NFL will begin testing for human growth hormone on Monday

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The NFL will begin testing for human growth hormone on Monday, according to NFL Media's Albert Breer, per a source briefed on the situation.

The league and the NFL Players Association announced an agreement on a new drug policy on Sept. 19 that included HGH testing for the first time ever.

"As you know, the new Performance Enhancing Substances Policy includes HGH testing. Testing for HGH will begin on Monday, October 6th," NFLPA president Eric Winston said in a letter to players. "Each week of the season, 5 players on 8 teams will be tested. No testing will occur on game days. We negotiated to ensure that the methodology of testing be conducted in the most professional and safest manner for players. Importantly, after three years of negotiating, players won the right to challenge any aspect of the science behind the HGH isoforms test in an appeal of a positive test."

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000404929/article/nfl-will-begin-testing-for-human-growth-hormone-on-monday

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I wonder if the Seahawks will have anymore winning seasons?

[Joel]

I hope this isn't the NFLs last straw, and that the League has at least some notion of what they'll find (assuming tests are serious and effective, a big assumption: Ask Lance Armstrong.) We already know CTE often causes irritability and loss of self-control that produce violent tendencies, as do steroids, and amphetamines like Adderall (which Dick Sherman publicly declared "half the league's on" after his positive test.) Throw in a rash of HGH positives and I'd have to ask: Is there anything the NFL's NOT doing do encourage player killing sprees—and make perpetrators as physically overwhelming as possible!

It doesn't have to be this way; players 30 years ago weren't getting arrested for assault and murder or committing suicide every week, and plenty of pre-merger players remained clear-headed, articulate and rational throughout long lives after retirement. Something changed in the post-Rozelle NFL, something bigger than any one major issue like CTE or 'roid-rage. A confluence of major events the NFL largely ignored for the sake of the biggest profits of any sport on earth is replacing the respected media idol status of players with public perception of them as public MENACES.

[LawDog]

Joel, you're painting with an extremely broad brush here. Not all "substances" produce the symptoms you are describing and attributing to them, and certainly not every athlete will have a similar reaction - both short and long term.

[Dzone]

HGH can only be detected within 48 hours post injection. After that everything returns to baseline. And its not HGH that is tested for its a spike in IgF 1 , which is a protein produced by the liver in the presence of HGH. False positives can be attributed to other factors. HGH testing is easy to beat.

[Joel]

That's true, some PEDs don't increase irritability while decreasing judgement and self-control —but MOST do, whether it's the hyperactivity and paranoia that go with abusing speed (including Adderall) or the aggression and impulsiveness that goes with overdosing on testosterone and related hormones. It's not like the countless 'roid-rage "victims" over the decades had their choice of PEDs that increase muscle WITHOUT altering mood but deliberately CHOSE those that turned them into psychopaths.

It's tragic the only lesson learned in the 20 years since Alzados death is "we need better dope." But there's no indisputable PROOF steroids, HGH and the rest caused his tumor, Armstrongs or any of the others, and correlation's not causation, so keep moving; nothing to see here—which is pretty much what the NFL's been saying about concussion induced brain damage since the early '50s: How credible is the League Office now? Do we NEED hard proof to believe HORMONES for human GROWTH cause uncontrollable cell GROWTH in SEX ORGANS? Causation is exactly what's on the tin.

What really worries me is the probability we're about to get a brutal reminder why policy changes like these are typically done in the offseason when players have time to react: They can't do that in Week 5.

[chazoe60]

I'm with Joel. I think the NFL is breeding a race of ultra violent super humans who will one day take over the world.

[Joel]

I'm with Joel. I think the NFL is breeding a race of ultra violent super humans who will one day take over the world.
You may laugh, but how much of the general public IS thinking EXACTLY that after all the CTE and PED revelations compounded by the seeming inability to go even a WEEK without at least one player making headlines for ripping out a family members heart and eating it raw. "STARTING DEFENSE!! PLACE AT THE TABLE!!"

