Football Ratings Are Down

[brandx]

Goddell is fighting for his job and will not even look for it.  (the owners listed cannot stand Goddell and want him gone ASAP and blame him for allowing this to get this far in the first place.)

As long as the money tree keeps bearing fruit, Goddell is in no jeopardy of losing his job.

[mu03eng]

As long as the money tree keeps bearing fruit, Goddell is in no jeopardy of losing his job.

Goodell is in no risk as he's doing what the owners want....taking grenades in the trenches for all the money grabbing schemes the owners have

[Tugg Speedman]

Goodell is in no risk as he's doing what the owners want....taking grenades in the trenches for all the money grabbing schemes the owners have

The second most competitive group in the NFL is the players trying to kill each other on the field every Sunday.  The most competitive  group is the owners trying to kill each other from their suites.

NFL commissioner is an impossible job and too many hate Goddell.  That starts with Bob Kraft that wants to tear his tonsils out over deflategate.  That includes the Jerry Jones contigent  (about 8 to 10 like-minded owners) that has always wanted him out and cannot stand Bob Kraft and his contingent (another 8 to 10).

Goddell has made enemies in the owners suite up and down the league.  Ravens over Ray Rice, Benson (Saints) over bounty gate, The Davis family has never liked him, Spanos (Chargers) wants him out because they could not move to LA and on and on and on.

50/50 he survives this offseason.  He makes $40 million/year, plenty of well qualified people will take that job ... maybe Condi Rice.

[Tugg Speedman]

As long as the money tree keeps bearing fruit, Goddell is in no jeopardy of losing his job.

Again, you should read this thread, ratings are down way more than expected.  A few more weeks of this and the league has to offer "give backs" (free commercials to make up for the lower audiences).  Then next year they take a hit in lower ad rates.

The sports bubble is popping, if not popped.  Next is the fallout.

[brewcity77]

Every example, such as the gay protester, is completely different than the Kaepernick situation because the NFL initiated the political statement. Now if you forced all your employees to take part in a pro-gay protest and they refused on religious grounds for which you suspended them or took other action, it'd be comparable.

Otherwise, you're just comparing apples to sweater vests.

[bma77]

The article hits on about a dozen of legitimate reasons why ratings are down.  There is no evidence to suggest that Kaepernick is a problem.  Right now the product simply isn't very good.

No evidence?  You may not agree with the evidence, but there is some evidence, even if it isn't the only reason why some are not watching.  Some people are turning off the NFL and boycotting.  That is a fact, they have admitted they have stopped watching, and that hurts ratings.  How can one ignore what people are saying they are doing and suggest there is no evidence?

Your articles are legitimate, but these are not?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/10/03/nfl-sunday-night-ratings-collapse-as-viewers-avoid-anthem-protesters/#7d27ffea2298

On streaming, the same two streaming options that existed the last 5 years for the NFL are still in play today.

[brandx]

82 was correct. Just as much a waste of time to discuss with Smuggles as it was with Chicas.

[rocket surgeon]

No evidence?  You may not agree with the evidence, but there is some evidence, even if it isn't the only reason why some are not watching.  Some people are turning off the NFL and boycotting.  That is a fact, they have admitted they have stopped watching, and that hurts ratings.  How can one ignore what people are saying they are doing and suggest there is no evidence?

Your articles are legitimate, but these are not?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/10/03/nfl-sunday-night-ratings-collapse-as-viewers-avoid-anthem-protesters/#7d27ffea2298


Swishhhhhhh!!  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, ey? Na?
On streaming, the same two streaming options that existed the last 5 years for the NFL are still in play today.

[Tugg Speedman]

Every example, such as the gay protester, is completely different than the Kaepernick situation because the NFL initiated the political statement. Now if you forced all your employees to take part in a pro-gay protest and they refused on religious grounds for which you suspended them or took other action, it'd be comparable.

Otherwise, you're just comparing apples to sweater vests.

You got the example wrong again.  It is not force the EMPLOYEES, it is force the CUSTOMERS.

