Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NFL viewership off 11% YOY (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter elbowrm
- Start date
cstu
Footballguy
Out of the 256 regular season games played in the NFL, how many of them really matter at the end of the season? If 90% are doomed to being insignificant then just make them fun to watch.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Tall task if they go up against game 5 of the World Series, especially if its a Cubs can finish it scenario
MattFancy
Footballguy
RUSF18
Footballguy
I think you need a different team than the Eagles involved in such a matchup to deliver such enormous ratings. Just my two cents...
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Don't know what's entertaining about making the first down signal every time they get a first down. Plenty of ways to show personality without it coming off stupid and selfish. I watch for the game itself, not some dumb choreographed routine between plays. Looking at you Cam.
MattFancy
Footballguy
I agree doing a 1st down signal after every 1st down is dumb. But I'm all for end zone celebrations or celebrations after a big play. Not a 1yd run to get a 1st down.
culdeus
Footballguy
The Rangers, but neither large market has a team in the game. So this should be a good barometer.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
CFL >>> NFL now. Yeah, the talent is far superior in the NFL but the product most definitely is not. Can't believe that... two years ago me would have kicked my ### for saying that.
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
RUSF18
Footballguy
I'll absolutely put it on. Whether or not it stays on remains to be seen.
Personally, that wouldn't have been a question for me a few years ago. I just don't have any desire to watch something that is boring/disjointed and 8/10 times that's what an NFL telecast becomes.
dgreen
Footballguy
I think age is a factor, regarding most of the comments by those here in this thread. When I was 25, I used to look at 40 year olds who didn't live and breathe the NFL as total weirdos. I'd hear them talk about being Redskins fans and give some opinion about the team and then a week later ask me how the game ended because they didn't watch the 4th quarter because they had to get other stuff done. I totally looked down on those people. I didn't consider them real fans. I remember one older man telling me how he was a die hard Redskins fan when he was my age but he barely followed them later in life (he was about 50). I convinced myself he probably was never as die hard as me.
Now I'm 40. I still watch full Redskins games live, but I don't consume as much of the NFL as a whole. My personal viewing has declined the last few years. I don't play fantasy football anymore. This Sunday, for the first time in forever, I will not watch the Redskins game live. I'll be at church at 9:30 AM while they're playing live in London. When I was 25, I would have definitely skipped church that morning. When I was 35, I probably would have gone to church but would have been thinking about the game the whole time and second guessing my decision. Now my priorities are just a bit different. I still prioritize the Redskins and football more than your average 40 year old, but not nearly as much as 25 year old dgreen. I'll go to church Sunday morning like I always do and I'll be totally happy with my decision. I'll watch it on DVR when I get home.
I can now look back to when I was 25 and looked down on those 40 year olds and I understand that things just change for people through life. I don't know that I would chalk it up to the league changing as much as it's just that I'm changing. I think the theories about people consuming the league in ways that aren't in the ratings is likely the biggest factor. But, another factor could be changing demographics (older population). I wonder if as die hards age whether we're being replaced by an equal number of new die hards?
Now I'm 40. I still watch full Redskins games live, but I don't consume as much of the NFL as a whole. My personal viewing has declined the last few years. I don't play fantasy football anymore. This Sunday, for the first time in forever, I will not watch the Redskins game live. I'll be at church at 9:30 AM while they're playing live in London. When I was 25, I would have definitely skipped church that morning. When I was 35, I probably would have gone to church but would have been thinking about the game the whole time and second guessing my decision. Now my priorities are just a bit different. I still prioritize the Redskins and football more than your average 40 year old, but not nearly as much as 25 year old dgreen. I'll go to church Sunday morning like I always do and I'll be totally happy with my decision. I'll watch it on DVR when I get home.
I can now look back to when I was 25 and looked down on those 40 year olds and I understand that things just change for people through life. I don't know that I would chalk it up to the league changing as much as it's just that I'm changing. I think the theories about people consuming the league in ways that aren't in the ratings is likely the biggest factor. But, another factor could be changing demographics (older population). I wonder if as die hards age whether we're being replaced by an equal number of new die hards?
