Super Bowl LII

[Buccaneer]

Look at who the Walter Payton Man of the Year was. He likely had done more tangible good to those in need than all of the token protesters this season combined.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Cause that's the only possible reason, right?

Who did NASCAR piss off then?

Well this year they are going to have a black driver. That probably pissed off some of these anti-kneelers . They just knew it was eventually going to happened so gradually stopped their watching a few years back...

[albionmoonlight]

I think that it's hard to compare. We're having a lot more conversations about police brutality than we would had the players not bothered. Is that worth more or less than headlining a successful fund-raising initiative after a natural disaster?

They are both very good things to do. But the effects and the time horizons are very different.

[ISiddiqui]

On a more serious note, is anyone noticing that ratings are down ACROSS THE BOARD? Why are people acting like the NFL is the only sports league, or entertainment programming, that has lower TV ratings?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On a more serious note, is anyone noticing that ratings are down ACROSS THE BOARD? Why are people acting like the NFL is the only sports league, or entertainment programming, that has lower TV ratings?

NBA Ratings Up Nearly 30 Percent on ESPN, TNT | Media - AdAge

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

NBA Ratings Up Nearly 30 Percent on ESPN, TNT | Media - AdAge

As another article around the same time of Dec 1 (a day or two earlier) reported:

As NFL ratings drop, ESPN's NBA viewership is up 24 percent this season

Now, we should note that 19 games is not a very large sample and that much or all of the ratings bump could owe to the quality of the games the network has aired. Local ratings last season were actually down from 2015-16, and NBA Finals ratings dropped slightly as well.

FWIW, if it holds, NBA may the only major league to be bucking the trend, as MLB's and NHL's ratings have been down as well. NBA players are more politically inclined as well, interestingly enough.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As another article around the same time of Dec 1 (a day or two earlier) reported:

As NFL ratings drop, ESPN's NBA viewership is up 24 percent this season



FWIW, if it holds, NBA may the only major league to be bucking the trend, as MLB's and NHL's ratings have been down as well. NBA players are more politically inclined as well, interestingly enough.

I don't think politics matter very much in sports ratings. The vast majority of people are going to watch what entertains them. The NFL's push to become a year-round sport is hurting interest more than anything IMO. People tire of it being at the top of the new cycle 12 months out of the year. Moving the draft back up to where it was and actually having an offseason would be the first step in helping things.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that it's hard to compare. We're having a lot more conversations about police brutality than we would had the players not bothered. Is that worth more or less than headlining a successful fund-raising initiative after a natural disaster?

They are both very good things to do. But the effects and the time horizons are very different.

Very much this. The impact of a protest is completely indirect and delayed, while disaster relief is very direct with an immediate payout.

[Buccaneer]

Regarding ratings, several questions.

During the regular season in my household, 90% of our NFL viewing is RedZone. Is that counted in the ratings?

I can watch RedZone but I have a very hard time watching non-RedZone broadcasts*, not because of protestings but due to the insane amount of commercials (and a little bit because of the concussive hits). Fox is the worst, I perceive, and rarely watch any games on Fox. But it looks like it's going to get even worse with their new TNF contract, will they increase the amount of commercials even more? I know Manfred brought it up for MLB and I think Goddell did last year? Is this even changeable??

I understand networks need to not lose money on their contracts but don't you think part of the reason is the exponentially increasing cost of production? I mean, do we really need 18 cameras? Do we need all the gimmicks that add to the need to have even more commercials?

I do like Fox' on-field technology (and that cost money too) even though others are now doing it better. Speaking of that, do you find it funny that Fox put all that effort into its silly robotic/mech graphics but their score line is straight 1970s (compared to the brilliance of NBC's score line)?

So bottom line, since the commissioners did bring it up, don't you think a lot of the drop is due to the amount of commercials? What if they reduced the production costs (number of cameras, personnel, etc.), would that lead to a reduction in the number of commercials?

*caveat: I stopped watching TV regularly about 20 years ago, mostly due to commercials. So that's a bias I have in not being a regular sports viewer as well.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Look at who the Walter Payton Man of the Year was. He likely had done more tangible good to those in need than all of the token protesters this season combined.

