Jump to content

Talk:United Football League (2009–2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Please do not delete any external links for United Football League (2008) with out explaining your reasons on this talk page. If this edit happens again it will considered vandalism and you'll be blocked from editing. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page: "Standleylake40 is a member of UFLaccess.com and can't wait for the UFL". See WP:COI, I think that is a good enough reason. UFL Access is just a blog/fan site and doesn't conform to either WP:RS or WP:EL. Thanks. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued effort to CENSOR this page and wikipedia will be considered vandalism. The overall consensus is that the External Link in question is a relevent link and therefore should remain. If your edits are reverted more than 3 times you should accept it and move on. And if this link is agianst wikipedia policy then maybe the policy should be looked at. Standleylake40 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to get involved, but such a link is not appropriate and even if were, it would not be appropriate of a member of the site to add it due to risk of conflict of interest (Wikipedia has a clearly defined policy on this). There does not seem to be consensus at all, the only dissenting voice appears to be Standleylake40, and it is not censorship to remove something that is not appropriate or does not conform to clearly defined rules. Standleylake40, your work on the article is appreciated, but you should steer clear of adding anything related to UFL Access, or sourced exclusively from it, due to your involvement as it is only natural that you will have some bias in favor of it. You should find reliable third-party links/references from established news organizations, magazines, books, etc. Rameses The Ram (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before the Wikipedia Policy should be changed to allow "CREDIBLE" third-party fan news websites and blogs. News that was broken on UFLaccess.com have been sited by ESPN(and disscussed on several ESPN news programs), and confirmed by Bloomberg(twice). Jim Fassel has been confirmed by numrous sources as well as UFLaccess.com. UFLaccess.com doesn't require a membership to view news material and forums. Also i am not the only one that has reverted this more than once. I'm just saying that I will continue to revert whoever deletes this link. Standleylake40 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy exists => Link is spam. You have to abide by policy whether you like it or not. You are the vandal here. --Dave (32.134.1.196 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
UFLA has been referenced in this article several times, and has been sourced by the official league website and ESPN. It doesn't require a membership to view. I don't understand why this would't be considered a reliable source. I'm not promoting the site, it is the only website that is indepentdent of the league that provides News about the Leauge. Standleylake40 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

[edit]

Okay, IP guy and Standleylake40: Read WP:3RR and stop reverting each other. Of course, this hasn't taken place 3 times in 24 hours, but it is still edit warring and is a blockable offense (no matter who's right). Killiondude (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'll stop I have tried to mediate the situation several different ways, but it has still continued. The link is a reliable source. Plus lots of other articles have blogs on them. Standleylake40 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked up policy for this specific link. According to UFL Access's "About" page, they are not the "official" website for the UFL, and the site is pretty much a blog. I think this falls under #11 of WP:ELNO. That being said, it should not be added to the article unless you can prove that Billy Kirk meets notability requirements and is therefore a "recognized authority". As much as I agree that this external link might be useful to readers, policy says we shouldn't add it (unless it meets the exception I already mentioned). Killiondude (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but what can do? Standleylake40 has just added the link again and now I can't remove it even though it shouldn't be there. He/she is just flagrantly disregarding the external link policy. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't add it the last time, another user reverted it. Anyways, I just took it down. Killiondude (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon and Stanleylake40, why not look for good links with the reputation of something like ESPN or SI instead of edit warring over this. Killiondude seems correct when he says that it falls under #11 of the EL policy. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to look into this on my talk page, and I must agree with Killiondude's statement that this meets WP:ELNO #11. With the exception of these sorts of blogs being recognised by a recognised authority, they should not be added. This particular website is a totally unofficial site, and we have no reason to believe it's fact-checked or reliable. Therefore I agree with the removal. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Football League (2008) vs. just United Football League

[edit]

