With the ten page forum on how college football was doomed from a few weeks ago, I thought this was a very interesting article for those who think it is and injuries or realignment would be the cause.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20121221/college-football-apocalypse/?sct=hp_t11_a3&eref=sihp&hpt=hp_t3
Amen. The talk is silly, it is going nowhere. There is so much money, so much passion, etc....it simply isn't going anywhere.
I think it is peaking and will decline. Implode, no. Is it at its peak, I think so.
Quote from: GOO on December 22, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
I think it is peaking and will decline. Implode, no. Is it at its peak, I think so.
There is very little evidence to suggest this is the case. I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Marquette fans have a full appreciation for the popularity of college football.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 10:42:56 AM
There is very little evidence to suggest this is the case. I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Marquette fans have a full appreciation for the popularity of college football.
Yeah, talk to people that went to football schools.
I have a friend that went to a small school in the Quad Cities. Since then he was worked at Kentucky and now Michigan. Even with Kentucky sucking at football, it still has a major impact with their fans.
His mind was blown seeing the Kentucky football games and their operations.
As in the other thread, I think it is peaking now too.
Yes you can find find quotes in the past about safety but now we have a lot of credible people calling for changes or the sport being banned (see the other thread for numerous examples). This many people all at the same time calling for it to be banned or significantly changed is new. In the past it was always a lone voice here or there.
And, what is also new is the NFL is taking these calls seriously. They started USA football, funding concussion research, and changing the rules of the game. They are about to do away with the kick-off, as Goodall said in a recent TIME magazine interview.
The NFL sees the writing on the wall and they will change the game to make it safe. That will cause its popularity to decrease.
Again, I think it slides in popurity to something like the popularity of MLB over a period of many years. But the high is now.
Again, no evidence to suggest that safety concerns is causing a decline in football popularity. None.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 10:42:56 AM
There is very little evidence to suggest this is the case. I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Marquette fans have a full appreciation for the popularity of college football.
Exactly right. We can't fill an 19000 seat arena 90% of the time when there are many schools that easily get 50K or more to a football game. I realize they are different sports, different size venues, etc, but the money about to be unloaded for additional football coverage is going to blow some people away. We are neck deep in some of it. BLOW PEOPLE AWAY. Money talks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 11:38:04 AM
Exactly right. We can't fill an 19000 seat arena 90% of the time when there are many schools that easily get 50K or more to a football game. I realize they are different sports, different size venues, etc, but the money about to be unloaded for additional football coverage is going to blow some people away. We are neck deep in some of it. BLOW PEOPLE AWAY. Money talks.
are they overpaying though? is there going to a sports/media "bubble"?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 11:08:03 AM
Again, no evidence to suggest that safety concerns is causing a decline in football popularity. None.
no. but could the safety concerns change the game of football enough that it would eventually cause a decline in popularity?
as chicos said, money talks. what a sad commentary that changes to something because of safety/health problems only come about due to threat of a lawsuit.
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 22, 2012, 11:48:33 AM
no. but could the safety concerns change the game of football enough that it would eventually cause a decline in popularity?
as chicos said, money talks. what a sad commentary that changes to something because of safety/health problems only come about due to threat of a lawsuit.
+1
No one is saying football is declining now. The question is what does it do next. The guess is it declines.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 11:08:03 AM
Again, no evidence to suggest that safety concerns is causing a decline in football popularity. None.
Great point, but there's also no evidence to suggest the opposite either.
Microsoft dominated the IT world a few years back. Did anyone conceive an end to their dominance? They are still the big kahuna.
They no longer drive the discussion. Will they be as important in 10 years? Did anyone predict the demise of the BEast 10 years ago?
These things take years to happen. Football will not be as dominant in 10 years. It may still be popular with alum and fans, but will not command the TV $$. It started a few years ago when moms didn't let their sons play. Where it goes, exactly, and how long it takes? Who knows?
It will change.
The idea that it's invincible is silly.
It's an entertainment product that people have a TON of passion for. However, that passion can be turned off and/or redirected if people find an alternative.
Examples: Tennis, Baseball, and more recently Nascar. In about 2003, Nascar was the hottest sports property going. 10 years later, it's still successful, but not nearly the $ generator it once was.
Products, entertainment, music, fashion... they all have a life cycle.
Football is definitely on the upper end of it's cycle. It might be a long time before it comes back down, but it's not invincible.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 11:38:04 AM
Exactly right. We can't fill an 19000 seat arena 90% of the time when there are many schools that easily get 50K or more to a football game. I realize they are different sports, different size venues, etc, but the money about to be unloaded for additional football coverage is going to blow some people away. We are neck deep in some of it. BLOW PEOPLE AWAY. Money talks.
Put college football games on 30-33 times a year and see how many people show up. Guess what if they do that no one comes, because an individual game doesn't matter.
Why do you think that most bowl games struggle to put butts in the seats. Because the fans frankly don't care about the bowls unless it is the Rose bowl et al.
Right now much of the hype on college campuses isn't for the game itself, but the party before and after the game. There are exceptions, see Big 10/SEC but outside of those few schools they could not care less about the outcome.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 08:53:57 AM
Amen. The talk is silly, it is going nowhere. There is so much money, so much passion, etc....it simply isn't going anywhere.
Agreed. It may have reached its "peak" and may decline some (Odue to competition from other sports) but it'll still be the #1 sport for a long, long time. It's just too built-in.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 11:08:03 AM
Again, no evidence to suggest that safety concerns is causing a decline in football popularity. None.
I agree - for now. But it is on issue that will start at lower levels and work its way up.
And college football's decision to ignore the safety issues, i think, will have an effect within just a few years.
Quote from: brandx on December 22, 2012, 02:00:18 PM
I agree - for now. But it is on issue that will start at lower levels and work its way up.
+1
If the NFL loses the concussion lawsuit, insurance rates skyrocket and it kills peewee and high school football.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 22, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
+1
If the NFL loses the concussion lawsuit, insurance rates skyrocket and it kills peewee and high school football.
And most of the recent studies are suggesting that it is not that a player sustains 2 or 3 or 4 concussions that does the real long term damage. It is the accumulative effect of thousands of blows to the head in practices throughout their careers. (Which is why you don't see older QBs having a lot of issues later in life since they usually don't get hit in practice).
And... the NCAA has repeatedly fought against reducing the number of full contact practices.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 11:08:03 AM
Again, no evidence to suggest that safety concerns is causing a decline in football popularity. None.
