The XFL American football league, which played a single season in 2001, could return in 2020:
Television ratings for the N.F.L. have fallen 17 percent over the past two seasons. The league is embroiled in a continuing crisis over concussions, and youth participation rates are falling.
All of this suggests a difficult future for the sport, yet the N.F.L.'s most notorious competitor, Vince McMahon's X.F.L., has a comeback in the works. McMahon, the chairman and chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, announced on Thursday that he would take a second crack at professional football, with play scheduled to start in early 2020.
McMahon first tried to reimagine pro football 17 years ago. The old X.F.L. was a joint venture between the World Wrestling Federation (W.W.E.'s former name) and NBC, which had lost rights to broadcast N.F.L. games. Violence was amped up: An opening scramble replaced the coin toss and fair catches were banned. So was the sex appeal, with cheerleaders who were even more scantily clad than the ones in the N.F.L., and advertising that included innuendo about them.
[...] Other than the name, this version will have little in common with the old X.F.L., he said. There will be no cheerleaders, McMahon said. Players with criminal records will not be welcome. Political statements, such as kneeling during the national anthem, will be prohibited.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:57PM (9 children)
Look, sports are one of the key reasons for a reduction in war. They are an outlet for mankind's tribalist bloodthirst, including man's lust for nubile, fit ladies.
None of that is acceptable in the gynocentrism that is rapidly creeping towards matriarchy (just look at the childless women who sit in so many lofty political positions across Europe).
The NFL is suffering failing ratings because they are a socialist wealth-spreader where nobody loses, and where the "gladiators" are forced to wear pink in honor of femininity; this doesn't satiate the viewers—it bores them.
The XFL could be the answer, but there's no way it would be acceptable while society is flirting with anti-manliness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:03PM (1 child)
As a woman, I also like to see young things showing off their youth. I guess humans just like sex.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:38PM
The LINGERIE FOOTBALL LEAGUE was invented for you TOO.
https://www.maxim.com/sports/legends-league-football-new-uniforms-2017-1 [maxim.com]
I'm told they are trying to distance themselves from that name and
go withThe Legends Football League, https://lflus.com/ [lflus.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:18PM (4 children)
NFL (and college football) ratings drop matches general overall TV ratings drop attributed to "cord cutting".
Nothing to see here.
Plus, XFL won't be going head-to-head (yet) with the NFL.
McMahon is putting up only $100M into it. good luck with that, Jim.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)
Give me a break.
Besides the fact that NFL games are also broadcast OTA, people bought cable packages specifically to watch sports; indeed, sports channels have always been the big selling point.
Thus, if people are cutting cords, it must be that sports aren't all that interesting anymore. Why could that possibly be? A shift in the culture? No. A shift in the sports. People (men and women), when they "go to war", don't want to be lectured about breast cancer, inclusiveness, and how much black lives matter. They want action; they want sex; they glory; they want excitement; they want the yin and yang of masculine dominance and feminine allure.
Well, people ain't getting that from the NFL anymore.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @12:37AM
Or, and hear me out, the cable has gotten too fucking expensive.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
Not even close.
Cord cutting has nothing to do with local TV. You can always watch your local TV, and teams via broadcast TV with a $25 antenna you tack to your wall.
You want some other team, that's available without a TV package as well for the cord cutters.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @02:56PM
Not entirely true. I'm a cord cutter and the one (and only) thing I miss is sports. You get your OTA Sunday NFL games, and in my major TV market you get maybe one MLB game a week (even though I'm in the market [DC/Balt] that has two teams). You get the major network Saturday college football games (two or three), and that is almost it. There are essentially no NHL or NBA games broadcast. ESPN bought out the NBA, MLB, college football, and part of the NFL. Almost the whole extended college bowl season is exclusively on cable, including the national title game (it boggles my mind why they don't show that on ABC for maximum interest and viewership).
I don't know if the numbers of cord cutters can be attributed to any significant part of the football viewership drop, but in my case it directly applies to Thursday night broadcasts, Monday night broadcasts, and all of the bigger college bowl broadcasts.
The thing I miss the most is coming home between April and November and turning on an evening baseball game. I miss it enough to almost want to purchase some kind of package to see those games, but I just can't get myself to want to do that.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:59PM
Show me on the Tim Tebow doll where the mean scary lady touched you, snowflake.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:04PM
Disappear, filthy normie. Sports are not for nerds, but for simpletons who like seeing balls thrown/hit around. The most disgusting part about it all is that many of the stadiums are funded by taxpayer dollars and that people can get more lenient treatment from schools (supposed to be educational, but a vast, vast majority of them are abysmal) if they are good at sports.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:02PM (9 children)
This line is especially evil IMO. Assuming they weren't especially violent offenses, people who've paid their debts to society shouldn't be treated this way.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:05PM (2 children)
Going to prison is being removed from society, so that the rest of us don't have to deal with your bullshit.