NO more need to have a year designation in article title. Cant change it though. Standleylake40 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should post a request asking if that's okay on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Killiondude (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Standleylake40 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be just linking any policy that comes to mind. There is already consensus that this breaks policy according to WP:ELNO. I would also very strongly caution you against reverting things (especially the same day your block for edit waring was lifted). Killiondude (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second Killiondude. In addition, you broke a link to a reliable source in your last edit. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to user Standleylake40 profile they are a user of UFLAccess.com and is not an impartial judge of what sites should be on the External links list. Therer are other other UFL resource sites that are just as good or even better in some ways than UFLAccess.com such as UFLFansite.com or TuskerHouse.com. User Standleylake40 does not seem to be impartial enough to make a decision as to which site(s) should be on the External Links list. In the meanwhile no sites should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.150.68 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of UFL

[edit]

I reverted the movement of the UFL disambiguation page since WP:DAB says the following with regard to a primary topic:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

At present, the United Football League (2009) is no more popular than most of the uses of "UFL", and in fact the University of Florida would hold greatest claim to have a redirect from "UFL". Indeed, the University of Florida is the top two hits in Google for "UFL" and most of the first page, at least where I'm located (which isn't Florida).

This may change in future, of course, but I imagine the league will at least have to have played some games and have more media coverage to achieve that sort of recognition from the general public. Hippopotamus (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ufl.com gets you a link to the Florida Gators web page, even after three UFL seasons. 75.252.65.141 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars (again)

[edit]

Okay you guys. This edit warring has to stop: adding and removing the word "major" from the first sentence. I'm pretty sure the 3RR has been broken due to this. Regardless of that, it is still edit warring and it is still a blockable offense. Bring the discussion here, do not change the page again about describing it as "major" league or not, otherwise I feel like an admin should be made aware of the offense(s). Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Major" was in the first sentence for over a month and no one complained about it being there. It has also been in the "Major" section of the "Gridiron Football" template for quite a long time. I agree that an administrator needs to come in and review this entire article and decide what does need to be here and what doesn't belong on this article. This is why we need Flagged Revisions, so that people don't make stupid or unnecessary edits, and instead we can have a qualified third party person decide what needs to be here or not. Standleylake40 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what Flagged Revisions is geared for... Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most biased article on Wikipedia

[edit]

This is the most one-sided biased article on Wikipidia. Most of the info is outdated or incorrect and it seems like the neutrality of this article can be questioned. Most of the refernces are coming from extremely uniformed people. Just because ESPN says it doesn't make it true. 198.243.2.61 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Colors

[edit]

Can somebody tell me who chose the colors for the UFL teams? Nothing has been reported for team colors,logos,jerseys, etc., and it puzzles me as to why the UFL colors aren't just neutral, instead of random colors. 67.175.158.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What are you referring to? Pats1 T/C 23:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/J._P._Losman

Why is the color on the template black? The UFL hasn't disclosed anything about team colors yet. 67.175.158.28 (talk)

Because black and white are as neutral of colors as you can get... Pats1 T/C 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affliation with NFL

[edit]

I dont think there should be any mention to competition with the NFL in the article. What does everyone else think? 172.192.96.207 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate thing to mention, as a reader unfamiliar with the league would want to know about the UFL's relationship to the NFL. The cited sources cover the range of discussion on the future nature of that relationship, which has yet to become firm one way or the other. It's clear to me from what I've read that, while the UFL is independant, few are looking at it as another major league, at least at this juncture. Discussion of how it may evolve is a key point that the article, in order to be complete, should cover. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Paul Tagliabue?

[edit]

Is there any reason to mention that one of the league's major investors was a collegiate roomate of Paul Tagliabue? As far as I know, Taliabue has no involvement with the league (correct me if I'm wrong) and a college roomate from decades ago hardly seems to be a relevant connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.32.57 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed.oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with the NFL section

[edit]

I moved this material into its own section and out of the intro in order to comply with WP:LEAD, which calls for the lead of an article to a)briefly introduce the subject and b)give a quick summary of the article. When the UFL-NFL material was consolidated by Pats1, it struck me that it did neither of the things a lead should do, as it didn't introduce the subject, nor was it a brief summary of a section in the article. In fact, it was the article's entire material on the topic.