This article (http://www.startribune.com/sports/165004946.html (http://www.startribune.com/sports/165004946.html)) says "The statistics are similar nationally. Overall football participation for all age groups decreased from 10.1 million in 2006 to 9 million in 2011."
Very preliminary evidence, sure, but I think most here are arguing that football is at or slightly past peak popularity, which is still incredibly popular! And will be for the next decade at least! A trend of declining participation would probably not immediately manifest as lower viewership numbers. But middle- and upper-class parents will start having their children play other sports, fewer children will grow up loving football, and many parents will probably learn to enjoy the sports their children play more than they would otherwise. This is a slow moving process. And this is extremely early and there are only a few data points that might just be noise. But the logic seems eminently reasonable -- if I had children today I would DEFINITELY keep them from playing organized football, knowing what we know today about the link with brain injury.
The response I keep reading is, "But you don't understand how popular college football is!" Ok, I do understand it, it's very popular. And, acknowledging that the evidence in the linked article is preliminary and subject to interpretation, I'm wondering if there's a particular part of the logic of declining football popularity that people object to? Will people not care about their children's potential brain injuries? Will children who grow up playing other sports still prefer watching football in the same numbers as now?
Quote from: THRILLHO on December 22, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
This article (http://www.startribune.com/sports/165004946.html (http://www.startribune.com/sports/165004946.html)) says "The statistics are similar nationally. Overall football participation for all age groups decreased from 10.1 million in 2006 to 9 million in 2011."
Very preliminary evidence, sure, but I think most here are arguing that football is at or slightly past peak popularity, which is still incredibly popular! And will be for the next decade at least! A trend of declining participation would probably not immediately manifest as lower viewership numbers. But middle- and upper-class parents will start having their children play other sports, fewer children will grow up loving football, and many parents will probably learn to enjoy the sports their children play more than they would otherwise. This is a slow moving process. And this is extremely early and there are only a few data points that might just be noise. But the logic seems eminently reasonable -- if I had children today I would DEFINITELY keep them from playing organized football, knowing what we know today about the link with brain injury.
The response I keep reading is, "But you don't understand how popular college football is!" Ok, I do understand it, it's very popular. And, acknowledging that the evidence in the linked article is preliminary and subject to interpretation, I'm wondering if there's a particular part of the logic of declining football popularity that people object to? Will people not care about their children's potential brain injuries? Will children who grow up playing other sports still prefer watching football in the same numbers as now?
I live in the South where football is king and most of the people I know with kids (who are football fans) say they won't let their kid play football.
Even with the recent and highly publicized discussions on concussions, I am amazed at how many people are still ignorant on any of this.
I have talked with parents who have kids who play football at our HS and they haven't heard anything at all regarding concussions, the possible effects and how damage to the brain can occur.
Once this becomes more mainstream, you will see a decline in participation and the young age groups.
Just because parents won't let their youth play, doesn't mean they won't tune in on Saturdays and Sundays.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
Just because parents won't let their youth play, doesn't mean they won't tune in on Saturdays and Sundays.
Don't worry, nature will take care of the baby boomers eventually. Not sure that Nielsen or TV advertisers care what's being shown on TV in the dementia ward.
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 22, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
are they overpaying though? is there going to a sports/media "bubble"?
They might be, but it is based on the reality of what people are watching. Folks in this industry don't want to make big bets on things that they can't monetize. There is certainly some inflation in there that is above and beyond, but the numbers tell the story. Football is king and it isn't close....not even remotely close.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 22, 2012, 12:21:03 PM
Microsoft dominated the IT world a few years back. Did anyone conceive an end to their dominance? They are still the big kahuna.
They no longer drive the discussion. Will they be as important in 10 years? Did anyone predict the demise of the BEast 10 years ago?
These things take years to happen. Football will not be as dominant in 10 years. It may still be popular with alum and fans, but will not command the TV $$. It started a few years ago when moms didn't let their sons play. Where it goes, exactly, and how long it takes? Who knows?
It will change.
Not sure the analogy makes sense. Microsoft deals in the world of software and operating systems. It is an enabler of the hardware that has been created for productivity, personal use, etc. Others can get into the business if they wish (and they did).
Football, like many sports, is about entertainment as much as anything. To use your analogy, what entertainment entity is going to jump in and steal their share...football's share? It absolutely could happen, but I'm curious to hear what you might think it will be?
And honestly, your 10 year comment about football is ALREADY wrong. There are deals in place right now for football that carry into the next decade that far exceed everything out there. It isn't even close.
ESPN extended last year their NFL contract by $15.2 billion. The contract ends in 2021. Just one example. CBS, NBC and Fox signed a 9 year extension last year that runs out in 2022.
The college football ones are happening now. You can add all the other sports contracts up and combine them and they do not pass up college football and NFL.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 07:32:40 PM
They might be, but it is based on the reality of what people are watching. Folks in this industry don't want to make big bets on things that they can't monetize. There is certainly some inflation in there that is above and beyond, but the numbers tell the story. Football is king and it isn't close....not even remotely close.
Replace "football" with "residential housing market" and throw on your I <3 Tom Crean t-shirt because you've just blasted yourself back to 2005.
Quote from: forgetful on December 22, 2012, 12:39:28 PM
Put college football games on 30-33 times a year and see how many people show up. Guess what if they do that no one comes, because an individual game doesn't matter.
Why do you think that most bowl games struggle to put butts in the seats. Because the fans frankly don't care about the bowls unless it is the Rose bowl et al.
Right now much of the hype on college campuses isn't for the game itself, but the party before and after the game. There are exceptions, see Big 10/SEC but outside of those few schools they could not care less about the outcome.
But they don't, and that's the key. The other sports over saturate their product, make the regular season less meaningful, give half the participants playoff spots. That's why I don't see any of them overtaking football...they have wrecked havoc on their own products with their own decisions.
I agree with you on the college bowls, it is ridiculous...same line of thinking for NBA, NHL, etc.
Let's be clear, when I talk about football dying I'm talking about college AND NFL. They are linked in a big way. The NFL's popularity pulls up college and vice versa. We see it in every study we do. We do not see anything close to that in basketball. Many college basketball fans abandon the NBA and there are NBA fans that don't follow college. The disparity between the two is amazing, especially when you overlay the fondness for football (college or NFL) by football fans. A much stronger consumption linkage.
Quote from: Benny B on December 22, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Replace "football" with "residential housing market" and throw on your I <3 Tom Crean t-shirt because you've just blasted yourself back to 2005.
