Roger Goodell: NFL trying to understand drop in ratings

[The Crusher]

7 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

You do realize that offensive holding can be called on every single snap in a NFL game, right?

Is that what you want to watch?
 

 

You can also not call it every play. Holding isn't really an issue when the O lineman is in front of the D lineman.  It's when they get beat then hold on or pull them to the ground.  

[thebuzzardman]

5 hours ago, Cornfed said:

I think overexposure is part of the problem. Too much of a good thing. I also think the rule changes over time have changed the product. My eye immediately scans the field at the conclusion of every pass play for flags. Each completion, the defender complains. Each pass defended, the wr complains. Similar with big hits - you immediately scan for flags.

 

i know some of that is for player safety, which is obviously more important than my viewing enjoyment. But some is also to make the product more like a video game with 45-38 scores and such.

 

That plus I am simply way more busy than I used to be.  With priorities that can't wait. Could it be that the core generation that made the NFL unprecedentedly popular is simply aging? With kids, more job demands, sick parents, etc?

 

Hmmm. You mean you have other things to do then watch a 60 minute game in 3 1/2 hours?

League is long addicted the the advertising dollars, which is understandable; it's made them wealthy. Not unlike the rest of a lot of US big businesses, having a lot wasn't good enough, got greedy, and ruined their product. 

Games take too long which people won't tolerate when it isn't that good. 

[PatsFanTX]

No, but when a DL or a DE can be completely neutralized by a far inferior player by putting them in a choke hold, or by pulling them down, I'd like to see it called.

You need to learn how the game of football is played.

As long as OLinemen keep their arms and elbows into their bodies, they can clutch and grab all they want and no penalty will be called.

Once they extend their arms to clutch and grab, holding will be called every single time.

Well coached teams know how to do this.

[Beerfish]

19 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

You do realize that offensive holding can be called on every single snap in a NFL game, right?

Is that what you want to watch?
 

At least as a pats fan you acknowledge this, congrats!

[Bugg]

29 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

You do realize that offensive holding can be called on every single snap in a NFL game, right?

Is that what you want to watch?
 

 

One example; On almost every snap, the center to some degree  is holding, and both teams know it and are okay with it. He has to block a 300+ pile of muscle who  can move like a cat.Put Snacks Harrison or Wilfork or  Ngata in front of you and explain to me how you 1. snap the ball without fumbling it and 2. then get squared up enough to block that guy? That as a matter of physics is almost impossible unless you can get your hands up really fast and into said DT's torso.   As long as it isn't egregious, a takedown or a tackle, it's not getting called. It's a gentleman's agreement. Tackles and guards may be a different story because those guys are not snapping the ball but just blocking. Otherwise every pass play would feature a beast  DT bullrushing the center into the ground. 

[The Crusher]

28 minutes ago, gEYno said:

That's really not how people make decisions.

It's not? Just figure people tolerate stuff out of habit and eventually arbitrarily pick a reason to stop.... ah you tricky rascal.

[Freemanm]

Fans: Trying to Understand Why Goodell is Still Commissioner 

[PatsFanTX]

One example; On almost every snap, the center to some degree  is holding, and both teams know it and are okay with it. He has to block a 300+ pile of muscle who  can move like a cat.Put Snacks Harrison or Wilfork or  Ngata in front of you and explain to me how you 1. snap the ball without fumbling it and 2. then get squared up enough to block that guy? That as a matter of physics is almost impossible unless you can get your hands up really fast and into said DT's torso.   As long as it isn't egregious, a takedown or a tackle, it's not getting called. It's a gentleman's agreement. Tackles and guards may be a different story because those guys are not snapping the ball but just blocking. Otherwise every pass play would feature a beast  DT bullrushing the center into the ground. 

Great post.

Bugg gets it.

[Xtina]

6 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

The ratings have nothing to do with protests. It's all about the product. Bad teams aren't getting better and people get tired of watching the same teams win all the time. Thursday games are typically not competitive. There is an over abundance of NFL games now. Three days a week is unnecessary. Him using the debates is also a poor excuse because most people would rather watch paint dry but he's got two terrible teams out there trying to get ratings. 

He's single handedly killed the goose that laid them the golden egg. Greedy greedy greedy 

[Xtina]

5 hours ago, Kleckineau said:

 

- Rules changes have resulted in a game that leaves 85% of the teams with literally no chance at a Superbowl win because they do not have a top 5 QB.. Not all too long ago you could win with decent defense and a very strong running game but those days are gone.

