Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

To take a little break from the Skins bashing..

The more I hear from Roger Goodell, the more I dislike him. Yes, ratings are thru the roof, but don't ruin something thats not broken.

NFL Football in Europe? C'mon, we don't have a Europian Soccer team here, so they don't need one of our football teams over there. This is really about the dumbest idea to come from Goodell.

18 game season? Why? B/c it means more money, that's why. I think it dilutes the season a little.

Anyone else, kind of sick of Roger Goodell and his "new" attention grabbing rules and policies?

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I think he's done far more good than bad for the league. The personal conduct policy and the way he's dealt with off the field issues, I think you have to give him two strong thumbs up. As far as expansion of the league and the season, regardless of who the commish is, these are always going to be issues on the table. Expanding to Europe has been discussed for years, it's not a Goodell thing, it's always been a long term view of the league. As for the expanded season, it's happened a few times before with success.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

First off, this is a good thread. Nice break from the "Chicken Little" nonsense we've been reading recently.

I have no issue with Goodell. I think he's been very even in his handling of the personal conduct policy, given the touchy issues that presents. He's been strong on preparing the league for a potential work stoppage (negotiating the tv deals so that the league gets paid up front whether there are games or not). As far as the 18 games deal goes, I don't have a problem with it. They're looking at player safety and if they continue to take some of the viciousness out of the game, there should be less catastrophic injuries. As far as american football in europe goes, if there's a market for it, why not? Increases the talent pool which makes the game stronger... Wouldn't you rather see a city like London have a team that the fans actually support instead of cities like Tampa Bay and Jacksonville with lukewarm fanbases? Making the league multinational is also a great way of diversifying and making it independent of one country's economy. Remember, the league is a business and there's no fortune 500 company in the world that, if given the chance to go global and grow their business is going to pass on that opportunity.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

He's too damn corporate to me. He's just another stiff suit on Park Ave. Get a guy in there that really knows football. Going over to Eurpore is so stupid. Just look at the league that folded? Yet he wants to expand there?? Football is an american sport..always has been and always will be. If you're going to expand do it here. And the fines for hits is just ridiculous. So tired of the guy.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I don't think the NFL should "expand" to Europe. I don't think the NFL should expand at all. I like the fact this is our sport, an American sport. Nothing against Europeans, but the NFL belongs in America only.

I don't disagree w/ Goodell tightening the code of conduct of NFL players but it just feels a little "godfather-esque" to me. It feels like they get called to the principals office. Should it be handled individually or should there be a concrete policy? I don't know, he just irks me a little.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=redsk1;754824]I don't think the NFL should "expand" to Europe. I don't think the NFL should expand at all. I like the fact this is our sport, an American sport. Nothing against Europeans, but the NFL belongs in America only.

I don't disagree w/ Goodell tightening the code of conduct of NFL players but it just feels a little "godfather-esque" to me. It feels like they get called to the principals office. Should it be handled individually or should there be a concrete policy? I don't know, he just irks me a little.[/quote]

Re: code of conduct, the league is out to make money and it needs corporate relationships in order to do that. If the league devolves into nothing but thug ass criminals, companies are going to distance themselves from the league. He's just protecting the brand, which is his job.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;754840]Re: code of conduct, the league is out to make money and it needs corporate relationships in order to do that. If the league devolves into nothing but thug ass criminals, companies are going to distance themselves from the league. [B]He's just protecting the brand, which is his job[/B].[/quote]

He's done an outstanding job in that regard. Protecting the shield has been his top priority and he's followed through on that every step of the way.

Ratings are through the roof, hard to argue with the results that are out there under his guidance so far.

A big test will be the upcoming labor agreement.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Outside of suspending players Goodell has been turrible.

For starters whats with the talk of bringing a team to Europe? For God's sake they can't even get a team in LA. I personally don't mind the one game a year in London. If anything it's nice exposure for the league in one of the worlds nicest stadiums. However bringing a team to Europe is about 40 or 50 years to early. Unlike the NHL/NBA/MLB the NFL isn't competing worldwide for talent and media attention seeing as how football is exclusively an American game.

