OK, so there is right now a criminal trial going on involving a sitting US Senator The evidence covers bribery, corruption, super models, private jets, luxury resorts and Medicare fraud A big deal, right? Look at the chart below of the time allotted to this trial by major media in the US Based on nothing but the amount of coverage the networks have given to this trial, see if you can guess which political party the defendant belongs to?
In an interesting move, Moore launched a pro-Trump grassroots site to help his campaign. http://MooreMAGA.com It looks like Trump's advisors let him get on the wrong side of this one. Hopefully he learns a lesson on who not to listen to in the future and about amnesty/DACA which is probably the largest wedge issue in this run-off. Apparently I was wrong on the date of their debate. It is on now, if interested http://www.waff.com/story/36423313/watch-tonight-luther-strange-and-roy-moore-debate
NFL ratings still not so hot. A new report claims that CBS, ESPN, Fox and NBC could take a $200M hit to advertising earnings if fans continue to turn off TV. What a bunch of nincompoops. The NFL business model was foolproof.
The cord cutters are what's impacting the NFL and ESPN. To argue that Collin K or Jemele Hill (DJT did this) have some significant impact is silly. My only friend who referenced he wasn't going to watch the NFL anymore only watches the NFL in February and then we had to teach him that his Dish could back up live TV as he missed the interception return for a TD because he was yapping in the kitchen.
I'm sure there is a very small minority of snowflakes shuttering the NFL because Colin K and Michael Bennett are taking a political stand. Still, ratings are down for network and cable TV across the board. It's why the NFL signed a deal with Twitter and I'm sure Youtube will soon be showing games during the next contract renewal. Traditional viewing habits are changing impacting ratings but more importantly the traditional way of measuring ratings.
I think there's a ton of reasons. Oversaturation is one. Thursday, Sunday and Monday nights with matchups predetermined well before we know who's good. Hell, last night's game is a good example. It was a good one but it was a horrible matchup of two bad teams before the season. The NFL trying to slowly creep Sunday Ticket as the required option. It's expensive. I had it last season for free and liked it but didn't use it enough to pay $300. They keep good games from you on Sunday. I don't like that I can't sit down on Sunday and watch someone other than the Cowboys or I'm just given a random game on the other 2 slots. It would be nice if they could switch the Bills v. Seahawks from my non NY/Seattle station to s hot game like Baltimore/Pittsburgh or whatever game is playing out good at the time. And, they're moving more and more to having 8-10 games in the early window and only 3-5 in the late window. This week it's 9-3 not counting the London game at the *** crack of dawn. Concussions. Less people are letting their kids play it. Too much to watch. Netflix, Amazon, etc. is getting better and better. Better internet is allowing people to cut their $140 cable/sat bill. My bill went from $140 to $55 without me even asking when I called them to do a move due to "loyalty" and I've only been with Direct for 16 months. That is a number that will keep my wife from cutting said cord. I do think protests have a small but insignificant impact. Probably closer to the concussion thing or the review stuff than the other reasons.
Well I do turn on NFL Red Zone, but don't watch entire games until real late in season. I made a deliberate decision to endulge my college football obsession and ignore the NFL due partly to Kapernick and other, what I consider primal Donna type, personalities. Just my position on many affairs.
I cut the cord a year ago also. Now I leverage Sling and antenna for live TV. NFL Redzone appears to have moved off of Sling this year which is disappointing.
According to the J.D. Power poll, cord cutting was the least cited reason by those respondents who watched less football in 2016. Anthem protests (top choice) - 30% football fans, 26% other respondents Cord-cutting (last choice) - 6% football fans, 5% other respondents J.D. Power, a global market research company, provided data from over 9,200 people, per ESPN. The survey asked "Why did you watch less football in 2016?" and offered up these choices: election coverage, too much advertising, game delays, off-field image (including domestic violence), anthem protests and cord-cutting. After anthem protests (30%), the other leading reasons given by football fans for watching fewer NFL games was off-field image and game delays (24%) and then too much advertising (20%). The findings are broken down by 11 markets. Fans in Miami (38%), New York (37%) and Washington, D.C., (32%) took most offense to protests during the national anthem.
I certainly agree with that. The results after this season will be much more accurate and enlightening. One, the election directly and indirectly infected many avenues of thinking. Two, the protests have become more widespread somewhat diluting shock factor. I can't fully grasp the mindset of football fans affected by it as no Dallas Cowboys player has dared to force it on our fan base. Right now it annoys me but can easily be shrugged off as my guys don't do it. If one did, I'm sure things would change fast.
I think as civil disobedience goes it's a nothing burger. If Collin K. didn't have the history with wearing piggy socks it might go further. Also, if his passing accuracy was better it might be a smaller issue.
