There's a lot of politics and dirty little secrets surrounding concussions and CTE. There are groups that would like you to believe that sports like football and hockey (that are perceived as predominantly male) are the ones with the big issues with concussions. What goes against the narrative (that some are trying to spin) is that Northwestern University did a study about the effects of concussions and guess who came out worst: high school girl's soccer, the exact group where they didn't want those results.

Whenever I see people use the word "they" I always say "Who is they?" and often you can't get an answer. I can give you an answer, which is just my opinion, but it would likely start WWIII here so I'll keep quiet but I was very surprised commentator Jason Whitlock shares it (just to give you a clue if you give a poop :)

The Leafs getting beat out by NFL on Saturday Night is the big story from this week

Packers/49ers: 1.524M (CTV)
Leafs/Islanders: 1.338M (SN/CBC)
Bengals/Titans: 1.335M (CTV)

Still three more NFL games to go this season, so I guess we'll see where they land.

All of those being series rather than one-off knockout games probably has something to do with.

The previous weekend had some dud games, but this past weekends games were great.

4 games played... 3 ended with a walk-off field goal, and one crazy f'n game ended in an OT walk-off touchdown.

That’s what I have been thinking as well. This may have been the most entertaining NFL season I’ve ever watched. It felt like every prime time game was a close matchup with significant stakes. I’m a 49ers fan who got the pleasure of watching Deebo Samuel every week and the way he was used as a RB and WR was something I’ve never really seen. It looks like the NFL offense is transitioning to get the best playmaker on your team the ball as much as possible and let them do work without sticking to their position. Feels very NBA like as starpower becomes increasingly important. Every team in the semi-finals has their one playmaker that the offense revolves around. Rams have Kupp, 49ers have Deebo, Chiefs have Mahomes, and Bengals have Chase. Coaches also seem to be a lot less conservative when it comes to 2-pt conversions or going for it on 4th down.

From yesterday:

Rams/49ers: 2.114M (CTV)
Bengals/Chiefs: 1.947 (CTV)
Canada/USA: 973k (SN)

Great numbers all around.

The Bengals/Chiefs and the CAN/US game being played at the same time took away viewers from both games - but they both still had impressive numbers.

973K for CMNT is pretty good up against NFL conference finals. Nearly the top-rated CMNT match of this cycle, only behind the 1.1M that the Mexico match in Edmonton got. Through ten matches they're averaging 500K viewers on SN.

This run by the CMNT is the best thing ever to happen for soccer in Canada.

Just image if they also have an inspired run at the actual World Cup!

I don't want to jinx things but at this point I think we can have a discussion about potential groups in Qatar.

I'm of two minds

• Have an 'easy' group and have fun seeing how far we're able to go. If the pots are based on FIFA ranking then Canada will likely be either in pot 3 or 4, depending on teams in other confederations qualifying. Qatar is guaranteed Pot 1 as host. An 'easy' group would be something like Qatar, Switzerland, Canada, Mali or something. Definitely possible to advance from that, but that's an absolute best case.
  
• Just go for the most difficult group possible. Hit us with that Belgium, Germany, Chile, Canada group. We're happy just to be there. :haha:

:hmmm:

Just qualifying is an incredible achievement for the program and for the sport in Canada. Just being in Qatar is beyond good enough.

My buddy's man cave was plastered with longhorn memorabilia. He moved to Oklahoma City from South central Texas in 2020 and I was taken aback to see his new man cave plastered with Sooner (?) memorabilia in Spring 2021. Most people are free agents whether they want to be or not.

Obviously I'm no expert in soccer but just based on Canada's performance so far, don't they seem good enough to potentially be a dark horse (unlikely, but something along the lines of Iceland at Euro some years back) or at least be a spoiler by winning a match?

The way they have handled qualifiers makes me think they have what it takes to be more than an also ran getting blanked in every game like in 1986.

I have never really paid attention to a World Cup before but I will definitely be watching Team Canada this fall.

Ha. The civic pride element is part of the fun in my view, so I can understand. I mean, I will be for Winnipeg in every sport, every league until I die (dramatic enough?) so even if I lived the next 50 years in, say, Dallas I don't think I'd ever get behind the teams there. But I realize that others might look at it differently. At least your buddy has a legitimate connection to Oklahoma.

If Canada can beat Mexico and the US then we can beat all but the top 10 in the world, theoretically. But Mexico is underachieving like crazy under Tata and the Americans never reach potential. Who knows what happens if we play our best possible game against Argentina or Belgium, but those teams would certainly exploit our weakpoints.

Definitely. Really depends on the group we (potentially) get.

Welcome. :cool:

I watched some mens World Cup games on TV the last time around and I found them quite entertaining.

I also took in Women's World Cup action live at the Moncton Stadium back in 2015, and, although we didn't get the "big" games, I found it a fantastic live experience.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.3122826.143498714...fa-moncton.jpg

I will certainly be rooting for Canada in Qatar this time around! :tup:

We haven't qualified yet, but if we do it would depend on the draw. Only 32 teams so not many slouches this time around. Every game will be tough, but I am hopeful we could score a couple goals and scare someone instead of being an asterisk as a team to make multiple world cups without scoring a goal.

