NFL's Declining Viewership: One Slice at a Time

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Your argument boils down to, "I rally want an iPhone but I don't want to pay a monthly contract to use it for texts and calls and data."

You can watch the NFL games if you subscribed to cable. You don't subscribe, so watching is more difficult. But that is a decision you made and it sucks, but it's your decision. The networks pay the NFL a massive amount of money to show the games. In turn, the cable companies pay the networks a massive amount of money to carry their networks on their systems.

But you want it for free. Because, what, it's 2016?
You seem to not have read anything I posted if that's what you think my argument is. When did I say I wanted it for free? I explicitly stated that I attempted to buy ST, but sure!

They're going with the music industry playbook. Restrict access, jack up prices and ignore that there's a disconnect between how the public wants to consume their product and reality. I'm sure it will work out for them just as well; hardly any artists stream or sell digital music now.

I get it, they took the short term money from TV, but they've prevented themselves from developing future revenue streams.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
You seem to not have read anything I posted if that's what you think my argument is. When did I say I wanted it for free? I explicitly stated that I attempted to buy ST, but sure!

They're going with the music industry playbook. Restrict access, jack up prices and ignore that there's a disconnect between how the public wants to consume their product and reality. I'm sure it will work out for them just as well; hardly any artists stream or sell digital music now.

I get it, they took the short term money from TV, but they've prevented themselves from developing future revenue streams.
Maybe they will develop those revenue streams in the future. But they are all in on the networks right now. You're stuck in the middle. It is unfortunate.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Maybe you missed the part where I *can't* get Sunday Ticket.
Maybe he was confused by the fact that you first said "I'm not going to switch to DirectTV for the NFL," but shortly thereafter claimed "I cannot even install DirectTV where I live."

Which is it, and why do they say you can't get digital ST?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Maybe they will develop those revenue streams in the future. But they are all in on the networks right now. You're stuck in the middle. It is unfortunate.
Seems like it might be for the league too.

Maybe he was confused by the fact that you first said "I'm not going to switch to DirectTV for the NFL," but shortly thereafter claimed "I cannot even install DirectTV where I live."

Which is it, and why do they say you can't get digital ST?
What is confusing about that? I won't switch, and even if I wanted to, I can't get direct Tv.

I have Fios and I can't install a dish. My address is not valid for digital ST (just like the last 2).
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Seems like it might be for the league too.



What is confusing about that? I won't switch, and even if I wanted to, I can't get direct Tv.

I have Fios and I can't install a dish. My address is not valid for digital ST (just like the last 2).
Confusing is leading with an irrelevant "won't," if you're claiming "can't." They are two entirely different scenarios.

Anyway, Why can't you install a dish? And if you can't install a dish, what did DirecTV say when you called and explained to them that you can't install a dish?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Confusing is leading with an irrelevant "won't," if you're claiming "can't." They are two entirely different scenarios.

Anyway, Why can't you install a dish? And if you can't install a dish, what did DirecTV say when you called and explained to them that you can't install a dish?
If you distill it to those two words I agree it's confusing.

Not that it should matter why I can't, but I can't because, like many Americans, I don't own my building and the landlord doesn't want a dish mounted on it.

I called DTV the last two times I was in this same boat. They told me to "get DirectTV". Explanations of any kind were rebuffed because "the computer" says I can get directtv.

I pay for cable, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, starz2go (just for evil dead), HBO, showtime and some others. The notion that I am unwilling to shell out for the NFL is fabricated (though the unfounded accusation of theft is super appreciated!). I spent a day trying to give the NFL my money. And I didn't find a free stream afterwards. I did what a lot of people are doing: I didn't watch the NFL.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Pigs get slaughtered. The NFL owned Sunday and Monday and they just had to have Thursday, too. This was doubly bad because these players need rest and the Thursday night games are terrible, in general. So it watered down the product and made it less attractive.
I have to agree with this, the only Thursday night game I watched this year was the NE/Houston game, and largely then so that I could see Brissett in action. But in previous years when I've watched the games have been pretty terrible.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
If you distill it to those two words I agree it's confusing.

Not that it should matter why I can't, but I can't because, like many Americans, I don't own my building and the landlord doesn't want a dish mounted on it.
Well, it matters why you can't if the reality is you just won't. Which it sounds like is the case. Before I was a homeowner, I had DirecTV in a couple of places I rented. It's almost always doable for them to set up a dish without any intrusive (bolts, screws, etc.) installation techniques, using zip ties, cement blocks, and the like.

But keep raging against the man, man.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,711
He said the building owner doesn't want a dish on the building. From DirectTV's FAQ:

What would prevent me from getting DIRECTV?

If you are living in an apartment and your landlord does not want a dish mounted, this could prevent access to DIRECTV. Living in a region with a lot of trees or even a mountain range could prevent access if the dish is being obstructed.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Sure, the correct business answer to "why don't enough people put in the effort to install a satellite dish so that we can grow our revenues?" is a lawyerly reading of the FAQs and a conclusion that puts the onus on the potential customer "oh, they could, they just didn't negotiate the terms correctly with their landlord".
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Sure, the correct business answer to "why don't enough people put in the effort to install a satellite dish so that we can grow our revenues?" is a lawyerly reading of the FAQs and a conclusion that puts the onus on the potential customer "oh, they could, they just didn't negotiate the terms correctly with their landlord".
Actually DirecTV added subscribers and increased revenue every year until it was acquired for $49 billion. So I think "enough" people do put in the effort. Uncannymanny wants to be able to watch all the NFL games, because its his God-given right to see Tom Brady. But DirecTV paid billions of dollars for the exclusive rights to out-of-market games, and it makes perfect sense for it not to allow or encourage behavior that threatens its very existence.

Fortunately for uncannymanny, DirecTV will soon be launching DirecTV Now (a streaming subscription service), which will almost certainly include an option for Sunday Ticket. Of course, he'll complain about that, too. Because he shouldn't have to subscribe to DirecTV; he just wants the Sunday Ticket.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass, and NHL Center Ice are all available on multiple cable platforms. So it's not unreasonable to gripe that NFL isn't.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass, and NHL Center Ice are all available on multiple cable platforms. So it's not unreasonable to gripe that NFL isn't.
Sure, you can gripe at the NFL for making a deal for $1.5 billion a year, which dwarfs the revenues those leagues get. But griping at DirecTV is ridiculous.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
979
Upper Valley
Only on SOSH can a discussion about the inability of the NFL to deliver games and content to people in the medium of their choice turn into a debate on the ability to install a satellite dish in a tenant occupied building. This is just one more problem the NFL faces, it doesn't deliver on all the platforms that are desired in today's mobile society with short squirrel like attention spans of it's viewing audience.

The data while generally accepted as cloudy on NFL stadium attendance appears to be continuing to trend down along with the TV ratings. It's also a butts in seats problem beyond just the nelson ratings. 2 million people less attended in 2014 than 2011 and the trend appears to be continuing in a downward trajectory according to the season to date numbers.

The league reacts only when it hits a critical mass of public opinion to anything, its a reactive spin machine that shows a pure and startling lack of leadership or accountability. A growing number of fans clearly see this and are losing interest in a product where clear decisions haven't been made on what is a catch, a concussion, when to go to the tapes or what constitutes an action that should draw a suspension after abusing a woman. I spend half the Patriots games watching with my children explaining insane reviews, stoppages in play or horrific calls. If a 6 and 9 year old can articulate why the product is struggling one would think a guy being paid 50 million to run it should have a clue.

It's sad to see where this game has gone, I think in the end concussions will continue to influence the game more significantly. Which might be manageable with a leadership group that was capable of adapting to change, but that does not currently exist - which leads me to seriously wonder if we are seeing the canaries dropping on the NFL's run.