 

Truly ironic in the era of supposed parity they worked so hard to achieve. LOLZ 

[Xtina]

4 hours ago, The Crusher said:

Everybody is right and I agree.  What I notice is a change in what I discuss watching football.  Back before Goodell ruined it we discussed sweet catches, sacks, ball jarring hits and nice runs. Runs? Remember Barry Sanders? Now, like Cornfed stated, after every big play I scan for flags and forget to enjoy it.  It's totally awful.  Few years back rarely watched less than 3-4 entire games a week. MNF, 1oclock, 415, Sunday night football and whenever the Jets played. Now? I watch the Jets game and put Redzone on in the background for everything else. The product is crap! Period. 

And announcer commentary consists of making a ruling on whether there should be a flag, or "no flag coming". Geez! Why is it necessary to state something didn't happen!?!

[Snell41]

10 teams really have a QB that makes the a serious contender for the SB. The other 32 have zero shot. We're in the zero. Until the league figures out a way to allow teams to be competitive when they don't have a seasoned franchise QB this league will go downhill fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PatsFanTX]

10 teams really have a QB that makes the a serious contender for the SB. The other 32 have zero shot. We're in the zero. Until the league figures out a way to allow teams to be competitive when they don't have a seasoned franchise QB this league will go downhill fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might want to take a math refresher course.

[Cap'nObvious]

1 hour ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

You need to learn how the game of football is played.

As long as OLinemen keep their arms and elbows into their bodies, they can clutch and grab all they want and no penalty will be called.

Once they extend their arms to clutch and grab, holding will be called every single time.

Well coached teams know how to do this.
 

 

Yeah, thanks for the football lesson sport, I know what holding is, and no, when the Patriots do it, or the Giants do it, or most of the teams with top FF QB's do it, it does not get called.

[bitonti]

We are all die hard fans and too close to see the real reason.  Die hard fans watch even when the refs stink and even when their team stinks.

It's not the protests or the refs. It's not even the penalties or the overexposure. 

This thread is 4 pages long and no one's mentioned that people (ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE) aren't watching TV anymore

this thread is about TV ratings, well what happens when everyone under 35 stops watching TV in real time?

theres no growth in appealing to the 50-64's or the 65's and up. All the growth is in the millennials. 

the Atlantic had a great article but this is the future happening in real time. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/nfl-ratings-just-fell-off-a-cliff-why/503666/

The NFL remains the big fish in the TV pond but they won't be able to get all those billions in tv contracts when the tv pond keeps shrinking 

 

[rillo]

I don't believe the "protest" has anything to do with the drop In ratings. I'm sure it's turned some people off, but the overall product is sh*t. 

[Xtina]

30 minutes ago, bitonti said:

We are all die hard fans and too close to see the real reason.  Die hard fans watch even when the refs stink and even when their team stinks.

It's not the protests or the refs. It's not even the penalties or the overexposure. 

This thread is 4 pages long and no one's mentioned that people (ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE) aren't watching TV anymore

this thread is about TV ratings, well what happens when everyone under 35 stops watching TV in real time?

theres no growth in appealing to the 50-64's or the 65's and up. All the growth is in the millennials. 

the Atlantic had a great article but this is the future happening in real time. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/nfl-ratings-just-fell-off-a-cliff-why/503666/

The NFL remains the big fish in the TV pond but they won't be able to get all those billions in tv contracts when the tv pond keeps shrinking 

 

Until recently though the NFL was bulletproof and the exception to this phenomenon. It was one if the few remaining shows people would watch because of the excitement of seeing something live with no known outcome. Obviously the drawbacks have now outweighed that benefit 

[PatsFanTX]

Until recently though the NFL was bulletproof and the exception to this phenomenon. It was one if the few remaining shows people would watch because of the excitement of seeing something live with no known outcome. Obviously the drawbacks have now outweighed that benefit 

The rating drop in the NFL has nothing to do with hard-core fans, and everything to do with the casual fan.

You know, the ones who watch because Tom Brady is cute, that team has nice uniforms and OBJ has awesome hair.

The real wake-up call to the NFL will come when the likes of Anheuser-Busch, Nationwide and Papa John's renegotiate their 2017 advertising contracts.

[Jet Fan RI]

3 hours ago, drdetroit said:

They won't 

 

Even with ratings down it still makes money for the network 

 

Right. But my comment comes under the heading of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. At some point the overexposure will kill ratings, and revenue may go down. It may be happening already.