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I'll probably watch very little because I don't have much desire to watch late games after the Bills lose, and they're sure to get obliterated this Sunday.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I don't know what you guys are talking about. That game with all the missed field goals that ended in a tie was awesome. 
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I particularly like when a person from the secondary makes a hard tackle after the offensive player gained good yardage and/or a first down and they have a celebration. Fantastic
jonessed
Footballguy
I think catching a game or two adds to the excitement, especially if you have never been to one.
Tom Skerritt
Footballguy
So sure there are myriad reasons as to why viewership is down. But these are mine...
1. I just don't care about the game/sport as much
2. I don't care about the players/coaches/owners as much
3. I am turned off by the amount of arrogance, showboating, and narcissism
4. The games take too long (commercials, penalties, time-outs, etc.)
5. It's just not as fun for me anymore
And it's this way for all professional sports. I will keep up with who wins games, box scores, and standings. But I just do not like watching the games. I will be more interested come playoff time, and I will probably watch then. But the regular season is just not that interesting.
1. I just don't care about the game/sport as much
2. I don't care about the players/coaches/owners as much
3. I am turned off by the amount of arrogance, showboating, and narcissism
4. The games take too long (commercials, penalties, time-outs, etc.)
5. It's just not as fun for me anymore
And it's this way for all professional sports. I will keep up with who wins games, box scores, and standings. But I just do not like watching the games. I will be more interested come playoff time, and I will probably watch then. But the regular season is just not that interesting.
belljr
Footballguy
1. I've got 5 TVs going at once, including the 'game of the week' which is usually something like the Browns vs the Ravens
on the center big screen.2. I have a dynasty team.
3. I have a redraft team.
4. What else would I do for 10-12 hours on Sunday for 17 weeks.
5. I win $ just about every year in one of the leagues.
That being said, my gawd, these 3-0 games going into halftime are brutal to watch.
modogg
Footballguy
I haven't read through this thread, but has anybody mentioned the idea that the more info we get about concussions and CET is a factor. I was talking with some buds I haven't seen for a bit, and a few of them mentioned that they have found themselves not watching NFL as much after learning more and more about the punishment some of these guys are putting themselves through.
Not trying to detract from the topic here, but seemed to be a specific reason why some people who used to be pretty big NFL fans have kind of fallen out of favor with it. I doubt this is the main reason, simply because I don't think most in society think this much about it or simply care.
Not trying to detract from the topic here, but seemed to be a specific reason why some people who used to be pretty big NFL fans have kind of fallen out of favor with it. I doubt this is the main reason, simply because I don't think most in society think this much about it or simply care.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I haven't read any of the 11 pages in this thread, but I was going to suggest this. Lots of folks as casual fans I know did DFS before and never won, so they have gone back to being indifferent about football.
Another thing I am curious about with regard to ratings / viewers . . . do people that record the games count as viewers? I know people that DVR games and watch that way to skip the commercials. If they only count "live" viewers, they aren't counting everyone.
RUSF18
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
On occasion, but seemingly more now. I'm more interested in how the viewership includes or excludes these situations.
belljr
Footballguy
The less I have to deal with everybody stand up guy the better....
At least it's not college seating
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
yes, the ratings system now account for the DVR's in multiple ways.
If you watch the game on DVR with in 24 hours of the airing of the show, you are counted in the initial numbers by the ratings.
This is called "Live+same day" and they are the typical numbers you will see reported in the press.
The ratings system also has "Live +3" and "Live +7" categories which are rarely reported and these represent live watching plus DVR watching within 3 days and live watching plus DVR watching with in 7 days.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Another thing that is different in our house is we now have Netflix and other on-line streaming options which we did not have in prior seasons. I generally will watch less football because of that (especially the evening games), but I am not sure how our household compares to others.
Fariq
Footballguy
pollardsvision
Footballguy
This might be the best sports night of the year. Oddly enough, this is one of the nights the NFL hasn't gone after just yet.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Also, in terms of demographics, the fastest growing group of young people (18-25) year olds are latinos. Those latinos have just as much allegiance to another sport as they do to the NFL.
