NFL Ratings Down 16% in the Playoffs from a Year Ago

[Nightman]

You accuse me of burying my head in the sand, yet don't quote my entire post that shows how much "winning" your side was spectator to? Now I get to break out the "cool story."

You are new here but it is a cool little feature that you can highlight and reply to only part of a post

Just right click the sentence you want to respond to and a little reply button will pop up

 

[Haimerej]

You are new here but it is a cool little feature that you can highlight and reply to only part of a post

Just right click the sentence you want to respond to and a little reply button will pop up

Well that sounds cool. I might have to use my computer now.

 

[Clove]

It's the off season, Philly is in the SB and it's not FA or the draft time yet. Any suggestions on what else we can waste our time on?

Not this.

 

[Haimerej]

Not this.

Do you like movies about gladiators?

 

[Clove]

Do you like movies about gladiators?

Talking about ratings is fine. 16 pages worth is stupid.

 

[Haimerej]

Talking about ratings is fine. 16 pages worth is stupid.

I bet we could get 15.

 

[Clove]

I bet we could get 15.

By the way, that was just my opinion.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ok, bad example... what about the crucifix in the urine jar? Or unflattering representations of any religion? Those are peaceful protests that aren't breaking laws (under some governments) yet they're disrespectful and hinder communication.

As an aside, peaceful protests can still break laws. But the point is essentially the action chosen was inherently disrespectful. Sure, that gets attention but not necessarily the kind of attention you want.

I agree that it can get down a slippery slope like with that publication in France that I believe was done to incite and they found out what inciting does yet come out the heroes somehow. But there's disagreement and then there's antagonizing. People will disagree on where the line should be drawn but I don't see how not standing for an anthem that promotes symbolism you think is not applied equally is antagonizing. There are plenty more things they could have done to express disagreement. To me, true antagonizing would have been for protesters to each carry out little American flags and to step on them while the anthem played or to burn them at the same time. None of those things would have been against the law publicly but the NFL might have done something different privately. To me, the NFL handled it fine and it's like I said on the other boards that the league knows that they just have to wait out the drama queens and it'll wash over like it always does. The players made their point and moved on and then those offended can come back to claim that they "won" like they do with ratings drops. Meanwhile Goodell is still there and rollin' like a pimp, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

Actually, the protest, kneeling or sitting, is contrary to the rules laid out by the NFL as to "anthem protocol" on the sideline. But, Goodell wisely chose not to enforce it and create more of a storm. He caught some heat for that but we don't know when he knew as the white commissioner of a league that is 70% African American.

My bottom line on this entire thing is the same as everything else blown up. Who in the hell cared what these players did during the anthem, they're not representing America. Everything has to be such a big deal that what should be isn't any longer.

Honestly, Goodell couldn't enforce it without a legal challenge. That protocol said players "should" stand, not "shall" and the word shall is listed in other sections of those protocols. I would think in contract law you never want to hem yourself in with language you aren't prepared to go to war over and that would have been messy for the NFL. So I agree that he wanted to avoid a PR nightmare and the flexible language provided that escape just like the words "may result in fines," etc.

 

[Nightman]

Honestly, Goodell couldn't enforce it without a legal challenge. That protocol said players "should" stand, not "shall" and the word shall is listed in other sections of those protocols. I would think in contract law you never want to hem yourself in with language you aren't prepared to go to war over and that would have been messy for the NFL. So I agree that he wanted to avoid a PR nightmare and the flexible language provided that escape just like the words "may result in fines," etc.

The NBA enforces the rule just fine....... the NFL would win any legal challenge in 10 seconds

It is a private company.......Free speech doesn't exist

 

[MarcusRock]

The NBA enforces the rule just fine....... the NFL would win any legal challenge in 10 seconds

It is a private company.......Free speech doesn't exist

I would have loved to see the NFL try to enforce a "should." Should means I have an option, just like I "should" shower every day.

 

[CouchCoach]

Not this.

Clove, this isn't the only thread. Is there a requirement here to visit every thread and post?

It is obviously of interest to those discussing it and several pretty good arguments have broken out so it is worthwhile. One came close to blows so I am staying glued to it.

 

[Clove]

Clove, this isn't the only thread. Is there a requirement here to visit every thread and post?

It is obviously of interest to those discussing it and several pretty good arguments have broken out so it is worthwhile. One came close to blows so I am staying glued to it.

I'll say it again, it's my opinion.

 

[Nightman]

I would have loved to see the NFL try to enforce a "should." Should means I have an option, just like I "should" shower every day.

ahhhhh ....the old Bill Clinton defense

Didn't work then and wouldn't work now

NFL controls the message period..... they can fine you and suspend you for speaking out

 

[Nightman]

I'll say it again, it's my opinion.

and now you have added 10 posts to prove you aren't interested

 

[SportsGuru80]

I mean what do they honestly expect??? Dallas isn't in the playoffs!

 

[Clove]

and now you have added 10 posts to prove you aren't interested

I was chatting with someone if you don't mind. Good thing for you, you've added another post to your repertoire.

 

[MarcusRock]

ahhhhh ....the old Bill Clinton defense

Didn't work then and wouldn't work now

NFL controls the message period..... they can fine you and suspend you for speaking out

It's nothing of that sort. It's contract law. You can have an agreement where parties are "required to" do something or leave in "it would make me feel better if you did" something. Which would stand a better chance in a breach of contract hearing where that "something" didn't happen?

And as for that other sort, it kinda did work, didn't it?

 

[CouchCoach]

Honestly, Goodell couldn't enforce it without a legal challenge. That protocol said players "should" stand, not "shall" and the word shall is listed in other sections of those protocols. I would think in contract law you never want to hem yourself in with language you aren't prepared to go to war over and that would have been messy for the NFL. So I agree that he wanted to avoid a PR nightmare and the flexible language provided that escape just like the words "may result in fines," etc.

I think the racially explicit part of this would have tied his hands in any regard. I don't think he operates within a vacuum and sought out many opinions about how to handle something that has never been this tricky in the NFL before.

Even doing nothing created problems for him. He was in a no win situation. I believe if he had further punished those participating, he would have lit the fuse for many other players and this could have mushroomed on him.

 

[Nightman]

I was chatting with someone if you don't mind. Good thing for you, you've added another post to your repertoire.

this is not a private chat room

you were peacocking