Now, I just placed it at the end because I couldn't think of where else to put it. If anyone else has a better idea of where in the article it should go, go ahead and move it. oknazevad (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. My fix was a quick one; for some reason those NFL nuggets were mixed in with the team announcements. Pats1 T/C 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the name of the section, as the UFL has no relationship with the NFL. 172.190.228.88 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER, under any circumstances change what someone else has written on a talk page (including section headers)! It's simply dishonest, blatanly rude, and a gross violation wiki etiquette.
As for the section in the article, it entirely talks about the league in comparison to the NFL, including there intention to compete with them, or utter lack thereof, as they've mentioned on multiple occassions. All of which could be described using the word "relationship". The use of that does NOT mean that there is a formal affiliation or tie.
As a comparison, you and I have written to each other via a wikipedia talk page. That constitutes a relationship, despite not only having no formal familial ties (as far as I know), but never actually having met before (again, as far as I know). Though, based on your behaviour here, it's getting off to a rocky start.
So, in short, using "relationship" in the section header does not imply that there's a formal tie between the two leagues (and the text makes it clear that there's no formal affiliation). The use of the NFL name in the section header helps draw attention to the section, which covers an aspect of the league that an unfamiliar reader would want to know. The section barely even covers the quality of play, making the current header grossly inaccurate. And, finally, your pattern of editing shows to me a desire to push a POV that the UFL is a serious competitor to the NFL, when the league officials themselves don't describe it that way. Therefore, I'm changing the section header back. oknazevad (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with everything you just said. Under your definition of "Relationship" there hasnt been any formal or informal contact between the two leagues, therefore there is NO relationship. I have changed the section header to "Competition to the NFL". If you can come up with a better header, please feel free to change it. Also the "relationship to the NFL" header gives unimformed readers the false implication that the UFL is the NFL's D-league or a minor league to the NFL, which it is not. And as for us getting off on a rocky start, even if i am a "newb" or whatever to Wikipedia, I have as much of a right to state my opinion as you or anyone does. Standleylake40 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came off too strong there. I wasn't saying you can't state your opinion, just that you shouldn't change mine, which is what you inadvertantly did when you changed the heading of this talk page section.
That said, I disagree that the use of "relationship" implies formal ties. It does not imply that they are under the NFL. In fact, the word has a neutral connotation, which is appropriate for wikipedia. It just says that the section discusses how the leagues interact.
And there has been such interaction, even if informal. My source for that is UFL Commisioner Huyghue himself. During both of this week's gamecasts he was interviewed. In an interview for the NY-FLA pregame show he described the UFL as having a "cordial relationship" with the NFL. Those were his exact words, including the very word "relationship". Therefore, I believe it's entirely appropriate to use the word in the section header.
I also believe that the use of "competition" has a specific connotation that implies the UFL is somehow trying to be even, if not attempting to surpass the NFL. Not only does that promote a POV about the league, which is inappropriate considering the fairly balanced material in the section, but is pretty factually incorrect. UFL execs themselves have described the purpose of the league, from a players standpoint, as being a path back to the NFL, which is evidenced by the ability of UFL palyers to sign with NFL teams later in the season. The league is intended by it's founders to be complimentary, not as a competitor in the sense the AFL was in the 60s. I believe very strongly that the wikipedia article should reflect and report this role. Therefore "competition is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Comparisions with the NFL". I still think "relationship" gives the conitation that there is an official realationship between the two. This new title simply compares the two leagues. I also think "relationship" gives the POV that the UFL is bent on becoming the NFL's minor league. Standleylake40 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty good choice. Neutral in tone, and open to multiple interpretations. Actually, with that as a section header, we can rearrange the article to make the rules differences a subsection of the "Comparison" section, as that'd be part of a comparison. Yea! Wiki-colabortlation works!oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL is a major league

