PDA

View Full Version : Will Football (Literally) Die As It Was Born?



Joel
11-02-2015, 06:24 PM
Imagine a world where a single football season KILLS A DOZEN KIDS, provoking such national outrage an avid football fan and president calls a reform meeting. Not some collegiate sports powers president: The President of the UNITED STATES. Well, you don't have to imagine, because it's reality—twice over (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/29/teddy-roosevelt-helped-save-football-with-a-white-house-meeting-in-1905/):

Nineteen people died playing football in 1905; all but three were minors (one only thirteen.) Current reaction is apathetic compared to US reaction then (but this is about football, not America. ;)) Roosevelts conference began by ultimatum: Fix the game or he'd criminalize it. The response to that transformed US rugby into what we call football:



The flying wedges often lethal roving scrums were banned by mandating exactly six (later seven) men on the line of scrimmage at the snap, no more, no less; look up the flying wedge now and all you'll find is military and paramilitary tactics, with only a brief footnote about its FORMER sports usage.
To discourage post-snap re-creation of the flying wedge, "spread offense" was instead created by legalizing the forward pas. The original pass was a hopelessly crippled (e.g. passers had to be 5+ yds behind the line, and incompletes were turnover) desperation play, but became the thin end of its own "wedge."
As the conference itself devolved into arguments failing to agree on the above or ANY change, the lone exception was creating the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the US to devise, implement, enforce, maintain and improve rules; it now governs most college sports, but adopted a shorter name (i.e. the NCAA) in 1910.


We've not only been here before, but come full circle: It's how we GOT here (http://deadspin.com/did-football-cause-20-deaths-in-1905-re-investigating-1506758181). In a critical sense, we never left, just got so lost over the century since that we forgot where we are (Hmmm, that goalpost looks familiar....) The new centurys critics go to the same logical extremes as when the old one was new. Meanwhile, brutalitys enablers trot out the same absurdist apples to oranges comparisons as THEIR logical ancestors, both rhetorically asking if drownings killing far more people justifies swim bans.

Yet, source statements notwithstanding, "the clearest parallel is" the aim and effect of high profile but low "impact" reforms:


In the short term, none of these measures made football safer. The true accomplishment was a matter of public relations: The new rules silenced the universities threatening to cancel their football programs and the public outcry resulting from these threats. "They at least got the public off the backs of the football programs," Crippen said. "They said, 'Hey, at least we're trying something.'"

Any casual observer of football's current head-injury crisis should immediately recognize this sentiment. Nobody quite knows what to do to make a fundamentally unsafe game any safer, but the sport, on both the professional and collegiate levels, has to be perceived as trying to do something about it. So we have national campaigns demonstrating how one armored human can "safely" force another armored human to the ground against his will. We have new rules trying to influence the split-second decisions tacklers must make. These measures are working in the same way the 1906 measures worked: Fans see football as moving in the right direction despite little evidence the game is actually safer. The changes aren't about mitigating the violence and its ramifications; they're about mitigating the moral qualms of observers. Reform isn't for the players; it's for us.

With the rule changes of 1906, people got the absolution they were looking for. The panic had passed. The following season, according to Crippen, more people died from football than they had in 1905. Or so we think. Nobody can agree on the exact number. http://deadspin.com/did-football-cause-20-deaths-in-1905-re-investigating-1506758181 (Boldface and highlighting added for emphasis)

Through it all, the same note as a century ago: "The surprising thing is that so many parents who love and are proud of their boys will consent to their taking the risks inseparable from the game. (http://deadspin.com/did-football-cause-20-deaths-in-1905-re-investigating-1506758181)"

The difference is, a growing number of parents are asking THEMSELVES if they should let their precious vulnerable children play football—and ANSWERING with an emphatic negative. Not just squeamish overprotective mommies and scrawny bookish daddies nursing grudges over inability to get on their own HS fields: Former NFL players like Scott Fujita, even HoF players like Iron Mike Ditka, love their kids and grandkids far more than the game, so want the former nowhere near the latter.

Nationally, youth football participation has fallen in recent years, and school boards are disbanding even championship teams (http://www.news965.com/news/news/local/high-schools-dropping-football-programs-over-safet/nnqb4/) out of concern for student-athlete health. One national poll found the MAJORITY OF AMERICA DOESN'T WANT ITS KIDS PLAYING FOOTBALL (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-10/bloomberg-politics-poll-half-of-americans-dont-want-their-sons-playing-football). A Rand Corporation (http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/11/adults-are-concerned-about-sons-playing-football-especially.html) poll shows 90+% parental support for all sports EXCEPT football and hockey, which barely got the majority the other poll denied football:
7988
A more nuanced and perhaps more accurate view comes from NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/01/31/269422628/poll-support-for-high-school-football-despite-concussion-risks):
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/02/02/view-of-risks-from-high-school-football_chartbuilder-2-_custom-ca9f3601c92be5900a921940218d41c7af6d532b-s400-c85.png

Only 7% say HS football's too risky to play, but 44% say it "needs to be safer." That invites the kind of elaborate sham "reforms" that spawned the NCAA and the modern game ITSELF, and spurred the League Offices ongoing sound and fury signifying nothing.

Yet statistics do show far greater risk of serious injury specifically in amateur YOUTH football (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2015/10/28/high-school-football-deaths-head-injuries-concussions/74766208/) compared to the pros, and research offers several likely explanations (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2014/11/30/high-school-football-deaths-damon-janes/19712169/). Ignore visceral hyperemotional rhetoric and the reality is pro and top college football programs have the resources to provide all players state of the art protective gear and trainers, but many HS and JHS victims of school funding cuts rely on worn out gear and no medical staff. Many Pop Warner teams rely solely on parents and local businesses for even LESS.

The perverse paradox is that PLAYER PROTECTION IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO VULNERABILITY. That is, adult NFL and most NCAA players have full access to the best preventative gear and medicine—but that's TOO LATE for many: Their most serious and permanent injuries came while their bodies and brains were still developing, yet already being knocked around in the scuffed, dented and ill-fitting helmets and pads their older brothers wore, with no medical attention except a sideline paramedic AFTER injury.

I don't pretend to know the future, whether it's a 1905-esque reform so sweeping and radical it makes 21st Century football as unrecognizable to us as the SB would be to Walter Camp (who largely created directly from the English rugby Ivy League colleges played when he was a student, and strenuously but vainly protested 1905s changes,) a pablum-filled facade for continuing youth massacres, abolition modern football merely postponed for a century, or something entirely different.

I DO know there's rapidly growing public opposition to severe permanent injuries turning people—especially CHILDREN—into impulsive, irritable sociopaths just for "love of the game" (read: Billion dollar pro and "amateur" football profits from merchandise and broadcast contracts.) I also know there are potent obvious ways to make the game safer—again, especially CHILDREN—without making it into the slapfight for dandies that "real men" declared 1905 reforms to be.

I also know one other thing: If todays kids continue to stop watching and playing football, tomorrows NCAA and NFL football can't exist.

Sorry if Football 101's the wrong place; it fits here better than anywhere else that came to mind. (Most) of how (and why) rugby became football is Football 101 anyway.

CrazyHorse
11-02-2015, 07:29 PM
I don't think so. At least not any time soon. It's as popular as ever. I could see it happen if Soccer ever takes off in the US.

BroncoJoe
11-02-2015, 07:31 PM
I don't think so. At least not any time soon. It's as popular as ever. I could see it happen if Soccer ever takes off in the US.

Did you actually read all that?

Joel
11-02-2015, 07:58 PM
I don't think so. At least not any time soon. It's as popular as ever. I could see it happen if Soccer ever takes off in the US.
The thing is, I'm not sure it IS as popular as ever. Youth football participation's down. Ratings fell several straight years during and after the lockout, only recovering to pre-lockout levels last year; treading water isn't "popular as ever" when the poll of tomorrows players and fans is shrinking. Commissioner "protect the shield" has presided over a series of ongoing, prominent and (in the case of the still-pending CTE settlement) expensive PR nightmares.

Someone in the game day thread complained about SNFs intro, but I find it fitting: "I Hate Myself for Loving You" is the PERFECT melody for what's become the lying, cheating abusive spouse the nation excuses to the rest of our family each time they ask wtf we keep taking its crap, and aren't we scared it'll hurt the kids one day? As it just keeps on beating its chest (et al....) flirting with the UK and raising more pointed questions increasingly hard to ignore.

CrazyHorse
11-02-2015, 07:58 PM
Did you actually read all that?

Most of it. Skimmed some parts. The key takeaways are that Pop Warner and High Schools don't have proper equipment and that there's been outrage about injuries as far back as a century ago.

CrazyHorse
11-02-2015, 08:04 PM
The thing is, I'm not sure it IS as popular as ever. Youth football participation's down. Ratings fell several straight years during and after the lockout, only recovering to pre-lockout levels last year; treading water isn't "popular as ever" when the poll of tomorrows players and fans is shrinking. Commissioner "protect the shield" has presided over a series of ongoing, prominent and (in the case of the still-pending CTE settlement) expensive PR nightmares.

Someone in the game day thread complained about SNFs intro, but I find it fitting: "I Hate Myself for Loving You" is the PERFECT melody for what's become the lying, cheating abusive spouse the nation excuses to the rest of our family each time they ask wtf we keep taking its crap, and aren't we scared it'll hurt the kids one day? As it just keeps on beating its chest (et al....) flirting with the UK and raising more pointed questions increasingly hard to ignore.


I think that was me actually. I hate the pregame and Carrie Underwood singing. I can definitely understand a decline in youth football, but the NFL is at it's apex. Last year's Super Bowl was the most watched show EVER in the US. The NFL is also boosted by the popularity of fantasy football, especially daily fantasy sports. I don't think it's in danger of going anywhere any time soon.

Joel
11-02-2015, 08:07 PM
Did you actually read all that?
Yeah, there's this old thing where people actually read stuff BEFORE replying; all the adults are doing it. That's part of why my replies tend to run as long as my own posts: Because I actually READ and CONSIDER what folks say—each part—and respond accordingly. But I admit sometimes putting more thought into one liners than their authors do.

Timmy!
11-02-2015, 08:09 PM
Lol. Ya.....football is in trouble. :flypig:

Joel
11-02-2015, 08:20 PM
I think that was me actually. I hate the pregame and Carrie Underwood singing.
Huh, turns out it was: I remembered the page, but not the author, because I intended to make that analogy there, but by the time the game ended it was a bit late. ;)



I can definitely understand a decline in youth football, but the NFL is at it's apex. Last year's Super Bowl was the most watched show EVER in the US. The NFL is also boosted by the popularity of fantasy football, especially daily fantasy sports. I don't think it's in danger of going anywhere any time soon.
Is it an apex though, or just a plateau? Does it MATTER which, since it can only "progress" in one direction either way? Routine concealed brain damage, 'roid-raging unsuspended cheap shot artists, domestic violence (these three are ALL UNRELATED, of course) and tainted titles even as the NFL desperately tries to expand its female, foreign and youth markets because 100% of US adult men is an "apex" by definition.

Last years SB had 2.2 million more (US) viewers than 2013s, but the US population grew by 2.4 million: That's actually a slightly LOWER share, even if the total's higher.