Yes the NFL engages in a political statement but the customers like it.  Complaints about the Anthem over the last 80 years at every game in the history of the NFL has not hurt its popularity.

Kaepernick's political statement, on the other hand, is not popular and hurting the product (unless your blinded by ideology like Sultan and Pukuni). 

The question is what does the BUSINESS what to do about it?  Answer whatever they want.  For now they are doing nothing and they are suffering from it.

I suspect a few more weeks like this and they will do something.


(Yesterday Kaepernick had 6 teammates protesting with him.  It is growing)

[GGGG]

No evidence?  You may not agree with the evidence, but there is some evidence, even if it isn't the only reason why some are not watching.  Some people are turning off the NFL and boycotting.  That is a fact, they have admitted they have stopped watching, and that hurts ratings.  How can one ignore what people are saying they are doing and suggest there is no evidence?

Your articles are legitimate, but these are not?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/10/03/nfl-sunday-night-ratings-collapse-as-viewers-avoid-anthem-protesters/#7d27ffea2298

On streaming, the same two streaming options that existed the last 5 years for the NFL are still in play today.

Again, there is no EVIDENCE within that article.  Only opinion.

[tower912]

The NFL is on such a shaky foundation that the product can be hurt by a handful of players engaging in silent, non-violent protest about perceived racial inequality.   

[GGGG]

BTW, I shouldn't say that the national anthem protests are playing NO role.  IMO (and it is my opinion only), it is only a small part of larger issues that the NFL is facing.  I think the brand is eroding, and couple with other long-term trends that we are seeing in television watching habits, it is really starting to effect the league.

[brewcity77]

You got the example wrong again.  It is not force the EMPLOYEES, it is force the CUSTOMERS.

That's complete BS. If it isn't force the employees, then why are you bitching about it? Kaepernick is an employee. He's the one being forced. Debating that is lunacy.

Yes the NFL engages in a political statement but the customers like it.  Complaints about the Anthem over the last 80 years at every game in the history of the NFL has not hurt its popularity.

Kaepernick's political statement, on the other hand, is not popular and hurting the product (unless your blinded by ideology like Sultan and Pukuni).

But you can't have the latter without the former. This falls on the NFL, not on Kaepernick. They have the power here. They can choose to discontinue the anthem if it is so offensive to customers. However they do not have the right to force their players to participate in a political statement they do not agree with any more than you could force your employees to take part in a pro-gay rally. What you're suggesting is dictatorial. While I get that calling for a blind dictatorship is what many people in this country seem to want, it is also inherently anti-American and against the spirit of the Constitution.

The question is what does the BUSINESS what to do about it?  Answer whatever they want.  For now they are doing nothing and they are suffering from it.

I suspect a few more weeks like this and they will do something.

So what's the problem? That's their choice. They can discontinue the anthem or they can accept the protests that come with it.

(Yesterday Kaepernick had 6 teammates protesting with him.  It is growing)

He did. It is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's protected by the Constitution and they absolutely, 100% have the right to do that.

[bma77]

But you can't have the latter without the former. This falls on the NFL, not on Kaepernick. They have the power here. They can choose to discontinue the anthem if it is so offensive to customers. However they do not have the right to force their players to participate in a political statement they do not agree with any more than you could force your employees to take part in a pro-gay rally. What you're suggesting is dictatorial. While I get that calling for a blind dictatorship is what many people in this country seem to want, it is also inherently anti-American and against the spirit of the Constitution.

Why do you think the Anthem is a political statement?  The history of the Anthem at sporting events has nothing to do with politics of any sort.  It is a battle song, a battle cry.   Nothing political at all, so shy do you say the anthem is a political statement?  The Olympics we play the national anthem for every winner, to honor that country, not make a political statement.  Should that be stopped?   http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the collective bargaining agreements for the NBA and NHL says players MUST stand for the national anthems of both countries (when playing Canadian teams), or if only the US anthem is played.  That was mutually agreed to by players and management.  It is very likely the NFL in the next round of labor talks will have the same type of language put in.  The only reason NFL players can do what they are doing now is because it isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement.