[MOtorboat]

You may laugh, but how much of the general public IS thinking EXACTLY that after all the CTE and PED revelations compounded by the seeming inability to go even a WEEK without at least one player making headlines for ripping out a family members heart and eating it raw. "STARTING DEFENSE!! PLACE AT THE TABLE!!"

Not many give a shit anymore, honestly.

[Simple Jaded]

I knew it, Hannibal Lecter suffered from CTE.

[Joel]

Not many give a shit anymore, honestly.
Right; that's why TV ratings with men peaked 5 years ago and youth football's not much better despite Play 60s naked attempt to start building next generations pros. Maybe if moms will sign those parental consent forms if we add some more pink to the field; there's probably not quite enough yet (and who doesn't miss wondering whether the pink cloth on the field is a players towel or penalty?)

There's a real multi-faceted crisis here that makes the MLB baseball strike and Senate steroid testimony look like small potatoes. People definitely care if living next door to an NFL player increases their chance of being murdered, and parents care if playing the game increases their kids chance of becoming murderers, suicides and/or drooling idiots. No players=no football.

[MOtorboat]

Right; that's why TV ratings with men peaked 5 years ago and youth football's not much better despite Play 60s naked attempt to start building next generations pros. Maybe if moms will sign those parental consent forms if we add some more pink to the field; there's probably not quite enough yet (and who doesn't miss wondering whether the pink cloth on the field is a players towel or penalty?)

There's a real multi-faceted crisis here that makes the MLB baseball strike and Senate steroid testimony look like small potatoes. People definitely care if living next door to an NFL player increases their chance of being murdered, and parents care if playing the game increases their kids chance of becoming murderers, suicides and/or drooling idiots. No players=no football.

LOL. I don't know what ratings you're looking at, but you're wrong.

[Simple Jaded]

The NFL still has the untapped talent gold mine in Japan and Europe, amirite?

[Joel]

LOL. I don't know what ratings you're looking at, but you're wrong.
Hasn't been long since we did this: After falling in 2011 and AGAIN in 2012, the NFLs TV ratings rebounded ~5% last year: Still lower than before the decline. And buried in Keith Olbermanns smug overview of South Parks season premier was his note that male ratings peaked in 2009. I haven't vetted his claim, but it's consistent with what I've seen from Nielsen since the players lockout.

Saying, "you're wrong," just 'cause it's me doesn't change the numbers.


The NFL still has the untapped talent gold mine in Japan and Europe, amirite?
It's working OK for baseball, but if we want fans or players from Europe we'll have to stop sending them our gargabe and charging them premium prices to see it in person.

[MOtorboat]

Hasn't been long since we did this: After falling in 2011 and AGAIN in 2012, the NFLs TV ratings rebounded ~5% last year: Still lower than before the decline. And buried in Keith Olbermanns smug overview of South Parks season premier was his note that male ratings peaked in 2009. I haven't vetted his claim, but it's consistent with what I've seen from Nielsen since the players lockout.

Saying, "you're wrong," just 'cause it's me doesn't change the numbers.


It's working OK for baseball, but if we want fans or players from Europe we'll have to stop sending them our gargabe and charging them premium prices to see it in person.

The number of viewers for the Super Bowl continues to rise, and it still is the 21 most viewed events ever:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts_in_Amer ica

This doesn't substantiate anything you're saying, in fact it completely contradicts your claim:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/11/07/halfway-through-season-nfl-has-18-of-the-most-watched-tv-programs-since-sept-5/

Wildcard weekend set records. Again:
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/08/nfl-tv-ratings-nbc-cbs-espn-fox-playoffs/

Even the Ray Rice scandal, with so much outrage, hasn't stopped people from watching in record numbers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/sports/football/tv-ratings-soar-amid-nfls-woes.html

The overall, underlying point is that even if NFL ratings peak and decline from week to week during the regular season, prime time games and big match ups still are the most watched TV event of the week, by far. That means that even with peaks and valleys, your claims about the TV ratings don't mean very much in the grand scheme of things.

Likewise, the TV contracts, based on ratings, continue to escalate. If what you were saying had any truth, the contracts would rapidly decline.

So, yes. You are wrong. Not because you're you, but because you are wrong.

In terms of your baseball suppositions, MLB taps those areas because the talent is playing baseball there, and at a high level. That's not happening with football. The NFL would have to have 15-20 years of academies to draw anyone out of those countries at this point.

Now...HGH a testing begins today.

[weazel]

wow I thought they would wait to start testing to give the players a chance to stop using for a while. I wonder if it is surprise testing or if they are letting them know in advance to get their clean urine ready

[Joel]

The number of viewers for the Super Bowl continues to rise, and it still is the 21 most viewed events ever:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts_in_Amer ica

This doesn't substantiate anything you're saying, in fact it completely contradicts your claim:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/11/07/halfway-through-season-nfl-has-18-of-the-most-watched-tv-programs-since-sept-5/

Wildcard weekend set records. Again:
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/08/nfl-tv-ratings-nbc-cbs-espn-fox-playoffs/

Even the Ray Rice scandal, with so much outrage, hasn't stopped people from watching in record numbers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/sports/football/tv-ratings-soar-amid-nfls-woes.html

The overall, underlying point is that even if NFL ratings peak and decline from week to week during the regular season, prime time games and big match ups still are the most watched TV event of the week, by far. That means that even with peaks and valleys, your claims about the TV ratings don't mean very much in the grand scheme of things.

Likewise, the TV contracts, based on ratings, continue to escalate. If what you were saying had any truth, the contracts would rapidly decline.

So, yes. You are wrong. Not because you're you, but because you are wrong.

In terms of your baseball suppositions, MLB taps those areas because the talent is playing baseball there, and at a high level. That's not happening with football. The NFL would have to have 15-20 years of academies to draw anyone out of those countries at this point.

Now...HGH a testing begins today.
Even YOU admitted "A 2% decrease in ratings " before hand-waving it (as usual) with "still... blows away any other television program that has EVER aired. Walking even THAT back now...? http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/590661-NFL-fines-Pete-Carroll-Seahawks?p=2221099#post2221099

We're not talking about "decline from week to week during the regular season," YOU'RE talking about week to week gains (to the exclusion of losses) and citing the postseason (when interest's naturally at its peak) to deny the SEASON PERCENTAGE. "HALFWAY THROUGH THE SEASON NFL broadcasts got more viewers than non-NFL broadcasts THIS YEAR"? How's THAT a trendline?! Comparing FULL SEASONS to other FOOTBALL seasons—as a percentage of viewers, not raw totals from a fast-growing population—paints a far darker picture.

Except in October, when that picture's pink; the NFL's not falling over itself for breast cancer and Play 60 just because it dotes on women and cute little kids: Its ratings aren't just flat, but DECLINING, and however much true-believers dismiss 2% declines as marginal, ANY decline is bad, and ominous if it becomes a trend—which it has:

The NFLs SHARE of SEASON ratings fell 2% in 2011, and ESPNs drop almost hit double digits (9.6%)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/nfl-tv-ratings-fell-this-season-with-espn-suffering-9-6-decline.html

The NFLs SHARE of SEASON ratings fell MORE in 2012, by 5% from the deflated 2011 number according to Nielsen, which said there were nearly a MILLION LESS TOTAL VIEWERS each week. http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-caps-another-powerhouse-season-146305

It rebounded some last year; great: 95% of 98% of x=93%, and NFL ratings didn't climb 7% last season.

Human growth hormone and other violence-inducing PEDs are one big reason; so is violence-inducing brain damage turning players into vegetables or psychopaths decades after retirement. Overcoming the PR damage of Ray Rice knocking out his fiancee on camera, pics of the welts AP put on his 4-year-old and Dwyer injuring his toddler while breaking his wifes nose for refusing sex will take a pink FIELD plus a Play OT campaign. South Park takes shots at everyone, but the NFL's earned theirs, and comics aren't the only ones noticing.

Here's Olbermanns video citing The Hollywood Reporters claims male ratings peaked in 2009 (it's at ~1:20.) That's on the heels of him noting the widely discussed big name sponsors bailing on the NFL; Anheuser-Busch led the way (and when the biggest sponsor of the NFL and DUIs seizes the moral highground, the League's in trouble) but others followed in abandoning sponsorship of the NFLs signature "make chicks watch games" initiative: Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The NFLs brand is so nationally toxic even fighting breast cancer's not enough to justify associating with it. And HGH abuse is a big part of that, though only one of many big parts.

[Joel]

wow I thought they would wait to start testing to give the players a chance to stop using for a while. I wonder if it is surprise testing or if they are letting them know in advance to get their clean urine ready
Yeah, like I say, we may soon get a harsh reminder why these changes are usually made in the offseason when players have time to wean themselves off like they can't do midseason. Guess we'll know in a week or two; it helps that the NFL can't publicly specify what busted players tested positive for, so they can (and do) always plead false positives and doctors notes as excuses.

[Simple Jaded]

I couldn't give a **** less about fans and players in Europe, last thing I need is more pompous new fans falling in love with garbage players and telling me what's best for "our" team.

[MOtorboat]

Here's the conclusion from the article you posted that is headlined: NFL Caps Another Powerhouse Season


If the NFL didn’t gain much traction in 2012, the deliveries were leagues ahead of anything else on the tube. And the ratings growth versus just a few years ago is remarkable. Per Nielsen, the 2008 regular season averaged 14.6 million viewers, 2 million shy (or -12 percent) compared to this year. In the four-year period, HH ratings have improved 12 percent, while the 18-49 demo has grown 11 percent.

So, if we use your argument, a 2 percent decline from the massive increases from 2009 is negligible. The game isn't declining in popularity. HGH testing won't make it decline, either. Players beating their wives won't make it decline either.

Do us all a favor and take your viewership somewhere else.

[ShaneFalco]

**** this thread im about to pass out

[Joel]

Here's the conclusion from the article you posted that is headlined: NFL Caps Another Powerhouse Season

So, if we use your argument, a 2 percent decline from the massive increases from 2009 is negligible. The game isn't declining in popularity. HGH testing won't make it decline, either. Players beating their wives won't make it decline either.

Do us all a favor and take your viewership somewhere else.
A STEADY decline from the 2009 peak (and who said its growth was "massive," the All Is Well narrative that requires that?) Total viewers is up (except when it's down,) but let's keep some perspective. Romney outpolled Reagans '84 TOTAL by 7 million in 2012—but US population grew a LOT in between, so what was good enough for a 49 state landslide 30 years ago is only good enough for second place now. The Leagues popularity has fallen by every measureable standard. It's not me you must convince, but parents of future players, and sponsors.

[MOtorboat]

A STEADY decline from the 2009 peak (and who said its growth was "massive," the All Is Well narrative that requires that?) Total viewers is up (except when it's down,) but let's keep some perspective. Romney outpolled Reagans '84 TOTAL by 7 million in 2012—but US population grew a LOT in between, so what was good enough for a 49 state landslide 30 years ago is only good enough for second place now. The Leagues popularity has fallen by every measureable standard. It's not me you must convince, but parents of future players, and sponsors.

From the article you quoted as your proof that the NFL is in decline:


And the ratings growth versus just a few years ago is remarkable.

GROWTH.

You're wrong. Have fun with your delusion.

[MOtorboat]

That article is also nearly three years old, so 2009 was only two seasons before that. The 2013 and 2014 numbers far surpassed both.

[Joel]

That article is also nearly three years old, so 2009 was only two seasons before that. The 2013 and 2014 numbers far surpassed both.
Not in the core male fanbase, according to The Hollywood Reporter. But they made up with soccer moms and 12-year-olds, so no one need fear "more pompous new fans falling in love with garbage players and telling me what's best for 'our' team." Except pics of kids and women NFL players beat up won't help much with those new casual viewers who don't shell out for season tickets or jerseys regardless.

Yeah, todays ratings are higher than a decade ago—but it's not a decade ago NOW. I'd hate to see basketball take over as Americas Pasttime, but it's easy to envision. Let's see how these tests go, though it's hard to think of any positive possible. Maybe stadia can have updated "It's been __ days since our last positive drug test" signs.

[MOtorboat]

Not in the core male fanbase, according to The Hollywood Reporter. But they made up with soccer moms and 12-year-olds, so no one need fear "more pompous new fans falling in love with garbage players and telling me what's best for 'our' team." Except pics of kids and women NFL players beat up won't help much with those new casual viewers who don't shell out for season tickets or jerseys regardless.

Yeah, todays ratings are higher than a decade ago—but it's not a decade ago NOW. I'd hate to see basketball take over as Americas Pasttime, but it's easy to envision. Let's see how these tests go, though it's hard to think of any positive possible. Maybe stadia can have updated "It's been __ days since our last positive drug test" signs.

You certainly are kidding, right?

The NFL averages 16.8 million viewers for every game.

The NBA averages 8 million (or half as less) for playoff games.

It's not even close. Even if the 18-45 male demo has dropped a percent or two.

[Pudge]

Why do people still read Joels posts?

[Joel]

You certainly are kidding, right?

The NFL averages 16.8 million viewers for every game.

According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, the 101 games televised nationally over the course of the 2012 campaign averaged 16.6 million total viewers, marking a decline of 5 percent versus the year-ago 17.5 million.
So "growth" of 200,000 viewers/week the last 2 years didn't even pace population growth—and was still nearly a MILLION less than the 2011 average, itself slightly lower than 2010 averages.

The NBA averages 8 million (or half as less) for playoff games.

It's not even close. Even if the 18-45 male demo has dropped a percent or two.
Is the NBA average growing (ACTUALLY growing, not "16.8>17.4—no, really!")? Baseball used to sell more tickets and get more TV ratings than the NFL, too, and it took the NFL a long time to become the NEW National Pasttime: But it happened. Mainly because instead of getting complacent and rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while insisting the band play on to prevent panic, Rozelle took several innovative risks (i.e. the Super Bowl and MNF) that paid off handsomely. Goodells pink fields, Play 60 and vague empty promises to "do more" aren't the same.

[MOtorboat]

The NFL is failing. The Broncos are 0-4 with the worst offense in the history of the league. The NBA is the rising power. And the Oilers are no more.

I guess it's time to hang up the football cleats, Joel.

[GEM]

A STEADY decline from the 2009 peak (and who said its growth was "massive," the All Is Well narrative that requires that?) Total viewers is up (except when it's down,) but let's keep some perspective. Romney outpolled Reagans '84 TOTAL by 7 million in 2012—but US population grew a LOT in between, so what was good enough for a 49 state landslide 30 years ago is only good enough for second place now. The Leagues popularity has fallen by every measureable standard. It's not me you must convince, but parents of future players, and sponsors.

So he proves your numbers wrong and you change the argument.

If you hate the Broncos play so much and you hate everything the NFL stands for....why do you watch?

[olathebroncofan]

Any one hat caught yet

[Joel]

So he proves your numbers wrong and you change the argument.

If you hate the Broncos play so much and you hate everything the NFL stands for....why do you watch?
No, my argument is what it always was: A STEADY decline of ratings SHARE since 2010; Olbermann just extended it to 2009 via The Hollywood Reporter. NOTHING MO linked refutes—and most of it supports—that claim, which Nielsen already documented. Even his links say average viewers were 16.8 mil/week last year: Is that more or less than the 17.4 mil/week in 2010? To use his word, it's only "negligibly" more than the 16.6 mil/week in 2012, and that was 2 years ago; there are 6 million more Americans now, but only 200,000 more watching football: Share rising or falling?

I love the Broncos and everything the NFL stands for: That's precisely why I don't want the league to collapse under the weight of owner greed and player hubris, or the Broncos to end up an also ran because they CAN'T run, even though it's the most an offenses most basic skill. Does a murder trials prosecutor hate the victim, or the perpetrator? Have you been giving Hillman Hell the past two years because you hate football and the Broncos, or because you hated his detriment to a sport and team you love?

If someone who "loves" giving ME Hell thinks 16.8-17.4>0, that's just fuzzy math; doesn't change the ratings trend that's been down the last 5 years or the fact that's what I said from the START.

[Joel]

Any one hat caught yet
They test 40 players/week, probably not all on Monday, and it's... 8PM on the East Coast? I'd be surprised by any public announcements within 12 hours (at most) of a positive.

At 40 players/week for the next 12 weeks though, that's 480 of (roughly) 1700 players at seasons end though, so I'll be shocked if no one pops by then. If DZone's right it's only detectable for 48 hrs, the NFLs agreement not to test on game day may save some guys, but it's not like they can just mainline HGH each Saturday and roar through games to the Pro Bowl.

[MOtorboat]

No, my argument is what it always was: A STEADY decline of ratings SHARE since 2010; Olbermann just extended it to 2009 via The Hollywood Reporter. NOTHING MO linked refutes—and most of it supports—that claim, which Nielsen already documented. Even his links say average viewers were 16.8 mil/week last year: Is that more or less than the 17.4 mil/week in 2010? To use his word, it's only "negligibly" more than the 16.6 mil/week in 2012, and that was 2 years ago; there are 6 million more Americans now, but only 200,000 more watching football: Share rising or falling?

I love the Broncos and everything the NFL stands for: That's precisely why I don't want the league to collapse under the weight of owner greed and player hubris, or the Broncos to end up an also ran because they CAN'T run, even though it's the most an offenses most basic skill. Does a murder trials prosecutor hate the victim, or the perpetrator? Have you been giving Hillman Hell the past two years because you hate football and the Broncos, or because you hated his detriment to a sport and team you love?

If someone who "loves" giving ME Hell thinks 16.8-17.4>0, that's just fuzzy math; doesn't change the ratings trend that's been down the last 5 years or the fact that's what I said from the START.

17.4 to 16.6 to 16.8 doesn't show any sort of "STEADY" decline. It shows a remarkably small and insignificant fluctuation and represents the largest number of average viewers per game for ANYTHING ON TV, by a wide margin. Also keep in mind that that is the ONLY number you can refer to to make it sound like viewership is decreasing. The 2015 playoffs set records in the wild card round.

Contrast that to NBA playoff games only averaging 8 million, and I think you can see just how dumb it is to say it's somehow losing popularity to other sports. It's also remarkably dumb, considering every article you read talks about record viewership for individual games is occurring each year (including the articles you're posting as "proof" of your delusion), and Super Bowl viewership accounts for the Top 21 most viewed TV events in history. Also take note that Super Bowl viewership has increased every year the last seven, except for one year, and it's still over 150 million people watching.

[Joel]

17.4 to 16.6 to 16.8 doesn't show any sort of "STEADY" decline. It shows a remarkably small and insignificant fluctuation and represents the largest number of average viewers per game for ANYTHING ON TV, by a wide margin. Also keep in mind that that is the ONLY number you can refer to to make it sound like viewership is decreasing. The 2015 playoffs set records in the wild card round.

Contrast that to NBA playoff games only averaging 8 million, and I think you can see just how dumb it is to say it's somehow losing popularity to other sports. It's also remarkably dumb, considering every article you read talks about record viewership for individual games is occurring each year (including the articles you're posting as "proof" of your delusion), and Super Bowl viewership accounts for the Top 21 most viewed TV events in history. Also take note that Super Bowl viewership has increased every year the last seven, except for one year, and it's still over 150 million people watching.
Thought we weren't talking "week to week"? So why talk about ONE GAME per year that just happens to be GLOBALLY broadcast, unlike anything except the World Cup Final every FOUR years? And half a MILLION people (initially nearly twice that) is "insignificant"? We're only talking about 17.4 million BEFORE the decline, but ANY decline (or even plateauing) means America's growing but the NFLs share of its audience isn't. I bet more people watch this years World Series than watched in 1960; does that mean MLB still as popular as then?

All that said, it turns out there's a Wikipedia page for NBA Nielsen ratings, and it's no threat to anyone: It got a huge boost from Bird vs. Magic followed, but slumped after Jordans retirement, steadily losing ratings until a record low average in '07 before a small (and brief) "rebound." I can't find any similar list of season average ratings for any other major pro sport though. Maybe sports viewing IN GENERAL is declining (it wouldn't be surprising, since it dominates everything else, and the NFL leads the way by a wide margin) but that wouldn't be great news for the NFLs influence either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings

The NFL looks secure among sports, with a commanding lead among the most commanding TV draws—for now. It's clearly and justifiably concerned about expanding or even maintaining that dominant position; it can't keep leading the pack forever if it stops running, and has had plenty of big stumbles and hurdles lately. The PED issue is just one of many.

[MOtorboat]

LOL...so he moves the bar and adds the World Cup.

Dude, you're wrong about interest waning. Give it up.

[Joel]

LOL...so he moves the bar and adds the World Cup.

Dude, you're wrong about interest waning. Give it up.
It was ALWAYS steadily declining ratings share, and that's what a drop from 17.4 million viewers/week to 16.6 is; a "negligible" uptick 2 years later doesn't change that. 2011 ratings fell 2%, then 2012 ratings fell another 5%; just because the NFL got 2% of it back doesn't change the fact its share of viewers peaked 5 years ago. The World Cup was only noted as illustration: It's the ONLY thing broadcast GLOBALLY like the SB; obviously nothing aired across a planet gets as many viewers as the local evening news, but that's another reason to compare seasons, not "week to week" "fluctuations."

For someone who likes to accuse people of trolling and demand they be banned, you sure spend a lot of time following me around picking fights just for the Hell of it and in open disregard for anything I say and the actual documented facts. Did Manning get a restraining order to keep you out of his bushes, so now you have to hassle me online?

[MOtorboat]

It was ALWAYS steadily declining ratings share, and that's what a drop from 17.4 million viewers/week to 16.6 is; a "negligible" uptick 2 years later doesn't change that. 2011 ratings fell 2%, then 2012 ratings fell another 5%; just because the NFL got 2% of it back doesn't change the fact its share of viewers peaked 5 years ago. The World Cup was only noted as illustration: It's the ONLY thing broadcast GLOBALLY like the SB; obviously nothing aired across a planet gets as many viewers as the local evening news, but that's another reason to compare seasons, not "week to week" "fluctuations."

Keep on with that delusion. The average has dropped negligibly over five years, and fluctuated during that same span, which absolutely does not indicate a steady decline. The outlier in these numbers is the 17.4, not the 16.6 or the 16.8. Any idiot can tell you that a 2 percent drop only to see a 1 percent game is just simply negligible. And that's why the NFLN recently signed record TV contracts. Those execs are smarter than you and I.

The playoffs and Super Bowl have risen to record levels in that same time, interestingly enough.

[Joel]

Keep on with that delusion. The average has dropped negligibly over five years, and fluctuated during that same span, which absolutely does not indicate a steady decline. The outlier in these numbers is the 17.4, not the 16.6 or the 16.8. Any idiot can tell you that a 2 percent drop only to see a 1 percent game is just simply negligible. And that's why the NFLN recently signed record TV contracts. Those execs are smarter than you and I.