</rant>
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
You can watch the NFL games if you subscribed to cable. You don't subscribe, so watching is more difficult. But that is a decision you made and it sucks, but it's your decision. The networks pay the NFL a massive amount of money to show the games. In turn, the cable companies pay the networks a massive amount of money to carry their networks on their systems.
I can't get the games by subscribing to cable - they don't play in my area. I can't subscribe to direct TV (because of large trees to the south on my neighbor's property - I actually did subscribe - it didn't work at all) and I can't do any sort of legal streaming because Direct TV says I have a valid address.

If a business' argument is "the customer isn't trying hard enough to buy our product", the business is wrong, and it's eventually going to bite them in the ass.

They're complaining about declining viewership, and they have huge swaths of people who aren't allowed to buy the product. Watching the NFL is part of a lot of people's Sunday ritual - and I've found that since I moved, and can't get some of the Pats' games - I'm way more likely to actually do something on Sunday, including weeks where I do get the Pats game.

Their shitty delivery system has broken my habit, and their product isn't good enough that they can hold me hostage - I think there are probably only 2 TV shows now that I worry about watching live.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
Not that it should matter why I can't, but I can't because, like many Americans, I don't own my building and the landlord doesn't want a dish mounted on it.
If you have a place to install it that's in your leased space, you probably also have the right to do so. Landlords aren't allowed to restrict the installation of dishes* and antennas by the tenant, per the FCC. If it would have to go in a shared space, things get muddier.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes


*Sub-meter dishes a la Dish network/DirectTV; old-style satellite dishes are a different story.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Uncannymanny wants to be able to watch all the NFL games, because its his God-given right to see Tom Brady. But DirecTV paid billions of dollars for the exclusive rights to out-of-market games, and it makes perfect sense for it not to allow or encourage behavior that threatens its very existence.

Fortunately for uncannymanny, DirecTV will soon be launching DirecTV Now (a streaming subscription service), which will almost certainly include an option for Sunday Ticket. Of course, he'll complain about that, too. Because he shouldn't have to subscribe to DirecTV; he just wants the Sunday Ticket.
What is your major malfunction, dipshit? Point me to where I said anything like this.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
The data while generally accepted as cloudy on NFL stadium attendance appears to be continuing to trend down along with the TV ratings. It's also a butts in seats problem beyond just the nelson ratings. 2 million people less attended in 2014 than 2011 and the trend appears to be continuing in a downward trajectory according to the season to date numbers.
</rant>
Something is really off in those business insider numbers. The league has done between 16.1 and 16.6m in attendance in each of the last ten years according to more detailed stats provided by pro football reference. Last year was actually on the higher side at 16.5.

The number shown by BI for 2011 is simply not reachable. To do that figure the entire league would have to average over 79,000 per game. The great majority of teams don't even have close to that many tickets to sell. Somebody got their wires crossed with that info.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
Something is really off in those business insider numbers. The league has done between 16.1 and 16.6m in attendance in each of the last ten years according to more detailed stats provided by pro football reference. Last year was actually on the higher side at 16.5.

The number shown by BI for 2011 is simply not reachable. To do that figure the entire league would have to average over 79,000 per game. The great majority of teams don't even have close to that many tickets to sell. Somebody got their wires crossed with that info.
#s are from SBRnet, which is something of a research firm. I can't tell where they source their numbers.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The number shown by BI for 2011 is simply not reachable. To do that figure the entire league would have to average over 79,000 per game. The great majority of teams don't even have close to that many tickets to sell. Somebody got their wires crossed with that info.
To confirm - there are only 4 stadiums in the NFL that can even hold 79K people. (NYG,GBP,DAL,WAS)
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
979
Upper Valley
To confirm - there are only 4 stadiums in the NFL that can even hold 79K people. (NYG,GBP,DAL,WAS)
Agreed... numbers posted by the NFL are notoriously shaky and that was a quick find on Google but espn.com numbers seen to support the downward trend. If I can build out a chart tomorrow I will from the ESPN data but can't tonight on a phone. The trend is clear from all data sets, they have a real problem and that was before their owner golden boy brushed aside his kickers issues.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Agreed... numbers posted by the NFL are notoriously shaky and that was a quick find on Google but espn.com numbers seen to support the downward trend. If I can build out a chart tomorrow I will from the ESPN data but can't tonight on a phone. The trend is clear from all data sets, they have a real problem and that was before their owner golden boy brushed aside his kickers issues.
If a trend is clear from the Pro Football Reference data set, it's that attendance has been slowly but steadily rising except for a slight decrease last year. But through the first six weeks of this year, that dip has already been overcome.

