Is the NFL declining?

[mannc]

Just now, RoyBatty is alive said:

They are now and they were supposed to be at the start of the season.  If you dont think the Jets are a very good team now  (gunning for greatness) then we will disagree.

The Jets want to be a very good team.  Right now they are mediocre at best, and if you told me they stink, I wouldn't disagree.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

3 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

The league needs review though.  If you remember or go back and watch some old games from the 80s and 90s etc.  there are comical moments where games were decided on terrible calls that today would not happen.  There were so many times balls were spotted incorrectly, guys fumbled and it was called etc..it was just accepted then.

 

Oilers at Bils comeback game 🤐

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

NFL has always been driven by the 21-45 year old group. As someone mentioned, the game as that group knows it ,contains numerous delays due to replays, bad calls etc., and the ratings are at a 9 year high. It may be declining to some of the other age groups, for example, I only care to watch the Bills or if nothing else is going on one of the competitors for a playoff spot in the AFC. Which brings me to my next point.....

The Sunday afternoon culture that is now ingrained in most of us through many generations plays an important role as well. Granpa, Dad, Older brother etc. down to sons and grandsons. It's like going to church.

In Summary, combining the above with more and more betting, leads to continued profits for the league. I don't necessarily think that it leads to better product and more entertainment. It is what it is, nothing runs forever. But as a 60 year old man, i agree with alot  of what the OP said, I don't find it as enjoyable.

Is it because I've been there and seen it all a million times or because the product is not as fun for me? Probably a little of both. However, with all the changes we are experiencing as a society (technology, streaming etc.) don't be surprised if the NFL isn't on easy street forever. People only have so much free time and they want it to be entertaining or they will find something else to do.

[Mat68]

Just now, MikePJ76 said:

The league needs review though.  If you remember or go back and watch some old games from the 80s and 90s etc.  there are comical moments where games were decided on terrible calls that today would not happen.  There were so many times balls were spotted incorrectly, guys fumbled and it was called etc..it was just accepted then.

 

In today's world having 4k tv's and high def/HDR broadcasts with like a dozen cameras in the stadium catching everything it would be malpractice to not have review.

Correct each team has 3 reviews.  That a total of 6 plays a game. Lets remove the malpractice and obvious vs still framing in 4k a moving of a pinky on the ball to confirm he had “control”. 

[Sweats]

What i found for this season for the most part is that there just really aren't too many quality teams to watch this year. There just seems to be a lot of average teams and that makes for just an average watching experience.

 

Shaw, you've been around for a while.......do you remember the slugfests in the 80's and early 90's? Do you remember the quality of the players and teams? Do you remember the rivalries? Do you remember where every game felt like it meant something, and it usually did when there was a lot of pride on the line between franchises.......the House of Pain, the House of Noise, etc.

It felt like every game was well worth watching for the experience. The players had a chip on their shoulders and the rivalries alone were worth tuning in every week (San Fran vs. Dallas, Bills vs. Miami, etc.).......an era where you had the likes of Elway, Kelly, Marino, Rice, Okoye, Thomas, White, etc.

The quality of play was better. The refs didn't dictate the game and yes, the game was rougher, but guys were allowed to tackle without fear of the flag on every play.

 

It feels to me that the NFL has been "dumbed down" for this era and especially this year it has been less than average watching experience for the fans.

 

I'm a big college guy, have been for many years and i enjoy college ball tons more than i enjoy the NFL.....it used to be that i would watch every NFL game and now i only watch the Bills, but if there were more meaningful rivalries, i would watch more as the watching experience would mean more.

 

As it stands now, there is no rivalry outside of the Bills that even warrants my interest.

[GottaRun]

All I really want at this point is a Super Bowl.  To get there you need to get into the playoffs.

 

It used to be the Bills were a marginal 7-9 team and we were "all in" for watching every week because we could see immediate implications of winning in actually getting us to the playoffs.

 

Now we pretty much know we are going to the playoffs so the excitement factor is down week in and week out.  It will amp back up when the playoffs arrive.

