There's a racial skew to the fanbases in Atlanta. The Falcons have a huge black fanbase, the Dawgs not so much.Didn't someone post something last year that the Bulldogs are bigger than the Falcons in Atlanta?
....
There's a racial skew to the fanbases in Atlanta. The Falcons have a huge black fanbase, the Dawgs not so much.Didn't someone post something last year that the Bulldogs are bigger than the Falcons in Atlanta?
....
Appreciate the snark and the lame straw man, but you might want to do some sort of research around content consumption or, hell, even read the article before chiming in with the hot takzzzzzSo your hypothesis is that football fans don't crave instant analysis of the game immediately following said game?
Text me when you realize that you have pretty much missed the last 40 years of how football is fed to the mass audiences and also missed how folks consume and discuss analysis of sports online.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/10/11/prime-time-ratings-keep-sinking/Via SportsBusiness Daily, Monday night’s Buccaneers-Panthers snoozer generated a 6.5 rating, down from 8.5 from last year’s Steelers-Chargers game to cap Week Five. That’s a 24-percent drop.
Beyond laughable. I can't tell whether you don't get the way the sport is followed, or the way the internet works, or a LOT of column A and a LOT of column B. Frankly, I don't give a shit.Appreciate the snark and the lame straw man, but you might want to do some sort of research around content consumption or, hell, even read the article before chiming in with the hot takzzzzz
Are you seriously under the impression that NFL fans are turning off the TV in favor of perusing their team's Twitter feed during the game? Do you believe that whimsical GIFs that celebrate players and plays on Sunday afternoon are a substitute for watching the actual game? In what alternate universe is that a choice anyone is making, or even contemplating?
Please stop.
Panthers-Bucs with Cam Newton not playing is about the worst MNF matchup you're going to get. No surprise it was down sharply compared to a year-ago matchup that featured one of the league's top five draws (Pittsburgh).
His point was not at all what you are responding to above. What he said was that there is no evidence participation in (say) message boards reduces TV viewing. Are you aware of any? I am not an expert, but it would not surprise me if many, many people are 'multiscreening' and thus that the impact of message boards, twitter, etc. on tv ratings is pretty smally.Beyond laughable. I can't tell whether you don't get the way the sport is followed, or the way the internet works, or a LOT of column A and a LOT of column B. Frankly, I don't give a shit.
Yeah, people go online to their message boards - you might want to check that out, it is a pretty big deal - to FO, to various bloggers et al immediately after the game and start breaking the shit down out of the game. That you don't realize that this phenomenon is growing is pretty hilarious. I guess you want to make a point about how the NFL are meanies because something something something Goodell, but it just isn't the case on this one. That you are doing it while posting on a sports message board and not even noting the irony is kind of consistent with your level of posting.
Serious question, you keep saying things about hot takes.....do you have any idea what a hot take is? I won't bother checking your answer, but someone might care.
We are referencing the league's mandate regarding posting video from games, which is new. Try to follow along.His point was not at all what you are responding to above. What he said was that there is no evidence participation in (say) message boards reduces TV viewing. Are you aware of any? I am not an expert, but it would not surprise me if many, many people are 'multiscreening' and thus that the impact of message boards, twitter, etc. on tv ratings is pretty smally.
In particular, it seems like a tough case to make that there was some breakthrough between 2015 and 2016 that suggests multiscreen usage is a significant part of the ratings decline between those years.
Yes, and unless you are suggesting that people are not watching TV because they are instead watching those via twitter, forums, etc. the points Quintana and I have made stand.We are referencing the league's mandate regarding posting video from games, which is new. Try to follow along.
I'll bet it's a revenue-sharing thing.I'm sure that's their goal broadly, but there is zero evidence to suggest that limiting short-form video content from team social channels will drive additional eyeballs to linear TV. Those two things are not substitutes in any way, shape or form. I mean, is anyone seriously going to say to themselves "Hey the content on the Pats Twitter handle is pretty boring and text-heavy today, guess I should start watching the game instead."? It's simply not plausible.