Then theres the labor negotiations. I don't know how Paul Taglibune would have done but I was under the impression that the commissioner's interest was the well being of the league, not serving as a white knight for the owners. Instead of having the owners, players, and commissioner at the negotiating table you have the owners with the commissioner and the union.

However the cardinal sin of Goodell is the 18 game season. Sure it will get the league more money but who's going to want to watch when a good amount of starters are on the sidelines due to injury. The funniest part though is Goodell talking about how excited fans are about the prospect of two extra games. Go to any blog and you'll find two types of responses. The people who absolutely hate it and the people who could care less. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like support for the two extra games. Sure they're trying to change the rules now to prevent injuries while posturing for the two extra games but the fact of the matter is that you can't change football enough to make two extra games a year a worthwhile risk.

Then theres the record books......in short the whole thing is a mess.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

It's not like Goodell is the first commissioner to talk about expanding the regular season (it's been done before), or talk about taking the game to Europe. Previous commissioners have done so, albeit more on a minor league scale. Plus, this whole expansion to Europe talk, consider who Goodell was speaking to. And all he said was we'd like to see more games played here and if it turns out it's paying off expansion is something we'd consider. You can't have a commissioner who isn't forward thinking. And he's got plenty of former NFL players and coaches and execs advising him

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;754889]Outside of suspending players Goodell has been turrible.

For starters whats with the talk of bringing a team to Europe? For God's sake they can't even get a team in LA. I personally don't mind the one game a year in London. If anything it's nice exposure for the league in one of the worlds nicest stadiums. However bringing a team to Europe is about 40 or 50 years to early. Unlike the NHL/NBA/MLB the NFL isn't competing worldwide for talent and media attention seeing as how football is exclusively an American game.

Then theres the labor negotiations. I don't know how Paul Taglibune would have done but I was under the impression that the commissioner's interest was the well being of the league, not serving as a white knight for the owners. Instead of having the owners, players, and commissioner at the negotiating table you have the owners with the commissioner and the union.

However the cardinal sin of Goodell is the 18 game season. Sure it will get the league more money but who's going to want to watch when a good amount of starters are on the sidelines due to injury. The funniest part though is Goodell talking about how excited fans are about the prospect of two extra games. Go to any blog and you'll find two types of responses. The people who absolutely hate it and the people who could care less. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like support for the two extra games. Sure they're trying to change the rules now to prevent injuries while posturing for the two extra games but the fact of the matter is that you can't change football enough to make two extra games a year a worthwhile risk.

Then theres the record books......in short the whole thing is a mess.[/quote]

Per PK's MMQB:
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]I've thought all along that the majority of fans don't really support the idea of an 18-game schedule. In an injury-free world, they would; who wouldn't? But Commissioner Roger Goodell keeps saying fans favor the 18-game schedule. They only favor it, in my opinion, in order to [I]NOT[/I] have four preseason games they have to pay regular-season prices for. But that's a different story than actually saying you want 18 games when so many players are getting hurt every week. And so on Friday, I asked my Twitter followers if they favored either:
a. Two preseason games and 18 regular-season games.
b. Four preseason games and 16 regular-season games.
c. Two preseason games and 16 regular-season games.
The results, over a 40-hour voting period, give us a pretty good sample -- 1,200 votes in all. How the voters came down:
C (2+16): 622 votes, 51.8 percent.
B (4+16): 363 votes, 30.3 percent.
A (2+18): 215 votes, 17.9 percent.
That means 18 percent of 1,200 football fans (presumably they are if they follow me on Twitter), less than one out of every five, want what Goodell says they want. And 82 percent want to keep it at 16 regular-season games.


