Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Daily Gaming News > News Items

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
【WE'RE BACK!】RECENT GAME...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:17 AM
5 Replies, 217 Views
Game & Movie Releases...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:16 AM
5 Replies, 399 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Today 06:48 AM
5 Replies, 93 Views
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Today 06:12 AM
7 Replies, 266 Views
Burma/Myanmar, where we...
Last post by BeardedSonOfNel
Today 04:49 AM
27 Replies, 6,593 Views
Tom Clancy's Ghost...
Last post by ministryofwrath
Today 02:20 AM
1 Replies, 288 Views
Terminator: Resistance...
Last post by ministryofwrath
Today 02:19 AM
4 Replies, 398 Views
Nioh 2 Launches in Early...
Last post by Arionuq
Yesterday 09:08 PM
4 Replies, 538 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2019, 06:37 AM   #21
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 8,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Ratings are actually up this year, likely because the league has avoided yet another major controversy. The only major "narrative" of the season wasn't player suspensions, activism, controversies, or Goodell staring into a camera; instead, it was the on-field contests...and people actually tuned in this year. People seem to be more excited about the playoffs this year over last, as well. Ad revenue is down, but that's more than likely caused by the ratings dip from the previous two years.

The only "agenda" the league pushed this year were the games. Beyond the first couple of weeks (if that), topics like kneeling weren't ever talked about. What they were talking about was the meteoric rise of players like Patrick Mahomes, or Nick Foles having to step in for an injured Carson Wentz again. For the first time in a few years, the primary topic of discussion was football.
And female refs, and male cheerleaders etc. But yea no agenda or virtue signaling there at all.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 06:46 AM   #22
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
And female refs, and male cheerleaders etc. But yea no agenda or virtue signaling there at all.
They have one female ref and she does as good of a job as any of the other officials. There really isn't a reason why there can't be more female officials and bitching about their presence is just...kinda dumb.

Only two teams have male cheerleaders. This is also the first I've heard about it, because they rarely focus on the cheerleaders during televised games...and they never talk about them during broadcasts. The two teams - Rams and Saints - were both featured in high-profile playoff games this past weekend. Both teams played at home and the cheerleading squads received precisely 0% of the screen time. They were talked about precisely zero times and the entire focus was on the games. The entire reason they're on the cheerleading squads isn't because of an agenda being pushed by the NFL...but because of lawsuits filed on behalf of the NFL cheerleaders.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 07:39 AM   #23
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
and she does as good of a job as any of the other officials.
That's a pretty low bar.

You can say that complaining about it is dumb but I personally just don't like it. If I still watched the NFL, it would be yet another thing to make me roll my eyes. And it's not because I'm some woman hater. But I do want my "man things" sometimes. Football used to be one of those man things that my Dad and I had together. It was just the two of us watching the Giants in the living room for years and we laughed as every commercial was for trucks, beer, and dog food. Now it's ads for erectile dysfunction pills. They can take that away and make the NFL for women and kids too and that's fine. But I don't have to like it.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 07:41 AM   #24
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 8,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
They have one female ref and she does as good of a job as any of the other officials. There really isn't a reason why there can't be more female officials and bitching about their presence is just...kinda dumb.

Only two teams have male cheerleaders. This is also the first I've heard about it, because they rarely focus on the cheerleaders during televised games...and they never talk about them during broadcasts. The two teams - Rams and Saints - were both featured in high-profile playoff games this past weekend. Both teams played at home and the cheerleading squads received precisely 0% of the screen time. They were talked about precisely zero times and the entire focus was on the games. The entire reason they're on the cheerleading squads isn't because of an agenda being pushed by the NFL...but because of lawsuits filed on behalf of the NFL cheerleaders.
Lawsuits, think on that for a second. So let me guess the female ref blows as many calls as her male counterparts or is she automatically "better" for being a broad? How's your soy Chimp?
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 07:56 AM   #25
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 08:11 AM   #26
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
Lawsuits, think on that for a second.
External lawsuits helped drive those changes on two teams. The Rams also claimed that their tryouts were always open to anyone, but women were the only ones showing up.

