2 years ago we couldn't get more than 5 teams to go AAA, now we can't get more than 4 teams to play in AA? I'm assuming this is mostly due to travel, but it seems there would be some "middle of the pack" AAA teams, that know in their heart of hearts that they won't compete for a AAA championship this year, would want to play AA. There must be 4 other teams out there that would consider playing AA, but the ridicule they would receive from others around league for "playing down" will probably keep them from volunteering to play AA. If somehow the AA could have 7-8 teams, it would keep both AA and AAA exciting and competitive.
The reason the AA/AAA happened was to give the lower half of the league a chance for a championship. This was also done when the RMFL had 22 teams and we were growing.
It also allowed new teams to develop.
This is my personal opinion and if I wasn't sick in bed I would've been there to fight for it. But we should've went to one big league, with a two tier playoff system.
All four teams in the AA have developed and they are not new teams by any means.
The lower tier of the AAA can and HAVE competed with the AA.
What happens if one team forfeits? 3 teams? An extra championship game? Extra playoff game?
I firmly believe this was our chance to "get it right". Disagree or agree it doesn't matter, this is just my opinion.
This league has been around since 1997 and the merger with the UFL/RMFL happened a decade ago.
Instead of looking back of why we did what we did, how we did what we did, we don't learn. We just create new things.
We have Idaho-- who says the league caters to Utah while they are conducting meetings trying to start their own league with a cofounder of the league and with the Idaho Rep?
We have Montana handcuffed-- waiting for decisions on Idaho.
We have Utah-- bullying around. Then there's Dixie-- so offended when they are implied to be catered to yet, they need the RMFL as much as the RMFL needs them.
So much for protecting the "shield".
Remember what American/Spanish philosopher George Santayana said?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Last I speak of this. See you all in April.
-- Edited by KytoKhouang on Sunday 25th of January 2015 09:58:50 PM
Good points Kyto. I personally think that there is a lot of disparity between the best of the AAA and the worst of the AA, so making one league wouldn't be my first choice, I think there could be a way for more teams to play AA that would allow for both divisions to be competitive. However, I'd probably take one league over a 4 team AA, but the owners/league has spoken so we'll show up and play who we play on Saturdays.
I understand where you are coming from. I think the league could support having a bigger AA, which would make it more competitive, as well as balance out AAA better. Unfortunately AA got shafted this year, but it does provide incentive to AA team to develop and play in AAA the next season. Which apparently is the whole reason for AA now: develop AA teams to be able to play in AAA. It would be nice if we could do all one league, but until we feel comfortable with teams like the Guardians, playing teams like the Oilers at some sort of competitiveness, it just won't happen.
I think I would be concerned that we did not have a single new team present at the league meeting. I understand that we needed to tighten the requirements to admit new teams, but we might ask if they are too tight and discouraging new team application. I voiced my concern about this some time ago. The teams in this league are only getting older, and if we don't do something to make up for the attrition rate, you may see even fewer teams in the league next year. I would suggest approaching the ICFL in the Treasure Valley about a merger next year. They have a few teams that could compete in the AAA ( including the resurrected Boise Roughriders featuring many former General players.) and the rest would be ideal AA teams.
I think I would be concerned that we did not have a single new team present at the league meeting. I understand that we needed to tighten the requirements to admit new teams, but we might ask if they are too tight and discouraging new team application. I voiced my concern about this some time ago. The teams in this league are only getting older, and if we don't do something to make up for the attrition rate, you may see even fewer teams in the league next year. I would suggest approaching the ICFL in the Treasure Valley about a merger next year. They have a few teams that could compete in the AAA ( including the resurrected Boise Roughriders featuring many former General players.) and the rest would be ideal AA teams.
Put the pipe down ole tommy boy!!! You think after 16 seasons of being local and finally accepting the 11 man format the ICFL would merge with the RMFL?? The ICFL is true to their local format and from the sounds of it, took a lot to take on 11 man. Plus what would Utah do if there were suddenly a 13 team majority in Idaho?!?! OH SNAP!!!! The ICFL has been relentless in trying to recruit RMFL teams to their league and it's the 11 man format that finally took 1 (and two potential) teams... I don't see them spreading out past MT. Home anytime soon.
-- Edited by butmymammasaid on Tuesday 27th of January 2015 10:41:45 PM
I still fail to see why "adding more teams" seems to be your answer to the problem Tom? I honestly think that the league could benefit from the opposite. If someone wants to join the league they search out teams that are already in existence and have proven they have what it takes to function within the RMFL structure. And if simply being a part of a team is not enough, they can present themselves to an Organization within the RMFL with intent to do more then merely show up as a player or coach. If they are even a drop in a hat, they will prove their worth and the existing team(s) will take them on into any capacity they see fit. Strength is not always in numbers, its also in dependabilty.
Maybe an expansion lock needs to be in place until the league can build up the existing foundation to a solid core of teams that function well together as a whole and not just as single entities. Do you think organizations both professional or collegiate exist because of growth and individual team strengths? No, they function as a solid unit (how..well I could not tell you all the ins and outs, but I do know there is A LOT of hard work behind the scenes that goes into their longevity.)
Simply put.... Spread the league wide and thin....and we can expect it to eventually break at the seams we create.
__________________
Any incorrect grammar, spelling, or inproper use of verbiage, shall be blamed on my iPhone not me!
To Nighthawk. I can assure you that the Roughriders with the return of Chuck Hudson as their GM and coach, would not forfeit a playoff game.
