I have watched one quarter of one game, pro and college, so far this season. I will likely keep up at this pace.
The NFL has traditionally has higher ratings than other sports for one reason and one reason only: Gambling.
It's the best sport to gamble on
I know I wouldn't watch it if I didn't have friendly monetary interests in it. I know many other people that feel the same way.
I have watched one quarter of one game, pro and college, so far this season. I will likely keep up at this pace.
If it wasn't for the Packers and Fantasy Football (this is how old friends and I stay in touch), I'd be right there with you.
Ratings this year, one game, but look at those boycotting the NFL games due to the national anthem protests. A number of NFL fans are not taking kindly to it and it is already showing.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/09/boycott-nfl-sweeps-internet-ungrateful-players-can-sit-anthem-fans-can-sit-games-388603
I love football in the fall. I watch college on Saturday. NFL on Sunday. I love it. And I wouldn't read too much into one week of ratings.
HOWEVER, I have been saying that the NFL has been making a series of decisions that have not been in their long-term best interests. None of which individually are damning, but can be viewed as a series of "nicks" that can just turn people off over time.
**Domestic violence
**Player safety
**Team nickname
**Players and the National Anthem
**Deflategate
One thing that made Pete Rozelle the best commissioner of any sport ever (closely followed by David Stern) is that he got the owners to sacrifice short-term financial gain for the sake of the long-term. And it paid off handsomely. Goodell, and this crop of owners, seem to be doing the opposite - and seem rest assured that the NFL will always be beloved.
And it may be. But not paying attention to issues that make you look bad is usually not a good, long-term strategy.
I too agree with Sultan. Nick here, nick there.
Also, haven't they somewhat oversold their product? I didn't watch a nano second of MNF in part because the matchups were awful. Beyond my local teams (NFC North) and maybe the biggie national game (let's say last Thursday's SB rematch), aren't we dipping down too deep? Sorry, just not going to watch some second tier game.
Oh thanks for reminding me of that. I was going to mention Thursday Night Football. Many of those games have been simply bad football...bad product.
Remember when a non-Sunday NFL game was a big deal? MNF or a Thursday Night Special was exiting. Now with football on almost every day the excitement is lost.
I love football in the fall. I watch college on Saturday. NFL on Sunday. I love it. And I wouldn't read too much into one week of ratings.
HOWEVER, I have been saying that the NFL has been making a series of decisions that have not been in their long-term best interests. None of which individually are damning, but can be viewed as a series of "nicks" that can just turn people off over time.
**Domestic violence
**Player safety
**Team nickname
**Players and the National Anthem
**Deflategate
One thing that made Pete Rozelle the best commissioner of any sport ever (closely followed by David Stern) is that he got the owners to sacrifice short-term financial gain for the sake of the long-term. And it paid off handsomely. Goodell, and this crop of owners, seem to be doing the opposite - and seem rest assured that the NFL will always be beloved.
And it may be. But not paying attention to issues that make you look bad is usually not a good, long-term strategy.
With the record breaking audience and ratings from last year, it's going to be hard to maintain that pace yearly. It feels like its audience is closed to max out, as ff is at its peak. You could make changes like eliminating kickoffs and going more pc to appeal to women and beta males but then you'd lose some of the men. Interesting to see where the game will go from here, lawsuits will probably greatly reduce the NFL viability as we head deeper into this century.
their popularity among men, both north and south, of all races is definitely their bread and butter. Making a bunch of softening changes could be tumultuous for the NFL because viewpoints are fairly different by gender breakdown.
It's not "men" the NFL is worried about losing... their core audience they risk losing by softening the game are better described as "rednecks."
their popularity among men, both north and south, of all races is definitely their bread and butter. Making a bunch of softening changes could be tumultuous for the NFL because viewpoints are fairly different by gender breakdown.
Inconsequential.
Oh Reeeeeeeeeeeelly reeeeeelly? A good friend of mine just sent this to me. If this is inaccurate however, I'd like to see your source
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9188/nfl-ratings-tank-any-guesses-why-hank-berrien
The ratings were clearly down.
No one knows why. It's all speculation.
Only time will tell if this is a trend.
This "softening" you speak of would not drive away men who aren't beta males or whatever demographic breakdown you want to characterize. The ambiguity of approach by the NFL will drive them away. If the NFL were to come out and announce a bunch of changes to enhance player safety (eliminate kick-offs, add an official to monitor the QB only, universal replay for targeting, etc) and then they enforce it, there would be some of the routine grumbling but eventually everyone would accept it.
Right now the issue is that the NFL is widely inconsistent and fans perceive these things as politically correct/lip service efforts not legitimate efforts to improve the game. I'd be willing to bet a deliberate and firm "softening" of the game would have no negative long term impact on ratings and may even increase it over the long run.
Absolutely! But, this is a big ship to maneuver. If goodell continues to allow these social issues to bleed into the game, it could get to a "boiling the frog" type of situation. Drip drip drip...another example was how he kept that PED's situation going with matthews and pepper even though the report came from a source sans any credibility and then was retracted altogether
Perhaps a softening to a certain extent would be accepted without exodus. But people will not be nearly as interested to go to a flag football game which 60 years from now may be imposed. As we are all aware, for good or bad, violence sells.
But if they don't address the safety issue, the best athletes will increasingly move to sports like baseball or basketball, where the risk of things like CTE is less.
Will people still watch the violence if the talent disappears?
Duz anyone watch da Brew Crew? Get up, get up, get outta here, hey?
I misunderstood what you guys were referring to in those issues. I think the NFL's problem is that they stood by for too long and did nothing about the concussion issues, wife-beaters, team names, etc. The optics are terrible; it reads as if they will sacrifice the health of millions (all the kids leagues) and readily promote criminals because it makes them money.
That turns off a lot of viewers.
In 2014, a number of the issues listed above took place. Ratings went up. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/
Gloom and doom predictions came anyway, and yet 2015 saw tv ratings growth again, not decline. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/10/media-circus-nfl-playoff-ratings-espn-nbc-cbs
Nicknames had zero impact. The other issues, not impacted per the tv numbers. Concussions, abuse, you name it - ratings went UP. You can't claim ratings are down this year because of nicknames, women abuse, concussions as all those happened in the last 2 to 5 years and ratings went up. Fans didn't decide after sending ratings up that 2016 was the watershed year they were going to pull back.
Fast forward to this year, there has been one game and one major issue. A national anthem boycott that has many fans ticked off. We didn't watch a single minute this weekend, and were not alone. Great South Park spoof on the protest by Kap by the way.
If the national anthem action dies down, people will watch again, in the same way they boosted ratings last year. If national anthem continues and turns people off, then the ratings will come down. There has been one change this year, and a small sample size at that (1 game). The national anthem.
People are not boycotting the NFL because of Kap, that is moronic.
In 2014, a number of the issues listed above took place. Ratings went up. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/01/09/nfl-2014-tv-recap-202-million-viewers-game-viewership-nearly-triples-broadcast-primetime/
Gloom and doom predictions came anyway, and yet 2015 saw tv ratings growth again, not decline. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/10/media-circus-nfl-playoff-ratings-espn-nbc-cbs
Nicknames had zero impact. The other issues, not impacted per the tv numbers. Concussions, abuse, you name it - ratings went UP. You can't claim ratings are down this year because of nicknames, women abuse, concussions as all those happened in the last 2 to 5 years and ratings went up. Fans didn't decide after sending ratings up that 2016 was the watershed year they were going to pull back.
Fast forward to this year, there has been one game and one major issue. A national anthem boycott that has many fans ticked off. We didn't watch a single minute this weekend, and were not alone. Great South Park spoof on the protest by Kap by the way.
If the national anthem action dies down, people will watch again, in the same way they boosted ratings last year. If national anthem continues and turns people off, then the ratings will come down. There has been one change this year, and a small sample size at that (1 game). The national anthem.
But if they don't address the safety issue, the best athletes will increasingly move to sports like baseball or basketball, where the risk of things like CTE is less.
Will people still watch the violence if the talent disappears?
Do people still watch high school and college football, even when the talent is less than what they can see in an NFL game?
People are not boycotting the NFL because of Kap, that is moronic.
You don't understand what I am saying. I am saying that *IF* this is a long-term trend, and there really is no indication that this is the case, that you can't attribute it to one thing. Nicknames, domestic violence, etc. aren't impacting the ratings, but taken together, they COULD collectively be hurting the image of the NFL overall.
The only thing I don't like about the NFL is that the majority of players are underpaid. And NFL revenue sharing just doubled in the past five years to 7.3 billion. Many argue the NFL is only 16 games so they should earn less but that isn't the true timeline of the work they put in. I don't know where the hell the $10 million Thompson isn't spending on players each year is going. Somebody's pockets are getting lined with that extra cash. Should be going to the players.
The only thing I don't like about the NFL is that the majority of players are underpaid. And NFL revenue sharing just doubled in the past five years to 7.3 billion. Many argue the NFL is only 16 games so they should earn less but that isn't the true timeline of the work they put in. I don't know where the hell the $10 million Thompson isn't spending on players each year is going. Somebody's pockets are getting lined with that extra cash. Should be going to the players.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/boycottthenfl
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/huge-nfl-fan-now-politicizes-everything-quit/
James Woods in on the action
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/legendary-actor-james-woods-has-a-blunt-reaction-to-the-nfl-protests-video/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/boycottthenfl
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/huge-nfl-fan-now-politicizes-everything-quit/
James Woods in on the action
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/legendary-actor-james-woods-has-a-blunt-reaction-to-the-nfl-protests-video/
You cite one year. The Packers are often one of the farthest teams under cap. They had over 20 million to use this year but chose not to use it in free agency.
A 49'er actually beat up an elderly man with his own cane, yet a certain slice of Americana views Kap as an ISIS sympathizer who hates 'Merica, because he is doing a non violent protest, expressing his freedom of speech of rights. And according to some, millions are no longer watching football because of it.
Riddle me this... for years a small % NFL players have been implicated or convicted of murder, rape, DUIs, assault, domestic battety... But if took a guy to sit down and kneel during the national anthem to impact millions of people, to not watch football. If this theory is true, actually says a lot about those choosing to boycott over this, and not over the other things.
Sultan we're all already aware you are the leading authority on every topic, no need to talk down. Pack rolled over 7m dollars last year about double of all the NFC North combined. Hopefully that isn't a yearly trend as there are plenty of holes to fill in GB.
Yeah and the NFL is technically non-profit too. I find it amusing how the players' salaries are readily available but you can't find a salary on any NFL executive.
A 49'er actually beat up an elderly man with his own cane, yet a certain slice of Americana views Kap as an ISIS sympathizer who hates 'Merica, because he is doing a non violent protest, expressing his freedom of speech of rights. And according to some, millions are no longer watching football because of it.
Riddle me this... for years a small % NFL players have been implicated or convicted of murder, rape, DUIs, assault, domestic battety... But if took a guy to sit down and kneel during the national anthem to impact millions of people, to not watch football. If this theory is true, actually says a lot about those choosing to boycott over this, and not over the other things.
Yeah, but,
If Kap gets away with this, people are gonna start thinkin' they can use their freedoms whenever they want.....
I was referring to team executives, not league executives.
You can push back all you want, but the reality is, people don't want to see this bull crap at the games. I think most people are aware of the "injustices" and joblessness, and educational opportunities and the class warfare and the police situation...they come to football, basketball, baseball, etc to get away from this crap. Here, They just want to see football. Something needs to be done to tell these guys to find another outlet.
Please leave!!
Keep the right-wing politics (and all politics) off this board.
Look Chicos, anecdotal evidence isn't any indication of a significant movement.
1) I'm not Chicos
[snip]
Note: I created a username (TilTuesday) last week
View IPs used by TilTuesday
Most recent IP address: 192.[snip]
IPs used in recent posts:[snip, but several]
IPs used in error messages:
Members possibly in the same range: ChicosBailBonds, thePhoenix
Liar!Code: [Select]View IPs used by TilTuesday
Most recent IP address: 192.[snip]
IPs used in recent posts:[snip, but several]
IPs used in error messages:
Members possibly in the same range: ChicosBailBonds, thePhoenix
You haven't yet made the same IP mistakes with this username, but since you admit to creating TilTuesday, I know you're Chicos. Sorry bud, stop creating usernames here (BTW, ThePhoenix was another one of his).
Just stop.
3) If ratings suddenly reverse themselves, are the reasons given this past week that nicknames, domestic violence and other excuses are not applicable?
I think you just described why these protests are happening at football games. Protests are most effective when you do them in places you don't expect and are inconvenient to those who aren't part of the movement. I do not know if it is changing behavior but it is certainly reaching plenty of people. Exposure is half the battle.
Ok, but, the unintended/intended consequences may not work in their favor...wait, that was one of my other questions. What are the signs that these "protests" are working?
Its been what? A month? Were still talking about it. Don't know if its changing behavior but its certainly increasing attention.
Why don't these athletes who've been denied equal opportunities just pool all their monies and take out a bunch of billboards across the country- that would probably attract more attention than just the football fans.
No it wouldn't.
So if they had say 50-100 billboards out across the states on the busiest interstates, they wouldn't reach more or comparable amounts of people? It would reach those who do not watch football as well. That way, nobody would be offended
So if they had say 50-100 billboards out across the states on the busiest interstates, they wouldn't reach more or comparable amounts of people?
So if they had say 50-100 billboards out across the states on the busiest interstates, they wouldn't reach more or comparable amounts of people? It would reach those who do not watch football as well. That way, nobody would be offended
Ohhhhh, so nobody really knew about the cop shootings and educational, joblessness and income disparities and whatever else they are bringing to our attention-got it.
Why don't these athletes who've been denied equal opportunities just pool all their monies and take out a bunch of billboards across the country- that would probably attract more attention than just the football fans. Everyone that drives past will see them and start doin their "fair share" to help out
It was mentioned in the game thread last night, but the NFL has been pretty bad so far this year. I think teams are forgoing much of pre-season and using the early schedule to ramp up and it is really affecting play.
I mean, if I were a neutral fan, I would have turned that game off at halftime last night. It was boring.
Can we remember what is happening to NFL and college football attendance and ratings in about two months when the seasonal whining about MU basketball attendance begins? (It is happening everywhere and to everything.)
Big-name universities are turning to beer to boost waning sports attendance and revenue
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-name-universities-are-turning-to-beer-to-boost-waning-sports-attendance-and-revenue-2016-9
Ohio State University football fans attending the first home game of the season earlier this month saw a new concession item on the menu at Ohio Stadium. Among the hot dogs, pretzels and tacos, the game’s attendees were also able to buy cans of Miller Lite.
This season, Ohio State became one of several universities to sell beer at football games. In the last decade, alcohol sales at college stadiums have gone from nearly nonexistent to an increasingly popular -- though largely unproven -- solution for programs hoping to improve sagging attendance at home games.
Can we remember what is happening to NFL and college football attendance and ratings in about two months when the seasonal whining about MU basketball attendance begins? (It is happening everywhere and to everything.)
Big-name universities are turning to beer to boost waning sports attendance and revenue
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-name-universities-are-turning-to-beer-to-boost-waning-sports-attendance-and-revenue-2016-9
Ohio State University football fans attending the first home game of the season earlier this month saw a new concession item on the menu at Ohio Stadium. Among the hot dogs, pretzels and tacos, the game’s attendees were also able to buy cans of Miller Lite.
This season, Ohio State became one of several universities to sell beer at football games. In the last decade, alcohol sales at college stadiums have gone from nearly nonexistent to an increasingly popular -- though largely unproven -- solution for programs hoping to improve sagging attendance at home games.
1) Why do I have to leave?
2) This isn't a right-wing politics issue. This isn't a left wing politics issue. We are talking about why ratings are down this season. You made a comment that the protests had no impact. You are wrong.
Mr. Kaepernik can protest all he wants and I support his right to do so. I, and others, can choose not to support him or the NFL in return. For me, it is personal because of the law enforcement in my family. His reason for protesting he stated was due to the police. He has been invited to spend time with the SF and Oakland police departments and walk in their shoes, which he should do. He has chosen thus far not to do that. Fans have a voice, too. They can click the remote off.
Ratings continue their drop off.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/19/packers-vikings-down-16-percent-from-2015-week-two-snf/
FWIW, I think Chicos is right here. Some people are not watching because of Kaepernick et. al. There doesn't have to be one singular reason for the drop off. Undoubtedly this is one - only time will tell how prominent that reason is.
i
Ratings continue their drop off.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/19/packers-vikings-down-16-percent-from-2015-week-two-snf/
FWIW, I think Chicos is right here. Some people are not watching because of Kaepernick et. al. There doesn't have to be one singular reason for the drop off. Undoubtedly this is one - only time will tell how prominent that reason is.
i
I'd find the argument more compelling if the NFL ratings dip was taking place in a vacuum, but it's not.
Last night's Emmys ratings were an all-time low, and 5 percent lower than last year's show ... which had been the previous all-time low.
Olympics ratings were way down. College football ratings are down. Final Four ratings fell 30 percent. Oscars ratings were at an 8-year low. Grammy ratings hit a 6-year low.
Seems to me the more likely culprits than Colin Kaepernick are a) streaming and/or other methods and b) people watching less TV.
But that's boring and apolitical, so let's by all means continue to blame it on a tiny minority of players who refuse to partake in forced patriotism.
i
I'd find the argument more compelling if the NFL ratings dip was taking place in a vacuum, but it's not.
Last night's Emmys ratings were an all-time low, and 5 percent lower than last year's show ... which had been the previous all-time low.
Olympics ratings were way down. College football ratings are down. Final Four ratings fell 30 percent. Oscars ratings were at an 8-year low. Grammy ratings hit a 6-year low.
Seems to me the more likely culprits than Colin Kaepernick are a) streaming and/or other methods and b) people watching less TV.
But that's boring and apolitical, so let's by all means continue to blame it on a tiny minority of players who refuse to partake in forced patriotism.
i
I'd find the argument more compelling if the NFL ratings dip was taking place in a vacuum, but it's not.
Last night's Emmys ratings were an all-time low, and 5 percent lower than last year's show ... which had been the previous all-time low.
Olympics ratings were way down. College football ratings are down. Final Four ratings fell 30 percent. Oscars ratings were at an 8-year low. Grammy ratings hit a 6-year low.
Seems to me the more likely culprits than Colin Kaepernick are a) streaming and/or other methods and b) people watching less TV.
But that's boring and apolitical, so let's by all means continue to blame it on a tiny minority of players who refuse to partake in forced patriotism.