How have the ratings for LigaMX done YoY?
Not sure about LigaMX but the EPL hasn't had a good year....here's this week's report.
NBC earned a 0.4 final rating and 604,000 viewers for Crystal Palace/West Ham Premier League action lats Saturday, down a third in ratings and 36% in viewership from Chelsea/Southampton last year (0.6, 948K). NBC did not air a live match in 2014.
The match was the second straight on NBC to have just a 0.4 rating, a particularly low number for broadcast television. Even so, it was the top EPL telecast of the week.
Earlier in the day, Everton/Manchester City had a 0.2 and 359,000 on NBCSN in the mid-morning window — down a tick in ratings and 9% in viewership from Manchester City/Newcastle last year (0.3, 396K) and down a tick and 8%, respectively, from Chelsea/Crystal Palace in ’14 (0.3, 390K). The concurrent Arsenal/Swansea match scored 130,000 on CNBC, down 31% from Sunderland/West Ham on USA last year (188K).
The day started on a higher note, with Leicester City/Chelsea earning a 0.2 and 255,000 — flat in ratings and up 17% in viewership from Crystal Palace/West Brom last year (0.2, 218K) and down a tick and 8%, respectively, from Chelsea/Crystal Palace in 2014 (0.3, 390K).
On Sunday, Southampton/Burnley had 282,000 viewers on NBCSN — down 67% from Arsenal/Manchester United last year (866K) and down 30% from Swansea/Stoke City in 2014 (401K). Ratings fell 60% (from 0.45 to 0.18). Middlesbrough/Watford started things off with a 0.1 and 236,000, both down 67% from Everton/Liverpool last year (0.3, 436K) and down a tick and 28%, respectively, from Liverpool/Queens Park in 2014 (0.2, 327K).
Rounding out the week eight slate, Liverpool/Manchester United had 371,000 on NBCSN Monday afternoon — up 25% from West Brom/Manhcester United in 2014 (297K). There was no comparable game last year. It was the top weekday match of the season thus far and the top match of the week on cable.
Baseball not doing great either....
Entering a World Series that is virtually guaranteed to increase over last year, both League Championship Series incurred declines.
The six-game Cubs/Dodgers National League Championship Series averaged just under 7.0 million viewers on Fox Sports 1, down 11% from last year’s four-game Mets/Cubs series on TBS (7.9M) but up 56% from Giants/Cardinals on FS1 and FOX in 2014 (4.5M). Compared to last year’s six-game Royals/Blue Jays ALCS on FS1 and FOX, viewership increased 80% from 3.9 million.
Cubs/Dodgers averaged the second-largest audience for an NLCS since Giants/Phillies in 2010 (9.1M) behind only last year. Including American League series, it ranks fourth over that span behind Mets/Cubs, Red Sox/Tigers in 2013 (7.7M) and Rangers/Tigers in 2011 (7.1M). The latter two series aired on the FOX broadcast network.
The series also averaged the fourth-largest audience for an LCS on cable, behind Mets/Cubs last year, Rangers/Yankees in 2010 (8.2M) and Rays/Red Sox in 2008 (7.4M).
In the American League, the five-game Indians/Blue Jays series averaged 3.3 million on TBS — down 13% from Royals/Blue Jays last year, down 34% from the four-game Royals/Orioles series in 2014 (5.1M), and the least-watched LCS on record. Figures do not include Canadian viewership, which does not count toward U.S. television ratings.
The previous low was 3.9 million for Royals/Blue Jays last year, and the low before that was 4.3 million for Rockies/Diamondbacks in 2007. While the final three games of the series each posted increases in viewership, the steep drop for Game 1 — which fell 37% from last year’s opener on the FOX broadcast network — was too much to overcome.
Entering a World Series that is virtually guaranteed to increase over last year, both League Championship Series incurred declines.
