I think it would be wise for us to protect certain teams with clauses as well. For instance rivalry games or proximity games, where teams will always play another certain team from a different division. I will use an Idaho team because I am not as familiar with the Dynamics of Utah and Montana.
Now for the playoff format, again I think that the NFL format would be ideal with 3 division winners and 3 wild card teams from each conference. Either way this does add one game to the playoffs, which I assume is not a huge deal to everyone. The season can still be completed before July which I think is desirable, with one bye on Memorial day weekend. This year the season could run from April 6th – June 29th. There is a potential for a 0 week game for some teams that may have to take a bye during the season to make the scheduling work.
Here is a sample of the playoff bracket:
NFC # 1
SFC # 1
NFC # 4
SFC # 4
ROCKY MOUNTAIN BOWL
NFC # 5
SFC # 5
NFC # 2
SFC # 2
NFC # 3
SFC # 3
NFC # 6
SFC # 6
Now regarding where the "Rocky Mountain Bowl" is played. In my opinion the best way to make that game as big as possible and as fun as possible is to have it as the main event of the Stars and Stripes Tournament/ All-Star game weekend. This may or may not be possible for this year, but consider all the players down there for the all-star game, players for the tournament games, culminated by the big event, the Rocky Mountain Bowl! I've had a desire to watch the championship game but I'm not going to drive clear to Utah from Idaho for it, but if the all-star game was going on, plus the tournament. I think it would be worth going. The turnout could be huge for that game. In a similar manner to what the AAA did last year there should probably be some financial kick back to the two teams participating in the game, there also may be a travel fund to ensure any team traveling beyond X amount of miles gets X amount of dollars to ensure travel costs are met and all its players are there.
Now as for who gets to host, I think that the area who last won the Championship should get the first option to host the event. So this is how you get your all-star game/Rocky Mountain Bowl in your region by someone form your division winning it all!
I can already see story lines evolving if this were our league structure....
How inferior is the NFC to the SFC?
Will we see another heated Idaho vs Montana match-up in the NFC championship?
Can the NFC Champion upset the SFC champion in the Rocky Mountain Bowl, a potential David vs Goliath match-up, not to mention in the backyard of the SFC champion?
How long will the SFC streak of dominance continue? (Reminds me of when the NFC was dominant over the AFC in the NFL, winning the Super Bowl for 13 years in a row)
Does the real title game take place in the SFC championship game?
Every detail might not be perfectly dialed in yet with this scenario of a new league format, obviously depending what teams we have the divisions will change but we have wiggle room with several teams. I think all the kinks can be worked out and I would love it if the league went in this direction. I for one will be voting for a one league system this year.
We certainly don't want to alienate any teams, just like a team that needs all its players, the league needs all it members. So I don't want to put any teams in a situation to leave, disband, or join another league, with that said the RMFL is the best option out there, so the league does have some leverage as a collective whole.
Looking at the advantages from each teams perspective, here is how I would think the vote would go for voting on something similar to this league structure, I am not pointing fingers, I completely understand why some teams will not want it, I'm just making an observation:
THOSE FOR A ONE LEAGUE STRUCTURE (ASSUMED):
I would assume that the entire NFC would be in favor of this format or at least not care one way or another, winning the NFC is basically like being the AA Champion except with a shot at being the overall league Champion.
I would also have to assume that the AAA teams would be in favor, there would be no questions left as to who the best in the league would be each year, and there travel would be reduced.
THOSE AGAINST A ONE LEAGUE STRUCTURE (ASSUMED):
Davis Vipers
Uintah Basin Oilers
Elko Warriors (although they seem to roll with whatever)
Utah Cobras
Brigham Sting
Maybe Logan because of having two teams
So from my perspective, we as a league can serve a greater majority with a one league format.
I may be way off on where GM's stand so I would like to hear feedback on issues I overlooked or didn't cover.
Are you for or against this type of format and why?
-Jerry Smith
GM Boise Generals
Post 2 of 2
-- Edited by JSmith3 on Monday 17th of December 2012 10:35:14 PM
-- Edited by JSmith3 on Monday 17th of December 2012 10:39:47 PM
The incentive to become a AAA team is nearly gone for Montana and Idaho teams, the lone standing incentive- to play against the big four (Rev, Rebels, Stealth, and Shock).
Top Tier AA teams do not get opportunity to see how they stack up to the AAA teams.
As a GM of a team that is being touted by others as a team that should consider AAA, here is some insight to our dilemma.