2011: 17,252,948
2012: 17,303,347
2013: 17,510,569
2014: 17,606,643
2015: 17,509,479

First six weeks of 2015: 6,223,470
First six weeks of 2016: 6,383,633
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
Maybe this is just me, but the NFL reminds me of the early 2000 NBA - where the game became boring and uninteresting because the rules encouraged that style of play. The NFL turned itself into a QB driven league but there aren't enough great QBs to go around.

Maybe I'm out of touch but it seems to me that the NFL is lacking "stars". There's Brady but who else this year really grabs the public's attention on a national level? Cam was in this category, but his team is terrible and Rodgers, by all accounts, has been down this year. Russell Wilson? Brees, the other Manning, and Luck are on bad teams. RBs hardly matter in today's NFL. And while there are still a lot of talented WRs, they are only as food as the QB getting them the ball.

There's too much NFL on TV and most of the games aren't interesting to watch. That's a bad combination I would think.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
Has there been any analysis of this trend with women viewers? The NFL has constantly touted stats with women that most independent analysts think is bunk. But if they were previously making up any significant portion of the viewing audience or growth previously I wouldn't be surprised if they have seen a significant drop-off in recent years.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Has there been any analysis of this trend with women viewers? The NFL has constantly touted stats with women that most independent analysts think is bunk. But if they were previously making up any significant portion of the viewing audience or growth previously I wouldn't be surprised if they have seen a significant drop-off in recent years.
If domestic violence was a significant driver of ratings decline, you would think the inflection point would have been last year or the year before. Of course, the same could be said about TNF and most other theories for the decline.

If you believe the league's assertions that the same number of people are tuning in, but are watching less per capita, then that tends to support theories relating to the on-field product, or perhaps oversaturation, as opposed to people making a principled decision to tune out. Of course, those assertions are self-serving and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If domestic violence was a significant driver of ratings decline, you would think the inflection point would have been last year or the year before. Of course, the same could be said about TNF and most other theories for the decline.

If you believe the league's assertions that the same number of people are tuning in, but are watching less per capita, then that tends to support theories relating to the on-field product, or perhaps oversaturation, as opposed to people making a principled decision to tune out. Of course, those assertions are self-serving and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I know I fit in the still watching but watching less category. With all the revelations of CTE injuries being pretty much an integral part of the game it feels a bit unsettling to give in to watching football all the time. I watch some of the Pats' games. I haven't watched all of one yet this year. That's not a decision on principle. It's just worked out that way. I might watch part of some other prime game. But I doubt that I'll ever go back to watching 3 games a week. And there's nothing that Goodell and co. can do to change that. I can't be the only one.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Life has its ebbs and flows; for me personally, I have three kids < 5 years old, so it is rare that I watch an entire game any more, let alone watching TNF, 3 games on Sundays, and MNF. I guess in several years when they aren't dominating my weekends I may go back to watching more, but by that time I am guessing the NFL won't even exist.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,083
Life has its ebbs and flows; for me personally, I have three kids < 5 years old, so it is rare that I watch an entire game any more, let alone watching TNF, 3 games on Sundays, and MNF. I guess in several years when they aren't dominating my weekends I may go back to watching more, but by that time I am guessing the NFL won't even exist.
NFL won't exist in several years. Understood your comment as tongue in cheek but it is an interesting thought that hadn't previously crossed my mind.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
NFL won't exist in several years. Understood your comment as tongue in cheek but it is an interesting thought that hadn't previously crossed my mind.
Not completely tongue in cheek. By the time my kids are in high school (or maybe college - when will I get my weekends back?), I could see the league not existing due to concussions eliminating football at the lower levels. While I don't expect hockey, basketball, or baseball (or soccer) to go away, I don't expect football to exist for the rest of my life. But I could be way off base.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
NFL won't exist in several years. Understood your comment as tongue in cheek but it is an interesting thought that hadn't previously crossed my mind.
Several years? The NFL is nearly guaranteed to exist through our lifetimes. It will be less popular than it is right now, because the NFL has currently peaked, but it's not going away.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Several years? The NFL is nearly guaranteed to exist through our lifetimes. It will be less popular than it is right now, because the NFL has currently peaked, but it's not going away.
I think he was paraphrasing my post. By several years I meant 15-20. And I do think there is a chance the sport doesn't exist at that point, or is radically different than it is today. We have had this discussion in the future of football thread which is probably where my post belonged anyway.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Your argument boils down to, "I rally want an iPhone but I don't want to pay a monthly contract to use it for texts and calls and data."

