squistion

Colin Kaepernick Thread plus related anthem kneeling and NFL stuff

10,259 posts in this topic

29 minutes ago, Higgs said:

913 people polled.

23% say they are watching fewer games.  That's 210 people.

25% of that 210 say it's because of the Anthem crap.  That's 52.5 people. We'll round that up to 53.

53 out of 913 people say they are watching fewer games because of the Anthem protests.

That's about 5.8%

LESS THAN 6% OF THE PEOPLE POLLED SAID THEYRE WATCHING FEWER GAMES BECAUSE OF THE ANTHEM PROTESTS.

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

How many school teachers challenge systematic racism in this country?  Did you really just ask that?  Thousands I imagine, every day. 

How many can you name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I guess. 

But in 1968, when those two track guys raised their fists (the best analogy we have) that was a huge huge deal, they were on the cover of every magazine. Compared to that this was pretty minor IMO. 

Why are you comparing it to that?  This list isn't the 100 most influential people in history.  If you don't think Kapepernick was influencing people last year, despite if you agreed or disagreed with his methods, you're fooling yourself.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shuke said:

Why are you comparing it to that?  This list isn't the 100 most influential people in history.  If you don't think Kapepernick was influencing people last year, despite if you agreed or disagreed with his methods, you're fooling yourself.

Great, now we know what the next list will be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely made the list of awful NFL QBs.  Near the top.  Well done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

913 people polled.

23% say they are watching fewer games.  That's 210 people.

25% of that 210 say it's because of the Anthem crap.  That's 52.5 people. We'll round that up to 53.

53 out of 913 people say they are watching fewer games because of the Anthem protests.

That's about 5.8%

LESS THAN 6% OF THE PEOPLE POLLED SAID THEYRE WATCHING FEWER GAMES BECAUSE OF THE ANTHEM PROTESTS.

 

 

no one likes math

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Limp Ditka said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

no one likes math

 

I hate math too...but it took about 3 minutes with my calculator to figure out those numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

I hate math too...but it took about 3 minutes with my calculator to figure out those numbers.

OMG LOOK AT ME I HAVE A WATCH CALCULATOR

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

913 people polled.

23% say they are watching fewer games.  That's 210 people.

25% of that 210 say it's because of the Anthem crap.  That's 52.5 people. We'll round that up to 53.

53 out of 913 people say they are watching fewer games because of the Anthem protests.

That's about 5.8%

LESS THAN 6% OF THE PEOPLE POLLED SAID THEYRE WATCHING FEWER GAMES BECAUSE OF THE ANTHEM PROTESTS.

 

 

Wasn't the decline in NFL viewership this year about 11%, so according to your math, about half of that decline was due to Kap?  I'd say that's significant and could be considered "influential."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buttonhook said:

Wasn't the decline in NFL viewership this year about 11%, so according to your math, about half of that decline was due to Kap?  I'd say that's significant and could be considered "influential."

No clue what the actual numbers were and those numbers weren't included in the poll that Higgs posted.

All I know is that he posted a poll showing that less than 6% of the people polled said they were watching less NFL because of the National Anthem protests.  

 

Quote

Protests during the national anthem 25%
 

Too many commercial interruptions 10%
 

Match-ups aren’t as good 10%

Too many games on TV 8%

More interest in the election 3%

Other (or don’t know) 44% 

And notice that 44% don't even know why in the hell they don't want to watch the games.  

Edited by Reg Lllama of Brixton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Buttonhook said:

Wasn't the decline in NFL viewership this year about 11%, so according to your math, about half of that decline was due to Kap?  I'd say that's significant and could be considered "influential."

He was also pretty influential in a lot of those 49er loses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He was also pretty influential in a lot of those 49er loses. '

His receivers didn't help him out much either:

Cian Fahey@Cianaf 

Colin Kaepernick:

Interceptable pass rate: 2.11% (2nd in NFL)

Accuracy: 74.92% (14th)

Receptions lost to receiver error: 11.78% (1st)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

No clue what the actual numbers were and those numbers weren't included in the poll that Higgs posted.

All I know is that he posted a poll showing that less than 6% of the people polled said they were watching less NFL because of the National Anthem protests.  

 

And notice that 44% don't even know why in the hell they don't want to watch the games.  

And I'm sure that, when given the option, Joe Bob Yokel is going to allow words to be put in his mouth.

Pollster: If given these reasons (see ones noted above), why aren't you tuning into NFL games?

Joe Bob Yokel: 'Murica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Limp Ditka said:

 

  Hide contents

no one likes math

 

Boy you suck at math as much as English.  Did you go to any classes in high school?

A 5.7% loss is hugely significant.  The NFL's TV deal takes in $4.6 billion a year and depends on ratings remaining the same.  That's just one revenue stream for the League.  A 5.7% loss applied to $4.6 billion is $232 million.  This obviously isn't an exact number of the Kaepernick Effect but I'm using it to illustrate the scale of the numbers involved. 

You guys really want to keep arguing that Kaepernick didn't cost the league money?  Because you are looking extremely dumb right about now.

Edited by Higgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Boy you suck at math as much as English.  Did you go to any classes in high school?

A 5.7% loss is hugely significant.  The NFL's TV deal takes in $4.6 billion a year and depends on ratings remaining the same.  That's just one revenue stream for the League.  A 5.7% loss applied to $4.6 billion is $232 million.  This obviously isn't an exact number of the Kaepernick Effect but I'm using it to illustrate the scale of the numbers involved. 

You guys really want to keep arguing that Kaepernick didn't cost the league money?  Because you are looking extremely dumb right about now.

