Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jaguars vs. Vikings: The Super Bowl We Don't Want but Probably Deserve
#1
Jaguars vs. Vikings sounds like an early-October London game with a 9:30 a.m. ET kickoff (6:30 a.m. on the West Coast!) that you didn't even know was on the schedule until noon, when you realize you forgot to add Kyle Rudolph to your fantasy lineup. 
Blake Bortles vs. Case Keenum sounds like a Thursday Night Football quarterback showdown scheduled against baseball's ALCS, a snoozer that ends in a 22-13 final score thanks to seven field goals. Who won? Who cares!
When you walk into a bar with the satellite package and 100 televisions on Sunday afternoon, Jaguars-Vikings should be the game that's on in the back corner of the dining area, watched only by a dude in a faded Maurice Jones-Drew jersey whose girlfriend never looks up from her smartphone.
But it could also be the matchup in Super Bowl XLII in two weeks.
How, oh how, did we fall so far from grace?
Now, before anyone panics, a couple of fellows named Tom Brady and Bill Belichickstill stand between us and the End of Days, not to mention the pesky Philadelphia Eagles and their fanbase, which has somehow managed to grow even more unhinged over the last five days.
Football Outsiders projects just a 14.6 percent chance of a Vikings-Jaguars Super Bowl, a figure that jibes with the Vegas moneylines (Vikings a slight favorite, Jaguars a heavy-but-not-prohibitive underdog) but, on a subconscious level, feels too high. Our brains shriek at us that the likelihood of a Vikings-Jaguars Super Bowl should be roughly 0.0000000000003 percent, roughly the same as being struck by lightning twice after cashing our fifth straight winning Powerball ticket.
That's because our primitive brains evolved to predict migration patterns on the African plains millennia ago, making them short-circuit when coping with the pace of modern life. Just as social media and the 24-7 news cycle cause severe anxiety, the possibility of a Jaguars-Vikings Super Bowl causes dislocation and dissonance: Human minds just aren't evolutionarily equipped for both of these teams to be good at the same time.
The NFL itself might not be equipped for a showdown between the 15th-ranked (Minneapolis-St. Paul) and 42nd-ranked (Jacksonville) television markets in the nation, as determined by Nielsen. The Vikings and Jaguars home markets combined (2,431,320 TV homes) are smaller than the Eagles home market (2,869,580). Unlike smaller-market teams like the Steelers or Packers, the Vikings and Jaguars have tiny national fan footprints.
You may have heard somewhere that NFL ratings are down: Last weekend's divisional round playoff games, for example, drew the smallest television audience since 2009, despite three dramatic games and a traditional Patriots beating. Some will insist the cause is political—some want very, very badly for it to be political—but besides an overall change in national viewing habits, the NFL's biggest problem this season has been disappointing years by popular teams and injuries to Aaron Rodgers-level must-watch superstars.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/27545...ce=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial


Reply

#2
So here's what we have left to work with, from a sizzle standpoint:
  • The Patriots, the most polarizing team in American professional sports. That makes them great for box office, though they have been in the spotlight for so long that we've resorted to investigative docudramas that make Tom Brady sound like Lego Batman just to keep the narrative fresh.
  • The Eagles, who lost fresh-faced superstar Carson Wentz weeks ago, but bring a huge media market and a legendarily rabid fanbase to the table. The Eagles are also the NFL's most overtly political team, which might hurt ratings among the demographic that falls asleep watching MeTV but could also give the Super Bowl both broader attention and a countercultural cache. With Eagles fans currently purchasing the entire global supply of dog masks, they could turn the Super Bowl into Woodstock for furries.
  • The Vikings, an excellent football team populated by guys you can't imagine starring in an auto insurance commercial.
  • The Jaguars. The Jaguars.
Reply