[Cap'nObvious]

3 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

The rating drop in the NFL has nothing to do with hard-core fans, and everything to do with the casual fan.

You know, the ones who watch because Tom Brady is cute, that team has nice uniforms and OBJ has awesome hair.

The real wake-up call to the NFL will come when the likes of Anheuser-Busch, Nationwide and Papa John's renegotiate their 2017 advertising contracts.

Oh, now we understand why your a Pats fan. 

[Jet Fan RI]

3 hours ago, chirorob said:

Some of the games are un watchable.  The Jets sucked last week, but some of the PI and defensive holding calls were really bad.  (that's not why they lost, no excuses).

You can't play defense,  you don't need games on 3-4 days a week, and you have to let people play a little bit.  The games are not as good as they were.

Bingo. Eliminating Thursday Night Football would be a step in the right direction.

[JetPotato]

2 hours ago, gEYno said:

Incorrect.  It's about the difficulty in attending games.  In general, this is how people become fans, and cement their fan hood.  Most people here talk about games they've attended as their first or most significant memory.  It's a typical response to the question that's often asked here, "how did you first become a Jets fan."  As it becomes more difficult to actually attend games, the overall interest drops with younger generations who find other things to do.

You're now basing this assessment on anecdotal evidence from a very specific demographic of users on this site that also represents a tiny sample size of the population. This entire thread is about TV ratings, not attendance (which has not declined). FYI, 20 years ago, you could only attend games if you were a season ticket holder. In the modern era of PSLs and StubHub, its MUCH, MUCH easier to attend an NFL game if you want to now. 

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, JetPotato said:

You're now basing this assessment on anecdotal evidence from a very specific demographic of users on this site that also represents a tiny sample size of the population. This entire thread is about TV ratings, not attendance (which has not declined). FYI, 20 years ago, you could only attend games if you were a season ticket holder. In the modern era of PSLs and StubHub, its MUCH, MUCH easier to attend an NFL game if you want to now. 

I'm using anecdotal evidence to bolster the point that in general, people become fans by attending games.  That is less financially accessible these days, despite the variety of methods of acquisition.  What I'm saying is that TV ratings is a reflection of overall interest, which I think is correlated to people not going to games as much.  Yes, attendance is still high, but many tickets are corporate owned, as opposed to family at this point.

[bitonti]

52 minutes ago, Xtina said:

Until recently though the NFL was bulletproof and the exception to this phenomenon. It was one if the few remaining shows people would watch because of the excitement of seeing something live with no known outcome. Obviously the drawbacks have now outweighed that benefit 

1

Until recently Millennials weren't bigger part of the population than Boomers. But it happened, in 2015

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ 

Put it another way this group of people love to binge watch and stream tv shows rather than going out to bars. but you can't binge watch the NFL in real time. It drip drip drips 30 minutes of action out over 3 hours. Young people won't sit around for that crap like previous generations.  Maybe for the Super Bowl where they can live tweet it or whatever. 

[Cap'nObvious]

I can tell you personally, I always considered myself a hard core fan, I had season tickets forever, and would use sling box to watch the other games in the lot or on the way home. I never missed a prime time game, and during away games I was a pig in sh!t watching every game on TV. Now, I pretty much watch the Jets, and the Jets only. I gave up my season tickets, and I very rarely watch any other game besides the Jets. I just don't care about the other games anymore, nor do I care about football outside of the Jets like I used to. I think they have completely butchered the product. Even MNF which I used to love as much as the Jets game, I just don't care about it at all, and won't watch it if the Jets are not playing.

[RutgersJetFan]

3 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Until recently Millennials weren't bigger part of the population than Boomers. But it happened, in 2015

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ 

Put it another way this group of people love to binge watch and stream tv shows rather than going out to bars. but you can't binge watch the NFL in real time. It drip drip drips 30 minutes of action out over 3 hours. Young people won't sit around for that crap like previous generations.  Maybe for the Super Bowl where they can live tweet it or whatever. 

plus they hate employment and freedom

[bitonti]

39 minutes ago, gEYno said:

I'm using anecdotal evidence to bolster the point that in general, people become fans by attending games.  That is less financially accessible these days, despite the variety of methods of acquisition.  What I'm saying is that TV ratings is a reflection of overall interest, which I think is correlated to people not going to games as much.  Yes, attendance is still high, but many tickets are corporate owned, as opposed to family at this point.

