An NFL boycott is looming

NFL Ticket Prices Continue to Crater, Some Tickets Sell for $3

But this week several sources are reporting that ticket prices have fallen even farther. A report on CBS Sports found that tickets for the Buffalo Bills had fallen to less than five dollars a seat, prices that haven’t been seen since the 1970s or earlier.

Also, Daily Wire reported that other tickets had fallen to an unbelievable three dollars! DW also found that tickets to see the Chicago Bears had bottomed to $20 a seat while seats in Green Bay were coming in at a low ten bucks. To show how far these prices have fallen, tickets to see the Chicago Bears usually sell at around $130 a seat while the Packers usually start at about $95.

Meanwhile, Fox Sports was forced to advertise to find “fans” — or even actors — to fill seats for its pre-game broadcast for the L.A. Rams game, something that is ordinarily easy to do.

“Come out, bring your spirit, your best NFL gear & join us for NFL on Fox this Sunday!” read a casting call that went out at the end of last week, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
 
ESPN President John Skipper Resigns Over Substance Addiction Problem

John Skipper’s reign at the flagging network saw a marked decrease in viewership and a rise in controversy in its coverage of social justice issues and other political matters.

The company swung to the left, alienating much of its core audience in an attempt to embrace the younger, millennial generation. In a series of tweets, ESPN commentator Jamele Hill called President Trump a “white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists,” forcing the network to issue a statement.

The network also made the curious decision to pull Asian-American announcer Robert Lee from commentating at a University of Virginia football game following the Charlottesville riots because of his name.

Under Skipper’s tenure, ESPN also launched an eSports vertical to carve its place into the professional video gaming scene. But given the quality of the content, it’s doubtful that pro-gaming alone will be enough to staunch the company’s viewership bleed after everyone else is driven away by social justice politics.
 
Ravens Send Letter to Fans, Admit Protests Have Caused ‘No-Shows’ at Home Games

AP-Matt-Dunham-Ravens.png


The Ravens sent a letter to their season-ticket holders, sponsors, and suite holders, about the number of empty seats at M&T Bank Stadium; specifically, the letter cited the anthem protests as a factor causing the no-shows.

Ravens President Dick Cass wrote, “The numbers [of no-shows] are higher, and it is noticeable. There are a number of reasons for the no-shows, but surely the one-time protest in London has been a factor.”

The Ravens first protested the anthem while in London. The team was in town to play Jacksonville during Week 3, which coincided with President Trump’s strong criticisms of the anthem protests only days before.

The team took a knee again upon their return to Baltimore, though, this time to pray before the start of the anthem. That gesture, however, went over badly with fans who booed the players regardless.
 
Vince McMahon Announces XFL to Begin in 2020: Will Have ‘Nothing’ to Do with Politics, Social Issues

XFL players will be required to stand for the National Anthem. McMahon told ESPN that players in his league will not be given the platform to take a personal stance while on the playing field.

“It’s a time-honored tradition to stand,” he said Thursday. “I think it would be appropriate to do that.”

Per ESPN, McMahon’s league will not allow any player with a criminal record.

ESPN is quick to call the XFL racist.

Michael Wilbon weighed in on the XFL’s comeback in 2020, calling Vince McMahon’s upcoming league a “whitewashed, idealistic brand” of football because it will require players to stand for the National Anthem and will not allow athletes with criminal records to play.

“t seems like just garbage — like he wants to sell some sort of whitewashed, idealistic brand of something to the country,” Wilbon said to fellow host Tony Kornheiser.
 
BTW if you are unfamiliar with the XFL, I recommend watching the ESPN documentary 30 for 30, This was the XFL. ESPN is overall a complete garbage network, but their "30 For 30" documentaries are fantastic.


The XFL is being rebooted. It was founded in 2001 and failed spectacularly it's very first season. It had a lot of promise but killed itself for a number of reasons. The 30 for 30 explains this pretty well.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Oh, that's refreshing.

Wait...