The six-game Cubs/Dodgers National League Championship Series averaged just under 7.0 million viewers on Fox Sports 1, down 11% from last year’s four-game Mets/Cubs series on TBS (7.9M) but up 56% from Giants/Cardinals on FS1 and FOX in 2014 (4.5M). Compared to last year’s six-game Royals/Blue Jays ALCS on FS1 and FOX, viewership increased 80% from 3.9 million.
Cubs/Dodgers averaged the second-largest audience for an NLCS since Giants/Phillies in 2010 (9.1M) behind only last year. Including American League series, it ranks fourth over that span behind Mets/Cubs, Red Sox/Tigers in 2013 (7.7M) and Rangers/Tigers in 2011 (7.1M). The latter two series aired on the FOX broadcast network.
The series also averaged the fourth-largest audience for an LCS on cable, behind Mets/Cubs last year, Rangers/Yankees in 2010 (8.2M) and Rays/Red Sox in 2008 (7.4M).
In the American League, the five-game Indians/Blue Jays series averaged 3.3 million on TBS — down 13% from Royals/Blue Jays last year, down 34% from the four-game Royals/Orioles series in 2014 (5.1M), and the least-watched LCS on record. Figures do not include Canadian viewership, which does not count toward U.S. television ratings.
The previous low was 3.9 million for Royals/Blue Jays last year, and the low before that was 4.3 million for Rockies/Diamondbacks in 2007. While the final three games of the series each posted increases in viewership, the steep drop for Game 1 — which fell 37% from last year’s opener on the FOX broadcast network — was too much to overcome.
College Football not tearing it up...
CFB Down Big on FOX, Up Big on FS1, in Week Seven
CFB Down Big on FOX, Up Big on FS1, in Week Seven
- Saturday’s USC/Arizona college football game drew a 0.6 final rating and 871,000 viewers on FOX, down 60% in both measures from West Virginia/Baylor in an earlier slot last year (1.5, 2.2M) and off 45% and 50%, respectively, from Oregon/UCLA in 2014 (1.1, 1.8M). Both figures were season lows on broadcast. On Fox Sports 1, West Virginia/Texas Tech had a 0.5 and 834,000 — up 150% in ratings and 100% in viewership from Texas Tech/Kansas last year (0.2, 417K) and up 67% and 61%, respectively, from West Virginia/Texas Tech in ’14 (0.3, 518K). Kansas/Baylor had a 0.2 and 364,000; no game aired last year.
OK, I lied...no one cared about the olympics either...
Olympics Wrap: Rio Games Lowest Rated Since Sydney, Least-Watched Since Athens
2
BY PAULSEN ON 08/24/2016NBC, OLYMPICS, RATINGS
Four years ago — or even four weeks ago — few could have imagined that the Rio Olympics would sink to the lowest level since Sydney.
Primetime coverage of the Rio Summer Olympics averaged a 14.4 rating and 25.4 million viewers on NBC, per Nielsen fast-nationals — down 18% in ratings and viewership from London in 2012 (17.5, 31.1M) and down 11% and 8%, respectively, from Beijing in 2008 (16.2, 27.7M). Versus the most recent Olympics, the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, ratings increased 17% (from 12.3) and viewership 19% (from 21.4M).
The Rio Games ranks as the lowest rated Summer Olympics in primetime since Sydney in 2000 (13.8) and the least-watched since Athens in 2004 (24.6M). After ratings and viewership grew for three straight Summer Olympics, it was the first since Sydney to decline from the previous edition.
All 17 primetime windows on NBC posted a decline in ratings and viewership from 2012 (see chart), though it should be noted that London set a high bar as the highest rated and most-watched non-U.S. Olympics since 1994. Compared to Beijing in 2008, ratings dropped for 16 of 17 nights and viewership 14.
This year included the two lowest rated primetime Summer Olympics windows ever on broadcast television, the final night of competition (9.0) and Closing Ceremony (9.8). Prior to this year, no night of any Summer Olympics had earned a single-digit rating.
