Jakuvious Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: They need to change the format on how they decide prime time games. Using previous year records is just as bad as using strength of schedule. Out of the 256 regular season games, they have roughly 90 televised games a year (including double-headers based on location) with 48 of them being on prime time. I see no reason why they cannot spread this out evenly so that every fan can see their team atleast twice a year. Because that isn't what primetime games are for. The purpose of primetime games is to maximize revenue for the NFL by showcasing games that will have the highest overall viewership, which in turn is best for fans because it gives them (in theory) games worth watching in those slots. You try to put good games in those slots so fans of teams other than the teams playing will watch. Fans are generally going to watch their team regardless of time slot. So you're trying to get primetime games that everyone will watch to increase overall viewership. Giving Buffalo or Oakland more primetime games next year wouldn't actually benefit anyone, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Jakuvious said: Because that isn't what primetime games are for. The purpose of primetime games is to maximize revenue for the NFL by showcasing games that will have the highest overall viewership, which in turn is best for fans because it gives them (in theory) games worth watching in those slots. You try to put good games in those slots so fans of teams other than the teams playing will watch. Fans are generally going to watch their team regardless of time slot. So you're trying to get primetime games that everyone will watch to increase overall viewership. Giving Buffalo or Oakland more primetime games next year wouldn't actually benefit anyone, really. I get the purpose of it, don't get me wrong(I know the NFL is all about $$$). But in this day and age, when everyone has the availability and resources to watch games, how would there be a drop off in ratings? Alot of us (even on here) still tune in no matter whop is playing. We all watch last season when they featured SF and that turned out to be one of the best games I have personally watched in a long time. Regardless of how it looked on paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 I thought Primetime was only reserved for the NFC East Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: I get the purpose of it, don't get me wrong(I know the NFL is all about $$$). But in this day and age, when everyone has the availability and resources to watch games, how would there be a drop off in ratings? Alot of us (even on here) still tune in no matter whop is playing. We all watch last season when they featured SF and that turned out to be one of the best games I have personally watched in a long time. Regardless of how it looked on paper. Games like Denver/Oakland on MNF or TEN/HOU on TNF had literally half the viewers of games like LAR/KC or NO/DAL in the same timeslots. It makes a HUGE difference in viewership. Of course people around here watch regardless, we're signed up for a forum and spend our free time discussing football. We're a little more than casual fans. Everyone is going to watch a game like LAR/KC on MNF. On Sunday afternoon, most people literally can't due to geography. On the flip side, a lot of people won't tune in to a game like Denver/Oakland regardless of timeslot. A lot of the people watching it will be the people who would have regardless, in fans of those teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, DigInBoys said: I thought Primetime was only reserved for the NFC East As it should be.😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 30 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Games like Denver/Oakland on MNF or TEN/HOU on TNF had literally half the viewers of games like LAR/KC or NO/DAL in the same timeslots. It makes a HUGE difference in viewership. Of course people around here watch regardless, we're signed up for a forum and spend our free time discussing football. We're a little more than casual fans. Everyone is going to watch a game like LAR/KC on MNF. On Sunday afternoon, most people literally can't due to geography. On the flip side, a lot of people won't tune in to a game like Denver/Oakland regardless of timeslot. A lot of the people watching it will be the people who would have regardless, in fans of those teams. DEN/OAK was a late week 16 season game featuring 2 teams who at that point drew no interest. IND/TEN didn't do well either in week 17. But NE/GB did GREAT in week 9 even though GB was on their butts, but also did 10% LESS than that of the NE/KC PLAYOFF game. We're talking about revenue, which is based on viewership. Veiwership doesn't care about the difference between casuals and die hards. If a casual just happens to be watching a game like the SF one I pointed out earlier, they would become a fan based on how the game was played and not by record. Because most would probably not even know which team has what record in the first place. All they know is they watched a hell of a game that was exciting to them. That's what I mean. I see no reason to not only make games accessible for the fans, but also for those who are not familiar with teh game and ultimately kill two birds with 1 stone. One way to do that would be to feature each team nearly the same amount of times on prime time. (or even more features on double headers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 14 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: DEN/OAK was a late week 16 season game featuring 2 teams who at that point drew no interest. IND/TEN didn't do well either in week 17. But NE/GB did GREAT in week 9 even though GB was on their butts, but also did 10% LESS than that of the NE/KC PLAYOFF game. We're talking about revenue, which is based on viewership. Veiwership doesn't care about the difference between casuals and die hards. If a casual just happens to be watching a game like the SF one I pointed out earlier, they would become a fan based on how the game was played and not by record. Because most would probably not even know which team has what record in the first place. All they know is they watched a hell of a game that was exciting to them. That's what I mean. I see no reason to not only make games accessible for the fans, but also for those who are not familiar with teh game and ultimately kill two birds with 1 stone. One way to do that would be to feature each team nearly the same amount of times on prime time. (or even more features on double headers). So you're saying fans are less interested in games with non-competitive teams? The Packers were 3-3-1 when they played the Pats. They were very much viewed as still in the mix, if not still favorites for the NFC North. They were only half a game back in the division. Also, stop referencing that San Fran game as if that proves that adding more primetime games with bad teams is going to increase the number of good primetime games. It won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Jakuvious said: So you're saying fans are less interested in games with non-competitive teams? The Packers were 3-3-1 when they played the Pats. They were very much viewed as still in the mix, if not still favorites for the NFC North. They were only half a game back in the division. No, revenue (AKA veiwership) doesn't care about casuals or die hards. And the Packers were coming off wins against only BUF and SF without their starting QB while losing to a top tier team (LA) and WAS and did not look like the same GB team as of old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Again, I get the angle from the NFL's aspect that they have to draw in revenue by featuring high profile teams and I would have agreed to this 1000% 10 years ago. However, they can still accomplish this very same NOW if they featured EVERY team the same amount of times due to technology advancements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: No, revenue (AKA veiwership) doesn't care about casuals or die hards. And the Packers were coming off wins against only BUF and SF without their starting QB while losing to a top tier team (LA) and WAS and did not look like the same GB team as of old. I don't get what you're saying with the casuals/die hards point. Do you not think some more casual fans still know the difference between teams like the Pats and the Bills? Do you not think they'd be more likely to watch good teams than bad teams? They're still the Packers. They still have Rodgers. They're still not what I'd call a bad or low profile team. Like, I don't get what you're trying to argue, here. Numbers show that better games with better teams get more views. Common sense says that as well. Primetime games have a higher viewership potential because everyone can easily watch it. It makes perfect sense to combine the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: I don't get what you're saying with the casuals/die hards point. Do you not think some more casual fans still know the difference between teams like the Pats and the Bills? Do you not think they'd be more likely to watch good teams than bad teams? I'll use my wife as example here. She hates football and has no idea what is ever going on (other than the Bears when rant about it). Just last week after the NE game she saw me on this site and asked me who was in the Super Bowl. I said Patriots( I'm not sure you know who they are) and the Rams(not sure if know who them?) and she said I know the Patriots but I don't know who the Rams are. 15 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: They're still the Packers. They still have Rodgers. They're still not what I'd call a bad or low profile team. Oh absolutely. QB's are the biggest draw because their the easiest to follow and identify. No disagreement here. But team record has nothing to do with that. 15 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Like, I don't get what you're trying to argue, here. Numbers show that better games with better teams get more views. Common sense says that as well. Primetime games have a higher viewership potential because everyone can easily watch it. It makes perfect sense to combine the two. And how many of those games end up being boring blowouts that no one cares about by the 4th quarter? How is that going to draw more viewers? The casuals will still look at that and go "what was so exciting about that". Yet, you have other games who are not being premiered(1pm time slot) that are much more exciting and could potentially be on prime time in place of a garbage game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 19 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: I'll use my wife as example here. She hates football and has no idea what is ever going on (other than the Bears when rant about it). Just last week after the NE game she saw me on this site and asked me who was in the Super Bowl. I said Patriots( I'm not sure you know who they are) and the Rams(not sure if know who them?) and she said I know the Patriots but I don't know who the Rams are. Oh absolutely. QB's are the biggest draw because their the easiest to follow and identify. No disagreement here. But team record has nothing to do with that. And how many of those games end up being boring blowouts that no one cares about by the 4th quarter? How is that going to draw more viewers? The casuals will still look at that and go "what was so exciting about that". Yet, you have other games who are not being premiered(1pm time slot) that are much more exciting and could potentially be on prime time in place of a garbage game. Clearly we disagree with what we consider a casual fan. Your wife is not a casual fan. She's not a fan at all. I think of a casual fan as someone like my boss. He likes the Bengals. Tries to watch them when he can. Knows their record, a number of their players, but that's about it. From the games he watches, he knows enough to know what teams are good and relevant, so he'll watch a hyped up game on MNF, but he won't watch every MNF game. Depends on the matchup. Here's my question, then. You say some of those theoretically good matchups wind up being blowouts. Sure. But how the hell do you propose they predict that, if not by trying to handpick good matchups? Some games between two good teams being blowouts doesn't mean that more games between two not good teams are going to increase the quality. Yes, games with crap teams could be excellent. But are we going to bet on that? Are we going to predict that? No. Additionally, if it's a good matchup on paper, that at least gets you good viewership from the start. A bad matchup that ends up being a good game is still going to be limited from the outset. A game with 20 million viewers at kickoff, where half turn it off at halftime, is still better off that a game that starts with 10 million but they stay the whole way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Your wife is not a casual fan. She's not a fan at all. That part I agree and I get your point. 9 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Here's my question, then. You say some of those theoretically good matchups wind up being blowouts. Sure. But how the hell do you propose they predict that, if not by trying to handpick good matchups? It's always going to be a crap shoot, no matter what is done. So why not do away with trying to match-up games based only previous records and expectations and do it in way that it appeases EVERY type of fan base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Jakuvious said: So you're saying fans are less interested in games with non-competitive teams? The Packers were 3-3-1 when they played the Pats. They were very much viewed as still in the mix, if not still favorites for the NFC North. They were only half a game back in the division. Also, stop referencing that San Fran game as if that proves that adding more primetime games with bad teams is going to increase the number of good primetime games. It won't. That Packers/Pats game was also billed as potentially the last Rodgers/Brady matchup. That drew in viewers itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 5 Chiefs, Steelers, Cowboys, Ravens, Eagles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.