2

This is a decent point. If the tickets were easier to afford, more would be exposed to that feeling of a live game. It's not the only reason tv ratings have gone down but certainly doesn't help. 

[southparkcpa]

3 hours ago, gEYno said:

I'm using anecdotal evidence to bolster the point that in general, people become fans by attending games.  That is less financially accessible these days, despite the variety of methods of acquisition.  What I'm saying is that TV ratings is a reflection of overall interest, which I think is correlated to people not going to games as much.  Yes, attendance is still high, but many tickets are corporate owned, as opposed to family at this point.

Not sure I agree.  I grew up poor, on LI, NEVER attended a game until college in Buffalo.  JETS. BILLS.   I was a solid fan before that.   I think that with the advent of red zone, the politics citing KAP,  economics of watching guys make 20 million and hardly showing up is turning off some fans. 

 

 

[PFSIKH]

4 hours ago, bitonti said:

This is a decent point. If the tickets were easier to afford, more would be exposed to that feeling of a live game. It's not the only reason tv ratings have gone down but certainly doesn't help. 

I think your original point is more of a factor than this.  17 million people saw an NFL game last year out of a country of 320 million.  That is less than 1% of the population and that is not even factoring in season ticket holders.  People's first experience is more likely from playing it or watching it and becoming a fan.  

The NFL probably has a similar chart showing the decline in people watching TV.  How many different platforms can you now watch a game on?  Yes, the old farts can watch it on TV still.  Although I like the Red Zone more than any game not involving the Patriots.  You can watch it online or buy NFL Game Pass  and watch the game at your convenience.  Plus, with the availability of knowing what the score is so long as I have cell service, I do not feel the need to be wearing our my couch watching a game.

I do not think it is so much a decline in popularity, but more of a fundamental change in societal viewing habits combined with technological advancements.

[flgreen]

12 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

I think your original point is more of a factor than this.  17 million people saw an NFL game last year out of a country of 320 million.  That is less than 1% of the population and that is not even factoring in season ticket holders.  People's first experience is more likely from playing it or watching it and becoming a fan.  

The NFL probably has a similar chart showing the decline in people watching TV.  How many different platforms can you now watch a game on?  Yes, the old farts can watch it on TV still.  Although I like the Red Zone more than any game not involving the Patriots.  You can watch it online or buy NFL Game Pass  and watch the game at your convenience.  Plus, with the availability of knowing what the score is so long as I have cell service, I do not feel the need to be wearing our my couch watching a game.

I do not think it is so much a decline in popularity, but more of a fundamental change in societal viewing habits combined with technological advancements.

It's actually 5% but who's counting

[David Harris]

My #1 issue with the NFL isand has always been the number of commercials. 

 

All ll the other issues discussed here have tipped me over the edge but I have always been near it due to the interminable advertisements.

[RoadFan]

23 minutes ago, David Harris said:

My #1 issue with the NFL isand has always been the number of commercials. 

 

All ll the other issues discussed here have tipped me over the edge but I have always been near it due to the interminable advertisements.

Constant stops in the action, and the difficult intricacies of the rules is what makes this game so unappealing to foreign countries.

It has begun to affect my desire to watch now too.  That and the fact that the rules have made it virtually impossible to play defense without a  <2  second pass rush.

[Larz]

I already explained it

peyton withdrawl

there are no star QB's worth watching anymore

[The Crusher]

41 minutes ago, Larz said:

I already explained it

peyton withdrawl

there are no star QB's worth watching anymore

Olivia Munns Coochie Has destroyed Aaron Rodgers and not even the Allstate double check could save him. 

[SAR I]

14 hours ago, Cap'nObvious said:

The product is less and less for the fans of the game, and more and more for the betting of the game. Betting has always been a big part, but they have taken it too far, out of pure greed. The rules, the officiating, the product, all of it is geared towards betting. I know so many people who care much more about their fantasy team, either season or daily, then they do about the team they used to root for. The penalties are just awful, the inconsistency, the random nature of it, the way they call them, all awful. They will allow certain teams with good Fantasy QB's OL hold, literally tackle and mug DL on every play, and never call it, and then in the same game call some BS holding call on the other team. And the ticky tack nature of the illegal contact, defensive holding calls are killing the game. The product is pretty much shot, and never will be the same. For now, its still good enough to keep people betting and watching, but will see how long it stays that way.

I don't believe any of this, gambling is simply not that important outside of a small group of degenerates. 

SAR I