Football Ratings Are Down

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So in your view prohibition of any sort of demonstration (sitting, praying, giving the finger, etc.) = forcing someone to make a political statement?

No. Forcing someone to participate in the national anthem against their will is forced politics. It's not about the demonstration. People should be allowed to not participate in the anthem, even if they are in the private sector. That is different from making a demonstration of one's own.

The NFL is making a demonstration by playing the national anthem and asking people to stand. Kaepernick is choosing not to participate in their demonstration. If he held up a sign or gave the flag the bird or burned the flag that would be different. Now if a random fan wanted to hold up a sign or give the bird, they should go ahead as private citizens(I assume a fan burning a flag in the stadium would be considered a safety hazard).

There's a difference between not giving respect and giving disrespect.

How much something is disruptive is also a factor. Kneeling or praying, not disruptive. Flicking people off is disruptive.

[Pakuni]

How about if kneels and prays with the players on his team who choose to join him?

Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.

[Lennys Tap]

Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.

Sort of like the inherently authoritative nature between quarterback and wide receiver or offensive lineman? Just kidding...I'm well aware of the SC decision. I was just trying to find out where TAMU's thought process led him.

[Tugg Speedman]

Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.

Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business

No. Forcing someone to participate in the national anthem against their will is forced politics. It's not about the demonstration. People should be allowed to not participate in the anthem, even if they are in the private sector. That is different from making a demonstration of one's own.

What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?

This is on the back of every helmet.  Is this a forced polticial statement?

[Lennys Tap]

Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business

What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?

This is on the back of every helmet.  Is this a forced polticial statement?

Perhaps Kaepernick can get permission to play without a helmet - that's a protest I'd admire!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?

This is on the back of every helmet.  Is this a forced polticial statement?



Hmm. Good question. I could see both sides to that one. Guess we won't know until someone tries to challenge it.

Like I said before, I have no issue with the NFL making a political statement. The issue is if they fire their employees for refusing to participate in the statement.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.

For me it would depend.  I think there's a difference between an individual kneeling and saying a prayer to himself and an individual asking a group of subordinates to pray with him. Maybe the law sees it differently but if all a person is doing is kneeling and saying a prayer to themself, I don't see an issue.

Why do you think football players take a knee when a teammate gets significantly injured?

[Pakuni]

Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business

Did you just ask whether the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in public schools applies to the NFL?
Uhhh ....

Still waiting for you to demand Belichick's suspension. It's necessary to maintain the consistency of your economic argument about Kaepernick.

[GGGG]

The ridiculous NFL/CBS pregame show that is nothing but a big fake laugh fest can't help ratings.

[Tugg Speedman]

Did you just ask whether the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in public schools applies to the NFL?
Uhhh ....

Still waiting for you to demand Belichick's suspension. It's necessary to maintain the consistency of your economic argument about Kaepernick.

Jay Cutler said it on Sports Talk radio in Chicago commenting on his previous remarks.

[Babybluejeansfan]

Cromartie's wife claims husband was cut due to National Anthem protest.  Told not to take a knee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/cromarties-wife-links-colts-cut-to-national-anthem-protest/2016/10/20/b80cd6e0-971d-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html


Was she thrown by an internet hoax, too?  Like Doug Baldwin?

[Babybluejeansfan]

Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business

What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?

This is on the back of every helmet.  Is this a forced polticial statement?

Let's take it a step further.  The university of Illinois is a public school, receiving public funds, and thus wearing the helmet or any clothing that is state supported could be viewed as supporting the state gov't in a political fashion, or at the very least supporting everything the University of Illinois does and stands for.  That can be the only conclusion.

To suggest that the national anthem is a political statement is a wild stretch.  Some of you wonder why so many Americans are fed up to the point of breaking.  Should all American flags be banned at all public buildings?  Can I go to the DMV anymore without being oppressed because the American flag and the state of Alabama flag is outside the building?   Is that flag a political statement that beats down my oppressed soul as I park the car and make the walk into the building?  How about the post man?  Your local policeman or firefighter with the American flag on their vehicle or uniform.  Or the state flag.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Let's take it a step further.  The university of Illinois is a public school, receiving public funds, and thus wearing the helmet or any clothing that is state supported could be viewed as supporting the state gov't in a political fashion, or at the very least supporting everything the University of Illinois does and stands for.  That can be the only conclusion.

To suggest that the national anthem is a political statement is a wild stretch.  Some of you wonder why so many Americans are fed up to the point of breaking.  Should all American flags be banned at all public buildings?  Can I go to the DMV anymore without being oppressed because the American flag and the state of Alabama flag is outside the building?   Is that flag a political statement that beats down my oppressed soul as I park the car and make the walk into the building?  How about the post man?  Your local policeman or firefighter with the American flag on their vehicle or uniform.  Or the state flag.

Redecutio Ad Absurdum. Classic Chicos.

[Tugg Speedman]

The public has a wildly different view than Roger Goodell.

The customer is always right ... correct?

Fans watching fewer NFL games cite protests as primary reason
Oct 19, 2016, 12:20 PM

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fans-watching-fewer-nfl-games-cite-protests-as-primary-reason-172059483.html

In a survey of 1,136 Americans who identified themselves as NFL fans, 29 percent said they are watching fewer NFL games. (Interestingly, 27 percent said they were watching more, though that does not necessarily correlate only a 2 percent net loss.)

Worth noting: the 40 percent of the “watching less NFL” group claiming protests as the reason represents 12 percent of all NFL fans. This is a sharp, though very much expected, decline from the 44 percent who claimed in a similar Yahoo study in early September that they would stop watching if protests continued.

Should the protests migrate to other sports, respondents said they would cut back on viewing to the following degrees:

• 17 percent of NBA fans would watch fewer games
• 28 percent of baseball fans would watch fewer games
• 31 percent of hockey fans would watch fewer games

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The public has a wildly different view than Roger Goodell.

The customer is always right ... correct?

Fans watching fewer NFL games cite protests as primary reason
Oct 19, 2016, 12:20 PM

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fans-watching-fewer-nfl-games-cite-protests-as-primary-reason-172059483.html

In a survey of 1,136 Americans who identified themselves as NFL fans, 29 percent said they are watching fewer NFL games. (Interestingly, 27 percent said they were watching more, though that does not necessarily correlate only a 2 percent net loss.)

Worth noting: the 40 percent of the “watching less NFL” group claiming protests as the reason represents 12 percent of all NFL fans. This is a sharp, though very much expected, decline from the 44 percent who claimed in a similar Yahoo study in early September that they would stop watching if protests continued.

Should the protests migrate to other sports, respondents said they would cut back on viewing to the following degrees:

• 17 percent of NBA fans would watch fewer games
• 28 percent of baseball fans would watch fewer games
• 31 percent of hockey fans would watch fewer games

1,136 x 29% x 40% = 132

So 132 people in a small sample size are boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick's protest.

As my dad would say, "That amounts to a pimple on a pigs a$$."

[Tugg Speedman]

1,136 x 29% x 40% = 132

So 132 people in a small sample size are boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick's protest.

As my dad would say, "That amounts to a pimple on a pigs a$$."

 I guess you don't understand how polls work

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I guess you don't understand how polls work

No, I do.  There are estimated to be 160 million NFL fans (according to various sources that came up on my Google search).  1,136 divided by 160,000,000 = .00071%

That is not statistically significant.  So no larger conclusions can be extrapolated to the larger pool of NFL fans.

[Pakuni]

I guess you don't understand how polls work

Self-selecting online poll.
Totally worthless, as we both know.

How do we know? Here's one reason:
29 percent of poll takers claim they're watching the NFL less for various reasons.
NFL ratings are down less than a third of that.
Either they're lying or they're a group of outliers. I suspect it's a combination of both.

[Benny B]

Self-selecting online poll.
Totally worthless, as we both know.

How do we know? Here's one reason:
29 percent of poll takers claim they're watching the NFL less for various reasons.
NFL ratings are down less than a third of that.
Either they're lying or they're a group of outliers. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Not defending the poll, as I agree it's worthless.  However, it is possible for 30% of people to be watching less and for ratings to be down 10%.  The percentages are derived from different metrics.  For instance... generally until we hit the holiday season, a person with basic cable can tune into any one of six games every week: one on Thursday, three on Sunday afternoon (because only one network has a doubleheader in weeks 1-16), one on Sunday night and one on Monday (there are other exceptions, but I'm not going into those). 

So consider: Person A, who watches six games/week, has 6x the effect on ratings than Person B who watches only one game/week.  If Person B stops watching altogether, 50% of people will report watching less football but ratings will only be down 1/7th, or 14.29%.

[Babybluejeansfan]

Self-selecting online poll.
Totally worthless, as we both know.

How do we know? Here's one reason:
29 percent of poll takers claim they're watching the NFL less for various reasons.
NFL ratings are down less than a third of that.
Either they're lying or they're a group of outliers. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Quinnipiac University Poll says the same thing as the Yahoo online poll.

Rasmussen poll, also the same thing.

You may find Yahoo poll worthless, but two non-online and controlled polls show the same results within a few percentage points.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Quinnipiac University Poll says the same thing as the Yahoo online poll.

Rasmussen poll, also the same thing.

You may find Yahoo poll worthless, but two non-online and controlled polls show the same results within a few percentage points.

Everything I have read about the Quinnipiac poll only mentions opinions of the protests.  Nothing on viewership patterns.  If I missed that, I would appreciate the info.

[Tugg Speedman]

This suggests that baseball might have dented NFL national TV ratings.

Cubs ratings nearly twice Bears viewership last night

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161021/BLOGS04/161029975/cubs-ratings-nearly-twice-bears-viewership-last-night#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-breakingnews&utm_campaign=ccb-breakingnews-20161021

Last night's Cubs-Dodgers game drew an average local TV rating of 24.1, or more than 1 million homes tuning in.

That's the highest-rated Cubs game during the National League Championship Series. But that's not the jaw-dropper.

The Bears, playing the rival Green Bay Packers on Thursday Night Football at the same time as the Cubs game, posted just a 12.8 average TV rating in Chicago between NFL Network and CBS combined, according to a source familiar with the ratings.

That means roughly 400,000 more Chicago TV households were watching the Cubs last night instead of the Bears, who lost to the Packers 26-10.

The Cubs' high number is not shocking, given the fervor around the team as it marches toward a National League pennant.

But the Bears' TV rating is exceptionally low. Its games so far this year have posted ratings in the 19 to 21 range. That's a more drastic dip than NFL TV ratings overall, which were down 11 percent over the first six weeks of the season compared to the same point last year.

[#UnleashSean]

This suggests that baseball might have dented NFL national TV ratings.

Cubs ratings nearly twice Bears viewership last night

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161021/BLOGS04/161029975/cubs-ratings-nearly-twice-bears-viewership-last-night#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-breakingnews&utm_campaign=ccb-breakingnews-20161021

Last night's Cubs-Dodgers game drew an average local TV rating of 24.1, or more than 1 million homes tuning in.

That's the highest-rated Cubs game during the National League Championship Series. But that's not the jaw-dropper.

The Bears, playing the rival Green Bay Packers on Thursday Night Football at the same time as the Cubs game, posted just a 12.8 average TV rating in Chicago between NFL Network and CBS combined, according to a source familiar with the ratings.

That means roughly 400,000 more Chicago TV households were watching the Cubs last night instead of the Bears, who lost to the Packers 26-10.

The Cubs' high number is not shocking, given the fervor around the team as it marches toward a National League pennant.

But the Bears' TV rating is exceptionally low. Its games so far this year have posted ratings in the 19 to 21 range. That's a more drastic dip than NFL TV ratings overall, which were down 11 percent over the first six weeks of the season compared to the same point last year.

Thats not to surprising. People are going to choose the Cubs in the NLCS over the Bears who are awful, playing an opponent they play twice a year and get beaten twice a year badly.

[Lennys Tap]

Thats not to surprising. People are going to choose the Cubs in the NLCS over the Bears who are awful, playing an opponent they play twice a year and get beaten twice a year badly.

Prior to last night the most recent game between the Bears and Packers was at Lambeau last November. The team that always loses badly won 17-13.

[Pakuni]

Prior to last night the most recent game between the Bears and Packers was at Lambeau last November. The team that always loses badly won 17-13.

Exception to the rule.
This decade, the Packers are 11-3 against the Bears, with those wins coming by an average of 13.6 points per game.
I say this as a fan of neither team.