Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:Flag Football Bowl
It's completely irrelevant
NorthHawk wrote:It’s still the most popular sport to watch, though.
Regarding the Pro Bowl, I can’t remember the last time I watched it, and the selections have become pretty much irrelevant of late.
River Dog wrote:Although it's gaining in popularity overseas, it's on the decline stateside. Super Bowl viewership has been on a downward slope for a decade. While some of that is due to the increasing array of entertainment options, surveys have shown that succeeding generations in general do not identify themselves as sports fans compared to us boomers and Gen X.
I can remember when Steve Largent became the first Seahawk to be selected to a Pro Bowl back in 1978 and watching every minute of the game. It was a big deal back then. But like you, I can't remember the last time I watched even part of a Pro Bowl game. They might as well just name the teams to honor the league's best players and forget about the game.
River Dog wrote:Although it's gaining in popularity overseas, it's on the decline stateside. Super Bowl viewership has been on a downward slope for a decade. While some of that is due to the increasing array of entertainment options, surveys have shown that succeeding generations in general do not identify themselves as sports fans compared to us boomers and Gen X.
I can remember when Steve Largent became the first Seahawk to be selected to a Pro Bowl back in 1978 and watching every minute of the game. It was a big deal back then. But like you, I can't remember the last time I watched even part of a Pro Bowl game. They might as well just name the teams to honor the league's best players and forget about the game.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm dubious that the Super Bowl ratings are dropping. I think people are watching it in alternative ways. Some of the recent Super Bowls have been some of the most watched.
There's lots of sports pirating nowadays. I doubt those ratings are tracked on pirate sites. A lot of people have cut the cord and they would watch more sports if they had better and cheaper options online.
I cut the cord a while back as I'm not paying that money for a bunch of channels I don't watch including sports. I still follow football closely.
The younger generation loves their fantasy football. I'm a Gen Xer and I could care less about fantasy football. I know all types of younger folks who play fantasy football and don't care what team they watch or follow. They do it all on their phone including follow the games.
I do think there is a big fall off in hardcore sports fans who follow one team religiously. As far as general following of sports interacting with sports through fantasy leagues and gambling, that seems to be stronger than our generation which is wh companies like Draft Kings is making money. The only thing holding many people back from more sports betting is local laws limiting their access.
A lot of the younger generation prefers a more interactive experience with sports and they don't sit in front of their TVs paying for cable.
River Dog wrote:Sure, some of the decline in viewership is due in part to some of the factors you mentioned. But there's other indicators, too, like participation numbers. When I was in high school, there was an entire community college league within the state: Grays Harbor, Everett, Wenatchee, Columbia Basin, Walla Walla, Spokane Falls, all had football programs. Now, none of them do. Same with small colleges. That's beginning to have an effect. For me personally, I can't get interested in hockey and soccer mainly because I've never played them. But I have played football, basketball, and baseball.
And now, you have college football cutting off an entire region by screwing WSU and OSU, alienating some of the most dedicated football fans in the country. Do they expect Coug fans to adapt the UW? If they do, they don't know Coug fans like I do. Many will quit watching football altogether.
Anyhow, sorry to have veered off topic. It would be a good topic for us in the offseason.
River Dog wrote:Sure, some of the decline in viewership is due in part to some of the factors you mentioned. But there's other indicators, too, like participation numbers. When I was in high school, there was an entire community college league within the state: Grays Harbor, Everett, Wenatchee, Columbia Basin, Walla Walla, Spokane Falls, all had football programs. Now, none of them do. Same with small colleges. That's beginning to have an effect. For me personally, I can't get interested in hockey and soccer mainly because I've never played them. But I have played football, basketball, and baseball.
And now, you have college football cutting off an entire region by screwing WSU and OSU, alienating some of the most dedicated football fans in the country. Do they expect Coug fans to adapt the UW? If they do, they don't know Coug fans like I do. Many will quit watching football altogether.
Anyhow, sorry to have veered off topic. It would be a good topic for us in the offseason.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The participation part I see too. Younger generation is way more into their phone and video games than our generation. Sorry to say it, but they are physical weaklings too a lot of them. Some are into fitness, but I'm in my early 50s and I'm in physically better shape than the majority of younger people I've met. I imagine I'm somewhat of an outlier since even amongst my age group lifting weights has helped me maintain my shape much longer than my rotund fellow 50 year olds. But even my buddies aren't as addicted to their phones and inactive as the younger generation raised on their phones and constantly connected state. Even when the younger generations are at gatherings or outside, they are still constantly on their phones.
Hard to be a tough football player when you're always busy on the phone.
Makes you wonder if the NFL is going to have to create an AI driven video game NFL at some point for fantasy football and gambling because future generations won't have to play the game, just watch it.
