Should there be a 17 game season

[Pokerbrat2000]

The new kickoff rules were to protect against injuries during "normal kickoffs". I never heard any talk about excessive injuries during an onside kick. Why not just allow the kicking team to lineup on the line of scrimmage as they do under the new rules. If they decide to shift into the "old school way" (unbalanced lineup on each side of the ball, way off the LOS) then it has to be an onside kick, if the ball travels further then say 20 yards....penalty on kicking team. Receiving team gets the ball at the spot they recovered it or at the 40 if the kicking team recovered it.

If they don't shift, they just kick off like they have been since the rule change. The element of surprise is still there, which wasn't that high to begin with and the ability to have at least a decent crack at recovering it is there as well.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think the current regular season schedule is fine.
I like playing 6 division games and that leaving an even number (10) remaining. It just fits with the extra bye week.

I would like MNF back on the regular network. This having different pay channels for different games is frustrating. The NFL needs to quit trying to make it so darn complicated in an effort to make more $ while it forces its fans (customers) to give up on watching some games altogether.

I’d be ok with just 3 preseason games.

If a Network (FOX) blocks a channel mid season/contract year, in a purposeful effort to exploit its leverage on the Provider, fine them severely with an increasing % fee each week that they are in dispute. Use those proceeds to award credits to the customers left hanging.
Don’t leave the customer in the middle of a dogfight they had no say in. Have a clause that awards said contract to the next highest bidder unless the dispute is resolved expeditiously.

 

[Mondio]

I think the current regular season schedule is fine.
I like playing 6 division games and that leaving an even number (10) remaining. It just fits with the extra bye week.

I would like MNF back on the regular network. This having different pay channels for different games is frustrating. The NFL needs to quit trying to make it so darn complicated in an effort to make more $ while it forces its fans (customers) to give up on watching some games altogether.

I’d be ok with just 3 preseason games.

If a Network (FOX) blocks a channel mid season/contract year, in a purposeful effort to exploit its leverage on the Provider, fine them severely with an increasing % fee each week that they are in dispute. Use those proceeds to award credits to the customers left hanging.
Don’t leave the customer in the middle of a dogfight they had no say in. Have a clause that awards said contract to the next highest bidder unless the dispute is resolved expeditiously.

I would make every effort to keep the product as accessible to fans in the easiest format if I were the NFL. You don't grow the product or keep viewers by marginalizing them or making it difficult to watch. Just look how far Monday night football ratings have fallen. Monday used to be as big as Sunday. Now I don't even realize there is a game that night unless it's the Packers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would make every effort to keep the product as accessible to fans in the easiest format if I were the NFL. You don't grow the product or keep viewers by marginalizing them or making it difficult to watch.

Easier said than done.

The problem is, the trend with the 25 and under generation is streaming onto phones or portable devices. So if the NFL wants to attract younger fans, they will need to make sure their product is available to them via streaming. That format is very easy to a young fan, but to an older fan, not so much. For an older fan, it's Rabbit ears or cable/satellite. Throw on top of that all the different networks that want exclusive coverage and their share of the pie.

This is no longer football of the 80 and 90's, where you turn your TV on and tune into the local game. For many, if they want to watch the game, it takes some effort.

 

[Mondio]

Easier said than done.

The problem is, the trend with the 25 and under generation is streaming onto phones or portable devices. So if the NFL wants to attract younger fans, they will need to make sure their product is available to them via streaming. That format is very easy to a young fan, but to an older fan, not so much. For an older fan, it's Rabbit ears or cable/satellite. Throw on top of that all the different networks that want exclusive coverage and their share of the pie.

This is no longer football of the 80 and 90's, where you turn your TV on and tune into the local game. For many, if they want to watch the game, it takes some effort.

You know who watches a football game on a phone? someone who only cares about fantasy and they aren't supporting football, they're supporting fantasy and gambling. The rest of us who actually enjoy games, go to them or watch them on a real screen, and yes even those of us that don't do cable and still have antennas can stream. It's easy.

Streaming is not the same as limiting unless they're going to make them all pay for view that way, which would kill it. That's short term thinking. Think of all the fans they won't create long term because the Redskins didn't have the Hogs and winning Super bowls when my brother was a kid and they were on TV or all the young Patriot fans that are because they saw them on TV across the nation or all the Packer Games televised nationally who are packer fans because of Brett Favre, Reggie White, Rodgers, Nelson etc.