The playoffs and Super Bowl have risen to record levels in that same time, interestingly enough.
A million out of 17½ million's not negligible, especially not when the nation's grown considerably while total NFL viewers fell. A smaller piece of a growing pie's a decline by any metric. The outlier's not ONE year of 2% growth after TWO STRAIGHT years of decline: Again, 95% of 98% is 93%; "growth" of 2% AFTER that only brings it back to 95% of where it STARTED.

What record NFLN contracts did you have in mind? The NFL NETWORK only signs contracts with cable providers and sponsors, not OTHER networks, and it's working so well for them they've started handing their Thursday night games (the ones created solely to be NFLNs exclusive cash cow) to other networks. For all but the most dedicated fans, there's only ~40 hrs/year NFLN's not DEAD AIR, so cable companies can't justify including it in basic cable, and there aren't enough people willing to pay extra for it to make it profitable for the NFL.

Maybe you're thinking of sponsors? Like the ones that pulled out of sponsoring the NFLs Breast Cancer Awareness PR? Or Anheuser-Busch, the NFLs largest sponsor? The largest sponsor of DUIs that nonetheless cited a MORALS CLAUSE in recent threats to drop the NFL completely? There's no way to argue a sucking vacuum's half full.

[MOtorboat]

A million out of 17½ million's not negligible, especially not when the nation's grown considerably while total NFL viewers fell. A smaller piece of a growing pie's a decline by any metric. The outlier's not ONE year of 2% growth after TWO STRAIGHT years of decline: Again, 95% of 98% is 93%; "growth" of 2% AFTER that only brings it back to 95% of where it STARTED.

What record NFLN contracts did you have in mind? The NFL NETWORK only signs contracts with cable providers and sponsors, not OTHER networks, and it's working so well for them they've started handing their Thursday night games (the ones created solely to be NFLNs exclusive cash cow) to other networks. For all but the most dedicated fans, there's only ~40 hrs/year NFLN's not DEAD AIR, so cable companies can't justify including it in basic cable, and there aren't enough people willing to pay extra for it to make it profitable for the NFL.

Maybe you're thinking of sponsors? Like the ones that pulled out of sponsoring the NFLs Breast Cancer Awareness PR? Or Anheuser-Busch, the NFLs largest sponsor? The largest sponsor of DUIs that nonetheless cited a MORALS CLAUSE in recent threats to drop the NFL completely? There's no way to argue a sucking vacuum's half full.

The N was an iPad typo. The point still stands. The NFL signed record contracts for TV rights, making your whole argument exactly what I said, a steaming pile of shit.

[Joel]

The N was an iPad typo. The point still stands. The NFL signed record contracts for TV rights, making your whole argument exactly what I said, a steaming pile of shit.
Ah, fair enough then; the NFLs TV contracts have definitely grown far out of proportion to its ratings share the last few years, and I agree network and ad execs certainly noticed that.

[BroncoJoe]

Joel can make a decent point. The problem is it begins with, then is surrounded and ends with a load of crap, or unintelligible garbage.

[Joel]

Joel can make a decent point. The problem is it begins with, then is surrounded and ends with a load of crap, or unintelligible garbage.
The Mother of All Backhanded Compliments, but I guess I must take what I can get.

[Simple Jaded]

**** this thread im about to pass out

Weed makes me tired too.

[Simple Jaded]

So he proves your numbers wrong and you change the argument.

If you hate the Broncos play so much and you hate everything the NFL stands for....why do you watch?

Estrogen.

[FanInAZ]

I'm with Joel. I think the NFL is breeding a race of ultra violent super humans who will one day take over the world.

Stopping them would be a piece of cake, just ship them all to Oakland or Jacksonville & they'll be guaranteed to fail in their endeavor. Imagine them being lead into battle by JaMarcus Russell.

Wait a minute...he wasn't on human growth hormones. He was making too many trips to the buffet line.