(http://static.vibe.com/files/2016/09/colin-kaepernick-time-magazine-1474571784-600x800.jpg)
NFL Ratings Continue to Plunge in Third Week of National Anthem Protests
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/28/nfl-ratings-continue-plunge-third-week-national-anthem-protests/
For the third consecutive week, ratings for the National Football League (NFL) have plummeted, as players continue anti-American protests during the playing of the national anthem. This week’s drop-off also coincided with the Monday broadcast of the first presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
Ratings for Sunday Night Football featuring the Chicago Bears and Dallas Cowboys scored a 12.9 Nielsen rating, down from the game’s 13.7 rating last week. Week two, in turn, was down from week one’s 13.9 rating, according to Sports Business Daily. Ratings also dropped more than they did during week three a year ago for the slate of midday regional games, falling by 18 percent.
Monday Night Football performed even worse. Monday’s game between the Atlanta Falcons and the New Orleans Saints received a low 5.7 rating, a 38 percent plunge from week three of last year.
Notably, the game was competing against the first presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, an event that earned the biggest debate audience in U.S. political history. According to CNN Money, the September 26 debate brought in more than 80 million viewers.
But the NFL has also been suffering under the anti-American protests during the playing of the national anthem, which San Francisco 49ers second string quarterback Colin Kaepernick started three weeks ago.
GROAN!!!
even you have to see the problem with quoting a breitbart "article" that blames a minority.
Are we going to torcher logic and say changing the uniform is not allowed and that is why Antonio Brown and the Cowboys were rejected?
It's pretty simple. Changing the uniforms is against the rules. Taking a knee during the national anthem isn't. You can argue that the uniform rule is dumb and I would agree. You could also argue that there should be a rule banning kneeling during the national anthem and I would disagree. But the two have nothing to do with each other. If the Dallas Cowboys want to honor the fallen policemen by doing a handstand during the national anthem they are more than welcome to. And if the protesters wanted to add a BLM decal to their helmets, they would be told no.
I think its funny that you think this is the work of the PC crowd. PC means not saying things that offend people. So really you are the one arguing for political correctness since you are saying Kaepernick shouldn't do something that offends people.
I also find it funny that you think that the protest being inconvenient for others is a reason it should stop. The whole idea behind a protest is to be disruptive so that people will pay attention to a certain cause or movement. If people are getting upset enough to turn off the TV (which is laughable IMHO) then it is working. I bet plenty of people were pissed off when sit ins were going on in the 1960s too (Before anyone goes off the handle, I'm comparing methodology not importance or significance).
But the thing that is downright hilarious is that this whole phenomenon was caused by the masses who are supposedly boycotting the NFL over this. Kaepernick didn't do this to start a movement. He just decided that he didn't want to stand for the national anthem as a personal thing. Kind of like an atheist choosing not say the pledge of allegiance. He did it with no comment for three games. It wasn't until the masses noticed and threw a nationwide hissyfit over it, that it became a movement. If people had just left him alone and allowed him to practice his belief in peace, this would have gone no further. But because the masses couldn't bear the thought that some backup QB, who they have never met and will never meet, didn't believe in standing for the national anthem, it gained traction. Now there are hundreds of players from every level, sport, background, and race participating. If the boycotters want a person to blame, they just need to look in the mirror.
The fact that thousands of people are willing to boycott the NFL because some players are kneeling during the national anthem but they weren't willing to boycott it when there was concerns for player safety or widespread instances of domestic violence...that's not funny. That's just sad.
Your plan for zero tolerance on the kneelers isn't very strategic. The movement grew just because of fans' reactions to Kaepernick. How big do you think it will get if the league makes martyrs out all of them?
One last thing that is funny. Your spelling of "torture." I think a "torcher" is one who sets things on fire.
I've moved from the city to the country and fall has the best weather of the year. Why would I want to spend the weekend inside watching football when I can be outdoors and live life.
I haven't watched a football game played in Sept-Nov in years.
Actually it is even simpler. The NFL is a private work place. No private workplace allows for political or social statements at the determinant to the value of their product. Even last year when Starbucks tried something similar, the customer outcry caused it to end in a week. And that was arguably with a far more sympathetic crowd that NFL viewers.
Again no private business tolerates any personal statements that hurt its product. You would not tolerate a customer service representative engaging you on race conversation before helping you any more than a many NFL viewers want a back-up QB doing the same.
It is very bad business and they need a total ban. Even if that means ending the national anthem before every game (which I never understood anyway).
Starbucks wants baristas to talk about race with customers
http://www.today.com/money/starbucks-wants-baristas-talk-about-race-customers-t9356
Starbucks ‘Race Together’ Campaign Brews Backlash
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/starbucks-race-backlash_n_6898324.html
Starbucks workers stop writing 'Race Together' on cups but company claims it's NOT because of criticism of the program
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006689/Starbucks-baristas-stop-writing-Race-customers-cups.html
Congratulations.
Actually it is even simpler. The NFL is a private work place. No private workplace allows for political or social statements at the determinant to the value of their product. Even last year when Starbucks tried something similar, the customer outcry caused it to end in a week. And that was arguably with a far more sympathetic crowd that NFL viewers.
Again no private business tolerates any personal statements that hurt its product. You would not tolerate a customer service representative engaging you on race conversation before helping you any more than a many NFL viewers want a back-up QB doing the same.
It is very bad business and they need a total ban. Even if that means ending the national anthem before every game (which I never understood anyway).
Starbucks wants baristas to talk about race with customers
http://www.today.com/money/starbucks-wants-baristas-talk-about-race-customers-t9356
Starbucks ‘Race Together’ Campaign Brews Backlash
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/starbucks-race-backlash_n_6898324.html
Starbucks workers stop writing 'Race Together' on cups but company claims it's NOT because of criticism of the program
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006689/Starbucks-baristas-stop-writing-Race-customers-cups.html
Congratulations.
That's kind of a dickish response to someone who's simply saying that he can enjoy life without football. And hater is right... more people are waking up to that very fact every day.
Thanks!!!
This is all crap. The NFL itself CHOOSES to make a political statement at the start of every game by playing the National Anthem. If they want to stop Kaepernick's actions, ceasing playing the Anthem is the only measure they should remotely consider taking.
Anyone asserting that Kaepernick should not be allowed to protest as he does is inherently anti-American.
Oh...that, and in before the lock.
This is all crap. The NFL itself CHOOSES to make a political statement at the start of every game by playing the National Anthem. If they want to stop Kaepernick's actions, ceasing playing the Anthem is the only measure they should remotely consider taking.
Anyone asserting that Kaepernick should not be allowed to protest as he does is inherently anti-American.
Oh...that, and in before the lock.
I think about 95% of the reason ratings are down are due to either long term trends in how people consume entertainment and because the product itself has been sucky.Completely correct.
As the weather turns bad, and as the playoffs draw closer, my guess is that the ratings will largely be back to near where they were.
Question ... how big do you think this protest will be when the NBA and NCAA starts? If MU and/or opposing players take a knee during the anthem and the BC crowd boos, is that acceptable? Both are making a political statement, both have a right to do so.
I think about 95% of the reason ratings are down are due to either long term trends in how people consume entertainment and because the product itself has been sucky.
As the weather turns bad, and as the playoffs draw closer, my guess is that the ratings will largely be back to near where they were.
Was the weather unusually crappy last year? Because all the comparison of ratings down the first three weeks of this season are compared to the first three weeks of last year. So they are weather adjusted and they are still down.
So I guess what i am saying is it seems people are actually less upset about the 'disrespect' and more upset about the 'statement' - which is interesting.
The anthems make sense in the Olympics, World Cup, or other international competitions. They make no sense in domestic leagues other than as pandering to political agendas and nationalism. But as long as that political statement will be made, citizens have the right to protest said statement.
Not only the right, but if they feel that strongly, they have the political obligation to do so. Kaepernick's protest is far more patriotic than the fascist cries to silence him.
The national anthem at Blackhawk hockey games is pretty darn cool - particularly in the playoffs. Also, there have been times in my life (post 9-11 | first gulf war) where I felt like it brought people together.
But I really don't understand the stink about players making a statement. Those upset should look at the large majority of people in the crowd not paying attention or looking at their phones during the anthem.
So I guess what i am saying is it seems people are actually less upset about the 'disrespect' and more upset about the 'statement' - which is interesting.
Booing during the anthem?
How disrespectful.
This thread is about TV ratings. Their have been numerous stories posted that it is believed that this protest is hurting ratings. They need to address this.
I guess you decided to ignore the first paragraph.
I think about 95% of the reason ratings are down are due to either long term trends in how people consume entertainment and because the product itself has been sucky. [/i]
I ignored it because it is an opinion not supported by facts.
Not really. Anything they do will be controversial. You start punishing players, you create a larger movement and others will stop watching.
The NFL is letting this play out and not turning a small fire into a massive blaze. Very smart.
And your assertions on the topic are well researched and supported by facts?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Wrong. You have no right in a private workplace to exercise your freedom of speech. The NFL is a private workplace. And the consensus is his protest is hurting the product so the owners of that product need to move to stop it ... just like Howard Schultz did with Starbucks's baristas last year.
Wrong. You have no right in a private workplace to exercise your freedom of speech. The NFL is a private workplace. And the consensus is his protest is hurting the product so the owners of that product need to move to stop it ... just like Howard Schultz did with Starbucks's baristas last year.
It is on the cover of TIME this week, not two months ago when it started. How is this playing out? It is growing and the largest it has ever been is today.
I posted numerous stories that the protest is hurting ratings.
Wrong. You have no right in a private workplace to exercise your freedom of speech. The NFL is a private workplace. And the consensus is his protest is hurting the product so the owners of that product need to move to stop it ... just like Howard Schultz did with Starbucks's baristas last year.
If MU players were to hold a similar protest and it can be shown that it is hurting ratings, attendance or revenue for the MU basketball product, what should the administration do about it?
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/09/23/nfls-tv-ratings-continue-slide-amidst-national-anthem-protests/#5b3ff0394591
If MU players were to hold a similar protest and it can be shown that it is hurting ratings, attendance or revenue for the MU basketball product, what should the administration do about it?
This thread is about TV ratings. Their have been numerous stories posted that it is believed that this protest is hurting ratings. They need to address this.
The national anthem at Blackhawk hockey games is pretty darn cool - particularly in the playoffs. Also, there have been times in my life (post 9-11 | first gulf war) where I felt like it brought people together.
But I really don't understand the stink about players making a statement. Those upset should look at the large majority of people in the crowd not paying attention or looking at their phones during the anthem.
So I guess what i am saying is it seems people are actually less upset about the 'disrespect' and more upset about the 'statement' - which is interesting.
Nothing.
And if MU decided to use long time season ticket holder and big MU fan Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke as part of a "blue lives matter" demonstration which caused some of the players to boycott the game, you also think the administration should nothing to stop any of it?
What I'm getting at is you're in favor of it because it fits your political bias but if it goes against your political bias, you would be against it.
Why would MU conduct a "blue lives matter" demonstration?
Why would MU conduct a "blue lives matter" demonstration?
And if MU decided to use long time season ticket holder and big MU fan Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke as part of a "blue lives matter" demonstration which caused some of the players to boycott the game, you also think the administration should nothing to stop any of it?
What I'm getting at is you're in favor of it because it fits your political bias but if it goes against your political bias, you would be against it.
Why not?
Why should any player conduct a black lives matter protest?
I think that can be true, but there are certainly some folks that are upset about the method of protest AND what they are protesting.
When discussing the protests, they both made the point that they support the need to resolve the social justice issues in the country but they had very negative and visceral reactions to the anthem protest as it felt to them like a slippery slope back to that time when military, police, etc were reviled in this country.
Again, I don't know how big that constituency is but just another perspective.
So many things wrong here: A) an MU player kneeling for social justice is not a BLM protest unless they say it is B) a player is not speaking for the university as a whole in that instance any more than a student protesting on the corner of 16th and Wells in a Marquette t-shirt is C) What is the benefit to MU to silence an individual student and come off as oppressive?
I will repeat myself from earlier in this thread. If these so called aggravated fans chose to boycott the Shield over Kap's protest, where the hell were they when over the years dozens of players beat up females and the elderly, drove drunk, in a few cases cases killed people, sexually assaulted women, and so on and so on. Of course, this is a small small % of players, but so are the ones protesting.
It says A LOT about those fans, and the priorities in life they hold so dear.
So as long as it is a non-descript social justice protest that one can interpret anyway they want, you're ok with it? LargeLy because it is a meaningless protest.
What if a MU player wants to protest the painting over of the Assata Shukar muriel? Ok with that too.
Point is when you open the door to this, Sultan is not correct that it dies out by itself, it grows and grows until it offends your political views. Only then is it shut down.
In the meantime the product being used for the protest, be it the NFL or MUBB, will be tarnished by it.
See the graphic above, the protest is unpopular. It offends NFL fans. It makes the NFL product worse.
And if MU decided to use long time season ticket holder and big MU fan Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke as part of a "blue lives matter" demonstration which caused some of the players to boycott the game, you also think the administration should nothing to stop any of it?
What I'm getting at is you're in favor of it because it fits your political bias but if it goes against your political bias, you would be against it.
Why not?
Why should any player conduct a black lives matter protest?
What I'm getting at is you're in favor of it because it fits your political bias but if it goes against your political bias, you would be against it.
If a Marquette player wants to protest, regardless of what it is, I'm fine with them doing that. I may have issue with what they are protesting but that's between me and the player so to speak....university is not involved at all as far as I'm concerned.
And by the way, nothing offends my political views because they are just views. If I let my political views be offended by others views that's means I'm dogmatic which is really the root of the majority of the conflict on this earth.
There's the difference. It is different when an individual player or players decide on their own to make a political statement and when a university or organization decides to make a political statement. When a player makes a statement, the university can choose not to act thereby not taking one side or the other. They are not encouraging it but they are not actively stopping it, a neutral stance. When an organization or university makes the statement, they are clearly taking one side.
So a better a question would be, what if a student athlete wanted to do a protest/demonstration for blue lives matter (that was the same level of "disruptiveness" as kneeling during the national anthem), and people were upset would should the university do? I would say the same thing, absolutely nothing.
No. I welcome acts of civil disobedience from both sides. But you keep failing to make proper comparisons. You keep using examples where entire private organizations such as Starbucks or Marquette (theoretically) have made political statements. You need to compare it with instances where individuals have made political statements.
You are correct that I personally would be more receptive to a Black Lives Matter protest by Marquette than I would be to a Blue Lives Matter demonstration. I would be disappointed that Marquette would decide to do that and think it was colossally stupid given the current climate in Milwaukee (it could also be considered stupid to do Black Lives Matter protest given the climate) but I wouldn't try to censor it. Marquette is a private organization and has a right to make whatever statement it chooses to and I as an individual am free to feel whatever way I want about it. But again, that's not what were talking about here. We are talking about individuals making political statements.
Point is when you open the door to this, Sultan is not correct that it dies out by itself, it grows and grows until it offends your political views. Only then is it shut down.
Good post
The individuals making the protest are using the NFL, the basketball team, or whatever to promote their protest. As such they risk devaluing the NFL, the basketball team. What is the reposnsible of the owners or administration to protect that franchise?
You're saying nothing. So everyone can use or abuse it as they see fit.
What is the limit?
But the MU students of the gender and sexual equality resource center where doing that with the mural and it sparked outage, painting over it and a firing.
And if the MU students of the basketball team want to do the same, that's ok?
Some protests are ok, others are not.
But the MU students of the gender and sexual equality resource center where doing that with the mural and it sparked outage, painting over it and a firing.
And if the MU students of the basketball team want to do the same, that's ok?
Some protests are ok, others are not.
Some protests are ok, others are not.
And if MU decided to use long time season ticket holder and big MU fan Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke as part of a "blue lives matter" demonstration which caused some of the players to boycott the game, you also think the administration should nothing to stop any of it?
What I'm getting at is you're in favor of it because it fits your political bias but if it goes against your political bias, you would be against it.
Btw if someone didn't want to stand for the anthem because they didn't want to support a country where gay marriage is a right, I'd be cool with that too.
So, Jesse, why aren't you playing this up as a money-making opportunity? Ratings down, revenues down, stocks down, if this was a normal issue you would be playing up the doom angle and gloating. The fact that you aren't, and are instead focusing on the virtues of non-violent protests regarding racial issues.... well, it fits with other aspects of your personality you have revealed here.
If an MU ballplayer took a knee during the anthem, ostensibly to protest racial injustice in America, he would be hearkening back to the glory days under Al and he would, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally, be embracing some the Jesuit ideal of standing up for the oppressed.
This sounds like you are all for anything that fits your political beliefs.
You ok if the Pro-life students show disturbing pictures of abortion as you walk into the BC? What if BLM showed equally disturbing pictures of those gunned down by police? How about the Catholic MU students protesting for a stadium-wide prayer before the game? What about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting (google them, they were on campus last year)?
I understand that anything violent or destructive is out of bounds. But what protest is "too far" for you? Is it all political ideologue?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that Sultan is actually pro-gay marriage, so he was saying that he would support something outside of his political beliefs. Could be wrong though
1) What do the owners of a business (i.e., the NFL) do when personal protests by their employees threaten the value of their business? Their has been plenty of linked stories and a graphic that show plenty of customers of the the NFL are either considering not using the product (watching on TV) or about to. That would worry any owner of the business.
2) when Sultan is shown to be wrong and the protesters don't get bored and stop, but instead it grows and grows, what then? How do you stop it if the customers boycott the product (plummeting TV ratings). What peaceful non-violent protest goes too far? Is it just about your personal views and those protest that don't fit it should be shut down?
You are the only one arguing about personal views that don't fit. It is a peaceful, non-violent protest that isn't completely disruptive, and its for a cause that doesn't inspire hate or violence towards a particular group (i.e. no KKK members), then the protest should be allowed. It doesn't go too far. The issue isn't with the kneelers, its with the grown men and women throwing hissyfits because someone decided to kneel.
This is where you wrong. Again see the graphic and stories above. These protests are very unpopular. People are saying it affects their viewing and the ratings are down.
Their is far more evidence this is hurting the NFL then any unsupported assertion around here that it is not. So, my view represents 44% of the public (above), hardly insignificant.
When did I or anyone else ever since this wasn't hurting the NFL? The fault however lies with the people throwing a b*tch fit, not the people engaging in a peaceful protest. There is nothing about kneeling during the national anthem that should cause football to be any less enjoyable. It doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest. The problem is that people are intolerant of opinions differing from their own.
You didn't, Sultan incorrectly insists it is not hurting the NFL.
And regarding intolerance, why don't you rethink this because about half the country thinks it disrespects the country. Intolerance is anyone that does not see that.
I understand that. And no one is telling those people that they can't be offended. No one is trying to censor them. You and others however are demanding that Kaepernick et. al be silenced.