The numbers would likely have been even lower had NBC not cut the rated portion of its telecasts to just 184 minutes per night, the lowest since at least 1996, per ShowBuzz Daily. That figure equates to just over three hours of rated programming on nights when NBC typically aired four (or five) hours of coverage. According to ShowBuzz, NBC averaged 194 minutes of rated coverage in 2012 and 251 back in 2000.
Rio was the first Olympics in which primetime coverage was available on cable and the internet. Including the live streaming audience on NBCOlympics.com and viewership on cable networks NBCSN, USA Network and Bravo, primetime coverage averaged 27.5 million viewers over 15 nights — not including the opening or closing ceremonies, which aired only on NBC and were not available live online. That still trailed the comparable 15 nights of London, but edged Beijing.
On paper, the Rio Olympics looked to be as big a draw as any. The host city was just one hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time, allowing for live coverage of most events in NBC’s primetime window (at least on the Eastern half of the country). The network’s designated stars — Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky — dominated the Games, each winning multiple gold medals. After strong performances in Beijing and London, the Olympics itself looked like it had recovered whatever stature it had lost in the early-to-mid 2000s, making a return to Sydney levels unlikely.
At the same time, there were warning signs entering the Games. A July Gallup poll found that 48% of respondents intended to watch the Olympics, an 11-point drop from 2012 and the smallest percentage since the company began asking the question in 2000. Ratings for the Olympic Trials sank from 2012, including across-the-board declines for NBC’s primetime swimming and gymnastics telecasts.
Despite the lower numbers, the Olympics was far from a poor television draw. The first Tuesday and Thursday of competition, which featured Phelps in the pool and Biles in gymnastics, earned 33.4 and 31.2 million viewers on NBC alone — the second and third-largest TV audiences of the year, outside of the NFL. Only the Academy Awards attracted more viewers (34.4M).
Olympics Wrap: Rio Games Lowest Rated Since Sydney, Least-Watched Since Athens
2
BY PAULSEN ON 08/24/2016NBC, OLYMPICS, RATINGS
Four years ago — or even four weeks ago — few could have imagined that the Rio Olympics would sink to the lowest level since Sydney.
Primetime coverage of the Rio Summer Olympics averaged a 14.4 rating and 25.4 million viewers on NBC, per Nielsen fast-nationals — down 18% in ratings and viewership from London in 2012 (17.5, 31.1M) and down 11% and 8%, respectively, from Beijing in 2008 (16.2, 27.7M). Versus the most recent Olympics, the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, ratings increased 17% (from 12.3) and viewership 19% (from 21.4M).
The Rio Games ranks as the lowest rated Summer Olympics in primetime since Sydney in 2000 (13.8) and the least-watched since Athens in 2004 (24.6M). After ratings and viewership grew for three straight Summer Olympics, it was the first since Sydney to decline from the previous edition.
All 17 primetime windows on NBC posted a decline in ratings and viewership from 2012 (see chart), though it should be noted that London set a high bar as the highest rated and most-watched non-U.S. Olympics since 1994. Compared to Beijing in 2008, ratings dropped for 16 of 17 nights and viewership 14.
This year included the two lowest rated primetime Summer Olympics windows ever on broadcast television, the final night of competition (9.0) and Closing Ceremony (9.8). Prior to this year, no night of any Summer Olympics had earned a single-digit rating.
The numbers would likely have been even lower had NBC not cut the rated portion of its telecasts to just 184 minutes per night, the lowest since at least 1996, per ShowBuzz Daily. That figure equates to just over three hours of rated programming on nights when NBC typically aired four (or five) hours of coverage. According to ShowBuzz, NBC averaged 194 minutes of rated coverage in 2012 and 251 back in 2000.
Rio was the first Olympics in which primetime coverage was available on cable and the internet. Including the live streaming audience on NBCOlympics.com and viewership on cable networks NBCSN, USA Network and Bravo, primetime coverage averaged 27.5 million viewers over 15 nights — not including the opening or closing ceremonies, which aired only on NBC and were not available live online. That still trailed the comparable 15 nights of London, but edged Beijing.