Edited 3 hours ago by GottaRun

[Einstein's Dog]

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

And speaking of the Bills, they've given a good example of what I'm talking about. It used to be that teams fixed their rosters in the off-season, and then they played the season. It's almost as though the good teams now don't fix their rosters until October, when they make one or two splashy acquisitions. We spent a lot of time this summer talking about what the Bills' receiver room, and it was all rendered moot when they trade for Cooper. NOW the Bills have the receiver room that they intend to play the season with. In a sense, the first six games have been preseason games. The Bills have been resting their stars - Milano, Miller, Bernard, Cooper, Johnson while they've been giving other guys (Williams, Epenesa and Solomon, Spector, Coleman and MVS, and Lewis) opportunities to work on their games. I know the "rest" they were giving these guys was forced rest, not true rest, but the effect is the same: the Bills have 11 games left, they're 4-2, and in the coming weeks they'll be putting their real starting lineup on the field for the first time.  You can add Oliver and Cook to the list, too. 

 

The real season is about to start. 

To me, the above reads of a person disappointed in actually realizing they fell for the BS that the FO was selling.  The diehard Bills fans who made themselves believe the "WR room quietly got better" or Beane is trailblazing into the "WRs are a dime a dozen".  BS...BS...BS....just PR from the FO, sorry for those of you that fell for it.

 

Lets not rain on the parade of those of us who are rejoicing in having what we considered the largest problem addressed.  

 

For me, this restores a lot of faith back in Beane.  Smart guy who is working hard to address the Bills needs.  I was worried after the 3-0 start and people were crowing on about how this new look was so dominant - that Beane/McD might be thinking that.  This move is more like the move off of Tyrod even though they made the playoffs- don't rest at 4-2, you can make the playoffs but you are not a contender.  Today, the Bills are a contender!   Let those of us that thought this was the missing piece celebrate!!!

[Success]

I'm still a noon to midnight guy on Sundays - but it's not as fun as it used to be.  There just aren't as many interesting games; I'm not sure if that's because some rivalries like Pats/Colts or Cowboys/Giants are over and haven't really been replaced, or if the quality is down.

 

The only games I'm really invested in are our games, and sometimes KC if they're in a close game.  The Ravens a little because they are probably the biggest AFC competition this year.  Not really anything in the NFC.

 

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm watching less NFL that I have in recent seasons. Sunday I didn't start watching football until 6 pm or so. I'm less interested, and I think the quality of the product is down, which adds to my disinterest. 

 

I think Prime's broadcasts are terrible and actually leave me less interested in the NFL. They almost encourage me to turn it off. They do some tricked up digital manipulation of the images to give you a more in-your-face-sense to the whole thing, but all it does is make it more difficult to watch the game. I think they do the digital manipulation to try to cover up the fact that their shows are produced more cheaply, with fewer cameras and less talent. Al Michaels and Herbstreet are horrible. Everything about the product I see and hear makes me want to turn it off, and sometimes I do. I turned it on last night late in the third quarter, watched 15 minutes, and turned it off.

 

Bills-Jets on on ESPN on Monday night was a flop, too.  A lot of penalties, and a lot of indecisiveness by the officials really chopped up the pace of the game and the broadcast. And instead of saving the day with quality talk, Buck and Aikman stumbled through the broadcast all out of sync, too. At one point, no one seemed to know which team had taken a timeout, but the refs were proceeding with the game, unaware that everyone lacked this information. And Aikman and Buck were slow to pick up on the problem. Meanwhile, fans wanted to know. And the teams played sloppy, things were too chippy .  Add it all up - bad play, missed opportunities, too many penalties, indecisive officiating, broadcast team that fails to save the show, I can understand why some fans may start saying, "I don't need to watch every game."  It's not very good TV.

 

If I were the NFL, I'd want more control over production. I wouldn't let Prime screw around with the video presentation. 