I'm a Snowflake now ???? I refuse to watch these days. I was borderline out even before because I think they've handled almost every domestic abuse, drug abuse, etc claim/case wrong, but I was all gone after the Kprnick thing. I don't dispute your assertion that it is largely a conduit issue for NFL...just not sure I fall into snowflake territory because of it.
I don't think its a nothing burger but I'm also one that still thinks the SCOTUS got it wrong when they allowed the flag to be burned as "free speech".
I respect your opinion BrntO and if you took offense that was not my intention. The "snowflake" tends to be thrown around for people that get upset at minor actions of others that they disagree with. "Snowflakes" don't exist just on the left but on the right. If you're getting overly upset because someone doesn't stand for the national anthem then you might be a fragile snowflake in this situation. I get the not wanting to watch prima donnas. The NBA has the effect on me.
I think flag burner's should get their arse's kicked but not be criminalized. That puts me in an immediate state of cognitive dissonance, I know. If you can't see that there's at least something quasi-respectful about taking a knee in that situation then I think you're not being objective. Look at Michael Bennett's experience in Vegas just this month. I don't know what to do but peaceful protest is the least of our problems. I actually am NOT a fan of Bennett or his brother. This is an interesting read. http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...egas_police_are_smearing_michael_bennett.html
I believe black people have a legitimate beef and while I think BLM generally chooses the wrong events to hang their hat on (Michael Brown, Eric ??? (NY guy) etc). I do think there is a bias in policing. I think the blame goes both ways so I don't buy the "cops are the bad guys" rhetoric of BLM, but there is a reason, IMO, for their concern/feeling...And there is certainly a place for them to express their positions. BUT it is not during our national anthem. I take huge umbrage to this because I've personally known people that died doing what this country asked them to do. I really haven't read/seen too much about Bennet's event, but if he was unjustly detained then he should press charges. If he doesn't do that, then I tend to believe Bennett was probably in Vegas doing what we all do in Vegas and when this event occurred, Bennett was a loud mouth and aggressive and probably not listening to the officers directive and got tackled because of it. I sure as heck don't put any stock into the lawyers framing of the incident as in the article you linked. From where I stand, I think the lawyer is trying to publicize this to the point that the city settles just to make it go away.
Statistical analysis shows that police don't have an obvious racial bias. It still seems reasonable to believe there is some due to history. But also because the rate of felonies committed by AAs is out of proportion to the population. This tells me that the police should be sensitive to the sensitivity AAs have towards cops. And it tells me AAs should quit committing so many felonies. Those 2 things happen any bias will decrease and be harder to believe.
Trump hater Jeff Flake is now down 26 points to his primary challenger Kelli Ward And some Alabama polling shows Moore over Strange 8-10 points, despite the Trump appearance. This race is so interesting. Hopefully lessons will be learned from both of these races
Ive never been fully on board with the Fire Goodell movement. Until now Goodell has the unique ability to eventually make everyone alive hate him
I think the legal framework for this kneeling issue has been askew from the outset. Taking a knee on the field of an NFL game is not a Constitutional issue. The 1st Amendment, which enshrines the right of free speech, puts a restriction on the Congress (or Government). But the Govt plays no part in this matter and thus the Constitution has no application here. Instead, the proper legal framework is a huge body of law known generally as "Employer-Employee." The issue at hand is whether an employer may restrict the speech of an employee while on the job. And the simple answer is yes. The players are on the job, in uniform and at an employer provided place of work. There is no serious legal question whether an NFL team restrict the speech of their employers at this time. It already happens, all the time. For example, what the players must wear and what they may not wear. What can and cannot be on their work uniforms -- markings on shoes, sponsor advertising, headbands with messages and so forth. This question here is no different than asking whether McDonalds can prevent it's order takers from screaming obscenities at customers. Or whether Home Depot can prevent its workers from wearing "F Home Depot" t-shirts while on the job. Or whether those art school grads working as baristas at Starbucks can draw artsy penises on their customers' coffee cups. The only complicating issue that might exist is the CBA and I am not well-versed in it enough to say how it might change things. IMO, this a good issue for discussion. I am glad it has bubbled up. I like that persons in power are being forced to take a public position so that everyone can see where they stand (like Goodell above). That's the good part as I see it. The bad part of the discussion is that the entire legal framework has been subverted. Whether this was intentional I cannot say. Probably, but maybe it was just people talking about things they dont know anything about? This seems to happen a lot.
for the record, I didn't take offense, I just wanted to challenge the label. I think we tend to label opposing views a little too frequently/readily these days.
This is an employer/employee relationship. The NFL (i.e. Goodell) is essentially saying that this issue isn't worth going to war with the players over. They've worked hard to cultivate an image where their players are allowed to be active in the community. Reversing that now be very dumb for employer-employee relations. I too wonder if it would also be a violation of the CBA agreement.
