ESPN Get Worse

[B. McBannerson]

Or over-saturation.

http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/cbs-sports-chairman-sean-mcmanus-reverses-stance-blames-dilution-saturation-nfl-ratings-dip.html

Last night was a great example.  Too many flags.  Too much poor play.  It's a bad product right now.  That's why Deshaun Watson's injury is so terrible.  It takes one of the young players, who can REALLY play, out of the game.  And gives you...Tom Savage.  And the Texans will still have a decent shot at the playoffs in a conference where only three teams are two games over .500 or better.

College football is much more watchable.  You don't need a great NFL-style passer to succeed.

Another bad common sense argument.  Over saturation.  Thursday night football started more than 10 years ago with 8 games a year.  In 2014 it ramped even more.  Ratings in 2014 were strong, in 2015 strong, each beating out the previous years.  So now, suddenly it's over saturation after a decade?

The data doesn't lie.

[B. McBannerson]

Jamie from Orange County on the case!

Sounds Hispanic from a county that went to Clinton in the election. 

[Hards Alumni]

Sad this keeps being the go to by so many.  We just can't have conversations anymore without this nonsense.

May I ask you a question, since you seem to imply someone that hasn't walked in someone else's shoes can't have an opinion any longer.  Are women allowed to have comments about men since they aren't men?  How about middle class people about the rich?  Where does this race logic that is used start and end?  Especially since many people, regardless of race, have been poor at one time in their lives and some for their entire life, yet the broad brush that you are painting with is odd.   If you don't think these attitudes which are widely used in discussion these days do not influence how people vote and turn people off, you aren't paying attention in my opinion.

Holy christ.

Shall we see which one you are today?

[B. McBannerson]

How can people actually with a straight face say this isn't a political protest by the players, specifically Mr. Kap?

The New York Times calls his intent and actions a political protest.  As does the Washington Post, Slate, etc.


He was protesting police brutality.  Are the police not the state, gov't representatives?   Of course it is political and there is no other rational way to define it.  Then you just have to read his words then and now.  Or Eric Reid's words, or Michael Bennett's words. Of course it is political protest.

[Hards Alumni]

Another bad common sense argument.  Over saturation.  Thursday night football started more than 10 years ago with 8 games a year.  In 2014 it ramped even more.  Ratings in 2014 were strong, in 2015 strong, each beating out the previous years.  So now, suddenly it's over saturation after a decade?

The data doesn't lie.

Just going to remove this.  Was unnecessary.

[B. McBannerson]

Yes, pointing out he we are failing as a society and challenging to improve can cause some to vote to embrace those failings.

No, accusing someone of being a racist because of the race they were born into and had no choice in the matter can turn off a lot of people. They vote, too.   If you think blanketly calling people racist or not allowing their voices to be heard or diminishing their voices by shaming them is a winning strategy, well all I can say is good luck.   I'd prefer honest conversation without the racial attacks that keep coming up. 

[cheebs09]

Another bad common sense argument.  Over saturation.  Thursday night football started more than 10 years ago with 8 games a year.  In 2014 it ramped even more.  Ratings in 2014 were strong, in 2015 strong, each beating out the previous years.  So now, suddenly it's over saturation after a decade?

The data doesn't lie.

Weren't the games more widely distributed back then? In 2014 and 2015 they had a lot of games on CBS and NBC. Frankly, I couldn't tell you where they are now. Streamed through Twitter or Amazon?

Maybe that's already factored into the ratings, but not sure.

[B. McBannerson]

So in Q1 and Q2, Pizza hut was losing share to Domino's and some to Papa Johns.  Because of a loss in business they started a vigorous new ad campaign and price war, to regain marketshare by targeting largely Papa Johns business.  Domino's continued their recent fight to regain market share.

Papa Johns did nothing.  They stayed idle, while being targeted by the two other big players in the market.  They lost market share as a result. 

That is how business works.  If you don't react to a market move, you lose.  Apparently you do not understand that simple concept...and neither does Papa John.

Except Pizza Hut and Domino's aren't NFL sponsors. Again, people are specifically boycotting NFL sponsors to hurt the players.  Apparently you do not understand that simple concept - Papa John's does.  Ford does.  Budweiser does. Direct TV does. CBS does. Fox does. ESPN does, including the article this week they may abandon NFL altogether in a few years). 

And to say Papa John's did nothing, is that your opinion or do you have actual factual evidence to suggest this? 

[B. McBannerson]

To be fair, not everyone is boycotting Papa Johns
http://www.newsweek.com/papa-john-alt-right-nazis-white-supremacists-nfl-pizza-701648

As always, Nihilist Arby's summed up the Papa Johns situation perfectly (NSFW)
https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/status/926238595412905985

And in the same Newsweek article you see where someone is saying boycott PapaJohn's pizza, which is exactly what the NFL Boycott sponsors movement has been doing the last 6 weeks, attacking NFL sponsors.  I think you are catching on, people will boycott brands if they see them supporting certain causes.  NFL fans boycotted NFL brands and it hurt those brands sales. 

