|
|
Post by Canton Cougar Fan on Nov 10, 2007 17:18:06 GMT -5
Sykotik, did you notice the Cumberland Valley Cardinals weren't on the 2008 schedule?  ? ; ) They weren't on the 2006 schedule either  I don't care ... play whoever, when ever you want. See you in the conference championship again. It's our turn.  |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bernie on Nov 11, 2007 16:31:07 GMT -5
ok...i am back from vacation and i must correct my statements....while waiting in line at universal studios incredible hulk roller-coaster, i called mike mink to clear up the conference, division, exhibition games...
let me start again by saying the decision to ask permission from the lg. to play some western teams as exhibition games was our idea and we thank wyoming for getting involved....these two games were both our teams decision with permission from the lg. and they are what they say, exhibition and do not count toward either teams regular 14 game schedule (important point) we just don't want bye weeks and we want to provide more for our fans
play-offs as i understand will be as such...top 2 teams in each division (determined by best over-all record) not your divisional record will be your play-off eligibility...divisional games will play part in tie breaking situations....so the key here is that your 14 game regular season record determine your play-off status...as i said i may have missed some info. while on vacation, but even on vacation i wanted to get this info. cleared up and out to you all
now i'm sure there will be the regular complainers, but it is what it is...let's run the season first, reflect and try to fix if need be...first thing is for each team to submit more arena dates and not all just sat. night games, sometimes your arena may not be open on a sat., but there are fri. nights, sunday matinee, heck it's not perfect but there are thursdays and mondays...we share our arena with a pro hockey and pro basketball team as well as a ton of concerts, graduations and religious conventions as well as chamber and business conventions and we submitted 16 dates of varying days, but that's where it must start.
bdb
|
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Nov 11, 2007 16:50:18 GMT -5
question: so does this mean, for all intents and purposes, that the divisions really don't mean anything? aside from the slight possibility of a tiebreaker scenario, there really is no need to have divisions if i'm understanding your post correctly. if divisional records don't count, why not have top 4 in the conference, period? in the end it probably won't matter, but the whole point of divisions, imo, is to DIVIDE up regional teams for regional rivalries and everyone normally plays a balanced divisional schedule. since the schedules aren't balanced, i'm just looking for a good explanation as why the need for breaking down the conferences further up into divisions? the western expansion and loss of many franchises has screwed up the whole regional rivalry thing so far, call it a day and have a 12 team east and a 4 team west and schedule as fair as you can. top 6 in the east vs top 2 in the west go to playoffs, since theres only 2 in the west that gives you a few weeks to catch up to the rest of the east come playoff time since you're starting late. too late now i guess, but my 2 cents. disclaimer: the above post is a valid question, not a complaint, and reflects the opinion of the poster and this poster only. i reserve the right to complain in the future if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 11, 2007 16:56:18 GMT -5
Thanks For The Info Bernie!
Nice of you to come in and clear that up for us.
As usual you do a fine job of keeping us informed of the goings on.
We could use more guys like you coming in here answering the tough questions for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 11, 2007 17:04:20 GMT -5
question: so does this mean, for all intents and purposes, that the divisions really don't mean anything? aside from the slight possibility of a tiebreaker scenario, there really is no need to have divisions if i'm understanding your post correctly. if divisional records don't count, why not have top 4 in the conference, period? in the end it probably won't matter, but the whole point of divisions, imo, is to DIVIDE up regional teams for regional rivalries and everyone normally plays a balanced divisional schedule. since the schedules aren't balanced, i'm just looking for a good explanation as why the need for breaking down the conferences further up into divisions? the western expansion and loss of many franchises has screwed up the whole regional rivalry thing so far, call it a day and have a 12 team east and a 4 team west and schedule as fair as you can. top 6 in the east vs top 2 in the west go to playoffs, since theres only 2 in the west that gives you a few weeks to catch up to the rest of the east come playoff time since you're starting late. too late now i guess, but my 2 cents. disclaimer: the above post is a valid question, not a complaint, and reflects the opinion of the poster and this poster only. i reserve the right to complain in the future if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by 1stDownStorm on Nov 11, 2007 17:23:50 GMT -5
Gah Gene it's spelled Harrisburg!!!!! No h on the end. Just a pet peeve of mine.
I also want to randomly say that it's nice there will be no traveling team this year, the whole Gulf Coast thing last year was disappointing, but the league is pretty ballin (as adolescents like me say nowadays) and making steps to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 11, 2007 17:31:21 GMT -5
Gah Gene it's spelled Harrisburg!!!!! No h on the end. Just a pet peeve of mine. I also want to randomly say that it's nice there will be no traveling team this year, the whole Gulf Coast thing last year was disappointing, but the league is pretty ballin (as adolescents like me say nowadays) and making steps to improve. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by 1stDownStorm on Nov 11, 2007 17:35:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 11, 2007 17:39:43 GMT -5
This brings up another interesting point. We'll have to decide whether Websters or Urban will be the official dictionary of AIFAFANS. Another problem. My God, Frostbite's gonna be on overload..... 
|
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Nov 11, 2007 22:26:10 GMT -5
it's still a valid question. divisions/conferences seem to change every season in all the indoor leagues because of the turnover, so while i can understand where you're coming from on your guess, it doesn't hold water for this season.