You can throw in Glass Steagall act, gov't intervention, bad corporate policy, corporate fraud, many stupid consumers, etc as for why that happened....that doesn't have anything to do with a popularity of a sport and who will be standing in 10 or 20 years.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 07:39:46 PM
Not sure the analogy makes sense. Microsoft deals in the world of software and operating systems. It is an enabler of the hardware that has been created for productivity, personal use, etc. Others can get into the business if they wish (and they did). Football, like many sports, is about entertainment as much as anything. To use your analogy, what entertainment entity is going to jump in and steal their share...football's share? It absolutely could happen, but I'm curious to hear what you might think it will be?
And honestly, your 10 year comment about football is ALREADY wrong. There are deals in place right now for football that carry into the next decade that far exceed everything out there. It isn't even close.
ESPN extended last year their NFL contract by $15.2 billion. The contract ends in 2021. Just one example. CBS, NBC and Fox signed a 9 year extension last year that runs out in 2022.
The college football ones are happening now. You can add all the other sports contracts up and combine them and they do not pass up college football and NFL.
I am not making a direct analogy. Call it a situational comparison. Few conceived that MS would be vulnerable to changes in the marketplace 10 or 15 years ago. They fell behind in mobile and cloud technology. They can live for years on legacy installed base, but they are not framing the debate anymore. Not saying that the same thing will definitely happen to football, or in the same timeframe. just pointing out that anyone whose livelihood (You?) depends on football better be looking 10,20,30 years down the road. Be careful that you aren't using 2010 thinking when planning for 2020.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 22, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
I am not making a direct analogy. Call it a situational comparison. Few conceived that MS would be vulnerable to changes in the marketplace 10 or 15 years ago. They fell behind in mobile and cloud technology. They can live for years on legacy installed base, but they are not framing the debate anymore. Not saying that the same thing will definitely happen to football, or in the same timeframe. just pointing out that anyone whose livelihood (You?) depends on football better be looking 10,20,30 years down the road. Be careful that you aren't using 2010 thinking when planning for 2020.
But MS world is driven by technology and innovation in a quick changing marketplace. The sports viewing world is driven mostly by taste. I actually don't think tastes change all that much over a ten year time frame in this marketplace...so I think these contracts are perfectly reasonable both now and in the future. The real question is 2030 and beyond...but the contracts dont go out that far.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
You can throw in Glass Steagall act, gov't intervention, bad corporate policy, corporate fraud, many stupid consumers, etc as for why that happened....that doesn't have anything to do with a popularity of a sport and who will be standing in 10 or 20 years.
You're right. Football can NEVER FAIL.
C'mon Chicos.
Everything we know about housing now is hindsight. At the time, everybody was riding the train.
Early indicators against football? Concision research. Lawsuits. Less kids playing youth ball. Over expansion of conferences in college.
Now, I'm not saying it's going to fail, but automatically dismissing seems a bit naive.
Guns, Chicos point is a good one. These contract are about 10 years long. Do you really think that things like concussions and less kids playing football are going to have that drastic an impact on viewing habits over the coming decade? I seriously doubt that...
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
Guns, Chicos point is a good one. These contract are about 10 years long. Do you really think that things like concussions and less kids playing football are going to have that drastic an impact on viewing habits over the coming decade? I seriously doubt that...
It did to boxing, when people found it uncool to watch boxers die or permanently impair themselves, they turned it off.
Ali's current condition also hurt.
Again, that is not a good analogy. Boxing was done in by PPV more than anything else.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
Guns, Chicos point is a good one. These contract are about 10 years long. Do you really think that things like concussions and less kids playing football are going to have that drastic an impact on viewing habits over the coming decade? I seriously doubt that...
Contract length is an effect, not a cause. If the game changes, if popularity wanes, if one of the members of your conference drops football, if ESPN or BTN is named party to an action, the contract length can instaneously go from 10 to zero.
IOW, long term contracts won't keep football where it is... keeping football where it is keeps the contracts alive.
Quote from: Benny B on December 22, 2012, 09:16:26 PM
Contract length is an effect, not a cause. If the game changes, if popularity wanes, if one of the members of your conference drops football, if ESPN or BTN is named party to an action, the contract length can instaneously go from 10 to zero.
IOW, long term contracts won't keep football where it is... keeping football where it is keeps the contracts alive.
No, my point about long term contracts is that they are not all that risky. Tastes dont change that quickly.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 09:24:50 PM
No, my point about long term contracts is that they are not all that risky. Tastes dont change that quickly.
As I posted in the other link for 12-24 year olds Soccer is more popular than College Football. That's the first generation where that is true. The generation after them 1-12 right now, will be even more skewed away from Football.
You are right that over the next 10 years their won't be enormous change. But others are right in that it has peaked.
The next generations (kids of those listed above) will care very little for football. If they don't play it they won't watch it.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
Again, that is not a good analogy. Boxing was done in by PPV more than anything else.
Boxing's popularity is down in all developed countries for the reasons I described above. That suggests it is more than HBO/PPV hurting the sport.
It remains popular in the developing world, however.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 22, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
Guns, Chicos point is a good one. These contract are about 10 years long. Do you really think that things like concussions and less kids playing football are going to have that drastic an impact on viewing habits over the coming decade? I seriously doubt that...
#1 You keep saying "tastes don't change in 10 years". I hate to get into semantics, but that is just wrong. Tastes in music, fashion, products, technology, etc. change pretty rapidly. Now, when referencing football, that's a multi-generational institution (not so much a "taste"), so realistically, it might take a long time to evolve.
#2 Do I personally think that football will be gone in 10 years? Absolutely not. However, a few people here act like football is going to be king forever. I hate to be a naysayer, but there are no sure things in life. Football is on top right now, but we've seen the evolution of several sports in US history and popularity can change over time, and eventually that might include football.
#3 NASCAR was an extremely hot property in 2003, brands were fighting each other for sponsorships, track exposure, etc. etc. NASCAR is still successful, but I don't believe brands are backing up the brinks truck for minor sponsorships anymore.
#1. Poor choice of words, but my point was that it wasn't like a technology change.
#2. It doesn't have to be king forever with these contracts...just over the next decade, which it will assuredly be.
#3. NASCAR is an interesting example. However it really isn't a parallel.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
#3. NASCAR is an interesting example. However it really isn't a parallel.