Read more: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/07/super/index.html#ixzz1DIPoWtRm]Charles Woodson feeling no pain as Packers win Super Bowl XLV - Peter King - SI.com[/url][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

The NFL is tapped out for fans in the USA and expansion to Europe is a must if they want to grow the game. I like the idea of an 18 game season as now that football is over there is a complete void in sports until baseball starts so there's no reason the NFL cant fill that void. I agree with Smoot, the commish has to continue to look forward and explore new ideas.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Honestly, I'm fine with Goodell as the commish. I kinda wish he'd make the following changes:

- If they are going to go to an 18 game season, then the league should increase the regular rosters and gameday rosters.
- Start the the season earlier in August...so you can have the Superbowl the Sunday before MLK holday.
- Rotate Super Bowl site among these three cities: New Orleans, Miami, and San Diego


I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that I can think about.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I'm against expanding to Europe but other than that I think Goodell is doing fine.
I am definitely looking forward to 18 games and I dont agree with any of the reasons not too. The league will evolve and no one will notice the difference in a few years.
And yea....get a team in LA.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Oh, and another thing Mr. Goodell should do is have the dang Super Bowl on a Saturday afternoon. An event that huge should not be held on a work night.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;783127]Oh, and another thing Mr. Goodell should do is have the dang Super Bowl on a Saturday afternoon. An event that huge should not be held on a work night.[/quote]

Whats wrong with Sunday? The game was over by 10 and for some it was over by 7.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Goodell has been excellent when it comes to protecting the shield, as others have said.

But Roger Sunshine drives me crazy with his pr statements. I think that owners could commit genocide and he would find some way to give it a positive spin.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote]I think he's done far more good than bad for the league. The personal conduct policy and the way he's dealt with off the field issues, I think you have to give him two strong thumbs up. As far as expansion of the league and the season, regardless of who the commish is, these are always going to be issues on the table. Expanding to Europe has been discussed for years, it's not a Goodell thing, it's always been a long term view of the league. As for the expanded season, it's happened a few times before with success.[/quote]

I like that there's a player conduct policy, but I do not like how the NFL has handled it. There needs to be a disciplinary group. Right now Goodell has too much say in what discipline a player receives. I don't feel as if his punishments have been standard across the board.

Make the same crime receive the same punishment irregardless of how popular/important/etc a player is to the league. These are some of the same issues you see in the NCAA. We care about the rules... as long as it doesn't affect our bottom line!

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=firstdown;783128]Whats wrong with Sunday? The game was over by 10 and for some it was over by 7.[/quote]

For the same reasons that St. Patricks Day should be on the last Friday of every March.
Same goes for Halloween.

Or better yet, hold the Super Bowl on a Friday and make it a national holiday.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;783133]For the same reasons that St. Patricks Day should be on the last Friday of every March.
Same goes for Halloween.

Or better yet, hold the Super Bowl on a Friday and make it a national holiday.[/quote]

Hey I'm all for that since my birthday falls on St. Patrick's Day! :)

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I've tried to start a comment 3 times and each time I've stopped and erased what I started.

#1- I'm not a fan of Goodell.

#2- I presume the players and owners gave him (Goodell) all his power, otherwise he's over stepping it in regards to making the "NFL" lable more important then the game itself. I know it's all about marketing and $$ but I can remember when the NFL and commish were there just to keep the owners together and on page, now it's more about the NFL image.

#3- I have no qualms with NFL Europe. I actually liked seeing the foriegn players playing American ball. I liked seeing the fans getting all excited watching their teams play. I usually don't watch CFL but they have their own league built by their own millionairs. Let Europe do the same. Instead of NFL America putting it together for them.