Quality of Talent- The moment we become a AAA team, the less competitive we become. We will lose several key players, that can't commit to that type of travel schedule. As a GM, I'm trying to field the best team I can for the fans. As a coach I'm trying to field the best team I can for wins and losses. The whole situation is backwards, if we stay AA we are more competitive than if we move to AAA. I would assume this is the situation for most Idaho or Montana teams considering AAA. So in choosing to field a better team, we lose the opportunity to play the best the RMFL has to offer.
Financial Risk- I have said from the beginning to myself that if the Generals do not operate in the black (or the positive) by year two I have to get out. I am not financially viable enough to float a franchise. The AAA situation for single, far off teams causes higher operating costs, plus you lose the local opponents at home games that bring higher attendance, which result in more ticket and concession sales. Going AAA you also lose players which lowers the total amount of fees you need to collect from them, or you have to force them to pay a higher fee, which then the problem compounds.
So it is my opinion that the best option would be to use the old NFL format of two conferences with 3 divisions in each conference. They used this when they were under 30 teams, a similar number to where we are as a league.
Considering the dynamic of the RMFL I would think that one conference should be comprised of Montana and Idaho, while Utah makes up the other.
Northern Football Conference
West
North
East
Boise Generals
Billings Bullets
Arco Anarchy
GemState Guardians
Helena Bearcats
Upper Valley Vikings
Idaho Matadors
Great Falls Gladiators
Idaho Mustangs
Idaho Lancers
GV Snow Devils
Logan New Name
Mini-Cassia Diggers
Missoula Phoenix
Magic Valley Bulldawgs
Southern FootballConference
North
Central
South
Wasatch Revolution
Utah Stealth
Dixie Rebels
Logan Stampede
Utah Shock
RM Mudd Ducks
Davis Vipers
Uintah Basin Oilers
Utah Cobras
Brigham Sting
Elko Warriors
Colorado Team
?? Teams
Kalispell, MT
Bitterroot Blaze
Each team plays their division opponents, then 2 games (one home and one away) from the other two divisions within their conference. The Southern conference would have to add a third game from a division because they have less teams. There would be no inter-conference play. I have Logan in the NFC and SFC since they have 2 teams under the same ownership, that way they don't play each other, but I would recommend a name change for one of them. The divisions might not be exactly the way I worked it up because we don't know which teams exactly will be in, and also I don't know exact locations of some teams, so there may be some swapping but it should be close.
Here is an example of how the schedule might go together:
When talking about the merger, the topic of body bag games or unrealistic schedules surfaces. If we use the same format as the NFL where your non-division schedule is determined by previous record, this would keep the less competitive teams playing other less competitive teams, while keeping the rivalries of the more competitive teams in tact.
Here is a sample schedule of, statistically speaking, the worst team from last year:
GEM STATE GUARDIANS
RANKED 5th IN DIVISION
Game 1
GENERALS
Division
Game 2
DORS
Division
Game 3
LANCERS
Division
Game 4
DIGGERS
Division
Game 5
BEARCATS
North # 5
Game 6
SNOW DEVILS
North # 4
Game 7
BULLDAWGS
East # 5
Game 8
VIKINGS
East # 4
Every game is against a AA team from last year with the exception of the Bulldawgs, which many consider a AA team at this point anyway.
Here is how it looks in the Southern Football Conference if Brigham Sting were to get in:
BRIGHAM STING
RANKED 4th IN DIVISION
Game 1
REV
Division
Game 2
STAMPEDE
Division
Game 3
VIPERS
Division
Game 4
COBRAS
South # 3
Game 5
COLORADO
South # 4
Game 6
WARRIORS
Central #4
Game 7
OILERS
Central #3
Game 8
MUDDDUCKS
Next lowest ranked team
5 of the 8 games are against previous AA opponents (or new teams), they do have to play the Rev from their division, so you have one game against the big 4. Games like that happen no matter what, you can't eliminate them, (think Dors 84, Guardians 0 last year).
Another concern is that lower tier teams having nothing to play for.
In the NFC nothing changes for the lower tier teams, they are still playing all AA teams from a year ago (except Gladiators and Bulldawgs, which I don't personally think is an issue.). The top teams are not going to want to move to AAA so they would be playing them regardless. I don't think that concern applies for the NFC teams, they can still play for the NFC championship, and if you are that good you might as well play one of the big 4 (assuming) for a shot at the Rocky Mountain Bowl Championship!
As far as the SFC, this concern does apply, I feel like the 2 teams that get the shortest end of the stick are the Oilers and the Cobras. Who potentially would have a shot at the NFC title if they were in that conference. I excluded the Warriors, Vipers, Sting and Colorado (AAA team rumors) even though it still does apply to them, but because they were not super competitive last year, it seems less relevant if the top of their conference is stronger than the top of the NFC.