Oh, dear.
I've no idea who Vince McMahon is but I think he needs to go back to school.
Click to expand...

If not standing is a political act then standing is the a-political act. Now, one could argue about whether having an anthem ceremony is political or not - it is a communal act for sure, and participation in a communal act in the expected way is political in the way that it signifies acceptance of and acceptance by the community. Similarly, flouting the communal act is a way of saying you don't belong or don't want to belong to that community.

If both positions are political, the one followed by the most people is the least political.
 
Vince McMahon Announces XFL to Begin in 2020: Will Have ‘Nothing’ to Do with Politics, Social Issues

XFL players will be required to stand for the National Anthem. McMahon told ESPN that players in his league will not be given the platform to take a personal stance while on the playing field.

“It’s a time-honored tradition to stand,” he said Thursday. “I think it would be appropriate to do that.”

Per ESPN, McMahon’s league will not allow any player with a criminal record.
Click to expand...


Ultimately, I have to believe that this will still be a doomed effort. While the NFL is more vulnerable than it's ever been... I just don't see any way to craft a competing American football league to attack it. And especially by recasting the XFL. The XFL was a very flawed league at a point in history when eXtreme-everything was at it's height. But now, in the era of concussion protocols, CTE paranoia, and seemingly more injuries than ever... It's hard to think of a less X-friendly time. How can you possibly focus on the big hits and fast play aspects today? And if you're not focusing on the hits, what ARE you focusing on? You don't have the cash to draw top-tier talent out of the NFL. So you're not going on that route. You're banning all criminal records, which cuts your player list that much more. (Plus, how are you doing that? Where's the cutoff? This simple statement will become a clusterfuck the moment you try to enforce it.) There just aren't enough good players out there. And if you happen to find or develop a few good players, what will keep them away from the big bucks the billionaire owners in the NFL throw around? I assume we're not going with the janky nickname jerseys and stuff, since that didn't even really fly back then, let alone now. It all strikes me like Hillary's campaign. It doesn't actually stand for anything except for insisting it's somehow better than NFL, yet offering absolutely no proof of this. Is that really enough to float a league?
 
ilwrath said:

Ultimately, I have to believe that this will still be a doomed effort. While the NFL is more vulnerable than it's ever been... I just don't see any way to craft a competing American football league to attack it. And especially by recasting the XFL. The XFL was a very flawed league at a point in history when eXtreme-everything was at it's height. But now, in the era of concussion protocols, CTE paranoia, and seemingly more injuries than ever... It's hard to think of a less X-friendly time. How can you possibly focus on the big hits and fast play aspects today? And if you're not focusing on the hits, what ARE you focusing on? You don't have the cash to draw top-tier talent out of the NFL. So you're not going on that route. You're banning all criminal records, which cuts your player list that much more. (Plus, how are you doing that? Where's the cutoff? This simple statement will become a clusterfuck the moment you try to enforce it.) There just aren't enough good players out there. And if you happen to find or develop a few good players, what will keep them away from the big bucks the billionaire owners in the NFL throw around? I assume we're not going with the janky nickname jerseys and stuff, since that didn't even really fly back then, let alone now. It all strikes me like Hillary's campaign. It doesn't actually stand for anything except for insisting it's somehow better than NFL, yet offering absolutely no proof of this. Is that really enough to float a league?
Click to expand...

I think the XFL could survive as a junior league, *IF* they don't make the stupid mistakes they made the first time around. Honestly the NFL themselves want there to be a junior "developmental" league, which is why they made the World League (later called NFL Europe).

The mistakes the XFL made the first time around are too many to list. I'll only focus on the biggest 3 problems.

1) They stormed into the market acting as if they were going to dethrone the NFL. There was no chance in hell they were going to immediately dethrone a league that had been around about 80 years at that point and was part of the DNA of Americana itself. Just claiming such turned off most football fans and put them in a tribal mentality of protecting their own.

