Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: Will Football (Literally) Die As It Was Born?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy! View Post
    Effing school zones suck. It's only a matter of time before I get nailed in one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis View Post
    I take the fat out of the pan once no longer hot, smear it all over my genitals, then enter consenting people with my tumescent member.

  2. The Following User High Fived weazel For This Post:


  3. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    32,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weazel View Post
    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.

  4. #18

    Default

    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.

  5. The Following 5 Users High Fived Krugan For This Post:


  6. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,382

    Default

    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 previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  7. The Following User High Fived Ravage!!! For This Post:


  8. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kirk Cousins 2018
    Posts
    32,161

    Default

    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.

  9. The Following User High Fived Buff For This Post:


  10. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    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?
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  11. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by weazel View Post
    Joel doesn't hate football. In my opinion he loves football, he just doesn't like the current state of the NFL.
    Bingo

    Quote Originally Posted by weazel View Post
    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    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.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  12. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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 to get THIS:
    http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-keeps-so...-an-1285490953
    http://deadspin.com/why-the-nfls-new...ing-1437228632
    http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-concuss...ter-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 2006to let the league off so "cheaply."

    They haven't made the game safer, just less skilled and MORE dangerous.
    Last edited by Joel; 11-03-2015 at 04:00 PM.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  13. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    32,413

    Default

    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.

  14. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Bey Bey
    Posts
    79,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis View Post
    I wasn't being especially serious, I just thought you were retarded enough that your comment was genuine

  15. The Following User High Fived MOtorboat For This Post:


  16. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    32,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    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!!!!!

  17. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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 infantsjust 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.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  18. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    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. 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...?
    Last edited by Joel; 11-03-2015 at 05:03 PM.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  19. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Posts
    32,413

    Default

    Some people are so far removed from reality, it's hard to have any kind of intelligent conversation.

  20. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    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.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group