We will not be able to please all the teams at all times. But I think the goal should be to please the most teams possible. These teams would have to be willing to sacrifice the most for the betterment of the RMFL as a whole, in my opinion. We certainly need these teams just like we need the big 4 and everybody else.
Jerry, I think that you make some great points, and your proposal is very well thought out, and it's obvious that you spent alot of time on it. I think it solves a lot of issues regarding travel, and is set so that all teams would have a reasonably fair schedule. There are some competitive issues regarding some blowout games, and you covered that, but the trade off may be worth it. We (the Lancers) are going to be in the same boat regardless of how the league format plays out, being that we are rebuilding and that it will take a couple of years to get to the competitve level I'm used to. So I like it. You make a strong argument regarding the balancing act a GM goes through to keep his team a financially stable unit. You have my support on this as long as the league can do it without raising league fees. I do think this alignment would be great for the NFC, but it will face stiffer resistance in the Utah or SFC simply because those current AA teams may not feel they could compete against the big 4, and their chances of a playoff berth would be slim for most of them.And the ones that do get to the playoffs, would most likely face a first round elimination. Oh, and I would favor wildcard teams would not neccssarily have to be one from each division. I think the next best three teams aside from the division champs go to the playoffs regardless of division. So you could potentially have three teams from a division. The champs and 2 wildcards.That would be the only change I would make. Tom Bennett
With that being said and the structure put forth, as things stand:
There are currently 6-7 AAA teams. (Logan, Shock, Stealth, Rev, Rebels, Ducks, and Gladiators)
Your proposal as of right now, puts teams like Elko, Cobras, Vipers, Oilers a possible expansion Brigham team, and an expansion Colorado team, against 6 of the AAA teams.
While your Northern Conference serves it's purpose for Idaho and Montana. (You're able to have your region games and so on and so forth)
Where is the logic in this?
Essentially your proposal is putting all the best teams in the RMFL in one conference, throw some Utah AA teams in there, and then have an Idaho/Montana conference and at the end of the day, you get a chance to become a champion if you're better on that Saturday.
Am I wrong here?
Why would any of the AA Utah teams want this? Why would a Cobra or Viper team want to play the Shock, Rev, Rebels, Stealth for 4 of their games, while you guys up North play essentially equal caliber teams? How does that make sense?
If any AA team thinks they can compete in the AAA, they should play AAA. NO team, and I repeat NO TEAM goes into a season not expecting to do well. Every team thinks the are going to be able to compete. EVERY TEAM thinks they have a legitimate shot. No matter what league.
But it seems to me that this proposal is kind of off based.
If you, as a GM wants to play the TOP 4, well, then do it. Get your team prepared on the field, get your team prepared off the field. If you win games, people don't leave. If you win games, you get fans. If you compete and have competitive games, the rest should follow.
You stated 2 issues of the AA/AAA split. 1) The chance to play the best 2) Financial Risk
1) If you want to play the best, there is no reason you can't get your guys to commit to playing the best. If you think you can compete, then your team should commit to the possibility that you may NOT be as good as these other AAA teams. If these same guys who think they can compete, bail out when things get rough, those aren't guys you should count on to be on your team anyways. You want to play the best but when things get rough, you quit? Well, those guys weren't what you would want on your team anyways.
2) Financial risks. What risks are different for being in AAA than in being in AA? Every team has finanicial risks because every team has different operating costs. The Shock paid close to $1000 a game for our home game. We hosted Treasure Valley and a depleted Magic Valley team. We had less than $1000 in sponsorship money last year. So, because of the financial hit that I took, the Shock should be AA? We had a roster of less than 45 guys, and since 2004 we've charged $100 a player for fees, and $125 for new players.
Every team, every division, no matter what will have financial risks.
Commitment. If your team thinks they can compete, you know where to play. If you start to lose, and you lose players, those players weren't in it for the right reasons anyways.
I for one would NEVER be for this league format.
You want us to play the PROVEN top AAA CALIBER teams (a structure that has been put in place for 6 years) week in and week out and then play the top team from your conference which has proven to be AA caliber?
Talk about a low ball to the AA Utah teams.
MY OPINION? In 2013, 6 team AAA - all in Utah.
Top 2-3 Idaho team in AA and Top 2-3 teams in MT move up from AA in 2014.
Force the issue. You know now before 2013 that if you finish Top 2 in your State in AA, you're moving up. You have over a year to prepare for your financial risks. You have over a year to recruit to play the TOP 4.
