It isn't random; it's an outdated approach to getting butts in seats. Generally, it will be the local team that is "blacked out" in its home market. The blame goes to the team ownership, not the networks. But I agree, it's stupid.

The NFL has also oversaturated the brand. It used to be Sunday games and then MNF. Each week was an event. TNF ruined the event aspect, and has put on really terrible games showing how thin the league has become. Then there are the games in other countries. For a sport like baseball or basketball 1 game in another country is not a big deal, but the NFL season is only 16 games and losing a home game is a huge deal for the fans, players, and competition aspect.

So yeah, I think all those things (and the stadium issue you mention) have added to up to pushing fans away.

At some point I just felt like I didn't want to watch old dudes "own" young men while they tried to kill each other for America's entertainment. It started to feel like real life mandingo fighting (from Django Unchained) and I decided that I didn't want to be a part of enriching that.

I played the game in a serious social manner (every weekend during the season at a reasonably good amateur level) for 15-20 years (had a few seasons off to do other things) since I was 15. I've had an ACL reconstruction and one shoulder is a painful mess. Fortunately no obvious head issues so far.

I love the game and watch a lot of it, but when the time comes I'm not really sure I want my boy playing.

Thanks for the personal perspective. Do you think this would lead to the same situation the NFL finds itself in now? People hitting harder in part because of the protection provided by the pads?

In rugby, only the ball carrier may be tackled and there are rules against deliberate head high hits. Yet, with the speed, size and athleticism of moden players, the amount of head injuries are on the rise.

I think wearing the padded scull caps would make a big difference to accidental head trauma in rugby. Many of the top players already do.

3-4 hours for NFL? Ick. Only the best, most interesting games maybe approach that sort of time and commercial (aggravation) commitment. And that's setting aside head injuries.

I used to compete in and still watch a lot of downhill skiing. The technological advancements in helmets over the past ten years has been incredible, now we have MIPS foam and kevlar and carbon and in general stuff that's been engineered and crash tested to perfection. Not to mention helmets are now discarded after a single impact. How is it with NFL helmets?

Keep in mind that the interior base of the braincase is a catastrophe of sharp bone, and that you're scraping something with the durability of jello across it every time there's an impact that has any lateral component, which is all of them.

You get the strategy of knowing how many shots the QB has taken in the game, all sorts of new statistics can be compiled for the fans who like that, and you're more or less guaranteed to have one to four serious injuries per game.

The QB now has to figure out defensive and offensive aiming as well as ball management. Tackles and backers need to factor in taking a shot versus possible possession.

Not to mention that QBs get arrested during most games. There's going to be a lot more substitution.

Really, if you're going to talk about "neutering" the game by making it less dangerous to the players, then obviously it makes the game much more manly if you up the stakes this way.

Their marketing campaign was to go after children like the tobacco industry.[1] With head trauma coming to the forefront the NFL is going to the back of priorities.

[1] http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/nfl-football-...

Spending so much on stadiums seems insane. In Pittsburgh the Steelers and Pirates lobbied for and got seperate stadiums, despite minimal overlap in seasons.

The problem isn't that the Steelers and Pirates should have separate stadiums. That's fine. The problem is that the stadiums should pay for themselves.

If a stadium isn't a good enough business proposition to get funded privately, it shouldn't get funded, period.

Yeah. In Munich, for example, the Allianz Arena stadium was built for 340M €, which were brought up by FC Bayern and TSV 1860, in cooperation with Allianz insurance which sponsored the name. FC Bayern paid off the entire debt two years ago (after 9.5 years, it was projected to take 25 years to pay off the debt).

But I'm not totally against public partial funding/investment - especially in the lower leagues the pitch usually is open to all kinds of sport clubs as well as nearby schools, so it makes sense to fund at least part of the costs via public channels as long as the public gets some value back beyond interest payments. (Anecdata: I'm living across the pitch my former school still uses. It's weird to see lots of the teachers random on the street...)

I've been to several events this year at the Golden1 Center and have spent no more than $10 on parking for the evening. The city did use this as an excuse to increase meter rates and extend hours, but it's only $0.50/hr more.