It's like putting a child in "timeout". The adults want the child in a controlled environment where nobody has to think about him, and where he might do a little introspection about his behavior.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:42PM (1 child)
Sure, but at some point the child is supposed to get out of "timeout", and be treated like a normal child again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:13PM
Getting out of "timeout" is not making amends.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:11PM (2 children)
It's probably just another jab at the nfl and other sports leagues, because the big leagues still keep thugs like Michael "Ron Mexico" Vick and all of the other purple drank-drinking girlfriend-beating hoodlums.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @03:00PM (1 child)
Your example is horrible. Mike Vick paid his price and did his time. He even showed contrition. He didn't whine and bitch about his situation. His is the poster child for exactly how it should be done.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 03 2018, @12:50AM
Horseshit. His only regret was being caught, and of course he's going to do whatever the hell they tell him to do (or suggest he do) to keep making those multimillions per year.
Valtrex ain't cheap, ya know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @11:42PM (2 children)
GET OFF THE INTERNET NOW! DON'T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE! YOU WHINE AND CRY EVERY TIME I VISIT YOU. AND FFS GET RID OF THAT BONG PIPE ON THE BACK PORCH BECAUSE I'LL HAVE TO NOTICE IT IF I COME OVER THERE.
- your parole officer
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday January 28 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)
This calls for an "obnoxious" Mod. Al caps flaming AH post.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1) by Crash on Sunday January 28 2018, @08:06AM
Or a Fill-in-the-Blank +/- Mod.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:44PM (8 children)
This is just pandering to the fakriots that pretend to be pure and christian but hate it when people bring a light to issues that they would rather ignore.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:10PM (6 children)
No, it's keeping the political bullshit the fuck out of football. People don't want to see serious political bullshit, and especially not from Blacks protesting within an organization that is the epitome of the American dream and has created more Black millionaires than any other organization.
Now, if it were like Europe, where people unfurl anti-semitic banners [pri.org] and yell racial slurs and engage in football hooliganism, then that would be okay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
The NFL is an act, just like wrestling, and the local theater.
If the actors grandstand on a political issue, it would be mildly enjoyable if I happened to agree, but I don't go to the theater to hear some actor make a slur about Trump.
The owners have their own money riding, and can't afford the actors offending the customers. They do have to virtue signal at times, breast cancer and all that nonsense, to keep the press and government at bay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:29AM
wow your reply is even more retarded than the one you are replying to!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:24AM (2 children)
Because, you know, football is exempted from free speech. There's an amendment to the constitution somewhere, no?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:35AM (1 child)
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that government will not interfere with valuable,[1] original[2] speech over platforms owned by private entities.[3] It does not guarantee a platform for any given speech. If XFL doesn't want XFL broadcasts to serve as a platform for players' political speech, it can restrict overt political speech from XFL broadcasts.
[1] As opposed to sexually explicit works without serious artistic value or whose production involved a minor, recklessly untrue works intended to harm a person's reputation, direct incitements to violence, and the like.
[2] As opposed to copyright infringement, disclosure of classified information or trade secrets, and the like.
[3] Over-the-air broadcasting is not privately owned. Because the FCC technically owns radio frequencies and leases them out to private broadcasters, it can place restrictions on what can be broadcast, such as decency, the ad volume limit, the E/I quota, and a ban on infomercial-like children's programming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:58AM
You don't know what you miss [youtu.be]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @08:55AM
Then skip the damned anthem.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:45PM
I think the no felony rule helps bring the violence of the nfl players to light.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:18PM (13 children)
Look, sports are one of the keys to a reduction in war. They are an outlet for mankind's tribalist bloodthirst, including man's lust for nubile, fit ladies.
None of that is acceptable in the gynocentrism that is rapidly creeping towards matriarchy (just look at the childless women who sit in so many lofty political positions across Europe).
The NFL is suffering failing ratings because they are a socialist wealth-spreader where nobody loses, and where the "gladiators" are forced to wear pink in honor of femininity; this doesn't satiate the viewers—it bores them.
The XFL could be the answer, but there's no way it would be acceptable while society is flirting with anti-manliness.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:33PM (12 children)
You are confusing sports with the NFL. Most sports, including baseball, soccer, track, and golf have little violence. It's about athleticism, skill, and performance under pressure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:36PM (10 children)
'nuff said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:02PM (7 children)
And in your case, Mr. So-Triggered-I-Posted-5-Times-About-Muh-Sportz-In-One-Thread, it's entirely vicarious. You know how pathetic you are, and your only outlet is seeing these roided-out freaks in tight pants jumping and rolling and grabbing all over one another (...) so you can get a third-hand contact high of pretended dominance.