It's not something the NFL was explicitly pushing or drawing attention to.

Quote:
So let me guess the female ref blows as many calls as her male counterparts or is she automatically "better" for being a broad? How's your soy Chimp?
She was good enough to get selected to officiate a playoff game, so there's that. She's been employed by the league for four seasons, so it's not like they just threw her in there year one simply because she's a woman.
I didn't say she was automatically better. She is, at the worst, as good as any of the other officials in the league. Take that as you will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
That's a pretty low bar.
Yeah, it is. Officiating has been awful for years and my interest starting declining around the time they stopped knowing what constituted a catch. Fortunately, they've been rolling some of that bullshit back...but it's still pretty bad.

Quote:
You can say that complaining about it is dumb but I personally just don't like it. If I still watched the NFL, it would be yet another thing to make me roll my eyes. And it's not because I'm some woman hater. But I do want my "man things" sometimes. Football used to be one of those man things that my Dad and I had together. It was just the two of us watching the Giants in the living room for years and we laughed as every commercial was for trucks, beer, and dog food. Now it's ads for erectile dysfunction pills. They can take that away and make the NFL for women and kids too and that's fine. But I don't have to like it.
I completely get where you're coming from and it's absolutely a fair perspective.

I can't help but look at it from my wife's perspective, as well. Growing up, she loved watching sports, especially hockey. She wanted to watch football and baseball with her dad and brother...but they wouldn't really let her, because it "wasn't for girls". They wouldn't let her try to play hockey - something she actively wanted to do - because it "wasn't for girls". Flash forward to her adulthood and she's watching most of the Bruins, Sox, and Pats games of her own volition. She's easily as knowledgeable as most male fans and follows the sports and teams because she legitimately enjoys them. She's the sort of person who - when she buys team merch - she avoids all of the pink and sequiny bullshit. She'll buy a normal jersey because that's what she wants.

So...I get it. Everyone wants to have Their Thing. At the same time, if I had a daughter...I wouldn't want to tell her she couldn't watch something because it's "not for girls". If they're legitimately into these games, I struggle to find a good reason from obstructing them from participating as a fan.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 01-14-2019 at 08:29 AM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 08:39 AM   #27
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
I don't condone keeping someone away from the activity they love. But I hate when they change that activity to bend to a new audience. I might understand why they're changing but I just don't like it. You say your wife doesn't go for the pink jerseys etc and grew up loving the sports for what they were. That's fine. But the fact remains that they changed the NFL anyway and we have the pink jerseys, the male cheerlearders, pink October, the ED pill ads etc. So in order to reach this new audience, they took the product that I once loved and made it appeal to me less. And I don't mean to beat a dead horse but that's fine. It's your league, do whatever you like with it. Just don't change it and call me a cave man afterwards because I think it sucks now.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 08:42 AM   #28
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 8,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
External lawsuits helped drive those changes on two teams. The Rams also claimed that their tryouts were always open to anyone, but women were the only ones showing up.

It's not something the NFL was explicitly pushing or drawing attention to.



She was good enough to get selected to officiate a playoff game, so there's that. She's been employed by the league for four seasons, so it's not like they just threw her in there year one simply because she's a woman.
I didn't say she was automatically better. She is, at the worst, as good as any of the other officials in the league. Take that as you will.



Yeah, it is. Officiating has been awful for years and my interest starting declining around the time they stopped knowing what constituted a catch. Fortunately, they've been rolling some of that bullshit back...but it's still pretty bad.



I completely get where you're coming from and it's absolutely a fair perspective.

I can't help but look at it from my wife's perspective, as well. Growing up, she loved watching sports, especially hockey. She wanted to watch football and baseball with her dad and brother...but they wouldn't really let her, because it "wasn't for girls". They wouldn't let her try to play hockey - something she actively wanted to do - because it "wasn't for girls". Flash forward to her adulthood and she's watching most of the Bruins, Sox, and Pats games of her own volition. She's easily as knowledgeable as most male fans and follows the sports and teams because she legitimately enjoys them. She's the sort of person who - when she buys team merch - she avoids all of the pink and sequiny bullshit. She'll buy a normal jersey because that's what she wants.

