Jump to content

NFL 2017 Week 3: Now Panic Begins!


Rhom

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

THAT'S the issue the NFL chooses to "do it for the fans"?  Yeah, that makes sense. 

Let's say you asked NFL fans, "would you be ok with the NFL season lasting one week longer, with every team having two byes?"  This would have the advantage of one more weekend of the year with NFL football (which is way better than no football), and it would allow more guys to return from injuries.  I'm sure some people wouldn't like missing out on their team for one more week, but I think a lot of fans would happily jump at that.  I know I would.  And yet, the NFL instead talks about making the season longer only in the context of playing a 17 or 18 game season.  Which just exposes the lie that the NFL cares about player safety. 

Trust me man, I’m right there with you. The NFL is simply shortsighted and adverse to change. And that’s not surprising given the average age of the people running it, both in the league office and the owners.

On the issue of multiple bye weeks, would you rather have two and have them rotate in a way the current bye week does so there’s still games on, or would it be better to just have two (or three) weeks where it’s a league wide bye week like they do in soccer*?

*Also, I think soccer, and the EPL in particular, has the best format in all of sports. You want to make football better? Relegate teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@sperry

Some of the points you raised are valid and some aren’t, but they’re all secondary. The main problem is simple and clear: the product is awful right now.

 

 

Which of my points "aren't valid"?


As for the product being "not good." If the product is not good now, than it never has been. This is pretty much what the NFL is. Again, the differnece is the games you see. In the past, the matchups people saw on TV were all good. Now they put a shit game in Thursday night prime time, and a shit game in Monday night prime time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trust me man, I’m right there with you. The NFL is simply shortsighted and adverse to change. And that’s not surprising given the average age of the people running it, both in the league office and the owners.

On the issue of multiple bye weeks, would you rather have two and have them rotate in a way the current bye week does so there’s still games on, or would it be better to just have two (or three) weeks where it’s a league wide bye week like they do in soccer*?

*Also, I think soccer, and the EPL in particular, has the best format in all of sports. You want to make football better? Relegate teams.

Oh definitely rotate bye weeks so there's teams playing every week.  I actually kind of enjoy the Redskins bye week, it is pressure free, I jget to just enjoy football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Which of my points "aren't valid"?

Goodell, helmets and younger generation not caring about sports. Goodell is an idiot, and it think you’d have a hard time finding someone who disagrees, but I don’t think that affects viewership or interest in the NFL, at least not in a statistically significant way. The helmets have always been there, and while I agree that it cuts down on the number of visible stars, again, I don’t think that affects viewership or interest. Lastly, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that younger people don’t care about sports. What is a problem for the NFL is that there are a lot more sports to choose from now, and sports that used to be exclusive (for example, lacrosse) are now available to the masses. And as far as attention spans being destroyed goes, that’s not exclusive to kids, but it is hurting the NFL. I know a lot of people that used to switch from game to game and watch all day and now they just watch things like Redzone.

50 minutes ago, sperry said:

As for the product being "not good." If the product is not good now, than it never has been. This is pretty much what the NFL is. Again, the differnece is the games you see. In the past, the matchups people saw on TV were all good. Now they put a shit game in Thursday night prime time, and a shit game in Monday night prime time. 

I think there is something to the argument that we’re seeing too many games and that dilutes the product. The best example of this is March Madness. But I don’t agree that the product has always been the same. The NFL is currently overrun with teams playing scared and dinking and dunking. The Vikings-Lions game last Thanksgiving was the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Bradford an Stafford were competing to see who could throw more passes for under three yards. Also, the O-Line play and to a lesser extent, the QB play has been bad. I miss the days of the power run scheme and when teams would go full Sexy Rexy and say “F it coach, I’m going deep.” Those styles of play are less effective, but they’re so much more aesthetically pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm curious now: how many teams are there in the league that you would consider are 'good' or better?

From hearing chat, it sounds like Atlanta, Denver, KC, Oakland, Tampa, New England...is that it?

I would much rather discuss all the various ways all other teams suck but I GUESS I can do this.

Okay, that was a lie: I really just want to write 20 pages on why the Jets suck.  