[edit]

Please someone explain to me why the UFL isnt a major league, while the XFL was clearly not a Major league, yet it is portrayed as such. Standleylake40 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayed by whom, where? (The XFL I mean) Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "major" league is a league of the highest level of competition. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS are all "major" leagues because they are the highest level you can play in for those respective sports. The UFL is not the highest level, as it runs itself independent of the NFL, which as stated, is the highest level. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tampa's puts it better and more succinctly than I could have, or did here, the talk page I meant to link to in my edit summary. While that may have been specifically about categorizing for the template, the same cat should be reflected in the text of this article. As such, I'm removing "major" here.oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source stating that the UFL is a "Major" league. If a source can not be found to challange this, then I beleive that the UFL should remain being called "Major". 172.190.66.66 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source, so we can verify it? —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a blog post at UFLAccess.com. No good per WP:RS on many levels. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its http://uflaccess.com/ufl/ufl-forest-for-the-trees/ You should check it out. 172.190.66.66 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's shameless self-promotion. How is that a reliable source again? Pats1 T/C 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already have, being I frequent the uflaccess.com boards. I actually know that it is not a reliable source.oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source never says the UFL is a major league. It says "it eventually will become" one, meaning it isn't one right now. Tampabay721 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UFL would only be considered a major league if they began to attempt to compete with the NFL for players, coaches, cities or TV deals. None of which the UFL has done. In fact, I don't have the link handy, but on UFLAccess.com, it was stated by the UFL, they wished to work in partnership with the NFL. This in itself shows that they want to take the place of NFL Europa and not compete with the NFL. Besides which, if they wanted to be a major league, they would lock their players up to long term contract without an escape clause. Instead, the players were allowed to jump to the NFL during training camp and were again allowed to jump after the season. To appear more "major league" at the very least, a clause like the CFL has where the option year is the only part of the contract that allows players to jump to the NFL, would help to justify its claim. I have read that the AFL in its early years was not considered a major league. Once the NFL and UFL are "at war" with each other than the claim can be justified. The UFL, much like the CFL (which would ruffle the feathers of many diehard CFL fans, but I am one that can admit it), is essentially AAA football. It is essentially the same level as the Pacific Coast League or International League for baseball. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CFL has an out because it's the top level of football in Canada, so it's arguably a major league, even though there's a drop-off in talent from the NFL. (Likewise, MLS is a major league, because it's the top soccer league in the US, even if it's below the English Premier League or other European top leagues.) There is no national border or import-player clause in play with the UFL. Until it attempts to go head-to-head against the NFL like the USFL did, the UFL is not a major league. (And yes, that's my $3 worth of opinion. :) ) —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested here are a few disscusions on UFLaccess.com.