Joel
11-02-2015, 08:41 PM
Lol. Ya.....football is in trouble. :flypig:

Last year, the NFL volunteered $765 million (>8% of pre-cost revenue (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-04/nfls-secretive-finances-a-nearly-10-billion-mystery); actual PROFIT figures are impossible to find) to prevent the CTE suit seeing a jury, and the NFLPA accepted—but the judge threw it out on the grounds that was too LOW to cover all the players' damages and medical costs; the case remains in limbo.
Meanwhile, national network broadcast sponsors began jumping ship en masse in the way of the Ray Rice scandal, which hit the NFL where it lives (i.e. its wallet, and especially the unparallelled leverage unparalleled ad revenue from ratings gives it in demanding ever-growing network broadcast licenses.) And a judge put the Commissioner on the stand to find out what he saw on the video and when he saw it.
A third judge just threw out the Commissioners token suspension of Brady for cheating in a game that only DECIDED WHO WENT TO THE SB; the appeal's pending.

Getting called to court about ones company THREE SEPARATE TIMES IN TWO YEARS is bad for the brand and business generally. Throw in the parents racing to yank their kids off Pop Warner and school football teams before they're turned into psychotic vegetables for life, and that's a foreboding future for the game. Sticking our fingers in our ears may be working out well for Goodell (his salary's gone from $10 million to $44 million in just 5 years) but not for the game.

Dzone
11-02-2015, 09:44 PM
It might be getting good ratings, but the game is a totally different game than it used to be. The penalties now days are ridiculous.

Ravage!!!
11-03-2015, 02:26 AM
Football isn't in trouble, and studies are showing that soccer causes as much concussions as football. I guess we can start sitting around and watching kids play video games like they do on Twitch....... yaaaay.

MOtorboat
11-03-2015, 03:01 AM
Participation at the youth and high school level is down in every sport and activity, especially at the high school level.

Football is not in trouble any more than other sports are. And they aren't in trouble.

The NFL has record profits, revenues and ratings. The TV contracts continue to steadily increase. Same with college.

Joel
11-03-2015, 09:47 AM
It might be getting good ratings, but the game is a totally different game than it used to be. The penalties now days are ridiculous.

If Goodell's right, that's the Back to the Future world where we're heading: It's how we got the forward pass and seven-man lines, so how we'll get whatever replaces football as football replaced rugby. And in 2150 the demand will be for something different to protect our grandkids' grandkids from brain damage and other serious injuries, because the new safety "reforms" haven't done that any more than legalizing passing did.


Participation at the youth and high school level is down in every sport and activity, especially at the high school level.

Football is not in trouble any more than other sports are. And they aren't in trouble.

7988
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/02/02/view-of-risks-from-high-school-football_chartbuilder-2-_custom-ca9f3601c92be5900a921940218d41c7af6d532b-s400-c85.png

90% of parents say they're cool with their kids playing ALL the other sports (except hockey) but barely 50% say the same about football: It's not the same. How many school boards are CANCELING their baseball or basketball programs because they're worried about their students (and parent reaction)?


The NFL has record profits, revenues and ratings. The TV contracts continue to steadily increase. Same with college.
2.2 million more SB viewers among 2.4 million more American isn't record ratings: That's a a slight ratings DROP. Just like the drops in 2011 and 2012 that took boosts in 2013 and 2014 to reverse. Treading water (at BEST) isn't breaking records, especially when national sponsors exercise morals clause exits in ad contracts because the NFL indulges wife beaters: That (and CBS hemorrhaging money after its exclusive deal with MLB 20 years ago) was a wake up call to networks that the NFL's NOT worth it at any price.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 09:58 AM
Joel, why do you even watch football? You seem like you'd be very pleased if it disappeared.

Where are you getting your figures re: 2.4 more Americans? Your comment on "the NFL indulges wife beaters" and "wake up call to networks that the NFL's NOT worth it" is utterly ridiculous as well.

weazel
11-03-2015, 10:07 AM
Joel, why do you even watch football? You seem like you'd be very pleased if it disappeared.

Where are you getting your figures re: 2.4 more Americans? Your comment on "the NFL indulges wife beaters" and "wake up call to networks that the NFL's NOT worth it" is utterly ridiculous as well.

Joel doesn't hate football. In my opinion he loves football, he just doesn't like the current state of the NFL. I think if you polled old players and fans from the 70's you would get the same results, it's a very different game... not all bad, just different

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 10:18 AM
Joel doesn't hate football. In my opinion he loves football, he just doesn't like the current state of the NFL. I think if you polled old players and fans from the 70's you would get the same results, it's a very different game... not all bad, just different

He is constantly posting stuff about how the NFL is dying, and seems to relish that "fact".

I've been watching football since the the late 60's, and think the game today is FAR better and certainly more entertaining. Clearly, JMO.

Krugan
11-03-2015, 11:22 AM
Hey, i love this football team, despite being critical at times.

But the NFL itself is starting to wear on me, the amount of advertisement that is blasted at us is getting crazy, guy twists his ankle, we got 30 seconds blast a commercial !

I can see where joel is coming from and there is a growing unhappiness out there for the brand. You can see it in responses to negative articles all the time.

But hey its america, people here switch what they enjoy about as quickly as they change underpants. except for the Kardashians, this countries love for them twits is dumbfounding. :)

Ravage!!!
11-03-2015, 11:28 AM
I dn't know if its more entertaining.

I guess if you enjoy players just having the ability to run free. Personally, I miss the more physical game. It's like when they somehow decided to allow NBA players to just walk for 10 steps because its "more entertaining." Its not more entertaining if you truly enjoy the "game" within the game.

Buff
11-03-2015, 11:40 AM
I sort of agree with Mark Cuban that it seems like an unsustainable business model. This week is a decent example with half of the league seemingly injured. At some point the science is going to catch up and the risks will outweigh the benefits... I just don't know if that's in 5, 10 years, 25 years, etc.