[B. McBannerson]

Weren't the games more widely distributed back then? In 2014 and 2015 they had a lot of games on CBS and NBC. Frankly, I couldn't tell you where they are now. Streamed through Twitter or Amazon?

Maybe that's already factored into the ratings, but not sure.

They are also still on NFL Network and CBS.  In addition the NFL did a one year test with Twitter last year and a one year test this year with Amazon, but the person paying for television (which is still the overwhelming majority in this country by a mile) has the same saturation they've had for years.

[Jockey]

Same old, same old.

The lunatic is carpetbombing threads again. We all realize what he is after the first post. Then he goes on to prove it over and over, ad nauseum.

[B. McBannerson]

Holy christ.

Shall we see which one you are today?

Do you think it appropriate that the race card is played incessantly whenever conversations become political?  That's ultimately what I am asking?

[forgetful]

Except Pizza Hut and Domino's aren't NFL sponsors. Again, people are specifically boycotting NFL sponsors to hurt the players.  Apparently you do not understand that simple concept - Papa John's does.  Ford does.  Budweiser does. Direct TV does. CBS does. Fox does. ESPN does, including the article this week they may abandon NFL altogether in a few years). 

And to say Papa John's did nothing, is that your opinion or do you have actual factual evidence to suggest this?

No, you apparently don't know business, or are pretending not to. 

Let's go through proven business principles.  People buy items based on quality and price. If there are 3 major competitors in your market, and two of them make concerted efforts to improve quality, and decrease prices, while the third does not make changes.  What will happen?

The natural conclusion is that the two that improved quality and price will gain market share and the one that didn't act will lose market share. 

That well established principle accurately predicts the current market.  It is the simplest and most rational conclusion. 

You want people to throw out the proven, established predictable models to go with a more complicated unproven idea of people not buying Papa Johns (owned by a Trump supporter and outspoken GOP supporter) because they were a sponsor of the NFL.  That is illogical, and an unnecessarily complicated argument.

It would be equally valid to state that he is losing market share, because people are protesting his personal outspoken beliefs.  But again, that is unnecessarily complex.  There is a simpler and well established principle which satisfactorily explains the drop in sales.  You just don't want to accept it, because 1) You like arguing. 2) You will never admit to being wrong. 3) They don't agree with your political beliefs.   

As for the price war/Papa John's late response.  Yes, I do have evidence.  And Papa John's has recently (last month) started to do price cuts/promotions  to compete with Pizza Hut's moves.  It was just way too late. 

[forgetful]

Do you think it appropriate that the race card is played incessantly whenever conversations become political?  That's ultimately what I am asking?

What is the central argument being discussed here?

It involves a protest by a racial minority, over systematic mistreatment by society, which is disliked by a racial majority.

So yes, in this case it is perfectly reasonable to discuss race/racism.  It is the central tenet of the protest and movement.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

[MUBurrow]

Me reading this thread:

[tower912]

No, accusing someone of being a racist because of the race they were born into and had no choice in the matter can turn off a lot of people. They vote, too.   If you think blanketly calling people racist or not allowing their voices to be heard or diminishing their voices by shaming them is a winning strategy, well all I can say is good luck.   I'd prefer honest conversation without the racial attacks that keep coming up.

And yet, a few years ago, you routinely called people baby killers who disagreed with you on abortion.   I remember.   I was one of them.  Nor have I forgotten the names you used, the accusations you tossed when MU basketball players were accused of sexual assault.  You were on the other side of that debate then.   Weird.   Must of been Buzz related.  It is one of the reasons I did not miss you when you were banned.   

And yes, it is very apparent that people who say and do things that can easily be interpreted as racist resent being called racist.   And that they vote.     Clearly, their voice has not been diminished, though to hear many of them tell it, they are the most persecuted people around.   

[rocky_warrior]

I'm just going to shut this down.

Banny!  Try to stick to basketball!  You're obsessive over the other stuff.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Sad this keeps being the go to by so many.  We just can't have conversations anymore without this nonsense.

May I ask you a question, since you seem to imply someone that hasn't walked in someone else's shoes can't have an opinion any longer.  Are women allowed to have comments about men since they aren't men?  How about middle class people about the rich?  Where does this race logic that is used start and end?  Especially since many people, regardless of race, have been poor at one time in their lives and some for their entire life, yet the broad brush that you are painting with is odd.   If you don't think these attitudes which are widely used in discussion these days do not influence how people vote and turn people off, you aren't paying attention in my opinion.

I never implied anything of the sort. Stop deflecting. Feigning ignorance of the real issue and preaching about how people should protest is a tale as old as time.

You are the one who doesn't want to have an honest discussion about race.