Middle class abandoning football

Submitted by LLG on

Makes me wonder about how college football changes also.  Any thoughts?

Death of NFL inevitable as middle class abandons the game

"You really think the NFL is worried about young athletes? If so, they'd have changed the rules years ago, abandoning face masks, enlarging the ball to make it difficult to throw, switching to one platoon football."

I didn't know about one platoon football before (or the phrase).  Some research pulled up this article about Fritz Crisler:  The Man Who Changed Football

Sports Illustrated article starts:  "When the NCAA Rules Committee voted a return to two-platoon football last month, one of the least surprised men in the country—and one of the most pleased—was Fritz Crisler, athletic director of the University of Michigan. Crisler is a life member of the Rules Committee."

ST3

September 8th, 2017 at 3:42 PM ^

and I'm also old enough to have watched MMA on Mexican cable channels in the late 90's, before there were any rules. Fighters nowadays are a bunch of pansy-asses. My point stands, it's human cock-fighting.

ST3 WANTS A TAMALE!!!

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^

pay attention to the wrong fights.  Some of the best boxing matches I have ever seen have taken place in the last ten years.  Miguel Cotto fights are uniformly awesome to watch.  GGG has been on HBO Boxing After Dark (free with subscription) like 5 times in the last 3 years and those fights are always a blast.  People spent $100 on that Mayweather-MgGregor nonsense a couple of weeks ago when the best middle-weight fight in some time is happening next weekend (and there was a better fight on HBO that same night!)

I think boxing is awesome and my interest in the sport has not decreased at all.  I just stayed away from Mayweather stuff.  I don't dispute that he is/was an incredible talent, but my god his fights were awful. 

The Mad Hatter

September 8th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^

quite a bit a few, ok several, years ago.

I think for most people the heavyweight division was what boxing was.  Almost all of the famous boxers of the last 100 years (few notable exceptions) were heavyweights.  Once that division died, boxing fell out of sight.

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 3:48 PM ^

never really understood the basis for that assertion.  The has never been any evidence linking Pacquio to steroids.  The only "connection" was Mayweather's unsubstantiated assertion.  Pacquio signed to fight him in 2010 with blood tests conducted immediately after the fight but Mayweather unreasonably would not agree unless Pacquio agreed to random blood tests up until 14 days before the fight.  At the time, Pacquio was a bigger draw than Mayweather and had absolutely no reason to bow down to Mayweather's demands.  I believe that Mayweather was afraid to fight Pacquio in his prime because he saw him as a legitimate threat to beat him.

MichiganForever

September 8th, 2017 at 4:28 PM ^

Pacquiao was not a bigger draw than Mayweather, no Pac fight did as well as Mayweather vs Mosley and unlimited testing with what we know of fighters juicing before fights is not an unreasonable demand. Pacquaio was ever beating Mayweather. Hell he needed 3 gifts against Marquez before being knocked unconscious

TheCool

September 8th, 2017 at 6:13 PM ^

Pacquiao a bigger draw than Mayweather? No. An effective drug test should be random. You just don't like Mayweather. Flip the scenario and you'd be claiming Mayweather was taking performance enhancers.

The Mad Hatter

September 8th, 2017 at 3:38 PM ^

I think he would have kicked the shit out of him.  Manny was unstoppable in his prime.  I've never seen a boxer move his hands that quickly.

Mayweather knew it, and that's why he kept ducking him.

Christicks

September 8th, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^

Agreed he is very boring to watch but he's the only person who has had any personality. Personality is what drew people to watch the McGregor fight and the interest in the crossover. You can have great fighters but the public won't give a shit if they don't have personality.

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 3:30 PM ^

is true of people who don't genuinely enjoy the sport.  Personally, I could really care less about the personality of the fighters, I just like boxing.  Kind of like how if two random college football teams were playing an absolutely great game I would be glued to the TV regardless of who the teams were.  I guess there may not be that many of me though.

MichiganForever

September 8th, 2017 at 3:42 PM ^

Mayweather is boring to you because you don't understand the sweet science. Like someone finding the 04 Pistons boring. It's meaningless because you know they don't understand the sport. Boxing will never die. It's huge amongst Mexicans and blacks.