#4- Take away the BS celebration rules. If the player is taunting the opponant or fans, or if the celebration lasts more then 10 sec., or involves more then 2 people, or the player uses extra devices such as "popcorn" or "sharpies" or whatever then throw the flag. and keep it consistant. The flagged the Pack last night for "going to the ground" (kneeling), yet in the 4th quarter when the Pack made a TD and the player "went to the ground" (kneeling) no flag. Plus the penalty should be assessed on the very next play to follow which would be the field goal vs. waiting two plays later and backing them up on the KO.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Daseal;783132]I like that there's a player conduct policy, but I do not like how the NFL has handled it. There needs to be a disciplinary group. Right now Goodell has too much say in what discipline a player receives. I don't feel as if his punishments have been standard across the board.

Make the same crime receive the same punishment irregardless of how popular/important/etc a player is to the league. These are some of the same issues you see in the NCAA. We care about the rules... as long as it doesn't affect our bottom line![/quote]

This is another issue I have. Instead of punishing a player if found guilty by law, Goodell prefer's to punish at his whim. Plus the punishment doesn't always seem fair compared to other punishments. On top of that a player making only minimum should not have to pay the same amount a 100 million dollar player should be paying. Make the punishment a % of what the player makes. That way each players pays a penalty but pays in accordance to a % of what he makes. $100,000 to a player making $400,000 is pretty steep but a $100,000 to a player making 10 mill a year is pennies on the dollar.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Why did he need help from Terry Bradshaw to hold the mic during the trophy ceremony last night? IT was really weird if you were paying attention.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Roger Goodell:

Thoughts? Well, I think he's done a good job so far. I certainly like the player conduct rules, because the players do need to clean up their act if they are to be role models to the fans that look up to them. And let's face it, whether if they like it or not, intended to be or not, they are viewed upon as role models, especially to the kids. So, I say kudos and job well done by Goodell in those respects.

I also like the ideas of making the game a bit safer to play in regards to concussions. Although, you can only take that so far before you really change the complexion of the game, and that is something I do not want to see. But, I am all for protecting the players health. But let's keep in mind that the game is and will always be a dangerous sport and injury is inevitable.

The 18 game thing? I realize that's a toss up. I don't really mind seeing two extra games, although I think they would also need to have an extra bye week thrown in there to help the players rest and recover from injuries. I have no idea if that is on the table or not.

I also remember reading the argument that expanding the active roster in order to balance the longer season would water down the product. While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with that, I do want to point to the Super Bowl champions, and how many of their starters they had lost during the season and even in the Super Bowl itself. Yet, they continued to improve throughout the season and caught fire in the playoffs. So, I'm not so sure I necessarily, completely, buy the water-downed product idea. But, I do understand why one would assume the quality would be less than what it is now.

And as far as the expansion thing to Europe, this is what I would propose:

Reinstate NFL Europe, but allow (with support by the NFL owners) those European teams to inherit the mascot names/logos that are used in the NFL. Now, I understand the ties that these mascot names have to their NFL cities and history, but we're talking about making a recognizable product based on the NFL successful in Europe. Personally, I would come closer to watching an NFL Europe game if the "Cowboys and Redskins" are playing each other, as opposed to the "Galaxy VS Fire". That's just me though. I mean, baseball does it, why can't the NFL do it? (Besides any legal ramifications.)

I would think of the Redskins' European team as their farm/minor league team. I realize that NFL teams sent some of their players to the European league in the past, but I'm talking about NFL teams having their own European team. This could possibly help the development of those "extra" players we would have to enlist onto the active roster, and then maybe the NFL product wouldn't seem so "water down?" Again, I might be way out in dreamland, but I believe that is the only way I would support the NFL truly expanding into the European countries. I think the travel for those teams who have to player over in Europe is already a killer for them. I would hate to think how hard that would be on a regular basis.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;783133]For the same reasons that St. Patricks Day should be on the last Friday of every March.
Same goes for Halloween.

Or better yet, hold the Super Bowl on a Friday and make it a national holiday.[/quote]

I'm betting it's coming. For those in Cali or Hawaii the 6:30pm start is no big deal. For those on the East coast the game ending at 9:30 or 10pm is. Don't get me wrong I stayed up till 1:30am which was my fault but I couldn't sleep. I was wound from watching the game. Not to mention others who probably went out to a bar or hung out with friends.