River Dog wrote:I have mixed feelings about the younger generation. I do think that cell phones and tablets get overused, particularly in schools where I think that they should be banned. But as far as it being physically unhealthy for them? IMO it's a generational thing. My parents were horrified about us kids being addicted to TV, something that they didn't grow up with. We've get told not to sit too close to the TV as it was going to burn our eyes out. I see very similar complaints from Boomers and Gen X about Millennials and Gen Z.
Speaking of cell phones in school, the first 4 function calculator I bought cost me $85 in 1975 money when I was going to college. I had a statistics class that had a huge amount of simple arithmetic that had to be performed. It came in real handy for a term paper I had to write. But our prof wouldn't allow us to use them on tests, not because he wanted us to perform the math by hand, but because it would give an unfair advantage to those who couldn't afford them. My, how the times have changed.
River Dog wrote:I have mixed feelings about the younger generation. I do think that cell phones and tablets get overused, particularly in schools where I think that they should be banned. But as far as it being physically unhealthy for them? IMO it's a generational thing. My parents were horrified about us kids being addicted to TV, something that they didn't grow up with. We've get told not to sit too close to the TV as it was going to burn our eyes out. I see very similar complaints from Boomers and Gen X about Millennials and Gen Z.
Speaking of cell phones in school, the first 4 function calculator I bought cost me $85 in 1975 money when I was going to college. I had a statistics class that had a huge amount of simple arithmetic that had to be performed. It came in real handy for a term paper I had to write. But our prof wouldn't allow us to use them on tests, not because he wanted us to perform the math by hand, but because it would give an unfair advantage to those who couldn't afford them. My, how the times have changed.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It is no accident that the TV and rising obesity rates go hand in and in hand along with the processed food environment. And the phone and video games are even more digitally addicting than the TV because of how much time and focus video games take and the social aspect of playing with other people and the phone's portability allows it to be taken anywhere and viewed at any time.
Even when I was young and watching TV, I still got up to go outside away from the TV. Now kids take their portable media with them outside or over to a friend's house and sit there.
You see the result of those behaviors in the younger generation. Thin or obese, weak, no time spent doing physical activity, always looking forward to time on the phone or hours playing some video game on a phone or console.
It's a different animal the smartphone than the TV with limited channels. You see it in the behaviors of younger people and their physical bodies.
It's not a value judgment, it's just what's happening. Phones allow you to basically "watch TV or play video games" all the time, everywhere. Which is why there are laws in place that make it illegal to text and drive, something that never occurred prior to the invention of the cell phone. Imagine how addicting a device must be that you can't even stay off it while driving?
Now companies like META are currently creating glasses to replace the smartphone and Neuralink wants the digital link connected to your brain. So you don't even have the option to put down the phone if it is connected to your brain. And wearing your internet connection as glasses is another way to maintian your connection to the digital medium.
This connection competes with physical activities. You can't do both at the same time. The younger generation is being subject to devices that keep them constantly connected to a digital medium providing them with mental stimulation short and long form 24-7-365. That is very different from our generation growing up with a box TV sitting in the living room and something your parents could turn off that you couldn't take with you to your friend's house.
Technology is definitely changing the younger and future generations mentally and physically.
River Dog wrote:You can point your fingers at a lot of things that has changed if you're looking at explaining obesity. Work is less demanding. Kids don't ride bicycles or walk to school anymore. I used to shovel snow in the winter for money, help my dad collect a couple pickup loads of firewood in the fall, then after football practice, spend an hour each night splitting and stacking it. Farm work used to consist of moving sprinkler pipes and bucking bales. I used to go pheasant hunting from sunup to sundown. No one hunts anymore. Even golf has seen a sharp decline. You can't just say that TV alone is responsible for the change in behavior.
River Dog wrote:You can point your fingers at a lot of things that has changed if you're looking at explaining obesity. Work is less demanding. Kids don't ride bicycles or walk to school anymore. I used to shovel snow in the winter for money, help my dad collect a couple pickup loads of firewood in the fall, then after football practice, spend an hour each night splitting and stacking it. Farm work used to consist of moving sprinkler pipes and bucking bales. I used to go pheasant hunting from sunup to sundown. No one hunts anymore. Even golf has seen a sharp decline. You can't just say that TV alone is responsible for the change in behavior.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The TV is small potatoes compared to the smartphone. It's the smartphone and portable media along with a highly processed food environment and less demanding jobs. A combination as far as obesity is concerned.
But the smartphone is the big one. I'm surprised you don't see it or didn't see it in your final years of working. In my job, we literally have to write people up for excessive use of their phone. It's that addicting. The can't even stay off it long enough to do their work. We had one employee quit their job because we had a post where they didn't have access to their smartphone.
The smartphone is a very different animal from the TV by a country mile. Very different. It has and is changing human behavior like the non-portable TV or PC never did. The smartphone is digitally addicting device that keeps a person connected in ways never before seen. Connected socially via texting and video phone calls, connected to the internet and all it offers, with social media constantly stimulating through the smartphone.
It has had a dramatic effect on what started this original discussion: participation in sports.
You've never sat there and thought about what it would have been like to have been raised with a portable device that allowed you to socialize, watch TV, play games, direct you to your destination, receive your mail, and the like from a young age? That's what this younger generation is dealing with: a constant digital connection from a very young age. It's having an impact on their participation in physical activities.
River Dog wrote:I retired in 2018, so yes, smart phones were around. We didn't allow them to be used inside the plant except for certain jobs, like a maintenance leader. We could have them on our person, but they had to be powered off. We used the excuse that it could interfere with certain electronics, kinda like airliners wanting you to turn them off during takeoffs and landings. That and we didn't want picture taking inside our plant for proprietary reasons. We fired a guy because he got caught multiple times watching movies on his smart phone at his workstation. But I'm sure it's become more of a problem since I left.
Obviously, smart phones a factor in today's changing environment, perhaps the largest factor. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things you can point a finger at which has caused a societal change that has manifested itself in an obesity problem. I think there's bigger problems to worry about than cell phones. They're a symptom, not a root cause.
River Dog wrote:I retired in 2018, so yes, smart phones were around. We didn't allow them to be used inside the plant except for certain jobs, like a maintenance leader. We could have them on our person, but they had to be powered off. We used the excuse that it could interfere with certain electronics, kinda like airliners wanting you to turn them off during takeoffs and landings. That and we didn't want picture taking inside our plant for proprietary reasons. We fired a guy because he got caught multiple times watching movies on his smart phone at his workstation. But I'm sure it's become more of a problem since I left.
Obviously, smart phones a factor in today's changing environment, perhaps the largest factor. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things you can point a finger at which has caused a societal change that has manifested itself in an obesity problem. I think there's bigger problems to worry about than cell phones. They're a symptom, not a root cause.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I work in a more corporate environment. A lot of people at their desks. So the smartphone is always lingering about. Some people are better about being off it than others, but the smartphone watching is one of our biggest complaints and productivity problems that we have keep an eye on. These younger workers almost seem addicted to it. Older workers are usually fine, some of them don't even like being on it too much as they're not used to it growing up without it. But the younger generation that grew up with smartphones, they are bad. From a mechanistic biology perspective, I can only assume they've been electronically stimulated by an electronic device so often throughout their youth with smartphones, tablets, and the like that they've developed a psychological addiction to that constant stimulation. If they go too long without some kind of electronic stimulation from their phone, they start to feel maybe anxiety or depression and need the electronically stimulate dopamine hit to feel normal.
First world problems I guess, but still a productivity issue I can see impacting participation in physical activities like football. Why play the game when you can watch it all the time and play fantasy football where you have your own team competing against others. A more mentally stimulative and interactive experience.
NorthHawk wrote:The Apps on the mobile devices are designed to 'hook' the user just like drugs do. Facebook (now Mete) at one time alluded to it and former workers have come out and said the metrics of the algorithms are studied and Apps modified to make users want to or maybe even compelled to view the App on a frequent basis. That's where they get their money so it makes sense from a business PoV but it creates a whole sector of usually younger people that are addicted to their devices. It's also dangerous in that they can manipulate the news in such a way that it skews the reality of what actually happened or is happening. Musk on X is a perfect example of how to push false narratives or a singular point of view to millions very cheaply.
NorthHawk wrote:Critical thinking is an issue up here, too. And we have our share of idiots even to the point that some stooges were flying Trump flags and had bumper stickers that read Biden wasn't my president. Those types are lost causes and are too stupid to realize they don't live in the US. But regarding social media (like Meta and X as examples) many here are being manipulated and they don't have the wherewithal to realize what is happening.
I never joined Facebook or Twitter as when it came out I was still working in IT Security and one of our analysts did a fairly deep dive into what at that time they were using the information for. After hearing his conclusions I knew I didn't want to take part in that and I'm glad I haven't for the most part.
NorthHawk wrote:The algorithms are an issue because they think the reader is interested in a subject so they don’t get offered other views.
I was on Amazon years ago and then started getting ads for things I was originally looking for, but not for other things that might have interested me. I would imagine Social Media is similar in that competing views and news feeds mostly give that political focus and not countering articles. So if someone is a CNN viewer he may never see a Fox article and vice versa.
Users browsing this forum: c_hawkbob and 41 guests