-http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4403 -http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4189 -http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2632 -http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1473 -http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1314 -http://uflaccess.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4757 172.190.180.197 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're meaningless. Posters on a message board don't decide what is written here. Reliable third-party sources do; multiple in the case of something controversial like this. Pats1 T/C 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother reading the content of those posts and how they pertain to our conversation? 172.190.180.197 (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they don't matter. Nor does our opinion. That's original research. That's not how things work here. Pats1 T/C 03:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we determine the status of a Profesional Sports league? I don't see how the word "Indepedent" adds anything to someone looking at the page. The UFL is clearly "Major", it only signs players that have had previous NFL experience, and only coaches with NFL experience, infact one of the coaches(Jim Fassel) was the NFL coach of the year and coached in a Super Bowl. 3 of the coaches have been Head Coaches in the NFL. They have not once said officially or unofficially that would like to be a "minor" or "developmental" league to anyone. Also UFLaccess.com is a very "RELIABLE" third-party source. In Oknezevad's case, he is hardly a frequent user on UFLaccess.com, totaling only 32 posts, while i am also a "frequent" user and I total over 1000 posts and have been a member since 2008. The UFLaccess.com has been advertised at UFL games, including the Championship game, Ralph Vuono(the VP of Marketing for the UFL) is a member of the site, as well as New York Sentinels starting QB Quinn Gray. UFLaccess.com also host a radio show that frequently interviews top UFL player and coachs, the commisioner has even appeared on the show. The fact is that UFLaccess.com is not only a reliable source, it may be the only reliable source for or about league. 172.190.180.197 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, posters on a message board are NEVER reliable sources, no matter if they have one post or a million posts. They're nameless and there's absolutely zero editorial hierarchy in place; anybody can post anything they want, whether it's true or not, and most of the time it's just their opinion. You have obviously never read WP:V. The fact that an executive for the league is a member of the site makes it a LESS reliable source, because it is no longer third party. Again, you have obviously never read WP:V. As far as the UFL signing only "players with previous NFL experience," that is dead wrong too. They signed dozens of players without NFL experience. The bottom line is, UFLAccess.com (by extension, you) are out to promote the UFL and thus do not act as a third party source. This is not what Wikipedia is about; this is not free advertising for the league. We want a balanced article backed up by third-party, neutral, reliable sources. Pats1 T/C 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is UFLaccess.com's editorial policy? Who reviews articles for accuracy and fact-checking, and what are their credentials? —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we determined that the UFL is NOT a major league because of the definition that I provided at the top of this section. The UFL is undeniably NOT the highest level of football right now, so it can not be called a major league. Just because the UFL was made up of players and coaches who have played in the NFL does NOT make it a major league. By that logic, minor league baseball would be a major league because the teams are somewhat composed of players who have played in MLB. The UFL is NOT a minor league either, because that implies some sort of affiliation with the NFL, which it does not have directly. For example, Triple-A (baseball) is a minor league because those teams are affiliated with MLB teams, as well as teams in Double-A or Single-A. Teams in the Atlantic League or Frontier League are independent leagues, because they have no affiliation with MLB. They operate on their own. That is why the UFL should be refered to as an independent league, because they operate seperate from the NFL. The last section of this page addresses this here. Secondly, your first source did not ever say that the UFL was a major league. All the other sources you have provided are posts made in a message board. I don't know a damn thing about uflaccess.com, but what I do know is that web forum posts are NOT reliable sources, and I know this because that is the policy of wikipedia, not mine or anyone else's opinion here. You can go here and see that web forum posts are not acceptable as sources on wikipedia. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Teams

[edit]

The New York Sentinels are not a former team. They were relocated, same players, same ownership, just a different city. CJS Wiki (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFL Access (again, it appears)

[edit]
  • It looked like there was consensus earlier on this talk page that UFL Access should not appear in the external links, but it does now appear there. Is it now a reliable source? What has changed? - 65.190.197.185 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website is copyrighted by the UFL. That at least gives it some official standing. A casual look suggests it is a valid resource to readers and is appropriate for inclusion in the external links section.
    • I would agree, but the branding doesn't seem consistent and the domain is not registered to the league, unlike their official site. The "about" page also does not mention UFL ownership or endorsement. The copyright notice therefore seems incorrect. 65.190.197.185 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not owned by the league, CFred's wrong.
That said, as the one who reverted the removal, I had two reasons. Firstly, as you asked, something indeed has changed. Nation Hahn (and yes, that's his real name), one of the site's co-founders has been hired by the league as its "Director of Digital Media". While that means he no longer has an ownership stake in UFLAccess, he remains a frequent poster and therefore the site is a top source of league news. Secondly, the link has been on the page without removal for some months, making it an example, in my mind, of consensus by silence, which may be a different result than the above conversation, but consensus can change.oknazevad (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of CFL salary.

[edit]

The page says "At $6,000 per game, this is roughly on par with the average per-game salaries in the Canadian Football League" How is this accurate? The CFL min. salary for a vet is $35,000. Average is higher than that, easily twice that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.176.75 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is $35,000 per game? Pats1 T/C 17:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum in the CFL is 41 000 Canadian per season, which, by my calculations, just doing some quick math here, yes, now carry the 1... is about 41 000 US. http://199.246.67.21/cfl/story/?id=297990 Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The average salary in the CFL is about 100 grand per year, divided by 18 games that is 5 555.55 a game. (The dollars are at par so no need to convert). There are 18 games in a year in the CFL, the salary cap is about 4.2 million a team and there are about 40 guys per roster. Most teams spend at, or over, the cap. Per game, on par with the UFL, but per season no. This whole thing is getting rather original researchy anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Championship

[edit]

I suggest that we create a seperate article for the UFL Championship just as how the Super Bowl has its own article. I don't think we should do this until after the 2010 season. ---Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.201.218 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry?

[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include information in necessary UFL and team-related articles and templates for a Tuskers-Locos rivalry (such as the "rivalries" parameter on Template:Florida Tuskers) based on this UFL article? Honestly, I don't know how heated a rivalry can be in a league that is in the midst of their second season, but I thought I'd ask for some other opinions before making any changes. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's the closest thing to a real rivalry the league has (especially as the only two teams to still be the ssame teams as last year), it is a bit too soon to add info on it, I think.oknazevad (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Second-highest level"?

[edit]

Claiming that the UFL is the "second-highest level of American football in the United States" is quite a big claim, and I highly doubt there are any reliable sources out there that actually say this. I understand that the wording was something of a compromise among editors, but this can't trump verifiability. Until such a source is located, this claim needs to stay out of the article. Simply saying it's a "professional American football league" is enough to describe what the league is and does. --Cúchullain t/c 14:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was restored without comment; I removed it again.Cúchullain t/c 18:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the UFL still a going concern?

[edit]

The article mentions the season being shortened, and the title game being moved up. However, I did not see any results from said title game. I tried using the league's website, but everything I clicked on on the main page led me to an error page. Has the league gone out of business? If so can someone update the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.5.2 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC) There are no plans to resurrect the league for the spring of 2013 or it would have been done already. The UFL is dead. They won't announce it as such, but no news is dead league news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.65.161 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry section?

[edit]

I suggest at this point a rivalry section for the Las Vegas Locomotives and Virginia Destroyers be created, as they have played in the championship game against each other for all three years of the league. They seem to have a well developed rivalry that deserves at least some mention in the article. —Bzweebl— talk 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be? The Destroyers didn't even exist prior to 2011. Check closely, and you'll learn that the Locos won their two championships by defeating the Tuskers, which are not considered for recordkeeping purposes to be exactly the same team, even though admittedly many of the former Tuskers players and staff wound up with league approval on the Destroyers after the Tuskers franchise was disbanded. 75.201.240.128 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the timeline. They are the same team. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline specifically created for a Wikipedia article is a definitive, reliable source? At any rate, the whole concept of rivalries seems premature in that at present there is no way that any of the teams could have played another more than seven times and I think that in reality the limit is six, so the questions seem, for now, to be moot. 75.200.219.251 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not "relatively" major, what is it?

[edit]

OK, it's not the NFL. But as the last line is now edited, the sentence is untrue, as both the old UFL (1961-1964) and the Continental Football League (1965-1969) both lasted longer, as has the Empire League. But all of these were more or less explicitly minor leagues. The attempts to do more than this since 1960 which weren't the National Football League nor the American Football League but actually took the field and played actual games were the World Football League, the United States Football League, and the XFL. The UFL has outlasted all of these. Of course, if worldwide is taken into consideration, arguably NFL Europe/NFL Europa would perhaps qualify, but it was an explicitly developmental league, so much so that the players' helmets had minature logos of the teams that held their NFL rights on their backs. The UFL admits to being less than the NFL, but nonetheless has consistently tried to be national, pursuing (and now landing) a national cable broadcast contract, for example. "Minor leagues" are not generally broadcast on national cable networks, at least not their regular season games. 75.201.240.128 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cuban and the UFL

[edit]

