Football Ratings Are Down

[Benny B]

With the record breaking audience and ratings from last year, it's going to be hard to maintain that pace yearly.   It feels like its audience is closed to max out, as ff is at its peak.    You could make changes like eliminating kickoffs and going more pc to appeal to women and beta males but then you'd lose some of the men.   Interesting to see where the game will go from here, lawsuits will probably greatly reduce the NFL viability as we head deeper into this century.

It's not "men" the NFL is worried about losing... their core audience they risk losing by softening the game are better described as "rednecks."

[Blackhat]

their popularity among men, both north and south, of all races is definitely their bread and butter.  Making a bunch of softening changes could be tumultuous for the NFL because viewpoints are fairly different by gender breakdown.

[RJax55]

their popularity among men, both north and south, of all races is definitely their bread and butter.  Making a bunch of softening changes could be tumultuous for the NFL because viewpoints are fairly different by gender breakdown.

Perhaps the biggest issue hurting the league is the lack of leadership from the owners in making real decisions on the issue of player safety. The NFL tries to play both sides and right now all are losing. Traditionalists don't like the rule changes and the rule changes have done almost nothing to increase safety.

Instead, the league is filled with ambiguity. What's roughing? What's targeting? Was the player defenseless? Is he concussed? The Broncos-Panthers game was the perfect example of this.

The NFL needs to choose. Either acknowledge and embrace the long-term risks of playing and provide support, but allow the game to be played in its historic form, or make drastic changes to the game that would greatly enhance player safety, but accept that could led to a style of NFL football that looks different than today.

[rocket surgeon]

It's not "men" the NFL is worried about losing... their core audience they risk losing by softening the game are better described as "rednecks."

If that's the case, then pay very close attention to how the NFL handles the rise of these "social,awareness" campaigns.  You know yer a redneck when you use crime scene tape to close off your bathroom door, your school fight song was dueling banjos and your brother in law is your uncle

[mu03eng]

their popularity among men, both north and south, of all races is definitely their bread and butter.  Making a bunch of softening changes could be tumultuous for the NFL because viewpoints are fairly different by gender breakdown.

This "softening" you speak of would not drive away men who aren't beta males or whatever demographic breakdown you want to characterize. The ambiguity of approach by the NFL will drive them away. If the NFL were to come out and announce a bunch of changes to enhance player safety (eliminate kick-offs, add an official to monitor the QB only, universal replay for targeting, etc) and then they enforce it, there would be some of the routine grumbling but eventually everyone would accept it.

Right now the issue is that the NFL is widely inconsistent and fans perceive these things as politically correct/lip service efforts not legitimate efforts to improve the game. I'd be willing to bet a deliberate and firm "softening" of the game would have no negative long term impact on ratings and may even increase it over the long run.

[jsglow]

Not sure exactly how I feel about this.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/09/16/nevada-committee-approves-750m-vegas-stadium-plan-for-raiders.html

[rocket surgeon]

Inconsequential.

Oh Reeeeeeeeeeeelly reeeeeelly?   A good friend of mine just sent this to me.  If this is inaccurate however, I'd like to see your source


http://www.dailywire.com/news/9188/nfl-ratings-tank-any-guesses-why-hank-berrien

[keefe]

Two words unravel this thread" Go Blue!

[GGGG]

Oh Reeeeeeeeeeeelly reeeeeelly?   A good friend of mine just sent this to me.  If this is inaccurate however, I'd like to see your source


http://www.dailywire.com/news/9188/nfl-ratings-tank-any-guesses-why-hank-berrien

The ratings were clearly down.

No one knows why.  It's all speculation.

Only time will tell if this is a trend.

[tower912]

One can only hope. 

[rocket surgeon]

The ratings were clearly down.

No one knows why.  It's all speculation.

Only time will tell if this is a trend.

Absolutely!  But, this is a big ship to maneuver.  If goodell continues to allow these social issues to bleed into the game, it could get to a "boiling the frog" type of situation.  Drip drip drip...another example was how he kept that PED's situation going with matthews and pepper even though the report came from a source sans any credibility and then was retracted altogether

[Blackhat]

This "softening" you speak of would not drive away men who aren't beta males or whatever demographic breakdown you want to characterize. The ambiguity of approach by the NFL will drive them away. If the NFL were to come out and announce a bunch of changes to enhance player safety (eliminate kick-offs, add an official to monitor the QB only, universal replay for targeting, etc) and then they enforce it, there would be some of the routine grumbling but eventually everyone would accept it.

