steelerfury.com
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/

Is it just me...
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9170
Page 3 of 4

Author:  Dan Smith--BYU [ Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

The attendance at the USC-Texas game was more than the combined attendance of the Chargers and Rams games.

So no, it's not a diabolical conspiracy of the NFL to act against it's own economic interests (memo to lefties...when corporations act nefariously, it's to increase profits or get a deal from the government...such as stadium deals), its a bad product in an oversaturated market.

What happened with these LA teams is they saw what Ballmer got for the Clips and figured they'd instantly move to LA and better that. They were wrong.

I'm going to KC at Chargers next week. I suspect the fan ratio will be 3:1 for the visitor.

Too bad the NFL doesn't have an ETF I can buy naked puts on.

Author:  R S [ Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

Quote:
The balance doesn't find itself.


Of course it does. Worsening product, increasing prices = decreased attendance/viewers and less money, sponsers and tv deals

So they either improve/evolve the product, or lower the prices. They've pushed fans to the tipping point. It took awhile but they are there. Now it's the NFLs move to balance the scales or continue on a decent to ruin.

Author:  R S [ Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

Jeemie wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:
It's entertainment product and it's scripted

Yes we all need to swallow that simple fact


So they're deliberately scripting a terrible product that is painful to watch?

That makes perfect sense!


I'm beginning to buy into the thought that they deliberately throw flags at opportune times to impact the game. Usually keeping it competitive for longer. IE: slow momentum with a holding call.

Author:  COR-TEN [ Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

COR-TEN wrote:
Pabst wrote:
I know this is off topic, but I'm just stating my view.
All good points. I want to respond but have no time right now. Give me a day or two to reply. 1000 miles away. . .
I have a response but it's long winded and I don't think this crowd wants to hear/read it. Let me know if you want me to PM you.

Author:  Pabst [ Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

COR-TEN wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
Pabst wrote:
I know this is off topic, but I'm just stating my view.
All good points. I want to respond but have no time right now. Give me a day or two to reply. 1000 miles away. . .
I have a response but it's long winded and I don't think this crowd wants to hear/read it. Let me know if you want me to PM you.

Feel free.
I personally fall somewhere between Libertarian & Conservative (if that's not obvious), and one of my best friends is a true blue Bernie-Bro, so I have these kinds of discussions pretty often.

Author:  Jeemie [ Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

Pabst wrote:
Feel free.
I personally fall somewhere between Libertarian & Conservative (if that's not obvious), and one of my best friends is a true blue Bernie-Bro, so I have these kinds of discussions pretty often.


I'd like to see it too.

I fall somewhere in the middle of both of you, although closer to Pabst most likely.

Author:  jebrick [ Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

Just to add to the data. An article on the ad spending for sports and how it is not sustainable.

Quote:
One of the biggest reasons for soaring cable rates is the bloated and soaring cost of sports programming. Similarly, one of the biggest causes for the unprecedented rise in cord cutting (ditching cable and going with a streaming alternative) is the cost of sports programming. Surveys have shown that 56% of ESPN viewers would dump the channel just to save the $8 per month it costs each subscriber. Once streaming alternatives emerged for the sports-bloated traditional cable bundles that let them do just that, users began flooding to the exits at a historic rate.

The reality is millions upon millions of customers don't give a shit about sports, yet are forced to pay $120 or more per month for cable bundles filled with content they don't watch, and didn't want. And when some cable companies initially tried to offer "skinny bundles" without ESPN or other sports networks, they were sued by ESPN for trying to give consumers what they wanted. And while that has slowly started to change with the rise of live TV streaming alternatives, for traditional cable providers something in this cycle of dysfunction needs to change. Quickly.

