well as a kicker if weather becomes a factor or something im absolutely screwed. my entire existence is based on whereever the wind takes me and if it hates me at a particular moment then well shit im missing way more kicks than i currently am (i'm bad this season). i think generally offense will be really restricted as a result. i would generally think that the need is a team with a good defensive line to prevent the run (as passes would be harder) and a nimble defense in general will be the most likely scenario. often times i think the problem with this is that it's kind of unfair and ruins the action of football.
also i play in yellowknife. if we have a winter game we are screwed. this is literally in the middle of nowhere in the northwest territories. if we dont freeze to death then it is a good day and all players will emit greenhouse gases and beg for global warming.
Well this one might be a pretty difficult PT. I mean how am I supposed to know how real weather would affect these teams I guess I can always speak from our standpoint and say that we'd probably still be losing but maybe have a better shot just because our team runs the ball a little bit more than other teams. Well just as I said that I look at the stats and I am dead wrong we actually throw the ball more than most everybody so the teams that would probably affect the most are going to be the New Orleans second line who rushed for 2108 yards and averaged 4.8 yards of carry in Philadelphia liberty he ran for 1839 yards and averaged 5.2 yards a carry and also have the most touchdowns of 21 so if we're looking at rain and snow typically it affects the passing game by having a slippery ball and tough grip for the quarterback whereas the running game can just rush through and play some Smash Mouth football in that in that mud so I would assume the top teams that rush the ball which include New Orleans Philadelphia Arizona Chicago and Baltimore would have the best shot at improving their stock whereas the bottom teams Colorado Sarasota Austin and Berlin would have a tough time because they throw the ball the most just my 2 cents.
Weather can definitely impact the game, however, any place with a dome would make the weather a non factor. Going on the assumption that no one plays in a dome, weather can be a advantage or disadvantage, depending on the team. Teams like Kansas City, Colorado, and Minnesota my have an advantage at home against a team like Dallas or Arizona, if they are playing in extreme cold or snow since those team don’t experience that kind of weather as much. Rain can make a game unpredictable, but can play to the favor of run heavy teams. Footing can be a challenge, catching gets more difficult, ball is slippery, so many areas of the game change with rain or snow. Even weather like strong winds in Chicago, add difficulty but could be an advantage to a home team. Plays like deep passes and FG/XP take an additional level of experience to know how to deal with it. All in all, weather can be a game changer and can even be the reason an underdog pulls out an upset.
It's easy for us to look at the ISFL and understand that as it stands, it's a picture perfect game every time the players step on the field. But our players aren't all playing in domes, and they're on teams spread out across a huge variety of climates. These climates would create a huge gap in the conditions from one location to the next, we would have to expect teams such as Yellowknife to be playing indoors, but maybe they could utilise the element of weather to their benefit. Given we have teams on both hemispheres, namely to Bondi Beach Buccaneers - even the seasons could be different, imagine travelling from a cold London winter to play under the scorching Australian summer sun? The impact on the game would be huge, to the extent that I'm not even sure that it could be represented in a fair way, but I would love to see a bit more variability in conditions games are played in to make things more exciting.