Mike Greenberg thinks the NFL will fold in under 30 years

If you think less talent won't change viewership then we have to agree to disagree. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. Look at College Football. Or even bottom dwellers in the NFL. When the talent gap widens you get less casual fans. What are you basing your claims on? Diehard fans are a moot point they are diehard by definition.

People stop watching preseason games (except diehard fans) after the stars come out. People will watch less talented players but not at the same price they would pay to watch Adrian Peterson.

What brought the NFL to the top is casual fans.
 
Last edited:
All sports eventually lose the top spot in this country.There will probably be a more exciting sport by then that might overtake it anyways.
 
theone2401 said:
If you think less talent won't change viewership then we have to agree to disagree. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. Look at College Football. Or even bottom dwellers in the NFL. When the talent gap widens you get less casual fans. What are you basing your claims on? Diehard fans are a moot point they are diehard by definition.

People stop watching preseason games (except diehard fans) after the stars come out. People will watch less talented players but not at the same price they would pay to watch Adrian Peterson.

What brought the NFL to the top is casual fans.
Click to expand...
i get that, and the difference will be billions of dollars, BUT, it's still going to be a multi billion dollar industry.

they'll make rules changes and there will be some movement in the direction of safety by the owners, not because there's the threat of football dying out (which is the debate here) but because they're owners, and rich and want to get richer, so they'll do what they have to to maximize profit.  People actually die in NASCAR and their viewership isn't hurting any.

Football will always have viewership and following.  If you argue people will stop watching if the overall talent decreases, i counter maybe SOME people will stop watching.  but as a whole?  it'll still have more viewers than hockey, basketball and (nationwide) baseball. 

Just not as many viewers as it has right now.
 
Last edited:
how has boxing lasted this long. boxers take way more punishment to the head/head trauma than nfl players do. plus theyve got the biggest name you can get with ali now with parkinsons to expose the dangers but this issue hasn't threatened the sport of boxing.
 
Well that is all I claimed. That the NFL has peaked/is peaking. I said the end of the NFL was the extreme. The only thing that will fold the NFL is lawsuits in my view. I do think you are discouting the real risk of football losing out to other sports to much. But essentially we agree.
 
Last edited:
SuperVi11ain said:
how has boxing lasted this long. boxers take way more punishment to the head/head trauma than nfl players do. plus theyve got the biggest name you can get with ali now with parkinsons to expose the dangers but this issue hasn't threatened the sport of boxing.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling? Boxing as a sport is a shell of its former self. Why? Because of a lack of talent. Why? Probably because its safer to play other sports. You actually support my argument.

I see a similar fate for the NFL.
 
Last edited:
theone2401 said:
If you think less talent won't change viewership then we have to agree to disagree. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. Look at College Football. Or even bottom dwellers in the NFL. When the talent gap widens you get less casual fans. What are you basing your claims on? Diehard fans are a moot point they are diehard by definition.

People stop watching preseason games (except diehard fans) after the stars come out. People will watch less talented players but not at the same price they would pay to watch Adrian Peterson.

What brought the NFL to the top is casual fans.
Click to expand...






In 30 years you wont be able to tell the difference in talent. You wont remember.

I would say the overall level of play in the NBA was better 20 years but players are more athletic now so it doesn't matter.


And the reason why boxing isn't the same sport anymore is because there are too many belts, divisions and promoters. Fighters duck and dodge each other outside the ring for months if not years. Boxing also was never a seasonally TV sport like Football. People still love fighting, If there were unified belts and a boxing season, boxing would return to predominance


Its foolish to compare it to Football
 
it's not just the belts and promoters.

boxers fight less times a year, they don't fight for 15- 20 rounds or until one guy drops anymore, the better talent went to other sports, many rents don't want their children growing up boxing,

but i agree with you that the biggest issue the promoters

And lack of american heavyweights can't be understated. which goes back to them playing other sports.
 
Last edited:
people will still watch football even if its dummied down to a two hand touch tackle. sheeeeeet, I know I would :lol: :smh:

Like somebody said before, as the years go by the equipment will be better.
 