It absolutely is a parallel... the same audience that gives/gave NASCAR huge TV ratings is also giving college football huge TV ratings.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 22, 2012, 10:51:45 PM
#3 NASCAR was an extremely hot property in 2003, brands were fighting each other for sponsorships, track exposure, etc. etc. NASCAR is still successful, but I don't believe brands are backing up the brinks truck for minor sponsorships anymore.
NASCAR grapples with a downshift in popularityThe nation's premier motor racing series has seen attendance and TV ratings plummet in the last four years. A lagging economy is certainly a factor, but some of the damage has been self-inflicted — particularly with the widely panned Car of Tomorrow.
March 21, 2011|By Jim Peltz
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/21/sports/la-sp-nascar-20110322
[snip]
But talk to people involved in NASCAR and most keep pointing back to one decisive culprit: The new race car that NASCAR mandated starting in 2007 in the Cup series turned off many drivers and fans.
NASCAR dubbed it the "Car of Tomorrow," or COT. Designed mostly for enhanced driver safety following the 2001 death of seven-time champion Dale Earnhardt Sr., the car was unlike anything seen before.
It was boxy, had a rear wing and, even in a sport where cars had little resemblance to "stock" cars on the street, this one had almost no resemblance. Worse, the COT's new chassis and steering system were temperamental to drive and hindered the passing that NASCAR fans crave.
After winning the first COT race, brash driver Kyle Busch told a national TV audience what many others in NASCAR garages were whispering. "I can't stand to drive" the new car, Busch said as he stood in Victory Lane. "They suck."
Suddenly, NASCAR had a big problem.
"If you look at something that hurt [the sport], that hurt. That car alienated a lot of fans," said driver and team owner Michael Waltrip.
NASCAR also "thought the competition [on the track] would be good enough that it wouldn't matter" what the car looked like, said Howard Comstock, Dodge's engineering program manager for NASCAR. "It did matter, it mattered a lot to the fans."
The car was part of "a disconnect" that opened between NASCAR and its fan base, agreed Julie Sobieski, a vice president at ESPN, which with its broadcast sister ABC splits the Cup series' telecasts with Fox and TNT.
In retrospect, NASCAR President Mike Helton said, "If we had that opportunity to go back . . . we would probably introduce [the car] differently," although he didn't offer specifics.
Regardless of what NASCAR thought about the car, "the perception is that it was" a big factor in NASCAR's popularity decline even if it kept drivers safer, he said.
--------------------------
My Comments Below...
10 years ago NASCAR was soaring in popularity. Then, according to the article the 2008 recession made fans cut back on going to the track because they lacked the financial means.
But it was NASCAR responding to safety concerns,especially after Dale Earnhardt was killed, that really hurt the sport. The article says between 2007 and 2010 NASCAR TV ratings fell more thn 20%.
Isn't this what football is doing? New concussion rules, helmet-to-helmet hit penalties/fines, banning the kick-off (Goodell said in a recent TIME magazine interview that the competition committee was looking at doing away with the kick-off as it was too dangerous. Since he said it in this fashion means it will happen).
Seems to me that the NFL is going down the same path as NASCAR. Why shouldn't we expect the same results?
Quote from: Benny B on December 23, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
It absolutely is a parallel... the same audience that gives/gave NASCAR huge TV ratings is also giving college football huge TV ratings.
So your theory is that these people no longer watch television? And I have noticed you have this theory that college football is only watched by southerners...but that really isn't true.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 23, 2012, 08:00:59 AM
Seems to me that the NFL is going down the same path as NASCAR. Why shouldn't we expect the same results?
Because they aren't the same sport. NASCAR has always been a niche sport. Football in more central to American culture. It is a made for television sport that does extremely well. Getting rid of kickoffs isn't going to change that.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 08:08:40 AM
So your theory is that these people no longer watch television? And I have noticed you have this theory that college football is only watched by southerners...but that really isn't true.
The center of college football, it's biggest fan base and best teams is the SEC conference area. This is NASCAR same fan-base.
So yes college football is popular coast-to-coast but so is NASCAR. But college football's heart and soul is the south, just like NASCAR
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 23, 2012, 08:14:36 AM
The center of college football, it's biggest fan base and best teams is the SEC conference area. This is NASCAR same fan-base.
So yes college football is popular coast-to-coast but so is NASCAR. But college football's heart and soul is the south, just like NASCAR
I said "only watched by southerners." I know full well the demographics of both college football and NASCAR.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 08:11:54 AM
Because they aren't the same sport. NASCAR has always been a niche sport. Football in more central to American culture. It is a made for television sport that does extremely well. Getting rid of kickoffs isn't going to change that.
In the almost football strike and new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) last year, the NFL can expand to as many as 22 regular season games. They are now planning on going to 18 regular season games in the next 2 or 3 years (they will also drop down to two pres-season games).
The biggest hold-up is injuries. The NFL said they will expand the rosters by 5 to 7 players. However, this is changes nothing. How many of those 18 game are the Packers going to sit Clay Mathews or Aron Rodgers because it is a longer season? Answer, zero. So, by the playoffs you will see even more starters not playing. So, you will still have those two pre-season games, they will be the playoffs with the quality of players that are left.
Additionally, the NFL is considering expanding the playoffs and the Superbowl might not be played until March (still under discussion under the CBA). So even more games.
The Players union wants to players to get more money, everyone's contract gets a 25% raise because of the longer season. To offset this, the owners will make the game "safer" so they get a better return on investment (more starters on the field).
Devalue the meaning of the regular season, everyone gets into the playoffs, make the season 8 months and change the game so few players get hurt.
I would argue one of the easiest predictions I have ever made is football is peaking in popularity now and will start declining in the coming years (again, peaking and decline will take years). I don't feel I have to explain myself. Instead those that think football is immune from the natural cycles, owners greed and a 25 game season to get to through the Superbowl, and make it safe so all the starters that gets huge contracts can suit up every week are those that have to explain.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
#1. Poor choice of words, but my point was that it wasn't like a technology change.
#2. It doesn't have to be king forever with these contracts...just over the next decade, which it will assuredly be.
#3. NASCAR is an interesting example. However it really isn't a parallel.
I agree that for the next decade, football is going to be top dog.
However, I can also see some chinks in the armor, so I don't think it's invincible. In the long run (maybe this isn't what this debate is about?), I can see a scenario where it loses some popularity and/or networks simply won't pay the premium prices for broadcast rights.