You swing and miss more often than a little leaguer facing Kershaw would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/01/04/tv-ratings-2016-season-cbs-fox-espn-nbc/96163230/

Quote

“Presidential elections have always had an impact on our ratings, so we were prepared for a dip this season,” Brian Rolapp, the NFL’s executive vice president of media, wrote in an email to USA TODAY Sports.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Boy you suck at math as much as English.  Did you go to any classes in high school?

A 5.7% loss is hugely significant.  The NFL's TV deal takes in $4.6 billion a year and depends on ratings remaining the same.  That's just one revenue stream for the League.  A 5.7% loss applied to $4.6 billion is $232 million.  This obviously isn't an exact number of the Kaepernick Effect but I'm using it to illustrate the scale of the numbers involved. 

You guys really want to keep arguing that Kaepernick didn't cost the league money?  Because you are looking extremely dumb right about now.

It's still 5.7% no matter how much money is involved.  

24 minutes ago, Limp Ditka said:

And the number of viewers went up after the election.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, someone please have mercy on these guys and throw in the towel for them. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

It's still 5.7% no matter how much money is involved.  

And the number of viewers went up after the election.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Wrong.  Again.  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632/nfl-tv-ratings-down-moffettnathanson

A sure sign you are on the wrong side of an issue - when your main proponent is Squigeon.

:lmao:

That's right. He's wrong. The numbers didn't go up after the election.

 

I believe it is time for a new element on the periodic chart. Hi for Higgsium.

 

[Maury] Osmium..... you are NOT the densest element. [/Maury]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Wrong.  Again.  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632/nfl-tv-ratings-down-moffettnathanson

A sure sign you are on the wrong side of an issue - when your main proponent is Squigeon.

Screen_Shot_2017_02_04_at_11.28.30_AM.png

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5834d226/turbine/la-fi-ct-g-nfl-ratings-20161117/750/750x422

Week 10 was the first week after the election.

Wait...you're telling me that the number of views after the election was not higher than before the election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Limp Ditka said:

 

 

:lmao:

That's right. He's wrong. The numbers didn't go up after the election.

 

I believe it is time for a new element on the periodic chart. Hi for Higgsium.

 

[Maury] Osmium..... you are NOT the densest element. [/Maury]

Wow.  Did you play high school football and take too many shots to the head?  Nah, my image of you is the wannabe jock, stat geek.

Ratings did not "ho up" relative to last year, even after the election.  Pre-election, ratings were down 12 percent over the previous year. And after the election — and including the playoffs — they were down 5 percent over the previous year.

But in your little mind I guess you think that because the ratings improved after the election, somehow this proves your larger point that Kaepernick didn't cost the NFL money?  Holy cow you are one ignorant dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Higgs you never said where you stand on whether or not you think Colin Kaepernick was one of the 100 most influential people of 2016.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CGRdrJoe said:

fixed, hth

Oh now you want a piece of this GI Joe?  You gonna join the three headed idiot squad?  You'll fit right in.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Wow.  Did you play high school football and take too many shots to the head?  Nah, my image of you is the wannabe jock, stat geek.

Ratings did not "ho up" relative to last year, even after the election.  Pre-election, ratings were down 12 percent over the previous year. And after the election — and including the playoffs — they were down 5 percent over the previous year.

But in your little mind I guess you think that because the ratings improved after the election, somehow this proves your larger point that Kaepernick didn't cost the NFL money?  Holy cow you are one ignorant dude.

22.62g/cm3

Edited by Limp Ditka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CGRdrJoe said:

To be fair, Higgs you never said where you stand on whether or not you think Colin Kaepernick was one of the 100 most influential people of 2016.

 

I think he was influential.  In a bad way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

What do you do for a living Limpy?

Undertaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Boy you suck at math as much as English.  Did you go to any classes in high school?

You guys really want to keep arguing that Kaepernick didn't cost the league money?  Because you are looking extremely dumb right about now.

Quote

Wrong.  Again.

A sure sign you are on the wrong side of an issue - when your main proponent is Squigeon.

Quote

Wow.  Did you play high school football and take too many shots to the head?  Nah, my image of you is the wannabe jock, stat geek.

But in your little mind I guess you think that because the ratings improved after the election, somehow this proves your larger point that Kaepernick didn't cost the NFL money?  Holy cow you are one ignorant dude.

Quote

Oh now you want a piece of this GI Joe?  You gonna join the three headed idiot squad?  You'll fit right in.  :lol:

HYSTERIA! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

What do you do for a living Limpy?

Research and development on how to prevent ED?  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

Imagine if CK was white.

he would've pulled better tail?  :shrug:

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

Imagine if CK was white.

Calvin Klien is white.  :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Trying to figure out what Higgs is attempting to compensate for with all the name calling.  He's like that little kid poking at the fat kid until the fat kid picks him up and body slams him :lol: 

You saying your fat? :lol:

I give out exactly what I get in here.  Don't like to be trolled, then don't troll me.  Pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

You saying your fat? :lol:

I give out exactly what I get in here.  Don't like to be trolled, then don't troll me.  Pretty simple.

my fat what?  love the persecution complex...it's even better on the backdrop of calling others snowflake :thumbup: 

Edited by The Commish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Boston said:

1. "Worth noting: the 40 percent of the “watching less NFL” group claiming protests as the reason represents 12 percent of all NFL fans. This is a sharp, though very much expected, decline from the 44 percent who claimed in a similar Yahoo study in early September that they would stop watching if protests continued."

2. "A Seton Hall Sports Poll asked people to identify factors accounting for the drop."  This is the poll where they asked people to guess what they thought were the reasons for the drop in ratings.

3. Same as #2 "A new poll conducted by Seton Hall found that 56% of fans believe NFL television ratings are down due to players protesting the national anthem."

4.  Is that the same as #1?  I'm tired of checking.

5. Think that's the same Rasmussen poll Higgs posted earlier.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now