Ravage!!!
11-03-2015, 02:02 PM
I sort of agree with Mark Cuban that it seems like an unsustainable business model. This week is a decent example with half of the league seemingly injured. At some point the science is going to catch up and the risks will outweigh the benefits... I just don't know if that's in 5, 10 years, 25 years, etc.

But the injuries are to ankles or knees. They are making millions. Who here wouldn't take 10 million for a torn ACL?

Joel
11-03-2015, 02:49 PM
Joel, why do you even watch football? You seem like you'd be very pleased if it disappeared.
Dunno where you got that: It's the only sport I DO watch; disliking football's grounds for revoking Texas citizenship.


Where are you getting your figures re: 2.4 more Americans?
Google search for "2013 US population" and another for 2014; took, like, 10 seconds, and the sources were listed as the Census Bureau and World Bank.


Your comment on "the NFL indulges wife beaters" and "wake up call to networks that the NFL's NOT worth it" is utterly ridiculous as well.
Losing national network sponsors=/=making money. Neither does coming crawling to CBS asking it promote the TNF promotion for NFLN that's gone over like a lead zeppelin.


Joel doesn't hate football. In my opinion he loves football, he just doesn't like the current state of the NFL.
Bingo


I think if you polled old players and fans from the 70's you would get the same results, it's a very different game... not all bad, just different
Which, after all, is how footballs founder felt when passing and seven-man lines were introduced to improve safety (despite failing to do so.)


I dn't know if its more entertaining.

I guess if you enjoy players just having the ability to run free. Personally, I miss the more physical game. It's like when they somehow decided to allow NBA players to just walk for 10 steps because its "more entertaining." Its not more entertaining if you truly enjoy the "game" within the game.

The really annoying this is

1) Replacing parity with pure dumb luck, because bad teams can beat good ones by just lobbing Hail Maries nonstop and get a flag any time their guys can't run under it and

2) That "safety improving" rules changes HAVEN'T IMPROVED SAFETY, and actually INCREASED injuries: They're just blown out knees instead of CTE, so no lawsuits.


But the injuries are to ankles or knees. They are making millions. Who here wouldn't take 10 million for a torn ACL?
Who among our middle-aged members would take that for a torn ACL in their early twenties? In 2011, the Texans preceded their inaugural playoff game by reintroducing Earl Campbell to a roaring Houston crowd; as he approached the podium on crutches the announcers said it was good to see his improvement, since he needs a wheelchair most days:

He was 55, and has been reliant on the wheelchair since (at least) 48, when he appeared in it during a 2004 ESPN documentary about serious permanent injuries to NFL players. Presumably because ESPN hates football and can't wait to see the end of it. These days, Campbell makes his money selling a (very tasty) sausage.

I'd might be OK with changing rules to reduce injuries IF the NFL had DONE that, but it hasn't: It changed rules to 1) raise ratings with a flying circus rewarding luck instead of skill and 2) PRETEND to reduce injuries to avoid legal liability at the expense of actually causing MORE injuries. But, y'know, eternal return and all that. ;)

Joel
11-03-2015, 03:41 PM
He is constantly posting stuff about how the NFL is dying, and seems to relish that "fact".
It's more a matter of hoping witnessing the cold hard factual results in the form of civil and CRIMINAL trials, flat ratings, withdrawing sponsors and declining youth participation belatedly bring owners blinded by greed to their senses before they and their latest most unctious figurehead destroy a sport I've loved dearly practically from the cradle.


I've been watching football since the the late 60's, and think the game today is FAR better and certainly more entertaining. Clearly, JMO.
Goodell and the owners clearly hope everyone feels that way, but just as clearly realize everyone DOESN'T, else they wouldn't "keep digging" a hole when they should STOP.

Meanwhile, we tolerate THIS (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--tikTLz1z--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18zmzsgja02ibjpg.jpg) to get THIS:
http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-keeps-sowing-confusion-over-what-constitutes-an-1285490953
http://deadspin.com/why-the-nfls-new-concussion-protocols-arent-working-1437228632
http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-concussion-settlement-is-a-disaster-1356127608

Note, once again, the judge in the CTE suit disallowed the settlement, so we're back to square one, except we now know two things:

1) The NFL feels its arguments would fare so badly with a jury that it's willing to cough up >8% of annual revenue (and an even bigger share of PROFITS) just to avoid a jury and
2) The cases judge feels the breadth and severity of player injuries too great—even excluding those who died before 2006—to let the league off so "cheaply."

They haven't made the game safer, just less skilled and MORE dangerous.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 04:18 PM
Is the 2.4 million expansion due to births or immigration? Because either would completely discount your "flat" claim when the viewership expands by 2.2 million.

MOtorboat
11-03-2015, 04:21 PM
Is the 2.4 million expansion due to births or immigration? Because either would completely discount your "flat" claim when the viewership expands by 2.2 million.

It's fruitless. The NFL is far and away the most popular sport in the U.S. with sky-high ratings, wildcard games setting records and numbers millions better than any show. The population of the U.S. is virtually irrelevant to the conversation.

The last time I looked (2 years ago) m, the NFL owned 19 of the 20 most watched programs that year. It's popularity isn't fading by any stretch of the imagination.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 04:24 PM
It's fruitless. The NFL is far and away the most popular sport in the U.S. with sky-high ratings, wildcard games setting records and numbers millions better than any show. The population of the U.S. is virtually irrelevant to the conversation.

The last time I looked (2 years ago) m, the NFL owned 19 of the 20 most watched programs that year. It's popularity isn't fading by any stretch of the imagination.

But but but.... no one wants to pay for advertising!!!!!