MichiganForever

September 8th, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^

You don't understand boxing and probably seen a few highlights and maybe 1 or 2 fights from these guys. Foreman, Tyson and Frazier were exciting in their prime, but they will never rank up there with Floyd because once they met their match or lost a step they couldn't adapt. Ali for instance was also known as a boring fighter early in his career because he spent the majority of the fight dancing, clowning throwing jabs with almost no body work then when his opponent was tired would fish him in the later rounds rarely by KO mostly by accumulation. Ali later in his career when he lost his legs spent the majority of his fights against the ropes struggling with guys like Wepner, Spinks and Shavers. Floyd like Ali had to adapt as he lost his youth and moved up in weight class. Floyd at 130-140 had a 70% percentafe, and would pummel guys with blistering and speed and power As Floyd began to move up in weight fighting guys outweighing him by 20lbs he became more economical and a thinking mans fighter. Someone who has no boxing knowledge would never understand Floyds abilities. Might as well explain the triangle to a middle schooler

TIMMMAAY

September 8th, 2017 at 5:04 PM ^

Those things may be true, but it doesn't change the fact the Mayweather has been boring as hell to watch for the past several years (more, really). Defensive football is fun to watch, boxing, not so much. 

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^

Mayweather is boring to watch to me because Mayweather is a boring fighter.  He may be the best defesnive fighter of all time, he is exceptional in his command of the ring and only throws punches that he knows will land clean even if they do absolutely no damage.  He is the best scoring boxer ever to fight.  He is also very boring to watch.

In reply to by ijohnb

MichiganForever

September 8th, 2017 at 4:23 PM ^

"Only throws punches he knows will land" is the dumbest thing I read today. Go look at what a 36 year old Floyd did to Cotto, Canelo and Guerreros faces and tell me how you score a punch

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 4:46 PM ^

Bought excellent fights against Cotto and Alvarez. I personally thought that the Cotto fight was his most impressive win considering that he was in some trouble in the middle rounds and then just shut him out. Also, you take Mayweather stuff way too personally.

trustBlue

September 8th, 2017 at 5:46 PM ^

Plenty of people who understand boxing still think Mayweather is boring as shit.

Mayweather is an extremely talented defender and counter-puncher, but his bouts have been pretty painful to watch for the last 7-8 years. Go back a decade or so and you'll find Mayweather showed the same level of talent and elusiveness, but with much more willingness to mix things up, go on offense and occassionally trade punches.

Nowadays he's content to spend an entire fight simply moving backward, and trying force his oppopnent to chase him, while pick him apart with counter-punches. The one saving grace of the McGregor fight is that we saw one of he few flashes of Floyd going on offense since forever. 

TheCool

September 8th, 2017 at 6:18 PM ^

Understanding boxing and respecting the nuances of a great boxer are different things. If you can't respect a great puncher that is amazing at manipulating angles and completely taking apart good boxers, you don't appreciate the sport in its entirety. You want brawls just like a football fan that thought the Illinois Michigan RR debacle was good football.

jmdblue

September 8th, 2017 at 7:02 PM ^

Sweet science...  I also understand the other side of boxing is the crazy emotion you feel while watching the violence \bravery exhibited during Hagler\Hearns or Frazier\Ali or not uncommomly a Thursday night bout on USA or an undercard on HBO.  You are the one who's missing the point,

cletus318

September 8th, 2017 at 7:04 PM ^

I think the whole death of boxing thing is a bit overstated. The sport is definitely down from its heights, but big fights still do fairly well. Canelo/Chavez did better PPV numbers than every UFC show this year, including the super stacked UFC 214.

CRISPed in the DIAG

September 8th, 2017 at 2:46 PM ^

I keep hearing about the death of football, but why does the sport continue to dominate tv ratings? Why is the Super Bowl a de facto national holiday? I think its essentially a troll from people who don't like sports.

mgolund

September 8th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^

Certainly viewership isn't suffering. I think, if the sport is going to dwindle or die, it will be many years from now. As more research is done on the chronic effects of the sport, even at amateur levels, I suspect fewer and fewer folks will play. That could, in turn lead to much lower popularity, viewership, etc.