If they don't expose they young fans to their product and limit it to only existing fans who want to pay for a stream? It will be dead in a generation. Congrats.

For most, watching football doesn't take much effort. I can watch at least 4 games a week right over the air. Making a CA Packer fan pay for a stream to watch it there, great. Make all Packer games available only on the Packer channel everywhere, stupid. See my point? One is short term maximizing the dollar, the other is keeping the base of fans strong and growing.

Taking Monday night football off broadcast TV has turned it into a shell of it's former self. Don't limit viewers, make it easier if you want to grow.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You know who watches a football game on a phone? someone who only cares about fantasy and they aren't supporting football, they're supporting fantasy and gambling.

Ok Gramps lol

So I suppose people who only listen to or follow football on a radio aren't true fans either?

Do you actually know anyone under 25? I do and they are watching movies, football, basketball, TV shows etc. on their phones and/or portable devices. You seem to not want to believe others viewpoints, observations or opinions lately, but believe it or not, yours isn't the only viewpoint in this world.

Those under 25's that I know, have way more jersey's, hats and other team crap that I know of most average football fans to have. So yes, they are supporting the sports. They are also known to actually buy tickets and attend a game. Phones and portables are just the way of their world, not a sign of them not having the same interest level as you.

 

[Mondio]

I've listened to plenty on the radio, radio is free and distributed to the masses.

You seem to really miss the point when I type. I know plenty in their 20's and younger. I have a 6 and 3 year old, i'm hardly a grandpa.

There's a difference between wearing something because it's cool and wearing something because you follow them. One takes off when the breeze changes, the others sit thru 15 degree games in the midst of a 30 year super bowl drought of mostly abysmal seasons.

There's a difference between making games available on streaming and making it only available on devices and streaming. If the NFL was smart, they'd be mindful of that. I don't know a single fan of any age that will chose to watch on their phone if their in a room with the tv. and everyone I know will use their phone to catch something they can't get elsewhere. Making it available and making exclusive are entirely separate.

I figured the Monday night football deal would be enough to illustrate my point. I guess not. Monday Night Football used to rule the ratings when it came to football when available to masses. Now what is it?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's a difference between wearing something because it's cool and wearing something because you follow them. One takes off when the breeze changes, the others sit thru 15 degree games in the midst of a 30 year super bowl drought of mostly abysmal seasons.

Again, I think your perspective and observations are skewed heavily to reflect what you do or feel others should do. We were talking about who follows and supports sports and the ways in which they do that. You are giving the impression, at least to me, that if someone doesn't follow them in the way that you do, they are just fake fans, not real fans of the game. I 100% disagree with that. Keep observing the younger generation and you will see what I see. They are actually interested in the Packers, but they want to watch games in a different way then you and I do, that doesn't make them non-fans, it just makes them different.

 

[Mondio]

that is not anything i was trying to interject. My point is being readily available vs. having to have pay for services to view for short term monetary gain vs. long term draw and viewership should be considered. I watch games with younger people, they're all looking at a tv unless they're checking a different team they're a fan of that isn't on TV or they're checking fantasy. But it's not even the point, or even part of it.

Making it available on a device is different than exclusivity. People have brought up pay for streaming for games as a way to deliver games. For those that can't get broadcast, it's great. if it's a model they want to move to i think it's a mistake in place of broadcast TV games. I think it would steadily decrease the fanbase by decreasing exposure. If my parents and grandparents weren't talking about and watching football, what are the odds the kid is going to grow up to be a fan? Short term cash or long term lifetime investment? you gain viewers by making it easy to view and putting it in front of people that might not be looking for it. You don't get that on a device. that only gives someone who is already looking another way to watch. That's fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If my parents and grandparents weren't talking about and watching football, what are the odds the kid is going to grow up to be a fan?

Again, you are looking back...I am guessing 30-40 years and viewing things only through your lenses. Back then how else could you watch games? If you didn't attend, one source, the TV, that big glowing TV screen in your family room. So yes, if your parents were watching a game, you probably got sucked in too. Today's kids are growing up with multiple ways to view anything on a screen, their own screen. They choose the one that fits their lifestyle and taste. How many college students do you think sign up for cable TV these days? Very few, why? Because they can stream just about anything that they can get on cable on their phones and portables. Many of them don't even own TV's, unless they are gamers. They don't want to watch what their roommates are watching, they want to be in their own little bubble. They don't need to watch it live, they don't need to watch it uninterrupted, they just want to control their own viewing pleasure. These people become adults, adults that eventually might have kids. Do you think they are going to change their ways and buy a big TV? Nope, they and their spouse have grown up with a phone or a tablet in their hand almost every waking minute. So will their kids be exposed to Football, even if their parents are fans? Probably, but not in the same way as you huddling in front of a 24" TV with your family to watch the Packers on a Sunday at Noon.

I also get what you are saying, if the NFL strictly went to pay per view, they would probably kill the game or at least lose a ton of fans. So its the NFL and Networks job to figure out how to appeal to the younger generation, the ones that haven't been hooked in yet, the ones who might be living in a house, where there are no big screens, because everyone uses their own screens. While they do that, they also have to keep a hold of the older fan base, people like us. But time marches on and technology changes quickly, someday we will all be gone and how viewing of a football game (if they still exist) evolves from what it is today, is anybodies guess. The people who figure it out and stay ahead of the curve are not only going to be rich, but possibly save the Sport of Football.

 

[Mondio]

I live in the now, my nieces and nephews watch with us all the time, 2 of them have started 3 tech business starting in high school, they have 2 phones on them at any given time. They still watch it on TV if it's on, of course fingers flying across their phones doing something.

I don't see how watching anything uninterrupted in your own little bubble is going to translate to spreading popularity among family members, but to each his own. I happen to think cell phone culture will do it's part to kill sports too and change many other aspects of society and family structure, but that is an entirely different topic.

but again, the point isn't really so much what you watch on, but how it is made available. Exclusive or for mass consumption to those that aren't even looking for it? It became popular partly because it was available. Now they might want to start cashing in on all those eyeballs, but they need to be careful because they can all go away pretty quickly too if they're not careful.

 

[Dblbogey]

there should be 18 games, make it even. Having 17 makes teams lose a home game.

If I were King, we'd have 18 games, 2 preseason games, 2 bye weeks, no Thursday football, increase roster to 56. Thursday games are ridiculous.

 

[OldSchool101]

Easier said than done.

The problem is, the trend with the 25 and under generation is streaming onto phones or portable devices. So if the NFL wants to attract younger fans, they will need to make sure their product is available to them via streaming. That format is very easy to a young fan, but to an older fan, not so much. For an older fan, it's Rabbit ears or cable/satellite. Throw on top of that all the different networks that want exclusive coverage and their share of the pie.

This is no longer football of the 80 and 90's, where you turn your TV on and tune into the local game. For many, if they want to watch the game, it takes some effort.

I just wanna slap my Zenith console until the vertical and horizontal gain equilibrium and I don’t see any bars in the middle of my screen.
Is that too much to ask?

 

[Sky King]

Apparently, I'm almost five decades past the upper age limit for watching streaming broadcasts. Thus, I find the comments regarding certain viewing limitations with the MNF broadcasts to be a bit confusing. I did not know this was a problem for others since my most recent sources for TV viewing have always included MNF in their packages. I had DirecTV for almost three decades and I switched to streaming YouTube TV during the past year.

BTW, streaming YouTube broadcasts can be viewed on my iPhone, iPad, computers (PC and Apple), plus be cast to my other TVs. I can watch TV just about anywhere and at any time with ease. This included when I waited in the parking lot of F.W. Woolworths sitting in the Studebaker while the little woman shopped for a pillbox hat. Such remote viewing flexibility is also supposed to be about the same with other similar Internet streaming services, such as Roku and Hulu.

But going back to the 17 game schedule, I see benefits: Having one less preseason game is a sure-fire winner. Eliminating more of these bow-wows would be even better. Games being played outside the USA but without the need to sacrifice any home games would give worldwide fans the opportunity to enjoy the games in person, too. And US fans could also enjoy traveling abroad now and then. London, beckons. And a second bye week would also be beneficial.

Count me in as being theoretically in favor of the proposed 17 game schedule. I'm anticipating that the final outcome may look less attractive once finalized. So final judgment will be reserved until that time for me.

 

[Sky King]

If I were King, we'd have 18 games, 2 preseason games, 2 bye weeks, no Thursday football, increase roster to 56. Thursday games are ridiculous.

Please pull the sword from the stone.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I switched to streaming YouTube TV during the past year.

I did the same. I coupled it with Roku and already had NetFlix and Prime. I now pay about half of what I did for DISHTV who always seemed like they were in dispute and blacked out of a local channel, the Big10 Network or FOX Sports. Meh.....love my YouTube TV for all the things you pointed out and more.

If you don't have a Roku device, grab one, so worth the one time fee of $30-70. It opens up so many other streaming options.

 

[Mondio]

Apparently, I'm almost five decades past the upper age limit for watching streaming broadcasts. Thus, I find the comments regarding certain viewing limitations with the MNF broadcasts to be a bit confusing. I did not know this was a problem for others since my most recent sources for TV viewing have always included MNF in their packages. I had DirecTV for almost three decades and I switched to streaming YouTube TV during the past year.

BTW, streaming YouTube broadcasts can be viewed on my iPhone, iPad, computers (PC and Apple), plus be cast to my other TVs. I can watch TV just about anywhere and at any time with ease. This included when I waited in the parking lot of F.W. Woolworths sitting in the Studebaker while the little woman shopped for a pillbox hat. Such remote viewing flexibility is also supposed to be about the same with other similar Internet streaming services, such as Roku and Hulu.

But going back to the 17 game schedule, I see benefits: Having one less preseason game is a sure-fire winner. Eliminating more of these bow-wows would be even better. Games being played outside the USA but without the need to sacrifice any home games would give worldwide fans the opportunity to enjoy the games in person, too. And US fans could also enjoy traveling abroad now and then. London, beckons. And a second bye week would also be beneficial.

Count me in as being theoretically in favor of the proposed 17 game schedule. I'm anticipating that the final outcome may look less attractive once finalized. So final judgment will be reserved until that time for me.

Again, it has nothing to do with being made available on MORE services, it's about limiting access and I think that would be a mistake. Good for Prime streaming thursday night games, but they're also on CBS or whatever thursday night too. I think it would be a mistake to give ONLY to Prime and NFL network services for thursday night games in the future. Thursday night games were losing too, so they put half of them on broadcast and streaming services. I wonder why? The NFL network is great for people searching for NFL all the time, putting games exclusively on NFL network would shrink league in the time.

I know how streaming services work LOL. We even have my 86 year old grandma set up with Hulu and AppleTV. and again, there is a difference between making it available for those searching for it in different formats, and making exclusive to people searching for it.

 

[Sky King]

I did the same. I coupled it with Roku and already had NetFlix and Prime. I now pay about half of what I did for DISHTV who always seemed like they were in dispute and blacked out of a local channel, the Big10 Network or FOX Sports. Meh.....love my YouTube TV for all the things you pointed out and more.

If you don't have a Roku device, grab one, so worth the one-time fee of $30-70. It opens up so many other streaming options.

Thanks for the tip on Roku.

DirecTV likes to boast about all the channels that viewers can access. Just how many channels out of all those hundreds does a customer watch regularly? My wife and I asked ourselves that question a while back and we could not even come up with 20. But the parent company, AT&T used DirecTV as an incentive to keep us captive to the other services that we had: Our mobile phones, plus Century Link for the Internet with an added landline. All came as part of a package deal.

We did not even want the landline from the onset and the Internet service was as slower than a snail even though we were paying for their fastest available DSL service. Unfortunately, Century Link does not have fiber optics in our neighborhood. It was good riddance when we made the switch although, for now, we are still retaining their mobile phone service, only. That remains a tenuous situation, at best.

We'll be going with the best available service for utilizing our phones as hotspots for streaming when we will be on the road. Note: If you see an RV in the left lane with its left turn signal on and going at least 10 mph below the speed limit, that will be us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yup, this is kind of what I was referring to when going back and forth with Mondio and I think ultimately we were both on the same page. 50 years ago, cable TV didn't exist, people had the 3 basic networks + PBS, so the NFL had a direct in, to every household that had a TV. Then Cable, ESPN and FOX came along. Followed by everything we see today and more popping up daily. People now have the ability to watch whatever they want, just about anywhere and anytime they want. The NFL no longer has a captive market. Those of us with YouTubeTV don't get the NFL Network. Some internet services don't give you ESPN, etc.

So while us 30+ year old people grew up with Football within a few flips of the dial/remote, that isn't the same for younger people. Some of them might not even access Network TV, some of them might just want to watch Football highlights. The bottom line, people now have millions of choices as to what they want to watch, at any given moment, 24/7. So sure, us "old farts" are hooked in and we may pass that on to the younger generation. However, I can very easily see football, becoming less and less watched, simply because there are so many more options for people that may have not been exposed to it growing up. So its up to the NFL to figure out how to continue to capture all those new viewers attention in an ever growing market of free competition.

Reminds me a bit of what happened with Daytime Soap Operas. They were huge precable. My parents were too cheap to buy cable, so anytime I stayed home sick from school, after all the morning game shows, if I still wanted to watch TV, I had no choice but to either watch a Soap or PBS. Cable access and the 100+ options changed all this. Streaming and access anything, anywhere might change the look of the NFL in the future.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yup, this is kind of what I was referring to when going back and forth with Mondio and I think ultimately we were both on the same page. 50 years ago, cable TV didn't exist, people had the 3 basic networks + PBS, so the NFL had a direct in, to every household that had a TV. Then Cable, ESPN and FOX came along. Followed by everything we see today and more popping up daily. People now have the ability to watch whatever they want, just about anywhere and anytime they want. The NFL no longer has a captive market. Those of us with YouTubeTV don't get the NFL Network. Some internet services don't give you ESPN, etc.

So while us 30+ year old people grew up with Football within a few flips of the dial/remote, that isn't the same for younger people. Some of them might not even access Network TV, some of them might just want to watch Football highlights. The bottom line, people now have millions of choices as to what they want to watch, at any given moment, 24/7. So sure, us "old farts" are hooked in and we may pass that on to the younger generation. However, I can very easily see football, becoming less and less watched, simply because there are so many more options for people that may have not been exposed to it growing up. So its up to the NFL to figure out how to continue to capture all those new viewers attention in an ever growing market of free competition.

Reminds me a bit of what happened with Daytime Soap Operas. They were huge precable. My parents were too cheap to buy cable, so anytime I stayed home sick from school, after all the morning game shows, if I still wanted to watch TV, I had no choice but to either watch a Soap or PBS. Cable access and the 100+ options changed all this. Streaming and access anything, anywhere might change the look of the NFL in the future.

It is precisely because of all the options and the fragmentation of the video market that makes the NFL such valuable programming. It about the highest rated programming out there and it anchors subscribers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It is precisely because of all the options and the fragmentation of the video market that makes the NFL such valuable programming. It about the highest rated programming out there and it anchors subscribers.

Right, but my question is "Will they be able to sustain that?" Will the Generation Z'ers who grew up with phones and portables and unlimited selections for viewing 24/7, tune in or stay tuned to football.

The other key aspect/question of this conversation is what is driving Football and most of the money that keeps it alive? That would be TV revenue. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I watch a Packer game, I rarely watch commercials, because I no longer have to watch the game live. I know more and more people who do the same and with today's and future technology, that is getting easier and easier to do. So will a 30 second commercial, run during a Football game, still be worth $1M to Budweiser?

I'm not trying to sound smart at all, because I am sure the NFL and the Networks have lots of people employed full time working on these questions and will figure out ways to stay ahead of technology and maintain their huge piece of the American pie.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Right, but my question is "Will they be able to sustain that?" Will the Generation Z'ers who grew up with phones and portables and unlimited selections for viewing 24/7, tune in or stay tuned to football.

The other key aspect/question of this conversation is what is driving Football and most of the money that keeps it alive? That would be TV revenue. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I watch a Packer game, I rarely watch commercials, because I no longer have to watch the game live. I know more and more people who do the same and with today's and future technology, that is getting easier and easier to do. So will a 30 second commercial, run during a Football game, still be worth $1M to Budweiser?

I'm not trying to sound smart at all, because I am sure the NFL and the Networks have lots of people employed full time working on these questions and will figure out ways to stay ahead of technology and maintain their huge piece of the American pie.

How Gen Z viewing habits develop is unpredictable and a matter for examination quite some time down the road when they are actually making real money. The 60's baby boomers were purported to be anti-consumerist and by the 80's we were the most acquisitive bunch in history. I wouldn't make too many assumptions about younger generations tastes until they take over their parents jobs in force, move out of the basement, and are making real money. Once they buy a residence they are locked into consumerist habits.

Google is a trillion dollar business and Facebook a little over half that with the bulk of those revenues coming from advertising. You or I may never click on those adds but you can be assured plenty of people do. The same can be said of TV ads no matter how many DVRs are plugged in. I don't assume that because I am in the 90th. or 99th. percentile of advertising avoidance and immunity that the bulk of the population is so disposed.

On thing I believe you can predict is given the solid bump in NFL ratings last season, the next round of TV contracts will generate more NFL revenue than the ones prior. Beyond that I would not predict. Every time it looks like the NFL is near jumping the shark it does not materialize.

As an additional note, now that there is legalized gambling, that might also spark additional interest. Legalized betting on the NFL is expected to exceed $2 billion. The NFL gets a piece of that as well.

 

[Sky King]

However, I can very easily see football, becoming less and less watched, simply because there are so many more options for people that may have not been exposed to it growing up.

And if they do not exercise marketing wisdom in a dynamic marketplace they could see their viewership begin to erode over time. They already lost me as an NFL Sunday Ticket customer two years ago. I have zero plans to return to that fold. When the Packers are on national television I will watch. However, with some exceptions, I record and watch the games later.

I'm one of those fans who watch less than I used to. Much less. My current preferred method of viewing games is to fast-forward through all the commercials/replay challenges, and never again testing my gag reflex watching the talking heads before, during, or after the game. The replay suspense doesn't kill me, it bores me to death. As do State Farm, GEICO, Budweiser, Flo, Chevy, Ford, and RAM Trucks, etc., etc.

Older fans like me are going to be thinned-out by the Reaper sooner than later, anyway. Some of us may drop the NFL Sunday Ticket or are thinking about it because its cost rises faster than their COLAs are able to keep pace. While I'm blessed to be more than comfortable enough to afford such a subscription, I simply prefer not to do so any longer.

IMHO the NFL product has deteriorated to the point that I am no longer able to sustain my former high level of interest. Confusing rules, replay challenges, inane commentary, the same commercials played over and over, ad nauseum. I'm no longer the fan I once was. Going back to my younger days growing up in WI during the Lombardi era, some of us youthful fans would carpool and drive 100 miles out of the area to watch home games blacked-out locally as they sometimes were in bygone days, sell-out or not.

Game action accounts for only about 20 minutes of the typical NFL broadcast. The rest of the time is occupied by fatty fillers. In a left-handed way, the NFL Sunday Ticket helped me to lose interest in watching games in real-time. On DirecTV, all Sunday games are rebroadcast that same night in an edited, condensed format lasting about 20-25 minutes. Every play, including some of that annoying chatter from the announcers, is included before and after most plays. Yet, the condensed replay versions still last for only a small fraction of the time taken up by the actual live broadcasts. Naturally, that channel costs extra over and above the basic subscription.

I guess the NFL and DirecTV surmised that this format would expand fans' knowledge and interest in the rest of the NFL. It didn't do that for me personally, although I'm sure far more rabid fans than me may still find it to be a useful addendum. Watching games this way simply made me NOT want to sit through an entire game in real-time any longer. If the Packers are not on network TV and I can't record the game for fast-forward viewing later, I merely watch game highlights on the official Packer website once they have been posted.

Every time it looks like the NFL is near jumping the shark it does not materialize.

Their marketing and sales force is shrewd, I'll give them that. But if the NFL does ever make a serious miscalculation...

Rembrandt has a challenge. So does the NFL.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rembrandt has a challenge. So does the NFL.

Spot on!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Rembrandt has a challenge. So does the NFL.

And the price of Rembrandts keeps going up.