Joel
11-03-2015, 04:32 PM
Is the 2.4 million expansion due to births or immigration? Because either would completely discount your "flat" claim when the viewership expands by 2.2 million.
Kids and immigrants don't watch TV? Or just don't spend money (even their parents') on stuff advertised on TV? Yes, some of the new population are infants—just as some new viewers WERE in EARLIER ratings years. Go back far enough and ALL current viewers were: It's a wash.

The question's whether the SHARE of viewers is growing or shrinking; since NFL viewers grew 200,000 LESS than the population, the answer is "shrinking." Physical fact.

Joel
11-03-2015, 04:39 PM
It's fruitless. The NFL is far and away the most popular sport in the U.S. with sky-high ratings, wildcard games setting records and numbers millions better than any show. The population of the U.S. is virtually irrelevant to the conversation.

The last time I looked (2 years ago) m, the NFL owned 19 of the 20 most watched programs that year. It's popularity isn't fading by any stretch of the imagination.

If (for example) 60% of all TVs tune to one show while no other draws >20%, but then the first shows ratings drop to 50% while anothers rise to 40%, is the first show still the most popular? Yes. Does it still have as much advertiser appeal? No; 3 X the competion<1.1 X the competition. By, oh, about a factor of three.

Population growth's not "virtually irrelevant;" ask anyone who's ever debated unemployment figures. Top US ratings have dropped nearly every season since first tracked, hence all top season numbers are from the '50s: The all-time record's the 2nd season of I Love Lucy (2/3 US TVs) but no show's passed 50% since, and none's managed 40% since Gunsmoke, 30% since The Cosby Show or 20% since Seinfeld: "Number One" is a MUCH smaller (i.e. less valuable) share than it used to be. More importantly:

Sunday Night Footballs ratings peaked in 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#Most_wa tched_series_per_year). They're currently 0.1% higher than last year, literally as close to "flat" as it gets without being there, but this year AND last years numbers are lower than 2011s. I realize this is complex stuff, but "2011 ratings of 13.1%>2014-2015 ratings of 12.9%" is something we can all understand and accept—right...?

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 04:42 PM
Some people are so far removed from reality, it's hard to have any kind of intelligent conversation.

Joel
11-03-2015, 05:01 PM
Some people are so far removed from reality, it's hard to have any kind of intelligent conversation.
Like people arguing 12.9%>13.1%? Pretending ratings only track adult natives? Denying that national advertisers cancelled network contracts over Ray Rice?

Those aren't opinions or perspectives: They ARE physical reality; the "cold hard football facts," if you like. Or if you don't; you can IGNORE reality, but it will return the favor.

chazoe60
11-03-2015, 05:08 PM
So many words, and even some numbers..........

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 05:08 PM
Like people arguing 12.9%>13.1%? Pretending ratings only track adult natives? Denying that national advertisers cancelled network contracts over Ray Rice?

Those aren't opinions or perspectives: They ARE physical reality; the "cold hard football facts," if you like. Or if you don't; you can IGNORE reality, but it will return the favor.

Joel, they gained 2.2 million viewers. The TV ratings have 19 of the 20 top shows as the NFL. Any advertisers canceled were immediately replaced by other companies standing in line to get a commercial during an NFL game.

Sorry, but just like your football analysis, statistical "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 05:12 PM
7993

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/348433/

Some people live in an alternate universe.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 05:18 PM
Just a quick parting shot:

More and more people are moving away from traditional TV suppliers (i.e. satellite or cable providers) and streaming games and other content from "illegal" sources. Take a look at this site alone. How many people here seek out streaming options to watch the Broncos' games?

MOtorboat
11-03-2015, 05:22 PM
Here's the only number that matters in terms of television coverage: $2.55 Billion in revenue per year through the year 2022.

chazoe60
11-03-2015, 05:30 PM
So many words.......

Joel
11-03-2015, 05:55 PM
Joel, they gained 2.2 million viewers.
And the US gained 2.4 million: Is that more than 2.2 million?


The TV ratings have 19 of the 20 top shows as the NFL.


7993

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/348433/

The NFL was ALREADY on top though; SHRINKING shares are a bad thing even if they just cut into a huge lead. Remember when the US had the largest GDP by a huge margin? Now it's 2nd to the EU, and will soon be THIRD behind the EU and China unless it stops coasting on its laurels and resumes actual progress. Perhaps it's no surprise Americas new national pasttime is similarly fading amid the same delusional fixation on PAST glorys briefly lingering legacy.


Some people live in an alternate universe.
Some people prefer pleasant falsehoods enabling indolence rather than harsh truths demanding effort and change.


Sorry, but just like your football analysis, statistical "evidence" doesn't tell the whole story.

The NFLs slice of the US viewing pie has SHRUNK in the past 5 years, NOT grown: Why do you trust Nielsen when they tell you what you want to hear, but dispute them when they say the opposite? Nielsen says ratings are higher than last year, when they were higher than the year before, which is true—Nielsen ALSO says ALL THREE NFL SEASONS HAD LOWER RATINGS THAN 2011. Recovery=/=progress, and doesn't change the physical reality that Sunday Night Football Ratings peaked in 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#Most_wa tched_series_per_year).


Just a quick parting shot:

More and more people are moving away from traditional TV suppliers (i.e. satellite or cable providers) and streaming games and other content from "illegal" sources. Take a look at this site alone. How many people here seek out streaming options to watch the Broncos' games?

How much money do the NFL, networks and advertisers make off pirate streams, Mr. Personal Attack? Those only REDUCE advertiser (and so network) incentive to tolerate and associate with all the NFL scandals that have gotten the Commissioner subpoenaed in THREE DIFFERENT TRIALS! Further, pirate streams are ALSO available for MOST OTHER network shows, so an ebbing tide sinks all ships: It doesn't effect the NFL any more than anyone, so its smaller percentage of all viewers remains just that.


Here's the only number that matters in terms of television coverage: $2.55 Billion in revenue per year through the year 2022.

Ah, well, far be it from me to dispute PROJECTED FUTURE numbers with CONCRETE PAST ones; presumably you believe all 2022 projections of federal revenue and federal deficits, too? Even though they vary wildly depending on whose partys they are?

No one know what NFL ratings or ad revenue will be in 2016, let alone 2022. What we DO know is that the numbers peaked before and just after the lockout and have only recently bounced back to around that level, let alone SURPASSED it. $2½ billion is a lot of money, even for the NFL: But if the NFL were content with FLAT billion dollar profits it wouldn't turn the field pink ¼ of every year and bombard us with Play60 ads while trying to downplay the OTHER billion dollars it'll have to GIVE UP to avoid a CTE trial.

Know what else the NFL'll do no later than 2018? Play AT LEAST 6 gms/year in the UK (http://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/34707958) and possibly send the Pro Bowl to Brazil (http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-brazil-2017-pro-bowl-032315). Maybe ya'll think a shrinking largest piece of a growing pie is enough, but the NFL clearly doesn't, because it's doing everthing it can think of in (its warped way) to expand its large-but-shrinking share.

MOtorboat
11-03-2015, 05:58 PM
The television contract isn't projected. It's signed.

Joel
11-03-2015, 06:01 PM
Just as in other football discussions, kool-aid drinkers need to stop cherry-picking a few facts but ignoring many inconvenient ones, especially high profile ones and league response to them. If SOP is working SO well, why is the NFL changing the game SO radically in SO MANY ways?

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 06:02 PM
The television contract isn't projected. It's signed.

But but but... that's not a statistic! Some people ignore reality.

Joel
11-03-2015, 06:16 PM
The television contract isn't projected. It's signed.
So were contracts national advertisers opted out of over Ray Rice. And while they were replaced, prominently reduced demand didn't replace them at the SAME PRICE. NBC and ABC signed a six-year contract on The Baseball Network, too: BOTH quit after ONE year $95 million LOSS, still better than CBS' $5000 million LOSS riding out the previous four-year exclusive MLB deal. The Baseball Network ultimately devolved into a cut rate ESPN showing only selected regional games instead of the nearly 5000/yr planned.

Joel
11-03-2015, 06:19 PM
But but but... that's not a statistic! Some people ignore reality.
Yes: Ignoring statistics=accepting reality; "don't confuse me with facts!" Except convenient ones: THOSE are gospel, even while ignoring inconvenient ones from the SAME SOURCE. Don't let PHYSICAL OCCURRENCES "opinions" shake what you FEEL in your heart to be "fact." So why's Goodell keep changing so much of what's working so well?

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 06:19 PM
Comparing the MLB to the NFL is asinine. They aren't even on the same ballpark in terms of viewership, let alone planet.

Joel
11-03-2015, 06:45 PM
Comparing the MLB to the NFL is asinine. They aren't even on the same ballpark in terms of viewership, let alone planet.
I'm not comparing the games, but comparing network sports contracts as if they were written in stone. They're not, as the Ray Rice fiasco proved about football specifically: The networks didn't drop out, but many of their ADVERTISERS (i.e. the place they make up the billions they pay the NFL for broadcast rights) did. And contracts didn't stop them, because PLAYERS aren't the only NFL affiliates whose contracts have a morals clause.

We can compare the NFL to MLB in one critical way though: Once upon a time, any suggestion MLB could be replaced as "national pasttime" was laughable. "Stuff happens." Once again: If the NFLs MO is working SO well, why does Goodell keep changing football SO much in SO MANY ways? Just likes to needlessly risk screwing up perfection?

MOtorboat
11-03-2015, 06:49 PM
Joel, I want to specifically know which advertisers dropped their sponsorship of NFL broadcasts over Ray Rice.

And not 10 billion words. A list of the advertisers.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 06:54 PM
Joel, I want to specifically know which advertisers dropped their sponsorship of NFL broadcasts over Ray Rice.

And not 10 billion words. A list of the advertisers.

None.


Although several of the NFL’s biggest sponsors have issued statements expressing concern about the situation, none of them have pulled advertisements or otherwise cut ties with the league.

Marriott Hotels released a statement saying, “As a league partner, we are closely following the situation. We trust that the NFL will address the matter appropriately.”

From FedEx: “We value our relationship with the NFL. We are watching developments in this matter closely and we are confident that the League will take the appropriate steps.”

From PepsiCo: “Domestic violence is completely unacceptable. We are encouraged to see the NFL is now treating this with the seriousness it deserves.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/11/nfl-doesnt-appear-to-be-losing-sponsors-for-ray-rice-mess/

Now, Ray himself lost virtually all his PERSONAL sponsors - maybe Joel is confused, which isn't hard to believe.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 06:57 PM
Or, maybe this one from the Wall Street Journal:


As controversy swirls around the National Football League, brand marketers are facing a difficult task: how to make a strong statement against wrongdoing like domestic violence and child abuse without jeopardizing their lucrative and mutually beneficial deals with the league.

For now, big advertisers have stopped short of taking the most aggressive steps, such as pulling their TV ad dollars or canceling major league sponsorships and contracts. Instead, most are publicly condemning alleged misconduct by NFL players, while promising to monitor the situation.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 06:59 PM
Or, maybe this piece from Time Magazine?


But despite the finger-wagging, PR experts say it’s unlikely that major NFL sponsors like Verizon and PepsiCo would pull their sponsorship in light of the recent abuse scandals. “You didn’t see people immediately jumping ship—they’ve made multimillion investments in this,” says Joe Favorito, a sports media consultant who teaches strategic communications at Columbia University and once served as head of PR for the New York Knicks. “I don’t think that the massive brands that are tied to the NFL are in the blind on anything.”

“Everybody these days wants immediate results and immediate reactions,” he says. “Most brands will take their time, especially since most of them have very positive and lucrative experiences with the NFL, and then will act accordingly.” He noted that FedEx hasn’t pulled their sponsorship of the Redskins despite the controversy over their name, and Under Armor is still sponsoring the Ravens despite Ray Rice’s abuse scandal.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2015, 07:03 PM
Or, maybe the NY Daily News?


Anheuser-Busch, which inked a six-year sponsorship deal with the NFL in 2011 worth $1.2 billon, stopped short of pulling its support from the league for not cracking down harder on Peterson and Rice.

Joel
11-03-2015, 07:25 PM
Joel, I want to specifically know which advertisers dropped their sponsorship of NFL broadcasts over Ray Rice.

And not 10 billion words. A list of the advertisers.
Okay, ya got me: TECHNICALLY no advertisers canceled contracts—they all "merely" THREATENED to, but relented when the NFL went from "2 game suspension" to "lifetime ban." Anheuser Busch even THREATENING to cancel Bud Bowl is still a big deal, hence one advertising mags article declaring Survey: NFL's Brand Score Plummets Amid Ray Rice Controversy (http://adage.com/article/news/survey-nfl-s-brand-score-plummets-amid-ray-rice-controversy/294965/) and another of the professions journals saying After Ray Rice, the NFL Needs to Go Big to Restore Brand With Women (http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/after-ray-rice-nfl-needs-go-big-restore-brand-women-160009). Again, if all is well, why all the big ongoing changes?

I guess Goodell just really REALLY likes pink, charitably donating $765 million to "undeserving" ingrates and having a federal judge tell him he doesn't know how to police his own league. That, and he absolutely LOVES being subpoenaed about ALL THREE: That's the ONLY rational explanation.

BroncoJoe
11-04-2015, 10:34 AM
I guess Anheuser-Busch figures the NFL is worth $1.4 BILLION.


Anheuser-Busch and the NFL have agreed to extend Bud Light’s sponsorship of the league for another six years, through the 2022 Super Bowl. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal will pay the NFL $1.4 billion, which works out to more than $7 million for each team, every year of the sponsorship.

That sponsorship will allow Bud Light to do things like put sponsored highlights on social media and award “Bud Light Players of the Game.” That’s on top of the enormous amount of money that Bud Light (and its rival beer makers) spend to buy commercials on NFL broadcasts.

“We’ve done the math and wouldn’t be renewing this sponsorship if we didn’t believe this would allow us to sell more beer,” Anheuser-Busch executive Lucas Herscovici said.

And that demonstrates once again just how powerful the NFL is. Nothing reaches more Americans — especially beer-drinking men in their 20s and 30s — than the NFL. And so for all the missteps the league has taken on everything from domestic violence to Deflategate, big companies want to do business with the NFL.

LOL @ Joel.

chazoe60
11-04-2015, 11:33 AM
Can we rename this thread "War and Peace"?

BroncoJoe
11-04-2015, 12:22 PM
Can we rename this thread "War and Peace"?

No.

But "Another Worthless Thread" would be a good start.

GEM
11-04-2015, 01:15 PM
Okay, ya got me: TECHNICALLY no advertisers canceled contracts—they all "merely" THREATENED to, but relented when the NFL went from "2 game suspension" to "lifetime ban." Anheuser Busch even THREATENING to cancel Bud Bowl is still a big deal, hence one advertising mags article declaring Survey: NFL's Brand Score Plummets Amid Ray Rice Controversy (http://adage.com/article/news/survey-nfl-s-brand-score-plummets-amid-ray-rice-controversy/294965/) and another of the professions journals saying After Ray Rice, the NFL Needs to Go Big to Restore Brand With Women (http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/after-ray-rice-nfl-needs-go-big-restore-brand-women-160009). Again, if all is well, why all the big ongoing changes?

I guess Goodell just really REALLY likes pink, charitably donating $765 million to "undeserving" ingrates and having a federal judge tell him he doesn't know how to police his own league. That, and he absolutely LOVES being subpoenaed about ALL THREE: That's the ONLY rational explanation.

Rice got a lifetime ban? I missed that.

Teams may not be signing him, but he didn't receive a lifetime ban from the NFL.

And at that SNF game I just went to....they aren't having any issues with women and the brand. That stadium was about 45% women. Just an FYI in case you didn't see it on tv....and every one of those women were decked out from head to toe in NFL gear, myself included. Guys, they buy a jersey....gals, we buy the jersey, the scarf, the boots, the socks, the little undereye stickers, the bags, the purses and much, much more. The NFL is making a killing with the female crowd. ;)

Ravage!!!
11-04-2015, 01:47 PM
Rice got a lifetime ban? I missed that.

Teams may not be signing him, but he didn't receive a lifetime ban from the NFL.

And at that SNF game I just went to....they aren't having any issues with women and the brand. That stadium was about 45% women. Just an FYI in case you didn't see it on tv....and every one of those women were decked out from head to toe in NFL gear, myself included. Guys, they buy a jersey....gals, we buy the jersey, the scarf, the boots, the socks, the little undereye stickers, the bags, the purses and much, much more. The NFL is making a killing with the female crowd. ;)

Great points. I'm still looking up this life-time ban, as well.

Tthe NFL started targeting women long bfore Ray Rice...and it was because they had already won the Men market. 50% of the Market was basically being untouched by them....and to increase the intrest... increase the markets.

