The NFL is becoming more disturbing than appealing, and TV viewers are tuning out

[tk13]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...b06_story.html

Excerpts:

The NFL is becoming more disturbing than appealing, and TV viewers are tuning out

By Sally Jenkins Columnist October 31

The NFL’s firm grip on the psyche is based in the fact that it’s the most real, live event on live television. Every game is a character-driven story and a high-speed chase in which the action and the stakes of a collision are genuine. But lately the NFL has seemed formulaic and lacking in a certain kind of authenticity. It’s no great mystery as to why the NFL’s ratings have been dropping: Viewers don’t especially like the stories they’re watching.

The numbers are striking. Through seven weeks, ratings were off for every prime-time incarnation of the NFL: “Sunday Night Football” by 19 percent, “Monday Night Football” by 24 percent and the dreaded Thursday night game by 18 percent. A variety of factors may be contributing to this dive, from the election to so-called “fragmentation” of mass media. But none of the explanations make as much sense as the simplest one: The NFL has put less appealing and more disturbing action on the screen, and viewers are turning it off.

Historian Michael Oriard has observed that the great attraction of the league is that it’s “the true reality TV,” in its most vital form. But the NFL is beginning to seem over-managed and over-staged. Constant commercials and interruptions by refs waving their arms do not produce “appointment viewing;” rather, they produce punts, ties and stasis. Look at the standings: A cluster of 18 teams, indistinguishable save for the colors of their shirts, are at .500 or worse and five more at 4-3. In other words, 23 teams are not must-see-TV to anyone but their most fervent fans. The constant advertisements and hail of yellow flags from overly officious officials make a PBS series seem fast-moving, with a clearer story line.

When rookie quarterback Dak Prescott led the Dallas Cowboys over the Philadelphia Eagles with his touchdown pass to Jason Witten in overtime late Sunday night, it was clear how much animation the league has been missing. But even that terrific game, which had high divisional stakes and featured a bright new star, was crushed in the ratings by Game 5 of the World Series between the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians. It’s the first time since 2011 that a World Series game beat “Sunday Night Football.”

--

Obviously, viewers are not finding the NFL as meaningful and important as they have in other seasons. Games on Sunday, Monday and Thursday, plus a handful of overseas trips for novelty games in London, have numbed the viewer. Only a handful of contests this past weekend felt like difference-makers, and those were disrupted by flags. One was between the New England Patriots and the Buffalo Bills, which was marred by five penalties in the first 10 minutes. When the Pats led 38-17 in the third quarter, where was the viewer to go? To Jets-Browns? Lions-Texans? Raiders-Buccaneers was close, but that meant suffering through a league-record 23 penalties against the Raiders for 200 yards.

--

The NFL ratings malaise is being puzzled over by everyone from media executives to stock analysts, who offer a variety of speculative causes. Everything from fantasy football to Twitter live-streaming to the shorter attention spans and habits of millennials has been cited. But none of these entirely add up. Other sports aren’t suffering precipitous drops; NBA and Major League Baseball ratings have strengthened over the past year.

In looking for a difference, it’s hard to dismiss the coexisting facts that the NFL has ruined the flow of its on-field stories while experiencing a spate of deeply negative stories off the field — most of them self-inflicted and perpetuated, from the Deflategate four-game suspension of Tom Brady, to the spousal abuse case of place kicker Josh Brown. Donald Trump has blamed Colin Kaepernick for dissing the national anthem for the fall in ratings. If that’s a factor, then undoubtedly so are narratives involving concussions and domestic violence.

[DaNewGuy]

Originally Posted by stevieray

I can't remember how long ago it was..but Jimmy Raye said in 20 years, the NFL would be dead.

I don't watch as much as I nearly did. It's blatantly obvious they favor certain teams. OPI and DPI happen on every play, blatant holding happens every play....Hali used to get held on a consistant basis. It's the fallback to determine games, or take away big plays.

Money , IMO, has corrupted the game.

And it bums me out..I've loved football since I played as a kid.

....with each passing year it just all seems scripted and contrived.

Goodell wants you to use your childlike wonder and believe ! Believe 2 mins, believe believe -DT

[DaneMcCloud]

Goodell's not the reason for three Prime Time games each week nor the over-exposure on networks like ESPN and Fox Sports 1. Goodell's not the reason for games in London or Mexico or China. Goodell's not responsible for franchises holding municipalities hostage for Billion dollar stadiums.

That's all on the owners.

What Goodell IS responsible for is the hiring, firing, training and teaching of the referees. He's responsible for disciplining players and teams for breaking rules. He's responsible for player safety and for making the game fun.

In those terms, Goodell has failed miserably.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I would submit that those that stopped watching the NFL over 1 guy protesting those people weren't real NFL fans to begin with.

And btw do they even talk about the protests anymore? I don't think I have heard it mentioned at all for a few weeks.

I was a real NFL fan. I did stop watching because of the protests. Not because of 1 guy protesting, but because of the multiple people protesting and the NFLs hypocrisy by not putting a stop to it. When a player can sit during the anthem and not be fined or suspended, yet another player can be suspended for tweeting "ewww gross" when he sees two men kissing, I'm out.

I've got no problem with the suspension for the "ewww gross" tweet. What a player says reflects on the league. I do have a problem when the NFL says that people who sit during the anthem are just "expressing their first amendment right", so they do nothing. The "ewww gross" guy had a first amendment right also.

I've been a huge NFL fan since I was a teenager. I haven't watched a game in several weeks. I'm done. My wife sure is happy about it though.

[DaNewGuy]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

I was a real NFL fan. I did stop watching because of the protests. Not because of 1 guy protesting, but because of the multiple people protesting and the NFLs hypocrisy by not putting a stop to it. When a player can sit during the anthem and not be fined or suspended, yet another player can be suspended for tweeting "ewww gross" when he sees two men kissing, I'm out.

