NFL Network's Odd Reaction to Saints @ Vikings

[Ragnarok]

14 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Careful, flat-earthers have a tendency to come running out the woodworks.  And the moon landing fakers aren't far behind.

We all know that it's a hollow earth with humanoid reptilians living inside.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, Jlowe22 said:

They won't lose that much. Plenty of storylines left.

There's storylines regardless, but general fan interest (which brings in revenue) significantly declines when you have teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville in the Superbowl. Hardcore fans will always watch and always find interesting storylines, but in general the NFL wants QB matchups, and nothing else.

[BleedTheClock]

 

3 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

OP said he didn’t think the NFL Network was enthusiastic. Whether that’s true or not, IDK how people are calling it a conspiracy theory. I guess accusing everyone of being a conspiracy theorist is the trendy thing these days 

2 hours ago, joru1000 said:

Honestly bothers me. Makes me wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes lol.

This sounds like he believes there to be some conspiracy to me. This sounds like more than a surface observation about their analysis. Maybe I'm off base here, but that highlighted sentence sounds like there might be some elaborate plot to get certain teams into certain spots.

I've also seen 10000 posts in the last month or two about the Patriots being favored by the refs. The Steelers being favored by the refs today (referee got shoved, no ejection for Pouncey). I constantly see idiots on social media arguing that the refs or the NFL wants certain teams to win. It's not a trendy thing to say; it's the consequence of letting morons have their opinions shared on social media.

Note: not calling @joru1000 an idiot btw. There's a difference between suggesting that a network might have a strong bias vs. someone truly believing that the NFL wants the Patriots to win so they have referees overturn TD's and whatnot.

[Jlowe22]

Just now, Darth Pees said:

There's storylines regardless, but general fan interest (which brings in revenue) significantly declines when you have teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville in the Superbowl. Hardcore fans will always watch and always find interesting storylines, but in general the NFL wants QB matchups, and nothing else.

If the superbowl winds up being Minnesota/Pats, I think it will be huge.  

But yea, in general, I'd say most neutral fans would have rather seen Brees/Brady superbowl.  But it's gonna get watched regardless.

[JAF-N72EX]

6 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

We all know that it's a hollow earth with humanoid reptilians living inside.

You forgot Bigfoot.

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, Jlowe22 said:

They won't lose that much. Plenty of storylines left.

Yes there are.  

Either Brady gets his 6th or a franchise that has never won a SB finally gets theirs.

Iggles and Vikings have both endured some brutal playoff losses in their history, so either of them finally overcoming that would be, in my opinion, a much bigger story than the Pats getting yet another ring.  Whoever wins next week has a chance to finally end the pain of their fanbases.

And the Jags have been the team that literally no one has given real chance this entire season.  Everyone brushes them aside as paper tigers and nothing more.  Even now, no one really thinks they'll win next week.  Plus, they've been awful for years.  Oh, and Coughlin is running the FO...ya know, the guy who beat BB in two Super Bowls.  That's a huge storyline for next week as well.

We either get two teams in the SB that have never won a championship which would be beyond amazing, or we get a team that has never won with the chance to knock off the evil empire for their first championship.  I actually think that's more compelling that Brees and Payton getting a second ring.

[Ragnarok]

Just now, JustAnotherFan said:

You forgot Bigfoot.

Bigfoot comes with the UFOs duh.

[DontTazeMeBro]

21 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

I hate "conspiracy guy." Maybe it's unfair, but I think "conspiracy guy" tends to have a low IQ. From flat-earthers to the "NBA is rigged" guy, I just have a hard time taking any of them seriously. Also, as Joe Rogan talked about, people that believe in one conspiracy also tend to believe in a million conspiracies. It's an embarrassing archetype. Hop off the bandwagon dude!

There’s a healthy middle between thinking EVERYTHING is a lie and believing anything you’re spoon fed. I think believing the moon landing was fake even though you’d have to have too many people keep that secret with not all that much to be gained is stupid. I think believing Lee Harvey Oswalt just decided by himself to go kill the president and then Jack Ruby decided by himself to go kill Oswalt is equally stupid 

[Ragnarok]

7 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

There's storylines regardless, but general fan interest (which brings in revenue) significantly declines when you have teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville in the Superbowl. Hardcore fans will always watch and always find interesting storylines, but in general the NFL wants QB matchups, and nothing else.

