NFL ratings tank...
- Thread starter Tarheel Baptist
- Start date
Twisted said:
Watched the Eagles/Bears game and there did not appear to be many empty seats as one would determine from the pictures. Every Eagles home game this season has been sold out. Also saw the Monday Night game was up 16% from the previous Monday. Last week the ratings were up for Dallas/Philadelphia and Washington/New Orleans. Are we only boycotting the bad match ups?
We can all agree the ratings are down. The question is are ratings down primarily to the boycott. Since rating were dropping prior to boycott that seems improbable. Through Week 7 NFL ratings were down 5% but the four major networks were also down an average of 8% in prime time. Are people just watching less prime time TV?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
LongGone said:
There have been plenty of polls taken already to show a significant disdain and disapproval for the disrespectful timing of the protests, but keep on ignoring the obvious and ignoring voices of reason and making excuses and rationalizations for bad behavior.
ALAYMAN said:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
LongGone said:
You are living in the Egyptian river of your own making when you continually ignore valid data and polling. There's no reasoning with somebody who does so much hand-waving.
LongGone said:
Fred Phelps, when he was alive, used to picket homosexual funerals and funerals of dead servicemen. In an abstract sense such a freedom of speech is allowed. Of course those freedom riders also had the freedom to exercise their right to give Phelps an attitude adjustment for his incredibly bad choice of when to express his religious ideas. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or decent.
ALAYMAN said:
You my friend are the one living in denial. Ratings for the NFL have been decreasing for 5 years. Long before there were protests for racial equality. The fact that great match ups have outstanding ratings would not happen if the boycott was driving the ratings issue. The protests could end tomorrow and the NFL still has ratings issues.
To compare players protesting for racial equality to what Fred Phelps did is absurd. Start with the fact that racial equality is a real issues vs Phelps protests that God was killing servicemen due to homosexuality. To imply that protests for racial equality are not right or decent is wrong even if players are not using the same method that you would us.
ALAYMAN said:
It is not a comprehension issue on my part. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are more sacred than the symbols that represent the United States. We can agree that we would do the protest at another time but to compare protesting for racial equality to what was done by Fred Phelps is just totally disingenuous.
On the practical side when would you have them do the protest. During the game doesn't make sense. The reason for a protest is to bring attention to an issue and whether you like it or not they have been successful in accomplishing that goal.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
LongGone said:
The Phelps issue was likewise a freedom of speech issue, inappropriately timed, just like the anthem protest. While I disagree with the basis of Phelp's protest, and sympathize with a segment of those who are genuinely targeted for discrimination, neither protest was done at the right time.
LongGone said:
It doesn't matter now, as the protestors have gotten the NFL to knuckle under and pledged to give them 100 million dollars. Of course it's kinda funny that those social crusaders are already squabbling over money issues.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
HeDied4U said:
lol, it seems that amongst these social crusaders they're really not so much about the man in the street being oppressed as the millionaire quarterback who was displaced from his fat contract. At least that is why Reid and the other dude reportedly is still "protesting".
I hope that if the protests continue that the owners do revert back to keeping them in the locker room for the anthem.
ALAYMAN said:
And...."if the opportunity for visible protest is off the table, so too is the players? leverage."
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
HeDied4U said:
Leverage indeed. And make no mistake about it, their intent to leverage their position is aimed at no meager 100 million dollars. One website author called the NFL pledge "chump change" and a "paltry amount". Another player in the mix of the Coalition who pulled out of it said....
?Everything you?re going to see is going to be a skeleton of what could be done,? Michael Thomas said. ?But it?s not enough, in my opinion. It?s not significant enough to where it?s sustainable over time.?
Like I've said before, spoiled brats trying to extort people. Why does the NFL owe ANYTHING to these protestors?
ALAYMAN said:
So you don't like the time when the protest was done. That still does not make it a sensible comparison to Fred Phelps. Even you will admit that racial inequality is an issue. The number of people who would agree that God was killing American soldiers due to homosexuality is minuscule. There is no comparison to protesting at a football (even during the anthem) to protesting a the funeral of a serviceman who just lost his life. The only thing they have in common is we have freedom of speech as long as they abide by the law.
Disagreeing about how money should be spent...sound like a Baptist with a Big B Church ;D
ALAYMAN said:
I saw where Reid expressed concern about Keapernick but I think you are stretching to say that is the only reason Reid is protesting.