Clearly the SB would be better suited for Sat. so people can party throughout the night if they want to and sleep in the next day... if they choose. Instead of having to take a sick day or a day off from work or simply dragging your self in to work.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I could live with a Saturday night SB.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I'm all for a "forward thinking" commissioner. I don't think that you have to change things just for the sake of change.

18 Game Schedule: Not for it, I think it's overkill, it will lessen the impact of a single game, players aren't for it, fans aren't for it, why do it? I know the answer.

Europe: We don't have a English Premier Team here, they don't need a NFL Team there. Sorry, expansion waters down the competition level.

I like personal conduct policies but RG needs to have someone handle that for him.

Saturday Super Bowl: A good idea.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Skinsguy,

With out quoting everything...

[QUOTE]whether if they like it or not, intended to be or not, they are viewed upon as role models, especially to the kids.[/QUOTE]

Your 100% correct. I don't like it or agree with it but your correct. But I still see the "NFL" as being this evil empire over shadowing the teams and players. Instead of everything being sent to the NFL for review on a dicided punishment how about teams do the punishments and if the teams don't or fail to then the NFL can step in. Plus only punish if a player is actually found guilty of a crime.

[QUOTE]I also like the ideas of making the game a bit safer to play in regards to concussions. Although, you can only take that so far before you really change the complexion of the game, and that is something I do not want to see. But, I am all for protecting the players health. But let's keep in mind that the game is and will always be a dangerous sport and injury is inevitable. [/QUOTE]

I'm torn. I'm the first to say they get paid millions to play a violent sport. They don't want a concussion don't play. No different then a boxer. You don't go into boxing not expecting to get knocked out once and a while. But it does seem players are playing with wreckless abandon. Even the hitters. But it pisses me off seeing how no one can hit a QB or WR anymore. They might as well make it flag football.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Skinsguy,

Also...

[QUOTE]Reinstate NFL Europe, but allow (with support by the NFL owners) those European teams to inherit the mascot names/logos that are used in the NFL. Now, I understand the ties that these mascot names have to their NFL cities and history, but we're talking about making a recognizable product based on the NFL successful in Europe. Personally, I would come closer to watching an NFL Europe game if the "Cowboys and Redskins" are playing each other, as opposed to the "Galaxy VS Fire". That's just me though. I mean, baseball does it, why can't the NFL do it? (Besides any legal ramifications.) [/QUOTE]

This is not a bad idea. They could change the colors if they wanted or maybe let "Nike" or whoever keeps coming up with all these supposedly different ideas for "uni's" wear them in Europe. But if not how cool would it be to be rooting for the European counter part of your favorite team. The Redskins. :)

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I generally like Goodell. My only huge complaint is how he destryed the NFL Draft just to try and make a couple more bucks. The Saturday of the draft was always one of my favorite days of the year. A day of football in the middle of the offseason. A day to sit back and eat drink and talk about football. Now it's so spread out...only 1 round on the first day...round 2 starts in the middle of Friday rush hour on the east coast and Saturday only has the late rounds. That day was practically a holiday for me and Goodell destroyed it!

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=celts32;783154]I generally like Goodell. My only huge complaint is how he destryed the NFL Draft just to try and make a couple more bucks. The Saturday of the draft was always one of my favorite days of the year. A day of football in the middle of the offseason. A day to sit back and eat drink and talk about football. Now it's so spread out...only 1 round on the first day...round 2 starts in the middle of Friday rush hour on the east coast and Saturday only has the late rounds. That day was practically a holiday for me and Goodell destroyed it![/quote]

I agree, the draft should go back to Saturday for at least two rounds.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

The ratings are through the roof for the prime time start to the draft, so it's probably going to stay that way.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Super Bowl Saturday is never gonna happen. Its 1 less day for fans to stay around the city which means less hotel rooms used and 1 less night for restaurants to be full. Plus now fans can travel to the site on Sat instead of Fri which would mean taking a day off work.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

