How the NFL can get the message that they are overexposing the NFC East

[BlaqOptic]

Unless Philly, Washington, Dallas, and New York all magically stop becoming Top 10 viewership markets (based solely on population) this will never happen, even though these teams continue to put out trash prodcuts.

[Matts4313]

On 6/1/2021 at 6:32 AM, MWil23 said:

3 teams in the AFC North draw the same if not better than the NFC East, so I’ve always hated that argument. Throw in the Bears and Packers in the NFC North, and the narrative in 2021 about past geographic relevancy is antiquated.

I highly doubt you can back up this claim in any meaningful way. Maybe for 2020 because we all sucked, but not in pretty much most every year from the beginning of time until 2020. 

[y*so*blu]

A lot of people watch football in those four media markets, whether the teams are any good or not. Networks are going to hold on to anything that draws consistent ratings, especially now.

I find that the higher profile of those teams leads to greater scrutiny by the sports media as well, so it's a double-edged sword. If you aren't bringing home a Lombardi, you're guaranteed to have boatloads of analysts questioning your every move and fans of other teams saying you shouldn't be on primetime anymore.

Edited June 5, 2021 by y*so*blu

[pf9]

On 6/4/2021 at 9:52 AM, BlaqOptic said:

Unless Philly, Washington, Dallas, and New York all magically stop becoming Top 10 viewership markets (based solely on population) this will never happen, even though these teams continue to put out trash prodcuts.

Market size isn't everything either.

If one does not consider the Packers a Milwaukee team then despite playing in the league's smallest market they are popular, far more than quite a bit of teams that are actually in top 25 markets.

But still, the primary criteria for determining what teams get national TV games outside TNF should be how many games the team won the year before. How good ratings certain teams get, overall popularity of a team, and market size should not be as big of factors as previous year's performance. I believe this used to be the case. Let's make it the case again.

If a team wins 11 games this coming season but still does not make the playoffs somehow, then regardless of how big a name they are, they should be entitled to at least one SNF appearance planned on the initial 2022 schedule.

If I had been in charge the Cowboys probably would have gotten just one national TV game beyond Thanksgiving and perhaps an appearance on TNF - and I guarantee you it would not be an NBC game, but an ESPN game instead.

The last time the Cowboys failed to appear on NBC while the network was an NFL rights holder was in 1987, when the team's Week 3 game hosting Buffalo was canceled due to the strike, while the game against Miami was on ESPN. It wouldn't have killed the NFL or NBC to end the streak this season.

Edited June 6, 2021 by pf9

[Forge]

17 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Market size isn't everything either.

If one does not consider the Packers a Milwaukee team then despite playing in the league's smallest market they are popular, far more than quite a bit of teams that are actually in top 25 markets.

But still, the primary criteria for determining what teams get national TV games outside TNF should be how many games the team won the year before. How good ratings certain teams get, overall popularity of a team, and market size should not be as big of factors as previous year's performance. I believe this used to be the case. Let's make it the case again.

If a team wins 11 games this coming season but still does not make the playoffs somehow, then regardless of how big a name they are, they should be entitled to at least one SNF appearance planned on the initial 2022 schedule.

Probably a tough sell when ratings stumbled. 

That being said, I have no issues with them utilizing the highest rated teams for national broadcasts. Helps their bottom line and with the proliferation of content access, I get to watch whatever games I want to. If I don't want to watch the matchup in SNF or mnf, I just won't. 

Also, it's not like that's a perfect measure either. A team can win 10-11 games one year and not be very good the next. Why would I want to endure the 2018 jags just because the 17 jags had success? The giants win 11 games in 16 and then 3 in 17.  Raiders 12 to 6, dolphins 10-6. 

So going this route isn't really something that makes it all that much better for fans. We are still subject to the same possible dreadful matchups. Some players don't like playing prime time games (Sherman has spoken out against it, for example) so doing it for players is a mixed bag. 