That probably won't happen in a 10 year cycle (contracts and whatnot), but my point was/is that football is NOT invincible.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 23, 2012, 08:56:47 AM
In the almost football strike and new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) last year, the NFL can expand to as many as 22 regular season games. They are now planning on going to 18 regular season games in the next 2 or 3 years (they will also drop down to two pres-season games).
The biggest hold-up is injuries. The NFL said they will expand the rosters by 5 to 7 players. However, this is changes nothing. How many of those 18 game are the Packers going to sit Clay Mathews or Aron Rodgers because it is a longer season? Answer, zero. So, by the playoffs you will see even more starters not playing. So, you will still have those two pre-season games, they will be the playoffs with the quality of players that are left.
Additionally, the NFL is considering expanding the playoffs and the Superbowl might not be played until March (still under discussion under the CBA). So even more games.
The Players union wants to players to get more money, everyone's contract gets a 25% raise because of the longer season. To offset this, the owners will make the game "safer" so they get a better return on investment (more starters on the field).
Devalue the meaning of the regular season, everyone gets into the playoffs, make the season 8 months and change the game so few players get hurt.
I would argue one of the easiest predictions I have ever made is football is peaking in popularity now and will start declining in the coming years (again, peaking and decline will take years). I don't feel I have to explain myself. Instead those that think football is immune from the natural cycles, owners greed and a 25 game season to get to through the Superbowl, and make it safe so all the starters that gets huge contracts can suit up every week are those that have to explain.
Another, I guess baseball is doomed as well. The whole football discussion started with Junior suicide.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8774575/ryan-freel-dies-apparent-suicide
My opinion on the matter is that football won't be king forever but it is going to be a long time before it falls and it isn't going to impact MU's current situation nor is it going to impact the C7 contract discussions so why talk about its fall as it is going to happen anytime soon. Based on people in the know it is 10 yrs away minimally but more realistically iris 20-30yr
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 23, 2012, 08:56:47 AM
I don't feel I have to explain myself.
Lot of that going on with you lately. :(
Quote from: BallBoy on December 23, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
My opinion on the matter is that football won't be king forever but it is going to be a long time before it falls and it isn't going to impact MU's current situation nor is it going to impact the C7 contract discussions so why talk about its fall as it is going to happen anytime soon. Based on people in the know it is 10 yrs away minimally but more realistically iris 20-30yr
Yesterday I stumbled upon a book written by Rick Telander in 1994 about how in 1990 UW athletics was a mess and on the verge of bankruptcy. I started a thread about it
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=35055.0
So, yes football's popularity does not affect the formation of the C7. But if football schools over-reach and many schools return to where UW was in 1990, it will indeed affect us.
And it will not take 20 to 30 years. You will see it
starting in the next 3 to 5.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 22, 2012, 08:08:50 PM
You're right. Football can NEVER FAIL.
C'mon Chicos.
Everything we know about housing now is hindsight. At the time, everybody was riding the train.
Early indicators against football? Concision research. Lawsuits. Less kids playing youth ball. Over expansion of conferences in college.
Now, I'm not saying it's going to fail, but automatically dismissing seems a bit naive.
I'm not saying it can never fail, I want to know what is going to replace it? Maybe a new sport. My company is about to launch a new sport next year (I can't reveal for competitive reasons). We spent 3 years trying to figure out where to go with it. Even then, it's a toe in the water kind of thing because there isn't a slam dunk sport on the horizon. If anything, if football falls it will be one of the other majors that bypasses it but it is hard to see what that would be. By the way, why do people keep saying less kids playing football, the statistics show more are playing today than ever before. High schools are adding football, colleges are adding football. Participation at record levels.
My son will be playing next year in high school. We've talked long and hard about it. There are risks, there are risks with everything. We just had another soccer high school player out here die last week. My son will be playing soccer as well (in California, football in the fall and soccer in the winter) and since he is a goalie is makes me nervous, many of the injuries happen to keepers.
I predict you will see some changes in the equipment that will help some on the danger side for football. It's in the American fabric, I don't think you are going to see it fall because there are too many fans, too much money to make sure it doesn't.
As I mentioned earlier in all the studies we do, football is one of the few sports where the top and bottom bolster each other. Fans that watch high school and college football consume NFL in droves, and vice versa. This is not the same for basketball. College fans do not adopt the NBA and vice versa at anywhere close to the same levels. They are the same game, but they are significantly different enough to diverge the fans.
Chicos hits on something that I also don't think people fully realize...how much football is part of the culture. People watch the NFL on Sundays in the fall. It is simply what a lot of people do. That doesn't mean that it won't go through rough patches, but people don't want it to fail. It is too much a part of who we are as a society. And what do we replace that with.
I mean look at English soccer. In the 1980s you had hooliganism. People crushed at soccer games. Stadiums actually burning down during televised games. Seriously, this video is from 1985!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgcYzkZNWE
Yet how did it survive, and in fact become the richest soccer league in the world? Because the sport was too ingrained in the culture not to. Football is like that in the US.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 10:28:38 AM
Chicos hits on something that I also don't think people fully realize...how much football is part of the culture. People watch the NFL on Sundays in the fall. It is simply what a lot of people do. That doesn't mean that it won't go through rough patches, but people don't want it to fail. It is too much a part of who we are as a society. And what do we replace that with.
I mean look at English soccer. In the 1980s you had hooliganism. People crushed at soccer games. Stadiums actually burning down during televised games. Seriously, this video is from 1985!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgcYzkZNWE
Yet how did it survive, and in fact become the richest soccer league in the world? Because the sport was too ingrained in the culture not to. Football is like that in the US.
But the sport suffered horrendously in the years that followed. The EPL (english premiership league) was formed in 1992 to try and save it.
It worked but a lot of money was first lost, fans disappeared and the game had to change. You suggest that nothing happened after 1985. English soccer had a gut wrenching period before it became what it is today.
My concern is the conference realignments and money spent of college football (new stadiums, facilities, etc) is based on the assumption that football money is a never-ending well that can be dipped into. This belief is so ingrained that rivalries and conference histories are unimportant. Form everything for TV because the money will always be there.
When it peaks, half these schools will look like UW in 1990.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 10:28:38 AM
Chicos hits on something that I also don't think people fully realize...how much football is part of the culture. People watch the NFL on Sundays in the fall. It is simply what a lot of people do. That doesn't mean that it won't go through rough patches, but people don't want it to fail. It is too much a part of who we are as a society. And what do we replace that with.
I mean look at English soccer. In the 1980s you had hooliganism. People crushed at soccer games. Stadiums actually burning down during televised games. Seriously, this video is from 1985!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgcYzkZNWE
Yet how did it survive, and in fact become the richest soccer league in the world? Because the sport was too ingrained in the culture not to. Football is like that in the US.
Just like baseball was ingrained in the American culture in the 1950's?
How about boxing in the 30's?
Football is HUGE and is probably here to stay, but cultures change and evolve over time. It's not inconceivable to think that Americans will change over time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2012, 10:09:22 AM
I'm not saying it can never fail, I want to know what is going to replace it? Maybe a new sport. My company is about to launch a new sport next year (I can't reveal for competitive reasons). We spent 3 years trying to figure out where to go with it. Even then, it's a toe in the water kind of thing because there isn't a slam dunk sport on the horizon. If anything, if football falls it will be one of the other majors that bypasses it but it is hard to see what that would be. By the way, why do people keep saying less kids playing football, the statistics show more are playing today than ever before. High schools are adding football, colleges are adding football. Participation at record levels.
My son will be playing next year in high school. We've talked long and hard about it. There are risks, there are risks with everything. We just had another soccer high school player out here die last week. My son will be playing soccer as well (in California, football in the fall and soccer in the winter) and since he is a goalie is makes me nervous, many of the injuries happen to keepers.
I predict you will see some changes in the equipment that will help some on the danger side for football. It's in the American fabric, I don't think you are going to see it fall because there are too many fans, too much money to make sure it doesn't.
As I mentioned earlier in all the studies we do, football is one of the few sports where the top and bottom bolster each other. Fans that watch high school and college football consume NFL in droves, and vice versa. This is not the same for basketball. College fans do not adopt the NBA and vice versa at anywhere close to the same levels. They are the same game, but they are significantly different enough to diverge the fans.
You're right, and I don't know what is going to replace it... but I'm sure Microsoft felt confident nothing could replace it, Detroit Automakers felt confident nothing could replace it, etc.
I think football is probably here to say, but it seems like you guys are talking with such certainty about it. We've seen sports and culture evolve over time. Football could be apart of that as well.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 23, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
#1. Poor choice of words, but my point was that it wasn't like a technology change.
#2. It doesn't have to be king forever with these contracts...just over the next decade, which it will assuredly be.
#3. NASCAR is an interesting example. However it really isn't a parallel.
Sultan,
I used an example of a technology company. It could have been any institution in any era. Examples are everywhere.
I am not predicting the downfall of football. I am saying there are changes in society that leaders in football should be watching. To use another tech example (again, this is a world I follow, but you could find examples anywhere) look at IBM. Late 80's, early 90's IBM had fallen far from grace. Obituaries were being written. Lou Gerstner took over, changed IBM into a services company, and 15 years later, they are as powerful as ever.
Why are we comparing technology companies to sports entertainment? What do they have to do with one another? Nothing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2012, 09:15:10 PM
Why are we comparing technology companies to sports entertainment? What do they have to do with one another? Nothing.
Neither do __________ and ___________ but people compare those all the time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2012, 09:15:10 PM
Why are we comparing technology companies to sports entertainment? What do they have to do with one another? Nothing.
Executive leaders in any industry/institution follow trends from industries/institutions outside of their own. It's called out of the box thinking. It's what the big boys/girls get paid large $$ for.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 24, 2012, 10:32:07 AM
Executive leaders in any industry/institution follow trends from industries/institutions outside of their own. It's called out of the box thinking. It's what the big boys/girls get paid large $$ for.
Oh, I definitely get it. My team is very much involved in looking at the video landscape, for example. OTT, 4K, authenticated rights, what the music industry did and why they failed, what is Google, Amazon, Apple and others doing? Clear wire..mobile...where do they fit? What will studios do? What will the leagues do? What will many of the networks and content providers (HBO, Starz, Viacom, etc) do? My team gets paid to look at those things all the time. In some areas we will fail, in some areas we will succeed. Some are out of our control, or the cost is so large it isn't worth the risk. I totally get you.
But we also put things in proper context as well. What may be applicable in one industry and have cross over in several others may not in a very unique industry like sports. It is simply a much different animal. No one here has been able to articulate what is going to replace football? What is going to be so huge that 100,000 fans are going to want to cram into a football stadium on Saturdays to watch? That is so big they will be willing to pay $300 to watch their team on TV if they don't live in their market? That is so big it will siphon off literally 10's of billions in television contracts?
It's easy to say it won't be as popular, won't be on top, etc. I think you are ignoring the very fabric of our culture, the tradition and history involved, and the huge huge HUGE dollars invested in that sport that dwarfs everything else. It's the one sport that women and men follow. It's the one sport where half this country gets together to watch the championship game on tv. None of us are soothsayers, but there is a reason why the money and fandom and television investments are there. It's as sound a bet as you can make.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 24, 2012, 10:32:07 AM
Executive leaders in any industry/institution follow trends from industries/institutions outside of their own. It's called out of the box thinking. It's what the big boys/girls get paid large $$ for.
Chicos point is this is a bad analogy which it is.
1. Microsoft didn't lose popularity because people's tastes changed but because the company itself wasn't innovating in a industry based on innovation
2. Msft stayed in a desktop world while other players took over the tablet and iPhone markets. They are nonexistent in those spaces in comparison to google and apple. It's ridiculous what % of the market is apple or android.
3. Its competition directly attacked its security features and stability. Won't happen in sports world as most of these sports don't compete with each other as their seasons are different
4. Msft also made it hard for it's customers to use its product. Internet Explorer treats HTML and other things completely differently than many of the other browser while at the same time not adding value. MSFT spends more time trying to make something theirs versus adopting a standard and building new features on top. Another example, Windows phones don't use web kit which is the standard for mobile websites/web apps.
5. MSFT used its OS as a means to force people to conform to what they wanted but the market has shifted from OS based and many rulings have prevented MS from using its OS that way anymore.
6. This isn't something that just happened. The trajectory for MS has written on the wall for the last ten years but it is still one of the Big players.
A better analog would be a study which shows that pizza has dramatically dropped in popularity amongst Americans due to gluten intolerance or long term health concerns (injuries). Or just that Americans want something new. Pizza has been engrained in lives of most Americans since they were kids just like watching football. We aren't going to stop eating pizza just because.
Ballboy...thank you.
Thought I would resurrect this thread with an observation from the UF/Louisville Sugar Bowl game.
There was a play where the UL running back was carrying the ball and had his helmet ripped off while running through the line of scrimmage. Blatant facemask which was completely missed by the officials. He continues running -- without a helmet -- and get's blasted by the UF linebacker or safety. Fortunately he was not hit in the head by the defensive player's helmet but he easily could have been. His head was driven into the ground by the force of the collision. He bounced right up, collected his helmet, and returned to the huddle or maybe the sideline since his helmet came off. No problem.
What if any number of things happened differently and he's killed or permanently disabled on that play? It could easily have happened. Is there public outrage? Are there lawsuits from the family against the school, the bowl game, the NCAA etc, etc.?
For a variety of reasons I don't agree that football is in any real trouble in this country. However, with a fluke play like this and the very real chance that a player could end up dead on National TV, I don't think it's quite as bulletproof as others seem to think. And I know that guys have ended up paralyzed, but it's not the same thing, at least to me.
All I know is that watching that play made my stomach turn as I thought I was going to witness a guy maybe get killed.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 04, 2013, 12:17:53 PM
Thought I would resurrect this thread with an observation from the UF/Louisville Sugar Bowl game.
There was a play where the UL running back was carrying the ball and had his helmet ripped off while running through the line of scrimmage. Blatant facemask which was completely missed by the officials. He bounced right up, collected his helmet, and returned to the huddle or maybe the sideline since his helmet came off. No problem.
What if any number of things happened differently and he's killed or permanently disabled on that play?
For a variety of reasons I don't agree that football is in any real trouble in this country. However, with a fluke play like this and the very real chance that a player could end up dead on National TV, I don't think it's quite as bulletproof as others seem to think. And I know that guys have ended up paralyzed, but it's not the same thing, at least to me.
The fact that this discussion exists means that anyone involved in the football business should include this in any SWOT analysis done.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 04, 2013, 12:17:53 PM
Thought I would resurrect this thread with an observation from the UF/Louisville Sugar Bowl game.
There was a play where the UL running back was carrying the ball and had his helmet ripped off while running through the line of scrimmage. Blatant facemask which was completely missed by the officials. He continues running -- without a helmet -- and get's blasted by the UF linebacker or safety. Fortunately he was not hit in the head by the defensive player's helmet but he easily could have been. His head was driven into the ground by the force of the collision. He bounced right up, collected his helmet, and returned to the huddle or maybe the sideline since his helmet came off. No problem.
What if any number of things happened differently and he's killed or permanently disabled on that play? It could easily have happened. Is there public outrage? Are there lawsuits from the family against the school, the bowl game, the NCAA etc, etc.?
For a variety of reasons I don't agree that football is in any real trouble in this country. However, with a fluke play like this and the very real chance that a player could end up dead on National TV, I don't think it's quite as bulletproof as others seem to think. And I know that guys have ended up paralyzed, but it's not the same thing, at least to me.
All I know is that watching that play made my stomach turn as I thought I was going to witness a guy maybe get killed.
That rule will change next year in the NCAA I would bet. The NFL already implemented the rule that when a helmet comes off during a play, it is over immediately (Rule 10.7)...I think it came into being in the last two years. Though I still remember this play by one of my all time favorites without his helmet.
https://www.youtube.com/v/bEXblEAdoG4
Incidentally, the current NCAA rule of making a player sit out a play when his helmet comes out is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. I went to a UCLA game this year where UCLA's RB, Franklin, had his helmet come off multiple plays in a series because the opposition was purposely pulling it off.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 04, 2013, 12:32:39 PM
That rule will change next year in the NCAA I would bet. The NFL already implemented the rule that when a helmet comes off during a play, it is over immediately (Rule 10.7)...I think it came into being in the last two years. Though I still remember this play by one of my all time favorites without his helmet.
Incidentally, the current NCAA rule of making a player sit out a play when his helmet comes out is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. I went to a UCLA game this year where UCLA's RB, Franklin, had his helmet come off multiple plays in a series because the opposition was purposely pulling it off.
The NFL rule is all well and good, but the play on the field happened so fast I don't know if the defender could have stopped himself from hitting the guy even if he tried. So the rule doesn't really prevent the outcome they are trying to prevent, and in this case I don't know if anything could have, it happened so fast. And the players are only getting faster (and bigger).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 04, 2013, 12:32:39 PM
Incidentally, the current NCAA rule of making a player sit out a play when his helmet comes out is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. I went to a UCLA game this year where UCLA's RB, Franklin, had his helmet come off multiple plays in a series because the opposition was purposely pulling it off.
If a player's helmet and chinstrap fit properly (i.e tightly, borderline uncomfortably), it would be VERY difficult for his helmet to come off from a big hit or by being yanked on by an opposing player. My assumption is that the NCAA is trying to get players to stop wearing such loose-fitting helmets.
If they really wanted to crack down, they'd make it a 15-yard penalty if a helmet came off. If that was the case, coaches would be having equipment managers all but soldering helmets to players' heads.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 04, 2013, 12:59:26 PM
If a player's helmet and chinstrap fit properly (i.e tightly, borderline uncomfortably), it would be VERY difficult for his helmet to come off from a big hit or by being yanked on by an opposing player. My assumption is that the NCAA is trying to get players to stop wearing such loose-fitting helmets.
If they really wanted to crack down, they'd make it a 15-yard penalty if a helmet came off. If that was the case, coaches would be having equipment managers all but soldering helmets to players' heads.
Perhaps, but players and coaches are not happy and there is plenty of claims that defensive players are pulling off the helmets in some cases. I know in that UCLA game the coaches and players were ticked. Franklin was killing them and all of a sudden his helmet comes off while he's on the ground. He has to come out. Comes in a play later, helmet is off again. It was borderline laughable.
http://rumorsandrants.com/2012/09/ncaa-football-helmet-rule-is-predictably-backfiring.html
http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/coaches-and-players-see-flaws-with-ncaa-s-new-helmet/article_234c8cab-86a3-510a-bc3b-ec0f1771194c.html
http://www.forwhomthecowbelltolls.com/2012/9/13/3318214/is-college-footballs-new-helmet-rule-helping-or-hurting
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/64908/new-helmet-rule-seen-across-acc-in-week-1
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1324811-how-college-footballs-new-helmet-rule-is-hurting-the-game-for-all
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 04, 2013, 12:43:24 PM
The NFL rule is all well and good, but the play on the field happened so fast I don't know if the defender could have stopped himself from hitting the guy even if he tried. So the rule doesn't really prevent the outcome they are trying to prevent, and in this case I don't know if anything could have, it happened so fast. And the players are only getting faster (and bigger).