Bryce, I actually agree with you to some extent. It's just that when I saw that the AA only has 4 teams, how can that be a good football experience? And travel will be hell for them especially now that they've added a team in Wyoming. And we all know that the AA feeds the AAA. I'm not saying add new teams for the sake of adding new teams. But logic states that when no new teams are coming in, and the league loses teams every year, what kind of league will we have in three or four years? With that said, I'm genuinely wondering how much longer are some of these teams going to be able to keep their franchises going. Several of the teams in the RMFL have been around for awhile with aging players. When the league drops in numbers, then that compounds the leagues #1 issue, which is keeping travel for all teams within reason. And it's hard to compare semi pro football organizations with pro or college organizations because they have one thing that we don't have an abundance of and that's money. Money goes a long way in keeping things running smoothly to help maintain that longevity. I'm just looking at the long term big picture. The Matadors nearly didn't come back this year. And there is no guarantee they'll be back next year. I'm just saying we need to look at ways to account for league attrition. I realize that merging with the ICFL is unlikely, but I'm just throwing out suggestions. I don't see anyone else looking for solutions. If everyone is fine with a league of under 19 teams, well fine, disregard everything I've just said. It's just that I've been a part of this league a long time and Bryce, I know you have too. But the sun is setting for me in this league, but I would still like to see it be around for a long time to come to give young men coming up the opportunity to play this game that we all love, in one of the best leagues in the country. I just want to see it stay that way.
I have to love Kyto, but he received some bad data. To be clear, I (along with I assume he thinks is Lonnie Edwards) was not trying to start an other league. I did agree to help with an effort (originating in Boise where they actually kind of did it) to talk about it. I remained ambivalent to the consequences; except to the extent that the Mustangs, who I represented at the time, were in favor of it.
Why were the Mustangs... and Anarchy... and Bulldawgs... and Matadors... all in favor of the idea at least at one time or another... is the answer to the "why were there only 4 teams in the AA question"?
The Mustangs are a perfect example. Never in the history has the 4th seeded AA team even considered "moving up", however, what many of the teams who do not have a plethora of nearby teams (i.e. non-Utah teams) are beginning to care about as much as anything is minimizing travel. With the Mustangs and Anarchy so close together and not see each other in the regular season is insensitive to this problem. Further, for the Mustangs to not have the Bulldawgs on their schedule, a rival going back to 1998 is also missing the point.
Maybe the Mustangs are not "AAA" worthy, maybe they can improve and surprise some teams, regardless, since this is truly all about "just playing football", we get more players to play if the schedule isn't so cost and time commitment prohibitive to them; under the way the league structured, maybe the Mustangs have "no chance" at an RMFL title, but they do get to "just play football" against the nearest competition and, perhaps, if they come together and play well, call themselves the "Northern Conference Champions" if they can earn that #1 North seed.
It does kind of suck for the remaining "AA" teams. It ended up being the lowest two Utah teams and lowest 2 Idaho teams, now plus the Montana team. There just really isn't a perfect solution. In retrospect, maybe we should have just gone with the one big happy league option, but as we all know, that option would be fraught with even more blow-outs, particularly in the southern conference.
A four team double is actually a good thing! We want teams trying to get in the aaa and not fight to stay down. The vipers had to fight to move up even though they won the aa ship. In years past the aa champ has stayed down and other teams have went up. But now we got teams petitioning up. This is what we want people. The current aa teams need To develop and get better. they are not even close to aaa level.
Why did the Vipers have to petition to move up??? Didn't the "managing board" vote that the AA champ move up to AAA last year? So you have years past where the league fights AA champs to move up and they refuse to only to stay in AA and finally you have a AA champ ready to move up and they have to fight to move up?? Kyto always points out about protecting the shield and trying to make it work... It's shame he wasn't at the league meeting. :(
I think Kyto nailed it on the head. One big league with teams hosting and traveling 1 game out of state? Everyone talks about gas and money but look how low gas prices are now compared to the last 6 years. Carpooling is great now if you a get a bunch together and split costs? Teams need to quit holding the league hostage? If you don't like it then don't play but quit making it worse....my opinion
Why do we always feel like it's holding the league hostage? If guys ask for their check back when not getting their way, I agree. Is it different if guys voice their concerns in regards to what their issues are with staying or going? YES! Their issues are travel because they have a league that is local. As a league, we should try to make it work. The AAA of 2012 had 5 teams. Their concern was playing each other twice and the wear and tear on their bodies. We changed the league structure to make it work for them. We need every team to make this league work and nobody will always be happy. If the only consolation for the Idaho teams staying was the new structure we have than we should be ok with it. Not that I agree with it but the other scenario was much worse. I've said it for years, the league has 3 different levels of talent and 3 different reasons for playing. We are trying to fit all those aspects into something that works. You have great teams that need other teams to play but then want to be separate at the end. You have middle of the pack teams that want to compete but know what they're up against and you have teams that just want to play football. You have guys that love road trips and love the team bonding and you have guys that want to play football but can't commit to leaving their home, jobs or families. Both are valid and both are viable. Everyone seems to only see one side of the argument and are closed minded the other. Some GMS have easier tasks running a team and can put more time into running a team. Others are doing it for the love but also may not have the same means or time to put in. Why are we judging the situation only based on our own agenda and closing off the others? Every team matters and we should remember that. If teams leave, we will miss them. Trust me. How much easier would it be if the Generals or the Bullets or the Blaze or the Lancers were around this year? I think we are all messing things up by not being grateful and thinking as a league and respecting how much we need all teams. Teams are leaving and none are coming.
-- Edited by GORILLA20 on Sunday 1st of February 2015 02:35:30 PM