But point of order: what do we define as "good?"  To me a "good" team will play well enough to:

a) Make the playoffs: I cannot remember the last really good team that did NOT make the playoffs. People sometime say the 2008 Pats (w/out Brady) with 11 wins, but not only was that an aberration, but the Pats were NOT that good that season, having lost to EVERY. SINGLE. TEAM. On their schedule with a winning record.  That's not a "good" team.  In order to be good you must be in the top 1/3 of teams (ie: 12 of the 32 teams that make the playoffs every season).

b ) Consistently Defeats Teams That are Objectively Worse: If your 3-0 team loses to a 0-3 team that ultimately finishes 2-14; you... you;re not good!  Yes, it happens, but good teams consistently defeat teams worse than them. 

c) The team Inconsistently Defeats Teams Better Than Them: One could argue that the 2017 Chiefs are not really better than the 2017 Pats.  But you know what?  A "good" team can pull off wins against better teams (again, lets not get into an argument here- I actually believe KC IS better than the Pats, I just wanted to use it as an example).  Every now and then.  And sometimes its in a Superbowl (2001 Pats, 2007 Giants).

d) General Competency: Your team is competent in the following areas 1) avoiding major mistakes, 2) clock management, 3) ball security, 4) personnel decisions with players and coaches, 5) avoiding major issues with their best players, 6) have some general dedication to winning.  

e) Core: The Core of the team, usually the head coach and QB (but can also be DBs, LBs, RB etc) - are proven commodities and have shown that they are up to the challenge and will not wilt (I am looking right at you Jim Caldwell).  

Anyway. here are the teams I think are good:

The Great Goods 

1. Pats: You are all stunned by this.  Pats consistently defeat teams they are better than; they are EASILY the most competent team in the league, with a head coach and QB that are proven winners and have a playoff pedigree that is extremely reliable.  

2. KC: For reasons already mentioned.  Andy Reid has flaws, but getting his team to play is not one of them.  Generally, I think Alex Smith is good enough to make the playoffs with and that is generally what you need.  I mean, if KC played Jacksonville tomorrow you would bet on KC right?  

3. Atlanta: They tore apart GB with ease.  They were within 3 minutes of being SB champs; Ryan is an MVP and their HC is keeping that team focused.  

4. Oakland: While they have issues on D and their head coach has not been really tested, they know how to play, beat teams with ease and will almost certainly be in the playoffs.  

5. Denver: That D is great. Also, they annihilated Dallas and that should not have happened that easily.  I DO have some questions, most notably if Simian has long-term staying power but this team seems to have all it needs.  

The Good Goods:

6. TB: I think they are good, but I am not certain.  They seem to have everything they need, but they have played ONE game this season and it was versus the Bears and the Bears suck out loud.  I am also not sold on the head coach.  

7. Ravens: I think the Ravens are the quietest 2-0 team right now so its a little bit of surprise but that team kind of has it all.  Tested QB, great HC,  talent at skill positions and vets on D.  This is a CLASSIC "good" team in that they will ALWAYS beat Cleveland and every now and then beat KC or the Pats.  

8. Pittsburgh: The question here is whether or not Fat-Fuck Ben has mentally checked out.  So far the answer is "no" but that could change.  Brown and Bell are studs and the D is playing fine right now.  I just happen to think Mike Tomlin is not very good at his job (he is RAPIDLY rising on another one of my lists: Worst Head Coaches Who Have Won a Super Bowl).  Still, they are good.  

The Spoiled Goods (I do not think these teams are ACTUALLY good) 

9. Detroit: No.  At least "Not Yet."  Stafford is playing well and the WRs are really strong.  But Jim Caldwell... Look, I would like for the team to be good because they deserve it and maybe they are there but I don't trust that guy (even though... made it to the playoffs last season and these guys PLAY for him; the team seems to go for him).  Of all the teams, this is the one I want to be wrong about.  

10. Seattle: They scored 12 whole points against the 49'ers.  Wilson is hated by the D and the D is starting to leak.  They were annihilated by GB.  The guild has fallen off the Pete Carroll lily.  Free fall is but a few weeks away. 

11. Green Bay: Right now if I am a Packers fan I am doing a "New-England-Fan-Circa-2012-Impression" WHY ARE YOU WASTING OUR QB'S PRIME ON THESE ASSHOLES?!!?!?  He won't be young forever/His HGH Guy is ABSOLUTELY going t be pinched by the Feds soon!  WHAT ARE YOU DOING?????!!!"  And Mike McCarthy is monstrously overrated.  