 

I'd want better, more professional broadcasters from Fox and CBS. The color commentators, particularly, are weak. Former players trying to talk comfortably into a microphone about something meaningful but not too technical for about 25 seconds. That's hard to do, and if a former player is really good at it, he's Michael Strahan or Peyton Manning and he's not going to be doing color commentary.  So, you get a lot of amateurish chatter about the same old things - momentum, smash-mouth football, etc - coming from guys who simply are not professional talkers. I don't know what's to be done about it, but if I were the NFL, I'd be worried that people like me are finding it easier to turn off games. 

 

I said this to a friend of mine who sent me the following, which was published somewhere:

 

One of the reasons I'm less interested is that it still feels like preseason. More so than most years, teams are trying to figure out how to play, and week to week they look really good to really ugly. Denver's defense last night looked spectacular, playing the way the Bills want to play. They had speed at every position, they were getting pressure on the QB every play, challenging the entire offensive line. How much that had to do with the Saints being bad and not having Carr, I don't know. Whether Denver will be playing like that in December is anyone's guess. So, I view these games as expendable. In late November and December, we'll know which teams are at .500 or better, and that's when the real season will start. In the meantime, I don't care all that much what happens except, of course, to the Bills. 

 

And speaking of the Bills, they've given a good example of what I'm talking about. It used to be that teams fixed their rosters in the off-season, and then they played the season. It's almost as though the good teams now don't fix their rosters until October, when they make one or two splashy acquisitions. We spent a lot of time this summer talking about what the Bills' receiver room, and it was all rendered moot when they trade for Cooper. NOW the Bills have the receiver room that they intend to play the season with. In a sense, the first six games have been preseason games. The Bills have been resting their stars - Milano, Miller, Bernard, Cooper, Johnson while they've been giving other guys (Williams, Epenesa and Solomon, Spector, Coleman and MVS, and Lewis) opportunities to work on their games. I know the "rest" they were giving these guys was forced rest, not true rest, but the effect is the same: the Bills have 11 games left, they're 4-2, and in the coming weeks they'll be putting their real starting lineup on the field for the first time.  You can add Oliver and Cook to the list, too. 

 

The real season is about to start. 

Totally agree.  Everything is going to hell.  Have you noticed that soup isn't as hot as it used to be?

[RoyBatty is alive]

9 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Totally agree.  Everything is going to hell.  Have you noticed that soup isn't as hot as it used to be?

I blame it on Taylor Swift and the out of control Kelce commercial non-sense.

 

Maybe both the NFL and Taylor Swift are in the process of "jumping the shark.'

Edited 2 hours ago by RoyBatty is alive

[LabattBlue]

Is the NFL declining? No. 

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

I can go on and on about what has hurt MLB but as far as TV ratings go there are three big reasons.  I covered the other two in my other post...regional sport/lacks black superstars and can not hold a black audience.

 

The other  major things to me causing ratings being down are, the core baby boomer/Gen-x audience of MLB is slowly dying off.  The game insists on playing its playoff games on Cable channels in a country where most have cut the cord.  For instance, I didn't miss a single Yankees game all year starting with game 1 of the spring games Feb 22nd, I watch a ton of other games, mainly dodgers and padres late at night in the summer.  I do not have cable so I do not have FS1, so after watching the whole season I have been unable to watch the NLCS on FS1.  I have been listening to the mets radio broadcasts of the game on the mlbtv app. 

 

So having a naturally shrinking audience generationally and playing games on cable channels so many do not have is hurting.  MLB is insane for having the masked singer on the other night on the OTA fox national channel while the mets-dodgers are on FS1.  That is total insanity.  Imagine the nfl playing an AFC Championship game with one of its biggest starts, mahomes and the game is on a cable channel that you can only have with a cable subscription, like if it was on AMC or something.  MLB has Ohtani Vs. New York and its on FS1!  

 

if General Anthony C. McAuliffe were with us today he would say NUTS to games on FS1 and TBS.

 

MLB went allowed regional cable broadcasts as a routine since the 80's.  It's not a new development that is sapping ratings. If you didn't miss a single Yankees game, then you were watching YES network (a cable network). 

