Up 4 percent overall from last year according fo les moonves. Keep looking Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
those advertisers can try that tactic at renegotiation time, sure. The NFL will proceed to laugh at them and go to other advertisers offering more
I never said advertisers were walking away, but nice try with a deflect that way. Advertisers have already dropped some players though. I was pretty clear that the league may or may not lose sponsors but those sponsors will definitely use the drop in ratings to help them negotiate. To think otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the way the world works.
Theyre still lining up to line the pockets of the nfl. The nfl literally bullies cities into building them stadiums and not mention all the backroom blow jobs to move a team to vegas Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Still waiting to know why it bothers you so much that people could possibly value respect of flag and country & law enforcement service personel over a sport. Why would you care?
Youre an idiot. I dont care, im simply stating facts to dispute the false claims that the nfl is suffering. As someone who clearly wants to hurt them you should appreciate this information as you would know its pretty much ineffective amd try new tactic. So let go of this pseudo patriot angle you're taking. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Keep looking? I quoted from the article you posted. And your "up 4%" is for one network for 1 week, I don't think I need to quote again from the article you posted that they are down overall from last year.
Evidence shows completely otherwise If you didn't care you wouldn't be responding to every single post that even hints at politically related ratings drops within 2 seconds of the message. You are completely unable to let even one comment slide, obviously you have an obsession with this. It's pretty bizarre
Look again, cbs has had an increase in 4 percent. Monday night and Sunday night saw increases only fox saw a drop last week. Just let it go. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/703619001/ Lets put this debate to rest Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Let it go? I'll guess I'll post again from your article, According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, the regional and national Sunday NFL windows on CBS, Fox and NBC averaged 17.2 million overall viewers and a 10.0 household rating, down 4 percent in viewers and 1 percent in households from the Sunday prior, when just seven players declined to stand for the national anthem. And compared to a year earlier, viewers for Sunday's protest-filled telecasts were down 8% from 18.7 million. That's on par with the 8 percent drop from the first two weeks of last season to the opening two weeks this season.
Which coincides with an election and natural disaster. Otherwise ratings are the same. Youre wrong and the article states why, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
So you post one article and it "puts the debate to rest", even if the earlier article you posted shows a ratings drop. I'm done with you, get one more post in to think you are right
Oh please dont nit pick one line that supports exactly what i said earlier and call it right. Youre wrong plain and simple and youre the only person arguing it. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I came to this thread expecting to see discussion about the real threat to the NFL that was announced today, which is also actually relevant to this thread. Researchers at Boston University have found a biomarker (a cytokine called CCL11) that could indicate the level of CTE in a living person. If this pans out many football players from high school on up are going to want to take the test on an ongoing basis, and as soon as the level of CCL11 gets too high they'll quit. If the news is bad enough about how many players are exhibiting early signs of CTE (as I suspect might be the case) pretty much the only people left who will play the game are the most disadvantaged among us, as has happened in boxing for very much the same reasons.
Wow. I just looked into this and the important part is that the sooner this is completely substantiated, the sooner they can start to look into possible treatment options for the disease. You would think that the NFL would have to place a threshold on a player, so that if they surpass a certain limit of CCL11, then they would be deemed ineligible to play. With all of the technological developments over the last twenty or so years, you would think that they are able to remodel helmets to completely protect a humans brain. I know they are working hard at it, but helmets remain the single most deadly weapon in professional sports. Not only for the person being tackled, but the tackler themselves. I'd love to see this sport continue to flourish but I just don't see it past another twenty to thirty years. Either that, or we will see players outside of quarterbacks retire before they're thirty and see an even shorter average NFL career. A player like Patrick Willis, retiring at 29 after 7 Pro Bowl years/5 All-Pro seasons could be the gold standard for how players view their career and the end of their career. Interesting how we may see some longevity related records cemented. For example, I can't see anyone coming close to Emmett Smith's career rushing yards especially with the more and more runningback by committees we see in the league today.
A helmet's job is to protect players from cracked skulls, and it does this job very well. It isn't meant to protect players from concussions. A concussion happens when your brain bounces off the inside of your skull. Which in turn happens when your head jerks suddenly (which is why it's possible to get concussed in a car accident without even hitting your head on something). But there's nothing a helmet can do to stop your head from jerking, no matter how advanced it is.