One final thought on this.  Every game I've been to in my gazillion decades on this planet:

"Ladies and gentlemen, will you please rise
kindly remove your caps
as we honor our nation with the singing of our national anthem"

Some key words in there.  People may not like the President, but he is our president.  People may not like Congress, but it is our Congress.  People may not agree with what our gov't does, but it is our gov't.  It is also our national anthem. 

[Pakuni]

The second most competitive group in the NFL is the players trying to kill each other on the field every Sunday.  The most competitive  group is the owners trying to kill each other from their suites.

NFL commissioner is an impossible job and too many hate Goddell.  That starts with Bob Kraft that wants to tear his tonsils out over deflategate.  That includes the Jerry Jones contigent  (about 8 to 10 like-minded owners) that has always wanted him out and cannot stand Bob Kraft and his contingent (another 8 to 10).

Goddell has made enemies in the owners suite up and down the league.  Ravens over Ray Rice, Benson (Saints) over bounty gate, The Davis family has never liked him, Spanos (Chargers) wants him out because they could not move to LA and on and on and on.

50/50 he survives this offseason.  He makes $40 million/year, plenty of well qualified people will take that job ... maybe Condi Rice.

While I'm sure you're better connected with NFL ownership than the hacks over at Sports Illustrated, and are more attuned to their inner thought, they strongly disagree with pretty much everything you've written here.
The reality is, Jerry Jones is one of Goodell's biggest supporters, as are the Rooneys. And because of that Roger won't be going anywhere anytime soon, except by his own volition.

No matter how choppy the sailing has become from a PR perspective, Goodell continues to have the backing of ownership. “Look at the business of the NFL, look at the game on the field, look at the improvements we’ve made in player safety, look at the [head trauma] research we are funding, look at the improvements we’ve made largely due to his influence on benefits for retired players,” Mara says. “I would argue he has done his job very well."
The fact that business hasn’t dipped, Mara continues, “no question, that was a big factor for a lot of owners. For me, it was more than that.”
On Monday night, Goodell was at the Sports Illustrated offices in downtown Manhattan for the New York premiere of the documentary film Gleason, chronicling former Saints special teamer Steve Gleason’s life with ALS. When Goodell arrived, he was warmly embraced by Scott Fujita, Gleason’s former teammate and an executive producer of the film. As Fujita introduced the film, he thanked both Goodell and the NFL.
“They’ve been behind us in a big way,” Fujita said, “and you can’t have this kind of support without people like them.”
It was a strange juxtaposition. Goodell, in the arms of one of the Saints players he disciplined in Bountygate. Goodell, moved to tears by a film about a player who is suffering from a neurodegenerative disease that is strongly presumed to have a link to his football career. But perhaps it was the human side of a commissioner who rarely lets that show. Those close to Goodell say part of the reason he’s so guarded in public, to the point of arrogance, is that his emotions are so close to the surface. Says Jerry Jones, “I think he’s sensitive [to the criticism], yes I do. He’s a sensitive man.”
Some owners wonder how long Goodell would want to do this job. He is 57; Tagliabue retired at 65. And the job’s demands are different today. It is more complicated. The criticism reverberates more thanks to social media and a 24/7 news cycle powered by the league’s popularity.
But others who have worked closely with Goodell can’t picture him finding another vocation that will satisfy his desire to leave his mark the way this job does. Goodell’s current contract expires in 2019. The way things stand today, he will have the chance to shepherd the game of football through its most uncertain time for as long as he’d like to do so.
“If there was an election held today, the overwhelming majority of owners would re-elect him,” Mara says.
Adds Rooney, “I expect he’s going to be our commissioner into the next decade.”
Says Jones: “As far as I can see into the future.”

