Jump to content

Would a Bortles-Foles or Bortles-Keenum Super Bowl be good or bad for the NFL's bottom line?

Apparition

By Apparition
in NFL General

Recommended Posts

TecmoSuperJoe

TecmoSuperJoe

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, iPwn said:

I feel like Jacksonville vs Minnesota could be an outright disaster. That game could legitimately end 10-9 and the casual fan is going to view the game as ineptitude, even if it’s actually insane defensive play.

All the more reason to dismiss casual fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagles $5$

Eagles $5$

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mossburg said:

How hilarious would it be if Foles led the Eagles to a SB, and Wentz went on to have a HOF career and never did?

If Foles wins, I wouldn't care if Wentz never goes again.... but lets face it Wentz is going to mostly likely go the SB in his career if he doesn't have a career ending injury or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetskid007

jetskid007

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Starless said:

Part of the narrative that emerged as a means to explain the NFL's ratings slump this season was that casual fans were less willing to pay attention to a league that was being drained of star power either by retirement, regression or (mostly) injury. Now we face a very realistic prospect of the Super Bowl featuring two no-name quarterbacks. The NFC is guaranteed to be represented by a team QB'ed by either Case Keenum or Nick Foles. The AFC could send Tom Brady back (which would in itself be a problem for a lot of fans) or give us Blake Bortles. If it's Bortles, that would mean the first Super Bowl since 2000 without a marquee QB on the field and if it's Jaguars v. Vikings, that would mean the first Super Bowl in 18 years not to feature at least one team with one of the league's 20 largest fan bases.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that any such Super Bowl matchup would be a ratings disaster for the NFL. But on the other hand, it could be very good for the league in the long run. For one, it would put a big dent in the narrative of the NFL being strictly QB-driven if the Jaguars, Vikings or Eagles (sans Wentz) win it all. It would also allow the league to spotlight some of its premiere defensive talent, which, outside of the Seahawks and Broncos, hasn't really received much attention from the casual fan in the last decade-plus.

Then there's the unpredictability factor: The NFL pushed its idea of "parity" as a reason for people to keep watching for a long time, insisting that every year there was a chance for someone new to emerge and take the league by storm. The last 17 years have kind of undermined that, particularly in the AFC, with the same 3 quarterbacks representing the conference in the Super Bowl 15 out of those 17 seasons. The NFC has had more parity but really the Seahawks or Packers have been the overwhelming favorites to win it at the start of every season since 2010. It's hard to say if greater parity is ultimately good, bad or indifferent for the league's bottom line, but it would certainly be more on-brand.

Thoughtful post. I think such a super bowl is a true football fans' dream, but it will without a doubt hurt the league's bottom line. I think they will do anything in their power to market these QBs as "emerging" stars; with Bortles you have a 25 year old former top pick finally hitting his stride in his quest to become an "elite" QB... in Keenum/Foles, you have a scenario will the NFL will reach to compare them to Kurt Warner. 

The underlying factor here: this could be an opportunity where the NFL takes a baby step back, but 2 steps forward. Think about it - there are so many casual fans out there who really aren't invested in their teams because they don't have a QB. I know so many people who consider themselves Jets fans but don't follow because we don't have a QB. These playoffs are proof that having an elite QB isn't necessarily a prerequisite to have a great team, and it could draw some attention back since it gives fans hope... maybe I'm reaching a bit, but I think that feeling of "hope" could do a lot to escalate casual fan interest in their respective teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites
showtime

showtime

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mossburg said:

Bad for ratings of that game, but I feel like overall we need something new, even if it's crazy. Having 2 teams that never won a SB facing off is always great.

Why would it be bad for the ratings of the game?  This isn't a random primetime game during week 11 of the season.  It's the Super Bowl.  People are going to watch it no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tonyto36

tonyto36

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Eagles $5$ said:

If Foles wins, I wouldn't care if Wentz never goes again.... but lets face it Wentz is going to mostly likely go the SB in his career if he doesn't have a career ending injury or something like that. 

They also said it was a lock that Rodgers would be in the superbowl multiple times and win multiple rings.

Dalton played on tons of loaded teams and was a young MVP candidate.   The Bengals looked locked into a 5-7 years of being a contender.

Saints fans in 2009 kept telling me that they were loaded and going to be the next dynasty.

Same with Colts fans in 2006.

And Niners fans in 2012

And Seahawks fans in 2014.

Typically, NFL windows are extremely small.  Much smaller than they would appear to be.

1 hour ago, Mossburg said:

How hilarious would it be if Foles led the Eagles to a SB, and Wentz went on to have a HOF career and never did?

As in, Wentz is a SB win away from being a contender for HOF?  That would indeed be hilarious. 

But I think we're seeing now, even a below average QB can win with that loaded Eagles cast.  Wentz isn't going to be a HOFer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...