Every game will be like the Pro Bowl

Three things jump out at me:

1 - Dumbing down the fan base. Exciting games "sell" tickets and make it a must see experience. I think in time, you'll see a shift back from what we have right now. Nothing that goes back to the 70s/80s, but they're overly sensitive to the injury concerns (concussions, lawsuits, etc) and while safety is a big part of it (right or wrong), it's making more games more fun to watch by a broader fan base... again, I don't think that's dumbing it down though.

2- Core fan base ... honestly, how many teams will sell out or reach a near sell out with two 6-8 teams battling it out for nothing in week 15? You're going to have your diehards that show up, win or lose. If you want to blame weak attendance on something, look at ticket prices, etc - not the rules changes.

3 - Decline in ratings ... see #2 above. Few people want to watch crappy teams play on TV. There are so many things competing for our attention and long gone are the days of just sitting around all weekend and watching whatever games are on TV. There's just too much to do now and you can catch the highlights and recaps online any time after those crappy games are over.

If anything, the rules changes that favor offense makes games between the Browns and Jags late in the season worth watching.

I agree that it's a bit watered down when you view it from a defensive perspective, but big stadiums, suites, crazy contracts... there are big bills to pay and they'll squeeze the fans out of every nickle we want to give them.

You can't just say on a whim "I think I'll take my family to a game in a couple of weeks". You might get tickets, but you're going to pay a ton of money when it's all said and done for a family of 4 to experience an NFL game.

That is what the league has as a major issue... that is why nobody wants to go watch the Jags suffer through a game.

Nice response. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, so it's good to get feedback.

I hope we see a bit of a swing back. I like passing as much as anyone, but there has to be some defense involved instead of just pitch and catch. But pitch and catch is what excites the casual fan, so there's no argument from a marketing perspective to swing the pendulum back. 400 yards is good and 500 yards is great, so next year let's be at 550.

I think the best chance is an injury analysis. More passing may be producing more concussions and more knee injuries, because it produces higher-speed collisions. That'll take a few years to play out, though.

The only other argument is for the balance of the game, but I don't think that's an issue for the NFL. They did a show on "The Forward Pass" on NFL Network a couple of months ago, and I was struck when one of the people said, "We may be on the verge of seeing an NFL game where a team doesn't run the ball at all." I think the NFL doesn't mind that.

Yeah, I probably misstated the "full stadium" part. But my point is that you can count on the diehards if they like the sport, even if their team stinks. However, if you change the game to the point where the sport is less enjoyable, you're going to lose some of them. And every one of them is important in those B- and C-grade games.

The TV ratings thing is interesting. If the casual fans just watch the highlights and recaps, then they don't need to watch the games and likely have little interest in watching the games. Therefore, ad revenues decline and the big TV deals decline. Maybe they can make it up by ad revenues on the incredibly annoying nfl.com site, but in the big scheme of things, it seems like a bad thing for the sport if fewer and fewer people watch the games.

Ticket prices is another big challenge they face. When most people have a high-definition big-screen TV that's indoors, it's harder to get people to buy tickets. And it's worse when those tickets are triple-digit costs. Technology alone may take the crowd out of the game in the long-term, and that dilutes the user experience. I think that's different than marketing issues, but I sure think it poses a problem for all professional sports in the long run.

Do we have a future end game scenario where tickets aren't even sold, and all events happen in a studio setting? Or will stadiums get smaller? How relevant are game-day crowds in the financial models now? And how important is the game-day experience in building a bond with a team that will inspire franchise loyalty? It's hard to imagine that live crowds will ever go away, but I do think we've passed the zenith of live attendance at professional sports.

I think the league really needs to consider the "at the game" experience... if the diehard fan continues to be squeezed out for the big $ guys that have half the heart and commitment to the team, the game will begin to fail.

This is the most important thing to consider.

If a guy has a family of four, he can easily spend the majority of his week's pay on a Sunday game/tailgating/food and beverage inside the stadium. Doesn't it make much more sense to enjoy that game at home?

I really don't feel like the NFL is less enjoyable to watch in the slightest. And if the Chiefs were the team scoring 35+ a game, I doubt too many people on this forum would take issue with that. Purists can say they really enjoy a good defensive battle that ends up 10-6; but they're in the minority

We need more barrel-man...

The butthurt is so thick.

We wouldn't care if that was our QB and our offense.

The second we get a QB we will be ecstatic and laughing at poverty passing teams.

Yeah, that's a major problem, especially given the high quality of the at-home experience now.

I think you can build a loyal fan without the game-day experience, because many of us were fans for years before attending a game in person. But if going to a game ends up being a bucket list type of thing rather than an annual pilgrimage, it's not good for the league's marketing. You don't want to show 80% of your games on TV in front of a half-empty stadium. That's why Los Angeles can't keep a team.

it's not butt-hurt for a specific QB / not having a QB etc.

It's the watering down of the game itself. maybe next year we can have a team score 650 pts. then the year after 675!!!! woo hooo.

It's become quite stale. Yeah, I know the ratings are probably at an all time high, but that's because, IMO, people are watching out of habbit at this point, and/or the fantasy football geeks tuning in to watch their guy.

Getting back to the 606 thing... it really is astounding though when you look at the numbers from this season with Denver.

Over 16 games - five players with 60+ receptions and 10+ TDs.

606 Points
Peyton - 5,477 yards / 55 TDs / 10 INTs (1 rushing TD)

Moreno - 1,038 rushing / 60 recs for 548 yards / 13 TDs
Ball - 559 rushing yards & 145 rec yards / 4 TDs

D Thomas - 92 / 1,430 / 14 TDs
E Decker - 87 / 1,288 / 11 TDs
W Welker - 73 / 778 / 10 TDs
J Thomas - 65 / 788 / 12 TDs

Crazy.

Yup.

Think back to a few short months ago when we were are sure we had the second coming of the '85 Bears D. Thread after thread after thread about how great we were.

Because it feels good to root for the best. And if Alex Smith just finished the season with 5,500 yards and 55 TD's; the keyboards of the CP collective would be the stickiest in the entire nation.

I also recall at some point during the season, the combined points for that particular week were an all-time record too.

I hope I didn't make this sound like a butt-hurt because Manning is tossing it all over the joint thread. I didn't intend to. I was speaking to the league wide passing domination.

This could be my own personal bias, but I think there's an optimal frequency in scoring. Soccer is boring because scores are too rare, and hockey suffers a similar fate, albeit to a lesser degree. When you watch a game for three hours and there's one or two scores, that's too slow a pace.

Basketball is extremely boring because scores are too frequent. When you watch a game for two hours and there are 100 scores, there's nothing to highlight. It's an assembly line.

I always thought that football had it right. You'd watch a game for three hours and there would be six or seven scores. Maybe it's nitpicky to say that 12 scores is too many, and if I'd grown up with 12-score games maybe I'd think that's the right amount. But it feels like too many, to the point where it seems like the game just comes down to whoever scores last before the clock runs out.

I hate the Broncos as much as anybody, and more than most, but this isn't about the Broncos in my mind. It's about the league's rule changes and how they've disrupted the balance of the game.

Beuno. That's my stance as well.