Who knows? As another poster said, boxing is still (incredibly) around, so maybe it's just noise.

ijohnb

September 8th, 2017 at 3:12 PM ^

of the NFL is suffering, but that is because:

1) players keep doing highly publicized bad things,

2) the NFL keeps on botching highly publicized disciplines of those players,

3) NFL football is played on too many different days and times,

4) NFL football is really, really boring to watch and has way too many commercials,

5) games are not properly spaced out on Sunday so unless you have one of the subscription services and your team plays at 4 PM you are going to miss the first quarter,

6) people are being turned off by the National Anthem stuff and/or excessive discussion of the National Anthem stuff,

7) there is way too much discussion about salaries and contracts throughout the off-season and season and people are constantly reminded of the business aspect of the game.

Football is not dying.  I am going to the Clarkston High School game tonight and it will be packed and the play on the field will be excellent.  Every time I drive down basically any street in the summer or fall there is some sort of organized football practice going on.  The first Saturday of college football was like a national celebration.

The sport of football is fine.  The NFL is beginning to suffer because it is a terrible product. Fantasy football propped it up for a while but that is also fading.  Notice the crickets last night on opening night.  Ratings down 12% last night from last years opener while college football ratings soared on Saturday.  The NFL has to quickly re-evaluate some things.  I LOVE LOVE LOVE football, and I will maybe watch one or two NFL games this year.  Something is wrong there.

I Like Burgers

September 8th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^

Lots and lots of good points in here.  +1 to you.

 

You mentioned it, but to me the reason viewership in the NFL is dropping is because its boring/bland/too even and too much of the offseason focus is spent on negativity.  Meanwhile for something like CFB all of the offseason is spent on being positive.  New recruits, new coaches, things are going to better, etc.

Also CFB ratings are still going up.  This past weekend was the best opening weekend for CFB ever -- even better than the monster opening weekend from last year that had a much better slate of games.

So I don't think football is dying, but I do think people are getting tired of the NFL.

crg

September 8th, 2017 at 3:50 PM ^

This is something that most NFL pundits refuse to understand. College football has such broader appeal and depth to it than the NFL ever will. Firstly, it's so much more accessible than NFL could ever be. There are hundreds of college games every week at the various levels - many of which one can attend either free or for a pittance - and they are in almost every region of every state. When was the last time an NFL crowd ever stormed a field after a win? Also, there is usually a personal connection between the fans and the programs (current students, alumni, family/friends of students/alumni) in addition to those who just like to watch a good game. The NFL can never truly have that outside of a handful of people per team. Finally, though the level of play in the NFL is a bit better, it is still just a bunch of highly paid athletes playing together with very little to bind them. This year's teammates could be next year's adversaries. With college ball, the students and schools chose each other, the players chose to share their experiences on the field and around campus and are actually a part of the same institution as the fans themselves (fellow students). People don't want an NFL-lite experience; the want the regalia and pageantry of college sports and college rivalries. And considering that college football was the FIRST instance of football, with pro football coming decades later, this seems all the more reasonable.

darkstar

September 8th, 2017 at 4:02 PM ^

If it wasn't for fantasy football (and sigh sadly the Lions until I get fed up and decide to mow my lawn I probably wouldn't watch the NFL for several of the reasons above.  Too many commercials.  Too much hypocrisy (player safety? HA!)  Bland announcing, etc.  

It reminds me of what Brandon was trying to do with UM.  At some point you can see behind the curtain that it's just a veiled attempt to market a flagging product to get people to spend more money.  

CFB is an emotional and memory-building experience for me.  I share it with my kids now.  

NRK

September 8th, 2017 at 4:14 PM ^

All fair points, and those above you as well. I enjoy football - both college and pro. I enjoy watching UM more than anything else, but then enjoy watching random NFL games over college games I'm less invested in. Admittedly, I'm big into fantasy sports, so that is a big NFL draw. I also have Sunday Ticket so I have zero commercials on Sundays to annoy me (and zero of much other discussion other than actual football).

 

Personally, I think the "NFL is declining" is a bit overblown. Numbers were down last year, but that's happened before in election years, and the game last night saw declined ratings, but Houston/Florida numbers were likely very low given the Hurricane issues there that could have easily moved the numbers around (two very large football markets). If the trend continues from last season then I think people still start getting more worried.

