--------------------------------------------------------------
The language is saying they are competing vs TV viewership ...
However, this is not something they would be concerned with, if that were the case, would it?
They are continuously seeking larger revenue shares per TV contract. So, if attendance at the stadium were to drop, in the benefit of their TV ratings increase; this would secure their marketing deals with those networks broadcasting their game ... hmm
Maybe then, what is really happening, is the average viewer has other options.
In a world where people are so inclined to be multitaskers, they also would be inclined to tune out certain distractions for those they are accustomed to, as daily.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Video Games and Netflix/Preferred Streaming platforms are taking eyes and placing them elsewhere.
The key vantage to this, is not the language they did use. Rather, the language they did not use.
TV Ratings in average, in comparison to the average drop in attendance.
Those numbers were not addressed.
It's easy to point a finger with suggestive language. Especially where that language is leaving out key information.
Suggest something is, without evidential support.
The media and Politicians use this form of message interpolation every day.
Tell the Truth, and nothing but the Truth; is very different than, telling the Whole Truth, and nothing but.
Again, I point to the previous thread with News Article, Mountainman had posted up:
http://www.cfpmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12861
Harvey Left Hightower ~ In the future, a coach will not be required to give fact-based answers when questioned by the press about if he is interested in another job. The guidelines state that if such circumstance arises, a coach may say “no,” and the definition of “no” shall mean “no” unless it means “yes.”
Seriously, with language like that, then why even consider any of it Truth?
.
.
.