I think we've tapped the protest debate about as much as we can as I don't think anyone's changing anyone's mind at this point.
So back a little bit to the OT, NFL ratings are down, but I think it would be instructive to see how they compare to college football and professional sports in general ratings. If the NFL is down in viewership less than college football and less then general sports as well as tv viewership generally then it's likely just the result of trends outside of football itself. If it is down more than college football and other sports, I would think that would indicate there are drivers specific to NFL that should be cause for concern for the league.
To lazy to do the research so I'm hoping it's already done and one of you guys can google it for me. :)
So there are two arguments here. Does Kapernickj have the right? Yes, of course, that is not the issue. But does he have the right to use his workplace? No, he does not. Should his employer do something since he is hurting the value of their business? Yes they should.
I think we've tapped the protest debate about as much as we can as I don't think anyone's changing anyone's mind at this point.
So back a little bit to the OT, NFL ratings are down, but I think it would be instructive to see how they compare to college football and professional sports in general ratings. If the NFL is down in viewership less than college football and less then general sports as well as tv viewership generally then it's likely just the result of trends outside of football itself. If it is down more than college football and other sports, I would think that would indicate there are drivers specific to NFL that should be cause for concern for the league.
To lazy to do the research so I'm hoping it's already done and one of you guys can google it for me. :)
College football is down more. But it started declining a few years ago. On an earlier page their is a link and chart showing that the average college football game is approaching four hours. It says that is just too long and turning people off.
The NFL decline in ratings this year is sharp and started more or less this year. So it is something specific to the last few months that is causing the surprising and unexplained drop in ratings. Then we have polls and stories that say NFL fans to do not like the quiet protests of taking a knee. Some think it is disrespectful to the country. Others view the NFL as an escape and do not want this stuff, yet again, thrown in their face on a Sunday afternoon.
So there are two arguments here. Does Kapernickj have the right? Yes, of course, that is not the issue. But does he have the right to use his workplace? No, he does not. Should his employer do something since he is hurting the value of their business? Yes they should.
As posted earlier in this thread, ratings for all major sporting and non-sporting television programming and events are down this year, which indicates that the "Blame Kaepernick" argument is nonsense. What's happening to the NFL is no different - and in some cases less severe - than what's happening everywhere. It's reflective of overall viewership trends. In fact, overall TV viewership over the past five years down significantly among everyone but the 50-year-old and up crowd.
Here's what I wrote earlier:
Last night's Emmys ratings were an all-time low, and 5 percent lower than last year's show ... which had been the previous all-time low.
Olympics ratings were way down. College football ratings are down. Final Four ratings fell 30 percent. Oscars ratings were at an 8-year low. Grammy ratings hit a 6-year low.
I didn't note then, but I will now, that ratings for this year's baseball all-star game were down 18 percent this year.
You're confusing noise for signal in the ratings evaluation.
And you are leaving out the impact if the NFL "does something". Let's assume what you've noted before is true and half of NFL fans are pissed about the Kaepernick situation. Further let's assume the NFL does "something" about it (as well as every other player that is since protesting) wouldn't that presume to piss off the 50% of the fan base that was either ok with or supportive of the protests?
Bottom line, the NFL is boxed in on the protest stuff. I think the NFL is generally a very stupid organization, but I think they've navigated the anthem protest situation just right. I'm sure I've done nothing to convince you otherwise though.
You're making the same argument that Sultan is making. You want to believe that Kaepernick is not hurting ratings as it fits your world view. The problem is their are polls, stories and discussion that suggest it is hurting.
And on the other side, cannot point to any evidence that this protest is bringing in new viewers to the NFL?
Business people cannot pretend a problem does not exist, posters can. Their customers are upset, that has been established. This must act to protect their business.
It is not censoring as the NFL is not the Government. Private groups can do whatever they want as the first amendment does do not apply to them. It only applies to the Government.
All kind of businesses do this. Your business does this. No business would stand for an employee make a social justice protest that upsets its customers. The NFL is not different.
I'm saying that the NFL needs to protect the value of the shield. Taking a knee is hurting the value of the shield. Kaepernick might be the only negative value player in the league. He is costing the league more than the value is gives them as a back-up QB.
I agree with this. The NFL was slow to respond and now they are trapped. Their best course of action is to hope Sultan is right and Kaepernick gets bored of this and stops, and it goes away out of a lack of interest. Then, as I suggested before, they will ban this type of protest forever as part of the next CBA.
Kaepernick has every right to protest. Perhaps every player should take a knee during the anthem and say a prayer to heal our nation. Now that would be a statement.
Are you allowed to make political protests to the customers to your employer?
There are anecdotes and screeds from right-wing websites. That's hardly evidence.
Anecdote is not singular for data.
That's irrelevant, and a claim no one is making.
Again, you've failed to present any empirical data that the protests have led to a notable decline in ratings.
Suggesting they should do something because "people are upset" is nonsense. People get upset for all sorts of stupid reasons.
Ultimately, your argument comes down to believing that TV ratings are in decline across the board because of 'X,' except for the NFL, where TV ratings are in decline because of 'Y.'
That makes sense how?
If your employer goes out of their way to make a political statement, you have the choice if you want to participate in that statement. If your company endorses a politician, they can't fire you if you don't vote for that politician.
That is not what this is.
This is an employee using his employers resources to make a personal political statement to the customers of his employers firm.
I notice that despite it being repeated multiple times, you refuse to acknowledge that the NFL playing the anthem is in and of itself a political statement, Heisy.
And the employer doesn't mind.
But in this case the employer does seem to mind and would prefer it not to happen. To say otherwise is you again electing to not accept realities that you don't agree with.
Go back a few pages ago, I said I did not understand why the antehm was such a big deal and that I was ok with doing away with it.
To me this is a rogue employee hurting his employer's product and they are paralyzed to stop it.
They aren't paralyzed. They can stop playing the anthem and end his protest at any time. The NFL chooses not to. This is on them, not him. As long as they choose to continue their political statements, he is free to continue his.
Their (the NFL) political statement (National Anthem) does not bother their customers. His (Kaepernick) political statement does bother their customers.
I learned for the politics page that when you "just decide" something nothing will ever get you to change your mind ... ever.
Virtually worthless would imply not worth even doing. Even if 75% of that survey is wrong, that would still imply 11% of people are not watching because of the protests. That is significant.
In my view, people watch sports because it takes them away from other stuff. When other stuff creeps into their sports, they are not happy. They want to watch football.
Virtually worthless would imply not worth even doing. Even if 75% of that survey is wrong, that would still imply 11% of people are not watching because of the protests. That is significant.
In my view, people watch sports because it takes them away from other stuff. When other stuff creeps into their sports, they are not happy. They want to watch football.
So they can overlook wife beatings, drug arrests, debilitating brain injuries etc., and just ignore them so it doesn't bother their football watching. But a guy kneels during the anthem (when most aren't even watching to begin with) and it is so bothersome it disrupts their happy time. Illogical to believe that is the underlying reason for them being upset and equally illogical that they are stopping watching football because of it.
Polls are all words, the people are still turning in. The games in primetime this year have been terrible, and in one case terrible and directly opposite the most watched presidential debate in recent history.
Except this is not what the poll says.
It says what these people say they will do - again, not what they are doing - at some unstated point in the future. When? Week 3? Week 8? Week 15? Doesn't say.
Also, them not watching is conditioned upon whether other players "follow Kaepernick's lead and begin kneeling." Which players? How many other players? Again, doesn't say. What we do know is that very few other players - what 3-5 in all? - are following his lead.
What we do know is this:
- ratings were down in week 1, before this poll as taken, meaning what these 44 percent of people are claiming they would do in the future is irrelevant to what happened in week 1 - which is when Jesse started this thread to blame Kaepernick.
- what these people are claiming they will do - again, not actually doing - \is dependent on what players other than Kaepernick do.
Look, I have no doubt some people are not watching because they're made about Kaepernick. I also have no doubt that number is so tiny it would hardly register in the ratings.
When has "other stuff" not crept into sports? Seriously ... issues of race, social justice, gender, labor rights, politics, crime, etc., have been essential elements of the sports discussion pretty much forever.
Perhaps you've heard of Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson?
This is nothing new.
My criticism here is of the NFL's stubborn refusal to take these matters on a case-by-case basis because they fear it might affect sponsorship revenues.
I'm OK if they deem some messages/displays inappropriate. My issue is with them deeming every message/display inappropriate, except the ones from which they profit.
Pro Life is a political message and a political stance, and therefore I'd agree with it being barred. One may base their political stance regarding abortion on their religious beliefs, but that makes it no less of a political issue.
I suspect you already know this, though.
The Hypocrisy of Pakuni
Your problem is you start with your personal beleifs. You approve of the Black Lives Matter/Kaepernick protest so you twist yourself into a pretzel to argue it is not hurting ratings. You will also defend this as a worthwhile and necessary protest.
So what happens when you don't approve of the political protest? Let me take you back about one year ago, October 28, 2015 commenting on Tim Tebow being fined by the NFL for writing "Pro-Life" on his eye-black
Pakuni, you honestly think you're a reasonable fair person. You're not, you're a hyper-partisan that condescends those that did share your political views and cannot see how tortured your logic is about Kapernick and NFL ratings are.
So why can't the NFL treat Kaepernick the same as Tebow? The answer is Kaepernick fits your political view where Tebow does not.
Hey look, Jesse can't support his position so he changes the issue and levels personal attacks.
So very, very surprised. You've learned well from your master, Darth Chicos.
Here you've cynically and disingenuously lifted the Tebow eye black comments out of context from a discussion whether players altering their uniforms to make a political statement would be a violation of the uniform code. Let me say that again ... it was a discussion about the uniform code, and only the uniform code.
That is not in any way the discussion we are (were) having in this thread.
What's being discussed here is whether NFL ratings are suffering because of Kaepernick's protest, an assertion you cannot back up so, of course, you're moving the goalposts ... to the uniform code.
For the record, Colin Kaepernick should not be allowed to write #BLM on his uniform.
Protip: If you want to be taken seriously around here, you should avoid doing this in the future.
Eye-Black in not part of the uniform, just like tattoos are not part of the uniform. (headbands are which is why Jim McMahon was fined)
Hey look, Jesse can't support his position so he changes the issue and levels personal attacks. So very, very surprised. You've learned well from your master, Darth Chicos.
The Hypocrisy of Pakuni
Your problem is you start with your personal beleifs. You approve of the Black Lives Matter/Kaepernick protest so you twist yourself into a pretzel to argue it is not hurting ratings. You will also defend this as a worthwhile and necessary protest.
You're not, you're a hyper-partisan that condescends those that did share your political views and cannot see how tortured your logic is about Kapernick and NFL ratings are.
So why can't the NFL treat Kaepernick the same as Tebow? The answer is Kaepernick fits your political view where Tebow does not.
So they can overlook wife beatings, drug arrests, debilitating brain injuries etc., and just ignore them so it doesn't bother their football watching. But a guy kneels during the anthem (when most aren't even watching to begin with) and it is so bothersome it disrupts their happy time. Illogical to believe that is the underlying reason for them being upset and equally illogical that they are stopping watching football because of it.
Polls are all words, the people are still turning in. The games in primetime this year have been terrible, and in one case terrible and directly opposite the most watched presidential debate in recent history.
Sports Business Daily put out a story today about TV ratings decline that shows that what's happening in the NFL is part of a trend affecting all sports, i.e. not because of Colin Kaepernick, and identifies a more likely culprit ... the presidential race.
Full story:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/10/03/Research-and-Ratings/Ratings.aspx
Some key passages:
It’s not just the NFL. The Summer Olympics on NBC were down double digits in viewership from the London Games. ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” posted its lowest viewership average in at least a decade. Six NASCAR races from Aug. 21 to Sept. 25 logged double-digit viewership drops in race-to-race comparisons. Four prime-time UFC telecasts on Fox registered a combined 10 percent viewership drop this year.
Plus, several big events posted record low viewership, including the U.S. Open’s men’s and women’s tennis finals and the NCAA men’s basketball championship game.
That “very strange year” has seen the news networks — Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — capitalize on the unpredictable, reality-show vibe surrounding this year’s presidential race. Regardless of how people may feel about the candidates, the news networks’ viewership gains mirror a train wreck that people can’t stop watching. Some believe those additional news viewers are coming from sports.
For Mike Mulvihill, Fox Sports’ senior vice president of programming and research, this summer reminds him of 2000, when the George Bush-Al Gore race was left undecided until December. That was the only year from 2000 to 2010 where all four NFL TV packages dropped from the previous year — Fox was down 4 percent, CBS down 10 percent, ABC down 7 percent and ESPN down 11 percent. It also was a year that saw World Series viewership drop by 22 percent.
“I would really start with the election — I don’t think you have to look much deeper than that,” he said. “Cable news has been up so much all year, going back to the earliest primary debates. So much of a share of attention has gone to the campaign, it seems like it has affected everything else.”
Sports Business Daily put out a story today about TV ratings decline that shows that what's happening in the NFL is part of a trend affecting all sports, i.e. not because of Colin Kaepernick, and identifies a more likely culprit ... the presidential race.
Full story:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/10/03/Research-and-Ratings/Ratings.aspx
Some key passages:
It’s not just the NFL. The Summer Olympics on NBC were down double digits in viewership from the London Games. ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” posted its lowest viewership average in at least a decade. Six NASCAR races from Aug. 21 to Sept. 25 logged double-digit viewership drops in race-to-race comparisons. Four prime-time UFC telecasts on Fox registered a combined 10 percent viewership drop this year.
Plus, several big events posted record low viewership, including the U.S. Open’s men’s and women’s tennis finals and the NCAA men’s basketball championship game.
That “very strange year” has seen the news networks — Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — capitalize on the unpredictable, reality-show vibe surrounding this year’s presidential race. Regardless of how people may feel about the candidates, the news networks’ viewership gains mirror a train wreck that people can’t stop watching. Some believe those additional news viewers are coming from sports.
For Mike Mulvihill, Fox Sports’ senior vice president of programming and research, this summer reminds him of 2000, when the George Bush-Al Gore race was left undecided until December. That was the only year from 2000 to 2010 where all four NFL TV packages dropped from the previous year — Fox was down 4 percent, CBS down 10 percent, ABC down 7 percent and ESPN down 11 percent. It also was a year that saw World Series viewership drop by 22 percent.
“I would really start with the election — I don’t think you have to look much deeper than that,” he said. “Cable news has been up so much all year, going back to the earliest primary debates. So much of a share of attention has gone to the campaign, it seems like it has affected everything else.”
If Pakuni would just accept that Kaepernick's views are not popular and hurting at the margin this entire issue can be put to rest. He continues to be blinded by his political beliefs.
Everything Heisy has ever posted is summed up in these two ironic sentences.
Now you're willing to believe that everyone is electing to watch CNN on Sunday afternoon instead of the NFL. At this point you will grasp at anything except that Kapernick is hurting the league.
The election only mattered to last Monday's game, and will hurt this Sunday's game too (as the second debate will overlap with the Giants at Packers game)
Actually, if politics is affecting the NFL, which is supposed to be an escape from it, that this argument fits well with Kaepernick's unpopular protest affecting ratings. (and again, my only interest is from a business standpoint. How does one control a high profile employees that are using your business as a platform for a protest that is unpopular with your customers?)
And to be clear again, Lots of things are hurting the NFL, most are self-inflicted. Kaepernick is one of them because, despite Pakuni's personal beliefs, Kaepernick's protest, and others like it, are not popular with NFL fans. It is the reason that #boycotthenfl has been trending for weeks.
If Pakuni would just accept that Kaepernick's views are not popular and hurting at the margin this entire issue can be put to rest. He continues to be blinded by his political beliefs. As noted above, he was all for banning a pro-life protest because that was political but since he approves of Kaepernick's politics, he's all for this. (I think the NFL should ban all of it, everything, as no political protest is good for them. And, if they want to end the Anthem, I'm ok with that too).
He's right that if the NFL finds hard evidence that the protests are affecting ratings, they should be suspended.
But the NFL will purposely not look for it because they don't want to find it. Because if they do, their will animated demands from some owners (Jones of the Cowboys, Blank of the Falcons, McNair of the Texans, Spanos of the Charges, Snider of the Redskins and Benson of the Saints to name some) that Goodell take the arrows and announce a ban. 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.)
JOHN STEIGERWALD: NFL is boring, ratings are down
https://www.indianagazette.com/news/columns/john-steigerwald-nfl-is-boring-ratings-are-down,25080470/
Is it the Kaepernick factor? Who knows? But there is a Boycott-the-NFL movement out there that started when Colin Kaepernick started the trend of players protesting during the playing of the national anthem.
If the NFL finds hard evidence that the anthem demonstrations are costing it viewers, then players should be suspended for not standing. It’s a business, and the business isn’t paying employees hundreds of thousands of dollars per game to chase customers away.”
So, it's your contention that the NFL ought to suspend any player who engages in any behavior that might turn off any potential customer?
Also, thanks for bringing this genius commentary to the discussion. The column also included this gem:
Remember long kickoff returns? They used to be one of the most exciting plays in sports. The NFL all but outlawed them when they decided to let kickers kick off from the 35-yard line.
Can’t have all 22 players running around willy-nilly chasing a little guy who might make everybody miss. Somebody might get hurt.
It doesn’t matter that the NFL’s concern about injuries is legitimate. The fact remains that fans are deprived of one of the most exciting plays the sport has to offer.
Got that NFL? Screw you and your player safety.
Yes, your business would not tolerate any personal behavior at work that would upset customers. The NFL is no different.
So, behavior that might cost your business customers is acceptable, so long as it is away from the workplace?
Drop, baby, drop.
Behavior away from the workplace is protected by law.
Example, If I employ someone that is gay (and I have in the past) and customer's finds out they are gay "outside the office" I cannot do anything about it, nor would I want to. They have that right.
But if a gay employee uses his access to my customers as a platform to conduct a gay protest, and some customers were upset that they were subjected to it at work because they did business with my company, I would move to stop it. That employee does not have that right.
Psst ... your gay employee (congrats on that, by the way ... do you also boast about having black friends?) wasn't just gay outside the office.
You've really twisted yourself into a logic pretzel here, by the way.
Also, if behavior away from the workplace is protected by law, how did the NFL manage to suspend Ray Rice and Le'Veon Bell?
He did not just define himself as gay in the office, but also a professional striving to be successful in his career. Yes we knew he was gay but he was more interested in talking about issues in the office, than his lifestyle.
NFL players have a contract, approved by the NFLPA, with a morals clause. That allows the commissioner a broad reach into their personal life.
You would know this if you were not blinded by political ideologue.You need some new material. Preferably some that makes sense.
