ijohnb

October 17th, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^

is not political, so I don't at all want to be taken that way, but #Boycott NFL is a real thing.  I was really just blaming ratings on the fact that the NFL is super boring and people were just starting to catch on, but I know or have met 3 football fans who are not watching it specifically because of Kapernick etc.  I don't know if that is something that will go away or not, but it looks like it is having a legitimate impact on viewership.

uncle leo

October 17th, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^

Of things. 

-No real superstars anymore other than a few. Brady, Rodgers are starting to get into their twilight and the QBs to take the next step are nowhere to be found.

-The ridiculous of the election has stolen a lot of attention.

-There is a level of boredom setting in. You don't see formations, rivalries. It's just great players against great players and whoever pushes more wins. Coaching, other than a few instances doesn't matter. In college, you can tell how great coaches are and how you can win with formations.

-Concussion stuff is starting to take on legs. 

ijohnb

October 17th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^

lack of rivalries is a real thing, for sure.  It is cringe inducing to hear an old school Lions fan try to talk about a game against the Bears as though there is something "extra" at stake simply due to the nature of the matchup. 

In reply to by ijohnb

julesh

October 17th, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^

The same number of eyeballs are watching the NFL, just for shorter periods of time, so if the boycott is an actual thing, it's not working.

In reply to by ijohnb

julesh

October 17th, 2016 at 7:40 PM ^

The number of people who watch for at least 6 minutes is up or steady. But time spent is down, which means the average ratings are down. That's how ratings work. 

julesh

October 17th, 2016 at 10:08 AM ^

Guys, I've already told you. Michigan is definitely getting to the playoffs to be in whatever the late game is, because I will be unable to watch it.

LSAClassOf2000

October 17th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^

...but still it is a smidgen better than a Knights Inn, where I think you have to present a false ID and forged card and sign a waiver in the event there is a police raid, although tacking that on to the experience of a lower tier bowl might actually increase the draw. 

ldevon1

October 17th, 2016 at 10:11 AM ^

To happen. They are currently behind Washington in that division. Utah and Colorado are 1st and 2nd in the other division. The division winners play each other, so that would mean Washington wouldn't be the division winner, and the defacto Pac 12 champ would not be in the playoff, because they would have 1 or more losses. Don't see Wash St.  making it.  

WolvinLA2

October 17th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^

I don't understand your comment at all. Washington will likely be the Pac-12 champ with one or fewer losses because they are currently undefeated. That's not a bold prediction. The Pac-12 south teams still have a lot of tough games left and they're predicting the south winner will lose to Washington in the champ game. Therefore, they feel Washington St will be the second best Pac-12 team. I don't agree with it since WSU already has 2 losses and will need to lose to Washington for this scenario to play out. It we'll see.

ldevon1

October 17th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^

You stated my reasons for saying weird stuff would have to happen. If they beat Washigton (weird thing) don't play in the championship, and get selected. If they lose to Washington, they will have at least 3 losses (get selected, weird thing), I guess when a selection process is used, anything is possible.

WolvinLA2

October 17th, 2016 at 10:14 AM ^

I moved to Los Angeles a month after Michigan's last Rose Bowl. I imagined I'd go watch them there every 2-3 years or so. They haven't been back. I definitely won't be upset with a Rose Bowl berth.

Dylan

October 17th, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^

This very time last week, we were flip-flopped with OSU in at lest one of the picks to be in the playoff. I don't see how you reverse that just because of OSU's win this week.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

julesh

October 17th, 2016 at 10:16 AM ^

Okay so question. If OSU and Michigan are undefeated when they meet, and OSU wins and goes to the B1G Championship against a 10-2 Wisconsin, wouldn't the loser of that game go to the Rose Bowl? Are they projecting Michigan to lose the B1G Championship?

MH20

October 17th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^

Seeing as both writers have Washington in the CFP, that means Wazzu is going to be 9-3 (additional loss to UW) which assumes road victories over ASU and Colorado.  I'm not seeing it.

A Utah rematch could be interesting, though.  The Utes haven't looked all that impressive but have a chance to make their mark in two weeks at home versus Washington.  Either way I think Michigan would destroy their offense.

Stay.Classy.An…

October 17th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^

plays in the Quick Lane Bowl or not at all......there is just something about watching that program slowly burn that fascinates me! Actually, this season has been more of a meteor collision for them....either way, I'm still enjoying it.

In reply to by ijohnb

MH20

October 17th, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^

If Perry Hills plays then Maryland has a chance.  Without him, though, I have to agree they will lose to MSU.  (Can't believe I just wrote that Perry Hills is the key to winning a game.)

It also might be good for MSU to get away from EL and all the surrounding negativity and malaise.  Dantonio can play up the Us Against The World mantra on the road.

Stay.Classy.An…

October 17th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

I want to make sure this team is as bad as advertised, and they are. I don't make time to watch the games, but if I have nothing else to do and want some more trolling ammo for my MSU alumni friends, then of course I watch. I also watch OSU when they are on....know your enemy bro!