So...I get it. Everyone wants to have Their Thing. At the same time, if I had a daughter...I wouldn't want to tell her she couldn't watch something because it's "not for girls". If they're legitimately into these games, I struggle to find a good reason from obstructing them from participating as a fan.
And there's nothing wrong with women enjoying and being active in sports, no one is saying or suggesting that at all. It's the whole shoehorning it in for the sake of it that's annoying as fuck. That's all anyone is getting at.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 08:52 AM   #29
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
And there's nothing wrong with women enjoying and being active in sports, no one is saying or suggesting that at all. It's the whole shoehorning it in for the sake of it that's annoying as fuck. That's all anyone is getting at.
I guess I just don't see hiring one female official as "shoehorning". This is one instance where I absolutely agree with the idea that if they're knowledgable and capable enough to do the job, there's no real reason to not hire women to officiate games. It's not like Sarah Thomas was signed as an offensive lineman, or something. With that being said, I could see women being picked up for skills positions like kickers/punters...but that's another discussion entirely.

In this case, I would hope there is a more compelling argument against hiring female officials aside from, "They're not men." I'm not at all advocating for diversity hires...but if they can do the job just as well, why not consider them for the position?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
I don't condone keeping someone away from the activity they love. But I hate when they change that activity to bend to a new audience. I might understand why they're changing but I just don't like it. You say your wife doesn't go for the pink jerseys etc and grew up loving the sports for what they were. That's fine. But the fact remains that they changed the NFL anyway and we have the pink jerseys, the male cheerlearders, pink October, the ED pill ads etc. So in order to reach this new audience, they took the product that I once loved and made it appeal to me less. And I don't mean to beat a dead horse but that's fine. It's your league, do whatever you like with it. Just don't change it and call me a cave man afterwards because I think it sucks now.
The male cheerleaders weren't part of a league-driven initiative, though. Two individually-owned teams opted to hire some guys for their cheerleading squads. It's not widespread at all and the league spent precisely zero time focusing on or talking about the male cheerleaders. Remember: Each team is individually owned and operated on their own. They're all part of the league, but the league doesn't own the teams.

The breast cancer awareness stuff (which was well-intentioned, but ultimately hamfisted) has gone away. Now, they do the "Crucial Catch" stuff which is intended to cover cancer in general.

If you don't like the dick pill commercials, blame the networks; they're the ones selling the advertising time. It could be said that they're targeting a key part of their viewing audience...but the NFL doesn't have anything to do with what companies CBS or Fox lines up to buy ad time during games. Until the league swaps out Pepsi for Cialis to sponsor their Super Bowl halftime shows, complaining about what the networks do for advertisers (which is largely outside of the NFL's control) is kinda pointless.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 01-14-2019 at 09:07 AM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:02 AM   #30
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Chimp, think about it. If the league didn't target a new audience then teams wouldn't have done male cheerleaders (I don't care who hired them.) If they league didn't change their audience, there wouldn't have been a month of grown men wearing bright pink. If the league didn't change their audience, the networks wouldn't be showing the crap ads that they show now because they'd be too busy still showing beer, truck, and Ol' Roy commercials. It's all tied together. Of course if the league didn't change their audience, they probably wouldn't have become the entertainment juggernaut that they have been over the last 20 years.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:21 AM   #31
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Chimp, think about it. If the league didn't target a new audience then teams wouldn't have done male cheerleaders (I don't care who hired them.) If they league didn't change their audience, there wouldn't have been a month of grown men wearing bright pink. If the league didn't change their audience, the networks wouldn't be showing the crap ads that they show now because they'd be too busy still showing beer, truck, and Ol' Roy commercials. It's all tied together. Of course if the league didn't change their audience, they probably wouldn't have become the entertainment juggernaut that they have been over the last 20 years.
It's not just about targeting a "new" audience; they started targeting an audience that was already there. When they started focusing more on the female audience back in 2010, over 40% of the audience was already comprised of women. The demographic was already there and was already sizable; they just decided to actually start targeting it.

