View Full Version : In Response To Broncos Fans, Chiefs' Fans Petiton CBS to Keep Phil Simms!
Cugel
10-14-2014, 12:26 PM
More Silliness: (http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2014/9/17/6328973/broncos-fans-petition-phil-simms-chiefs) I suppose this was inevitable, after the idiotic Broncos fans' petition to CBS to ban Phil Simms from doing Broncos games, the Chiefs fans have responded with their own petition, which currently has even more signatures.
Of course, CBS will listen to neither set of fans. Simms is on CBS' #1 team, so whenever they think the Broncos game deserves their #1 broadcast team, he'll be there and Broncos fans will have to get used to it.
I think we can all agree this petition is incredibly stupid:
CBS please allow Phil Simms to continue broadcasting Bronco games. We are glad that he uses his intelligence and will call the refs on a bad call. Broncos fans just don't like to hear the truth. Please hear us out on this, we need more announcers like Phil Simms and it would be a dis-service if he was not allowed to tell it like it is on any given Sunday.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-14-2014, 12:27 PM
"tell it like it is" :laugh:
MOtorboat
10-14-2014, 12:29 PM
I might sign the Chiefs fans' petition. It's funnier.
blamkin86
10-14-2014, 12:34 PM
Great response. I was never convinced that Simms was pulling against the Broncos.
chazoe60
10-14-2014, 12:35 PM
Chiefs fans are lower than pond scum. If Chiefs fans and ISIS got in a fight I'd be yelling "kick his ass muhammad!"
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-14-2014, 12:44 PM
I might sign the Chiefs fans' petition. It's funnier.
It actually is pretty funny.
Dzone
10-14-2014, 12:56 PM
Damn, hope they dont think all bronco fans whine about simms. I think those who are upset about it are in the minority. I frankly dont give a rats ass who calls the game
I might sign the Chiefs fans' petition. It's funnier.
Turn in your fan card: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman :tongue:
Northman
10-14-2014, 01:05 PM
I might sign the Chiefs fans' petition. It's funnier.
Yea, i think its hilarious. Even by Chiefs standard.
Chief fans live to piss and moan about the Broncos. Sometimes I think they care more about the Broncos failing than the Chiefs winning. Can't blame them with the Chiefs history.
Shazam!
10-14-2014, 01:13 PM
I don't blame Simms for hating the Broncos.
Simms had the best game of any QB in the SB against the Broncos no less, and John Elway was still 10x the QB he could ever hope to be and got all the accolades (and rings now too).
Peyton is 100x the QB Simms could ever be too.
I don't blame Simms for hating the Broncos.
Simms had the best game of any QB in the SB against the Broncos no less, and John Elway was still 10x the QB he could ever hope to be and got all the accolades (and rings now too).
Peyton is 100x the QB Simms could ever be too.
I still think he's pissed we cut his kid; I never noticed it before that, but couldn't ignore afterward (or maybe I just wasn't looking for it before that.) Not our fault your spawn can't play, man; should've talked the Bucs into keeping him so he had a D and RBs like your Giants did, instead of a team that expects and needs a franchise QB to perform like one.
tripp
10-14-2014, 01:35 PM
I'd find this funny coming from any other fan base than the Chiefs. But I do agree, we asked for it.
OrangeHoof
10-14-2014, 06:37 PM
It would be hilarious if Simms really ripped on Alex Smith next time he covers them.
It would be hilarious if Simms really ripped on Alex Smith next time he covers them.
Prob'ly good odds of that. :tongue: Actually, I think Smith's looked pretty good in KC (maybe that's just because I've always thought SF screwed up swapping Kaep for him) but his WRs leave him hanging a LOT.
FanInAZ
10-14-2014, 08:08 PM
It would be hilarious if Simms really ripped on Alex Smith next time he covers them.
If Simms is on their #1 broadcast team, which covers their #1 game that week, then he won't get the opportunity to rip of the Chief anytime in the near future. Any game the Chiefs are involved in, for the foreseeable future, is automatically disqualified as a #1 game.
OrangeHoof
10-14-2014, 08:18 PM
If Simms is on their #1 broadcast team, which covers their #1 game that week, then he won't get the opportunity to rip of the Chief anytime in the near future. Any game the Chiefs are involved in, for the foreseeable future, is automatically disqualified as a #1 game.
Nov 20th. Thursday night @ Oakland.
Nov 20th. Thursday night @ Oakland.
Goodell and Tagliabue don't seem to grasp the concept of "marquee game" like Rozelle did. Or at all. That's another downside of going from ONE primetime nationally broadcast game/week to THREE: You quickly run out of games everyone in America wants to see. While chronicling the Rams woes last night, ESPN mentioned the only team with a worse record over the past decade is Oakland: So they're BOTH playing primetime nationwide this year. The only thing stupider would be sending one of them across an ocean to promote the game by charging foreigners hundreds of dollars to—oh, wait, the NFL did THAT, too. :rolleyes:
atwater27
10-14-2014, 09:02 PM
**** the Chiefs. I hope we kick their ass up and down the field in K.C.
OrangeHoof
10-14-2014, 10:01 PM
Goodell and Tagliabue don't seem to grasp the concept of "marquee game" like Rozelle did. Or at all. That's another downside of going from ONE primetime nationally broadcast game/week to THREE: You quickly run out of games everyone in America wants to see. While chronicling the Rams woes last night, ESPN mentioned the only team with a worse record over the past decade is Oakland: So they're BOTH playing primetime nationwide this year. The only thing stupider would be sending one of them across an ocean to promote the game by charging foreigners hundreds of dollars to—oh, wait, the NFL did THAT, too. :rolleyes:
The Thursday night deal is that every team has at least one of them during the season so even the Jaguars get a prime-time game. That's okay with me because half the time the college game on Thursday night is more interesting anyway.
MOtorboat
10-15-2014, 01:35 AM
Goodell and Tagliabue don't seem to grasp the concept of "marquee game" like Rozelle did. Or at all. That's another downside of going from ONE primetime nationally broadcast game/week to THREE: You quickly run out of games everyone in America wants to see. While chronicling the Rams woes last night, ESPN mentioned the only team with a worse record over the past decade is Oakland: So they're BOTH playing primetime nationwide this year. The only thing stupider would be sending one of them across an ocean to promote the game by charging foreigners hundreds of dollars to—oh, wait, the NFL did THAT, too. :rolleyes:
This is revisionist history.
The NFL never flexed any games until the Sunday night game several years ago. There were a number of massive stinkers in prime time because the game that was on was decided months before the season started. To say there weren't is just revisionist history. Our PERCEPTION of the night game is now different, because there are at least three a week, and in a few weeks more. The NFL hasn't forgot what a marquee game is.
Now, that said, the Thursday night game is shit because teams don't have time to prepare, players are still sore from Sunday and half of them don't want to be there. The game is nearly worthless, IMO.
The Thursday night deal is that every team has at least one of them during the season so even the Jaguars get a prime-time game. That's okay with me because half the time the college game on Thursday night is more interesting anyway.
That shows the "wisdom" of moving a game to Thursday night in a brazenly transparent try to convince fans to pay more for NFLN: It not only failed to pull NFLN out of the money pit, but was so unprofitable ITSELF they wound up pawning it off on CBS. It's also telling the NFL contracted with a network that already HAD an NFL contract instead of gouging the only free network with NO NFL deal (i.e. ABC.) One of THREE prime time games just isn't worth what ABC paid for the ONLY one 40 years ago, because the NFL can't guarantee the quality that came with a single hand-picked game.
This is revisionist history.
The NFL never flexed any games until the Sunday night game several years ago. There were a number of massive stinkers in prime time because the game that was on was decided months before the season started. To say there weren't is just revisionist history. Our PERCEPTION of the night game is now different, because there are at least three a week, and in a few weeks more. The NFL hasn't forgot what a marquee game is.
No, just history going back more than several years ago. It all STARTED with those asinine Saturday games, which one brainDeadspin "writer" castigated the NFL for ending over a trival little thing like "Saturdays in December are a ratings wasteland." http://deadspin.com/5716085/the-nfl-is-phasing-out-saturday-afternoon-football-because-they-hate-you The most jaw-dropping thing part of this is the NFL knowing that yet BRINGING SATURDAY GAMES BACK IN WEEK 16 ANYWAY. It reeks of desperation, likely because the glowing NFL ratings in that 2010 NYT article Deadspin cited haven't been matched since.
Sure, there pre-scheduling MNF games produced more than its share of clinkers—but far less often than pre-scheduling THREE prime time games/week, and even flexing Sunday games late in the season (when last years playoff teams can no longer plausibly call a 4-8 record "just a rough patch") can only do so much: MNF is still stuck hoping last years good teams are still good—but now TNF is, too, and for the first half of the season, so is SNF. It's hard to predict 16 good matchups a year in advance, but MUCH harder to predict 40.
Now, that said, the Thursday night game is shit because teams don't have time to prepare, players are still sore from Sunday and half of them don't want to be there. The game is nearly worthless, IMO.
No argument there, and the factors you cite surely don't help. But the regular season only has 256 games: Even if there ARE 40 good matchups, what are the odds of predicting all of them at ANY time, much less a year in advance? (5/32)^16, such a pitifully small number we can pretty much call it 0. The odds even HALF will be marquee games are only a marginally better (5/32)^8, and remember: That's if we pick at ANY time, even Opening Day; pick a year in advance and it's pretty much hopeless.
Pre-scheduling 16 prime time games almost guarantees a few clinkers, but pre-scheduling 40 transforms that exception to the rule. Rozelles successors couldn't do a better job shredding his legacy if they tried.
Cugel
10-16-2014, 12:31 PM
Chief fans live to piss and moan about the Broncos. Sometimes I think they care more about the Broncos failing than the Chiefs winning. Can't blame them with the Chiefs history.
Well, suppose you were a Chefs fan. What hope would you have in a division with the Chargers and Broncos? None. So what would you be concerned about? Answer: Ragging on the Broncos. Hoping they lose. Etc. They have less integrity than a Tebow fan lurking in the weeds waiting for Peyton Manning to retire without winning a SB so they can jump out and say "Ha! Ha!"
Cugel
10-16-2014, 12:40 PM
That shows the "wisdom" of moving a game to Thursday night in a brazenly transparent try to convince fans to pay more for NFLN: It not only failed to pull NFLN out of the money pit, but was so unprofitable ITSELF they wound up pawning it off on CBS. It's also telling the NFL contracted with a network that already HAD an NFL contract instead of gouging the only free network with NO NFL deal (i.e. ABC.) One of THREE prime time games just isn't worth what ABC paid for the ONLY one 40 years ago, because the NFL can't guarantee the quality that came with a single hand-picked game.
Why don't they move the game to Friday night? Currently, it's a total joke. Even when they get a good matchup, it often turns out to be a blowout. Look at the scores this year!
Ravens 26 - Steelers 6 [Yawn!]
Falcons 56 - Bucs 14 [ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!]
Giants 45 - Redskins 14 [Did anybody actually stay up to see the finish of this?]
Packers 42 - Vikings 10 [Isn't there some kind of 3-quarters mercy rule?]
Usually, the lopsided scores are because nobody has any time to prepare and it becomes an ambush. And guys are too sore from last week to play well, especially if they had a tough physical game the week before.
You can bet the Broncos are going to be hurting after playing S.F. this Sunday. I could easily see them getting blown out by San Diego. Not because they're worse, but because it's on Thursday Freakin' night! Gag!
Ravage!!!
10-16-2014, 01:28 PM
Friday nights is the night HS plays their games. Parents are out watching their kids, and will choose that over watching the NFL anyday.
Ravage!!!
10-16-2014, 01:29 PM
You can bet the Broncos are going to be hurting after playing S.F. this Sunday. I could easily see them getting blown out by San Diego. Not because they're worse, but because it's on Thursday Freakin' night! Gag!
Yeup.. and this is a big concern. A division game on Thursday night, sucks ass. Thursday nights, in general, suck ass.
Friday nights is the night HS plays their games. Parents are out watching their kids, and will choose that over watching the NFL anyday.
It's alreadly like that for JV on Thursday (at least in TX.) That's another screwed up thing about *NF: It messes with a time-honored no-conflict division.
JV Thursday
V Friday
NCAA Saturday
NFL Sunday
When I was in HS, MNF conflicted with freshman games, but LITERALLY no one but players parents and people with no life cares about those, so it wasn't a big deal, even in TX. This is.
Why don't they move the game to Friday night? Currently, it's a total joke. Even when they get a good matchup, it often turns out to be a blowout. Look at the scores this year!
Ravens 26 - Steelers 6 [Yawn!]
Falcons 56 - Bucs 14 [ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!]
Giants 45 - Redskins 14 [Did anybody actually stay up to see the finish of this?]
Packers 42 - Vikings 10 [Isn't there some kind of 3-quarters mercy rule?]
Usually, the lopsided scores are because nobody has any time to prepare and it becomes an ambush. And guys are too sore from last week to play well, especially if they had a tough physical game the week before.
I doubt many players would get much healthier with one extra day (for one thing, it's not like they lounge on their sofas all week till gameday; if anything, the unpreparedness is from losing a day of practice.) They need to just dump it altogether; if there were any PROFIT in TNF the NFL would've kept that pipeline flowing directly to them on NFLN with no middleman. The more games in prime time, the harder it gets to find a good matchup for EVERY prime time national showcase. It's another of the many examples of the NFL oversaturating its market to the point of marginal returns.
You can bet the Broncos are going to be hurting after playing S.F. this Sunday. I could easily see them getting blown out by San Diego. Not because they're worse, but because it's on Thursday Freakin' night! Gag!
I doubt KC lies down for SD in THAT divisional game; at least we don't have to travel on the short week. On paper, this is a rare marquee matchup for TNF; hopefully, we're on the right side of any blowout.
OrangeHoof
10-16-2014, 05:01 PM
Joel, ABC already has a contract for NFL football. They own ESPN.
Joel, ABC already has a contract for NFL football. They own ESPN.
Huh; I completely missed that. It does explain why ABC's out in the cold though: They're not, but CHOOSE to leave non-subscribers there on Monday night (which is even lamer, but not the NFLs fault.)
Ravage!!!
10-16-2014, 05:57 PM
Actually.. its Disney that owns ABC and ESPN.
Actually.. its Disney that owns ABC and ESPN.
The difference is largely semantic though; if Disney wanted to put MNF back on broadcast TV (where it belongs) they've got a perfectly good broadcast network where they could and would.
MOtorboat
10-16-2014, 07:45 PM
The difference is largely semantic though; if Disney wanted to put MNF back on broadcast TV (where it belongs) they've got a perfectly good broadcast network where they could and would.
This is just irrelevant. It's not 1980 anymore.
ESPN can be seen by 220 million Americans.
This is just irrelevant. It's not 1980 anymore.
ESPN can be seen by 220 million Americans.
Believe it or not, millions of people still refuse to pay for TV; just under a third of them, by that estimate.
chazoe60
10-17-2014, 11:16 AM
Why don't they move the game to Friday night? Currently, it's a total joke. Even when they get a good matchup, it often turns out to be a blowout. Look at the scores this year!
Ravens 26 - Steelers 6 [Yawn!]
Falcons 56 - Bucs 14 [ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!]
Giants 45 - Redskins 14 [Did anybody actually stay up to see the finish of this?]
Packers 42 - Vikings 10 [Isn't there some kind of 3-quarters mercy rule?]
Usually, the lopsided scores are because nobody has any time to prepare and it becomes an ambush. And guys are too sore from last week to play well, especially if they had a tough physical game the week before.
You can bet the Broncos are going to be hurting after playing S.F. this Sunday. I could easily see them getting blown out by San Diego. Not because they're worse, but because it's on Thursday Freakin' night! Gag!
Friday nights is the night HS plays their games. Parents are out watching their kids, and will choose that over watching the NFL anyday.
The NFL has a long standing policy of not interfering with HS football. Friday nights are for high school football.
The NFL has a long standing policy of not interfering with HS football. Friday nights are for high school football.
So are Thursdays. And Mondays. Longstanding policy the NFL's been violating every week since the early '70s? :confused:
Ravage!!!
10-17-2014, 12:23 PM
So are Thursdays. And Mondays. Longstanding policy the NFL's been violating every week since the early '70s? :confused:
Thursdays aren't considered a HS football day. Neither are Mondays. Fridays is HS, Saturdays is NCAA, NFL is Sunday...(and apparently Thursday and Monday).
I was thinking about this more last night: The bottom line is the more prime time games there are, the harder it is to ensure all are good, especially for NEXT year. Think of it this way: How many great teams are there in this or ANY given season? About half a dozen? How many times can 3 play the other 3 with no repeat? That's a simple 6C2 combination and the answer's 15; ALMOST enough for 16 MNF games, but not if we throw in 16 MORE SNF games and a bunch of TNF. And that's with PERFECT accuracy and Nostradums-like prescience.
We'll never get perfect accuracy OR clairvoyance though, if only because of FA picking apart each years SB teams and injuries wrecking many moer. Half a year ago, SF@St. Louis looked good on paper; SF was fresh off their third straight NFCCG and the Rams were only a game below .500 despite playing 6 games against SF, Seattle and Arizona plus 3 more against Indy, NO and Carolina—but then they lost Bradford for the season and it turned into Mondays Not Ready for Prime Time Players.
Look at another way: Setting aside personal allegiances and antagonisms, how many games would you deem "must see" each week if you didn't care about ANY team, only wanted to see a good game? Maybe 2-3? EVERY week needs AT LEAST that many to ensure all *NF games are ratings draws; if any are Sunday afternoon, we need MORE top matchups, else all of America will be asked if it wants to sit down as a family after dinner to watch Miami@KC. ONE prime time game/week was unique—special—and would justify flexing; THREE is just usually boring and occasionally painful.
Since TV season and football season coincide, CBS and NBC once (rightly) feared MNF because it put them in a no-win scenario: Either try to slow the bleeding by converting one of their biggest cash cows into a sacrificial lamb with a move to Monday, hoping at least SOME viewers followed while knowing MOST wouldn't, or doom some second tier show to imminent cancellation. Heaven help the poor SOBs who PREMIERED a new series on Monday; their only hope was surviving till New Years so people might discover them in reruns once football finished. It's... different now, for SOME reason....
MOtorboat
10-17-2014, 12:39 PM
Someone just really does not remember how many stinkers there were on Monday Night Football, before other prime time games. It's revisionist history. You risk that with any nationally televised game that's set months before.
And it matters not what type of a game it is anyway. I bet the ratings for CBS were better than those of Fox last night. And that baseball game mattered.
As far as what day it's on, it doesn't matter. The NFL will drive ratings, regardless of if it were a Friday night or not. They picked Thursday for the same reason Friends and Seinfeld ran on Thursdays. Because that's the biggest ratings night of the week.
Someone just really does not remember how many stinkers there were on Monday Night Football, before other prime time games. It's revisionist history. You risk that with any nationally televised game that's set months before.
No, I remember: I'm just saying TRIPLING the prime time games can't help making that a lot more common. It's not that 16 prime time games found all the ~15 good matchups each year, but that 40 prime time games is a LOT more than 15, so the MAJORITY will be mediocre-to-awful.
And it matters not what type of a game it is anyway. I bet the ratings for CBS were better than those of Fox last night. And that baseball game mattered.
Maybe; it's a fair point to a degree—but even the most popular brand can only water itself down so much before its popularity begins to suffer. Some people will watch ANY football; they love the game so much they'd watch a junior high 6-man game if someone piped it into their living room. But those aren't the people whose attention brings MNF the ad revenue to keep it on the air.
Getting and KEEPING a prime time nation-wide audience requires giving them good reason not to see if other networks have something more suspenseful and entertaining than sticking around through the second half to see if a 4-8 team can comeback from 31-3 against an 10-2 SB favorite. That's part of the problem, too: Scheduling Great Team A vs. Great Team B a year in advance is a good idea on paper, but it's actually better TV if BOTH collapse in the interim, because if one does but the other's still great it turns into what the Eagles just did to the Giants.
As far as what day it's on, it doesn't matter. The NFL will drive ratings, regardless of if it were a Friday night or not. They picked Thursday for the same reason Friends and Seinfeld ran on Thursdays. Because that's the biggest ratings night of the week.
Well, that's not the NFL driving ratings, is it? ;) The NFL's still the biggest fish in the pond by a fair margin, but the pond and the other fish have gotten much bigger while the NFL hasn't. Long term, that's a problem. It's like the early '70s (ironically the dawn of MNF, SBs and the NFLs rise to dominance) when the US thought our economy was so dominant we could coast on momentum forever and no one would ever catch us: It took my entire lifetime (so far,) but that day's finally come, and all the revolutionay "free" trade tweaks that were supposed to fix the problem only made it MUCH worse.
MOtorboat
10-17-2014, 01:13 PM
The NFL doesn't have ratings problems, in the here and now or in the long term. That's laughable.
The NFL doesn't have ratings problems, in the here and now or in the long term. That's laughable.
Sure; overall ratings peaked 5 years ago and male ratings 6, but there's no problem. Even though there are a LOT more Americans than in 2010 but FEWER Americans watching NFL games.
BroncoJoe
10-17-2014, 03:45 PM
Sure; overall ratings peaked 5 years ago and male ratings 6, but there's no problem. Even though there are a LOT more Americans than in 2010 but FEWER Americans watching NFL games.
Joel, please just give it up.
Did it ever occur to you that men will typically get together to watch the games now more than ever? The wife then stay's at home watching anything BUT football, skewing the ratings.
I'm sure the executives at the networks realize a lot more than you the value of the NFL, and are paying (out their nose) accordingly with some of the highest fees ever.
Joel, please just give it up.
Did it ever occur to you that men will typically get together to watch the games now more than ever? The wife then stay's at home watching anything BUT football, skewing the ratings.
Why "now more than ever"? If anything, showering the field and everything on it in pink for a solid month every season makes it more likely guys will watch at home with their wives/girlfriends. But guys getting together in someones mancave instead didn't start yesterday.
I'm sure the executives at the networks realize a lot more than you the value of the NFL, and are paying (out their nose) accordingly with some of the highest fees ever.
It still blows away everything else, not just in sports, but overall—yet not by the margins of even a decade ago. The NFL's done too many inane things to draw in casual fans at the cost of alienating diehards, and suffered too many high profile scandals. We've gone from the age when the time slot opposite MNF was the kiss of death to the age when the NFL changed its mind about cutting out network middlemen to collect adverstising fees directly; it can still get a good price from CBS for TNF, but it if was a genuine money-maker, profit-challenged NFLN would've held onto it with a death grip. And the band played on....
BroncoJoe
10-17-2014, 04:04 PM
Why "now more than ever"? If anything, showering the field and everything on it in pink for a solid month every season makes it more likely guys will watch at home with their wives/girlfriends. But guys getting together in someones mancave instead didn't start yesterday.
It still blows away everything else, not just in sports, but overall—yet not by the margins of even a decade ago. The NFL's done too many inane things to draw in casual fans at the cost of alienating diehards, and suffered too many high profile scandals. We've gone from the age when the time slot opposite MNF was the kiss of death to the age when the NFL changed its mind about cutting out network middlemen to collect adverstising fees directly; it can still get a good price from CBS for TNF, but it if was a genuine money-maker, profit-challenged NFLN would've held onto it with a death grip. And the band played on....
You try so hard to sound smart and educated about the subjects you speak of.
Keep trying.
MOtorboat
10-17-2014, 05:32 PM
Sure; overall ratings peaked 5 years ago and male ratings 6, but there's no problem. Even though there are a LOT more Americans than in 2010 but FEWER Americans watching NFL games.
They had a spike in 2009. Then the ratings dipped by like 2 percent have gone back up. There is no peak and decline in NFL ratings. There was a spike in 2009.
The NFL continues to set ratings record and, if I remember correctly, has the 20 most watched television broadcasts of anything this year.
OrangeHoof
10-17-2014, 05:40 PM
I think the NFL was jealous that college football was doing pretty well on Thursday nights and wanted in on it. The problem is that Thursday is midweek in a Sunday-to-Saturday world. It's not in a Saturday-Friday world like a typical college football week. That's why the players bitch about it because they only get four days to heal up which is not enough.
Personally, I wish the NFL would drop Thursday nights except for Opening Night and Thanksgiving Day (dump the extra night game) and then have a Monday Night doubleheader. There are a few logistical problems with that, though, that would probably be difficult to overcome.
You try so hard to sound smart and educated about the subjects you speak of.
Keep trying.
I don't try to sound smart: I try to avoid sounding dumb; big difference. If people with a personal axe to grind respond with what amounts to "look at Mr. I'm So Smart Because I Can Count to 20 with My Shoes on" that says more of them than of me. I won't call anyone dumb, but can't stop anyone admitting it either. ;)
They had a spike in 2009. Then the ratings dipped by like 2 percent have gone back up. There is no peak and decline in NFL ratings. There was a spike in 2009.
The NFL continues to set ratings record and, if I remember correctly, has the 20 most watched television broadcasts of anything this year.
I believe the spike was in 2010, after which ratings fell 2% in 2011, ANOTHER 5% in 2012, then rose 2% last year. There's a very clear peak; it's wherever the highest point was: Five years ago (or, technically, four.) Population rose—a LOT—population watching football fell. That's a ratings DROP, and an even bigger SHARE drop. There are millions more people, but less watching football.
Congressional subpoenas are bad for the brand; ask MLB. So are revelations of rampant doping; ask MLB about that, too (at least they weren't SEPARATE scandals for baseball) or cycling. Racial exploitation controversies are bad for the brand, too; ask the Braves. Player suicides and/or homicides and viral videos of players punching out their wives are also bad for the brand; ask... no, that's pretty much just the NFL. At some point people start asking if maybe there's a connection between 'roid-rage, brain damage and killings, and start deciding to keep their kids from becoming future NFL players just in case there is.
Believe it or not, millions of people still refuse to pay for TV; just under a third of them, by that estimate.
There are elderly people, poor people without TV, children, jailed people, and homeless people in this country too.
There are elderly people, poor people without TV, children, jailed people, and homeless people in this country too.
I managed to avoid cable pretty much my entire life without being any of those people (except legally a child the first 18 years.) I prefer charging people to use my airwaves rather than paying them for the privilege of watching my TV, though the latter is pretty popular here (to my eternal disgust.) My mom still doesn't have cable (which is kind of weird, because her parents always did.)
I bet most nonimpoverished elderly people have TVs, but wouldn't be surprised if many refuse to pay a monthly fee despite the means to pay. I'd also bet millions of people too poor to afford a monthly cable bill were able to scrape together enough cash for an obsolete secondhand TV. Parents usually have TVs, and don't most prisons have them in common areas? We're essentially talking homeless people here.
Bronco9798
10-17-2014, 09:35 PM
I managed to avoid cable pretty much my entire life without being any of those people (except legally a child the first 18 years.) I prefer charging people to use my airwaves rather than paying them for the privilege of watching my TV, though the latter is pretty popular here (to my eternal disgust.) My mom still doesn't have cable (which is kind of weird, because her parents always did.)
I bet most nonimpoverished elderly people have TVs, but wouldn't be surprised if many refuse to pay a monthly fee despite the means to pay. I'd also bet millions of people too poor to afford a monthly cable bill were able to scrape together enough cash for an obsolete secondhand TV. Parents usually have TVs, and don't most prisons have them in common areas? We're essentially talking homeless people here.
Prisons have TV in the day/tv rooms and some inmates have TV's in their cells. However, most prisons are basic TV with no cable. There are some prisons that have inmate trust funds where the cost of cable is covered from these funds. Prisoners have ways to raise money and also work to have these trust funds. All inmates in the federal prison are required to work, if they are cleared medically. Most prisons refuse to let the taxpayers pay for these types of services. That's why inmate trust funds are created, and all institutions are different. Wardens or Regional offices also have a say as to the services that are provided.
I managed to avoid cable pretty much my entire life without being any of those people (except legally a child the first 18 years.) I prefer charging people to use my airwaves rather than paying them for the privilege of watching my TV, though the latter is pretty popular here (to my eternal disgust.) My mom still doesn't have cable (which is kind of weird, because her parents always did.) I bet most nonimpoverished elderly people have TVs, but wouldn't be surprised if many refuse to pay a monthly fee despite the means to pay. I'd also bet millions of people too poor to afford a monthly cable bill were able to scrape together enough cash for an obsolete secondhand TV. Parents usually have TVs, and don't most prisons have them in common areas? We're essentially talking homeless people here.
Oh ok. So your incredibly small sample size is just a microcosm of the rest of America. Got it.
Prisons have TV in the day/tv rooms and some inmates have TV's in their cells. However, most prisons are basic TV with no cable. There are some prisons that have inmate trust funds where the cost of cable is covered from these funds. Prisoners have ways to raise money and also work to have these trust funds. All inmates in the federal prison are required to work, if they are cleared medically. Most prisons refuse to let the taxpayers pay for these types of services. That's why inmate trust funds are created, and all institutions are different. Wardens or Regional offices also have a say as to the services that are provided.
So they have TV, but few have cable: No MNF or NFLN for them (especially since I believe the latter's a premium channel; no cable companys basic package will include anything that essentially dead air half the year for all but a small niche audience willing to pay extra for "A Football Life: Brian Bosworth.") I concede there's probably not much SNF for them either though.
Oh ok. So your incredibly small sample size is just a microcosm of the rest of America. Got it.
Never said it was a microcosm; if 2/3 of the country's got cable, my anecdotal experience is the exception rather than the rule. But it DOES establish the notion "everyone, or at least virtually everyone, has cable now" simply isn't true. People without cable are a minority, but it's a LARGE minority, much too large to justify dismissal as just "homeless people and inmates."
The cable beef is a personal peeve, and, as others have shown, not an issue with the NFL in the first place. The other much larger points remain valid though:
1) NFL ratings peaked in 2010, fell 2% in 2011, ANOTHER 5% in 2012 and only rebounded 2% last year: That's a definite ratings loss, and even bigger lost SHARE of ~20 million more Americans.
2) If it's hard to accurately predict and schedule 16 prime time-worthy games a year in advance, it's roughly 2˝ times harder to find FORTY.
3) At some point people start asking if maybe there's a connection between 'roid-rage, brain damage and killings, and start deciding to keep their kids from becoming future NFL players just in case there is.
That last one's the back-breaker. I could also throw in rules changes nerfing defense to the point the NFL's had more 24 pt comeback wins in the last HALF-decade than the previous NINETY decades, and the disgust of diehard (i.e. NFLN-subscribing, season-ticket-holding, merchandise-buying) fans who don't want to watch their beloved contender reffed out of a win against Cleveland on a fluke play, and the irrelevance of forcing parity to appeal to fans too causal to spend a dime on the game. But #3 is the real threat, because it threatens the future player pool even more than the future audience.
I'm not reading that
Yet are responding to it: Why...? :confused:
Is this another case where I should've responded to each of you in separate posts, because displaying my avatar and sig TWICE somehow takes up LESS screen? :furtherconfused:
Yet are responding to it: Why...? :confused: Is this another case where I should've responded to each of you in separate posts, because displaying my avatar and sig TWICE somehow takes up LESS screen? :furtherconfused:
It's another case where you have entirely too much rambling on about simple stuff for me to have the patience to read. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's another case where you have entirely too much rambling on about simple stuff for me to have the patience to read. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yet here we are debating whether to debate it. No time to read it, but plenty of time to complain about WHY you won't read it? Glad we're not being personal, let alone petty. ;) For the record: Roger Goodell (and the owners) only WISH this were simple stuff that hadn't cost them $765 million. It's threatening the Commissioners very career (not to mention that of a couple thousand NFL players.)
Yet here we are debating whether to debate it. No time to read it, but plenty of time to complain about WHY you won't read it? Glad we're not being personal, let alone petty. ;) For the record: Roger Goodell (and the owners) only WISH this were simple stuff that hadn't cost them $765 million. It's threatening the Commissioners very career (not to mention that of a couple thousand NFL players.)
Do you have any idea how much DirecTV is paying the NFL for the rights to Sunday Ticket? Or how much revenue the NFL makes on revenue from their broadcast? All this nonsense you're talking about is why the NFL is taking in BILLIONS. All your wishy washy rhetoric is all relevant in your mind but nothing else really agrees.
And now is it that you have so dang much to say about literally everything?
MOtorboat
10-18-2014, 12:25 AM
I don't try to sound smart: I try to avoid sounding dumb; big difference. If people with a personal axe to grind respond with what amounts to "look at Mr. I'm So Smart Because I Can Count to 20 with My Shoes on" that says more of them than of me. I won't call anyone dumb, but can't stop anyone admitting it either. ;)
I believe the spike was in 2010, after which ratings fell 2% in 2011, ANOTHER 5% in 2012, then rose 2% last year. There's a very clear peak; it's wherever the highest point was: Five years ago (or, technically, four.) Population rose—a LOT—population watching football fell. That's a ratings DROP, and an even bigger SHARE drop. There are millions more people, but less watching football.
Congressional subpoenas are bad for the brand; ask MLB. So are revelations of rampant doping; ask MLB about that, too (at least they weren't SEPARATE scandals for baseball) or cycling. Racial exploitation controversies are bad for the brand, too; ask the Braves. Player suicides and/or homicides and viral videos of players punching out their wives are also bad for the brand; ask... no, that's pretty much just the NFL. At some point people start asking if maybe there's a connection between 'roid-rage, brain damage and killings, and start deciding to keep their kids from becoming future NFL players just in case there is.
Whatever. We've been down this road before, and even the headline of the articles you cite paint an entirely different picture. You are, quite literally, the only person I've seen saying the NFL is having a ratings problem. I haven't seen the opposite from anyone, anywhere.
Ravage!!!
10-18-2014, 10:03 AM
The NFL having a rating problem or a drop in viewership??? :lol: :lol: :lol: Uhmm.. NO! They COMPLETELY dwarf the nearest competition by a MILE. It's not even close. Football fanbase continues to grow.
**Prison TV in common areas have cable, at least in Federal prisons. So the prisons are getting MNF...but not NFLN.
Do you have any idea how much DirecTV is paying the NFL for the rights to Sunday Ticket? Or how much revenue the NFL makes on revenue from their broadcast? All this nonsense you're talking about is why the NFL is taking in BILLIONS. All your wishy washy rhetoric is all relevant in your mind but nothing else really agrees.
And now is it that you have so dang much to say about literally everything?
The number the NFLPA and owners kicked back and forth during the last player lockout was $9 billion, but the new CBA and cap floor effectively guarantee players half of it. The LEAGUE'S a tax-exempt nonprofit, but not TEAMS (except GB,) so each of them must still give Uncle Sam his cut, plus state corporate income taxes (where applicable.) It's further complicated because stadium gate receipts and concessions aren't pooled, but split weekly between the home and visiting teams, usually with the local city or county taking a cut as stadium co-owner.
I have no idea where that leaves the teams aggregate bottom line—except that it's far south of the $9 billion figure the players and owners squabbled over a few years ago. I doubt the team share of gate receipts covers player, coach trainer and other staff salaries, though it might cover corporate income taxes, so we're probably looking at $4-5 billion annual profit.
That's still far and away ahead of all other pro leagues, but also means the NFL volunteered 15-20% of annual profits to keep the CTE-liability suit away from a jury who probably would've doubled or tripled that cost: That's serious money, even for the NFL, showing just how big a threat the NFL considers CTE. That's just ONE of MANY issues threatening the NFL brand, which isn't an endless infinite money stream, but it's probably the biggest in terms of scaring parents away from letting their kids become the next generation of players. Maybe expansion to Mexico's not a bad idea.... :tongue:
The NFL having a rating problem or a drop in viewership??? :lol: :lol: :lol: Uhmm.. NO! They COMPLETELY dwarf the nearest competition by a MILE. It's not even close. Football fanbase continues to grow.
It's completely dwarfed all other shows for decades; that doesn't prove the margin can't be shrinking. Nielsen ratings for the last 5 years prove that's EXACTLY what's happened:
2011 -2%
2012 -5%
2013 +2%
That's not a ratings drop, and even bigger SHARE drop? There are ~20 million more Americans than in 2010, but LESS Americans watching football, not (just) as a percentage but TOTAL.
**Prison TV in common areas have cable, at least in Federal prisons. So the prisons are getting MNF...but not NFLN.
It's an unexpected way to get there, but DOES illustrate the point: A lot of people can and do watch MNF (and SNF) that either wouldn't or COULDN'T watch TNF before it left premium cable. I frankly think it BS that ANYONE has to pay to watch on TV, but that's largely a matter of principle. In a league where EVERY game matters, every fan should be able to see every game, at least to the extent local broadcast contracts allow (that's another way Denver fans are blessed: They don't have to wonder whether Jax@Houston/Tennessee will cost them this weeks Broncos game.)
MOtorboat
10-18-2014, 03:49 PM
The NFL is just lucky to be on TV at this point. The execs might cancel the season...
Never said that either; if a show's been the highest rated (by a huge margin,) you don't just immediately cancel because the ratings dip a little two years straight and then slightly rebound. As long as it's still the best game in town, you milk that cash cow for all it's worth, but if the decline continues it won't be the best game in town forever, and it'll be time to renegotiate smaller broadcast fees long before that.
Why's everything always gotta be Boolean extremes? Every QB's either the GoAT or a bum; every lineman's either an All Pro or useless; the offense is either the best or worst EVER. Last years SB runner up is lucky it's exempt from that metric. ;) I KNOW you can count to three; these discussions would be a lot more fun (or at least more interesting) if you quit pretending you can't.
Nomad
10-20-2014, 08:21 AM
Thursday Night.....Phil Simms time.....LoL!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.