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/07/19/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell

[Pakuni]

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the collective bargaining agreements for the NBA and NHL says players MUST stand for the national anthems of both countries (when playing Canadian teams), or if only the US anthem is played.  That was mutually agreed to by players and management.  It is very likely the NFL in the next round of labor talks will have the same type of language put in.  The only reason NFL players can do what they are doing now is because it isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Could you point out where either CBA says this?

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/doc/172760974/NBA-NBPA-CBA-2011

[brewcity77]

Why do you think the Anthem is a political statement?  The history of the Anthem at sporting events has nothing to do with politics of any sort.  It is a battle song, a battle cry.   Nothing political at all, so shy do you say the anthem is a political statement?

You say it is meant to honor our country. Honoring our country is in and of itself a political statement. There is absolutely no way it could be construed as anything other than a political statement.

The Olympics we play the national anthem for every winner, to honor that country, not make a political statement.  Should that be stopped?   http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine

A worthy effort, but there are numerous differences. First of all, I'm not saying the anthem should be stopped. I don't care if they play the anthem or don't. However if they are going to play the anthem, they have to realize that making that political statement opens the door for other political statements such as Kaepernick's. Or Megan Rapinoe's. Or Tommy Smith's and John Carlos'.

Here's the thing...the National Anthem of the United States is racist. The third and fourth verses are pretty damn blatant. As they aren't traditionally included in what is played today, here they are:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I get the patriotism that surrounds the Anthem, but it talks about how slaves should be terrified of fleeing and can't escape death, as well as continuing to indicate that our country is only for free men. It's too bad that this was in the full, original version, but it is what it is, so how can I begrudge anyone wanting to protest that? And in general, how can we begrudge peaceful protests when they are protected by the Constitution?

Sorry...maybe off the topic of the Olympics, but the Olympics play the anthem to help identify the country. If said country's citizens want to protest that, I personally have no problem with it.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the collective bargaining agreements for the NBA and NHL says players MUST stand for the national anthems of both countries (when playing Canadian teams), or if only the US anthem is played.  That was mutually agreed to by players and management.  It is very likely the NFL in the next round of labor talks will have the same type of language put in.  The only reason NFL players can do what they are doing now is because it isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement.

If so, that would be as Constitutional as forcing every player to pray. It may be in there, but I think you would have a very hard time enforcing that if it came to a court of law.

One final thought on this.  Every game I've been to in my gazillion decades on this planet:

"Ladies and gentlemen, will you please rise
kindly remove your caps
as we honor our nation with the singing of our national anthem"

Some key words in there.  People may not like the President, but he is our president.  People may not like Congress, but it is our Congress.  People may not agree with what our gov't does, but it is our gov't.  It is also our national anthem.

You're right, there are some key words in there. Words like "will you please" and "kindly". However, there is a piece of punctuation you left out, which is the question mark. This isn't a statement or demand, it is a request. No one is obligated to grant said request.

Part of what I love about this country is that we as citizens have the power through voting, protest, and free speech, to speak out against our country. To work to make changes to our country. We have the power, the right, and the obligation to do everything we can to make our country better. If one citizen is not given equal treatment in this country, then no citizen is given equal treatment. Whether you agree with Kaepernick's assessment of the situation, he has the right to protest and the obligation to do what he can to try to make this country a better place for all citizens.

[MerrittsMustache]

Here's the thing...the National Anthem of the United States is racist. The third and fourth verses are pretty damn blatant. As they aren't traditionally included in what is played today, here they are:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I get the patriotism that surrounds the Anthem, but it talks about how slaves should be terrified of fleeing and can't escape death, as well as continuing to indicate that our country is only for free men. It's too bad that this was in the full, original version, but it is what it is, so how can I begrudge anyone wanting to protest that? And in general, how can we begrudge peaceful protests when they are protected by the Constitution?

Historians disagree over whether or not that verse is racist and about slavery in the US. Many feel that it is and that Key (a slaveowner) was particularly pleased to see the demise of slaves who fought for the Brits in exchange for a promise of post-war freedom. Many other historians have stated that Americans at that time often referred to British troops as "hirelings and slaves," as their army was comprised of British soldiers (hirelings) and former US slaves, and Key was not singling out slaves in particular to be terrified, but rather the entire opposing army.