12. Panthers: Smoke, mirrors, wins over two bad teams.  This team has to do A LOT to convince me they have their heads on straight since the SB loss.  

There is no other team in the NFL that I think is legitimately good where there would be no discussion and I would need a LOT of convincing. Sure MAYBE Miami but I saw Sunday and I don't trust ANYONE on that team.  Houston?  No Qb.  Titans?  Unproven.  Cowboys?  They collapsed for no good reason.  

But only time will tell.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Goodell, helmets and younger generation not caring about sports. Goodell is an idiot, and it think you’d have a hard time finding someone who disagrees, but I don’t think that affects viewership or interest in the NFL, at least not in a statistically significant way. The helmets have always been there, and while I agree that it cuts down on the number of visible stars, again, I don’t think that affects viewership or interest. Lastly, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that younger people don’t care about sports. What is a problem for the NFL is that there are a lot more sports to choose from now, and sports that used to be exclusive (for example, lacrosse) are now available to the masses. And as far as attention spans being destroyed goes, that’s not exclusive to kids, but it is hurting the NFL. I know a lot of people that used to switch from game to game and watch all day and now they just watch things like Redzone.

I think there is something to the argument that we’re seeing too many games and that dilutes the product. The best example of this is March Madness. But I don’t agree that the product has always been the same. The NFL is currently overrun with teams playing scared and dinking and dunking. The Vikings-Lions game last Thanksgiving was the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Bradford an Stafford were competing to see who could throw more passes for under three yards. Also, the O-Line play and to a lesser extent, the QB play has been bad. I miss the days of the power run scheme and when teams would go full Sexy Rexy and say “F it coach, I’m going deep.” Those styles of play are less effective, but they’re so much more aesthetically pleasing.

 

Goodell consistently making the league look bad does hurt viewership. It's incremental, but it happens.  The helmets matter because stars are more important in the age of social media. Stars in basketball are brand ambassadors for the NBA with millions of followers who can reach those fans and give the league free advertising and publicity every day. It gets fans engaged with the brand and it's huge. That doesn't happen in the NFL outside of a small handful of stars at the top.

 

I should say that younger kids don't care about watching live professional sports.

 

I also don't think we're seeing way too many games. I think we're seeing hte wrong games.  The Thursday night and Monday night games are throwaway games. The NFL thought they could monetize their worst games by sticking them in primetime. That was a bad idea. They need to go back to putting the best games in primetime and in the 4 PM national slot, and putting the dogshit games in the middle of the fray on Sunday afternoon.

 

As for the style of play, I don't think this is accurate. It's not fun to watch bad offenses play. It is fun to watch good offenses play.  Browns-Ravens was just as bad 15 years ago as it was today. Yeah, that Vikings-Lions game sucked, but it's not any worse than watching Jon Kitna vs. Brian Griese. There are a lot of bad offensive systems today, just like there were a lot of bad offensive systems 15 years ago. It wasn't fun to watch then, and it's not fun to watch now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized that last weekend was almost assuredly the last time we'll see Brady vs Brees.  Not much chance of them meeting in the SB with New Orleans being such a mess, and I'm very doubtful they're both still playing in the 2021 season. 

Not that Brady vs Brees was ever a truly heated rivalry, they never met in the playoffs and don't have any particularly memorable games.  Just another sign that the golden age of quarterbacking is coming to an end.  While there are a fair few competent younger guys coming along, few of them look ready to enter the truly elite company of Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers.  Guys like Wilson, Luck, Ryan, Newton may have great years, but they also have some bad years too in a way that those four do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my kids are far more interested in watching good players play videogames than they are sports heroes. 

One of the coolest things at PAX was seeing the massive proliferation of jerseys for eSports teams. And these are really fucking cool jerseys. Seriously, look at this shit. I think the younger generation still likes seeing competition, still likes seeing teams they like and support, but they're doing it in a way that they can engage with far faster and better, and the product is better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

Goodell consistently making the league look bad does hurt viewership. It's incremental, but it happens.  The helmets matter because stars are more important in the age of social media. Stars in basketball are brand ambassadors for the NBA with millions of followers who can reach those fans and give the league free advertising and publicity every day. It gets fans engaged with the brand and it's huge. That doesn't happen in the NFL outside of a small handful of stars at the top.

 

I have a hard time seeing Goodell's clown show having much of an affect on viewership, except at the extreme margins.And while you do raise an interesting point about how the helmets affect branding, I still think it's negative impact on interest and viewership is minimal. I just haven't heard many people cite these as reasons for why they're turning away from football.

1 hour ago, sperry said:

I should say that younger kids don't care about watching live professional sports.

Are you talking about as they're being played or live in person? Because if it's the former I'd have to disagree at least to some extent while also saying that's kind of becoming true for everyone, but if it's the latter then I absolutely agree. 

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

I also don't think we're seeing way too many games. I think we're seeing hte wrong games.  The Thursday night and Monday night games are throwaway games. The NFL thought they could monetize their worst games by sticking them in primetime. That was a bad idea. They need to go back to putting the best games in primetime and in the 4 PM national slot, and putting the dogshit games in the middle of the fray on Sunday afternoon.

 

I could be wrong about us seeing too many games, but I feel like when I was a kid (say 20 years ago) I'd get to see 3-4 games each week, and it would be a Vikings and a Packers game and the two best games of the week. Now you do have a point about putting the bad games in prime time, but there's only so much they can control. Lions at Giants looked like a decent game going into the season. And well.....

1 hour ago, sperry said:

As for the style of play, I don't think this is accurate. It's not fun to watch bad offenses play. It is fun to watch good offenses play.  Browns-Ravens was just as bad 15 years ago as it was today. Yeah, that Vikings-Lions game sucked, but it's not any worse than watching Jon Kitna vs. Brian Griese. There are a lot of bad offensive systems today, just like there were a lot of bad offensive systems 15 years ago. It wasn't fun to watch then, and it's not fun to watch now.

Generally speaking you're right, but I feel like the style of play that's in vogue today is just very entertaining. I want to see the QB drive the ball down the field, not dump it off 90% of the time.

Big picture though, I really think the two biggest reasons that the ratings are down quite a bit is bad offensive play league wide and the flags. Sure there are other factors as you've pointed out, but I feel like those are the two main driving factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as far as TV ratings being down I think the answer is pretty obvious but lets look at some of the countervailing theories out there:  

Quote

Roger Goodell.  The CEO is a bumbling buffoon. That's not a good place to be. He consistently botches everything he touches. America is incredibly polarized, yet no one likes Goodell. That's difficult to accomplish. Dude is less popular than Donald Trump, which is impressive.

I hate Rodger Goodell, but I don't see a straight line from his stupidity to lower TV ratings.  Almost universally, the actions of the NFL are the collective will of the owners.  Goodell may have fucked up Ray Rice etc but football still saw increases in ratings at that time.  And his popularity is meaningless; leagues have always had unpopular commissioners and it has almost no effect on viewership.  

Quote

Helmets: Helmets = no stars. There are only three real stars in the NFL right now:  Rodgers, Brady, Odell Beckham.  NBA has tons of recognizable figures. Kahlil Mack is a top 10 player in the NFL, but if you showed me his picture vs. 5 other similarly built black dudes, I couldn't pick him out because you never see his face.

This does not explain, though, why Football has been unbelievably popular in the twenty-five years preceding the small dip in ratings currently.  They wore helmets in 1998 too; the players' faces were just as unrecognizable.  

Quote

The fantasy football bubble:  the NFL picked up millions of casual fans in the mid aughts as fantasy football blew up. Turns out, fantasy football isn't a great game. Way too many guys get hurt. Way too much variance. Way too swingy if somebody picks up a waiver wire guy that turns into a bellcow running back. I would wager that fantasy participation is WAY down.

I think there is a lot of truth in this.  But, once again, injuries have been an inseparable part of the sport for so long.  I think fantasy football should share in the credit of football's rise and some of the blame in its minor decline, but I think its an overstatement generally to say it has had a huge impact in the decline.  Draft Kings etc are super popular regardless.  . 

Quote

Netflix, Hulu, etc.  10 years ago, no one would compete with the NFL on tv.  So that was kind of the only thing on. Now people can watch whatever the hell they want, when they want.

I completely agree with this.  Movie box-offices are down; TV ratings are generally down and have been for several years; time-delay viewing is a problem and the Internet is invading everything.  This is a problem for any scheduled entertainment as technology has allowed people to be more flexible in their viewing.

Quote

Younger generation doesn't seem to care much about sports. Smart-phone destroyed attention spans have kind of killed the premise of watching a 3 hour sporting event. Kids get their sports through highlights and gifs on twitter.

I do not see this at all.  First off, child participation in sports, nation-wide, its a hard number to calculate - the Fed does not pay attention to children in sports prior to high school so any data gathered is by private companies.  And those companies are usually trying to sell something and their data collection process may not be great.  And while participation has - according to those surveys - been declining you still see anywhere between 30%-40% participation in sports depending on the age.  And I generally do not completely trust the numbers to begin with for the reasons stated.  Second, from my own personal experience I see a lot of children participation in sports - both of my daughters play soccer and the city I am in has a gigantic soccer program which is packed with kids of all ages.  Further, as a family-law attorney I deal with many divorces involving children and extracurricular activities are huge and invariably they involve a child in a competitive sport.  Now, again, like everyone else, my experience is limited to myself, but at least in Massachusetts I do not see this phenomenon.  

Now, with all that lets get to the area I 100% agree. 

Quote

Putting awful games on Monday and Thursday nights. This was just arrogance, and it's hurting them. People tune in for these games, and see shit product. Makes them less likely to tune in for other games. The beauty of the Sunday afternoon dominance is that you can bury those shit games and no one has to see them. Instead, you end up with the good games all at the same time on Sunday, and the trash on Monday and Thursday. If they fix that, they'll be in much better shape.

This.  The stand-alone game schedule is driving down the entire product because those games suck.  Thursday night games are awful at every level but they are worse because they don't even need to exist.  If you got rid of Thursday Night football altogether it would not be a great loss.  But more to the point, the games THEMSELVES suck.  Here is the Thursday and Monday Night Football games from hereon out: Rams at 49'ers: (Two terrible teams); Bears at Packers, (One good team, one terrible one).; Pats at Bucs: (Legit good game); Eagles at Panthers; (Two "meh" teams); KC at Oakland (Great game); Dolphins at Ravens (Two okay teams, but why should we care?); Vikings at Browns (One okay team, one terrible team); Bills at Jets (Two terrible teams); Seahawks at Cards: (Probably two mediocre teams); Tenn at Pitt (Okay team v. good team, prob a good game); Washington DC v. Cowboys (I think this is a perfectly acceptable game to have on TV even if its not a perfect game); Saints at Falcons: (Mediocre team v. great team); Broncos at Colts (Prob a good team v. terrible one); Bears at Lions: (Terrible team v. okay team); Chargers at KC (Terrible team v. good team); Colts at Ravens (Not sure but seems like a crappy game); Steelers at Houston (I think this game could be good to watch). 

By this we have 5 games that seem good enough to watch, 4 mediocre ones and 9 games that involve at least one terrible team thereby making them not worth watching.  Monday Night is not as bad, but they contain many games that are not "bad" but certainly not good- far more consistently mediocre.  

Overall, though, if we are discussing TV ratings I think the MOST important thing to look at it what product is being put on TV.  And the stand-alone games generally suck, though Sunday Night's product is great (generally).  

Another culprit here is Red Zone.  When I watch NFL football, unless the Pats are on, I watch it through Red Zone.  Red Zone is great for fantasy players; its great to avoid boring games; its great to watch the most exciting stuff as it happens; it gives you variety etc.  So, Red Zone is an answer to EVERY SINGLE criticism you articulated above.  

Further, we need to look at the problem if innovation when you are at the top.  The NFL is, by far, the most successful sports organization in the US.  And they have been since the mid 90s.  In order to stay at the top you need to do a few things; but the mantra "If its Not Broke, Don't Fix It" sustained the NFL for decades.  So the need for innovation and the desire to innovate were just never there.  And this is true even in sports that are NOT at the top- Major League baseball is, only now, after the problem has rotten the sport from the inside, finally dealing with the pace of the game (current pace of a major league baseball game: dead).  I think the problem is that the NFL did not want to mess with success, a major problem in top-dog organizations because the NEED to innovate was so low.  