If you want to make the argument that the objective of this policy is to drive more eyeballs to League social content/channels, and therefore help make the total League audience look better than it otherwise might be, I could buy that. But if the goal is drive eyeballs to the game on TV, that will be about as effective as an authoritarian government banning black market currency transactions to maintain its exchange rate - the solution has nothing to do with, and no impact on, the underlying malady.
I remember a few times last year when there was a matchup I was excited to watch and it ended up a steaming pile. So this year I haven't really bothered with similar sentiment. Kind of a fool me once shame on you, fool me....you can't get fooled again type thing.I find my self watching less because it seems that more often than i can remember, the game I'm watching sucks in a lot of small ways that turn it into "who sucks less." Maybe that's a function of the neutral games piped into NE so far.
There's a racial skew to the fanbases in Atlanta. The Falcons have a huge black fanbase, the Dawgs not so much.
I find my self watching less because it seems that more often than i can remember, the game I'm watching sucks in a lot of small ways that turn it into "who sucks less." Maybe that's a function of the neutral games piped into NE so far.
Baltimore, Atlanta, and Seattle say "hello".I've felt this way since the year leading up to SEA SB over Manning. Most of these teams suck. Pitt is supposed to be good this year and they just waxed my guys but they had a ton of unforced errors. They could have won by more. It seems like the Pats are the only team that even practices.
If ratings slide, Goodell looks even smarter for signing long-term TV deals when he did. The only way he gets sacked anytime soon is if relations with the NFLPA deteriorate to a point where the owners decide that having someone else negotiate the next CBA is the only way to get an acceptable deal without taking a strike.DFG may not have killed Goodell's evil reign but bad ratings and loss of revenue most certainly will. I hope they continue to slide 'bigly' and that RG is blamed.
I felt this way about the SNF game this week. Giants / Packers. 1-3 years ago I'd have it on start to at least half (depending on work schedule) if not to the end. Honestly, I turned it on for the first 5 minutes and flipped to something else. I'm not sure why I don't really care, but I don't.I remember a few times last year when there was a matchup I was excited to watch and it ended up a steaming pile. So this year I haven't really bothered with similar sentiment. Kind of a fool me once shame on you, fool me....you can't get fooled again type thing.
There are still coaches challenges as well as the automatically reviewed plays. Typically the automatically reviewed plays, TDs and turnovers, are reviewed discreetly enough that you can't even tell they occurred. I don't see this is a problem. I do agree on the catch no catch point though. That part of the rule book makes football worse.Eliminate replays and go back to 2 coaches challenges.
The automatic reviews are a weird thing to harp on for me.There are still coaches challenges as well as the automatically reviewed plays. Typically the automatically reviewed plays, TDs and turnovers, are reviewed discreetly enough that you can't even tell they occurred. I don't see this is a problem. I do agree on the catch no catch point though. That part of the rule book makes football worse.
I get what you mean re: stealing some of the thunder of game changing plays. But that's something I'm personally willing to forgo to get the correct call.Reviews may not kill the flow of the game, but they can certainly damage the flow of the fan excitement level. Yay, it's a TD! Oh, it's under review. Yay, it's a big return off the interception! Hold on, replay indicates his knee might have been down so it may be coming back. Yay, it's a crucial catch on the sidelines on 3rd-and-12! Don't celebrate yet, they have to review multiple angles to decide catch-or-not-a-catch. If watching a game is a thrill ride, some of the bigger hills and tighter curves have been tamped down a bit by replay.
It's tough because I am not eager to go back to not being able to review whether fumbles occurred or a ballcarrier broke the plane of the goal line. I guess that's why I'd lean to BB's call for allowing coaches to challenge everything, and then dumping the automatic reviews. Maybe even give the coaches one more challenge, but let them decide which plays are game-changing enough for review for the entire game.I get what you mean re: stealing some of the thunder of game changing plays. But that's something I'm personally willing to forgo to get the correct call.
My God. You are so comically uninformed on this issue it's pathetic. Please - regale us all with your evidence that NFL team social handles are a substitute for watching the game. From your IT perch in East Cackalackistan, you might want to consider for a moment that you don't actually know the vocation of everyone on the board.Beyond laughable. I can't tell whether you don't get the way the sport is followed, or the way the internet works, or a LOT of column A and a LOT of column B. Frankly, I don't give a shit.