You can watch the NFL games if you subscribed to cable. You don't subscribe, so watching is more difficult. But that is a decision you made and it sucks, but it's your decision. The networks pay the NFL a massive amount of money to show the games. In turn, the cable companies pay the networks a massive amount of money to carry their networks on their systems.

But you want it for free. Because, what, it's 2016?
Nah, his argument boils down to "The NFL has a natural monopoly and I don't like their anticompetitive exclusivity, pricing, and blackout policy". He's got to follow today's law, but he is allowed to bellyache about NFL pricing.

If we lived in the political environment of 1905, Teddy Roosevelt would almost certainly be lobbying Congress to eliminate the blackout policy. He might well be lobbying to break up the NFL into 32 teams that actually compete against each other in the marketplace, and to eliminate the market-restraining draft.

We live in a time where consumers are forced to pay whatever the NFL asks and accept any blackout policies. That doesn't mean we have to avoid complaining about whatever DirectTV offers.

It's also useful to note that even today, blackout policies have been rolled back because of Congressional displeasure. The NFL is enjoying the golden goose monopoly they built.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I think he was paraphrasing my post. By several years I meant 15-20. And I do think there is a chance the sport doesn't exist at that point, or is radically different than it is today. We have had this discussion in the future of football thread which is probably where my post belonged anyway.
I know. And the sport might be a little different and it will be less popular but it's not going away. It just isn't. There is too much money and it's too popular in so many spots.
 

pedroia'sboys

New Member
Aug 26, 2007
640
Newington CT
I think a big part of the problem comes down too the lack of interesting/good football teams. Look at the standings how many teams interest you and would be considered above average teams. 8 maybe. Thuesday night games are rough but what would Patriots Pitt have drawn with a healthy Ben.
Also, Bedard had a good article the other day. The lack of good coaching and must watch matchups. I would watch Parcells teams just because it was bill Parcells.
Consider this: In 1985, you had seven future Hall of Fame coaches roaming the sidelines and doing battle (Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells, Bud Grant). Thirty-one years later, you have one: Bill Belichick. Maybe you could make the argument for Pete Carroll, but how many others?
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/20/nfl-head-coaching-aaron-rodgers-josh-brown
 
Last edited:

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
Grew up a big NFL fan, late 60's to 90's. Over the years I have lost interest other than the Patriots or a couple of other teams/players I just don't care anymore. I watch but with a lot less passion. Not really sure why as I think about it. Maybe the brand has outgrown the game.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
I think a big part of the problem comes down too the lack of interesting/good football teams. Look at the standings how many teams interest you and would be considered above average teams. 8 maybe. Thuesday night games are rough but what would Patriots Pitt have drawn with a healthy Ben.
Also, Bedard had a good article the other day. The lack of good coaching and must watch matchups. I would watch Parcells teams just because it was bill Parcells.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/20/nfl-head-coaching-aaron-rodgers-josh-brown

Bedard mentions briefly the restricted practice time now, both in the NFL and in college. I think you combine that with weaker coaching and that may be leading to less compelling games. It seems like too many teams struggle to execute enough mid-game adjustments to keep games close.
 

cutman1000

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 26, 2003
3,571
South Carolina/New Zealand
My viewing is down probably 90% this year. Reasons I'm not watching:

1) my free time is limited, and I'd rather be outside

2) the deflate gate fiasco.

3) most non-pats teams are terrible

4) I feel guilty watching the injuries.

It's just not a compelling product to me anymore.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
In the futuristic movie The Fifth Element, Bruce Willis' character is shown smoking a cigarette where 75% is filter, 25% tobacco. That's what the NFL is become: too much sizzle, not enough steak. Instant replay is a slippery slope, and the league has gone past the point of no return. I will always watch every snap of a Pats game, but commercials have turned other mildly interesting games literally unwatchable live. Owners are rolling in cash, but are incredibly short-sighted. Pro sports can fail. Boxing and horse racing used to be huge in the US, but now what?
 

pdaj

Fantasy Maven
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,385
From Springfield to Providence
Compared to the other major sports, football was rare in that it could only be watched during 1 day, with a bonus game on Monday night. This left us fans in a relatively deprived state. McDonald's might not be your preferred food spot, but what about when you're driving home at 1:30 AM, and you haven't eaten since 5:00 PM?

But now, we have Thursday night football games. In '14, the draft was pushed up to May, so the NFL could be talked about incessantly for an additional few weeks. And Goodell's managed to stay in the news all year-round for all the wrong reasons.

We're no longer deprived; we're far too full.

Meanwhile, as others have mentioned, the sport isn't as reinforcing as it once was a few years ago.

Reasons:

- Thursday night games have been awful, in addition to many "prime-time" games.
- How many good teams are there this year? 5? 6?
- Flags, flags, flags. Oh, you're having fun? Here's another flag!
- League inconsistency on nationally-covered league punishment.
- Constant media coverage regarding off-the-field league, Goodell issues.

So, basically, we went from not quite enough of a great product to too much of a deteriorated product.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
My viewing is down probably 90% this year. Reasons I'm not watching:

1) my free time is limited, and I'd rather be outside

2) the deflate gate fiasco.

3) most non-pats teams are terrible

4) I feel guilty watching the injuries.

It's just not a compelling product to me anymore.

Yes. I think the serious fan realizes just how shitty most teams are. Pats fans maybe don't see it, but the quality of the teams is horrendous. Truly awful. There are six national games a week and maybe 3 good teams playing. The rest are dreck. Add in disgust over concussions, Goodell and all the other macro factors and you have this.

I stopped watching NFL for most part but thought it was because I root for the Dolphins and basically gave up any hope they'd be good the next 3 years. But watching other games makes you realize that parity means mediocrity is rewarded. Awful

Just wait for the NBA ratings, it might be a lot worse. Outside of GSW is there any reason to watch? The Cs are the second best team in the east? I listened to Zach Lowe podcast previewing season and he and his guest spent 80% of time talking GSW. Then at end discussed who they each looked forward to seeing...dead air and the guest said Minnesota. Lowe didn't have one. Cleveland won't need to try all year, no one out west has even a small chance of winning. What a disaster.

Are college FB ratings down? It seems you've lost ND fans and the entire b12 region (that product is awful, I blame spread offense Baylor style) and the SEC is way down. As is FSU. And CA teams. Plus, realignment has shut down interest in the whole of northeast. It seems it HAS to be down, right?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Yes. I think the serious fan realizes just how shitty most teams are. Pats fans maybe don't see it, but the quality of the teams is horrendous. Truly awful. There are six national games a week and maybe 3 good teams playing. The rest are dreck. Add in disgust over concussions, Goodell and all the other macro factors and you have this.

I stopped watching NFL for most part but thought it was because I root for the Dolphins and basically gave up any hope they'd be good the next 3 years. But watching other games makes you realize that parity means mediocrity is rewarded. Awful

Just wait for the NBA ratings, it might be a lot worse. Outside of GSW is there any reason to watch? The Cs are the second best team in the east? I listened to Zach Lowe podcast previewing season and he and his guest spent 80% of time talking GSW. Then at end discussed who they each looked forward to seeing...dead air and the guest said Minnesota. Lowe didn't have one. Cleveland won't need to try all year, no one out west has even a small chance of winning. What a disaster.