ALAYMAN said:
So somebody has opinion that the NFL could do more. That is a perspective that is reasonable when you think that Derek Carr makes $25,000,000 a year himself.
You do realize that without the best players in the world there is no NFL. That is why the NFL is willing to negotiate is that the NFL needs these players to have a product. The NFL "owes" these players because they enable the owners to have a product and make a profit.
How do you define this as spoiled brats trying to extort people? The players protest over an issue they feel strongly about and the outcome does not personally benefit them. How does this make them brats?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 3,227
- Points
- 113
LongGone said:
So for you, freedom of speech in America comes down to a popularity contest, a nose count. If enough people don't represent a segment of the population in their particular belief/speech then it shouldn't be protected? That's ridiculous on its face and you know it. The simple point, which you refuse to accept even when it makes the point very well, is that the players have every right to their speech (though that is limited on the Company dime) but they also have a right to pay the social cost of being rejected, just as Phelps was.
LongGone said:
Again, you put words in people's mouth. I nowhere said that was Reid's ONLY reason, or even necessarily the first reason. It could be that he's going for a power grab. That's what Jenkins and others have essentially said. It could be that 100 million dollars is "paltry" for such a greedy group of people. It could be that he just wants to continue protesting and Jenkins has said that he is more about actions looking forward toward social justice rather than continuing to languish in the past of protests and kneeling knees. Whichever the case, Jenkins is showing that he is actually about doing something (reasonable), whereas the others are coming off as, well, spoiled brat punks.
LongGone said:
Let me guess, you are a strong supporter of Labor Unions and Bernie Sanders' form of socialism. Many of us aren't, and when you've been given so much but always clamour for more it smacks of being a spoiled brat.
ALAYMAN said:
Talk about somebody putting words in somebody mouth. I didn't say that Phelps should not have been protected by the first amendment. I said just the opposite that as long as they did not break the law they had the right. It is ridiculous that you said I said they weren't protected when I clearly said the opposite. Where your comparison breaks down is that you are comparing an issue that most people agree with (racial equality) vs a belief that most people abhor (Gods kills soldiers because of homosexuality). Kneeling during the anthem is no way causes the same pain as people carrying on outside of a funeral with signs and shouting God killed your love one. There is not a reasonable comparison.
It is limited on the company time when the company chooses to limit it. The NFL has chosen at this point not to limit the players protest. My guess is their concern is that just as many people agree with the players and don't so you have a boycott either way.
I don't disagree that you have to pay the social cost of being rejected. It would appear that Keapernick is paying for the cost of his actions. It does seem unusual that he is not on an NFL roster.
This is your quote: At least that is why Reid and the other dude reportedly is still "protesting". It sounded to me like you were saying that is the only reason Reid is still protesting.
Jenkins (part of the Philadelphia Eagles 10-1 team) is making accusations about why other people don't agree with the settlement. Since nobody can look into the heart of Reid nobody but Reid knows his true motivation. I would like to see them settle this but that doesn't make Reid a "brat" because he disagrees. The part you seem to miss is that this doesn't enrich the players themselves. It could be a power grab by Reid or the Players Coalition settlement could be a power grab by Jenkins. We are judging motives of people that we do not know.
It would appear that Alayman's definition of "spoiled brat punks" is to disagree with Alayman. Jenkins originally protested so he was a spoiled brat. He is willing to settle now so he is not a spoiled brat. Reid doesn't want to settle so he is still a "spoiled brat punk".
I am not sure what my support of Labor Unions has to do with this. I would not consider myself a strong supporter of labor unions. In the 28 years I worked in Human Services I was in the bargaining unit 6 years and 22 years in management. I understand both the good and the bad that labor unions have on an organization. In a perfect world management would be reasonable enough that unions would not exist but as you know the world is far from perfect. Not sure what this has to do with this discussion.
I am more moderate that Bernie Sanders and am not a socialist. I did not vote for Bernie. Not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
The protesting players are not clamoring for more for themselves. They are not enriched personally by the protest or the settlement. A player that makes lots of money as a NFL player but gives nothing back to the community could be considered a "spoiled brat" but protesting in a way that you do not deem appropriate does not fit that definition.
4everfsu said:
The summary of the article was there are multiple issues driving the ratings.