I've got no problem with the suspension for the "ewww gross" tweet. What a player says reflects on the league. I do have a problem when the NFL says that people who sit during the anthem are just "expressing their first amendment right", so they do nothing. The "ewww gross" guy had a first amendment right also.

I've been a huge NFL fan since I was a teenager. I haven't watched a game in several weeks. I'm done. My wife sure is happy about it though.

You're not allowed to hop back on the bandwagon buddy when Reid leads us to the promise land

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

I was a real NFL fan. I did stop watching because of the protests. Not because of 1 guy protesting, but because of the multiple people protesting and the NFLs hypocrisy by not putting a stop to it. When a player can sit during the anthem and not be fined or suspended, yet another player can be suspended for tweeting "ewww gross" when he sees two men kissing, I'm out.

I've got no problem with the suspension for the "ewww gross" tweet. What a player says reflects on the league. I do have a problem when the NFL says that people who sit during the anthem are just "expressing their first amendment right", so they do nothing. The "ewww gross" guy had a first amendment right also.

I've been a huge NFL fan since I was a teenager. I haven't watched a game in several weeks. I'm done. My wife sure is happy about it though.

If you're "done" then what are you doing posting about the team on an internet forum?

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

If you're "done" then what are you doing posting about the team on an internet forum?

Does posting here help the NFL's ratings?

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by DaNewGuy

You're not allowed to hop back on the bandwagon buddy when Reid leads us to the promise land

I have no doubt the Chiefs will go to the Superbowl this year. That's just the way my life works. You guys can thank me for it later.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by scho63

Two keys reasons the NFL is rolling over in ratings:

1. Too many games on too many days have diluted the hell out of it, including the stupid 3 games in London in the morning they steal from fans tailgating for their home teams.

2. The No Fun League and stupid rules for penalties for celebration, what is a catch, and all the other silly crap that is slowing the game down and turning it into 4 hours of interruptions and penalties that have turned so many people off.

I'm in no hurry to watch any other games like I once was.

Polls say Kaepernick is the main reason. It's really a hoot watching everyone on this thread desperate to dance around this issue, when its being told straight to your face by opinion pollsters asking actual folks.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Dink and Dunk or the West Coast Offense, supplanting the running game with short passes, was mainstream 25 years ago.

Supplanting?

I think you mean 'supplement', not supplanting.

In no case ever has short passes replaced running the ball, and the run pass ratio over the past 25 year has not become less pass happy.

Joe Montana was not throwing the ball 50 times per game.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Or perhaps we actually let players play the game rather than trying to manipulate the relative power of offenses and defenses through arbitrary rules.

Yes, because 30 years ago, football was played in its natural state the same way it had been played for thousands of years going back to hunter/gatherer societies in the fertile crescent.



Of course the freaking rules are arbitrary. It's just a game. I don't think it is unreasonable to tweak the rules from time to time. I think the balance on whole is reasonable. I wouldn't object if it was tilted back a little more to the defense but whatever.

But this idea that the refs can just stop throwing flags and the game will speed up. No. Maybe for a game or two but DBs and Offensive lineman (for just two examples) will just grab and hold, more and more until the refs start throwing flags again. Yes, you want them to be consistent and fair. But I think the too many flags argument is a non-starter.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Polls say Kaepernick is the main reason. It's really a hoot watching everyone on this thread desperate to dance around this issue, when its being told straight to your face by opinion pollsters asking actual folks.

I don't think it's simply the act, but the way the act has been covered.

While I don't have a problem with Kaep being a ****ing moron (and I could go on about why I think so) I think it's obnoxious how everyone is treating a brain dead silver spoon idiot who burps out bumper sticker slogans like he's Mohammad Ali protesting Vietnam.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

I think the "what's a catch" is legit. When you controlled a ball when you stepped out of bounds (the instant the clock would stop because the play is over), it's easy to question.

That being said, I'll ask again, if a player catches a ball on a slant route, on the home team's logo, runs to the sideline and has the ball knocked out of his hands after he steps out, is that an incomplete pass? If not, why not (based on the ruling the other day)?

And that's a serious question. I'm not even asking about an edge pass to a WR in the corner of the end zone, I'm talking about somebody near the 50 yard line that's taken steps in bounds?

Under the current rules, if the player catches the ball while going to the ground, they have to maintain control even after they hit the ground regardless of whether they have gone out of bounds or are in the endzone.

In your example, I don't think you could run that far and still be considered going to the ground. Although I don't want to pretend that I know how long somebody could be stumbling along and still be considered going to the ground. But Kelce was going to the ground.

On a different note: as I commented in the other thread, I think the NFL should tweak the rule so that control, two feet down, and then touching out of bounds is a catch (same with endzone) and you no longer need control so Kelce would have been a catch.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

like he's Mohammad Ali protesting Vietnam.

It will be interesting to see how history remembers Kaepernick. Ali was once the most hated person in America.

(Cue "You're comparing Kaepernick to Ali" posts in T-minus five)

[Buck]

I bet you if the NFL put all the games on the internet for free with no blackout restrictions, it would triple in popularity.

CBS, FOX, ESPN, and NBC won't have any of that for now, but I'll be interested to see how the NFL goes about integrating more games for free onto the internet when those contracts are up.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Buck

I bet you if the NFL put all the games on the internet for free with no blackout restrictions, it would triple in popularity.

CBS, FOX, ESPN, and NBC won't have any of that for now, but I'll be interested to see how the NFL goes about integrating more games for free onto the internet when those contracts are up.

FREE?

Free equals zero revenues, which means the salary cap will decrease, players with options in baseball and basketball will turn to other sports and the league will fade away.