That way the new teams from AA can see and play the talent in 2014 and know if they can compete or if they need to get better. This also allows the 10+ teams in the AA to still strive to get better in their division. No more of this 2nd place isn't good enough for AAA.
We need to quit chasing titles, we need to want the best product on the field, for our league.
I think its a great idea, but i dont think its whats best for everybody on a competitive level. Playing in that Stars in Strips last year put us Oilers up against some AAA teams and yeah we can play with the Mudd Ducks and bull dawgs but the big four? we got beat pretty good by the stealth,only having 17 players at that game,but thats a AA team for u. and the whole NFC division is weak compared to the SFC just like u stated, so pretty much ur saying u want all the utah AA teams to be in a division with the top four best teams in the entire league? If u put the the oilers or the cobras in the NFC they would be a top Two team in that division but than u got the SFC were ur going up against a better talent pool, more players, and AAA experience and u got these top AA teams competing for a 5 or 6 seed.. so of course the entire Utah AA division wouldnt want this.. We got beat by a very good blaze team in the semis and plan on competing ,if we have a AA, for a championship this year.. Small town teams like us dont get top of the line athletes, we would probably lose players by being stuck in such a higher league of competition.. now travel and finances makes alot of scense but id rather drive to montana again than have the dixie rebels come beat us by 50 in front of our fans and family.. I think making one division where the competition level isnt there will eventually lose teams out of the RMFL.. if anything if u Generals got all those players from the spartans and still dont wanna move up thats your choice, i think that the matadors are a great team and could compete at the AAA they got beat by a Blaze team that was a AAA caliber team.. if anything u could drop the bull dawgs down make a bigger AA with the new team and possibly the mudd ducks and just have a utah AAA and the gladiators take the blazes spot from last year.. just my opinion, in the end were all here just to play the game we all love, hope everyone has a good and safe holliday
I think the way the playoffs were screwy last year with the three divisions were kinda screwy... this way you finish in the top 6 your in period, not you have to finish in the top 2 of utah and montana but you may have a better record then the #4 idaho seed but your not in, so regardless of how the leagues or divisions are the playoffs need to be fixed
-- Edited by Oilers66 on Wednesday 19th of December 2012 08:38:27 AM
There are certainly variations we could come up with that make the most sense, to as many teams as possible. I still think that 1 league is the way to go, here is another option that can be looked at:
Well Jerry, you just lost me with that one. You sure seem to put yourself in the best travel postion. I am a team that will not have the resources to do that much travel in my first year. Just keep the AA/AAA format. Your plan just isn't going to work for everybody.
A Colorado team, based out of the Denver area, will not want to or agree to travel 9-10 hours for every away game, 4 weeks out of the season, and i dont see why the salt lake area teams will want to travel 9-10 hours for one away game, which isn't fair to begin with. I'm new to the league (this upcoming season will be my first) but I've read the entries on this site and I can see this has been an on going issue. Me personally I think it should be the two teams from the AA championship game should move up to the AAA, but again I can see how it causes problems for a Montana or idaho team. Again I'm new to the league, I'm excited to play football again, and as a competitor I want to play and compete with the best. I won't even pretend to have a solution to this problem, but I just wanted to point out the travel issue with a Colorado team, if based in the Denver area (which it seems the team to join will be from the Denver area) will have.
But with this one its all the AA teams except 3 or so and the AAA so the NFC would get to the championship on a high note and with all the confidence in the world cause they are playing for the championship to then in all likely hood be clobbered by the Rev Stealth Rebels or Shock? This really doesnt work either, I would keep the AAA with just the Utah teams then split the AA into the Northern and Southern... I may be the minority but I enjoy playing the AA teams, winning the AA championship is my goal not going up to the AAA. I dont look at the AA and go oh hell we suck cause we are in the AA. I dont look at the AAA as the gods of football I understand where we fit in cause we have 5 hs we pull from most of our guys work 13-14 hrs a day in the patches and we dont have University's to pull people from. I like the idea of this I just dont think it would ever work, so lets do it in the AA see how people like that then go from there.
Northern Arco Billings Generals Gallatin Valley Gem State Helena Lancers Dors Mustangs Missoula Upper Valley
Southern Davis Bulldawgs Diggers Mudducks Oilers Elko Cobras Brigham Colorado Team Logan
The farthest travel is like 9 hrs but if its just once a season then I dont see it being a huge problem, take the top 6 teams with the first two with the bye and go from there. Any suggestions???
Im going to have to say I do like what Oilers66 has proposed. But I can see how a six team AAA could get a little redundant without new teams being added. And are you talking the top 6 teams from each confrence or the top 6 teams in the AA as a whole?