As for "grown men wearing pink", that likely wouldn't have been an issue less than 100 years ago. It wasn't until the 1940's that the colors swapped; prior to that, pink was for boys because it was considered to be "bolder", while blue was typically used for girls. At the end of the day, it's just a color and it was meant to symbolize breast cancer awareness. They've since dropped it in favor of whited-out symbols and multicolored stripes to represent the colors attributed to the various forms of cancer.

Also, male cheerleading has been a thing since we started doing it. In fact, it was almost all men until WWII. Prior to that, it was said, “The reputation of having been a valiant ‘cheer-leader’ is one of the most valuable things a boy can take away from college. As a title to promotion in professional or public life, it ranks hardly second to that of being a quarterback.”

Most of the ad time during your average football game is still tied up by beer, liquor, and vehicle companies. Dilly Dilly.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 01-14-2019 at 10:34 AM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:50 AM   #32
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Chimp, you're making excuses. I don't care that pink was a boys color a while back. It's not one today, no matter how much someone tries to convince you otherwise. I don't care that male cheerleading was a thing before. In the NFL, it's not. I don't care that women watched football before. The changing of the way the league's presentation is what bothers me.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 11:03 AM   #33
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Chimp, you're making excuses. I don't care that pink was a boys color a while back. It's not one today, no matter how much someone tries to convince you otherwise. I don't care that male cheerleading was a thing before. In the NFL, it's not. I don't care that women watched football before. The changing of the way the league's presentation is what bothers me.
I'm not making excuses; I'm simply pointing out how things have changed over the years. Complaining about how pink isn't a masculine color is kinda silly because it flipped 70-ish years ago...which means it can flip again. It's all arbitrary and tied to some form of marketable identification. It's just a color.

You should care that cheerleading was something historically done by men. It means the introduction of male cheerleaders (by two teams, of their own volition) isn't really that big of a deal. It's important because this is only a "new" thing in terms of a modern outlook...but it wasn't always like that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't tune in or go to a football game for the goddamned cheerleaders.

You should also care that large numbers of women watched football a decade ago because it means the NFL started targeting an audience that was already there, to begin with. It was a sound business decision to tap into an otherwise ignored market.

At the end of the day, it's the change that is bothering you, which I understand. Change can be scary and uncomfortable. You're probably feeling like you're being marginalized, to one degree or another. Football used to be "yours"...but now, it's not quite "yours" as much as it used to be. I get that because I kinda feel that sort of thing all the time with various things I like. At the same time, I try to put things into context; as I mentioned earlier, I think of my wife when it comes to this sort of thing. If the overall presentation does some things that would appeal to her a little more than it may have a few years ago, that's okay. There is still plenty for me to enjoy, even if I'm not being targeted front-and-center anymore.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 01-14-2019 at 11:14 AM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 11:43 AM   #34
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
I'm not making excuses; I'm simply pointing out how things have changed over the years. Complaining about how pink isn't a masculine color is kinda silly because it flipped 70-ish years ago...which means it can flip again. It's all arbitrary and tied to some form of marketable identification. It's just a color.
Pink was chosen for breast cancer month specifically because it's considered a feminine color. This isn't some effort to make pink a masculine color nor is it a throwback to some earlier time when pink was "ours." You're being willfully obtuse on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
You should care that cheerleading was something historically done by men. It means the introduction of male cheerleaders (by two teams, of their own volition) isn't really that big of a deal. It's important because this is only a "new" thing in terms of a modern outlook...but it wasn't always like that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't tune in or go to a football game for the goddamned cheerleaders.
In a debate like this, don't presume to tell me what I should and should not care about. You don't tune in for cheerleaders. Maybe some people do. Back in the 80s and 90s, the Cowboys cheerleaders and the Laker Girls were always a bit of a big deal. Obviously this is a piece in the overall "What do people care about in the NFL?" puzzle. Again, don't presume to tell people what they should and should not care about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
At the end of the day, it's the change that is bothering you, which I understand. Change can be scary and uncomfortable.
Please don't patronize me. I'm not some lab gorilla who can't come to grips with the new gorilla snack they changed to. I told you how I feel. I get that things change and only an idiot does not expect change. What bothers the fuck out of me is when people change things and then tell me I should like it. Maybe I will and maybe I won't. But you don't get to decide. I get that women watched football and I understand why they would market to them! I said this before! I just don't like how they changed things in order to make those women like the sport more. Maybe they like it more but I like it less. I am allowed to hold this point of view.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 12:18 PM   #35
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Pink was chosen for breast cancer month specifically because it's considered a feminine color. This isn't some effort to make pink a masculine color nor is it a throwback to some earlier time when pink was "ours." You're being willfully obtuse on this point.
It's a fucking color. Meanings behind colors change. Let me ask you a question: Why do football players wearing pink gloves and cleats bothers you as much as it does? If you know why they're doing it (Breast Cancer Awareness), why is it such a big dea?