I never understood mens' need for this, and I especially never understood how it could be satisfied by this kind of voyeuristic spectating.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:12PM
He's right.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:29PM
It may be explained by a tribal mentality as a (vicarious)victory over their foes?
And/or some guys just get off on seeing other guys fuck their wives/girlfriends?
I don't really get it myself, even though I'm a guy. :-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:30PM (3 children)
I have always struggled to understand the appeal of football. But for the people I know, I don't think it is about violence specifically (also one of the biggest football fans I know is female).
My best guess is that the root of the appeal is tribalism. People like to feel like they are a part of a group, and be able to have some kind of competition attached to that, so their tribe can 'win' against others. It makes them feel good when 'their team' wins. While this is competitive, it is not intrinsically violent. The same explanation also applies to other team sports, and things like the olympics. At another time in history, it was baseball (not violent). For some people, it is hockey (violent). It seems to all be a similar psychology.
So naturally, people who don't like being part of groups would be less likely to like team sports. And, those who enjoy aligning their success with a tribe would be more likely. This jives with the apparent correlation between sports fandom and patriotism.
While I'm not going to say nobody likes it for the violence, I do think that is a lesser factor.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:37PM (2 children)
If you're referring to the occasional fight, it has its place in hockey. It's a tool the players use to keep others from taking liberties that are intended to purposely injure. Speed, confinement, and playing on ice make it very easy to do that.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 29 2018, @01:44AM
I found it interesting how hockey played professionally in Europe is much more precise than in America. They don't permit the physical mixing it up that the NHL does. It's almost a different game entirely, like ice ballet with points.
Perhaps a major rule revision in the NFL to minimize blunt force trauma, say, to adopt rugby-style tackling, would produce the same transformation.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:24AM
Yes, and I do know people who "like hockey for the fights" :)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:53PM
It's closet homo-eroticism, Azuma.
And given these folks don't even have the balls to accept their own drives and desires, is it any wonder that they're bitter and nasty?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Sounds like Mad Max's world is your utopia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @02:00AM
However, libertarians also like to defeat their enemies, so I'm not sure what your point is.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:40PM
Ho ho ho Ha Ha ha, golf a "sport." That's rich. Some people think video gaming is a sport too.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:31PM
The NFL receives a bunch of tax money to bring us a more modern version of the gladiator games. That's a complete waste of public money that brings no benefits to the public [stanford.edu]. Similarly, cable packages are set up so effectively everything that isn't sports is subsidizing the sports.
If you want to support your NFL team, fine. But don't make everybody else pay for your recreation.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday January 27 2018, @11:01PM (4 children)
The current style of NFL football played is the most boring, risk free style of football ever. Roll back the rule changes that have, since the 1970's, continually put defense at a disadvantage.
Sports in general have become unwatchable. The various powers that be, in order to attract more non-fans to the sport, have always seemed to assume that scoring equals excitement. They make rule changes to get rid of those tight, tense, edge of your seat matches in which a single play could decide the outcome. Instead of 20-17 down to the last play football games, we have 42-21 yawnfests. The NBA used to feature hard fought games with scores in the 80's by both teams. Now we get 135-113 games where the players trot up and down the court lofting up seemingly unopposed shots. The NHL eliminated the blue lines to make the game "more wide open", detracting from the skill required to excel. MLB is talking about implementing pitch clocks, complaining the games take too long and end too late. Bring back day games if you want to get to bed earlier!
The end result is that while a sport may temporarily get a boost in interest, they do so by attracting those next big thing fans who, as the name implies, are soon going to depart looking for the next "next big thing". In doing this, the various sports have tended to anger or price out the hard core, long time fans of that sport, and when the johnny come latelys leave, there is a lot less of their base support left to sustain them. You can look at NASCAR for a prime example of this effect. Daytona International Speedway for years and years used to sell out months in advance, now they have eliminated whole sections of the grandstands and still don't sell out. They have even resorted to painting all the seats different colors from the seats next to them so when the cameras pan by the empty seats look occupied!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:27AM
The tag-up rule, while reducing stoppages and generally favoring offense, did not reduce the amount of skill required. If anything it requires more skill on both sides. For the defense, it requires more skill to defend, as you can't grind everything to a stop on a dump to center ice and to keep track of who is doing what. For the offense, it requires more situational awareness to properly tag up and good hands to keep it away from the numerically superior defense.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tekk on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:58AM (2 children)
It's not that people want to go to bed earlier, it's that baseball has a ridiculous percentage of downtime. Football's the same way: if I had to wager, I'd say that both sports are less than a third actual play between waiting for the pitcher, waiting for the music cue, waiting for the batter to get to plate, even throwing balls is pretty much downtime, nobody's really doing anything and you only care about it in the very rare situation that it's the very end and someone can win the game with a couple of good hits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2018, @03:08PM
I think a good case could be made that there is much less downtime in those games than in your typical soccer match. There, technically true that the action is continuous, but the ball is held or passed between defenders for so long that it is essentially downtime [youtube.com]. The larger issue of downtime, at least for the NFL, is all the commercial breaks. That at least is where soccer and rugby have HUGE advantages over the NFL in terms of watchability.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:58PM
Commercial breaks are the big time wasters. Most baseball games would be 2 hours or less without them. That's why I DVR and skip the commercials.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Maddog on Saturday January 27 2018, @11:40PM (2 children)
Money ruined sports...period.