I think after looking at it all a little closer, and if the current AAA teams are alright with their six team status for this year, then I think Oiler 66's proposal is what best suits the league for now.
Thinking more about it this one league with a north and south conference causes more issues with the AAA. Like you stated, basically the southern conference championship game will be considered the League championship game, or the AAA championship game, and the Northern Conference championship game a AA championship game because you will more than likely have all AAA teams in that conference championship game until some of the AA teams can compete consistantly with the "Top 4". You cant put two of the Top 4 in a northern conference because you will have the conflicts with travel with the Utah, Idaho, and Montana teams. Also you will end up most likely with an all AAA caliber teams in the League championship game. Looking at this basically from an outsiders point of view because im new to the league, You will most likely have a AAA caliber team winning Championships for the forseeable future, or a Top 4 team. I think keeping the 6 AAA Utah division and then maybe having the top teams from each of the AA divisions move up to AAA will continue to grow the AAA, or Like Kyto said, the top 2 or 3 from the Idaho and Montana AA divisions move up and maybe the top Utah AA team move up to AAA. Again brainstorming ideas.
FOR THE AA..... IS THERE ANYONE THAT FEELS LIKE THE TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS, LAST YEAR DIDN'T EARN IT? I LOVED THE FORMAT. WE DECIDED WHO WAS THE BEST IN UTAH, MONTANA AND IDAHO ON THE FIELD. BY DOING IT ANY OTHER WAY, (UNLESS WE ALL PLAY EVERYONE) THERE WILL BE ISSUES. THE ONLY WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S IT'S FAIR IS TO REPEAT WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR. EVERYONE IN OUR DIVISION TRAVELED THE SAME DISTANCE AND HAD THE SAME CHANCES TO WIN. I THINK WE DEVELOPED SOME GREAT MATCHUPS, RIVALRIES AND OUR DIVISION WAS COMPETITIVE. WHY CHANGE IT? LIKE KYTO SAID, IF YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING PLAYING IN AAA THEN MOVE UP. DON'T CHANGE THE WHOLE LEAGUE STRUCTURE TO DO IT. I SAID IT LAST YEAR AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, IF WE CAN'T PLAY EVERYONE THEN THAT FORMAT WORKS. THE GAMES IN IDAHO/MONTANA WERE COMPETITIVE....REMOVE THE BLAZE. ADD THE GLADIATORS. ADD THE NEW TEAMS TO THE UTAH DIVISION AND LET'S GO. THE UTAH DIVISION CAN USE THE IDAHO/MONTANA FORMAT IF WE NEED TO. EVERYONE PLAYS EVERYONE AND THEN YOU HAVE A RIVALRY GAME WHERE WE PLAY THE TEAM TWICE. LESS TRAVEL, SAVE MONEY, MOVE ON TO THE PLAYOFFS. IT WASN'T BROKE.....WHY FIX IT? ONLY CHANGE IS MAYBE THE TOP 2 TEAMS MOVE UP TO AAA AT THE END OF THE SEASON.
AAA IS A MESS SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INPUT ON THAT OTHER THAN I LIKE KYTO'S IDEA. GO WITH THE 6 UTAH AAA TEAMS THAT ARE ALL ESTABLISHED AND HAVE BEEN IN AAA BEFORE. LET THE AA TEAMS FIGHT IT OUT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TOP 2 TEAMS MOVE UP. AA TEAMS SHOULD BE STEPPING THEIR GAME UP AND PREPARING TO MAKE THE JUMP.
I thought the playoff format last year was good. there were no surprises and it was easy to calculate during the season what you needed to do to get certain seeding. As a GM, the idea of going AAA (even with a AA championship) could be costly to my financial stability. Speaking for our geographic, we don't have the college caliber players to try and recruit. We don't have any hope of trying to recruit players from other past RMFL teams. I enjoy the level of competition in the AA and can't realistically see us ever getting to AAA competitive level. Which would mean disaster for our team in the little town out in the sticks. All that said, I think that last years format was good but would like to entertain the idea of playing 6 inner division games to keep travel costs low and rivalries high. Throw in 2 outer division games. One home and one away in order to mix up the the divisions a little. Stay the same as last year with the playoffs. first round will be played within the division and second and third round goes where the seeding takes you. After having a chance to play 3 AAA teams in the stars and stripes last year, I have to say you guys are definitely on different level and I commend you on that. Although we came out 1-2 that weekend, my team is not ready for that level yet. The only thing I know for absolute....I'm ready for April to get here.......