2) They blended in WWF Wrestling style scripted nonsense to go along with the actual sport. They even brought in wrestlers for color commentary and fake kayfabe fights. As ratings plunged, they would double down with this garbage. Football purists who may have even been wrestling fans were completely turned off, rightfully so.

3) The big focus on "extreme" hurt the product on the field. Complete and total disregard for safety led to a ridiculous amount of injuries. If your star players are playing injured or not playing at all, you aren't helping your product. They need to scale back the "Extreme" part of the equation and maybe even reconsider the final name for the league. The XFL brand is a bit toxic.

From the little info provided this far, I am hopeful they understand all of this and approach things differently. Don't take direct shots at the NFL. Don't expect to take over the world in one season. Start small and play in smaller stadiums. Don't have huge national telecasts on prime time major networks. Keep the costs low and expect to make a loss for 3+ years minimum. Provide alternative means of viewing, such as very inexpensive streaming packages. Keep the product 100% pure football with absolutely zero scripted nonsense. Build a grass roots fanbase over time.

Time will tell, but I am hopeful. The NFL is indeed vulnerable right now, but not to overtake. OTOH there is a percentage of NFL fans who have completely given up on the NFL for a few reasons, and those people could create an immediate core of fans for a fledgling league.

 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If not standing is a political act then standing is the a-political act. Now, one could argue about whether having an anthem ceremony is political or not - it is a communal act for sure, and participation in a communal act in the expected way is political in the way that it signifies acceptance of and acceptance by the community. Similarly, flouting the communal act is a way of saying you don't belong or don't want to belong to that community.

If both positions are political, the one followed by the most people is the least political.
Click to expand...

It's a bit funny how people want to defend the NFL taking an extreme one sided political stance but ignore all other leagues. It isn't just the kneeling. The NFL is starting to invest hundreds of millions into "Social Justice Training" programs around the country. The football fan base is extremely heavily conservative, regardless of race or color. The NFL is hurting themselves terribly by adopting such strong political stances.

Speaking of other leagues, no league is more lopsided with black players than the NBA. Also, the NBA is the flipside of the NFL when it comes to fans. NBA fans in general are much more on the left-liberal end of the spectrum. Despite this, the NBA very strongly reiterated their stance that players are employees and will stand for the anthem, period. No one ever talks about the NBA doing this or claiming they are somehow racist. The NBA was simply smart enough to leave politics out of the direct product. Players are allowed to speak whatever political nonsense they want off the court, but on the court they are employees.

The NFL screwed the pooch, to their extreme detriment.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If not standing is a political act then standing is the a-political act.
Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy.

Now, one could argue about whether having an anthem ceremony is political or not...
Click to expand...

Could argue? I don't see an argument.
It's blindingly obvious that having a national anthem played before a sporting event is political. Particularly a domestic sporting event.
To then expect, nay, force participants to stand for that anthem makes it hilariously political and to try to argue otherwise is beyond silly.

If you want to claim a football match has nothing to do with politics, how about you just play a football match?
It is possible to play sport without preceding it with this jingoistic nonsense. Happens every day, all over the world.

Better still, how about you don't claim it has nothing to do with politics when it quite blatantly does?
 
Robert said:
It's blindingly obvious that having a national anthem played before a sporting event is political. Particularly a domestic sporting event.
Click to expand...
They could have their sporting event without the anthem, it's true, and lot's of sporting events happen without, but if, as a nation, they all like to have the anthem and expect to have the anthem and stand for the anthem then it is really just a shared ritual. It's no more political, in that sense, than singing "Happy Birthday" at a birthday party. Not singing "Happy Birthday" to protest copyright or some other cause would be political. Not singing "Happy Birthday" because you had laryngitis would not be political.

Singing the anthem because it's traditional to do so and everyone does it would be the least political position to take. If you feel that the anthem is an imposition by the state or that the state which is represents is not one you want to be associated with so you protest the anthem in some way then you are taking a more political stance.