It's a violent sport, there are risks. The rules will try to mitigate the risks, but can never totally remove them. There have been players killed, paralyzed, etc in the game of football. I'm not sure what else to say, I certainly understand your concerns on the play and they are reasonable.
It's interesting, I would suspect most of us here played football in high school or at some level. When I played, if a guy's helmet came off the natural human reaction was to back off and not want to hurt the guy. It made you hesitate a second. That won't be universal, but that was my experience. The instinctive reaction was not to go even further at the guy because he was defenseless, but rather to back off.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 04, 2013, 01:20:33 PM
It's a violent sport, there are risks. The rules will try to mitigate the risks, but can never totally remove them. There have been players killed, paralyzed, etc in the game of football. I'm not sure what else to say, I certainly understand your concerns on the play and they are reasonable.
It's interesting, I would suspect most of us here played football in high school or at some level. When I played, if a guy's helmet came off the natural human reaction was to back off and not want to hurt the guy. It made you hesitate a second. That won't be universal, but that was my experience. The instinctive reaction was not to go even further at the guy because he was defenseless, but rather to back off.
I don't know that there is anything else to say. I get that the danger/risk is inherent to the sport. I just wonder if that danger is going to haunt the sport at some point in the future, I think it's plausible that it could.
Not college football, but NFL and college are heavily linked more than any other sport we study.
Of the top 32 rated television programs this fall, 31 were NFL games. In some cases, ratings down slightly but we see that with just about everything due to further fragmentation. They are still the 800lb gorilla and dominate. The ratings for the bigger bowls so far have been up over last year as well.
A few tidbits from today's report:
NFL games accounted for 31 of the 32 most-viewed TV shows during the fall.
For the first time ever, an NFL game was the week's most-watched TV show in all 17 weeks of the regular season.
During the last four years, Fox has seen its four most-viewed NFL seasons on record.
For nine Sunday national windows, Fox averaged a 14.8 rating and 24.8 million viewers, making it the most-viewed program on TV and No. 1 among all key adult and male demos.
CBS averaged 17.7 million viewers for its package of regular-season games this season.
NBC's "SNF" finished the fall as the No. 1 show in primetime, and remains on pace to be the No. 1 primetime show for the entire season for the second straight year.
Despite finishing with an 8-8 record, the Cowboys remained a top draw for the NFL, with the team playing in four of the 10 most-viewed games this season.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 04, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
Perhaps, but players and coaches are not happy and there is plenty of claims that defensive players are pulling off the helmets in some cases. I know in that UCLA game the coaches and players were ticked. Franklin was killing them and all of a sudden his helmet comes off while he's on the ground. He has to come out. Comes in a play later, helmet is off again. It was borderline laughable.
I'm not saying that players and coaches are happy with the rule. I'm saying that if players wore their helmets the right way, they wouldn't have to worry about them coming off from contact or by being pulled off in the pile.
As someone that works on the agency side of the business, I can tell you that many clients are moving a lot of of money to the NFL. My client (import auto) has had a substantial shift of Network budget (Local market too) out of traditional Primetime programming and into sports (90% NFL/College football with a little MLB playoffs mixed in). It's where the *live* eyeballs are...without a doubt. There is no trouble at all in the foreseeable future in terms of the ad-demand side of the equation.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 04, 2013, 01:52:18 PM
As someone that works on the agency side of the business, I can tell you that many clients are moving a lot of of money to the NFL. My client (import auto) has had a substantial shift of Network budget (Local market too) out of traditional Primetime programming and into sports (90% NFL/College football with a little MLB playoffs mixed in). It's where the *live* eyeballs are...without a doubt. There is no trouble at all in the foreseeable future in terms of the ad-demand side of the equation.
Yup, sports is the one guarantee of live viewing in an age with DVR, etc. No question about it.
And this is why the NFL is going to an 18 game season soon. Too much money not too. Question is will it dilute the product too much? Time will tell.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 04, 2013, 02:51:47 PM
And this is why the NFL is going to an 18 game season soon. Too much money not too. Question is will it dilute the product too much? Time will tell.
European soccer seasons run from mid-August through mid-May. Some leagues run into June. Most teams play about twice a week.
The NFL is a season that runs from early September to early February.
I don't think product dilution is a problem. Especially when you consider the extension of the season would be in winter when people sit home and watch television. Face it, for most sports people, post-Super Bowl is kind of a wasteland until March Madness starts up. Then after that you have the Masters...NBA playoffs...and the start of MLB.
If the NFL season is extended to the end of February, the eyeballs will be there.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 04, 2013, 02:51:47 PM
And this is why the NFL is going to an 18 game season soon. Too much money not too. Question is will it dilute the product too much? Time will tell.
The 18 game schedule might happen, but it is hardly a done deal. For those of us spending over $1 billion a year, yeah we would like to see more product but it doesn't necessarily have to be more regular season games. Or it could mean less preseason games. It could mean a lot of things. It might dilute the product, definitely a possibility. Still a long long way to go before this happens.
Personally, I don't particularly care. I get more upset when we're plopping down $1 billion and then games are taken away and put on NFL Network, etc.
Don't know if it is doomed, but that Johnny Manziel is some player and fun to watch. Through three quarters he has 412 yards of his team's 512 total offense.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 04, 2013, 09:55:55 PM
The 18 game schedule might happen, but it is hardly a done deal.
Correct, the current thinking is 2 preseason and 18 regular season games. No decision on expanding the playoffs.
The big sticking point is the players union. The want contracts, pay scales and salary caps reworked peoportionally higher. The also want expanded rosters. All this has to be settled first and that is a lot of money.
That said, it probably will happen in a few years.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 04, 2013, 01:52:18 PM
As someone that works on the agency side of the business, I can tell you that many clients are moving a lot of of money to the NFL. My client (import auto) has had a substantial shift of Network budget (Local market too) out of traditional Primetime programming and into sports (90% NFL/College football with a little MLB playoffs mixed in). It's where the *live* eyeballs are...without a doubt. There is no trouble at all in the foreseeable future in terms of the ad-demand side of the equation.
If the car salesmen are killing themselves to get in, this must be the peak!!
A pretty good read in the Wall Street Journal with an interview of Lou Holtz. Talks about college football success, changes with Notre Dame, etc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578177202710048068.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h