A: AAL
Rookie: everything else.

Please comment if you have a different order


I would not call AFL a major sport, so I'll call it AAAA. If AFL gets back to early 2000's form that can be reassessed. Based on that:

AFL - AAAA (well above the rest, Nationally on TV-CBSSN, and other outlets locally and Twitter, averaging over 9k per game attendance, one more large market team and they are on their way back)

IFL - AAA/AA (would be AA but AZ and Iowa definitely pull them up, and GB helps)

NAL - AAA/AA (Jax definitely pulls them up, and they have 3 larger markets and better teams )

CIF - A (a solid but lower level league)

AAL - Rookie (if that)
_________________
4th


Last edited by 4th&long on Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
LoveFB
 

Joined: 30 Aug 2017
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of these leagues are a sub class (minor league?) of the NFL. Not even close. The players going up (no one goes down unless their NFL career is over) do not compare to MLB or to a lesser extent the NBA where there is a regular up and down movement amongst the players, based on injury, rehab assignments, and what not. But as for league not team rankings in this niche sport?

IMO, presently, you put the IFL on top. Clearly, former AFL stalwarts Iowa, then Spokane (well, af2), then Arizona saw the writing on the wall. Arizona arriving tipped the balance towards the IFL assuming the helm. With Jax desperately wanting in to the IFL when AZ jumped ship that sealed the deal as IFL being tops. However, the IFL did not want to do business with Jax despite Jax desperate and willing to do the same deal AZ had to do, in order to get into the IFL which you can read otherwise. Jax was not getting into the IFL and thus started the NAL.

With the recent acquisition of BL and WM, the IFL proved it is in for the long haul, when many had them dead in the water. The IFL has the top players; a solid functioning front office; top coaching (uhh why did Ted try to wrest a top IFL coach away after his first season at 3-11?) top game officials; best broadcast option free key word FREE at no cost to owners on you tube (remember, who wants to watch these games on a national level? Why pay TV money? Nobody will watch) and solid finances in part because they pay no TV fees. Although AZ did attempt to have the title game broadcast live on network TV but the SF arena did not have the technology available to be thrown together at the last minute to put on a national broadcast.

Second? Toss-up between AFL and NAL; leaning AFL because it has better competition than the NAL. The NAL was set up for JAX to wallop everyone, and they did. Despite the scare Columbus put in them. In fact, Columbus would be an ideal IFL addition, if they were located maybe 1000 miles northwest. Top notch organization all around. Solid. Plays well in the sandbox with its partners which is the key to the success of the IFL. But the travel is the killer, as it is the killer most anywhere so to the SIFL to the PIFL to the NAL they go, maintaining its solid program throughout. A welcome addition to any league but I digress.

Bottom line? AFL does have the wealthiest owners and large markets. But these 2 factors alone does not drive the sport, as you have seen unfold over the past few years. Wealth and large markets do not necessarily go hand in hand with operating a league successfully.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojodcat
 

Joined: 14 Sep 2017
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LoveFB wrote:
...

IMO, presently, you put the IFL on top. Clearly, former AFL stalwarts Iowa, then Spokane


you're aware Spokane folded after attendance steeply and steadily declined after it's "Arena" days, right?
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojodcat
 

Joined: 14 Sep 2017
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a more accurate representation is a scale that represents the quality from top to bottom of the leagues...saying the NAL, as a league is better than the CIF is a touch farcical considering the road only teams, and teams that did not play a full league slate... etc. No one will argue JAX is a top notch franchise, but the bottom of the NAL was a steaming hot mess.

roughly..

Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojodcat wrote:
I think a more accurate representation is a scale that represents the quality from top to bottom of the leagues...saying the NAL, as a league is better than the CIF is a touch farcical considering the road only teams, and teams that did not play a full league slate... etc. No one will argue JAX is a top notch franchise, but the bottom of the NAL was a steaming hot mess.

roughly..



But NAL has 4 solid franchises including 1 mega franchise.

Today the two real issue teams are gone. I'll stick to my original ranking.

I would not call AFL a major sport, so I'll call it AAAA. If AFL gets back to early 2000's form that can be reassessed. Based on that:

AFL - AAAA (well above the rest, Nationally on TV-CBSSN, and other outlets locally and Twitter, averaging over 9k per game attendance, one more large market team and they are on their way back)

IFL - AAA/AA (would be AA but AZ and Iowa definitely pull them up, and GB helps)

NAL - AAA/AA (Jax definitely pulls them up, and they have 3 larger markets and better teams )

CIF - A (a solid but lower level league)

AAL - Rookie (if that)

_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL View previous topic :: View next topic  
 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group