He was involved with something that did good but it's not like without his face no one would have helped.

While I suspect Kaepernick's motives weren't all about the cause (more like all about getting himself noticed but it backfired) but the movement that followed put that discussion on the front page. It now led to an NFL program that never would have existed without it.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

He was involved with something that did good but it's not like without his face no one would have helped.

While I suspect Kaepernick's motives weren't all about the cause (more like all about getting himself noticed but it backfired) but the movement that followed put that discussion on the front page. It now led to an NFL program that never would have existed without it.

Exactly, and many of these players (Malcolm Jenkins as an example) were putting considerable time and resources into programs to fight injustice and improve the lot of disadvantaged youth, many times in relative obscurity. The protests, as EF mentioned have benefitted Jenkins efforts, as well as many others. So on that alone, they had a positive impact.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

He was involved with something that did good but it's not like without his face no one would have helped.

While I suspect Kaepernick's motives weren't all about the cause (more like all about getting himself noticed but it backfired) but the movement that followed put that discussion on the front page. It now led to an NFL program that never would have existed without it.

Kaepernick is doing what he should keep on doing (which included making the last of his million dollar put-his-money-where-his-mouth-is donation) and not be distracted by football (and vice-versa). That's not token, unlike what some of the players this season who just wanted "to bring awareness" without having to sacrifice much because football and its wealth is all-consuming. With Kaep out of football, he can do more if it's true motivation.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

During the regular season in my household, 90% of our NFL viewing is RedZone. Is that counted in the ratings?

Good question. I would like to know that one as well.

[quote=Buccaneer;3194348I can watch RedZone but I have a very hard time watching non-RedZone broadcasts*, not because of protestings but due to the insane amount of commercials (and a little bit because of the concussive hits). Fox is the worst, I perceive, and rarely watch any games on Fox. But it looks like it's going to get even worse with their new TNF contract, will they increase the amount of commercials even more? I know Manfred brought it up for MLB and I think Goddell did last year? Is this even changeable??

I understand networks need to not lose money on their contracts but don't you think part of the reason is the exponentially increasing cost of production? I mean, do we really need 18 cameras? Do we need all the gimmicks that add to the need to have even more commercials?

I do like Fox' on-field technology (and that cost money too) even though others are now doing it better. Speaking of that, do you find it funny that Fox put all that effort into its silly robotic/mech graphics but their score line is straight 1970s (compared to the brilliance of NBC's score line)?

So bottom line, since the commissioners did bring it up, don't you think a lot of the drop is due to the amount of commercials? What if they reduced the production costs (number of cameras, personnel, etc.), would that lead to a reduction in the number of commercials?

*caveat: I stopped watching TV regularly about 20 years ago, mostly due to commercials. So that's a bias I have in not being a regular sports viewer as well.[/QUOTE]

I am assuming that a reduction in the commercials will result in less money in the owners' pockets so I don't think that is happening any time soon.

[BishopMVP]

Congrats to the Eagles and their fans. Lost a great game to a very good team. Not the first one we've lost, and at least we're still 8 for 8 on playing good/close games.
Wouldn't mind a rematch next year at all

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Congratulations to all the Eagle fans.

I am glad to see that the folks at my party weren’t the only ones wondering if the Ertz TD would be overturned.

My thoughts on the 3 "questionable" TD's - couldn't care less about whether Jeffrey was on the line (if it had been a tackle eligible play or there was a question if he was supposed to be covering up Foles mayyyybe, but Foles was in the backfield, and that's always seemed like such a judgment call when the WR is out wide), thought Ertz had obviously turned into a runner and couldn't understand why the refs reviewed that one for so long,
but I think once Clement had possession his 2nd foot was clearly on the white & that should've been overturned based on the way the rule was called most of the season. Pats still had the lead in the 4th and the Eagles made plenty of plays to win, and we benefited from a few high profile technical calls like that this year, but that's one I think is overturned 8 or 9 out of 10 times during the season.