anyone want to try and seriously answer the question? bernie, can you explain the rationale behind the divisions this season since there are no balanced division schedules. all i see it as is another thing to hang your hat on, like erie being the "2005 regular season champs" even though richmond kicked our @ss in the championship game and reading being the "2006 northern division champs" even though canton represented the north in the championship game.
hypothetical:
reading finishes 12-2, canton at 11-3 and pitt at 10-4 in the north.
fayetteville goes 13-1, but the next best team in the east division is huntington with a 8-6 record.
despite leading huntington by two games in the standings, (and has probably beaten hunt. twice head-to-head) pittsburgh misses the playoffs because they've been slotted into a tougher division, for no real good reason. this is how the playoffs work now: top two in each division.
it's a valid question, so i'd like to see a real attempt at real answers. if you don't have an effin' clue, say so and maybe this one will be a real poser for that league email you've been begging me to send.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1stDownStorm on Nov 12, 2007 0:18:19 GMT -5
Well, the CIFL did something similiar last year to what the AIFA is doing this year. I'm not going to detail exactly what their divisional arrangement was, but two 4-8 teams made the playoffs and a 5-7 team did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Nov 12, 2007 0:29:25 GMT -5
Well, the CIFL did something similiar last year to what the AIFA is doing this year. I'm not going to detail exactly what their divisional arrangement was, but two 4-8 teams made the playoffs and a 5-7 team did not. a good point. however, methinks the stampede wouldn't have been allowed to play in the postseason irregardless. didn't the cifl kick them out the day after the regular season ended? and if i remember the few times i read their board, there was all kinds of pissing and moaning about the arrangement too. something about how unfair it was to rank teams within the division because no one played a balanced divisional schedule. am i correct? learn from others' mistakes is all i'm saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 12, 2007 6:33:36 GMT -5
it's still a valid question. divisions/conferences seem to change every season in all the indoor leagues because of the turnover, so while i can understand where you're coming from on your guess, it doesn't hold water for this season. anyone want to try and seriously answer the question? bernie, can you explain the rationale behind the divisions this season since there are no balanced division schedules. all i see it as is another thing to hang your hat on, like erie being the "2005 regular season champs" even though richmond kicked our @ss in the championship game and reading being the "2006 northern division champs" even though canton represented the north in the championship game. hypothetical:reading finishes 12-2, canton at 11-3 and pitt at 10-4 in the north. fayetteville goes 13-1, but the next best team in the east division is huntington with a 8-6 record. despite leading huntington by two games in the standings, (and has probably beaten hunt. twice head-to-head) pittsburgh misses the playoffs because they've been slotted into a tougher division, for no real good reason. this is how the playoffs work now: top two in each division. it's a valid question, so i'd like to see a real attempt at real answers. if you don't have an effin' clue, say so and maybe this one will be a real poser for that league email you've been begging me to send.
I could honestly tell you that i have'nt been told very much about the post season setup. So for me to answer it would be unfair. However, if it is the way Bernie described it in that the top 2 teams from each division make the playoffs then thats what we'll go by next season. Personally, i would rather the top team in each division and have 2-4 wild cards per conference based on best records but if the league is doing it that way i would think there is a reason behind it. Maybe if and when this setup gets finalized, if it isnt already, we can debate it in a more factual manner. |
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Nov 12, 2007 16:22:10 GMT -5
you could have started (and stopped) with "i don't know."
you do realize that, when laying this stuff out, thats what your supposed to do? envision different scenarios, solve problems before they occur. thats the line of work i'm in, so thats probably why i troubleshoot everything as soon as i see it. i see more problems with this scenario than i see benefits.
i'm just going by what bernie posted. his posts are gonna be as accurate as they come around here imo, so i'm taking it as fact right now. if he's wrong and my question is invalid, i hope he's able to point that out sooner rather than later. if it is valid and as many big-wigs read this as you say they do, i hope they realize they have time to do an about-face and change the playoff qualifications.
i thought we were beyond this crap by now? why do i have to have a team to still be interested in the league? for the love of christ joe and scooter among other don't have a team anymore either yet they hold fab positions. why don't you chase them away gene? i hope this is the LAST TIME i see this as a response to someone asking questions or being critical, because the precedent has been set: the fab prez has no team in his hometown either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 12, 2007 16:33:20 GMT -5
you could have started (and stopped) with "i don't know." you do realize that, when laying this stuff out, thats what your supposed to do? envision different scenarios, solve problems before they occur. thats the line of work i'm in, so thats probably why i troubleshoot everything as soon as i see it. i see more problems with this scenario than i see benefits. i'm just going by what bernie posted. his posts are gonna be as accurate as they come around here imo, so i'm taking it as fact right now. if he's wrong and my question is invalid, i hope he's able to point that out sooner rather than later. if it is valid and as many big-wigs read this as you say they do, i hope they realize they have time to do an about-face and change the playoff qualifications. i thought we were beyond this crap by now? why do i have to have a team to still be interested in the league? for the love of christ joe and scooter among other don't have a team anymore either yet they hold fab positions. why don't you chase them away gene? i hope this is the LAST TIME i see this as a response to someone asking questions or being critical, because the precedent has been set: the fab prez has no team in his hometown either. |
|
?