Case in point: Axios points to Magna's latest Media Sports Report that highlights how cable companies are now paying significantly more money for sports programming than they make off advertising during the games. For example, cable operators now pay the NBA $2.6 billion annually in licensing fees, but "only" make $1.3 billion from the ads run during sports events. The associated graphic highlights how it's the same for most leagues:

Of course cable companies make up for the difference by not only imposing endless cable TV rate hikes, but via the bevy of misleading fees they've long used to jack up the advertised rate of service post sale. But their ability to do this has been dramatically compromised by the mass exodus of users fleeing traditional cable. And the problem is notably worse for broadcast networks:

This (sic) economics are especially problematic for broadcast networks that carry live sports games, because they don't have access to subscription revenues to subsidize the high cost of programming, like cable networks do. Broadcasters rely on ratings, driven by viewership — which is getting increasingly older and aging out of the coveted 25-54 marketing demographic, as well as retransmission fees.

As a result, more sports distribution rights have migrated to cable networks — think TNT and TBS carrying the NBA and MLB, respectively. But there are problems there, too. Cable channels are losing subscribers to digital streaming options at the fastest rate ever. It's worth noting that both cable and broadcast networks make a substantial amount of money from retransmission fees (charging cable and satellite providers to carry their content), but collectively it's still not enough to completely offset the rate of increases to programming costs.

The report proceeds to state the obvious by proclaiming that analysts "don't see the ever-increasing gap between ad revenues and rights fees as sustainable in the long term," something cable subscribers could have told them years ago. Wall Street analysts have similarly been discussing how retransmission fee hikes and the soaring cost of programming simply isn't sustainable for the better part of the last decade, not that it appears to have changed the landscape -- or the executive quest to milk the traditional cable TV cash cow to death -- in any meaningful fashion.

This will likely most harm small cable TV operators, who have said they may just stop selling cable TV as margins get tighter. Don't feel too badly for larger cable providers like Comcast, however. As their TV margins get squeezed, they are simply using their monopoly over broadband to jack up the cost of broadband via unnecessary and confusing caps or overage fees. The end result: cable companies get their pound of flesh one way or the other, as users are punished for fleeing the cable and broadcast sectors' walled gardens and the seemingly endless TV rate hikes therein.

Author:  jebrick [ Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

and yet another article on the play in the NFL which focuses on the improvement of the defenses

Quote:
Two weeks into the NFL season, the game’s overall aesthetics are under fire. Scoring is down, sacks are up, and Brian Hoyer is still gainfully employed as a starting quarterback. Offenses, we’re being told, are in crisis. But are things really that bad?

Blame is being assigned to everything from reductions in practice time to the aging of some of the game’s better quarterbacks to the deterioration of offensive line play to rosters composed of cheaper, younger players thanks to the downward pressures of the rookie-wage scale. But there is another significant culprit, and it’s one that’s often mentioned in passing, assuming it’s even mentioned at all: Defenses have gotten better, and the NFL may right now be going through one of its periodic cycles in which defenses become dominant.


Quote:
A final thought: Jason Lisk of The Big Lead last year compiled a list of media references to the decline of the NFL’s quality of play. The conceit was that the list goes back 25 years, which means complaints about the game’s aesthetics are nothing new. If the kind of defensive dominance we’re now witnessing looks ugly, maybe it’s really because of a pair of questions Kelly posed last year on The Ringer. “Do we actually love defensive slugfests, then?” Kelly wondered. “Or are we just supposed to love defensive slugfests, even though they, in fact, suck?

Author:  SteelThrillsseeker [ Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

COR-TEN wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
Pabst wrote:
I know this is off topic, but I'm just stating my view.
All good points. I want to respond but have no time right now. Give me a day or two to reply. 1000 miles away. . .
I have a response but it's long winded and I don't think this crowd wants to hear/read it. Let me know if you want me to PM you.



Feel free to either post it or PM it to me. I'd love to hear your response. Your posts are always excellent!

Author:  JPPT1974 [ Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me...

CEO's and in that of Presidents of team get too greedy with money and all too powerful.

Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/