He's right that if the NFL finds hard evidence that the protests are affecting ratings, they should be suspended.
But the NFL will purposely not look for it because they don't want to find it. Because if they do, their will animated demands from some owners (Jones of the Cowboys, Blank of the Falcons, McNair of the Texans, Spanos of the Charges, Snider of the Redskins and Benson of the Saints to name some) that Goodell take the arrows and announce a ban. 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.)
JOHN STEIGERWALD: NFL is boring, ratings are down
https://www.indianagazette.com/news/columns/john-steigerwald-nfl-is-boring-ratings-are-down,25080470/
Is it the Kaepernick factor? Who knows? But there is a Boycott-the-NFL movement out there that started when Colin Kaepernick started the trend of players protesting during the playing of the national anthem.
If the NFL finds hard evidence that the anthem demonstrations are costing it viewers, then players should be suspended for not standing. It’s a business, and the business isn’t paying employees hundreds of thousands of dollars per game to chase customers away.”
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.
What would you accept as "evidence?"
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.
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
As long as the money tree keeps bearing fruit, Goddell is in no jeopardy of losing his job.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?! ;)
I'm pretty sure us atheists wouldn't be as offended as us upper middle class/rich folks would be....
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?! ;)
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
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.
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.
Why is honoring your country a political statement?
Others may disagree. In my view then, doesn't that make it an opinion, not an absolute? Some experts say it is racist, other experts say it isn't? Feels like an opinion. Could not some people say the American flag is racist? Should it be pulled down? Taken off fireman uniforms, police uniforms, boy scout uniforms?
Appreciate the discussion, we disagree on the intent here I guess.
Maybe people realized that watching an NFL game is 94% watching replays, commercials, coaches standing around, players standing around, and halftime shows. Pretty boring, a'ina?
Maybe people realized that watching an NFL game is 94% watching replays, commercials, coaches standing around, players standing around, and halftime shows. Pretty boring, a'ina?
I view that the same way as saying "why is honoring your god a religious statement?" Anything one pays homage to is a statement about that thing, whether it is the persons supporting it or opposing it.
If honoring the National Anthem isn't a political statement, then Kaepernick not honoring it also isn't a political statement. Just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it isn't still a political statement.
Isn't the intent of minority rights, however, to protect the opinions of those in dissent? As a country, work has been done to give the vote and citizenship to women and minorities while also working to give equal treatment to all citizens.
You can't have equality if everyone isn't treated equally, and if there's a portion of the populace viewing the Anthem that is supposed to unite us as divisive and racist, then I'd say that is pretty conclusively unequal treatment, whatever the intent of Key may have been.
Without actually talking to the writer, we can never fully know his intent. Was it racist? Was it not? Who knows. Does it matter?
Yet yesterday you said it was racist. Today, you say who knows? That's quite a change in 24 hours.
I don't think so. Safe to say that our forefathers, when the wrote "All men are created equal", meant all white, land-owning men. They didn't mean blacks, Native Americans, and certainly not women. However we use a modern lens to interpret the words they wrote. While the intent behind their words were not as broad as they are interpreted today, we have used that framework to provide equality for people that never would have been given that opportunity 200+ years ago.
When it comes to something like the Anthem, we should also look at it not through the intent of a man 150+ years ago, but through how it will be interpreted today. Doing any less does a disservice to the citizens of our country, and further reinforces the inequality that already exists.
And also appreciate the discussion ;)
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 ::)
Be amazed ...
Are Americans Tuning Out the NFL Over Protests?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/social_issues/are_americans_tuning_out_the_nfl_over_protests
A sizable number of Americans say they may give the National Football League a pass this year, thanks to the player protests over racial issues.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that nearly one-third (32%) of American Adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of Black Lives Matter protests by players on the field. Only 13% say they are more likely to watch a game because of the protests. Just over half (52%) say the protests have no impact on their viewing decisions. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
----------
I await Sultan and Puskuni tortured rationalization.
Like your last survey, this one doesn't say what you claim says, nor does it contradict anything Sultan and I have written.
What part of this don't you understand? Because to those that don't color everything with a political bias, it is pretty clear.
What part of this don't you understand? Because to those that don't color everything with a political bias, it is pretty clear.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that nearly one-third (32%) of American Adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of Black Lives Matter protests by players on the field. Only 13% say they are more likely to watch a game because of the protests. Just over half (52%) say the protests have no impact on their viewing decisions. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
That poll is surely as accurate as the polls that appear every time a major sport's players go on strike and a large percentage of "fans" say they will never attend a game again ..... ever.
These are simply frustration polls. Totally meaningless.
I am watching more football because of the protests.
So the fact that NFL fans disprove of the protest, say they are less inclined to watch games, and ratings are surprising everyone by falling way more than expected is just a giant coincidence?
I am watching more football because of the protests.
So the fact that NFL fans disprove of the protest, say they are less inclined to watch games, and ratings are surprising everyone by falling way more than expected is just a giant coincidence?
Jesse, my man, you know how this works. Kappernick "statements" are merely his 'merican right. While he claims he means no disrespect, he's disrespecting many. He could be wiping himself with the flag and claim, but I am only doing this because...and no disrespect to...and some in this country will still claim, "I don't agree with what he's doing, but i respect that he can do it horse hockey. It would be interesting to note some people's reaction if player max von altenschmidten did a heil hitler salute during the anthem...tolerance, Eyn'a? Any little blip in the ratings would be cause for seeing max on the waiver wire the next day, but the team will claim a missed tackle and stalled contract negotiations...
You mean like this actual story that all the defenders of protests have been strangely quite about.Didn't read the article but y'all don't see the difference between peaceful/quiet objection focused on a systemic issue and hateful symbols and words focused on a specific group of people that are different (color, religion) than the person delivering the words?
Again, you have the right to protest or speak out ... so long as they agree with your political angle. Clevenger was not politically correct so he lost his job.
Seattle Mariners catcher suspended for season for Charlotte protest tweets
http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/seattle-mariners-catcher-suspended-for-season-for-charlotte-protest-tweets
You mean like this actual story that all the defenders of protests have been strangely quite about.
Again, you have the right to protest or speak out ... so long as they agree with your political angle. Clevenger was not politically correct so he lost his job.
Seattle Mariners catcher suspended for season for Charlotte protest tweets
http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/seattle-mariners-catcher-suspended-for-season-for-charlotte-protest-tweets
Didn't read the article but y'all don't see the difference between peaceful/quiet objection and hateful symbols and words?
If not........in before the lock.
Pakuni and Sultan insist political protest are not affecting ratings. This does not help their rationalizations
Didn't read the article but y'all don't see the difference between peaceful/quiet objection focused on a systemic issue and hateful symbols and words focused on a specific group of people that are different (color, religion) than the person delivering the words?
If not........in before the lock.
That poll is surely as accurate as the polls that appear every time a major sport's players go on strike and a large percentage of "fans" say they will never attend a game again ..... ever.
These are simply frustration polls. Totally meaningless.
Didn't read the article but y'all don't see the difference between peaceful/quiet objection focused on a systemic issue and hateful symbols and words focused on a specific group of people that are different (color, religion) than the person delivering the words?
If not........in before the lock.
(https://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/colin-kaepernick-socks2.jpg?w=640&h=360)
Funny how that is not a violation of the uniform code, but Tebow's eye black saying "pro life" was.
Pakuni and Sultan insist political protest are not affecting ratings. This does not help their rationalizations
According to the NFL Operations website, there are policies in place that govern games, practices, training camps.
http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/nfl-rules-enforcement/uniform-inspectors/
He wore those socks during training camp practices. Not games.
So again, your comparison is invalid.
You expect Smuggles to actually admit he was using false equivalency, a favorite tactic of his (and chicos)? Please.
Having said that, those socks severely undermine the sincerity of Kaepernick's protest, IMHO. When you start with the position that all cops are pigs, it's hard to take you seriously.
Also stupid where his statements that Clinton and Trump are "both racists." Even as one worked tirelessly to fight discrimination, the other was sued for discriminatory practices in his real estate holdings -- just one of dozens of examples of how Kaepernick, like Smuggles, was guilty of citing false equivalents.
According to the NFL Operations website, there are policies in place that govern games, practices, training camps.
http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/nfl-rules-enforcement/uniform-inspectors/
Nothing in the rule book mentions practice. It concerns only game day apparel.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
You expect Smuggles to actually admit he was using false equivalency, a favorite tactic of his (and chicos)? Please.
Having said that, those socks severely undermine the sincerity of Kaepernick's protest, IMHO. When you start with the position that all cops are pigs, it's hard to take you seriously.
Also stupid were his statements that Clinton and Trump are "both racists." Even as one worked tirelessly to fight discrimination, the other was sued for discriminatory practices in his real estate holdings -- just one of dozens of examples of how Kaepernick, like Smuggles, was guilty of citing false equivalents.
How many of the "likely not to watch" actually don't watch though? I feel people would find it easy to voice their displeasure on the poll, but when it comes down to it on Sundays, they are tuning in.
If the response was, "I have stopped watching or watching less" then that would be a little more proof to me.
Poor analogy. We are talking about a week to week phenomenon with customers choosing to not turn on the tv, vs a poll where someone claims they won't go to another game years down the road.
To say they are totally meaningless is wrong. The proof is in the numbers, and some people are not watching due to protests. Others are not watching for other legitimate reasons stated here (politics, streaming, bad matchups), but that doesn't mean you can discount that some are voting with their remote control. One doesn't have to use a poll, all one has to do is read the interviews of real fans by the press that have turned off the tv on Sundays.
How many of the "likely not to watch" actually don't watch though? I feel people would find it easy to voice their displeasure on the poll, but when it comes down to it on Sundays, they are tuning in.
Probably the same amount who said they would never attend another MLB game when the players were on strike.
Or would never donate again after Marquette became the Golden Eagles...
Week 2 NFL Ratings (2012)
12:00 Fox NFL Sunday (Fox) - 3.4
12:00 The NFL Today (CBS) - 2.6
1:00/4:00 The NFL on Fox, singleheader - 13.3
1:00 The NFL on CBS, Game 1 - 11.6
4:25 The NFL on CBS, Game 2 - 14.4
7:00 Football Night in America - 6.4
I wonder what people were protesting about in 2012.
You mean like this actual story that all the defenders of protests have been strangely quite about.
Again, you have the right to protest or speak out ... so long as they agree with your political angle. Clevenger was not politically correct so he lost his job.
Seattle Mariners catcher suspended for season for Charlotte protest tweets
http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/seattle-mariners-catcher-suspended-for-season-for-charlotte-protest-tweets
A back-up quarterback decides to, and inspires others to, engage in a silent protest to attempt to bring attention to their view of systemic, institutional racism. A portion of the football watching audience is less likely to watch because of this rarely-actually-seen-on-TV protest. The league survives and thrives despite strikes, domestic violence, shootings, accessories to murder, soliciting prostitutes before the Super Bowl, covering up concussions, PED's, increased calls by players for more lax marijuana rules, DUI's, Packer player in hot tubs with young girls,child abuse, but this, THIS! may be a determining factor for viewership.
IMO, it says more about the viewers than it does about the protestors.
If you don't believe in free speech for those you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech at all. Take away Kaepernick's or Trump's freedom of speech and you may as well fold up America and embrace a dictatorship, because that's exactly what you'd be endorsing.
Maybe ratings are down because the product sucks?
The quality of the product is terrible, and has gone downhill the last few years.
Or would move to Canada when George W. Bush/Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump is elected president.
Week 2 NFL Ratings (2012)
12:00 Fox NFL Sunday (Fox) - 3.4
12:00 The NFL Today (CBS) - 2.6
1:00/4:00 The NFL on Fox, singleheader - 13.3
1:00 The NFL on CBS, Game 1 - 11.6
4:25 The NFL on CBS, Game 2 - 14.4
7:00 Football Night in America - 6.4
I wonder what people were protesting about in 2012.
That might be part of it, but why can't it be the product sucks, people responding to protests, streaming, etc? Instead, we have people here saying the protests have ZERO impact. That is crazy talk. By the way, if the product has been down the last few years, why was 2014 a record NFL ratings year, followed by 2015 an even greater record? Why in 2016 did they decide the product that sucked for the last few years, this was the year to stop watching?
Ever notice they never say they are moving to Mexico? Why is that?
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").
Week 2 NFL Ratings (2012)
12:00 Fox NFL Sunday (Fox) - 3.4
12:00 The NFL Today (CBS) - 2.6
1:00/4:00 The NFL on Fox, singleheader - 13.3
1:00 The NFL on CBS, Game 1 - 11.6
4:25 The NFL on CBS, Game 2 - 14.4
7:00 Football Night in America - 6.4
I wonder what people were protesting about in 2012.
A back-up quarterback decides to, and inspires others to, engage in a silent protest to attempt to bring attention to their view of systemic, institutional racism. A portion of the football watching audience is less likely to watch because of this rarely-actually-seen-on-TV protest. The league survives and thrives despite strikes, domestic violence, shootings, accessories to murder, soliciting prostitutes before the Super Bowl, covering up concussions, PED's, increased calls by players for more lax marijuana rules, DUI's, Packer player in hot tubs with young girls,child abuse, but this, THIS! may be a determining factor for viewership.
IMO, it says more about the viewers than it does about the protestors.
No, that is completely wrong. Listen, it's obvious to me that Donald Trump is a fear mongering lunatic that spouts lies to take advantage of weak minded, insecure individuals, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it.
Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean they should be silenced. Actually, it means the exact opposite. If you don't believe in free speech for those you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech at all. Take away Kaepernick's or Trump's freedom of speech and you may as well fold up America and embrace a dictatorship, because that's exactly what you'd be endorsing.
Do you speak for the AA community? My wife and I are part of today's black America. We live in the US, in a white state and a white city, but are minorities. The media does not like to talk to people like me, an educated African American man who doesn't vote or conform the way I am expected to. They don't like my views typically, or those of Mr. Thomas, Dr. Carson, Mr. Elder, Mr. Sowell, Mr. Watts, Ms. Rice, because it doesn't allow their agenda to be played.
This does not mean there is work that needs to be done, but it is time for a different approach. The current approach is the same as the last approach since the 1960's. It keeps people in poverty, by design. If ever there was a book for you to read. Please Stop Helping Us. How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. We know you mean well, but you perpetuate the problem.
What you rarely read in the media is the perspective if slavery never happened in this country. We have all read about the atrocities of slavery and no one can pretend they didn't happen. A human tragedy. However, did it also ultimately lead to prosperity for people of color in the long run? Would my ancestors have remained in Africa and never materialized here in the new world without slavery? Where would millions of African Americans be that have some of the highest standards of living and education in the world if they never left the Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, Ghana, Senegal and Gambia? Those from Jamaica or other island nations? The educated African American community has debated this, and we know the evil of slavery also led to opportunities likely impossible without it. We know 620,000 Union men died for our freedom. We know racism exists still, but the level it is perpetuated at is used as a tool to drive an agenda. To magnify remote instances to outrage voters and keep the money flowing. Call me Uncle, it will not be the last.
Heisy, sorry but those private workplace BS is exactly that. When you broadcast your private workplace to 300,000,000 viewers and begin every broadcast with a political statement, you invite this.
And I've laid out repeatedly how they could end this. No need to repeat myself, even of repeating the same tired points is the crux of your argument.
And frankly, I don't care why ratings are down. For the future of sports in our country, it's a good thing. I'd love to see football completely go away. Regardless, if ratings are down because of this, then the problem is with the viewer. As I alluded to earlier and tower explained far better a few posts up, there's a bigger problem here.
Frankly, if these viewers are okay with the rampant crime inherent in the NFL yet offended by a individual expressing their constitutional rights, maybe they need a civics class.
The number of custoers is irrelevant, it is still a private workplace. The customers are ok with the national anthem and not with Kap's protest. Customers first!!!
Sports is a escape from everyday life. Kap is violating that with his protest. As I said he can protest every waking minute save the three hours he is employed.
Why the attacks on good Americans for not agreeing with these protests? Why the assumption that they are bad, racists, people? Maybe they only want to watch a football game and even agree that what the players are doing is within their rights, but they do not care for the approach they have taken.
When Rick Monday prevented the American flag from being burned (twice), was he a bad guy? Those that supported Monday's actions, were they racists and ugly Americans? Why not? The protestors were not hurting anyone, they were only setting an inanimate object on fire and peacefully protesting.
Which amendment is it that protects poor, sensitive widdle NFL viewers from political statements during their constitutionally granted "escape from everyday life"? Does it also prevent ads from political candidates?
If not, it's pretty hypocritical to call for him to stop when the league carries on their own political action and invites political speech.
Why the attacks on good Americans for not agreeing with these protests? Why the assumption that they are bad, racists, people? Maybe they only want to watch a football game and even agree that what the players are doing is within their rights, but they do not care for the approach they have taken.
When Rick Monday prevented the American flag from being burned (twice), was he a bad guy? Those that supported Monday's actions, were they racists and ugly Americans? Why not? The protestors were not hurting anyone, they were only setting an inanimate object on fire and peacefully protesting.
"Inherent"? I would venture to guess, not much different from the rest society as they are but a microcosm of the whole. Yes, sports leagues as well as many major companies have character clauses in their handbooks, but aside from that, we already have laws against crimes. How the company or the sports teams handle the "extracurricular" stuff is their statement of how they are going to tolerate(or not) the bull schmit. Let's just say the "all star" wrestling league could care less about certain transgressions more so than say, the NFL. That doesn't mean that beating your wife is ok. They let the laws take care of that stuff because they figure half their audience either doesn't care or doesn't even know about it. Hell, half their audience probably can relate to familial violence and I am by no means condoning it.
How about actors/actresses, entertainers? What they do outside of their profession is often judged by their audience-just ask the Dixie chicks, Lindsay Lohan, et.al. People will vote with their wallets. Why do you think many of the "big shots" who are most vocal about controversial things already have their money? They don't give a flying...whether it is populist or not because they already have theirs and they more than likely have few if any irons in the fire anymore
Here, the NFL may have to do some political back peddling whether any of you care to admit it or not if this trend continues. Anything appearances of negativity above what? 10-15-20% can be game changing. 10-15-20% of a lot is.... A LOT$$. Easy for some you to poo-poo it when you aren't paying the bills. Easy to try to brush it off from the outside looking in rationalizing...awwwww, they have plenty of money...understand like any business, they still rely on new customers, new investors, etc. they could be losing a portion of a new generation and when you're boiling frogs, ya better realize it sooner rather than later
As noted above, the 49ers are one of the worst teams in football. Kaepernick's protest might not be popular in his own locker room and contributing to their poor performance on the field.
http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/donald-trump-is-tearing-the-nfl-apart/
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/trump-clinton-dividing-nfl-locker-rooms-racial-lines-article-1.2818861
you still don't get it, the NFL and the broadcasters are private businesses. They need to act in the best interest of the private business. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM!
Their job is to maximize the value of the product. So if the customers like the national anthem, you play it. If they don't like political protest, you stop them.
Example above. The NFL used replacement refs in 2012. It weakened the product, ratings slump, the customers said they did not like it (except bears fans that were happy to see the Packers screwed out of a win with the "fail mary" call) and the owners immediately caved, settle with the refs and the customers returned. This is how it should be.
Now we have something similar. A political protest that is weakening the product as ratings are surprisingly down. But the owners are not moving to shut this down and it is growing.
The 49ers are 1-4 (losing 4 staright) and possibly the worst team in football, Chip Kelly (head coach) is considering starting Kaepernick next game (Oct 16 at Buffalo). If he does, let's see how the Buffalo fans react to him. That will tell you how popular this protest has been.
Owners are letting their fear of political correctness get in the way. They are not stopping this and it will breed more and more of these protests.
I'd love to see stats of NFL player transgressions versus the rest of society. Frankly, I think the idea that they are a microcosm of the whole is complete BS.
No, it's because those are the ones that people listen to. When Robert Downey Junior makes a comment, it gets play in the press because people know who he is. When it's a supporting actor in a Lifetime original movie, no one pays attention because no one knows who that person is.
I poo-poo it because I don't care if the NFL folds. They can lose 10-15-100% and it's all the same to me.
"If you are so adamantly against his protest, maybe you should ask yourself why."
I am not against the protest. As most people will admit, it's every bit of his right to do so. I am against his choice of forums. He is invading an area that is not his to invade. He is using someone else's venue for political gain. If it were not for this venue(NFL) he would be just another regular schmo like us and nobody would care. He is forcing his political,views on EVERYONE at the expense of his boss.
If one of my employees was telling everyone who walked in the door that we are all voting for a certain candidate or we are all for a fill-in-the-blank social cause, he/she is gone!! Whether I agree with the position or not-G-O-N-E. end of story!
"If you are so adamantly against his protest, maybe you should ask yourself why."
I am not against the protest. As most people will admit, it's every bit of his right to do so. I am against his choice of forums. He is invading an area that is not his to invade. He is using someone else's venue for political gain. If it were not for this venue(NFL) he would be just another regular schmo like us and nobody would care. He is forcing his political,views on EVERYONE at the expense of his boss.
If one of my employees was telling everyone who walked in the door that we are all voting for a certain candidate or we are all for a fill-in-the-blank social cause, he/she is gone!! Whether I agree with the position or not-G-O-N-E. end of story!
As noted above, the 49ers are one of the worst teams in football. Kaepernick's protest might not be popular in his own locker room and contributing to their poor performance on the field.
http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/donald-trump-is-tearing-the-nfl-apart/
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/trump-clinton-dividing-nfl-locker-rooms-racial-lines-article-1.2818861
If, as you say, Kaepernick is using someone else's venue, to whom does that venue belong?
And why, if it's hurting his boss-man as much as you wish to believe, are they acting swiftly to stop him?
"If you are so adamantly against his protest, maybe you should ask yourself why."
I am not against the protest. As most people will admit, it's every bit of his right to do so. I am against his choice of forums. He is invading an area that is not his to invade. He is using someone else's venue for political gain. If it were not for this venue(NFL) he would be just another regular schmo like us and nobody would care. He is forcing his political,views on EVERYONE at the expense of his boss.
If one of my employees was telling everyone who walked in the door that we are all voting for a certain candidate or we are all for a fill-in-the-blank social cause, he/she is gone!! Whether I agree with the position or not-G-O-N-E. end of story!
The boss-Man (NFL owners) are a dysfunctional group. As I noted before, the owners suite is hardly a collegial club, it is a bunch of guys that want to kill off the competition as much, if not more, than the players on the field.
So stopping this falls to Goddell. The guy that cannot do anything right. He botched Ray Rice, deflate-gate, The move to LA and so on.
Goddell erred again thinking this was a bunch of nothing and initially gave it platitudes about first amendment and supported it.
Now Goddell is stuck, if he caves, the lefty sports media goes crazy on him. If he doesn't and ratings continue to slump, the owners will fire him.
Bottom line is the boss-man is incompetent.
Actually it is his right to protest there. According to the rules established within the CBA between the NFL and NFLPA, a player doesn't have to stand for the anthem. An owner cannot punish him.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/10/06/so-which-owners-have-told-players-to-stand-for-the-national-anthem/
"It’s an important question because neither league rules nor the labor deal allow owners to compel players to stand for the anthem. More specifically, no owner can take action against a player who refuses to comply."
So once again, it is yet another poor analogy.
I am not against the protest. As most people will admit, it's every bit of his right to do so. I am against his choice of forums. He is invading an area that is not his to invade. He is using someone else's venue for political gain. If it were not for this venue(NFL) he would be just another regular schmo like us and nobody would care. He is forcing his political,views on EVERYONE at the expense of his boss.
If one of my employees was telling everyone who walked in the door that we are all voting for a certain candidate or we are all for a fill-in-the-blank social cause, he/she is gone!! Whether I agree with the position or not-G-O-N-E. end of story!
Rick Monday needs to take a civics class, they were only peacefully protesting. Their right. Supporters of Rick Monday, the same. Intolerant fools. :-[
Rick Monday needs to take a civics class, they were only peacefully protesting. Their right. Supporters of Rick Monday, the same. Intolerant fools. :-[
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDEwr1kWYAAOjZD.jpg)
(http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rickmonday.jpg)
The boss-Man (NFL owners) are a dysfunctional group. As I noted before, the owners suite is hardly a collegial club, it is a bunch of guys that want to kill off the competition as much, if not more, than the players on the field.
So stopping this falls to Goddell. The guy that cannot do anything right. He botched Ray Rice, deflate-gate, The move to LA and so on.
Goddell erred again thinking this was a bunch of nothing and initially gave it platitudes about first amendment and supported it.
Now Goddell is stuck, if he caves, the lefty sports media goes crazy on him. If he doesn't and ratings continue to slump, the owners will fire him.
Ok, Let's move on ....
Here is another idea about why NFL ratings are down, it comes from someone I work (his idea) with I have not heard it anywhere else and it has nothing to do with Kaepernick.
With Draft Kings and Fan Duel effectively being shut down, the NFL has lost a ton of fantasy football bettors. This why the regional game (i.e., the noon kickoffs) TV ratings are only down 3% to 5% while the national games (Thursday, Sunday night, Monday) are getting clobbered. His idea is you watch your hometown team (at noon) and if you're not betting, you don't care about any of the other national games.
Interesting idea, thoughts?
Ok, Let's move on ....
Here is another idea about why NFL ratings are down, it comes from someone I work (his idea) with I have not heard it anywhere else and it has nothing to do with Kaepernick.
With Draft Kings and Fan Duel effectively being shut down, the NFL has lost a ton of fantasy football bettors. This why the regional game (i.e., the noon kickoffs) TV ratings are only down 3% to 5% while the national games (Thursday, Sunday night, Monday) are getting clobbered. His idea is you watch your hometown team (at noon) and if you're not betting, you don't care about any of the other national games.
Interesting idea, thoughts?
"Wait...a player in the NFL being on a football field is invading an area that is not his to invade? For f**k's sake, HE IS PAID TO BE THERE!!!!!!!"
You are right...paid to play football there, Eyn'a?
When the owners decide enough is enough, they will figure out some way to end it. When is that? When/if the money or bottom line starts to become affected. That's all. It may or may not get to that point. If the players just get tired of the death threats, or feel they got their message across or just get plain ole tired of it or whatever, who knows where this is all going.
I really don't care if kappernick et.al. Do their kneeling thing or laying down or squatting or...I believe all we're saying is that it IS having an affect on the product. Am I going to stop watching over it-nope! Whether you guys want to admit it or not, I don't care, but i believe it's wrong. They have the right to do it, but it's wrong. Get a samich board, join the BLM racists, whatever, but do,it on you're own time, not your bosses. They didn't sign him up to be a voice for BLM or anyone else but the team. That's why they can't wear other advertising crap, etc...the football field is being provided for the players to,play football, Wow what a unique thought, Eyn'a so?
The boss-Man (NFL owners) are a dysfunctional group. As I noted before, the owners suite is hardly a collegial club, it is a bunch of guys that want to kill off the competition as much, if not more, than the players on the field.
So stopping this falls to Goddell. The guy that cannot do anything right. He botched Ray Rice, deflate-gate, The move to LA and so on.
Goddell erred again thinking this was a bunch of nothing and initially gave it platitudes about first amendment and supported it.
Now Goddell is stuck, if he caves, the lefty sports media goes crazy on him. If he doesn't and ratings continue to slump, the owners will fire him.
Bottom line is the boss-man is incompetent.
1. As others have pointed out, they cannot legally stop them from protesting.
2. If they did ban this practice, fully expect many big stars to start protesting (and kneeling) to oppose the NFL.
3. If those big stars protest, the NFL caves. People tune in to see the stars, they really don't care about the anthem, they will silently protest in polls about how terrible it is, but then when a good game is on quickly turn back on the game...problem, primetime games have been terrible.
Ok, Let's move on ....
Here is another idea about why NFL ratings are down, it comes from someone I work (his idea) with I have not heard it anywhere else and it has nothing to do with Kaepernick.
With Draft Kings and Fan Duel effectively being shut down, the NFL has lost a ton of fantasy football bettors. This why the regional game (i.e., the noon kickoffs) TV ratings are only down 3% to 5% while the national games (Thursday, Sunday night, Monday) are getting clobbered. His idea is you watch your hometown team (at noon) and if you're not betting, you don't care about any of the other national games.
Interesting idea, thoughts?
"Big stars"? And who would you guess would fall in to this category that would start dissing the national anthem? Do I detect a straw Man? Little fire, scarecrow?
I was going to post this idea about a week ago, but was enjoying watching the dumpster fire.
This is a large contributing factor along with....its an election year. As others have shown, ratings were down in 2012 also. The two combined easily explain this years downturn.
I don't think the election year matters (other than the overlap with the debates but even if that is backed out they are down).
As I noted above the dip in the TV ratings in 2012 was the replacement refs and the customers turning off the games (culminating with the "fail Mary" game screwing the Packers out of a win).
If anything it shows the NFL fans do protest by not watching. They did it four years ago protesting replacement refs.
I don't think the election year matters (other than the overlap with the debates but even if that is backed out they are down).
As I noted above the dip in the TV ratings in 2012 was the replacement refs and the customers turning off the games (culminating with the "fail Mary" game screwing the Packers out of a win).
If anything it shows the NFL fans do protest by not watching. They did it four years ago protesting replacement refs.
There are many many that support Kap, but don't want to get involved. If the NFL tries to suppress them, they likely will change their minds as a way to oppose what they view as a systematic suppression of minority views.
Why did NFL ratings also dip during the weeks before the 2000 election?
And how do you explain the growth in cable news ratings that corresponds with the NFL ratings decline?
The NFL issued a memo to team owners today about the ratings. They blame a number of factors, but primarily the election.
One factor they don't blame? Anthem protests.
Probably just Goodell appeasing the left wing sports media.
As for a potential backlash by some viewers angered at players not standing for the national anthem to protest of police brutality, the NFL said it sees no evidence to that being a factor in declining ratings: “In fact, our own data shows that the perception of the NFL and its players is actually up in 2016.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-executives-blame-confluence-of-events-for-ratings-declines-1475853435
Here's the memo:
https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/784428496089182208/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
There are many many that support Kap, but don't want to get involved. If the NFL tries to suppress them, they likely will change their minds as a way to oppose what they view as a systematic suppression of minority views.
While I wholeheartedly support you guys in this fight, I doubt highly that even if internally the NFL thought the protests were having an impact that they would say anything about it as it would just make things worse.
That's certainly possible.
Then again, if that were the case, then Goodell is lying to his employers about a matter that could cost them quite a bit of money. That would be mighty ballsy.
You do realize you can't arbitrarily decide what caused the declines right?
Another contributing factor. Millenials don't like to sit and watch one thing. They always are doing many things and the youngest prefer to just get score updates, not watch the events themselves.
I love this the most. I wonder how many new posters will be banned in the future because you think they are me (it actually is me this time).
Awesome
Love
Chicos
I love this the most. I wonder how many new posters will be banned in the future because you think they are me (it actually is me this time).
Awesome
Love
Chicos
An early season matchup of 1-3 teams featuring a QB battle between Blaine Gabbert and Drew Stanton had 7.5 million more viewers than a playoff game between the 2nd and 10th most popular teams in baseball (via Harris Poll).
Panic.
So if you worked for the NFL marketing and were shown the 20% drop from a year earlier, you would be shrugging your shoulders.
If you were, you would be updating your resume today.
So if you were in NFL marketing, what would you do?
Saying things have to change ASAP. I would be on the phone to DeMorris Smith (head of the NFL Player Union) explaining to him that if this decline continues it is going to affect his members paychecks and ask him what he can do to help "correct" some of the things that are believed to be hurting ratings. And, yes that suggests Kaepernick back off.
How is it going to affect their contracts? Television contracts are set for years. Furthermore, you think the union is going to accept MORE disciplinary procedures from Goddell and Co?
DeMaurice would be laughing his a$$ off too much to be able to hang the phone up.
Baldwin even came out and said an owner publicly telling players to clamp it down. This was on HBO Wed. Now tell me, if the protests had no effect, why are the owners privately threatening the players? Lol. No need to threaten if no harm is being done....except harm is being done. People are in denial to suggest otherwise.
Not hey are not, they are contingent on ratings. That is why they league is fearing it soon will have "give backs" free commercials to make up for the lack of ratings.
Morris is a reasonable businessman that understands reality and it is not driven by political ideology like you.
How does the various networks giving away commercial time affect the NFLPA income? Does the NFL get paid less for rights fees? I don't think so. If the NFL's income is unchanged, it doesn't affect the salary cap and therefore doesn't impact player income.
Again, it's DeMaurice. My guess is the first way to get the guy to listen to you would be to at least get his name right.
For all you Kaepernick deniers, this owner is correct. It is a private business and they can set any rules they want.
Doug Baldwin on How NFL Owners Have Tried to Control Players During the National Anthem
He said one owner told his players: “You’re going to stand on the line with your hand on your heart … Because this is my stage”
https://theringer.com/any-given-wednesday-episode-13-preview-clips-doug-baldwin-national-anthem-concussion-protocol-4dfd92fc0a64#.x53thjbvm
No, he's not. He can't force his own nationalism ceremony on players any more than he could mandate they participate in a prayer circle. I would love, absolutely love to see someone fight that and get cut. Let the courts decide. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that forcing players to behave a certain way during a mandated show of nationalism would be tossed out faster than Usain Bolt can run the 40 cm dash.
The have clauses in the contract that allow this. The NFLPA agreed to this.
These clauses give the league broad authority, like mandating drug tests, punishment for off the field activity, and moral clauses that regulate behavior.
Plain and simple, cut someone and bring it to court. That BS will be overturned in a heartbeat. The notion that you can enforce a moral clause on an individual who is acting out a constitutionally granted right is simply laughable.
Plain and simple, cut someone and bring it to court. That BS will be overturned in a heartbeat. The notion that you can enforce a moral clause on an individual who is acting out a constitutionally granted right is simply laughable.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/02/players-cant-be-disciplined-for-not-standing-for-anthem-but/
As a practical matter, however, the NFLPA realizes that players can be cut for refusing to conform, if the teams are smart enough to avoid saying or doing anything that would suggest that the move has anything to do with not standing for the anthem. That’s surely one of the reasons why the 49ers have made it clear that quarterback Colin Kaepernick can do whatever he wants to do during the anthem. If/when they release him, anything other than a firewall between respect for the flag and football ability will invite a grievance based on the claim that the team cut him because of his activism.
The Seahawks, to date, have likewise said all the right things about cornerback Jeremy Lane. If/when he’s ever released, it becomes difficult to pin the move to his decision to sit during the anthem.
For other teams, a decision by a player to sit or kneel during the anthem followed by a decision to get rid of the player could be problematic. Both Bills coach Rex Ryan and Rams coach Jeff Fisher have made it clear that, on their teams, the players stand. So if a player refuses to stand and is then cut, he could have a case.
I guess he did not get the memo that Kaepernick has nothing to do with the decline in ratings.
Seahawks Doug Baldwin Tells Bill Simmons At Least One NFL Owner is Forcing Players to Stand For Anthem
http://www.mediaite.com/online/seahawks-doug-baldwin-tells-bill-simmons-at-least-one-nfl-owner-is-forcing-players-to-stand-for-anthem/
Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Doug Baldwin is accusing NFL owners of interfering with National Anthem protests, claiming that at least one is forcing his players to stand.
In an excerpt of the latest episode of Any Given Wednesday which will air later tonight on HBO, Baldwin told host Bill Simmons that multiple owners have told players to “do specific things,” during the Anthem.
“There are some owners out there that have taken a stand and told players to do certain things which I think is egregious.” Baldwin said.
Simmons asked Baldwin to elaborate, which was when the Seahawks wideout made the claim that one owner is forcing his players to stand.
“Specifically, regarding the National Anthem and the protests, the one quote that I was informed of was, ‘You’re going to stand on the line with your hand on your heart and you’re going to sing the National Anthem because this is my stage,’” Baldwin said.
So if you worked for the NFL marketing and were shown the 20% drop from a year earlier, you would be shrugging your shoulders.
If you were, you would be updating your resume today.
No.
I would be looking for the actual reasons and doing what, it anything, could be done to address those reasons, not scapegoating a handful of players for being uppity.
No need to use that language at the end.
Are you saying Baldwin fell for a hoax, not people here. People here trusted what Mr. Baldwin said. Maybe they shouldn't have. When a player makes those charges, the public is supposed to check to see if it is a hoax? Why wouldn't the public believe that players talk to each other and the story has merit? Or should we challenge all player comments moving forward?
No need to use that language at the end.
Are you saying Baldwin fell for a hoax, not people here. People here trusted what Mr. Baldwin said. Maybe they shouldn't have. When a player makes those charges, the public is supposed to check to see if it is a hoax? Why wouldn't the public believe that players talk to each other and the story has merit? Or should we challenge all player comments moving forward?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/02/players-cant-be-disciplined-for-not-standing-for-anthem-but/
As a practical matter, however, the NFLPA realizes that players can be cut for refusing to conform, if the teams are smart enough to avoid saying or doing anything that would suggest that the move has anything to do with not standing for the anthem. That’s surely one of the reasons why the 49ers have made it clear that quarterback Colin Kaepernick can do whatever he wants to do during the anthem. If/when they release him, anything other than a firewall between respect for the flag and football ability will invite a grievance based on the claim that the team cut him because of his activism.
