more on the NFL ratings drop

Let me return to the topic of my previous post, the search for an explanation for the 10% decline in NFL rating this year.  As with everything, the reasons for any event happening are many and varied.  Yes, the elections may be eating into some of the viewership for football; yes, some people may swear off watching professional football while a few players are kneeling during the national anthem (a recent survey said that 56% thought that anthem protests affected ratings; but note those are NOT people saying they watch less because of protests-- they are probably pro-police white people who disapprove of protests and thus claim they cause viewers to tune out even though they don’t); and  yes, the popularity of English Premiere League soccer in America may be part of the problem (although the Premiere League is having its own ratings crisis in England).

But the cause I single out is the dilution of the NFL product thanks to Thursday Night games and games being played overseas, mostly in London but this year also in Mexico City.  I do not claim authorship of this theory; others have pointed out that Mark Cuban forecast this development two years ago. Unlike most owners Cuban is very, very smart, so it should come as no surprise that he is right about something.

But there is still a causal connection to be deciphered.  It is easy to say that the NFL is losing viewers because they are putting out an inferior product, but that doesn’t end the discussion.  After all, people keep watching the Pro Bowl even though the quality of pay is execrable.   So it isn’t the bad play itself that is causing the problem.

My best guess is that putting out inferior games at new and different times breaks the conditioned response that the NFL has created in most American men.  Men organize their entire weekends around Sunday football, and families time their Thanksgiving dinners around the NFL schedule (which continues to include the Detroit Lions even though they have sucked for 40 years; come on NFL, even MLB stopped having the first game of the season in Cincinnati just because they were the first professional baseball team). 

But when you put a game on in London at 6:30 AM Pacific time, a lot of men will decide to sleep in or attend church rather than watch the game (most of which have not been good, for whatever reason).  When you put games on Thursday night and they aren’t good because the teams don’t have the usual amount of time to prepare, and it’s on TV opposite Grey’s Anatomy, some men will decide to hand the remote to their wives.  And voila! The Pavlovian call and response is broken.  Men un-learn to turn on an NFL game just because it’s there.  So the next time there is a match-up between two 3-4 teams on a Sunday afternoon, there is no longer any urgency to watch.

There is another possibility that would require research that I just don’t have the time to do.  It seems to me that as players have gotten bigger, faster, and more aggressive, injuries are on the rise, and naturally defenses target the best offensive players.  Now that the NFL has something called a “concussion protocol” it is possible that a quarterback will not play in a game the week after taking a hit to the head.  Even without concussions, the Vikings lost their quarterback and their leading rusher even before the first game of the season was over (but they seem to be doing okay so far).

Injuries make the games less interesting.  Who wants to watch Patriots vs. Steelers if Ben Rothlisberger isn’t playing?  What may look like a marquee matchup before the season starts may turn out to be a battle between two mediocre teams if key players on both sides aren’t suited up.  This may explain a lot of what passes for “parity” in the NFL.  Last year the Panthers had an easy schedule and no major injuries and went 15-1; this year they have a more difficult schedule and Cam Newton has been under “concussion protocol” and they are 1-5.  You can’t put your best games on Sunday or Monday night if you don’t know who’s going to be out with an injury.

I think that the poor refereeing that has been seen, and the more frequent flagging for celebrations, also makes outcomes more random and thus less satisfying.  An incorrect pass interference call can result in a gain (or non-gain) of 50 yards and may determine the outcome of a game and, oh yeah, aren’t reviewable.  A microchip in the nose of a football could conclusively prove when the ball crosses the plane of the end zone, but the NFL is too cheap to install them.  Some of the demand for perfection is overkill, but fans want games where the outcome is determined by the players, not by a bunch of guys in striped shirts penalizing teams because the receiver shouted “Yippee!” after scoring a touchdown. 

So, to conclude, the reason for the decline in NFL TV ratings are many and varied.  The NFL can’t control increased access to entertainment via streaming services.  Some of it may just be the passage of time.  Boxing and horse racing used to be major sports; now I couldn’t name a single boxer other than venerable old guy Manny Paciao, and no one cares about horse racing until a horse wins the first two legs of the Triple Crown.  But no one stays on top forever, not even the NFL.