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Yeah, this was super odd to me. I am finding it hard to believe we know the whole story right now, but then again my brain can't figure out what/where it could conceivably go from here.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

PFF isn't the be all and end all, but they had Butler as a pretty average CB and Rowe as one of the worst in the league. When you give up 375 yards and 3 TD's to Nick Foles, maybe the Patriots just out Patriot-ed themselves on this one. You can understand why he's not happy about it.

This is definitely one that no one understands right now. Any other team I'd assume the rumors of multiple missed curfews & getting caught with weed had to be true, but I think it's just a case of Belichick/Patricia outsmarting themselves and trusting too much in their schemes over talent. He definitely was sick (or "sick") to start the week, and there has been friction all year over Butler's impending free agency, but at a certain point he played 97% of the snaps this year for a reason, and playing Eric Rowe (a serviceable NFL CB) is one thing and Johnson Bademosi/Jordan Richards is another, especially after a 1st half you got absolutely torched. It shouldn't take away from a great Philly gameplan, some very good plays they made, and the complete lack of QB pressure that meant we could've had Ty Law in that spot & it wouldn't have mattered most plays.

I also wouldn't put it past Belichick to franchise tag or re-sign Butler just to make everyone's heads explode

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So how good is Foles?

Do the Eagles trade him off a hot run?

If you get a godfather offer during the draft, maybe, but with Wentz's injury happening late in the season & Foles under contract at a reasonable amount I think I'd hold on to him for now and make sure Wentz is back healthy (and if necessary you don't need to rush him back and end up in a Luck-like situation.) Can likely trade him next trade deadline for a 2nd/3rd rounder if Wentz comes back 100%, and with his personality, bad experiences in other organizations, and knowledge his contract runs out after 2018 I don't think Foles would be any sort of bad apple if he's the backup next season.

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I was extremely impressed with Doug Pederson; I'm not sure how much of that was the fact that the Eagles were successful on all those 4th down "gambles," but my short-term memory is telling me I liked the calls before they were successful.

I don't catch a lot of Eagles games; has he been highly regarded for a while? In very early hindsight this seemed like an extremely well coached/gameplanned/executed game by the Eagles.

ESPN infamously labeled him the worst hire 2 offseasons ago (and Hue Jackson the best). He was always an offensive assistant under Reid, coming off a bad playoff loss to the Patriots where the Chiefs had a methodical 8 minute drive down 2 scores in the 4th quarter, and I think a lot of people gave most of the credit for any offensive success or gameplanning of those offenses to Reid more than him. I do think a large part of his success is having a good staff under him and a very talented roster, but he seems like he listens to smart people under him and has the right amount of aggressiveness you want in a head coach.

[Logan]

The little pause by Pederson after Foles suggested to run the Philly Special is incredible.

.@NFoles_9 made the call, made the touchdown and made history. #PhillySpecial

Watch more @NFLFilms highlights on the #InsideTheNFL finale TONIGHT 9PM ET/PT on Showtime.@Eagles #SBLII #FlyEaglesFly #Eagles pic.twitter.com/jIDrfeYpVW

— Inside the NFL (@insidetheNFL) February 6, 2018

[Julio Riddols]

That's some great film. Make that the last play of the game and it is straight out of a movie.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

That's some great film. Make that the last play of the game and it is straight out of a movie.

like the comanche play from Any given sunday!

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, that was a great call and a good history behind that play. The Eagles won because they did what the Falcons and Jaguars would not do - keep playing aggressive till the end, the best way to beat the Pats.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

That's some great film. Make that the last play of the game and it is straight out of a movie.

If that was in a movie, even Denzel wouldn't have been able to nail Peterson's perfect combined reaction of surprise, excitement, agreement, and "this guy has some balls!".

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Logan

If that was in a movie, even Denzel wouldn't have been able to nail Peterson's perfect combined reaction of surprise, excitement, agreement, and "this guy has some balls!".

But if it was like Denzel’s movie or any other “based on a true story” football movie, they would have had the Eagles come back from a big deficit and win on the final play.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But if it was like Denzel’s movie or any other “based on a true story” football movie, they would have had the Eagles come back from a big deficit and win on the final play.

Fake 23 Blast with a Backside George Reverse

[cartman]

The Triple Lindy