That language is accurate.
I'm saying Baldwin fell for the apparent hoax, as did the people who repeated it. Fact is, it was revealed as a likely hoax via multiple outlets more than 24 hours before anyone posted it here. Whether you choose to challenge any player's comments is up to you - I suspect the level of challenge you give it depends entirely on whether the comments support your view - but you're responsible for what you post, and if you post information that's already been proven incorrect, that's on you. Personal responsibility and everything, right?
Before anyone posts things on the ratings for tomorrow or Monday.
Ratings will almost assuredly be down again. It will have everything to do with politics and NOTHING to do with Kap or standing during the anthem.
Before anyone posts things on the ratings for tomorrow or Monday.
Ratings will almost assuredly be down again. It will have everything to do with politics and NOTHING to do with Kap or standing during the anthem.
Yes, all those people that have pledged not to watch this year are making it up. :o
Baseball ratings will be up, because baseball fans don't know politics are going on. Right? They are immune from politics.
You do yourself an intelligence disservice to say NOTHING. The idea you need to capitalize it for all to know is an invitation.
Other than Jessie here, is anyone saying it is the only reason for ratings decline? No one else is, yet you go to the other extreme and say it has nothing or no impact. You are just as whacked out and unintelligent in this discussion to say nothing. Hard to understand how a MU educated person can speak in such ignorant absolutes. Sorry, but I have to be blunt.
Yes, all those people that have pledged not to watch this year are making it up. :o
Baseball ratings will be up, because baseball fans don't know politics are going on. Right? They are immune from politics.
You do yourself an intelligence disservice to say NOTHING. The idea you need to capitalize it for all to know is an invitation.
Other than Jessie here, is anyone saying it is the only reason for ratings decline? No one else is, yet you go to the other extreme and say it has nothing or no impact. You are just as whacked out and unintelligent in this discussion to say nothing. Hard to understand how a MU educated person can speak in such ignorant absolutes. Sorry, but I have to be blunt.
Other than Jessie here, is anyone saying it is the only reason for ratings decline? No one else is, yet you go to the other extreme and say it has nothing or no impact. You are just as whacked out and unintelligent in this discussion to say nothing. Hard to understand how a MU educated person can speak in such ignorant absolutes. Sorry, but I have to be blunt.
Meanwhile, the NFL has historically had election year ratings dips and is going through their most meaningless portion of the season. Viewers can tune back in mid-November and not miss much. Maybe they will, hopefully they won't. Love to see even more walk away, whatever the reason, and the league fold up when the Super Bowl gets a zero rating. Here's hoping :)
You sound like the cop from The Usual Suspects intro.
Cop: "I can put you in Queens on the night of the hijacking!"
Hockney: "Really? I live in Queens. Did you put that together yourself, Einstein, or do you have a team of monkeys working around the clock on this one?"
Baseball always has their biggest month at this time of year. Their fans are accustomed to the most important part of the season occurring during election time. Add in good on-field product and added interest due to the Cubs run at history and you're going to naturally see increased interest.
Meanwhile, the NFL has historically had election year ratings dips and is going through their most meaningless portion of the season. Viewers can tune back in mid-November and not miss much. Maybe they will, hopefully they won't. Love to see even more walk away, whatever the reason, and the league fold up when the Super Bowl gets a zero rating. Here's hoping :)
I'm personally not willing to say it has zero impact, but trying to compare baseball and football here is apples to piano keys.
Notice I specified tomorrow. Tomorrows ratings will likely be way down and I know people will immediately point to it to support their assertion, even though it is false.
The nothing was also not meant literally. Everything has an effect.I've stated that the Kap effect is minor if anything previously.
Way to go off the deep end though and immediately attack the poster. Especially given that you'd "in theory" be new here. My guess is that you are not the former rational poster that went by bma, and instead are actually another reincarnation of chicos...no other way to rationalize a way over the top response.
This is a very good article summarizing the problem.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/why-are-nfl-ratings-down-the-leagues-greed-has-finally-caught-up-to-it.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"There’s been an endless amount of hand-wringing and finger pointing about the NFL’s 11% dip in TV ratings thus far this fall.
It’s Colin Kaepernick’s fault. No, it’s because of the presidential election. Wait, maybe it’s live streaming. Or the Olympics. Or the progressive sports media. Or the lack of brand-name quarterbacks. Or Deflategate. Or CTE. Or Ray Rice.
While some or all of these have obviously had an effect on viewership, no one wants to address the elephant in the room: The NFL’s on-field product just isn’t very good right now — and the root of the problem is the league’s never-ending greed."
NOTE: I am not sure "greed" is the fundamental issue here. The CBA with the players, with the rookie scale, was in theory going to help veteran contracts, but it hasn't worked out that way. Furthermore, and this wasn't touched on, but I think the limitations in off-season programs have hurt as well.
Kaepernick is AN issue, not THE issue. And there are many. And I say great. If this is the start of the NFL death spiral, anything that hastens it on its way is to be celebrated.
Kaepernick is AN issue, not THE issue. And there are many. And I say great. If this is the start of the NFL death spiral, anything that hastens it on its way is to be celebrated.
I think what it boils down to is that the owners haven't been looking at the NFL as a product, but as a money making machine that just works and they are looking for ways to increase their profit margin at all times. As a result the overall appeal of the product has slipped in a myriad of ways that cumulative have the impact of decreasing the value of the product.
+10000000000
The dumbest post in this thread.
ruth bader g. thinks kaps actions are lame as well
"I think it's really dumb of them," Ginsburg said. "Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it's dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it's a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn't lock a person up for doing it.
She's right, but I wouldn't hesitate to watch something else, especially if my team wasn't playing.
Over at hip hop and a few other AA sites, they are claiming the protests are working because of the ratings drop. Hope they don't come here so the experts can tell them how wrong they are.
The highlighted part seems to suggest that the ratings would have been down 10% without the debate. And since they noted that the Packers and Giants are two of the more popular teams in the league, it would have been down even more if two "average" teams were playing.
------------------------------------
'Sunday Night Football' takes viewership hit against second debate
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/10/media/sunday-night-football-nbc-ratings-debate/
The Green Bay Packers' 23-16 victory over the New York Giants brought in an average audience of 16.6 million Sunday night. This was the lowest viewership for the broadcast since 2013.
The game, between two of the most popular teams in the NFL, had to compete with the second presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which drew a huge audience of 66 million people.
Sunday's viewership is still a big number all things considered, but far below what "Sunday Night Football" usually brings in ("SNF" averaged 22.5 million viewers over all of last season, the largest audience in its 11 year run), and it appears that the debate was the major factor.
Packers-Giants peaked with 20.5 million viewers before the debate started. It also had an average of 17.2 million people watching following the debate.
So the stadium should be mostly empty ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here is a poll on the subject.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/nearly-one-third-americans-boycotting-nfl-because-/
Lots of 'muricans are obviously liars, then.
True but it is still a factor and it's the only thing they can do to help ratings now.
Kap has to play well or he will be cut. Again he is the backup on one of the worst teams in football. So it should be no surprise if he us terrible he is out..
Lots of 'muricans are obviously liars, then.
The NFL is a what have you done for me lately league. Everyone needs to play well or they will be gone.
Indeed, two weeks ago, the Panthers were talking about how happy they were about having a CB named Bene Benwickere healthy again after he had sustained a pretty bad leg injury last season. They were talking about how he had solidified an otherwise very young defensive backfield.
Then he got lit up for nearly all of Julio Jones' 300+ yards ... and he was cut.
And stupid Panthers ... they cut him even though he had stood for the anthem!
Indeed, two weeks ago, the Panthers were talking about how happy they were about having a CB named Bene Benwickere healthy again after he had sustained a pretty bad leg injury last season. They were talking about how he had solidified an otherwise very young defensive backfield.
Then he got lit up for nearly all of Julio Jones' 300+ yards ... and he was cut.
And stupid Panthers ... they cut him even though he had stood for the anthem!
Glad you are dry enough to post, MU82.
Sure hope you shorted NFL related stocks, then, Jesse.
Glad you are dry enough to post, MU82.
Is the US election responsible for this too?
Seriously ... this confirms the article immediately above ... what we might be seeing is the collapse of "linear TV" or traditional television . If Live TV (sports) ratings are collapsing, then their is no point in having a cable or Sat bill again. Just an internet connection and a smart TV with thousands of options. Sell Disney, Sell Comcast!
How long the MU basketball's broadcast partners are MUBB.com and bigeast.org?
Shocker for Sky as football fans turn off with 19 per cent drop in viewing figures for live Premier League games
PUBLISHED: 16:30 EST, 14 October 2016 | UPDATED: 03:09 EST, 15 October 2016
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3838862/Shocker-Sky-football-fans-turn-19-cent-drop-viewing-figures-live-Premier-League-games.html
There will be considerable concern around football that viewing figures for Sky Sports’ live Premier League matches this season have dropped by a whopping 19 per cent.
The dramatic year-on-year fall has occurred in the first season of a new rights deal with Sky and BT Sport having paid over £5billion between them for their three-year contracts for the match packages.
The surprise slide in Sky’s ratings comes despite an exciting start to the season plus the huge hype surrounding the managerial tussle between Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho and Jurgen Klopp.
This also shows that the Kaepernick protests are likely a very small part of the reason for the NFL's decline.
Is the US election responsible for this too?
Shocker for Sky as football fans turn off with 19 per cent drop in viewing figures for live Premier League games
PUBLISHED: 16:30 EST, 14 October 2016 | UPDATED: 03:09 EST, 15 October 2016
NFL ratings plunge could spell doom for traditional TV
By Drew Harwell October 14 at 6:33 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nfl-ratings-plunge-could-spell-doom-for-traditional-tv/2016/10/14/a7a23dc2-915f-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html
Football, America’s biggest prime-time powerhouse, has been thrust into a crisis this fall, with dwindling ratings sparking questions over whether it can remain a gold mine for television in an age when more Americans are abandoning traditional TV.
Network executives have long used the National Football League’s live games as a last line of defense against the rapid growth of “cord-cutting” and on-demand viewing upending the industry.
But now, the NFL is seeing its ratings tumble in the same way that the Olympics, awards shows and other live events have, falling more than 10 percent for the first five weeks of the season compared with the first five weeks of last season. A continued slide, executives say, could pose an even bigger danger: If football can’t survive the new age of TV, what can?
I'm glad someone else commented on this. I was trying to figure out what his recent posts had to do with his stance that the Kap protests are killing the NFL.
These posts only contradict his stance and suggest it has to with larger demographic shifts in TV viewership.
Got it backwards ...
You, Sultan and Pakuni insisted that it was not affecting ratings as most respected Kap's right to protest. I argued it was factor, but not the only one. I criticized you Sultan and Pakuni as being so blinded by your political ideology that you are Incapable of seeing this. This post shows it again you cannot see things that do not fit your political views.
Got it backwards ...
You, Sultan and Pakuni insisted that it was not affecting ratings as most respected Kap's right to protest. I argued it was factor, but not the only one. I criticized you Sultan and Pakuni as being so blinded by your political ideology that you are Incapable of seeing this. This post shows it again you cannot see things that do not fit your political views.
Ratings continue their drop off.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/19/packers-vikings-down-16-percent-from-2015-week-two-snf/
FWIW, I think Chicos is right here. Some people are not watching because of Kaepernick et. al. There doesn't have to be one singular reason for the drop off. Undoubtedly this is one - only time will tell how prominent that reason is.
Have the people calling for the NFL to make Kaepernick stand for the anthem really thought about what they are tangibly asking for? They are asking for a company to make a player stand for the national anthem against his will. And if he doesn't, threaten him with fines and the possibility of him losing his job. Think about that for a second. That is something you would think of happening in a fascist or totalitarian country. As much as we love to paint Goddell as a dictator, I think even he recognizes that it is a step too far.
I recognize and understand why people have said this is disrespectful, ineffective, bad for business, wrong, etc. But really think about what the solution being suggested. Hate Kaepernick, call him disrespectful, but why punish the NFL for refusing to act like a dictator?
It's a private business, not a government. They can impose this rule if they like. As noted earlier, the NBA has specific rules about standing for the Anthem. Is Adam Silver a dictator? All that said, I agree with you to shut him down not would be a further PR disaster. The NFL is stuck with this and once it blows over, they will put rules in place to prevent this from happening again.
And, as this story says, Buffalo fans were not happy with the protest, confirming that it is not popular.
I would be surprised if the NBA actually tried to enforce this rule when it came to these protests. I think the rules are there because there are two different countries represented in the NBA. They want to make sure players don't show disrespect for a foreign nation by not paying attention. If a player took a knee because they didn't want to participate in the anthem for political reasons, I don't think the NBA would enforce it.
There almost surely will be NBA players who protest during the anthem, and Silver almost surely will not punish them.
Not sure I agree that this is how this will play out. It will be very interesting, but the NBA has very strict policy around the anthem, dress code, etc. With the new CBA under negotiation I could see this blowing up into some sort of leveraged position for both sides. I don't see the NBA just saying, sure do whatever.
*Making no argument whether they should or not, just a prognostication on whether they will.
I think the rules are there because there are two different countries represented in the NBA. They want to make sure players don't show disrespect for a foreign nation by not paying attention. If a player took a knee because they didn't want to participate in the anthem for political reasons, I don't think the NBA would enforce it.
No, it was a reaction to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 1993 Noational Anthe protests, which were almost identical to Kap's potest today.
Abdul-Rauf (who went by Chris Jackson when he was a team-mate of Shaq at LSU) ... from his wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abdul-Rauf
Abdul-Rauf is perhaps best known for the controversy created when he refused to stand for "The Star-Spangled Banner" before games,[40] stating that the flag was a symbol of oppression and that the United States had a long history of tyranny. He said that standing to the national anthem would therefore conflict with his Islamic beliefs. On March 12, 1996, the NBA suspended Abdul-Rauf one game for his refusal to stand. Two days later, the league was able to work out a compromise with him, whereby he would stand during the playing of the national anthem but could close his eyes and look downward. He usually silently recited Islamic Prayer during this time.
In an apparent publicity stunt linked to this controversy, four employees of Denver's KBPI radio station were charged with misdemeanor offenses related to entering a Colorado mosque and playing "The Star-Spangled Banner" on a bugle and trumpet, in a provocative response to Abdul-Rauf's refusal to stand for the national anthem.[42] Like Abdul-Rauf, the DJs were briefly suspended but ultimately they publicly apologized and reconciled with the mosque community.
-------------------
So is he NBA a bunch of fascists dictators? Again, they are a private organization and can do what they want. And when they suspended Abdul-Rauf, it was very popular.
Nothing is new, and eventually Kap will be suspended like Abdul-Rauf. Kap just hasn't pissed off enough people yet, bu he's working on it.
Kap's not getting suspended.
Abdul-Rauf was suspended three years after he started. If Kap keeps at it long enough, say into late next year (assuming he is not cut first) they will eventually take action on him.
Question is whether he goes that long.
So is he NBA a bunch of fascists dictators?
Yes.
Again, think about what you are asking for. You are asking that someone be forced against their will to participate in a show of loyalty to the country. I'm well aware that the private companies have the ability. That doesn't mean that they should use it.
Abdul-Rauf was suspended three years after he started. If Kap keeps at it long enough, say into late next year (assuming he is not cut first) they will eventually take action on him.
Question is whether he goes that long.
It is certainly a defensible position (maybe even a wise one) to opine that the NBA owners shouldn't enforce compliance with a rule within their rights to make and enforce.
But calling them "fascist dictators" because you don't like the rule? Kinda crazy talk, right?
No, Abdul-Rauf was not suspended three years.
He was suspended one game.
Suspended three years after he started the protest. Yes suspended for 1 game as the NBA struck a deal with him.
No, he was never suspended for three years. He was suspended one game, and then the NBA struck a deal with him.
Allow me to rephrase it the way I originally did. That is something you would expect to hear about in a country with a fascist dictator. Not in the United States.
Allow me to rephrase it the way I originally did. That is something you would expect to hear about in a country with a fascist dictator. Not in the United States.
I think you need to read what Jesse is saying.....3 years after he started the protest he was suspended for a single game.
Comparing what a private business demands of people they are paying with what a dictator demands of people for simply existing in a country is still off the wall.
For years the New York Yankees had a ban on facial hair. Silly maybe, but hardly "fascist". If President Obama told Colin Kapernick he couldn't speak out on the issues of the day, grow a beard or burn the flag you would have an argument. As it is you're over the top.
I'm really not. It doesn't matter if it's a private business or a political figure demanding it. It is still someone being compelled against their will to stand for the national anthem under threat of fines or termination from their job. Take the who out of it. It just seems kind of scary to me.
Comparing a facial hair ban to forcing someone to participate in a political statement...now THAT'S over the top
Not a made up rule. It is a clause in the NBA players contract that was negotiated by the players union. Perfectly legal and acceptable. That is the rule you agree to when you sign.
Nothing wrong or facists about it.
Comparing a facial hair ban to forcing someone to participate in a political statement...now THAT'S over the top
The NBA doesn't stop their players from protesting perceived social injustices. Want to go to Ferguson, Baltimore, New York or Charlotte? Carry a "Hands up, Don't Shoot" sign or chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"? Do interviews on racial injustices? No problem.
But while at work, wearing your uniform and getting paid the players are expected to stand for both our and the Canadian national anthems. Boo Hoo. Doesn't make me squeamish at all. I think somebody telling me to shave my beard or mustache (which affects me away from work, too) is much more onerous.
It's all a moot point, really.
The chances that Adam Silver will punish any player for protesting during the anthem is pretty much zero.
Agreed. But the point isn't whether they'll enforce the laws on their books - it's whether enforcing them would make them fascists.
The NBA doesn't stop their players from protesting perceived social injustices. Want to go to Ferguson, Baltimore, New York or Charlotte? Carry a "Hands up, Don't Shoot" sign or chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"? Do interviews on racial injustices? No problem.
But while at work, wearing your uniform and getting paid the players are expected to stand for both our and the Canadian national anthems. Boo Hoo. Doesn't make me squeamish at all. I think somebody telling me to shave my beard or mustache (which affects me away from work, too) is much more onerous.
It wouldn't make them fascists.
It would make them idiots.
Not squeamish at all. It is a rule noted BEFORE you sign your contract. If you are bothered by it, you're welcome to find another line of work that does not have this rule.
Now I will grant you if they change in mid-stream, like the NFL would have to do with Kap, that is a bit more problematic. That is why I think the NFL wants this to end (even if they have to cut Kap) and then impose the Anthem protest ban before the next protest begins.
Question for TAMU ...
Do you think it was a bit fascist that the NFL punished Ray Rice for the incident in the Elevator? It was the OFF-SEASON! What he does on his time, and even if that includes slapping around his wife, is his business. We have law enforcement and courts to deal with this, as long as it does not affect his job, and being this was the OFF-SEASON it did not, his employer should not be involved.
Note, the NFL has the right to intrude into Ray Rice's relationship with his wife because his contract has a morals clause, that was approved by the NFLPA.
Bottom line, almost everyone has rules imposed upon them by an employer that a Government could never do. They include, forced confinement in an office between 9 and 5. Denial of freedom of expression by imposing a dress code. Getting into one's bedroom be banning office romances. Censorship on your employer supplied computer to various websites that your employer wants to block (everything from Facebook to porn sites) mandatory drug testing, regulating your speech when speaking to customers, even going as far as giving you an employer created script and force you to read them to customers and on and on.
I guess I don't see the protest ban, WHILE AT WORK AND USING EMPLOYER RESOURCES TO SUBJECT CUSTOMERS TO IT, as any different.
Two distinctly different things.
Granted, however, being an idiot and being a fascist aren't mutually exclusive. For that matter, being an idiot isn't mutually exclusive with anything.
Agreed. But the point isn't whether they'll enforce the laws on their books - it's whether enforcing them would make them fascists.
I don't think TAMU minds employers subjecting employees to arbitrary or even stupid rules unless they disagree with his politics. Then he has a problem.
Question for TAMU ...
Do you think it was a bit fascist that the NFL punished Ray Rice for the incident in the Elevator? It was the OFF-SEASON! What he does on his time, and even if that includes slapping around his wife, is his business. We have law enforcement and courts to deal with this, as long as it does not affect his job, and being this was the OFF-SEASON it did not, his employer should not be involved.
Note, the NFL has the right to intrude into Ray Rice's relationship with his wife because his contract has a morals clause, that was approved by the NFLPA.
I guess I don't see the protest ban, WHILE AT WORK AND USING EMPLOYER RESOURCES TO SUBJECT CUSTOMERS TO IT, as any different.
Exactly. Idiocy is a meritocracy that accepts people from every race, religion.....and fan base ;)andpolitical persuasion.........
This isn't about banning an employee protest. Its about whether or not the NFL should force an employee to participate in a political statement that it is making.
The vast majority of people who stand for our (or Canada's) national anthem are not participating in any political statement. They're exhibiting common courtesy, a common courtesy I'm OK with employers demanding that their employees demonstrate.
Now going out of your way to disrespect the anthem - that is a political statement, pure and simple.
I'd argue it's both common courtesy and a political statement. What kaeprernick is doing is certainly disrespectful. But I prefer disrespect over forced politics
I don't see it as "forced politics". There are any number of avenues of legitimate protest available. Why choose being a disrespectful person lacking in common courtesy? Best answer? A true protest would require some effort. Acting like a dick in a place you already have to be (and are getting millions to be) doesn't.
I think most successful protesters are considered disrespectful by many. They don't call it civil disobedience for nothing.
I also don't consider Kaepernick a protester. He knelt during the national anthem for three games without a word. He wasn't trying to start a movement or a protest. He doesn't personally respect the United States government so he didn't feel like participating in the national anthem. Just like many atheists don't feel like participating in the pledge of allegiance. It didn't become a protest until the masses demanded that he be punished for having an opinion different than their's. We (the collective masses) made this into a protest, not Kaepernick.
I think you're seeing this through a decidedly skewed lens, a lens on the extreme of the spectrum. I think Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg said it best - "Kapernick's protest is stupid and disrespectful, but he shouldn't go to jail for it".
You can call my lens skewed if you wish. I agree with Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg 100%. I think what Kapernick doing is stupid and disrespectful. And he shouldn't go to jail for it. He also shouldn't be terminated from his job or fined.
I'm glad you agree with the Justice, but your extremism is defining standing for our or the Canadian (or any other) national anthem a "political act". It's common courtesy. What's wrong with an employer expecting an employee who has signed a contract agreeing to show common courtesy breaking that contract? How is that "fascism"?
It is both, IMHO. I really don't think you can separate the two. It is respectful to stand for any national anthem. But we also do it as a show of allegiance to or a way of revering our country. What if someone doesn't revere their county? What if they don't have respect for it? Forcing them to honor the country against their will is a fascist action. Thinking he's disrespectful, fine. Calling him an ungrateful whelp, sure. Benching him because coach doesn't approve, don't like it but wouldn't fight it. Threatening him with loss of job or fines? That crosses a line for me.
As some of you probably saw already, Bill Belichick this week came out and ranted against the Surface tablet that coaches and players use on the sideline as part of a $400 million sponsorship deal between the NFL and Microsoft. He said they were "too undependable," presented problems pretty much on a weekly basis and that he no longer was going to use them.
It goes without saying that it's a bad look for the league and a major sponsor when a guy widely seen as one of the smartest coaches of all time publicly lambastes their product. If other coaches or players follow suit - copycat league and all, right? - it could cause serious harm to the league's lucrative relationship with Microsoft and cost owners substantial revenues.
So, that being the case, the question is ... Should Roger Goodell mandate that Belichick and his staff continue to use the Surface on the sidelines against their wishes, and suspend him if he refuses to follow those orders?
The NFL will suspend anyone that uses an iPad on the sidelines and will fine anyone for using the word iPad.
It is both, IMHO. I really don't think you can separate the two. It is respectful to stand for any national anthem. But we also do it as a show of allegiance to or a way of revering our country. What if someone doesn't revere their county? What if they don't have respect for it? Forcing them to honor the country against their will is a fascist action. Thinking he's disrespectful, fine. Calling him an ungrateful whelp, sure. Benching him because coach doesn't approve, don't like it but wouldn't fight it. Threatening him with loss of job or fines? That crosses a line for me.
Would you not approve the firing of a high school football coach who kneels and prays on the field during the anthem?
Since this thread is about NFL ratings ...
Tonight is the Packers/Bears. At the same time is game 5 of the Cubs/Dodgers.
In Chicago and Southeastern WI, how much does the Cubs game eat into the Packers/Bears ratings tonight? Is it enough to hurt national ratings for the game?
Thoughts?
Cubs will draw a bigger audience than the Bears. The Cubs/Dodgers is a far bigger story nationally than the Bears/Packers.
I feel like I need more context. But with the information you have given me, no, I would not approve. If someone wants to kneel and pray during the national anthem, that is their prerogative.
You would certainly think so. Chicago and LA markets and all. Yet on Sunday the Colts/Texans game attracted almost double the viewers as did game 2 of NLCS. I know TNF isn't as big of a draw as SNF, but it will be interesting to see who watches what tonight.
How about if kneels and prays with the players on his team who choose to join him?
Again, I feel like there is a story I don't know so would like more context. But with the information I have been given I would have no issue with it provided the players weren't being forced to join him in sort of way.
So in your view prohibition of any sort of demonstration (sitting, praying, giving the finger, etc.) = forcing someone to make a political statement?
How about if kneels and prays with the players on his team who choose to join him?
Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.
Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.
No. Forcing someone to participate in the national anthem against their will is forced politics. It's not about the demonstration. People should be allowed to not participate in the anthem, even if they are in the private sector. That is different from making a demonstration of one's own.
Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business
What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?
This is on the back of every helmet. Is this a forced polticial statement?
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/fBbWd.jpg)
What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?
This is on the back of every helmet. Is this a forced polticial statement?
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/fBbWd.jpg)
Hmm. Good question. I could see both sides to that one. Guess we won't know until someone tries to challenge it.
Like I said before, I have no issue with the NFL making a political statement. The issue is if they fire their employees for refusing to participate in the statement.
Because of the inherently authoritative nature of the relationship between coach and player, there's no way there isn't some kind of direct or indirect coercion involved in a scenario like this.
Regardless, this is already settled law. Even "voluntary" prayer led by a school or school official is an endorsement of religiion, says the Supreme Court.
Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business
Did you just ask whether the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in public schools applies to the NFL?
Uhhh ....
Still waiting for you to demand Belichick's suspension. It's necessary to maintain the consistency of your economic argument about Kaepernick.
Does apply to the NFL as that is a private business
What about wearing a helmet with an American flag on it?
This is on the back of every helmet. Is this a forced polticial statement?
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/fBbWd.jpg)
Let's take it a step further. The university of Illinois is a public school, receiving public funds, and thus wearing the helmet or any clothing that is state supported could be viewed as supporting the state gov't in a political fashion, or at the very least supporting everything the University of Illinois does and stands for. That can be the only conclusion.
To suggest that the national anthem is a political statement is a wild stretch. Some of you wonder why so many Americans are fed up to the point of breaking. Should all American flags be banned at all public buildings? Can I go to the DMV anymore without being oppressed because the American flag and the state of Alabama flag is outside the building? Is that flag a political statement that beats down my oppressed soul as I park the car and make the walk into the building? How about the post man? Your local policeman or firefighter with the American flag on their vehicle or uniform. Or the state flag.
The public has a wildly different view than Roger Goodell.
The customer is always right ... correct?
Fans watching fewer NFL games cite protests as primary reason
Oct 19, 2016, 12:20 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fans-watching-fewer-nfl-games-cite-protests-as-primary-reason-172059483.html
In a survey of 1,136 Americans who identified themselves as NFL fans, 29 percent said they are watching fewer NFL games. (Interestingly, 27 percent said they were watching more, though that does not necessarily correlate only a 2 percent net loss.)
Worth noting: the 40 percent of the “watching less NFL” group claiming protests as the reason represents 12 percent of all NFL fans. This is a sharp, though very much expected, decline from the 44 percent who claimed in a similar Yahoo study in early September that they would stop watching if protests continued.
Should the protests migrate to other sports, respondents said they would cut back on viewing to the following degrees:
• 17 percent of NBA fans would watch fewer games
• 28 percent of baseball fans would watch fewer games
• 31 percent of hockey fans would watch fewer games
(http://l2.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/XyVMxhvko09RXWf34xfo3w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9MTE1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/c4ea007876b8fec1b6d107803c1537f0)
1,136 x 29% x 40% = 132
So 132 people in a small sample size are boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick's protest.
As my dad would say, "That amounts to a pimple on a pigs a$$."
I guess you don't understand how polls work
I guess you don't understand how polls workSelf-selecting online poll.
Self-selecting online poll.
Totally worthless, as we both know.
How do we know? Here's one reason:
29 percent of poll takers claim they're watching the NFL less for various reasons.
NFL ratings are down less than a third of that.
Either they're lying or they're a group of outliers. I suspect it's a combination of both.
Self-selecting online poll.
Totally worthless, as we both know.
How do we know? Here's one reason:
29 percent of poll takers claim they're watching the NFL less for various reasons.
NFL ratings are down less than a third of that.
Either they're lying or they're a group of outliers. I suspect it's a combination of both.
Quinnipiac University Poll says the same thing as the Yahoo online poll.
Rasmussen poll, also the same thing.
You may find Yahoo poll worthless, but two non-online and controlled polls show the same results within a few percentage points.
This suggests that baseball might have dented NFL national TV ratings.
Cubs ratings nearly twice Bears viewership last night
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161021/BLOGS04/161029975/cubs-ratings-nearly-twice-bears-viewership-last-night#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-breakingnews&utm_campaign=ccb-breakingnews-20161021
Last night's Cubs-Dodgers game drew an average local TV rating of 24.1, or more than 1 million homes tuning in.
That's the highest-rated Cubs game during the National League Championship Series. But that's not the jaw-dropper.
The Bears, playing the rival Green Bay Packers on Thursday Night Football at the same time as the Cubs game, posted just a 12.8 average TV rating in Chicago between NFL Network and CBS combined, according to a source familiar with the ratings.
That means roughly 400,000 more Chicago TV households were watching the Cubs last night instead of the Bears, who lost to the Packers 26-10.
The Cubs' high number is not shocking, given the fervor around the team as it marches toward a National League pennant.
But the Bears' TV rating is exceptionally low. Its games so far this year have posted ratings in the 19 to 21 range. That's a more drastic dip than NFL TV ratings overall, which were down 11 percent over the first six weeks of the season compared to the same point last year.
Thats not to surprising. People are going to choose the Cubs in the NLCS over the Bears who are awful, playing an opponent they play twice a year and get beaten twice a year badly.
Prior to last night the most recent game between the Bears and Packers was at Lambeau last November. The team that always loses badly won 17-13.
Quinnipiac University Poll says the same thing as the Yahoo online poll.
Rasmussen poll, also the same thing.
You may find Yahoo poll worthless, but two non-online and controlled polls show the same results within a few percentage points.
This suggests that baseball might have dented NFL national TV ratings.
Cubs ratings nearly twice Bears viewership last night
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161021/BLOGS04/161029975/cubs-ratings-nearly-twice-bears-viewership-last-night#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-breakingnews&utm_campaign=ccb-breakingnews-20161021
Last night's Cubs-Dodgers game drew an average local TV rating of 24.1, or more than 1 million homes tuning in.
That's the highest-rated Cubs game during the National League Championship Series. But that's not the jaw-dropper.
The Bears, playing the rival Green Bay Packers on Thursday Night Football at the same time as the Cubs game, posted just a 12.8 average TV rating in Chicago between NFL Network and CBS combined, according to a source familiar with the ratings.
That means roughly 400,000 more Chicago TV households were watching the Cubs last night instead of the Bears, who lost to the Packers 26-10.
The Cubs' high number is not shocking, given the fervor around the team as it marches toward a National League pennant.
But the Bears' TV rating is exceptionally low. Its games so far this year have posted ratings in the 19 to 21 range. That's a more drastic dip than NFL TV ratings overall, which were down 11 percent over the first six weeks of the season compared to the same point last year.
To suggest that the national anthem is a political statement is a wild stretch. Some of you wonder why so many Americans are fed up to the point of breaking. Should all American flags be banned at all public buildings? Can I go to the DMV anymore without being oppressed because the American flag and the state of Alabama flag is outside the building? Is that flag a political statement that beats down my oppressed soul as I park the car and make the walk into the building? How about the post man? Your local policeman or firefighter with the American flag on their vehicle or uniform. Or the state flag.
Exception to the rule.
This decade, the Packers are 11-3 against the Bears, with those wins coming by an average of 13.6 points per game.
I say this as a fan of neither team.
I must have missed it, but who has demanded the removal of American flags from all public buildings? Or from the uniforms of government employees?
Is this something new that I missed? Or is it just a silly made-up argument for who knows what purpose.
In case people like you are unaware, Colin's protest is an attempt to make America more like what we always claim we want it to be. To be a fairer country. To be a more inclusive country. To be a country that actually applies the equality we always talk about.
For anyone to equate Colin's protest with demanding the removal of all American flags goes way beyond chica-esque language.
yup, you missed it-MUR was posing it as a question, as in, is this where this absurd, racist protest is going?
if the national anthem is a forced political statement, then so is making one do it in front of our flag-gasp! it's all part of "some" trying to diminish our pride in american exceptionalism. they call it jingoism or something. you know, we are no better than anyone else; some are just more "equal". where did i get the racist part from-well check out how one person presented our national anthem at the miami heat/philly 76'er preseason nba game last night-on a knee with a blm shirt on. my opinion? they better nip this one in the butt before it gets out of hand. my opinion? blm is offensively racist. might as well have been a black panthers shirt
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/10/22/anthem-singer-at-heat-76ers-game-kneels-during-performance.html
No, I do. There are estimated to be 160 million NFL fans (according to various sources that came up on my Google search). 1,136 divided by 160,000,000 = .00071%
That is not statistically significant. So no larger conclusions can be extrapolated to the larger pool of NFL fans.
It's all a moot point, really.
The chances that Adam Silver will punish any player for protesting during the anthem is pretty much zero.
I must have missed it, but who has demanded the removal of American flags from all public buildings? Or from the uniforms of government employees?
Is this something new that I missed? Or is it just a silly made-up argument for who knows what purpose.
In case people like you are unaware, Colin's protest is an attempt to make America more like what we always claim we want it to be. To be a fairer country. To be a more inclusive country. To be a country that actually applies the equality we always talk about.
For anyone to equate Colin's protest with demanding the removal of all American flags goes way beyond chica-esque language.
Based on this math equation, you don't understand how this works.
SEC TV Ratings up 12% nationwide (not just in the south) Apparently the election doesn't matter. No protesting going on with SEC games, by the way.
SEC students have protested during the Anthem at football games this season. The most evident one was Alabama students protesting during the Anthem during their homecoming win against Kentucky.
Missouri keeps their players in the locker room during the Anthem (some were going to protest).
So, by virtue of this, and the ratings being up, I conclude that SEC TV ratings are up because of the protest. That's logical right?
1,136 x 29% x 40% = 132
So 132 people in a small sample size are boycotting the NFL due to Kaepernick's protest.
As my dad would say, "That amounts to a pimple on a pigs a$$."
No, I do. There are estimated to be 160 million NFL fans (according to various sources that came up on my Google search). 1,136 divided by 160,000,000 = .00071%
That is not statistically significant. So no larger conclusions can be extrapolated to the larger pool of NFL fans.
SEC students have protested during the Anthem at football games this season. The most evident one was Alabama students protesting during the Anthem during their homecoming win against Kentucky.
Missouri keeps their players in the locker room during the Anthem (some were going to protest).
So, by virtue of this, and the ratings being up, I conclude that SEC TV ratings are up because of the protest. That's logical right?
Can you imagine the vitriol by the media if a bunch of athletes decided not to stand for the Canadian anthem during a hockey game or NBA game?
Are the Mounties in the habit of shooting black Canadian citizens?
Are the Mounties in the habit of shooting black Canadian citizens?
Are the Mounties in the habit of shooting black Canadian citizens?
"...in the habit of shooting black canadian citizens? seriously?
i am hoping and praying that you are not intimating that our police are "in the habit of shooting black american citizens(without due cause) because that would be showing the ultimate disrespect to our police. broad brush brandee back at it again. i am hoping others see this as well because i know for a fact that if i would have stated something this outrageous here, the firestorm would be relentless as it should be
btw, there are approximately 900,000 sworn in police in this country. "in the habit of..." means that we would have an epidemic of unprovoked police shootings.
any unjustified police shooting of ANY race is not right. unfortunately, there are some bad actors in the police as there are in all other walks of life
Are they armed, which is the overwhelming situation in the United States when they are shot? Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy of the million plus law enforcement in this country to shoot black Americans?