Right now the issue is that the NFL is widely inconsistent and fans perceive these things as politically correct/lip service efforts not legitimate efforts to improve the game. I'd be willing to bet a deliberate and firm "softening" of the game would have no negative long term impact on ratings and may even increase it over the long run.

Perhaps a softening to a certain extent would be accepted without exodus.   But people will not be nearly as interested to go to a flag football game which 60 years from now may be imposed.  As we are all aware, for good or bad, violence sells.

[forgetful]

Absolutely!  But, this is a big ship to maneuver.  If goodell continues to allow these social issues to bleed into the game, it could get to a "boiling the frog" type of situation.  Drip drip drip...another example was how he kept that PED's situation going with matthews and pepper even though the report came from a source sans any credibility and then was retracted altogether

I misunderstood what you guys were referring to in those issues.  I think the NFL's problem is that they stood by for too long and did nothing about the concussion issues, wife-beaters, team names, etc.  The optics are terrible; it reads as if they will sacrifice the health of millions (all the kids leagues) and readily promote criminals because it makes them money.

That turns off a lot of viewers.

[GooooMarquette]

Perhaps a softening to a certain extent would be accepted without exodus.   But people will not be nearly as interested to go to a flag football game which 60 years from now may be imposed.  As we are all aware, for good or bad, violence sells.

But if they don't address the safety issue, the best athletes will increasingly move to sports like baseball or basketball, where the risk of things like CTE is less.

Will people still watch the violence if the talent disappears?

[Blackhat]

But if they don't address the safety issue, the best athletes will increasingly move to sports like baseball or basketball, where the risk of things like CTE is less.

Will people still watch the violence if the talent disappears?

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.   I think more suburban moms may sway their kids from football.  But a lot of those kids are talent-less anyway.   If the NFL is still offering millions of dollars to play their game, they'll still get the brutes that are too bulky/short to play basketball.  As for baseball, NFL'ers could be instantaneously going retarded on the field and I think baseball still wouldn't get a sniff from AA athletes.   Boring to many.

[GGGG]

Guys, football is still the most participated in high school sport in the country.  More kids played high school football in 2014-15 than 20 years earlier.

The lack of participation may occur, but football is still huge.

http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

[chapman]

Duz anyone watch da Brew Crew? Get up, get up, get outta here, hey?

Don't even have cable, but I have my MLB.TV subscription every year to watch.  Though I usually cancel in the July/August time frame, with the convenient Reason dropdown selection on "Team not doing well".

[rocket surgeon]

I misunderstood what you guys were referring to in those issues.  I think the NFL's problem is that they stood by for too long and did nothing about the concussion issues, wife-beaters, team names, etc.  The optics are terrible; it reads as if they will sacrifice the health of millions (all the kids leagues) and readily promote criminals because it makes them money.

That turns off a lot of viewers.

Concussion issues-check
Wife beaters-check
Team names-nothing to see here, best left alone, non-issue
Using the field as ones personal "Twitter" page-nip it in the bud, quickly.  What's next?  PETA protests the    use of pigskin for the umm, pigskin?  PLAY BALL Eyn'a?

[chicosblindbodydouble]

In 2014, a number of the issues listed above took place. Ratings went up.  http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/

Gloom and doom predictions came anyway, and yet 2015 saw tv ratings growth again, not decline.  http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/10/media-circus-nfl-playoff-ratings-espn-nbc-cbs

Nicknames had zero impact.  The other issues, not impacted per the tv numbers. Concussions, abuse, you name it - ratings went UP.  You can't claim ratings are down this year because of nicknames, women abuse, concussions as all those happened in the last 2 to 5 years and ratings went up.  Fans didn't decide after sending ratings up that 2016 was the watershed year they were going to pull back.

Fast forward to this year, there has been one game and one major issue.  A national anthem boycott that has many fans ticked off.  We didn't watch a single minute this weekend, and were not alone.  Great South Park spoof on the protest by Kap by the way. 

If the national anthem action dies down, people will watch again, in the same way they boosted ratings last year.  If national anthem continues and turns people off, then the ratings will come down.    There has been one change this year, and a small sample size at that (1 game).  The national anthem.

[forgetful]

In 2014, a number of the issues listed above took place. Ratings went up.  http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/

Gloom and doom predictions came anyway, and yet 2015 saw tv ratings growth again, not decline.  http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/10/media-circus-nfl-playoff-ratings-espn-nbc-cbs

Nicknames had zero impact.  The other issues, not impacted per the tv numbers. Concussions, abuse, you name it - ratings went UP.  You can't claim ratings are down this year because of nicknames, women abuse, concussions as all those happened in the last 2 to 5 years and ratings went up.  Fans didn't decide after sending ratings up that 2016 was the watershed year they were going to pull back.

Fast forward to this year, there has been one game and one major issue.  A national anthem boycott that has many fans ticked off.  We didn't watch a single minute this weekend, and were not alone.  Great South Park spoof on the protest by Kap by the way. 

If the national anthem action dies down, people will watch again, in the same way they boosted ratings last year.  If national anthem continues and turns people off, then the ratings will come down.    There has been one change this year, and a small sample size at that (1 game).  The national anthem.

People are not boycotting the NFL because of Kap, that is moronic.

[rocket surgeon]

People are not boycotting the NFL because of Kap, that is moronic.

Boiling the frog my man...and this is spreading to other sports.  Remember, this isn't a republican/democrat thing.  This is an American thing.  As I said, next up, fill-in-the-blank "social injustice" or interest group protest and the frog will be toasty.  People go to, participate in and watch these activities as a release/escape from all the B.S. that is going on around them 24/7.  Now that is being taken away from them?  What's left? needle point, yoga, cooking classes...

Is this jumping the shark?  Probably a little bit, but they better figure a way to nip this in the bud or this will just take what is already an overcharged, hyper partisan,nonstop campaign political campaign and push it over the top. 

[GGGG]

In 2014, a number of the issues listed above took place. Ratings went up.  http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/

Gloom and doom predictions came anyway, and yet 2015 saw tv ratings growth again, not decline.  http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/10/media-circus-nfl-playoff-ratings-espn-nbc-cbs

Nicknames had zero impact.  The other issues, not impacted per the tv numbers. Concussions, abuse, you name it - ratings went UP.  You can't claim ratings are down this year because of nicknames, women abuse, concussions as all those happened in the last 2 to 5 years and ratings went up.  Fans didn't decide after sending ratings up that 2016 was the watershed year they were going to pull back.

Fast forward to this year, there has been one game and one major issue.  A national anthem boycott that has many fans ticked off.  We didn't watch a single minute this weekend, and were not alone.  Great South Park spoof on the protest by Kap by the way. 

If the national anthem action dies down, people will watch again, in the same way they boosted ratings last year.  If national anthem continues and turns people off, then the ratings will come down.    There has been one change this year, and a small sample size at that (1 game).  The national anthem.

You don't understand what I am saying.  I am saying that *IF* this is a long-term trend, and there really is no indication that this is the case, that you can't attribute it to one thing.  Nicknames, domestic violence, etc. aren't impacting the ratings, but taken together, they COULD collectively be hurting the image of the NFL overall. 

[Pakuni]

But if they don't address the safety issue, the best athletes will increasingly move to sports like baseball or basketball, where the risk of things like CTE is less.

Will people still watch the violence if the talent disappears?

Do people still watch high school and college football, even when the talent is less than what they can see in an NFL game?

Realistically, the vast majority of football viewers can only recognize talent relative to whatever else is out on the field. I don't think many (any) viewers are going to turn away from the game because a handful of talented athletes choose basketball instead (and, in reality, they have been choosing basketball instead for the past few decades).

[keefe]

Do people still watch high school and college football, even when the talent is less than what they can see in an NFL game?

Football is America's Game. But it hasn't exported well - unlike basketball and baseball.

As a Marquette grad I hate what college football has done to the Big East. But as a Michigan grad I love college football. The two are not mutually exclusive.

While pro football has a broader appeal college teams have far more passionate fan bases. This is particularly true in states without pro teams but, regardless, college fans are rabidly enthusiastic for the long haul.

Here in Seattle, you can't buy either a Seahawks or a Husky ticket. But, when the Hawks are losing, their tickets are available for pennies. Not so with U Dub tix. Win or lose they sell out Husky Stadium.
 

[brandx]

People are not boycotting the NFL because of Kap, that is moronic.

+10000000000