I sat down to watch TV for an hour or so and my choices were a college football game between two teams I don't care about (Florida St-North Carolina), NASCAR, and ESPNEWS... so I started flipping through channels and found the UFL playing on Vs. I came in at halftime with FL leading CA 17-0 and FL promptly went down the field and kicked a field goal to lead 20-0. Not a great game, but I was watching to analyze the quality of play, and I was pleasantly surprised. It felt like a cross between the NFL and high school football, and I don't mean college. The TV production value felt very cheap and the stands looked empty, much like high school football, but the speed of cleanliness of the game felt nearly NFL worthy. Blocking and tackling were comparable to the NFL, passes were tight spirals and accurate, running backs hit the holes quickly and ran well. At least the team winning 20-0 displayed all these characteristics.
I would say my overall analysis is that the play should be relatively competitive because it is evenly matched. The quality of the coaching stands out. This definitely feels like a minor league NFL and not a wacky Canadian or Arena football league.
I also like that the game was on Thursday. If the UFL keeps its games on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and doesn't try to compete with high school, college, NFL, or Monday Night Football, then I can see people football lovers tuning in.
ReplyDeleteDoh sorry I quashed your UFL analysis with my candy crazed ranmbling
ReplyDeleteIsn't ESPN 30 for 30 producing a video called Who Killed the USFL? And doesn't that not bode very well for the UFL?
That said do you think its product is good enough that it will have a niche even with the NFL taking up most football fans' attention? And why is its season in the middle of the NFL season?
You just answered my question about scheduling. I suppose I'd watch a midweek UFL game, but only if I had nothing else going on. Scheduling my weekends partly around watching football (and soon around Lakers games on TV) is enough of a burden on my week from a sports perspective.
ReplyDeleteI watched that documentary. The USFL was moving along slowly, signing big names, some teams making money, others losing money, playing games in the spring. Donald Trump came in and wanted to make changes so that every owner could make money and determined that moving to the fall was necessary. After playing a season in the spring of 1985, then waiting 14 months to try and start a season in the fall, the USFL sued the NFL for holding a monopoly, on the grounds that no TV network could show the games because of their contracts with the NFL. The USFL failed because it tried to be the AFL or the ABA and sued in court, with the goal of forcing a merger.
ReplyDeleteThe jury determined that the NFL did have a monopoly, but awarded damages of just $1 to the USFL. The USFL suspended games for that fall and never played again.
Can you elaborate on how the jury decided the NFL did have a monopoly, but did not punish it or award any damages?
ReplyDeleteI guess an example would be you start a lemonade stand and you're doing pretty well. Most people who drive down your block stop and buy some lemonade. Now let's say Minute Maid is the only large company making lemonade. As you set up a few stands on a few different streets and you're trying to grow your business, you get greater numbers, but fewer percentage of people are stopping at your stands because they're drinking Minute Maid lemonade they bought from the grocery store. So you sue Minute Maid. Well technically, they do have a monopoly, they are the only large company selling lemonade, but just because you have a few lemonade stands up doesn't mean Minute Maid should pay you millions of dollars in damages.
ReplyDeleteThe jury was saying that the USFL was not damaged by the NFL's monopoly.