OSUMC Wolverine

September 8th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^

I personally made a clean break from the NFL last year after all the National Anthem crap--I have to say I dont miss it one bit and have more time to do productive things on Sunday.  Probably could and may well go the rest of my life without watching another snap.

RamblerRobotics

September 8th, 2017 at 5:40 PM ^

The NFL is dying because of terrible marketing practices. They went way overboard trying to make football part of your life.

It doesn't matter how popular the product is, if you overload your audience they will be turned away.

jmdblue

September 9th, 2017 at 7:45 AM ^

Also we are right in line with loving football, but not being able to stomach the NFL. I would say the Clarkston area is a hotbed in Michigan. My son's little league merged two teams due to lack of interest., his middle school team will be very short handed. I think the trend against youth football is gonna stick. We'll see how that effects the supply of players and fans (if at all)

it's Science

September 8th, 2017 at 2:53 PM ^

Because it will take time to sink in. I love football, but it's essentially a modern gladiator spectacle. It's on it's way out. I'd never ever let my kids play (had 6 concussions myself, time will catch up with me). The older I get, the harder it becomes to watch. I wish it wasn't so, but such is life.

jmdblue

September 9th, 2017 at 8:00 AM ^

Not an easy decision, but before you decide for your kid let me offer a couple unsolicited points... My boy was kind of a nut job early on... Always a nice kid and respectful, but also a little wild. Just had a hard time controlling himself. Football was unbelievably helpful in alleviating some of this in a way other sports were not. Youth football, at least in SE Michigan is unrecognizable compared to the game I played as a kid. The head shots are not only no longer celebrated... They're gone. There's very little hitting in practice etc. anyway the game is still dangerous, but it's a hell of a lot less dangerous. Lastly I'd say that it's important to have physical courage and football helps with that. There's lots of risky behaviors... They include being overly protected. Cheers and Go Blue.

Brodie

September 8th, 2017 at 3:33 PM ^

NFL viewership is in decline for the non-spectacles... but more broadly, there are a LOT fewer players every year. I, along with most everyone I know, probably will at least discourage my kids from playing and will steer them toward baseball or soccer or something.

I actually think the headwinds for sports as we know them are pretty uniformly terrible... with the media landscape what it is, the money will dry up eventually, which will have massive effects at all levels of all sports. Low impact sports like soccer are already rising rapidly in terms of players, I wonder if Olympic style sports might eventually come to dominate everything. 

G. Gulo of the Dale

September 8th, 2017 at 7:49 PM ^

You write that "low impact sports like soccer are already rising rapidly in terms of players."  To what extent is this true? (a question for anyone)

I read an article recently citing all sorts of statistics regarding the rise of soccer in America.  At one point in the article, the author explains that participation in youth soccer is currently 30 times what it was in the seventies and twice what it was in 1990.  However, when you dig deeper into the very same youth registration statistics that the author is citing, you find that using 1990 as the most recent comparision is really convenient for the argument.  Why?  Because, according to those numbers, youth soccer participation hasn't actually grown at all since 2000.  During the first fifteen years of this millenium, participation sits at just over 3 million with little deviation.

Now, maybe there are more "unregistered" players.  Maybe more adults are playing.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that more people in the U.S. are watching soccer, which might lead to increased participation in the future.  I never played soccer, and my kids don't play, so, as I said, I honestly don't know if what you say is true.

Brodie

September 9th, 2017 at 1:38 AM ^

I didn't claim that soccer participation was growing at the youth level, it would be quite hard for it to because youth soccer is basically ubiquitous. There is simply no way for it to grow, basically all children who are going to play any organized sport default into soccer at this point. Instead, soccer is growing at the high school level and recently surpassed baseball in high school participation. The common refrain about soccer since it became a dominant youth activity in the 1990s was that kids give up the sport once they reach high school age, this is a meme that you can see repeated many times in this thread and has indeed been repeated by Jim Harbaugh. However the statistics show that this is slowing down and more and more kids are sticking with soccer throughout high school while football participation declines dramatically.