Yeah, people go online to their message boards - you might want to check that out, it is a pretty big deal - to FO, to various bloggers et al immediately after the game and start breaking the shit down out of the game. That you don't realize that this phenomenon is growing is pretty hilarious. I guess you want to make a point about how the NFL are meanies because something something something Goodell, but it just isn't the case on this one. That you are doing it while posting on a sports message board and not even noting the irony is kind of consistent with your level of posting.
Serious question, you keep saying things about hot takes.....do you have any idea what a hot take is? I won't bother checking your answer, but someone might care.
Lots of good points here, and I think there's a lot of truth to this. Classic NFL under Goodell though, as they've over-reached by casting far too wide of a net in terms of prohibited content. I mean GIFs/memes using archival footage? Really?I'll bet it's a revenue-sharing thing.
The NFL's national TV deal generates more revenue for the league and its owners than all other sources of revenue combined. That revenue is, of course, shared equally by the 32 teams; that's the single biggest reason why the NFL has better competitive balance than other professional sports leagues.
As technology evolves, a lot of video content that is delivered through TV today will eventually be delivered over the Internet in some way, shape or form. Unless the league intends to change its business model dramatically, it's crucial that the revenue from those new Internet video outlets be shared the same way as TV money is shared. The occasional video posted on Facebook or Twitter is not a big deal financially, but the principle is hugely important.
Also, the NFL probably has restrictions on rebroadcasting of game footage (including dissemination on the Internet) written into its contracts with broadcast partners. It's a lot easier to ensure compliance if you don't have 32 social media groups (with varying degrees of professionalism) at the club level posting video content.
Teams are obviously free to use their own social media accounts to share/retweet content from league accounts, so I don't see why this is a big deal from a fan perspective.
With a 9.0/15 rating in metered-market results, the Houston Texans’ 26-23 overtime over the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday was not only a season low for SNF but the worst the NFL powerhouse series has done in nearly five years. Only the October 23, 2011 game — in which the Colts smashed the New Orleans Saints 62-7 — has come in with a lower MM rating (8.2).
This is a great point, and goes hand-in-hand with regional blackouts. I get how lucrative the TV deals are, but streaming offers them access to a bigger pie IMO, and a much, much younger audience. Comcast has really upped their app game but the NFL goes so far as to block streaming of live AND recorded games. My sling box gets me around this, but the NFL is dinosaur in the media delivery department. Maybe Direct TV's intention to get scale out to dishes (and into streaming only) will help them move, but I'd guess they'd find a way to screw that up too.I'm watching WAY less because the NFL does not seem interested in me getting access to the games. I'm not going to switch to DirectTV for the NFL. They won't let me get digital Sunday Ticket, even though I cannot even install DirectTV where I live. I tried to get an audio stream of a national game last night on a long drive, but they want $80/yr to listen to audio. They won't let me stream games from my TV provider's app. This was one day of me trying to watch the NFL.
In an internet age, they have made it as difficult as possible for people to watch the games.
I'm pretty much in the same boat - moved out of Massachusetts and can't get DirectTV (not that I would) - I really don't have any options other than internet streams or a slingbox - which is totally ridiculous.I'm watching WAY less because the NFL does not seem interested in me getting access to the games. I'm not going to switch to DirectTV for the NFL. They won't let me get digital Sunday Ticket, even though I cannot even install DirectTV where I live. I tried to get an audio stream of a national game last night on a long drive, but they want $80/yr to listen to audio. They won't let me stream games from my TV provider's app. This was one day of me trying to watch the NFL.
In an internet age, they have made it as difficult as possible for people to watch the games.
Slingbox isn't that ridiculous. It's a great product. I use my slingbox all the time for sports watching, if I'm in a place where I can't watch it on TV.I'm pretty much in the same boat - moved out of Massachusetts and can't get DirectTV (not that I would) - I really don't have any options other than internet streams or a slingbox - which is totally ridiculous.
If you have it on your home, sure. But he'd have to install it on someone *else's* TV, and that's pretty ridiculous.Slingbox isn't that ridiculous. It's a great product. I use my slingbox all the time for sports watching, if I'm in a place where I can't watch it on TV.
I'm confused by what you're saying here. You can't watch a game when it's being shown on the local station where you are. Why can't you watch the local station?If you have it on your home, sure. But he'd have to install it on someone *else's* TV, and that's pretty ridiculous.
Yesterday was the first day that I realized that even though I pay for Sunday Ticket streaming...I *still* couldn't watch the Pats game because it's not based on home area, but wherever the game happens to be shown that week. Which is pretty fucking ludicrous, and goes to the point where they make it as hard as possible for someone to watch games. So even though I'm paying them like $60 a month, I still won't be able to watch something like 25% of the season. It's nuts.
Because I don't have cable.I'm confused by what you're saying here. You can't watch a game when it's being shown on the local station where you are. Why can't you watch the local station?
They don't make it that hard to watch the game, it's not like they are buried on TruTV. You just don't subscribe to the product delivery system.Because I don't have cable.
Yes, I could get local channels if I had an antenna- and now I've gone out and purchased one- but the point is it lowers the value prop for Sunday Ticket streaming. You buy it, thinking that you're buying the ability to watch the season, when in reality you're buying some portion of the games of the season (on a sliding scale partially based on your team's popularity).
Yes, you can find that out if you read through the various blackout rules, but it fits into uncannymanny's point about the NFL making it really hard for people in the Internet age to buy their product. Basically, if you're a cord-cutter- even if you're out of the home market- you need a combination of a paid monthly service, HD antenna, Twitter, and likely something else (like sling.tv subscription) for other games. It's an insane patchwork scenario, and paying for Sunday Ticket is making less and less sense, and it's getting really hard to not just cancel and pirate those games.
As a Dolphins fan living in NE and a cord cutter, I've bought the Sunday Ticket streaming package the last 3 or 4 seasons and enjoy their service. Then again, I'm basically their target demographic.Yeah, it's always been an out-of-market product. The streaming isn't intended for cord-cutters, it's for people who are unable to get directv and want out-of-market games.
And that's why I bought it, as a NE fan on the west coast. Although, as I said, I'm realizing that I'm really paying that $200+ for something like half the games. And that value prop is a factor in future viewership.As a Dolphins fan living in NE and a cord cutter, I've bought the Sunday Ticket streaming package the last 3 or 4 seasons and enjoy their service. Then again, I'm basically their target demographic.
Pigs get slaughtered. The NFL owned Sunday and Monday and they just had to have Thursday, too. This was doubly bad because these players need rest and the Thursday night games are terrible, in general. So it watered down the product and made it less attractive.Had the opportunity to discuss this issue with two C-level marketing executives. I expressed my opinion that the national anthem issue was a major driver, but they both thought it was oversaturation -- having NFL football on TV every Sunday, Monday and Thursday has made it seem as though it's on all the time, so people are less likely to make it appointment viewing.
Maybe you missed the part where I *can't* get Sunday Ticket.They don't make it that hard to watch the game, it's not like they are buried on TruTV. You just don't subscribe to the product delivery system.
Well maybe the NFL can help me get some newspaper subscriptions and a land line too; they should have enough time soon. "It's always [been that way]" is one of the weakest arguments for anything and for a business, a sure way to get in a situation like this.Yeah, it's always been an out-of-market product. The streaming isn't intended for cord-cutters, it's for people who are unable to get directv and want out-of-market games.
If they had numbers on those services RG would cite them (think about the numbers MLB would pull out from MLBAM if they were in this spot). But they don't have the subscriber numbers (because you can barely get it), so he said "less people are watching for whatever reason".But the thread is about NFL's declining viewership on TV, not streaming devices, which can only contribute to declining TV viewership. I don't hear them complaining about fewer Sunday Ticket subscribers, streaming or otherwise.
Your argument boils down to, "I rally want an iPhone but I don't want to pay a monthly contract to use it for texts and calls and data."Maybe you missed the part where I *can't* get Sunday Ticket.