If the marketing people at the NFL offices can't figure out how to sell these games with 3 teams that have never won a SB v. the team that has won 5 in 16 years, then they should all be fired.  

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

5 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

If the superbowl winds up being Minnesota/Pats, I think it will be huge.  

But yea, in general, I'd say most neutral fans would have rather seen Brees/Brady superbowl.  But it's gonna get watched regardless.

Casual fans of football don't want to tune in to see Bortles or Keenum or Nick Foles play in the Superbowl. That's largely my biggest point. We'll all still tune in regardless because the 4 teams that are left are great teams and it'll probably be great games. But in overall revenue terms, I have a hard time believing the NFL (and it's network) are excited about the remaining field.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, Ragnarok said:

If the marketing people at the NFL offices can't figure out how to sell these games with 3 teams that have never won a SB v. the team that has won 5 in 16 years, then they should all be fired.  

These are the same marketing people that decided that the best way they could sell Thursday Night Football was "When It's On, It's On", so I mean....lol

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

There’s a healthy middle between thinking EVERYTHING is a lie and believing anything you’re spoon fed. I think believing the moon landing was fake even though you’d have to have too many people keep that secret with not all that much to be gained is stupid. I think believing Lee Harvey Oswalt just decided by himself to go kill the president and then Jack Ruby decided by himself to go kill Oswalt is equally stupid 

I tend to not believe anything that is supported by little more than circumstantial evidence.  Doesn't mean some of it isn't true, but without tangible evidence to support it, it has a weak case IMO.  Most the time is doesn't matter, and some conspiracies are harmless, but some aren't so much, and they can do a lot of damage with the willful spread of disinformation and intellectual dishonesty.  

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Ragnarok said:

If the marketing people at the NFL offices can't figure out how to sell these games with 3 teams that have never won a SB v. the team that has won 5 in 16 years, then they should all be fired.  

I think it's more a lack of star power. Patriots aside last year you had Ryan whose a known commodity, Jones whose an elite WR, and Freeman. The year before you had Cam Newton and Peyton Manning. The year before you had Richard Sherman and Marshawn Lynch and then again the year before that with Manning. The year before that you had Ray Lewis in his final run. The year before that it was Brady and Eli in a rematch of a historic game. The year before that it was Rodgers vs Ben. And so on. 

Assume the Patriots aren't there, of the three teams left is there a star player.

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, Darth Pees said:

Casual fans of football don't want to tune in to see Bortles or Keenum or Nick Foles play in the Superbowl. That's largely my biggest point. We'll all still tune in regardless because the 4 teams that are left are great teams and it'll probably be great games. But in overall revenue terms, I have a hard time believing the NFL (and it's network) are excited about the remaining field.

 

Just now, Darth Pees said:

These are the same marketing people that decided that the best way they could sell Thursday Night Football was "When It's On, It's On", so I mean....lol

That is very, very true.

I think you have a better argument with Jax than Minny or Philly.  

NE beat Philly in 05 which was the last time Philly made it that far.  That'd be a massive sell, plus its east coast and a bigger market than NO.  

Minny would be the first team to play at home, it is a bigger market than NO, and it would draw the midwest.  Very good selling points.

But when it comes to Jax, you have the best argument.  The best sell is a David v Goliath type scenario.  

[JAF-N72EX]

Just now, Darth Pees said:

Casual fans of football don't want to tune in to see Bortles or Keenum or Nick Foles play in the Superbowl. That's largely my biggest point. We'll all still tune in regardless because the 4 teams that are left are great teams and it'll probably be great games. But in overall revenue terms, I have a hard time believing the NFL (and it's network) are excited about the remaining field.

Those same casual fans would tune in regardless. Not just fanatics. It's the Superbowl. Every year there are plenty of fans that watch the game and buy SB tickets that don't know a single thing about the NFL. The casuals that just watch only like the SB parties and the ones that actually go the games, only do so that they can say they went (or just have a good time - liek a vacation) 

None of this would change at all no matter who is in the SB.