#3
must have been written by Carl Gerbschmidt.
Reply

#4
I've read a couple of articles like this. Stephen A. Smith went off on the same idea. He was looking forward to watching a "Brees vs. Brady" Super Bowl and "good luck with that, NFL!" was his proclamation when the Vikings beat the Saints.
It pisses me off and is the foundation of MY personal angst against the NFL. Why watch if the league decides they are going to only allow the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Saints and Seahawks the chance at the SB? True loyal to the bone NFL fans are sick of the Patriots. But the NFL is trying to reach out to those fringe fans (the ones who only know names like Brady and Brees) while also taking care of their large market fan bases. So for the rest of the league that means victories decided by the referees, not by the players and coaches.
Reply

#5
Sounds like a pompous "Coast" influenced opinion.  The Vikings are probably the team that will draw the most viewers due to their history and due to the Minneapolis Miracle.  There are more than a few polls showing that the public wants the Vikes to win more than any of the other three.
Reply

#6
all kinds of bull shit there,  sure the viewership may be down a bit with the two smaller markets,  but for crying out loud lets quit pretending like the ratings havent been falling for a while now,  long before a Minnesota Vs Jacksonville SB were even dreamed of.... of course that would require the league and their lapdog media to admit that the general public is getting tired of the pro game and its millionaire athletes trying to pretend they are about the common mans causes when most wouldnt even have a clue anymore what the real struggles and concerns are.
Reply

#7
Quote: @"prairieghost" said:
I've read a couple of articles like this. Stephen A. Smith went off on the same idea. He was looking forward to watching a "Brees vs. Brady" Super Bowl and "good luck with that, NFL!" was his proclamation when the Vikings beat the Saints.
It pisses me off and is the foundation of MY personal angst against the NFL. Why watch if the league decides they are going to only allow the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Saints and Seahawks the chance at the SB? True loyal to the bone NFL fans are sick of the Patriots. But the NFL is trying to reach out to those fringe fans (the ones who only know names like Brady and Brees) while also taking care of their large market fan bases. So for the rest of the league that means victories decided by the referees, not by the players and coaches.

Yup.  I watched Stephen A's comments and just rolled my eyes at the sheer arrogance of those remarks.  Except for the Pukers and maybe the Steelers, the mainstream media/advertisers absolutely hate small market teams in the playoffs.  They might talk up individual players, but they grind their teeth over the ad revenue they're losing.  Forget the great, historic storyline if it would be a Jax/Min SB.  It's not what the puppet masters want!
Reply

#8
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
all kinds of bull shit there,  sure the viewership may be down a bit with the two smaller markets,  but for crying out loud lets quit pretending like the ratings havent been falling for a while now,  long before a Minnesota Vs Jacksonville SB were even dreamed of.... of course that would require the league and their lapdog media to admit that the general public is getting tired of the pro game and its millionaire athletes trying to pretend they are about the common mans causes when most wouldnt even have a clue anymore what the real struggles and concerns are.
But viewers are not tired of the pro game and its millionaire athletes.  What they are tired of is TV.  Football ratings are down less than overall TV ratings. When the NFL's TV contracts are up for renewal look for a huge bidding war as the networks realize that when not showing NFL games, they're hemorrhaging viewers.
Reply

#9
Quote: @"Scoog" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
all kinds of bull shit there,  sure the viewership may be down a bit with the two smaller markets,  but for crying out loud lets quit pretending like the ratings havent been falling for a while now,  long before a Minnesota Vs Jacksonville SB were even dreamed of.... of course that would require the league and their lapdog media to admit that the general public is getting tired of the pro game and its millionaire athletes trying to pretend they are about the common mans causes when most wouldnt even have a clue anymore what the real struggles and concerns are.
But viewers are not tired of the pro game and its millionaire athletes.  What they are tired of is TV.  Football ratings are down less than overall TV ratings. When the NFL's TV contracts are up for renewal look for a huge bidding war as the networks realize that when not showing NFL games, they're hemorrhaging viewers.
Agreed. Overall, TV ratings are down. ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have all already placed bids for Thursday Night Football. Now, I could do without TNF, but it has absolutely nothing to do with political causes. 
Reply

#10
The Vikings have a huge national following.  Huge.  These guys just don't know.  
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.