On paper, the Rio Olympics looked to be as big a draw as any. The host city was just one hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time, allowing for live coverage of most events in NBC’s primetime window (at least on the Eastern half of the country). The network’s designated stars — Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky — dominated the Games, each winning multiple gold medals. After strong performances in Beijing and London, the Olympics itself looked like it had recovered whatever stature it had lost in the early-to-mid 2000s, making a return to Sydney levels unlikely.
At the same time, there were warning signs entering the Games. A July Gallup poll found that 48% of respondents intended to watch the Olympics, an 11-point drop from 2012 and the smallest percentage since the company began asking the question in 2000. Ratings for the Olympic Trials sank from 2012, including across-the-board declines for NBC’s primetime swimming and gymnastics telecasts.
Despite the lower numbers, the Olympics was far from a poor television draw. The first Tuesday and Thursday of competition, which featured Phelps in the pool and Biles in gymnastics, earned 33.4 and 31.2 million viewers on NBC alone — the second and third-largest TV audiences of the year, outside of the NFL. Only the Academy Awards attracted more viewers (34.4M).
We ain't watching WNBA either...
Despite Classic Ending, WNBA Finals Down on ESPN2
0
BY PAULSEN ON 10/24/2016ESPN, RATINGS, WNBA
The WNBA got everything it could ask for out of its championship series, but the numbers still trailed last year.
The five-game Sparks/Lynx WNBA Finals averaged a 0.3 rating and 487,000 viewers across the ESPN family of networks, flat in ratings but down 3% in viewership from Lynx/Fever last year, which also went five games (0.3, 502K), and down a tick and 23%, respectively, from the three-game Mercury/Sky series in 2014 (0.4, 634K).
The series ranks as the least-watched WNBA Finals since the Lynx swept Atlanta in 2013 (345K).
Despite Classic Ending, WNBA Finals Down on ESPN2
0
BY PAULSEN ON 10/24/2016ESPN, RATINGS, WNBA
The WNBA got everything it could ask for out of its championship series, but the numbers still trailed last year.
The five-game Sparks/Lynx WNBA Finals averaged a 0.3 rating and 487,000 viewers across the ESPN family of networks, flat in ratings but down 3% in viewership from Lynx/Fever last year, which also went five games (0.3, 502K), and down a tick and 23%, respectively, from the three-game Mercury/Sky series in 2014 (0.4, 634K).
The series ranks as the least-watched WNBA Finals since the Lynx swept Atlanta in 2013 (345K).
RUSF18
Footballguy
Other leagues have definitely ebbed and flowed with ratings. The problem is the NFL has been pretty bulletproof. If changing viewing habits are finally catching up to them, it's a problem. And a memo being circulated around to the teams so quickly would seem to indicate there was legit concern among the owners.
Righetti
Footballguy
I remember finding a crappy Irish bar in a crappy part of town in Belgium to watch some regular season Jets games in the middle of the night when I was 25 and traveling for work. I wouldn't walk across the street today to do that
facook
Footballguy
Probably been said, but the biggest reason I care less is not the LENGTH of games, it's the SPEED of games. Too many breaks, too many commercials, too many pauses for injury or instant replay. Replay is killing the game, imo. Part of the game in the past was missed/botched calls. If the Immaculate Reception happened today, the play would not have changed, but it would have been reviewed for 10 minutes before we knew. It takes away the drama of the moment. Dez's catch/non catch in Green Bay a few years ago would not be any different today in terms of controversy without replay, but the game would have moved faster. I remember being SO pissed off about wrong call growing up. So what? The STILL get calls wrong WITH replay and the game just moves so slow.
If a guy has a minor injury, get him off the field and play on. It's part of the game. Instead we go to another two minutes of commercials.
Pace of play sucks. It's better in college, but only marginally. And it's the biggest reason attending games sucks these days too.
If a guy has a minor injury, get him off the field and play on. It's part of the game. Instead we go to another two minutes of commercials.
Pace of play sucks. It's better in college, but only marginally. And it's the biggest reason attending games sucks these days too.
Similar threads
- Locked