Are college FB ratings down? It seems you've lost ND fans and the entire b12 region (that product is awful, I blame spread offense Baylor style) and the SEC is way down. As is FSU. And CA teams. Plus, realignment has shut down interest in the whole of northeast. It seems it HAS to be down, right?
From my perspective, I agree with the first two of those (although there are definitely some fun/young/talented NBA teams to watch like Minnesota and Orlando), but I am more into college football this year than maybe ever before, which I attribute to 1) the top matchups they smartly scheduled in the first two weeks, 2) Lamar Jackson, who is maybe the most talented runner I've ever seen play QB, ahead of even Michael Vick and Vince Young, and 3) so many NFL games being so uninteresting.
 

rguilmar

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,610
Are college FB ratings down? It seems you've lost ND fans and the entire b12 region (that product is awful, I blame spread offense Baylor style) and the SEC is way down. As is FSU. And CA teams. Plus, realignment has shut down interest in the whole of northeast. It seems it HAS to be down, right?[/QUOTE]

I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago. I still haven't seen anything definitive, but articles like this one indicate that college football ratings are actually slightly up this year.

https://m.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/573x0g/nfl_ratings_down_11_college_football_viewership/

College football has its own problems, including scandals that I think are worse than anything the NFL has had to deal with in recent years (I'm looking at you, Penn State and Baylor). Most people think programs are run by rule- breaking boosters who put winning above safety of the players, education, or anything else. Lots of games are complete blowouts. There are games on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday (with some pretty decent Friday night matchups), so they play the same number of nights a week as the NFL. Yet NCAA football is doing just as well if not better than in recent years.

I'm guessing that having far more interesting matchups, including widely different styles of play, along with being steeped in traditions makes the college product different from the NFL, but that's a guess. I think the playoff has really made things a lot more interesting. I know I'm personally more drawn to it than the NFL, but that's the very definition of SSS.

It should be noted that NFL ratings are still much higher than college football. But reports like the one above indicate that it's not a football thing, but rather something is wrong with the NFL product.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
While total viewership numbers for digital platforms -- like Twitter or Verizon or networks' apps and dotcoms for their prime time games -- are extracting some viewers from NFL ratings, those numbers are pretty low and probably don't have a material affect on national linear ratings.

Curious about the ratings loss for the NFL by time period -- Sunday early/Sunday late/Sunday prime/Monday prime/Thursday prime. The prime time games are certainly susceptible to increased competition (including the debates, which Goodell has pointed a finger at) and moreover have been beset by uncommonly shitty matchups and bad games.

I'm trying to find a good number for how many homes NFL Red Zone is in -- Google has forsaken me. If that distribution is significant (and for comparison, NFL Network is in 75 million homes now) I can't believe it's not a factor in suppressing Sunday daytime ratings.

The NFL doesn't subscribe to Nielsen for Red Zone ratings -- as a channel available just 7 hours/week for 17 weeks/year, with no advertisers looking for data to set rates, there's no need or desire to share that information. But it's just absolute crack for the NFL's most diehard customers -- fantasy football players and fans with interest beyond the team assigned to their market -- and I have to believe it could be taking a real slice. Even if it were just a couple ratings points and were available in just half of TV homes, that'd account for a prospective double-digit percentage drop in NFL Sunday afternoon presentations.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,895
Portland, Maine
The NFL steering the league to passing and QBs has had a number of consequences. I think a really big one is the loss of running backs and wide receivers as stars. In the 80s and 90s (when I was growing up playing) good teams had a star running back, quarterback, wide receiver. Now that the QB position has been so elevated, stars at other offensive positions have been minimized. At the same time, mediocre QBs are now totally exposed since they don't have a star running back. Not to mention that a star defensive back is now basically a guy who doesn't get called for pass interference.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Is there a talent dilution though, or concentration? Obviously, some very good players have retired early, but not enough for a league wide effect, and I can't imagine the concussion research has reverberated through high schools and Pop Warner yet to have an impact on the pro ranks.