And we should also leave open the possibility that the dip in ratings is natural given that NFL ratings were on an unprecedented rise for the prior 8-10 seasons; so a "market correction" seemed in order.  Also, 2016 is a bit of an anomaly with the Presidential election and 2017 started off with games being outright cancelled due to storms and those storms continuing.  Overall, MLB, NBA and the NHL would sell their players' children if they could attain half the ratings the NFL garners week in and week out.  

I ultimately think that the NFL needs to beef up its stand-alone games by eliminating Thursday Nights and putting a better product on the TV when its the only game in town.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2017 at 7:10 AM, sperry said:
  • Helmets: Helmets = no stars. There are only three real stars in the NFL right now:  Rodgers, Brady, Odell Beckham.  NBA has tons of recognizable figures. Kahlil Mack is a top 10 player in the NFL, but if you showed me his picture vs. 5 other similarly built black dudes, I couldn't pick him out because you never see his face.

Why are you singling out black players? Plenty of other people don't have this problem. Sounds like a you problem.

Every game starts with showing the starting lineup and all the players headshots (or goofy intros if primetime) -- I can certainly pick out Von Miller, Zeke Elliot, Aaron Donald, Michael Bennett, OBJ, Julio, etc. -- that's not including Patriots who I would typically recognize if they've been around for more than a year. If you can't be bothered to pay attention -- that's on you bud. No wonder the players think they are treated like chattel. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2017 at 7:10 AM, sperry said:

My thoughts on the biggest problems facing the NFL:

 

  • Helmets: Helmets = no stars. There are only three real stars in the NFL right now:  Rodgers, Brady, Odell Beckham.  NBA has tons of recognizable figures. Kahlil Mack is a top 10 player in the NFL, but if you showed me his picture vs. 5 other similarly built black dudes, I couldn't pick him out because you never see his face.
  • The fantasy football bubble:  the NFL picked up millions of casual fans in the mid aughts as fantasy football blew up. Turns out, fantasy football isn't a great game. Way too many guys get hurt. Way too much variance. Way too swingy if somebody picks up a waiver wire guy that turns into a bellcow running back. I would wager that fantasy participation is WAY down.

1.  JJ Watt is undeniably a star. Gronk as well.

2.I suspect you'd lose that wager quite badly. Daily Fantasy Football has become huge.  If there has been a drop in the full season style, the daily has easily picked up the slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Week said:

Why are you singling out black players? Plenty of other people don't have this problem. Sounds like a you problem.

Every game starts with showing the starting lineup and all the players headshots (or goofy intros if primetime) -- I can certainly pick out Von Miller, Zeke Elliot, Aaron Donald, Michael Bennett, OBJ, Julio, etc. -- that's not including Patriots who I would typically recognize if they've been around for more than a year. If you can't be bothered to pay attention -- that's on you bud. No wonder the players think they are treated like chattel. 

 

That's not a unique or original problem he has articulated.  I have heard it for years from talking heads.  

And its not a bug, its a feature.  The NBA has marketed stars since the 1980's.  Bird vs Magic.  MJ.  Kobe.  LBJ.  KD and Curry.  And if you notice, the time period everyone says the NBA was terrible (late 90's early 2000's) was the one period without one of those guys at the forefront of the game.  Once Kobe became the face in LA and then seamlessly handed off to LeBron, the league has been on a continued uptick.

The NFL on the other hand has always marketed the team over the individual.  Its evident all the way down to revenue sharing.  The helmets and the lack of push by the league as a whole is why you don't recognize them without helmets.  Could he have picked a random white tight end for his example?  Maybe.  But the NFL is 68% black and 28% white.  Why would you try to make a representative argument out of a demographic that isn't represented as the majority?  That's on you bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Week said:

Why are you singling out black players? Plenty of other people don't have this problem. Sounds like a you problem.

I think that’s a little unfair. Most guys in the NFL are black. I know you might not know this, given that you’re a Pats fan, but it’s true.

:P

21 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Once Kobe became the face in LA and then seamlessly handed off to LeBron, the league has been on a continued uptick.

Don’t let Kobe know you said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Why would you try to make a representative argument out of a demographic that isn't represented as the majority?  That's on you bud.