A number of colleges do not play the national anthem while the teams are on the field, this is nothing new. The NFL would be wise to do the same thing. Then Colin can go protest in a more suitable setting. It is common courtesy to stand for a nation's anthem. Can you imagine the vitriol by the media if a bunch of athletes decided not to stand for the Canadian anthem during a hockey game or NBA game? Let's add to it, what if they were white athletes? What would the reaction by the media in this country be? Common courtesy, that is all people want. They go to a football game to be entertained, not to watch a political protest by athletes unfairly making broad, and fact less statements about law enforcement in this country. Play the games. Show some respect.
And it's "nip in the bud."
None of this crap is helping from either side. Brandx, that is a gross over-generalization. RS and Chicos, you know what he was getting at and know he doesn't believe that a significant population of police officers are killing African Americans for no reason.
Regionalized
FOX: -1%
CBS: -9%
Non-Regionalized
TNF: -18%
SNF: -19%
MNF: -24%
This really says that people are watching their team play, which is most often one of the regional games, but are finding something else to watch during the prime time games.
Which means that 132 / 1136 = 11% of this sample size chose not to watch football because of the Kaepernick protests.
Why would you divide the sample size (1,136) into the estimated number of NFL fans? The purpose of a sample size is to use it with statistical significance to extrapolate what it mean against a larger population, within a margin of error to a certain degree +/- a few percentage points either way.
Your .00071% means literally, nothing. The math is right, but it means nothing. You aren't solving anything with that equation.
You should have taken that 11% from the original equation and extrapolated that by multiplying by the 160 million. Which gives you almost 18 million people. That is not a pimple on any pig's ass, unless it is a damn big pig and the pimple the size of most of Florida.
How this ties into football ratings is more complex. Individuals don't translate into households as easily since more households have multiple people. But say there are 2.5 people per household, you can then further refine the number to say roughly 7 million households are impacted (17.6M people watching less football because of Colin divided by 2.5 people per household). Also not a pimple on a pig's butt.
Still not good enough, because we don't know how much less football they are watching. Does it mean completely turned off? Does it mean any games with Colin? Does it mean instead of 3 games a week, they watch 1? We don't have those numbers, but your approach on how to use these numbers is wrong. Your .00071% means nothing.
Poll: National Anthem Protests Leading Cause For NFL Ratings Drop
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/nfl-ratings-national-anthem-protests-poll/
A fresh poll from Seton Hall surveyed 841 adults across the U.S. Each respondent was asked to identify seven separate factors as a reason for the NFL ratings drop, allowing them to answer “yes” or “no” for each of them. The leading factor, according to the poll, was the national anthem protests, which scored “yes” at a rate of 56 percent.
Other answers also scored “yes” at a high rate, including 50 percent of “yeses” for coverage of the presidential election, 47 percent for the league’s handling of domestic violence cases, 44 percent for the over-saturation of the market, 39 percent for increased interest in postseason baseball, and 33 percent for controversy over head injuries and player safety.
Interestingly enough, the lowest score, tied with player safety at 33 percent, was “a decline in quality of play on the field.” Many would cite this as the overriding factor to all of this, and it certainly is factoring in. It’s easier to turn the games off for other reasons if the games aren’t fun to watch in the first place.
---------------
NFL TV Ratings Down; Fans Cite a Host of Factors, Led by National Anthem Protests
http://blogs.shu.edu/sportspoll/2016/10/27/nfl-tv-ratings-down-fans-cite-a-host-of-factors-led-by-national-anthem-protests/
South Orange, NJ, October 27, 2016 — Viewership for NFL games is down approximately 12% this season, sending league and club officials in search of reasons. A Seton Hall Sports Poll conducted this week asked people to identify factors accounting for the drop.
Each question was asked separately, allowing for a yes, no or don’t know response. Thus, respondents could weigh in on each of the seven possibilities as a contributing factor without identifying one single factor.
The leading factor – the one receiving the most “yesses” – was players not standing for the national anthem. However, the seven factors all evoked a large number of yes responses, so that even the least chosen, at 33%, represents a lot of fans.
56% of respondents cited players not standing for the anthem, with 50% citing the distraction of the presidential campaign and 47% the controversy over the handling of domestic violence cases involving players.
Completely bogus poll.
It was asking for something that people had no way of knowing. Why other people weren't watching games.
Ratings are down but the game is more popular than ever? Odd juxtaposition.
"What do you think other people think" is actually a valid method for surveying a population sample, but it has very strict rules on how the survey is structured. No idea if it's the case here, but it did come out of SHU, so there's a chance the rules were followed and the results may be valid.
This really says that people are watching their team play, which is most often one of the regional games, but are finding something else to watch during the prime time games.
Nah. Ain't buying it. Generally, I think people will use their own biases to answer questions like these. And other than a couple of their own friends, they don't have the faintest clue what other people think.
Austin Karp @AustinKarp · 4h4 hours ago
World Series Game 5 (15.3 overnight rating) beat Cowboys-Eagles overtime game last night by 32% (11.6 for Sunday Night Football)
Championship game vs. a regular season game not a fair comparison IMHO.
Historically, it's not been a fair comparison.... for MLB, that is. First time in six years that NFL didn't win the head-to-head against the WS.
"Football" ratings also way down in England.
http://deadspin.com/premier-league-tv-ratings-are-falling-off-a-cliff-too-1788768437
Ok, it is the day after the election and the world series ended last week. So starting with tomorrow night's Thursday night game, NFL TV ratings are going to bounce back.
Does anyone believe this?
And if they do not, what excuse are we left with? Remember that the NFL set record ratings last year. So what excuse was not present last year that is present this year? Might that excuse involve the starting QB of the 49ers?
Ok, it is the day after the election and the world series ended last week. So starting with tomorrow night's Thursday night game, NFL TV ratings are going to bounce back.
Does anyone believe this?
And if they do not, what excuse are we left with? Remember that the NFL set record ratings last year. So what excuse was not present last year that is present this year? Might that excuse involve the starting QB of the 49ers?
Ok, it is the day after the election and the world series ended last week. So starting with tomorrow night's Thursday night game, NFL TV ratings are going to bounce back.I'm with Sultan on saying after Tuesday I could believe any rationale may be the cause, BUT.......tonights game involves the words 'Cleveland' and 'Browns'. It seems more likely that the cr@ppy product would be to blame
Does anyone believe this?
And if they do not, what excuse are we left with? Remember that the NFL set record ratings last year. So what excuse was not present last year that is present this year? Might that excuse involve the starting QB of the 49ers?
Interesting. Apparently Colin Kaepernick didn't bother to vote...
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/11/10/colin-kaepernick-san-francisco-49ers-presidential-election-protest
I'm with Sultan on saying after Tuesday I could believe any rationale may be the cause, BUT.......tonights game involves the words 'Cleveland' and 'Browns'. It seems more likely that the cr@ppy product would be to blame
addition: if #18 on this list happens (members of at least 6 CBB teams will kneel in the first weeks) does it necessarily tie to CBB ratings?
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/33-wild-predictions-for-college-hoops-davidson-will-have-another-stephen-curry/ (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/33-wild-predictions-for-college-hoops-davidson-will-have-another-stephen-curry/)
Interesting. Apparently Colin Kaepernick didn't bother to vote...
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/11/10/colin-kaepernick-san-francisco-49ers-presidential-election-protest
Ok, it is the day after the election and the world series ended last week. So starting with tomorrow night's Thursday night game, NFL TV ratings are going to bounce back.
Does anyone believe this?
And if they do not, what excuse are we left with? Remember that the NFL set record ratings last year. So what excuse was not present last year that is present this year? Might that excuse involve the starting QB of the 49ers?
People no longer feel an obligation to care about politics, back to bread & circus.
Nah. Ain't buying it. Generally, I think people will use their own biases to answer questions like these. And other than a couple of their own friends, they don't have the faintest clue what other people think.
Going way off tangent ... sorry .... but I so hate the "everyone has a duty to vote" mantra. No, voting isn't a duty, and I'm perfectly content when people choose not to vote. In fact, I would prefer that the uninformed and ignorant skip voting. It sucks that the vote of myself and those of us who put in the effort to become intelligent on the candidates and issue can have our cotes canceled out by someone picking candidates virtually at random.
So, anyhow, who cares whether Colin Kapernick voted? Are the problems that sparked his protest any less of problems because he didn't vote?
So Kapernick has an opportunity to determine the leadership in this country that has the potential to improve the situation or make it worse and he chooses....to do nothing? I'm sorry, but his refusal to vote loses him any and all credibility he had on this issue. If you refuse to act in your own self interests, then I have no sympathy or support for you.
Also, are you insinuating that Kapernick is ignorant or uninformed in your post?Neither.
You've got some false premises at work here, the first of which being that Kapernick had an opportunity to determine the leadership in this country.
He's gone on record several times saying he does not believe either Trump or Hillary would improve the situation. So, in his opinion (he's allow to have that, right?), a vote either would not qualify as "acting in his own self interests?"
Neither.
Why so angry?
So there is not one person he could have voted for anywhere on the ballot that could have had an impact on the situation?
However, if he not only didn't vote but didn't try to expand the people who were engaged in the political process then he's just lazy and entitled. His protest is the easy thing, say people are racist and draw awareness. The actually getting out and getting people involved, advocating for individuals who can make a difference in the political process, voting up and down the ballot....that's the hard stuff that actually matters. Making "statements" is easy.
I don't know every candidate who was on his particular ballot. I was under the impression you were writing about national races.Agree
I do know that he's donating $1 million to charitable causes that he believes will have an impact on the situation which, at least IMO, will be infinitely more effective than his vote.
Agree?
No, voting is not "hard stuff." Voting is remarkably easy. It took me all of about three minutes of pressing a touch screen. At worst, maybe you had to fill in some circles with a #2 pencil.
Do you really believe "advocating for individuals ... in the political process" is hard, but a public protest that subjects you to death threats, public scorn, loss of current income and future earnings is "lazy and entitled?"
I beg to differ. Agree or disagree with Kapernick's stance and method, what he's doing is a million times harder and involves far more self sacrifice than standing on a stage next to Hillary Clinton or going to the polls.
You've got some false premises at work here, the first of which being that Kapernick had an opportunity to determine the leadership in this country.
He's gone on record several times saying he does not believe either Trump or Hillary would improve the situation. So, in his opinion (he's allow to have that, right?), a vote either would not qualify as "acting in his own self interests?"
Neither.
Why so angry?
Older Viewers and Conservatives Are Watching Less NFL, Survey Finds
Morning Consult survey also cites election coverage and over-saturation of prime-time games
Nov. 30, 2016 5:28 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/older-viewers-and-conservatives-are-watching-less-nfl-survey-finds-1480544927?mod=e2twcmo
Explanations for this year’s sagging National Football League TV ratings have ranged from competition with election coverage to an overload of prime-time games to impatience with commercials.
A survey of 2,088 people by Morning Consult finds evidence for all those theories. It also shows declines in viewership among older viewers and those with conservative political views.
As for political leanings, conservatives are watching less football this season compared to last season versus other political groups. Some 28% of conservatives said they were watching some or much less NFL, versus 20% for moderates and 16% for liberals.
The survey did not explore why older and conservative viewers might be losing more interest than other groups this season and whether protests by players during the playing of the national anthem are a factor.
Older viewers cited political coverage less frequently than their younger counterparts as playing a part in their decision to not watch football.
Older Viewers and Conservatives Are Watching Less NFL, Survey Finds
Morning Consult survey also cites election coverage and over-saturation of prime-time games
Nov. 30, 2016 5:28 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/older-viewers-and-conservatives-are-watching-less-nfl-survey-finds-1480544927?mod=e2twcmo
Explanations for this year’s sagging National Football League TV ratings have ranged from competition with election coverage to an overload of prime-time games to impatience with commercials.
A survey of 2,088 people by Morning Consult finds evidence for all those theories. It also shows declines in viewership among older viewers and those with conservative political views.
As for political leanings, conservatives are watching less football this season compared to last season versus other political groups. Some 28% of conservatives said they were watching some or much less NFL, versus 20% for moderates and 16% for liberals.
The survey did not explore why older and conservative viewers might be losing more interest than other groups this season and whether protests by players during the playing of the national anthem are a factor.
Older viewers cited political coverage less frequently than their younger counterparts as playing a part in their decision to not watch football.
After this election I'm dubious of any survey or poll; and that is pretty sad.
Do not disagree with your skepticism of polls.NFL was great when it was solely about football. Obviously lots of issues.
That said, this poll "all of the above" is hurting NFL ratings. So no reason, instead it is every reason.
I'm not sure what to make of that.
NFL was great when it was solely about football. Obviously lots of issues.
I also believe the production values have to go back to a more old school approach when it was all about the kind. Things are too high tech and glamorized and it loses the sheer essence of the guts and glory of the sport.
Many years ago each division in the NFL had its own distinct personality that the viewers knew and embraced. The announcers and game production really keyed off all of that. If you were a fan of one team in a division you knew all the other players on the other teams even their lineman. It was a better sport to watch.
In summary the sport is less appealing to the customer. It needs to go back to its roots.
TV Ratings: NFL Playoff Tops World Series, Best Telecast Since Super Bowl
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-nfl-playoff-tops-world-series-best-telecast-super-bowl-964486
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/packers-cowboys-divisional-round-ratings-history-20-years-highest-011617
The Cowboy fan base is incredible.....
TV Ratings: NFL Playoff Tops World Series, Best Telecast Since Super Bowl
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-nfl-playoff-tops-world-series-best-telecast-super-bowl-964486
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/packers-cowboys-divisional-round-ratings-history-20-years-highest-011617
The Cowboy fan base is incredible.....
The historical success of GB-DAL was offset by the other 3 game, for an overall decline in ratings this year. Part of that is the crap show that was Houston and the fact that ATL-SEA quickly developed into a laugher.
This should all be taken with a grain of salt, because the NFL is STILL enjoying ratings that every other league would kill for. I still think they need to reinvest and bolster their current offering rather than look for new markets, but I doubt it will happen. We have slowed the pace of safety initiatives a little bit, where they all feel a bit more common sense, so that helps. Let them celebrate and players may have fun again.
This is impossible.
Smuggles says nobody ever will watch another NFL game because of Kaepernick.
And Kaps knee, the controversy around it, had nothing to do with this. Just a coincidence, right?
EXCLUSIVE: Lady Gaga Asked Not to Talk About Politics, Donald Trump During Super Bowl Halftime Show, Source Says
http://www.etonline.com/news/207705_exclusive_lady_gaga_instructed_not_to_talk_about_politics_donald_trump_during_super_bowl_halftime_show/
hen Lady Gaga hits the Super Bowl stage, at least one subject will be off limits: Politics.
A source close to the halftime show tells ET, "Lady Gaga was told by the NFL that she cannot say anything or bring anything up about the election, or mention Donald Trump."
A rep for the NFL calls this "nonsense from people trying to stir up controversy where there is none."
"The Super Bowl is a time when people really come together," the NFL's statement continues. "Lady Gaga is focused on putting together an amazing show for fans and we love working with her on it; we aren’t going to be distracted by this."
And Kaps knee, the controversy around it, had nothing to do with this. Just a coincidence, right?
EXCLUSIVE: Lady Gaga Asked Not to Talk About Politics, Donald Trump During Super Bowl Halftime Show, Source Says
http://www.etonline.com/news/207705_exclusive_lady_gaga_instructed_not_to_talk_about_politics_donald_trump_during_super_bowl_halftime_show/
hen Lady Gaga hits the Super Bowl stage, at least one subject will be off limits: Politics.
A source close to the halftime show tells ET, "Lady Gaga was told by the NFL that she cannot say anything or bring anything up about the election, or mention Donald Trump."
A rep for the NFL calls this "nonsense from people trying to stir up controversy where there is none."
"The Super Bowl is a time when people really come together," the NFL's statement continues. "Lady Gaga is focused on putting together an amazing show for fans and we love working with her on it; we aren’t going to be distracted by this."
"A rep for the NFL calls this "nonsense from people trying to stir up controversy where there is none."
the nfl would be incredibly ignorant NOT to tell whoever they put on stage to ZIP -IT. just like if they had any reason, God forbid, to put lena dunham on for the half time show, they should be telling her the same thing, along with giving her a dress code. NO ONE wants to see any more of that body than they absolutely have to
Are you trying to inject politics into every thread?
The NFL is very involved in all half-time shows. They manage the hell out of this issue. They always have and always will. Laughable to think this issue has not come up.
That is why they chose the words above, they deflected and did not answer the question. They don't want to say they are muzzling her, but did say they did not either.
And regarding political, I don't care who the president is, or what the politics of the performers are. Events like the Superbowl are escapes from these issues and dragging them in is a very bad idea ... period.
My guess is that there is a clause in her contract where she doesn't get paid if she does.
She may do so anyway.
Events like the Superbowl are escapes from these issues and dragging them in is a very bad idea ... period.
My guess is that there is a clause in her contract where she doesn't get paid if she does.
She may do so anyway.
The NFL does not pay the halftime act. They do it for the exposure alone, which can mean millions in sales and concert ticket sales.
Now if only Scoop can be an escape like the SB.
Which likely would not be harmed by a political statement. May even be enhanced.
and if the halftime was Kanye West with guests Kid Rock and Ted Nugent, all Trump supporters, and their was talk/rumors that would give their political statements, I doubt you would think that enhances your halftime show experience.
No political statement enhances any non-political broadcast. They are always worse when politics are injected into them.
And yet we play the national anthem before every sporting event and (some of us) rage when we feel someone doesn't show the song due deference. And then there's Pentagon-funded displays of patriotism during games.
So, what you really meant to say was, "They are always worse when politics contrary to mine are injected into them."
And yet we play the national anthem before every sporting event and (some of us) rage when we feel someone doesn't show the song due deference. And then there's Pentagon-funded displays of patriotism during games.
So, what you really meant to say was, "They are always worse when politics contrary to mine are injected into them."
What is the definition of a bust in Superbowl ratings? Is this it? The game had everything and it still slumped.
Despite overtime finish, NFL Super Bowl draws lower TV ratings
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nfl-superbowl-ratings-idUSKBN15L1L5
Fox Television's broadcast of Super Bowl LI on Sunday night drew 111.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen data released by the network on Monday, the smallest audience for the National Football League's title game in four years.
Internet streaming of Super Bowl is not counted. CBS made the game widely available on tablets, phones, computers and streaming boxes like Apple TV with almost 2,000,000 additional viewers.
If I have the Super Bowl on TV and was streaming it simultaneously (something I've done during the World Series because streaming affords different cameras/angles), am I supposed to be counted as 1 or 2 in the ratings?
Duz anyone watch da Brew Crew? Get up, get up, get outta here, hey?
Peddle der ass for a rosin bag and sum unwashed Bikes, aina?