Just seems like change without purpose outside of, "I'm tired of seeing the NFC east". As someone earlier in the thread said, if you really want to see it change, have to stop watching those games

[squire12]

On 5/30/2021 at 9:01 AM, Tk3 said:

I don't get why you feel the need to be critical of a guy posting something

irony in this post

[BayRaider]

I see some NFCE guys in here arguing that every team in the NFCE is a massive viewership team. Not very true. Cowboys, yes. They are the most watched team in the league every year. 7 of their 30 games last year were in the most watched. As for the Giants and Eagles, they had one each and the Giants was against the Cowboys. You can say the Giants, Eagles, Washington would be higher if they were better teams, but you can say that about anyone. 

When teams are equal in competitiveness, the Steelers, Raiders, Ravens, Chiefs, Bears, Packers, Saints, and 49ers usually outdraw the Giants, Eagles, and Washington. Even though the Giants have the #1 market in the NFL, they are usually not higher than these teams in ratings even if they are good. 

Green Bay is particularly impressive as they have the 62nd biggest market in America, but always Top 7-8 in viewership. 

New York loves their Baseball, but in football television ratings they are usually middle of the pack. 

Dallas, though, without question, is the most watched team in the league whether they are good or bad. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by BayRaider

[Forge]

31 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

I see some NFCE guys in here arguing that every team in the NFCE is a massive viewership team. Not very true. Cowboys, yes. They are the most watched team in the league every year. 7 of their 30 games last year were in the most watched. As for the Giants and Eagles, they had one each and the Giants was against the Cowboys. You can say the Giants, Eagles, Washington would be higher if they were better teams, but you can say that about anyone. 

When teams are equal in competitiveness, the Steelers, Raiders, Ravens, Chiefs, Bears, Packers, Saints, and 49ers usually outdraw the Giants, Eagles, and Washington. Even though the Giants have the #1 market in the NFL, they are usually not higher than these teams in ratings even if they are good. 

Green Bay is particularly impressive as they have the 62nd biggest market in America, but always Top 7-8 in viewership. 

New York loves their Baseball, but in football television ratings they are usually middle of the pack. 

Dallas, though, without question, is the most watched team in the league whether they are good or bad. 

Correct. Dallas is the monster draw here, though I do believe that the nfl finds the other NFC east teams to be somewhat "safe" (well, Philly and the giants at least). 

I know that Nielsen did a ranking a few years ago and philly / giants were both in the top 11 on national broadcasts, but it was a small sample and probably involved Dallas. About halfway through the year, the eagles and giants were both about average this year, but that's all I could get for 2020. 

Side note: somewhere along the line, the saints became a huge draw

 

[JAF-N72EX]

3 hours ago, pf9 said:

Market size isn't everything either.

Would you play the lotto one time knowing only 200 people could a buy a ticket?

3 hours ago, pf9 said:

But still, the primary criteria for determining what teams get national TV games outside TNF should be how many games the team won the year before.

Schedules are set 2-3 years in advance (I forget which) just so they know which networks to feature them on based on deals, and there's no way to know which team is going to be good from year to year. The Niners made it to the SB in 2020 and they had a total of 2 wins in their last 9 games. If they were featured on prime time based solely on last season wins then I guarantee you would be complaining about seeing a 6-10 team led by Nick freaking Mullens.

[WheatieMan]

On 5/29/2021 at 9:09 PM, ///mcompact said:

NFCE pays the bills.   You may not like the fact, but that's the truth. 

 

 

YOU'RE WELCOME

This... close thread.

[WheatieMan]

On 5/31/2021 at 12:49 AM, BayRaider said:

Wayyy in the future I could see sports streaming and A.I. going to a whole nother level. 
 

For example: You watch Redzone and want to save Bucs vs Chiefs (random example) for the Sunday Night game. The service makes sure not to show you any of that game during redzone nor any box scores, and then puts it on for you as the Sunday Night game with the NBC scorecards. 
 

A.I. is gonna make the future nuts. 

Yeah.... no. The games still have to be watched live. No one wants some bot Al Michaels or fat Mike Tirico CGI/fake voice. The game will always have the classic presentation for the standalone games. The viewer will have options to sync their radio play by play guy, or rebroadcast their preferred presentation over a previously recorded match if they can’t catch it live, at a price...

On 5/31/2021 at 4:55 AM, TheRealMcCoy said:

I wouldn’t include the Celtics in there, but the other 3 certainly.

Celtics don’t go there. Notre Dame football. I mean, perhaps Duke? But I think that’s only a coaching effect like Bill Bellichek. If you had to go next tier, Celtics/Sox/Dodgers. All rivals to the Big 3 franchises to no coincidence.

[Matts4313]

Hey @pf9, I fixed your thread title:

How the NFL FANS can get the message that they are going to always overexpose the NFC East

[Uncle Buck]

Perception can sometimes overshadow reality, or at least, recent reality with sports organizations.  Younger viewers naturally have a different perception about the NFC East teams than some of us old goats do.  Over the last decade, only the Eagles have won a Super Bowl, and the others have gone through periods of limited success, for various reasons. 

If you have only been watching football for 10-15 years, the last decade's performance is naturally going to form your perception of those franchises.  As an older football fan, I can remember when the glory days of the Cowboys when they were at their peak - the one in the 70's, not just Jerruh's "gloryhole days" in the 90's.    I don't know if it is the same for other older fans, but for me there seems to be a residual of that aura that makes me think of those days when the Cowboys come into my mind.  As someone who lives in Minnesota, I can vividly remember the Redskins, (and sadly, the Eagles also) winning a Super Bowl in our building.   Great Redskins players, even from different eras, all seem to blend together to form a tapestry in my mind of that organization as well.  Guys like Art Monk, Doug Williams, Dexter Manley, Joe Theisman, John Riggins, Sean Taylor, and Darrell Green were all awesome players.

When it comes to the Giants, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Kate Mara, but that's probably just a personal thing.    In spite of their recent struggles, the Giants also have a rich tradition we can look back on.  Who can ever forget the great Lawrence Taylor if they had the privilege of watching him play?  Then, you have the two Super Bowls where Eli Manning and company played the David role and took down the Goliath that was the New England Patriots.  Just awesome stuff.

As a Vikings fan at the time, it was a huge disappointment to go into Philadelphia as the favorites in the NFCCG and have the opportunity to be the first team to host (and hopefully win) a Super Bowl in our own stadium.  Unfortunately, that was not meant to be, as we ran into a team of destiny in the Philadelphia Eagles, who just gave us a good, old fashioned beat-down on their way to winning their first Super Bowl that year.

At the end of the day, people can say what they want about the NFC East.  As a fan of football for over 5 decades, I've seen many teams have their periods of ups and downs over the years, and the NFCE teams are no different.  Even if they may be going through a period of years where they have had some struggles, I know they will be back.  It is a cycle that happens to just about all of them, and either way, these teams are still very interesting.  At the same time, I can also understand how younger fans, and especially younger fans of teams in different divisions would like to see more of their own teams.  We could very well be entering the "glory days" of many other teams who haven't had a lot of success over the last 20-30 years.  Parity is a beautiful thing!

[WheatieMan]

The AFC South has zero tradition. Old AFC East team, relocated Oilers, and two expansion teams.

NFC West? Cardinals played in the East for decades. Division never got interesting until the Holmgren years and San Fran/GSoT Rams regressed massively after their 90’s 00 runs. 

NFC North has the tradition and is a solid division, but no SB for two, one of those two a perennial doormat.

NFC South... see AFC south.

AFC East.... solid tradition but the Jets Dolphins Bills just haven’t been on a national stage at any remote consistency since the late 90’s.

AFC North??? Now there is a division that rivals the NFC North and NFCE. Bengals just never any good, and it’s been more of a two horse race since its inception.

AFC West? Solid division and history. Relocating Chargers don’t help, but it’s clearly a division with some merit historically.

Edited June 6, 2021 by WheatieMan

[BStanRamFan]

Can we focus our attention on taking away a guaranteed playoff seed from the NFC East until they deserve it again? Too many good teams were left out the past 2 years or so.