Quote:
In a debate like this, don't presume to tell me what I should and should not care about. You don't tune in for cheerleaders. Maybe some people do. Back in the 80s and 90s, the Cowboys cheerleaders and the Laker Girls were always a bit of a big deal. Obviously this is a piece in the overall "What do people care about in the NFL?" puzzle. Again, don't presume to tell people what they should and should not care about.
If you're going to get upset about something, it's important to understand the history and context of the thing you're getting upset about. If you're going to complain about male cheerleaders, it's kind of important to acknowledge the fact that they were all male when we first started doing it. Women took over around the time they were taking a lot of things over because of WWII.

I'm sure there are some folks who tune in for the cheerleaders they rarely show, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of the audience is tuning in for the football game. It isn't the National Cheerleading League.

Quote:
Please don't patronize me. I'm not some lab gorilla who can't come to grips with the new gorilla snack they changed to. I told you how I feel. I get that things change and only an idiot does not expect change. What bothers the fuck out of me is when people change things and then tell me I should like it. Maybe I will and maybe I won't. But you don't get to decide. I get that women watched football and I understand why they would market to them! I said this before! I just don't like how they changed things in order to make those women like the sport more. Maybe they like it more but I like it less. I am allowed to hold this point of view.
Honestly, I wasn't trying to patronize. As I mentioned, I understand why you wouldn't like the change, in large part because change can suck.

I guess my point is this: It's okay if you don't like the changes they've made, but that doesn't automatically make the changes bad. There are plenty of things I don't like about the NFL and how they handle things...but there are still enough things I do like to keep me tuning in for the time being.

At the end of the day, it seems like your complaint is with the fact that they've changed things that are largely inconsequential to the actual game. Who cares if some of the cheerleaders they rarely show on TV are dudes, or if their shoes are a shade of pink? Does any of that affect how Tom Brady throws the football, or how Belichick develops his gameplan? They've hired a woman official and by all accounts, she seems to be doing - at the very least - as good (or bad) of a job as the other 121 officials.

There are a ton of things we can complain about in regards to the NFL. We can talk about the overall poor officiating. We can talk about the overly complicated rule book and how it bogs down games. We can talk about TV timeouts and how the league allows advertising to dominate the length of a game. We can talk about how the lack of a developmental league is a major problem and leads to significant collapses due to injuries. We can talk about how most of the Thursday Night games are of poor quality because every single team is required to play at least one. We can talk about player safety and how it is impacting the game. These are legitimate problems and they're many of the reasons why I've been gravitating more toward the NHL over the past couple of years.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 01-14-2019 at 12:36 PM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 01:48 PM   #36
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 8,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
I'm not making excuses; I'm simply pointing out how things have changed over the years. Complaining about how pink isn't a masculine color is kinda silly because it flipped 70-ish years ago...which means it can flip again. It's all arbitrary and tied to some form of marketable identification. It's just a color.

You should care that cheerleading was something historically done by men. It means the introduction of male cheerleaders (by two teams, of their own volition) isn't really that big of a deal. It's important because this is only a "new" thing in terms of a modern outlook...but it wasn't always like that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't tune in or go to a football game for the goddamned cheerleaders.

You should also care that large numbers of women watched football a decade ago because it means the NFL started targeting an audience that was already there, to begin with. It was a sound business decision to tap into an otherwise ignored market.

At the end of the day, it's the change that is bothering you, which I understand. Change can be scary and uncomfortable. You're probably feeling like you're being marginalized, to one degree or another. Football used to be "yours"...but now, it's not quite "yours" as much as it used to be. I get that because I kinda feel that sort of thing all the time with various things I like. At the same time, I try to put things into context; as I mentioned earlier, I think of my wife when it comes to this sort of thing. If the overall presentation does some things that would appeal to her a little more than it may have a few years ago, that's okay. There is still plenty for me to enjoy, even if I'm not being targeted front-and-center anymore.
And boys can be girls and girls can be boys! PROGRESS! jesus fucking christ liberals are mentally ill.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 02:14 PM   #37
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,983
Blah blah blah pink is for boys blah blah blah...pink is for girls. Smoke and mirrors, nobody gives a shit.

The NFL can blow me.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 02:48 PM   #38
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
And boys can be girls and girls can be boys! PROGRESS! jesus fucking christ liberals are mentally ill.
If that's what you took from all of this...well, I don't know what to tell you.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 03:03 PM   #39
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It's a fucking color. Meanings behind colors change.
Are you suggesting that the pink used in past Octobers in the NFL was not inteded to be feminine? I assume you know the truth which is why you then jump to the following "why is this a big deal" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Let me ask you a question: Why do football players wearing pink gloves and cleats bothers you as much as it does? If you know why they're doing it (Breast Cancer Awareness), why is it such a big dea?
I never said it was. I simply find it annoying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
If you're going to get upset about something, it's important to understand the history and context of the thing you're getting upset about.
Why must this be true? If I don't like being beaten with lead a pipe, do I need to understand why I'm currently being beaten with a lead pipe or the history behind the person being beaten with the lead pipe? You are certainly allowed with all validity to find things unappealing in their current context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
the fact that they were all male when we first started doing it. Women took over around the time they were taking a lot of things over because of WWII.
Are you suggesting that the male dancers/cheerleaders that were added this year were a throwback to tradition as opposed to some bold new move?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It isn't the National Cheerleading League.
The NFL and its teams are an entertainment package. Cheerleaders are part of that package as are announcers, tv bumpers, half time shows, national anthem singers, mascots, etc. If they are wholly unimportant then why include any of them. I'll take it to the extreme. What if one of the times decided to have a cheerleading squad that performed in blackface. Would you tell those offended that it doesn't matter because it's not part of the game anyway?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It's okay if you don't like the changes they've made, but that doesn't automatically make the changes bad.
I've made it quite clear that I never claimed otherwise. I have repeatedly said that they can pretty much do what they want with their league and I am free to feel how I wish about what they've done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
At the end of the day, it seems like your complaint is with the fact that they've changed things that are largely inconsequential to the actual game.
These are only the things we have discussed so far. I have many other complaints about the actual game and these are the bigger reasons that contributed to my loss of interest. I miss the defense and runningback centered games of the past. I miss the clearer rules. I dislike the cult of personality that they develop around certain players where rules end up being called different from one player to the next. I can go on and on but again the NFL is an entertainment package so it's not just the process of the game that matters. Joe Buck doesn't affect the game but I cannot stand him and his fake manly low voice so I avoid games that he announces. Unfortunately this includes the Super Bowl and the World Series. I dislike the raising up of certain players as heroes (the Saints after Katrina or the Giants after 9/11) or others as villains (such as Brady.) It doesn't really affect the game but it makes me want to turn the channel. I hate things as simple as the big dramatic robot bumper animations that Fox uses for their games. Is it enough to make me turn the channel? No but enough of these small annoyances add up over time in a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of way.

When it all comes down to it, it's a game. Why does even the integrity of the game matter? In the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter much more than any of the arguments you have claimed are inconsequential.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 04:07 PM   #40
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 8,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
If that's what you took from all of this...well, I don't know what to tell you.
Eh what I took is you will virtue signal til the cows come home. That's what you do. I take it for what it is really.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
nfl, nfl game day

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM.