When does chasing the almighty $$$ overcome the sanctity of the sport???

[Gen2]

I came to an epiphany this morning while listening to the NFL channel on the radio this morning. The hosts were discussing playoff chances of the teams currently "in the hunt". A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

 

This got me thinking would/could the league manipulate the outcome of the season to chase that Nielson rating? Before you dismiss the thought out of hand, think how the league has "manipulated" the game to increase viewership. The rules have evolved to favor the offense to the point that the defense can hardly defend on any given play, scores have skyrocketed and all of a sudden the "casual viewer" becomes the rabid fan. Now that they have run out of not so subtle rules to favor the offense, "points of emphasis" come into play ... what's pass interference this week may or not be pass interference next week, what was holding last week may or not be holding this week, don't even get me started on the rash of illegal formation penalties this year.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a more offensive orientated game as much as the next person, and I understand the game NEEDS to experience a certain amount of evolution especially in the player safety areas, but it's getting to the point where the outcome of the game and even entire seasons can be influenced by a strict adherence to a rule, or simply overlooking that rule on any given play.

 

Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age, but this season in particular seems to contain way too may head scratching upsets, close nail biting games between two teams who don't even belong on the field together in "prime time", and dramatic straight out of the movies comeback victories to not make me think there MAY be something rotten in Denmark.

 

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

[Kwai San]

7 minutes ago, Gen2 said:

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

Agree and IMO of course there is some subtle manipulation going on.

[Ya Digg?]

In terms of changing the rules to make the game more offensive, the league is never been shy in admitting that they want to see more points scored.
 

If you think the league is trying to manipulate games so that it’s the Pats vs the Bucs in the Super Bowl, not even close. You would need 30 other organizations to sign off on the fact that they are fine with not going to the super bowl (and the revenue that comes directly to those teams because of going) and also making sure that everyone who knows about said manipulation will never tell anyone

[GoBills808]

No.

[fridge]

3 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:

You would need 30 other organizations to sign off on the fact that they are fine with not going to the super bowl

 

I don't think there's anything fishy going on, but why would the other teams need to be in on a fix?

 

I think the league is of course rooting for a Pats vs Bucs superbowl because the storyline is easy to market and sell -- but let's be real here. The NFL is not actively trying to fix games like this. It's not worth the risk. They get plenty of viewers regardless of matchup.

[JoPoy88]

58 minutes ago, Gen2 said:

I came to an epiphany this morning while listening to the NFL channel on the radio this morning. The hosts were discussing playoff chances of the teams currently "in the hunt". A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

 

This got me thinking would/could the league manipulate the outcome of the season to chase that Nielson rating? Before you dismiss the thought out of hand, think how the league has "manipulated" the game to increase viewership. The rules have evolved to favor the offense to the point that the defense can hardly defend on any given play, scores have skyrocketed and all of a sudden the "casual viewer" becomes the rabid fan. Now that they have run out of not so subtle rules to favor the offense, "points of emphasis" come into play ... what's pass interference this week may or not be pass interference next week, what was holding last week may or not be holding this week, don't even get me started on the rash of illegal formation penalties this year.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a more offensive orientated game as much as the next person, and I understand the game NEEDS to experience a certain amount of evolution especially in the player safety areas, but it's getting to the point where the outcome of the game and even entire seasons can be influenced by a strict adherence to a rule, or simply overlooking that rule on any given play.

 

Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age, but this season in particular seems to contain way too may head scratching upsets, close nail biting games between two teams who don't even belong on the field together in "prime time", and dramatic straight out of the movies comeback victories to not make me think there MAY be something rotten in Denmark.

 

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

There is no sanctity of the sport because nothing about football (especially pro football) is sacred. It’s a kids game for f’s sakes. 
 

In all honesty if you take this **** that seriously, you have problems.

Edited December 12, 2021 by JoPoy88

[Dopey]

No

[Gen2]

30 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:

In terms of changing the rules to make the game more offensive, the league is never been shy in admitting that they want to see more points scored.
 

If you think the league is trying to manipulate games so that it’s the Pats vs the Bucs in the Super Bowl, not even close. You would need 30 other organizations to sign off on the fact that they are fine with not going to the super bowl (and the revenue that comes directly to those teams because of going) and also making sure that everyone who knows about said manipulation will never tell anyone

 

At this point I'm not sure what I think ... LOL

 

As far as everybody having to be "in on the fix" I don't agree. All the league has to do is levy big fines if anybody ever questions the officiating .... OH wait

 

I'm not sure how the leagues revenue sharing works for as far as the play offs and Super Bowl, but I do know that the lions share of the NFLs income is derived from their broadcast rights, and the cost of those rights are based on viewership. 

