Do you think the NFL could lose its status as most popular league in America?

[djs7685]

(07-16-2015, 03:59 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote:

Great, so you have nothing to refute what I said then?

[Bmoreblitz]

(07-16-2015, 06:00 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Great, so you have nothing to refute what I said then?

Not if we are saying basically the same thing. But I guess sarcasm is not one of your strong suits.

[Bmoreblitz]

(07-16-2015, 04:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: My point is that new rules to soften the game are hardly a new concept.  People keep acting like putting player safety on a priority list is some sort of brand new slap in the face to fans.  It's not.  

See post #8



The NFL will still be very popular for awhile but certain things could affect that. One being enough rule changes where the game isn't recognizable anymore. Other factors such as a watered down product could cause some interest to be lost. For example adding too many additional teams, expanding the playoffs where as half of the majority of teams make the playoffs to name a few.

[6andcounting]

I don't think any other league can touch the NFL anytime soon, even if the NFL screws up their own product.

The NBA has only been innovative in terms of marketing themselves and turning games into circus entertainment. It has made the NBA cool, but doesn't do much to appeal to fans who enjoy the sport of basketball - the ones that won't leave when it's no longer cool. MLB seemingly hates innovation. They have the technology to keep the umps from blowing games, but only after a decade did they decide to use a very limited replay system. Games take 2 1/2 hours because of commercials so their solution is to fine players for stepping out of the batter's box. The NHL still makes more money off ticket revenue than tv contracts - enough said. Soccer. No

Assuming no major labor law shake-ups or pending court cases force the NCAA to make major changes, their big sports can probably compete against the NFL. Of course, a higher interest in college football would just feed into the NFL's popularity, so the NFL wouldn't lose out to the NCAA.

[djs7685]

(07-16-2015, 09:05 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Not if we are saying basically the same thing. But I guess sarcasm is not one of your strong suits.

We aren't saying the same thing though, that's the point going over your head.

I find it hilarious that you think sarcasm isn't MY strong suit whenever you're the one that completely missed the sarcasm in my post.

I was making fun of what you said by using "two hand tag" in my statements. You're claiming people will be less interested in the product because of rule changes when I'm arguing the exact opposite. Do you know what the word "literally" means??? Obviously not. I said that unless it LITERALLY turns into two hand tag, people will still watch regardless of the rule changes that you're talking about. Literally, as in turns into the game children play on the playground, which is obviously not going to literally happen. Literally.

I'm baffled that I had to explain that without you understanding that I was poking fun at you for thinking the rule changes are going to affect the viewership outside of a small select group of meatheads that have no regard for player safety.

[Bmoreblitz]

(07-17-2015, 10:44 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I was making fun of what you said by using "two hand tag" in my statements. You're claiming people will be less interested in the product because of rule changes when I'm arguing the exact opposite. Do you know what the word "literally" means??? Obviously not. I said that unless it LITERALLY turns into two hand tag, people will still watch regardless of the rule changes that you're talking about. Literally, as in turns into the game children play on the playground, which is obviously not going to literally happen. Literally.

I'm baffled that I had to explain that without you understanding that I was poking fun at you for thinking the rule changes are going to affect the viewership outside of a small select group of meatheads that have no regard for player safety.

I suppose you need this written in crayon for you to comphrehend. I didn't think I had to type the word "literally" for you to understand the sarcasm of saying "two hand touch"

[djs7685]

(07-17-2015, 11:18 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I suppose you need this written in crayon for you to comphrehend. I didn't think I had to type the word "literally" for you to understand the sarcasm of saying "two hand touch"

Jesus. I know that you were using two hand touch sarcastically, which is why I chose to make fun of your point (which I don't agree with) by using a literal interpretation of the term you sarcastically used.

Do you understand now? You may want to get a new box of crayons for this.



You can keep claiming that you're following along, but you're really not. This is amusing, I take it this isn't your native language?

[Bmoreblitz]

(07-17-2015, 11:24 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Jesus. I know that you were using two hand touch sarcastically, which is why I chose to make fun of your point (which I don't agree with) by using a literal interpretation of the term you sarcastically used.

Do you understand now? You may want to get a new box of crayons for this.



You can keep claiming that you're following along, but you're really not. This is amusing, I take it this isn't your native language?

You're trying too hard