One of the reason I think they do Sunday is because the hosting town gets another night of people staying over. If it was Saturday most people would come in on Friday and leave on Sunday. Now they come in on Friday and leave on Monday and thats a big difference in money. Also more people are off on Sunday eve and they have more viewers.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Rather than changing the game to Saturday, we could just declare Super Bowl Monday to be a national holiday.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Lotus;783168]Rather than changing the game to Saturday, we could just declare Super Bowl Monday to be a national holiday.[/quote]

One benefit of the 18 game schedule is that it could push the Super Bowl back to Presidents Day weekend. I understand that not everone is off from work on presidents day but not everyone is off on Saturday or Sunday either. So that is probably the best we could hope for as far as the day after the super bowl being a holiday.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=Mattyk;783164]The ratings are through the roof for the prime time start to the draft, so it's probably going to stay that way.[/quote]

Unfortunately I agree that it's here to stay, but i remember not being all that impressed with the ratings they got. Anytime you move something to primetime over Saturday afternoon the ratings are bound to be higher. It's not like they won the night though. I think it was a lot of spin control the league did to make it appear that it was a huge success.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

I think Goodell deserves some credit for the conduct policy & the general manner in which he's responded to issues, e.g. concussions. He is on top of the things that matter to the NFL's future.

He's in a very difficult position now. The NFL is so successful, yet on the brink of a strike. Before I criticize him for the 18 game schedule idea, which I hate, I would need to better understand his role w/the owners. As I understand it, the Commish of the league, he is beholden to the owners. If that's what they want, it is his job to pursue that.

We'll see what kind of moderator, diplomat and leader Goodell is in the coming months. He could have a big impact on the negotiations & it sounds like he wants to.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=irish;783166]Super Bowl Saturday is never gonna happen. Its 1 less day for fans to stay around the city which means less hotel rooms used and 1 less night for restaurants to be full. Plus now fans can travel to the site on Sat instead of Fri which would mean taking a day off work.[/quote]

Funny, one could say the same thing about it being on Sun. Fans fly in to be at the motel at 4pm check in. stay the night, watch the game, then stay Sun. into Mon. for a return flight home.... basically taking a day off work.

The only difference is some people might fly in on Fri. so they stay Fri. night into Sat. then Sat. night and then fly home Sun. Basically the same either way.... 1 day off work possibly and 2 nights in a motel.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

Roger Goodell seems to be a double-edged sword for the league.

On his watch, the league has set humongous TV ratings records and since the bulk of the mone comes from TV, that has to be a big plus for him - - - even if he was not uniquely responsible for the soaring ratings.

On his watch, the league has taken a very proactive position - - bolstered by huge PR/communications efforts - - to protect its workforce (the players). That goes over well with the vast majority of adult fans.

On his watch, the NFL is on the brink of a work stoppage - - the first in two decades or so. That is not completely of his doing but it happened on his watch.

With regard to the "games in England", they make economic sense but no sense at all in any other dimension. Consider that the Cardinals are a strong candidate to be in the "London game" next year and it would be one of the Cards' home games. The Cards probably will not sell out more than once next season so a huge crowd in London (maybe 80,000 fans) makes economic sense for them. Of course the 12 hour flight each way from Phoenix to London and a half-dozen other factors make no sense for the Cards...

Is Roger Goodell good for the NFL? If they can pull off a CBA without losing any time in training camp, I would say the answer is YES on balance.

Re: Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?
 

[quote=celts32;783187]Unfortunately I agree that it's here to stay, but i remember not being all that impressed with the ratings they got. Anytime you move something to primetime over Saturday afternoon the ratings are bound to be higher. It's not like they won the night though. I think it was a lot of spin control the league did to make it appear that it was a huge success.[/quote]

Ratings were up about 30% if I recall, that's a pretty big boost