I read that out of the THREE largest markets in the world...... #3) American Men 2)the country of Japan 1) American Women. 97% of all goods, services, and/or products are either purchased by, or go through, a woman. If you are marketing ANY product, from selling tractors to selling hair-spray.....you market to women. The NFL just took too long to really figure that out, and started about 5 years ago with their "jerseys cut for women" campaign.

GEM
11-04-2015, 01:57 PM
Great points. I'm still looking up this life-time ban, as well.

Tthe NFL started targeting women long bfore Ray Rice...and it was because they had already won the Men market. 50% of the Market was basically being untouched by them....and to increase the intrest... increase the markets.

I read that out of the THREE largest markets in the world...... #3) American Men 2)the country of Japan 1) American Women. 97% of all goods, services, and/or products are either purchased by, or go through, a woman. If you are marketing ANY product, from selling tractors to selling hair-spray.....you market to women. The NFL just took too long to really figure that out, and started about 5 years ago with their "jerseys cut for women" campaign.

Me personally, I don't blame the NFL for Ray Rice beating his wife....but then again, I take personal responsibility pretty seriously. That's like holding the American justice system responsible because their rules on domestic violence aren't strong enough. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the person that did it...as it should. The NFL brand to me wasn't tarnished, the player was tarnished.

BroncoJoe
11-05-2015, 05:38 PM
It got awfully quiet in this thread...

MOtorboat
11-08-2015, 04:19 PM
It got awfully quiet in this thread...

It sure did.

Joel
11-08-2015, 08:53 PM
Sorry, I thought everyone just moved to the Greg Hardy thread and flip-flopped. ;)

Actually, I just got distracted by real life and fixated on Broncos Talk the rest of the time. But 5+ years of pointlessly parsing a consistently awful offensive line have worn themselves out now, so I'll move this threads rebuttals from my head to its pages in the next few days. Tuesday's Chore Day at preschool though, so ya'll might just have to wait a little longer. There: Only TWO clauses/sentence; easy enough to follow?

GEM
11-11-2015, 06:11 PM
Joel, I usually try not to get into the bickering with you, but that post....just means you either really don't have an answer to it or you need more time to do some research to answer.

Joel
11-13-2015, 04:12 PM
No, it means I can barely keep my eyes open and football's not the only thing I debate far too much (at least I've had the sense to avoid more P&R posts here: You people haven't SEEN long....) Rest assured I've read all the replies despite lacking time to type out the thoughts they prompted. The Hardy thread with all the usual suspects was priceless though: From "no lifetime ban, not the NFLs fault" to "lifetime ban, evil Cowboys shouldn't hire him, NFL lax" just that quick.

Don't worry: No one's mad at the NFL, because Hardy doesn't reflect an NFL culture of indulging domestic violence; he's just an isolated rogue individual. Like Manziel. And Rice. And Rapistburger. And whoever the NFL protects from condemnation next. Fetishes are fine, but the NFL needs a safe word: It's all fun and games UNTIL someone gets hurt.

Anyway, I'll get back to ya'll.

BroncoJoe
11-13-2015, 04:25 PM
Yep. Nearly 1,700 players every year, but three (as named by Joek) define the entire industry because it represents 1.7647% of them.

Brilliant.

Don't bother getting back to us Joel. You have no ground to stand on, although your excuses for not are amusing.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-14-2015, 12:07 PM
Ray Rice was reinstated, as I'm sure everyone know. The only reason he isn't playing somewhere is because his past year he only averaged 3.0ypc. Someone would be paying him to carry the rock if they thought he still had something to contribute.

That's the only difference between he and Hardy, well that and Rice showed a lot more remorse.

Ravage!!!
11-14-2015, 01:32 PM
Ray Rice was reinstated, as I'm sure everyone know. The only reason he isn't playing somewhere is because his past year he only averaged 3.0ypc. Someone would be paying him to carry the rock if they thought he still had something to contribute.

That's the only difference between he and Hardy, well that and Rice showed a lot more remorse.

He's not on a team because of the video that came out of him knocking his wife out, then dragging her out. Baltimore released him, and no one wanted to touch that media problem. But Dallas just paid big dollars to the douche, THEN the pictures came out. Now Dallas is just trying to play it off because Jerry Jones never wants to admit he made a mistake. Instead of being "America's Team" and setting the example, he's standing pat and looking like the fool.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-14-2015, 01:44 PM
He's not on a team because of the video that came out of him knocking his wife out, then dragging her out. Baltimore released him, and no one wanted to touch that media problem. But Dallas just paid big dollars to the douche, THEN the pictures came out. Now Dallas is just trying to play it off because Jerry Jones never wants to admit he made a mistake. Instead of being "America's Team" and setting the example, he's standing pat and looking like the fool.
I think if Rice was as talented as Hardy he'd be playing somewhere, possibly in Dallas, lol. Jerry Jones isn't the only jerk in the NFL.

Broncoknight30
11-28-2015, 05:18 AM
Yes, it will. This overly litigated society will force cities to ban tackle football. All due to insurance issues. It will follow into high schools and really for the same reasons. This is the world we live in.

We will see what will be next. Hockey? Not that I care, but there are concussion in that too. The NHL has 82 game seasons.


Oh, and there have also been studies done that show concussions are more prevalent in soccer.

http://www.newsleader.com/story/sports/2015/06/25/concussions-soccer-football-wrestling/29268651/

The lawyers will not stop until the insurance cancels their policies. That is when you will see it dissolve. No little league football, no HS football, leads to no college football.

I just wonder if ALL professions that have long term health risks will be pursued. You know how many professions that is? Hey, don't people die in NASCAR or motor corss etc etc etc?

With the movie Concussion coming out and the typical hype created by the media types (you know who they are. Greenberg types) I am thinking less than 10 years the sport will be banned in this country.