Was Cuban an "investor" or a creditor? The cited sources say that he "invested" $5 million in the league, implying an equity investment, but then later references say that he sued for the repayment of a "$5 million loan", implying indebtedness to him. This does not seem to be consistent, so is there a more definitive source that we haven't put into the article yet which will clarify this? If there is such, I don't know about it. 75.200.219.251 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

With the infobox stating that the league ceased this year, and with the 2012 season being canceled abruptedly, should this page be renamed to United Football League (2009–2012)? ZappaOMati 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know is months later, but since the spring 2013 season didn't happen (being late May now), I say rename it and declare it dead. LionMans Account (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. With no qualms, as none of the former league sites are actively maintained, nor has there been anything whatsoever. No official closing notice, but frankly that's the sort of embarrassment they likely would try to avoid (especially since they seem to still owe a bunch of money. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Football League (2009–12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United Football League (2009–12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Football League (2009–12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United Football League (2009–12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so new development about wages owed to Dennis green

[edit]

This happened roughly 19 months ago. Ranma9617 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuskers and Destroyers

[edit]

At various points in the article these are treated both as distinct and the same. Which is it? Whatever the situation, the descriptions need to be harmonized.--Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: I will refer you to Talk:Virginia Destroyers#Merge with Tuskers first as that is where the main discussion took place (so maybe Cuchullain, Spshu, and JMyrleFuller could give their own input here). It has to do with the way independent sources treat them. While the league officially considered them separate franchises (Virginia was approved as the sixth franchise before Orlando folded), because of the roster transfer many sources at the time called it a continuation. I would have no problem if you WP:BOLDly made those changes more precise with the notation of what independent reliable sources have considered the teams. Though, Florida Tuskers should probably be split out from Virginia Destroyers before that. Yosemiter (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revived United Football League and the 1960s league - possible article merge?

[edit]

Hello all. So I'm in the midst of working through that backlog at articles for creation and a draft for Draft:United Football League (2022) came up, purporting to be a continuation of both United Football League (1961–1964) and United Football League (2009–2012), information that I can't verify in any of the articles here. If that's the case, and the new iteration of the team has the trademark of last decade's league (like with the United States Football League (2022)), then in my mind it makes more sense to merge all three articles together into one coherent narrative. Though I do understand the supposed consensus around creating articles for each league rebirth, as shown above with the USFL. Feel free to ping me with responses. Bkissin (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin: As far as I can tell, they are all completely unrelated to each other. The names are so generic, they are easily re-used. (Similar to the many "re-launches" of the USFL, the 2022 version is an "in-name-only" relaunch with no direct connections to the old. Not to mention, I think this is the third or fourth attempt at a "re-launch".) I can't find any WP:V about a 2022 UFL, I am wondering if the draft creator is confusing it with the USFL. Yosemiter (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The defunct leagues are unrelated outside of the second recycling the name. And Yosemiter is right, the author of the draft is making an error. And, no articles for leagues recycling names of old leagues in any sport should ever be merged, either. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it further, the draft outright lies, misrepresenting sources to make false promotional claims and placing refs to make it look like they support claims that are not in those refs. The single-purpose account that created the draft is a clear COI case. The draft should be deleted as a hoax. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I couldn't find a single reference about a 2022 UFL, not even a fake social media twitter/facebook/myspace etc. for it. I assumed it was confusion with the USFL relaunch, until the editor went ahead and tried to merge the two leagues themselves, definitely not confusion now. Although, it does remind me a bit of the initial launch of the National Gridiron League (United States) where it launched with a very familiar logo. There is value in brand familiarity, but it does not mean there are any actual connections between two entities that choose to use the same brand. Yosemiter (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin and Oknazevad: Following up on this, the National Gridiron League (United States) has re-launched with a a new website making the same BS claims as the draft (as in word for word). As the website and social media were just launched earlier this month, the draft creator is likely a COI for this scammy league. Yosemiter (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Football_League_(2009–2012)&oldid=1212958846"