A Friday night game at the local high school is more entertaining, and you can hang out with family/friends/community.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:43AM
Plus you know better the hospital nurses that treat your concussion. Why, they may be even watching the game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:12PM
Money ruined sports...period.
and music
and politics
(Score: 3, Insightful) by terrab0t on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:39AM (7 children)
Professional football is doomed to obscurity either way. It’s right there in the summary.
Kids stop playing football. They stop going to college to play football. The talent pool dries up. People lose interest in the top leagues because the players aren’t as good as they used to be. Eventually when it comes time to build new stadiums city councils will refuse to fund them and the teams will either play on low‐cost open fields or be shut down.
The only way to prevent concussions is to turn it into something like flag football and people won’t watch that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:44AM (6 children)
A whole world outside US are crazy about soccer. No concussions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:55AM (4 children)
http://www.businessinsider.com/soccer-heading-brain-damage-dementia-study-2017-3 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 28 2018, @02:05AM (3 children)
From the linked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:14AM (2 children)
I'd like to see the same study on Aussie Rules Football and Rugby players. I played football in High School in Texas in the late 50's when we had the first plastic helmets with just a single bar to protect the face and chin. Before that football players wore leather helmets with no face protection. The shoulder and leg pads were not even close to the high-tech armor today's players use. I don't recall near the incidence of traumatic head injuries (except maybe Ronnie Reagan...and did Donnie Trump play football in Prep-school?).
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:29AM
Possible explanation: under-reporting/recording from unawareness to the issue.
After all, it's only recently that we could collect, store and effortless analyze data over long periods of time**
---
** this is the only thing I feel grateful to Microsoft - cheap personal standard computers pushed IT ahead at a fast pace - Linux would not have happened on Apple or IBM machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:04AM
You expand 4-lane highway to 8-lane highway, it simply increases the traffic. You replace leather helmet with the "high-tech" plastic/form one, you simply bang heads harder.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday February 02 2018, @09:35PM
Crazy being the operative word, heh heh.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday January 28 2018, @02:50AM (4 children)
In the 1970s, there was no cable TV, Internet, PCs, tablets, video games, MMORPGs, Facebook, DVDs or even VHS video tape until '77. Football didn't have all that competition for our attention that it does now. Same with printed media. Plus, the rise of "extreme sports" surely competes more directly with stodgy, clunky football than many of those other activities.
Is football declining faster than newspapers? I would guess newspapers have been hit harder by the same forces that are biting into football.
Also, what turns on average high school girls these days? In my day, muscular football players were hot and the rest of the boys were worms crawling in the dirt. Of the other sports, only basketball could compete with football, but it was definitely 2nd rate. That was by no means the attitude of every girl, but it was enough to drive the whole herd in that direction. If the girls are branching out to other sports, giving a big "meh" to football players, then football really is in trouble.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:31AM (2 children)
I had cable TV in 1977 (and before). It was basically a way to view local channels where terrain interfered with signals. But it was cable TV.
AS for video games, I actually know Nolan Bushnell (he's still alive and kicking) He and A partner founded Atari around 1972, when they came out with "Pong".
Now get off my lawn, millennial.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:48AM (1 child)
Was cable in 1977 just a repeater, or were there a variety of cable-exclusive channels?
True, video games existed since Magnavox Odyssey and its clones (Pong being one of them). But these were very simplistic until the processor-based second generation, which began with the Fairchild Channel F (November 1976), Apple II (June 1977), and Atari 2600 (September 1977).
(Score: 2) by damnbunni on Sunday January 28 2018, @06:35AM
I'm pretty sure we had HBO in '77. I know we had it by '80. Showtime started in '76, but it wasn't nationwide at that point.
HBO was the thing to have at the time if you really liked boxing.
My memory's a bit fuzzy, but I believe at the time Cablevision in NY offered channels 3 through 13 which were New York stations, and channel 2 was a scrambled pay channel - it was HBO at first, and eventually switched to Showtime. To watch the pay channel you had to tune your TV to 2 and flip a switch on the descrambler box.
Then flip it back when you were done.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Sunday January 28 2018, @04:43PM
I dunno, where I grew up the lacrosse players got all the hot chicks.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.