[Dr.Sack]

While I don’t think this is possible for reasons mentioned above, you could make this argument based on actual evidence. If the NFL HQ was trying to manipulate this outcome they would influence the officiating crew to not call penalties in particular offensive holding. Think of Harris’ 60+ yard TD on MNF. You would need to analyze the ALL-22 and find a holding penalty not called. It looked clean to me. Simply a case of the Patriots blocking scheme enveloping the entire front 7 of the Bills. 
 

In short we have prior evidence of the Patriots cheating (SpyGate & DeflateGate) to win games. The NFL in both cases came down on the Patriots hard. Similarly BountyGate resulted in major suspensions for Gregg Williams & Sean Payton.  
 

I don’t see this as an option, because the integrity of the game is more important than who wins the game. 

[Boatdrinks]

I’m not sure when, but I’d venture that it’s already happened.

[RangerDave]

I do believe that financial gain influences almost every decision the NFL makes.  I don't believe that this includes who wins/loses a particular game/games.

 

The reason I don't believe that happens is that financial gain also influences almost every decision an NFL player makes, too.  None of them would stand to allow NFL decisions to affect performance bonuses they may lose based on fewer yards rushing/passing, fewer wins, fewer playoff bonuses, fewer Pro Bowl bonuses, etc.  Not to mention playing for pride, for a feeling of accomplishment, for glory, for endorsements, etc.

 

I find it hard to believe that this type of collusion would remain secret for long.  Too many paychecks involved.

[PonyBoy]

As the late great comedian George Carlin said of politics at the time, but has grown broader since. " It's a big ol' country club folks and we're not in it". 

[May Day 10]

Honestly wouldn't watch that superbowl

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

11 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

Honestly wouldn't watch that superbowl

 

Pats would make me puke...but Ravens/Titans/Chiefs doesn’t ring a bell either.

[Mr. WEO]

Again with this??? 
 

Dude, this EXACT same nonsense thread was posted only 6 days ago.  
 

 

[Augie]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

No.

 

Can you give me a Cliff Notes style summary? I’m not sure what the point is, but I am watching college hoops and will only try so hard. 

[Dablitzkrieg]

Please stop. ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ ✋️ 

[MrSarcasm]

So when is your flat-earthers club meeting?

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, Gen2 said:

I came to an epiphany this morning while listening to the NFL channel on the radio this morning. The hosts were discussing playoff chances of the teams currently "in the hunt". A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

 

This got me thinking would/could the league manipulate the outcome of the season to chase that Nielson rating? Before you dismiss the thought out of hand, think how the league has "manipulated" the game to increase viewership. The rules have evolved to favor the offense to the point that the defense can hardly defend on any given play, scores have skyrocketed and all of a sudden the "casual viewer" becomes the rabid fan. Now that they have run out of not so subtle rules to favor the offense, "points of emphasis" come into play ... what's pass interference this week may or not be pass interference next week, what was holding last week may or not be holding this week, don't even get me started on the rash of illegal formation penalties this year.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a more offensive orientated game as much as the next person, and I understand the game NEEDS to experience a certain amount of evolution especially in the player safety areas, but it's getting to the point where the outcome of the game and even entire seasons can be influenced by a strict adherence to a rule, or simply overlooking that rule on any given play.

 

Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age, but this season in particular seems to contain way too may head scratching upsets, close nail biting games between two teams who don't even belong on the field together in "prime time", and dramatic straight out of the movies comeback victories to not make me think there MAY be something rotten in Denmark.

 

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

 

 

This has been discussed here again and again, most recently within the last week.

 

And no. It would make zero sense. Below zero, it would be directly against their interests.

 

They have a golden goose that could keep paying them hundreds of millions of dollars for decades. Risking that to crank up viewership for a bigger payday that would amount to maybe a 2- 4% increase would be completely and totally bonkers, finanacially. And you can say a lot of things that aren't very nice about NFL owners, but financially they're a pretty acute group.

 

 

4 hours ago, Ya Digg? said:

In terms of changing the rules to make the game more offensive, the league is never been shy in admitting that they want to see more points scored.
 

If you think the league is trying to manipulate games so that it’s the Pats vs the Bucs in the Super Bowl, not even close. You would need 30 other organizations to sign off on the fact that they are fine with not going to the super bowl (and the revenue that comes directly to those teams because of going) and also making sure that everyone who knows about said manipulation will never tell anyone

 

 

Precisely.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Bferra13]

The answer lies somewhere in the middle i believe. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Bferra13