[brewcity77]

Historians disagree over whether or not that verse is racist and about slavery in the US. Many feel that it is and that Key (a slaveowner) was particularly pleased to see the demise of slaves who fought for the Brits in exchange for a promise of post-war freedom. Many other historians have stated that Americans at that time often referred to British troops as "hirelings and slaves," as their army was comprised of British soldiers (hirelings) and former US slaves, and Key was not singling out slaves in particular to be terrified, but rather the entire opposing army.

I can see both arguments. Regardless, I can't really see it being interpreted in a positive light by today's black America. I've long wished America the Beautiful would become our anthem. This is just one more reason the change is worth making.

[MerrittsMustache]

I can see both arguments. Regardless, I can't really see it being interpreted in a positive light by today's black America. I've long wished America the Beautiful would become our anthem. This is just one more reason the change is worth making.

A majority of US history probably wouldn't be viewed in a positive light by today's black America, if we wanted to really get into it (the collective "we").

If American the Beautiful became the anthem, there'd be an uproar because of the line "God shed his grace on thee." Are you trying to push your religion beliefs on everyone, brew?! 

[brewcity77]

A majority of US history probably wouldn't be viewed in a positive light by today's black America, if we wanted to really get into it (the collective "we").

If American the Beautiful became the anthem, there'd be an uproar because of the line "God shed his grace on thee." Are you trying to push your religion beliefs on everyone, brew?! 

Maybe if we changed it to "Rudd shed his grace on thee" because as we've learned from the Bud Light Party, "Everyone loves Paul Rudd."

[naginiF]

If American the Beautiful became the anthem, there'd be an uproar because of the line "God shed his grace on thee." Are you trying to push your religion beliefs on everyone, brew?! 

I'm pretty sure us atheists wouldn't be as offended as us upper middle class/rich folks would be....

(from Guthrie's Wiki page)
He protested against class inequality in the fourth and sixth verses:

As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign there, It said "no trespassing". [In another version, the sign reads "Private Property"]
But on the other side, it didn't say nothing!
That side was made for you and me.
In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?

[bma77]

Yahoosports with an article today calling it the Kapernick Effect.   They are not blaming all of the ratings decline on him, but accurately saying some of it is caused by fans distaste in what is going on.  As long as fans are on record saying they are actively boycotting because of the players actions, it would be impossible to say it is having no effect.

Here is the article.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-bringing-dialogue-low-184635353.html


Terry Bradshaw with some comments today about the protests and that repercussions will happen.  Some said Cromartie's release today was one such example.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/terry-bradshaw-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest-flag-fox-nfl-sunday/z72sdf09w6041pe0lby10lsl8

[brewcity77]

I'm not saying some people won't boycott because of it. Hell, I stopped watching the NFL when they let Michael Vick back into the league.

It's truly amazing if people are stopping watching because of Kaepernick. They'll give a pass to butchers like Vick, murder accessories like Ray Lewis, rapists like Roethlisberger, all guys that are legitimate criminals, yet get bent out of shape because one guy exercises a constitutional right?

I'm sorry, but anyone boycotting the NFL because of Kaepernick is being ridiculous. Support the murderers, slander the protestors. What a total load of hypocritical crap. And I bet those same people go to church on Sunday and think they'll be saved 

[bma77]

Could you point out where either CBA says this?

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/doc/172760974/NBA-NBPA-CBA-2011

My information from the local sports talking heads may have been incorrect, but here is what they argued.   The CBA for the NBA requires participants to follow the rules, and the rules of the NBA do include the national anthem and clear adherence on the actions to take for the national anthem

For the NBA, it is in the rule book here  https://turnernbahangtime.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/official-nba-rule-book-2015-16.pdf

The rule states: "Players, coaches and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the national anthem."


No information to support the NHL claim.  Looks as though they were wrong on that one, and by extension so was I.