 

Also, MLB never had a large black audience (or black players: 18% max in 1991 --and the game now consists of 30% Latino players, in a country where Latino Americans significantly outnumber black Americans.  Hispanic MLB viewers are among the most avid watches of that league right now.  

 

As for "most have cut the cord" in this country, I can't find source that puts it at much more than 1/3 of households.  Similarly, watching YES or FS1 via  FUBO, etc, is not cutting the cord.  It's just watching cable TV without a cable box.

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Maybe? I watch almost no football now outsides Bills games, and have made a conscious effort to NOT let their performances impact my mood for the weekend. Like I still love this team, but I really don’t get as hot/cold as I used to. Maybe it’s maturity? lol
 

I’ve always said if the team ever moves, there goes my interest in the NFL. I don’t think I’d watch it at all. 

[MikePJ76]

17 minutes ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

NFL has always been driven by the 21-45 year old group. As someone mentioned, the game as that group knows it ,contains numerous delays due to replays, bad calls etc., and the ratings are at a 9 year high. It may be declining to some of the other age groups, for example, I only care to watch the Bills or if nothing else is going on one of the competitors for a playoff spot in the AFC. Which brings me to my next point.....

The Sunday afternoon culture that is now ingrained in most of us through many generations plays an important role as well. Granpa, Dad, Older brother etc. down to sons and grandsons. It's like going to church.

In Summary, combining the above with more and more betting, leads to continued profits for the league. I don't necessarily think that it leads to better product and more entertainment. It is what it is, nothing runs forever. But as a 60 year old man, i agree with alot  of what the OP said, I don't find it as enjoyable.

Is it because I've been there and seen it all a million times or because the product is not as fun for me? Probably a little of both. However, with all the changes we are experiencing as a society (technology, streaming etc.) don't be surprised if the NFL isn't on easy street forever. People only have so much free time and they want it to be entertaining or they will find something else to do.

So many reasons for the TV rating dominance as you, myself and others pointed out.

 

The new thing over the last 15 years or so that is also driving those numbers is the incredible rise in women watching the NFL.  I graduated high school in 1995.  I knew tons of girls at school and in my family who watched baseball but I can't remember any girls/women who watched the NFL outside of the Super Bowl.   Now It seems women from all ages are watching football, noon to midnight as stated earlier with the rest of us.

 

You would never know this if you listen to sports radio around the country yet though because the ads are still a grouping of ***** pills, Beer, Hooters/local strip clubs, online gambling and oil changes.  

[Steptide]

The match ups lately have been pretty bad. I mean saints and broncos last night is awful. Lots of the 1pm games have been hot garbage. I think that'll turn around though. 9ers and kc this week will be a good one (hopefully). Aside from that, for me personally, I enjoy sitting around all day Sunday and watching football, as bad as some games may be. We only get it for 5 months a year, and it goes so quick. So I enjoy it regardless of how bad the games might be 

[Mr. WEO]

29 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Perry now with the Bills formerly ESPN.  Gene Steratore CBS.  Mike Periera started it by retiring as an official to join Fox.  
 

My argument about replay is that most of the time the calls are still debatable.  So what was really gained?  For the few plays a game that it is important you still have 6 replays. That is be more than enough.  Games will be smoother. 

 

Steratore, ironically enough, blew the infamous Megatron TD call, overruling the call of TD on the field.  He was later backed up on that beauty by......Mike Pereira.  Pereira spent a total of 2 years as a line judge in the NFL before taking a supervisory role.  He hasn't been on the field since 1997....

 

I would take a review reversal over a mistaken call all day.  they should limit it to 1 minute though.  if these guys back in the studio in the city need more than that, then let the call stand.

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

maybe it's saturation? They've flooded the market so much that people just want a break from stuff that doesn't really apply to the team they care about.

I agree...games are on constantly. Now they're on multiple streaming channels.  Refs need to be restrained by the league.  It's almost like for every flag it's a TV opportunity for them. I don't mind a little nba load management if it leads to a healthier playoff team & championship. I agree with @Shaw66 that the product as a whole is down. Announcers like Michaels are aging out.  Young kids are not playing pop warner football anymore so with each year the college pool will be diminished. 

[MikePJ76]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

MLB went allowed regional cable broadcasts as a routine since the 80's.  It's not a new development that is sapping ratings. If you didn't miss a single Yankees game, then you were watching YES network (a cable network). 

 

Also, MLB never had a large black audience (or black players: 18% max in 1991 --and the game now consists of 30% Latino players, in a country where Latino Americans significantly outnumber black Americans.  Hispanic MLB viewers are among the most avid watches of that league right now.  

 

As for "most have cut the cord" in this country, I can't find source that puts it at much more than 1/3 of households.  Similarly, watching YES or FS1 via  FUBO, etc, is not cutting the cord.  It's just watching cable TV without a cable box.

My point was about the playoffs being carried on a cable channel that needs to be subscribed to through a cable subscription. Even Espn put the Orioles-Royals series on ESPN 2 which can not be subscribed to as a stand alone, so if you pay for espn or Espn+ as a standalone you still couldn't have watched the games without an actual Cable Subscription as part of the package.  This is my issue, its a post season issue.

 

Yes, I watch the Yankees on YES and also Prime and Apple TV.  That is the regular season though.  Personally, I use the MLB App and login to yes for pre and post game stuff with my parents account in NY.  The Yankees sell a stand alone YES app subscription for 125 a year but I don't think its available in all markets, for instance I live 15 minutes from the Texas Rangers Globe Life Field and am pretty sure I can not sign up for YES.

 

Cutting the cord is not subscribing to a cable subscription in the traditional sense, the delivery is not what I am talking about.  Not sure why you are bringing that up, I mean yea you can subscribe to direct tv, spectrum, fubo, hulutv or sling etc. and just use an app.  Not sure why that is relevant.  In order to have the channels you need a subscription.

 

As far as MLB never having a black audience I just don't buy that.  The history of the game and cooperstown are filled with amazing black players and everyone wanted to watch them.  Young black athletes grew up playing baseball and wanting to play in MLB because they watched/listened to their games and wanted to be like them.  The game had players who looked like them they admired and looked up to.

 

19.1 % of the US is Hispanic/Latino, 60% of that is Mexican.  

30% of MLB is Latino, 1.6% of that group is Mexican.

 

So it's not the same thing.  Kids growing up around this country until the last 20 years or so could turn on an MLB game and see black superstars who came from their neighborhoods and went to their schools and would want to watch and would want to be the next Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Rickey Henderson, Ken Griffey, Tony Gwynn etc.  They just do not exist in todays game.  A 2nd/3rd/4th generation mexican american family is not going to tune into an MLB game because a guy from the dominican is leading the Twins in RBI's.  Its just a different thing.  

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, WEATHER DOT COM said:

 

Oilers at Bils comeback game 🤐

yep.

 

I can't remember exactly but I think there is a play in the first quarter of the Giants-Niners 1990 NFC Championship that benefitted the Giants and they kicked a field goal out of it.  I have game on DVD somewhere on a shelf from my years of downloading everygame I could get my hands on via ten yard torrents.   I think those 3 points were big late in that game.

 

Would have been nice to beat the hell out of Steve Young who was primed to make a mistake constantly at that point of this career in tampa instead of Bill Bellichick and Bill Parcells defense!

[JP51]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

maybe it's saturation? They've flooded the market so much that people just want a break from stuff that doesn't really apply to the team they care about.

Sundays were church then football... now it is on all the time... when they started making you get these silly channels to watch the games I started to lose interest. 

[Big Turk]

I think a lot of teams have transitioned to more running to combat the cloud coverages and smaller, quicker defensive players and base nickel defenses that have exploded in popularity and so things are still being figured out to some degree which leads to some of this.

 

I do agree that things have looked disjointed more but I also feel that has to do with teams that are in large part scheming stuff very well early in the year but maybe don't have the talent to suggest they should be doing so well so DC's eventually catch up to them.