Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Playoff Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ered-torn-acl/

    Tests confirm Chris Harris suffered torn ACL

    The Broncos’ worst fears were realized.

    According to Lindsay Jones of USA Today, tests confirmed that cornerback Chris Harris did suffer a torn ACL in yesterday’s win over the Chargers.

    Harris has been a consistent cover player, and with Champ Bailey a shell of himself and Quentin Jammer also showing his age, the Broncos are going to be extremely thin in the secondary this weekend.

    The Patriots have been leaning on their run game lately, but they’d be wise to spread the Broncos out, and make them defend with nickel packages anyway, as the Broncos are running out of viable options.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      Their best coverage corner.

      That makes things even more interesting, passing-wise.

      Hate to see players injured, though.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        The media likes to over-exaggerate a lot of stories, but there's no way to over-exaggerate this Manning-Brady AFC Championship game match-up. It's their first playoff match-up in 7 years, and odds are it will be their last.

        Manning is only 4-10 against Brady and the Pats, but winning this game on Sunday and getting to a Super Bowl this late in his career would certainly be a major feather in his cap in any Manning vs. Brady debate. It would have the weight of 10 wins and would certainly make Peyton forget about the 3 straight regular season losses to the Patriots. Brady will always own the head to head record against Manning, but if the Broncos win this game, then Manning will be 2-2 against Brady in the playoffs and 2-1 in AFC Championship games.

        If Brady goes into Manning's crib and wins to go to a 6th Super Bowl, 11-4 record against Manning, and 3-1 playoff record against Manning, then it would be hard to objectively say that the Manning-Brady debate wasn't completely settled. Brady would for all intensive purposes have his number big time.

        Bottom line: This game has major repercussions for those who like to engage in GOAT debates. There are many important factors to a football game, but I think we can all agree that this will in large part come down to the quarterbacks. If Manning wins this game, he will still only be 5-10 against Brady, but he will have a MAJOR late career win against him and the Pats that will propel him to a Super Bowl. OTOH, if Brady wins, then I really don't see how anyone could ever again say that Manning should be considered better than Brady.

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          The media likes to over-exaggerate a lot of stories, but there's no way to over-exaggerate this Manning-Brady AFC Championship game match-up. It's their first playoff match-up in 7 years, and odds are it will be their last.

          Manning is only 4-10 against Brady and the Pats, but winning this game on Sunday and getting to a Super Bowl this late in his career would certainly be a major feather in his cap in any Manning vs. Brady debate. It would have the weight of 10 wins and would certainly make Peyton forget about the 3 straight regular season losses to the Patriots. Brady will always own the head to head record against Manning, but if the Broncos win this game, then Manning will be 2-2 against Brady in the playoffs and 2-1 in AFC Championship games.

          If Brady goes into Manning's crib and wins to go to a 6th Super Bowl, 11-4 record against Manning, and 3-1 playoff record against Manning, then it would be hard to objectively say that the Manning-Brady debate wasn't completely settled. Brady would for all intensive purposes have his number big time.

          Bottom line: This game has major repercussions for those who like to engage in GOAT debates. There are many important factors to a football game, but I think we can all agree that this will in large part come down to the quarterbacks. If Manning wins this game, he will still only be 5-10 against Brady, but he will have a MAJOR late career win against him and the Pats that will propel him to a Super Bowl. OTOH, if Brady wins, then I really don't see how anyone could ever again say that Manning should be considered better than Brady.

          Until the next lameass narrative comes along because you know its not as if there were other aspects of the team involved. Not as interesting to say. I mean its like saying Eli is a better QB than Tom because he's 3-1 against him as well and two of those wins were on the biggest stage of them all. But does anyone believe it? It all depends on what you factor into who you think is a better QB overall. Postseason wins or the ability to be a complete game changer.

          The Broncos were lucky to actually win yesterday but if they lost it would've been Manning's fault even though he was the least of their problems. Brady didn't really do as much as Blount did. The Pats are probably more dangerous now because they went back to not living or dying by Brady like they used to. Which is the way to go when it comes to winning the SB its really more about the other aspects of the team as opposed to the QB.

          The Colts lived and died by Luck this season even though they were trying to construct a team that didn't. The Seahawks won despite Russell Wilson because they are already a set team on defense and run game.

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            AFC:
            1 Denver
            2 New England
            3 Cincy
            4 Indianapolis
            5 Kansas City
            6 San Diego

            WC:
            5 KC vs 4 IND
            6 SD vs 3 CIN

            DIV:
            TBA vs 2 NE
            TBA vs 1 DEN

            AFC Champ:
            2 NE vs 1 DEN



            NFC:
            1 Seattle
            2 Carolina
            3 Phi/Dallas
            4 Green Bay
            5 San Francisco
            6 New Orleans

            WC:
            6 NO vs 3 PHI/DAL
            5 SF vs 4 GB

            Div:
            TBA vs 2 CAR
            TBA vs 1 SEA

            NFC Champioship:
            5 SF vs 1 SEA



            Super Bowl XLVIII:
            TBA vs TBA
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              Brady didn't really do as much as Blount did.
              That's what reporters asked many Patriots players and even Belichick after the game. They quickly pointed out that on so many big plays in the game Brady read the defense and called an audible from one O-line blocking scheme to another, from one run to a different run, from one pass to a different pass, from a pass to a run, or from a run to a pass. Everything Blount, Ridley, and the offense did all night basically had Brady's fingerprints all over it.

              The Herald article on this: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patri...e_for_huge_win
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Until the next lameass narrative comes along because you know its not as if there were other aspects of the team involved. Not as interesting to say. I mean its like saying Eli is a better QB than Tom because he's 3-1 against him as well and two of those wins were on the biggest stage of them all. But does anyone believe it? It all depends on what you factor into who you think is a better QB overall. Postseason wins or the ability to be a complete game changer.

                The Broncos were lucky to actually win yesterday but if they lost it would've been Manning's fault even though he was the least of their problems. Brady didn't really do as much as Blount did. The Pats are probably more dangerous now because they went back to not living or dying by Brady like they used to. Which is the way to go when it comes to winning the SB its really more about the other aspects of the team as opposed to the QB.

                The Colts lived and died by Luck this season even though they were trying to construct a team that didn't. The Seahawks won despite Russell Wilson because they are already a set team on defense and run game.

                Many narratives are lame, but this one is not. This is two of the top 5 quarterbacks in NFL history squaring off for a late career trip to the Super Bowl. They haven't played each other in the playoffs for 7 years. This could very well be their last postseason match-up.

                No one would ever say that Eli is better than Brady, because Eli has played like crap for a good chunk of his career. Plus their 4 head to head match-ups is hardly as many as the 14 head to head match-ups between Brady and Peyton. Brady and Peyton get compared by head to head match-ups and championships because everything else is so close between them (regular season stats, regular season wins, etc).

                The media definitely blows a lot out of proportion, but this one writes itself. It's a huge deal. If Manning outplays Brady to go to a late career Super Bowl with his new team, then it will be a huge deal. If Brady goes into Manning's crib and beats him, then it will be pretty hard to say that he doesn't completely own him. Like it or not, this game is very historical. I mean, if you don't make a big deal out of this game, then what exactly does it take to make a big deal out of something?

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  this is an odd fact from Elias Sports:

                  Five games in the 2013 Colts season had final scores that had never happened before in NFL history: 39-33, 38-8, 40-11, 45-44, and 43-22.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Playoff Thread

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    That's what reporters asked many Patriots players and even Belichick after the game. They quickly pointed out that on so many big plays in the game Brady read the defense and called an audible from one O-line blocking scheme to another, from one run to a different run, from one pass to a different pass, from a pass to a run, or from a run to a pass. Everything Blount, Ridley, and the offense did all night basically had Brady's fingerprints all over it.

                    The Herald article on this: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patri...e_for_huge_win
                    Yep, just like how Manning deserved credit for sticking with the successful running game throughout the 2006 postseason run. (And why he deserved blame for not handing it off enough to Edge in that Steelers game the year before)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      This is the first time since 1998 that all four conference finalists won at least 12 games.

                      All four of these teams would have been at the top of any pre-season power rankings (with Houston and Atlanta being the major disappointments). It's rare that you can say all of the Final Four teams were pretty much the best teams throughout the season. I know that SF was only a 5 seed, but I don't think many people doubted that they'd likely be one of the last teams left standing. Just too talented and too well coached.

                      SF and NE are each in their third straight Conference Championship game, which is an absurdly difficult thing to accomplish. They are the first teams to do it since the 01-04 Eagles.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-13-2014, 03:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Many narratives are lame, but this one is not. This is two of the top 5 quarterbacks in NFL history squaring off for a late career trip to the Super Bowl. They haven't played each other in the playoffs for 7 years. This could very well be their last postseason match-up.

                        No one would ever say that Eli is better than Brady, because Eli has played like crap for a good chunk of his career. Plus their 4 head to head match-ups is hardly as many as the 14 head to head match-ups between Brady and Peyton. Brady and Peyton get compared by head to head match-ups and championships because everything else is so close between them (regular season stats, regular season wins, etc).

                        The media definitely blows a lot out of proportion, but this one writes itself. It's a huge deal. If Manning outplays Brady to go to a late career Super Bowl with his new team, then it will be a huge deal. If Brady goes into Manning's crib and beats him, then it will be pretty hard to say that he doesn't completely own him. Like it or not, this game is very historical. I mean, if you don't make a big deal out of this game, then what exactly does it take to make a big deal out of something?
                        Brady vs Manning isn't much of a rivalry to begin with because as you said its one sided however even if Manning actually wins that doesn't mean this is "over" because its a neverending debate like Ali/Frazier, Bird/Magic etc. People will have their opinions of who they think is a better QB regardless of what happens Sunday. Difference is if Manning loses it will be about what an epic fail he's been his entire career when it counts. Brady? Eh you can't win them all.

                        However neither of them have yet to win a ring without Adam Vinateri go figure.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          The funny thing about Adam is that, as a Patriot, while he was good in the regular season he was not amazing at all. He showed early on in his career that for some reason he's not at all good in kickoffs, and then after 2004 his price tag got high, understandably, due to the postseason heroics.

                          In terms of regular season success, accuracy, distance, and kickoffs, Gostkowski has been superior in the regular season to what Adam ever was as a Patriot, whereas Adam has been better in the regular season with the Colts than he ever was as a Patriot. There's no doubt that some super focus mode kicks in with Vinateri in gamewinners though, especially in the postseason.

                          Gostkowski hasn't really gotten that opportunity in the postseason.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            If Vinny plays just two more years in Indy, he will have been as Colt for as long as he was a Patriot (10 years).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf...rt_maj-story-2

                              We’re probably maybe a play early from it, but with no timeouts, we’d kind of seen something on tape, Marques has got a pretty good arm,” Payton said. “You know, hindsight, a play where he could have caught it, stepped out and then maybe a Hail Mary to the end zone.

                              “But it was a play we had put in a week and a half ago, prior to this game, which was a deep throw to Marques and then across the field to Cadet. So, yeah, he wasn’t freelancing.”

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...llion-viewers/

                                NFL divisional playoff games average 34.3 million viewers
                                Posted by Michael David Smith on January 14, 2014, 1:35 PM EST

                                APOnce again, the NFL has drawn ratings numbers that dwarf everything else on television.

                                The NFL announced today that the four divisional round playoff games averaged 34.3 million viewers. Chargers-Broncos got 41.2 million viewers Sunday on CBS, 49ers-Panthers got 33.3 million viewers Sunday on FOX, Colts-Patriots got 31.7 million viewers Saturday on CBS and Saints-Seahawks got 31.1 million Saturday on FOX.

                                Those numbers are actually down from last weekend, when the four wild card games averaged 35 million viewers. Competitive games tend to get fans tuning in as the game goes on, while blowouts tend to get fans turning the game off in the fourth quarter, so it’s not surprising that the closer wild card games attracted more viewers.

                                But the numbers are up from last year’s divisional round, when the four games averaged 34 million viewers. So at a time when virtually everything on network television is declining in viewership, the NFL’s ratings aren’t going anywhere but up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X