As with most things, it comes down to today and tomorrow's youth.

Football fans of our generation may continue to watch until the day we die or may even become desensitized by how much the game will change and therefore stop watching or scale back to how we view the game compared to right now. That's not what will hurt the NFL though.

Then there are the parents. Will we allow our kids to play given how the game is right now? Now what if the rules are changed to make it much safer? Even further though, is whether our kids and their kids will still get the same joy out of the sport that we did/do.

If the game turns into a flag football game and loses its big hitting appeal, will that still be provacotive to the next generations? Honestly, no one can presume to know. Like mentioned...sports can be cyclical and I don't know about where you live, but soccer has the youth by the nuts over here and seems to continue to grow exponentially. Not to say I'm presuming soccer takes over, but when football starts to change and looks drastically different than it did 10 years ago...Will everyone still be rushing to sign up for youth football teams when they have other alternatives that may continue to me more and more mainstream and the new wave?

Only time will tell, really.
 
I can't see The NFL folding BUT what I can see happening is like an age limit as to how many years you can play and more serious studies about concussions like the one The NFL is doing with Harvard
 
NEW ORLEANS -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says he believes there will be an agreement soon with the players' union for testing for human growth hormone.

At his annual state of the NFL news conference Friday, Goodell said he expects an agreement for the tests to be reached in time for the start of the 2013 season.

Goodell noted that the league and union agreed to the testing two years ago in the collective bargaining agreement. He said it is important to have testing to retain the integrity and the brand of the league.
Click to expand...

Yep...The NFL is dunzo.
 
Not to grave dig, but thought this was relevant.

Roger Goodell is one of the most polarizing figures in professional sports. He's presiding over the nation's most popular sports league at one of its most crucial moments. Whether or not he's the commissioner we need, he's the commissioner we've got. And he's the subject of a fascinating new feature by Don Van Natta Jr. in ESPN The Magazine.

Goodell chose to decline repeated requests for an interview, which is beyond unfortunate given how much ESPN has invested in his league. But through conversations with friends and associates, we learn the commissioner's greatest fear: that a player will die on the field.

As the article notes, Goodell often tells the story of how Teddy Roosevelt saved the game of football in the early 20th century by mandating changes to a game in which 18 players died of skull fractures one year. The NFL has suffered only one on-field death: Lions wide receiver Chuck Hughes, who died of a heart attack in 1971.

And now Goodell fears it could happen again: "He's terrified of it," a Hall of Fame player told ESPN. "It wouldn't just be a tragedy. It would be awfully bad for business."
While "bad for business" is an extraordinarily casual way to refer to an on-field death, it's accurate; a death would be catastrophic for a sport already dealing with criticism for its handling of concussions and player safety. And given that Bernard Pollard, among others, has already said that there's a possibility of a death on the field, if the worst case came to pass, the NFL would be forced to undergo some serious, possibly revolutionary, self-examination.

The entire article is well worth a read. Goodell has made many enemies and frustrated quite a few people, including a substantial portion of the player base. But if he's able to navigate the league through its current problems, his reputation will undergo a well-deserved polishing.

-Follow Jay Busbee on Twitter at @jaybusbee.-
Click to expand...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...greatest-fear-death-field-172309755--nfl.html
 
Heard this on Mike and Mike this morning.

They talked about how Goodell's pops was a Senator who introduced a bill to pull troops out of Vietnam and how unpopular of a decision that was amongst many, but that his Dad passed down to him that you have to stand up for what you believe is the right thing and never stray from that. Explains a bit why Roger is so unwavering in his ways and how he will stop at nothing to make sure someone dying on the field never happens.

It's all understandable, but there's still err's in his way and I'm still not convinced that what he's doing will overall be better for the game or even the health of its players...yet.
 
I find the comparison of the vietnam war to the NFL protecting itself from lawsuits offensive 
laugh.gif
mean.gif


honestly just don't buy it 
ohwell.gif
 
Last edited:
Is that what it's doing? I didn't read the article, but when they explained it, it was more an attestation to Roger's no budge demeanor and 100% backing his own opinion despite the majority who may be in disagreement with Roger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom