Jump to content

One way to address the declining TV ratings


pf9

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ninjapirate said:

right and the nfl should get out of that contract the first second they can. 

Well, 1) it runs through 2022 I believe and 2) pays the NFL $1.5B per year as what I imagine is a loss-leader for DTV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sp6488 said:

Well, 1) it runs through 2022 I believe and 2) pays the NFL $1.5B per year as what I imagine is a loss-leader for DTV.

Think it can be restructured.. Direct TV is probably losing a ton of money.. Streams have changed the game.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

The thing with football is, you've got the forward pass, and guys running full speed downfield with their eyes in the air, and collisions at full speed are inevitable on just about every play.  

True. The collision zones are different in both sports, but it’s tricky to say which takes the greater overall toll.

Right now, based on the hard evidence, I’d say football. However, there is indication rugby could potentially be just as bad for the brain & the body.

Rugby is a weird sport in that it tried to remain a functional amateur sport well into the 90s. Eventually in order to retain its best players from leaving to play professionally in other codes, it had to transition to pro. 

From about 95 / 96 onwards, players were contracted / payed to train & focus solely on rugby, rather than work other jobs. In that 22 / 23 year period the game has gone through massive changes in terms of body shapes, fitness, game speed, & style of play.

Sports like football, etc - have had a 20+ year jump on rugby when it comes implementation of full time training, & nutrition methods / requirements. Rugby in some ways benefited from this, & has been able to cherry pick desired aspects from these methods, & ultimately customise their own athlete building techniques in a much shorter timeframe. 

The most notable changes came as the players got fitter & faster, which resulted in less space to exploit on the field. To counter that trend, players started to get bigger & stonger. The game transitioned to place higher emphasis on power, & winning collisions to get over the advantage / gain line. A highly skilled close quarter offload & tactical kicking game (Kicking is the only way to pass forward legally in rugby) - has been developed to counter the power game. But, power still remains a high priority, & will likely never disappear.

The fast flowing, running into space rugby of the past is pretty much dead. Modern rugby, particularly in the high stakes games, resembles a war of a attrition, similar to the NFL. The things witnessed in the most brutal games, would give you reservations about letting your kids play.

Some things to consider...

Form tackling is not dead in football, there are still many wonderful proponents of the art in the NFL. If everyone tackled like Shazier, there’d be a lot more serious spinal / neck injuries. (Saying the majority of football players use their helmet as a weapon in the tackle is a myth... However, there are some players who have extremely bad technique, but you get that in rugby too).

Form tackles are mandatory in rugby (No attempt to wrap up is illegal), but first contact in a form tackle is initiated by driving the shoulder into your opponent. Not dragging them to the ground from the side as they attempt to run past. (Rugby = Arm tackles is a myth).

Every rugby fan knows the term “BOSH” it is essential picking the ball up & running head first into the player / players in front of you. Unfortunately running into brick walls is the only tactic many teams are skilled enough to employ. (Collisions dominate modern rugby, the space is gone, unless you’re skilled enough to create it). 

Rugby players play more minutes each game (Longer games, & they play both ways), more games each season, & are still exposed to contact / collisions in training. (Football is way more proactive in terms of safety here, & should be commended... Also rugby players don’t have the same collective power to challenge the longer seasons / heavier workloads, & travel expectations). 

Sizewise modern football players & rugby players matchup pretty well across the board, with the difference found in heavier OL / DL players. (If football didn’t exist, rugby would be the sport with the largest H/W athletes running around... These are huge players crashing into each other).

Dodgy practices around potentially concussed players still exist in both sports.

CTE evidence, & symptoms exist in both sports, but football is the only one to have a collective court case. In rugby it’s individual cases.

Concussion fears have forced recent premature retirements in both sports. Players have died at lower / youth levels in both sports. (A former pro rugby player retired after suffering 10 concussions in two years, & another because he still had symptoms a year later. You can’t tell me rugby concussions are safer than football concussions).

Potentially they are as bad as each other.

CTE is a reality both sports will have to deal with, as the collision is fundamental to the both of them.

Rugby gets in right by emphasising form tackling. But gets it wrong by playing increasingly longer seasons, & allowing contact in training.

Football gets it right by having a short season, & reducing / eliminating contact in practice. But gets it wrong when coaches don’t address poor tackling mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://adage.com/article/media/ratings-slum/311777/

According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, NFL games accounted for 37 of the year's top 50 broadcasts, or nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of the most-watched programs on TV. That marked a 32 percent increase compared to 2016, when the NFL laid claim to 28 of the top 50 most-watched programs, and was flat versus the 37 top airings the league chalked up in the previous year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

http://adage.com/article/media/ratings-slum/311777/

According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, NFL games accounted for 37 of the year's top 50 broadcasts, or nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of the most-watched programs on TV. That marked a 32 percent increase compared to 2016, when the NFL laid claim to 28 of the top 50 most-watched programs, and was flat versus the 37 top airings the league chalked up in the previous year.

trololtrolololololol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the things that are contributing to declining ratings in the NFL (which is a microcosm of what's happening to cable TV in general), the playoff structure is the least of my concerns. I don't know of a single person that's been documented saying they won't be watching the NFL this season because the playoff format doesn't include enough teams.

Granted, the playoff structure might need to be tweaked, but what exactly is wrong with it? Aside from the very rare scenarios where a 7-9 division-winning team makes it over a clearly better team that didn't win their division, what needs to be done? I don't think it needs to be expanded at all. I like the exclusivity of NFL playoff teams because it actually means something. If half the league is making the playoffs, it waters it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2017 at 11:31 PM, ninjapirate said:

The NFL just needs an affordable live streaming service and those ratings come back. A lot of people don't have traditional tv anymore. 

I think they should just look into a free streaming service.  The product is already free on Fox, CBS, and NBC.  Views will be tracked, so they can see how many people are watching.  People are still watching the NFL's sponsored ads, so they don't lose revenue.  They are just no longer tied to the local programming.  They control the distribution and can probably also sell more ads because the stream can be sponsored by a company.  So, "You are watching the NFL on CBS, live streaming coverage brought to you by Verizon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, raiderrocker18 said:

so you think they should spend their own money to set that infrastructure up instead of selling the rights to the networks?

I don't know the answer to that.  The networks would probably want in if the ratings were corrected for streamers.  If I want to watch the Giants game on FOX, but I get the Bears locally, I am still watching FOX, and their commercials if I choose to watch the Giants game.

 

As far as I know, the NFL is the only programming that mentions other networks by name.  They will tell you on the CBS show that the NFC matchups are on FOX, and the late game is on NBC.  Maybe the NFL is already more powerful than the networks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...