Why was skin color necessary to point out at all? 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think that’s a little unfair. Most guys in the NFL are black. I know you might not know this, given that you’re a Pats fan, but it’s true.

Unfair, maybe (I disagree) -- but it's worth calling out how we talk about people and race. I read that and it seemed pretty odd to me -- frankly, I was surprised that nobody else commented. Perhaps thems the nuts on a mostly white board (no data, just anecdotal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most recognizable guys in the NFL are the guys that appear in national TV ads.  That's really the only way that you see a guy's face over and over again before he retires and takes to the booth.  So the truly recognizable guys in the NFL are disproportionately white because more companies want white players as pitchmen. 

Guys that have been in a lot of national ads:  Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, RG3, Odell Beckham, Clay Matthews, JJ Watt, Von Miller.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 10:10 AM, sperry said:

My thoughts on the biggest problems facing the NFL:

 

  • Roger Goodell.  The CEO is a bumbling buffoon. That's not a good place to be. He consistently botches everything he touches. America is incredibly polarized, yet no one likes Goodell. That's difficult to accomplish. Dude is less popular than Donald Trump, which is impressive.
  • Putting awful games on Monday and Thursday nights. This was just arrogance, and it's hurting them. People tune in for these games, and see shit product. Makes them less likely to tune in for other games. The beauty of the Sunday afternoon dominance is that you can bury those shit games and no one has to see them. Instead, you end up with the good games all at the same time on Sunday, and the trash on Monday and Thursday. If they fix that, they'll be in much better shape.
  • Helmets: Helmets = no stars. There are only three real stars in the NFL right now:  Rodgers, Brady, Odell Beckham.  NBA has tons of recognizable figures. Kahlil Mack is a top 10 player in the NFL, but if you showed me his picture vs. 5 other similarly built black dudes, I couldn't pick him out because you never see his face.
  • The fantasy football bubble:  the NFL picked up millions of casual fans in the mid aughts as fantasy football blew up. Turns out, fantasy football isn't a great game. Way too many guys get hurt. Way too much variance. Way too swingy if somebody picks up a waiver wire guy that turns into a bellcow running back. I would wager that fantasy participation is WAY down.
  • Netflix, Hulu, etc.  10 years ago, no one would compete with the NFL on tv.  So that was kind of the only thing on. Now people can watch whatever the hell they want, when they want.
  • Younger generation doesn't seem to care much about sports. Smart-phone destroyed attention spans have kind of killed the premise of watching a 3 hour sporting event. Kids get their sports through highlights and gifs on twitter.
  • Other factors: Politics, CTE, etc.  I don't think people are tuning out because of Colin Kaepernick.  I don't think people are tuning out because of CTE.  But they are a constant barrage of negative perception that only hurts the NFL's overall image and may incrementally tune out users.

Here's @sperry entire post.

2 hours ago, Week said:

Why are you singling out black players? Plenty of other people don't have this problem. Sounds like a you problem.

Every game starts with showing the starting lineup and all the players headshots (or goofy intros if primetime) -- I can certainly pick out Von Miller, Zeke Elliot, Aaron Donald, Michael Bennett, OBJ, Julio, etc. -- that's not including Patriots who I would typically recognize if they've been around for more than a year. If you can't be bothered to pay attention -- that's on you bud. No wonder the players think they are treated like chattel. 

 

Here's @Week entire post

24 minutes ago, Week said:

Why was skin color necessary to point out at all? 

Unfair, maybe (I disagree) -- but it's worth calling out how we talk about people and race. I read that and it seemed pretty odd to me -- frankly, I was surprised that nobody else commented. Perhaps thems the nuts on a mostly white board (no data, just anecdotal)

Dude... look in the damn mirror.  Who was the one that made it a race question?!!?

Sperry accurately points out that Khalil Mack is a top ten player in the NFL.  The league as I noted is 68% black, therefore yes... it stands to reason that the top ten would include approximately 7 black guys.  (That may or may not be true.)  You are the one who made race an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should clarify -- I was overly harsh in tone, but my point stands. It's a problematic way of describing what is thought of as the issue (i.e. helmets). 

Ok Rhom, whatever you say. It hit me as an inappropriate way of talking about it. You disagree. Wonderful -- clearly I'm the racist. Re-posting the entire post is irrelevant. Some real fucking white fragility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...