If we look at the broadest meaning of politics (beyond governance and how we organise the affairs of cities and states) and look at the sum interactions of groups of people - a ritual which is commonly accepted that everybody just goes along with is a common agreement (and usually of very little actual effect) that says that we are all together in this thing. In the sense of a sporting event it unites the fans of both sides in a shared commonality before they start trying to beat each other. There is a political purpose to it - uniting the group - but uniting the group is sort of a political base state. Everyone moves together, no actual decisions or policies have to be made. However, if someone has a beef with something in society and decides to bring attention to it by not going along with the base state - that's much more political than going along - IMO - YMMV.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
if, as a nation, they all like to have the anthem and expect to have the anthem and stand for the anthem..
Click to expand...

As decided by whom? Has there been a census taken and 100% of citizens agreed?
The claim is it has nothing to do with politics. It has a national anthem before it where participants are required to stand. That is political and nothing to do with the actual sport being played. Whether it's less political than refusing to stand is not the issue; forcing people to stand for a national anthem is still political.

YMMV
Click to expand...

It does. :)
 
Robert said:
As decided by whom? Has there been a census taken and 100% of citizens agreed?
Click to expand...
Who decided to sing happy birthday at birthday parties? Are a 100% of citizens agreed?
The activity is equivalent, so it is political in the sense that the group has, by whatever means, arrived at a consensus of behaviour - in that it is a group agreement in some way, but I feel that you are also trying to use the word to mean concerning the governance of states and since the particular song being sung was chosen as an anthem politically in that sense, the fact that people sing it together makes the singing of it a political act in the nation state sense rather than just the social sense of groups of people.
If a church stands and sings a certain hymn at the start of every meeting is it religious, or is it political? If the state becomes a theocracy does that religious act become a political one?
The claim is it has nothing to do with politics. It has a national anthem before it where participants are required to stand. That is political and nothing to do with the actual sport being played. Whether it's less political than refusing to stand is not the issue; forcing people to stand for a national anthem is still political.
Click to expand...
There is no law, no law passed by politicians. There is a strong social sense pressure, and that pressure comes from the majority of people who feel community from standing for the anthem as a shared ritual and find it rankling and disrespectful when those among them (who are supposedly of the same community) don't follow the ritual. If it didn't rankle it would be unsuitable as a method of protest.

Let's say you wanted to protest something about the Catholic church - so you go in and you mostly participate with the ritual but, come communion, you take the host, but instead of eating it you toss it on the ground and grind it underfoot - because *reasons*. You can attach whatever reasons you want, they don't have to be directly related to the host - you are just doing something to annoy other people to get attention for your issue. I think the congregation could be excused for thinking that if you have so little regard for the ritual then why are you even coming to church.

Similarly, if certain NFL players aren't willing to play along with the ritual, why don't they just stay home and sit out the games entirely? That would be the more honourable way forward, IMO.
 
Ravens Player with a Contract Worth Nearly $12 Million, Arrested for Stealing $15 Phone Charger from Uber Driver

Humphrey was booked on a felony charge of third-degree robbery, which applies when use of force or threats of force is involved, on Thursday morning and the arrest is related to an incident in Tuscaloosa on January 13.

Stephanie Taylor of TuscaloosaNews.com reports, via an incident report from University of Alabama police, that Humphrey and three others were in an Uber to a hotel and Humphrey asked the driver to borrow his phone charger. When the vehicle arrived at the destination, Humphrey allegedly refused to return the charger and took other cables from the car. The driver told police that Humphrey elbowed him when he tried to recover the property. Officers responding to the call found Humphrey in the hotel with a cable that he said was his, but it did not fit his phone.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
... if certain NFL players aren't willing to play along with the ritual...
Click to expand...

This isn't NFL.
It's a response to NFL called XFL which has "nothing to do with politics, absolutely nothing, and nothing to do with social issues either. We're there to play football."
 
Robert said:
This isn't NFL.
It's a response to NFL called XFL which has "nothing to do with politics, absolutely nothing, and nothing to do with social issues either. We're there to play football."
Click to expand...

So you kneel during "happy birthday" for a 5 year old?

Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top