2018 NFL off-season thread

[LittleHurt05]

It all seems so ridiculous, but there are plenty of  fans that really do care about the anthem stuff.  I've seen it plenty at Soldier Field.  And I think the owners figure more fans care than don't care, so they went with this move.

[whitesoxfan99]

Meanwhile the Milwaukee police release a video showing exactly why NFL players were protesting. But it must be about not respecting the troops. Never underestimate how remarkably unintelligent and how big of meatheads a lot of NFL fans are (plus plenty of racists in there too).

I really hope the NFL’s ratings decline again this upcoming season.  

Edited May 23, 2018 by whitesoxfan99

[StrangeSox]

17 hours ago, LittleHurt05 said:

It all seems so ridiculous, but there are plenty of  fans that really do care about the anthem stuff.  I've seen it plenty at Soldier Field.  And I think the owners figure more fans care than don't care, so they went with this move.

the attempted appeasement backfired in less than 24 hours

[LittleHurt05]

21 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

the attempted appeasement backfired in less than 24 hours

How exactly did it backfire?  Nothing Trump said was unexpected and those same fans mostly agree with him.  

[StrangeSox]

16 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

How exactly did it backfire?  Nothing Trump said was unexpected and those same fans mostly agree with him.  

well right, so what exactly did this new policy accomplish? Trump is still mad, and those fans that agree with him are still going to be mad. Now they've also annoyed whatever portion of their audience isn't happy with the new policy, and they didn't seem to make the people previously upset any happier.

Edited May 24, 2018 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

well right, so what exactly did this new policy accomplish? Trump is still mad, and those fans that agree with him are still going to be mad. Now they've also annoyed whatever portion of their audience isn't happy with the new policy, and they didn't seem to make the people previously upset any happier.

I think it got the fans who disliked the kneeling and more importantly to the NFL the advertisers who responded to those fans back on board.

[Soxbadger]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think it got the fans who disliked the kneeling and more importantly to the NFL the advertisers who responded to those fans back on board.

They just have to hope siding with Trump doesnt alienate the larger side of their fan base. The whole Pence "winning" thing makes this become much more risky for the NFL because many NFL teams are located in cities that are not very favorable to Trump. 

Better policy would have been to not get involved at all. Look what happened to Papa John.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Soxbadger

[LittleHurt05]

23 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

well right, so what exactly did this new policy accomplish? Trump is still mad, and those fans that agree with him are still going to be mad. Now they've also annoyed whatever portion of their audience isn't happy with the new policy, and they didn't seem to make the people previously upset any happier.

The owners don't give a shit about the people that don't like the new policy.  If they did, this all would have ended last season.  They have chosen their side and stuck to it.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm sure they knew people and players would be pissed and there would be backlash, they just DGAF.  

 

[Soxbadger]

Just now, LittleHurt05 said:

The owners don't give a shit about the people that don't like the new policy.  If they did, this all would have ended last season.  They have chosen their side and stuck to it.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm sure they knew people and players would be pissed and there would be backlash, they just DGAF.  

 

 

Owners care about money. They are taking a calculated risk that this policy will create or bring back more fans than it loses. I have no idea how it will play out, but all of them care about money the most. 

[Jack Parkman]

I don't understand this decision. They're in a lose-lose situation. You have people upset about players not standing for the anthem. and you have others who would complain about NOT allowing protest. The best course of action is to do nothing, to not risk labor strife and they made the boneheaded decision. Personally, I think not allowing the players to protest is disgusting and abhorrent, and un-American. Will I turn off the NFL completely, No, but you'd bet your ass I'm going to go out of my way to NOT watch anyone other than the Bears. Personally, blind patriotism isn't patriotism at all, it is nationalism and that opens up a can of worms that I'm not going to go down any further. You can also bet your ass I won't buy NFL products. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[BigSqwert]

I for one will watch significantly less football now and will stop buying NFL products (i.e., jerseys, caps).

[ptatc]

52 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

They just have to hope siding with Trump doesnt alienate the larger side of their fan base. The whole Pence "winning" thing makes this become much more risky for the NFL because many NFL teams are located in cities that are not very favorable to Trump. 

Better policy would have been to not get involved at all. Look what happened to Papa John.

I really don't think they did it to side with Trump. They did it because they sponsors were pulling away and it was costing them money. I think Trump just piggbacked on it being the opportunist he is.

[ptatc]

42 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

Owners care about money. They are taking a calculated risk that this policy will create or bring back more fans than it loses. I have no idea how it will play out, but all of them care about money the most. 

Exactly. They care only about one policy: profit. It is a business.

[StrangeSox]

51 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

The owners don't give a shit about the people that don't like the new policy.  If they did, this all would have ended last season.  They have chosen their side and stuck to it.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm sure they knew people and players would be pissed and there would be backlash, they just DGAF.  

 

But it doesn't seem to have made the people who were mad in the first place, chiefly the President, happy. So what did they gain from this new policy if those same people are still mad about the kneeling and now more people are mad about the NFL's new policy?

I get why they're trying to do this, it just doesn't seem to be working.

Edited May 24, 2018 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

13 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I don't understand this decision. They're in a lose-lose situation. You have people upset about players not standing for the anthem. and you have others who would complain about NOT allowing protest. The best course of action is to do nothing, to not risk labor strife and they made the boneheaded decision. Personally, I think not allowing the players to protest is disgusting and abhorrent, and un-American. Will I turn off the NFL completely, No, but you'd bet your ass I'm going to go out of my way to NOT watch anyone other than the Bears. Personally, blind patriotism isn't patriotism at all, it is nationalism and that opens up a can of worms that I'm not going to go down any further. You can also bet your ass I won't buy NFL products. 

I think it is directed more toward sponsored who want less controversy, no matter the topic. When people don't see the kneeling, the controversy will go away. This is their goal anyway.

[ptatc]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

But it doesn't seem to have made the people who were mad in the first place, chiefly the President, happy. So what did they gain from this new policy if those same people are still mad?

This has nothing to do with Trump. It has everything to do with revenue. Sponsors were pulling out last year due to the controversy and this is their plan to end the controversy and bring back the revenue.

[Soxbadger]

 

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I really don't think they did it to side with Trump. They did it because they sponsors were pulling away and it was costing them money. I think Trump just piggbacked on it being the opportunist he is.

 

Just now, ptatc said:

I think it is directed more toward sponsored who want less controversy, no matter the topic. When people don't see the kneeling, the controversy will go away. This is their goal anyway.

 

And therein lies the risk. If more people cause problems because of this new rule, the NFL screwed themselves because sponsors only care about money. Which is why I brought up Papa John. He chose a side, he had to resign. The NFL has chosen a similar side, well see what happens, but Im betting sponsors arent happy that #Takeaknee is a thing today.

I will give the NFL credit, they did it so far in advance that they are hoping that by the season no one is talking about it. The problem is that if teams start not coming out for the national anthem at all, the controversy wont go away. It will keep escalating because unfortunately for the NFL, you have Trump/Pence antagonizing the majority of their fan base.

 

[StrangeSox]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

This has nothing to do with Trump. It has everything to do with revenue. Sponsors were pulling out last year due to the controversy and this is their plan to end the controversy and bring back the revenue.

He was helping to rile it up and did so again this morning, but you're right that it's not entirely about him or anything. Sponsors made some noise but I don't think anyone pulled out last year?

I understand that they're trying to stop their declining ratings which have been falling for a variety of reasons. I'm just saying that this policy doesn't seem like it's going to make the people who were mad in the first place happy, so what have they gained? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe viewership will stabilize and sponsorship dollars will keep flowing in just as much, but early signs show that it's going to still be an issue.

[ptatc]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

 

 

 

And therein lies the risk. If more people cause problems because of this new rule, the NFL screwed themselves because sponsors only care about money. Which is why I brought up Papa John. He chose a side, he had to resign. The NFL has chosen a similar side, well see what happens, but Im betting sponsors arent happy that #Takeaknee is a thing today.

I will give the NFL credit, they did it so far in advance that they are hoping that by the season no one is talking about it. The problem is that if teams start not coming out for the national anthem at all, the controversy wont go away. It will keep escalating because unfortunately for the NFL, you have Trump/Pence antagonizing the majority of their fan base.

 

Exactly. They are getting the controversy out of the way now so it won't be much of an issue other than the first couple of games it's implemented when the announcers discuss it.

The teams won't have that many players staying in the lockeroom. Even if they do it will fade over time.The key is that when the sponsors see the telecast, they won't see anyone kneeling. No controversy.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

He was helping to rile it up and did so again this morning, but you're right that it's not entirely about him or anything. Sponsors made some noise but I don't think anyone pulled out last year?

I understand that they're trying to stop their declining ratings which have been falling for a variety of reasons. I'm just saying that this policy doesn't seem like it's going to make the people who were mad in the first place happy, so what have they gained? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe viewership will stabilize and sponsorship dollars will keep flowing in just as much, but early signs show that it's going to still be an issue.

There is no doubt that Trump is seizing the opportunity to create controversy. He enjoys that. But I don't think this is why the NFL did it. The only way they would do it is if they thought it would increase profits. The NFL is all about decreasing controversy and problems. doing things to appease Trump would be the farthest thing from that.

it will help the ratings because the people at home won't see the kneeling. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Exactly. They are getting the controversy out of the way now so it won't be much of an issue other than the first couple of games it's implemented when the announcers discuss it.

The teams won't have that many players staying in the lockeroom. Even if they do it will fade over time.The key is that when the sponsors see the telecast, they won't see anyone kneeling. No controversy.

The last 2 sentences are what I disagree with. It doesnt matter what the sponsors see, it matters what the ratings and their sales say. If the NFL has lower ratings next year, if the sponsors become targets of boycotts, they will turn on the NFL in a second. They dont care about the NFL, they dont care about kneeling. They care about making money. 

That is the great risk. The purchasing power of those against Trump far outweighs those who support Trump. Its just a really unpredictable situation, which is why if I was the NFL, Id have just kept the status quo. They were unlikely to lose "more" people from the kneeling anyway. 

[ptatc]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

The last 2 sentences are what I disagree with. It doesnt matter what the sponsors see, it matters what the ratings and their sales say. If the NFL has lower ratings next year, if the sponsors become targets of boycotts, they will turn on the NFL in a second. They dont care about the NFL, they dont care about kneeling. They care about making money. 

That is the great risk. The purchasing power of those against Trump far outweighs those who support Trump. Its just a really unpredictable situation, which is why if I was the NFL, Id have just kept the status quo. They were unlikely to lose "more" people from the kneeling anyway. 

sure they will. But they also spin it. According to the NFL, they really didn't have much lower rating due to the usage of other devices other than standard TV rating. They has 100,000 people show up for the draft.

Of course taking any stance on a controversy is not going to please everyone. There is no guarantee that it will work, but they had to do something. The out of sight, out of mind theory was probably the best compromise for the NFL to appease the sponsors.

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

The last 2 sentences are what I disagree with. It doesnt matter what the sponsors see, it matters what the ratings and their sales say. If the NFL has lower ratings next year, if the sponsors become targets of boycotts, they will turn on the NFL in a second. They dont care about the NFL, they dont care about kneeling. They care about making money. 

That is the great risk. The purchasing power of those against Trump far outweighs those who support Trump. Its just a really unpredictable situation, which is why if I was the NFL, Id have just kept the status quo. They were unlikely to lose "more" people from the kneeling anyway. 

I would disagree here. The purchasing power of the Trump allies far outweighs those of us poor shlubs. We may be jerseys. they buy sky boxes and rent out stadiums for corporate events. Quality vs. quantity.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I would disagree here. The purchasing power of the Trump allies far outweighs those of us poor shlubs. We may be jerseys. they buy sky boxes and rent out stadiums for corporate events. Quality vs. quantity.

 

At the highest level its debatable. That being said, I was referring to sponsors and who buys their product. Im not sure that Budweiser et al are targeting the 1%. 

[ptatc]

14 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

At the highest level its debatable. That being said, I was referring to sponsors and who buys their product. Im not sure that Budweiser et al are targeting the 1%. 

True.