Hopefully we play well tomorrow and seal our ticket to the World Cup sooner than later. I don't want to have to play Costa Rica and Panama when they are still capable of qualifying.

That's the thing - you're associating being a fan of a team to being a fan of (or having a connection to) the city. For many, the city has nothing to do with it.

Many people are fans of certain teams because of something as simple as the team's nickname, or logo, or because they were impressed with a player on the team or the team's success. That becomes their team and they stick with it.

I'm a Steelers fan, not a city of Pittsburgh fan (although I hold nothing against the city). I hate the Penguins, and don't give the Pirates any thought. The Steelers became my team because they were located in the steel capital of the US where I lived in the steel capital of Canada. Tough as nails team from a lunch pail city who won 2 Super Bowls (I started watching football 2 years after their first 2 SBs).

These are the same reasons there are a shit-ton of hockey fans in Ontario and Toronto who are NOT Leafs fans.

Yeah, every NFL fan I know is basically in this boat. They pick their favourite team seemingly at random and depending on level of loyalty, change it every 3-10 years. A few even keep the same favourite team for life. Without the local connection though, I just can't get into it myself.

I feel this.

I am a fair weather Jays fan, but at least I cheer for the same team consistently.

When people ask me about my favourite NFL team, I really don’t know what to answer, other than ‘none’. There is not even a ‘lovable loser’ team I can jokingly throw support behind like people used to do with the Chicago Cubs in baseball.

Shoutout to my former colleague who was from Hamilton and who was both simultaneously a Buffalo Sabres and a Cleveland Browns fan. I hope he's doing well.

As a gridiron football fan I definitely watch the NFL. Especially in the playoffs.

But I typically pick which team I'd like to win for each individual game.

I don't even have "my team" for the season, or the playoffs.

I'll probably be favouring the Bengals in the Super Bowl.

And depending on their future success may not think much of them again for 20 years after that.

For myself I have always been a Germany fan due to my father being from Germany and strong family roots there so its hard for me to turn on a switch a become a Canada fan all of a sudden when for most of my life they were trash.

Tv ratings for the Olympics down 50% in the u.s. compared to 4 years ago in Korea. Limited ratings for Canada but Toronto star reports opening ceremonies down 25 % for Canadian ratings this year no update on what ratings have been like since the ceremony. Not sure this was a wise investment for cbc as they lost 35 million on the 2016 Rio games the Tokyo and Beijing ones must be even far worse.

.

Globe and mail reporting olympic ratings down 48 % compared to the games of 4 years ago for cbc. Ratings are 25% lower than what cbc was budgeting for.

I'm surprised they're down that much. Given that many of us are still spending more time at home than in the past I would have expected there to be fairly healthy ratings.

I think lack of nhl players, Tokyo summer games just a few months ago and people really pissed off with China due to what they have done the past couple of years and the usual Olympic corruption people are turned off. Also at this point every Olympics feels the same as the previous one now. I haven't really followed it at all as most of these athletes I will never hear of again.

I'm surprised they're not down more than that.
There's just too much competition for the entertainment dollar. People spending more time at home have a mountain of movies and shows to watch and videogames to play.

Plus I think people had their fill with the Olympics.
Anecdotally, no one I know is watching it - and not even talking about any results. I haven't watched a single second of it.

I was wondering about the impact of the summer games having taken place not all that long ago, but on the other hand we used to have winter and summer Olympics in the same year all the time until the 90s and no one really seemed to mind it then.

Like I said before, the China factor is a buzzkill but is it really enough to get people to turn it off in huge numbers? Apparently it is. I guess for Canada the lack of NHL players is going to be a major turnoff too as you pointed out.

CBC is still averaging 1.0M+ each night during primetime. Seems fine.

• Third consecutive Olympics in East Asia.
• Worst possible timezone for North America.
• Tokyo 2020 was six months ago.

Once the Summer and Winter Games return to Europe and more manageable timezones in 2024 and 2026 things will be fine. China is likely a minimal buzzkill - it's really tough getting into an event that mostly takes place through the middle of the night! Great for that part of the world and not so great for us. It happens.

Maybe not for CBC ;)

I guess the time zone issue doesn't help, but I suspect most people must just watch prime time/late night coverage regardless of what time zone the Olympics are actually in.

They're lucky to still have sports events that capture that much audience these days.

It's a moot point regardless - another week of 3AM EST events and then we're not back in that part of that world until 2032 Melbourne, which should be three hours ahead of Beijing if Australia is observing DST at the time of the Games. Looking forward to LA 2028 and wherever 2030 ends up in this hemisphere.:)

Adam Seaborn @AHBSeaborn:

I thought it was going to be down a lot more since both teams don't have a huge following in Canada, plus there was no Mahomes or Brady.

What would be the ultimate Superbowl Matchup to attract the most Canadian viewers?
Would it be Seahawks vs Patriots/Bills? Just thinking of proximity to Canada. I've not lived in Ontario but I know on the West and East coasts the Seahawks and Patriots are top teams.

Probably Seahawks/Patriots, definitely would have been the case when Brady was with the Pats. Bills and Packers would also move the needle a bit. A lot of it comes down to major stars, whether it's Brady or Mahomes or whomever.

I think there are more broncos Vikings and packers fans in Western Canada then there is for the Seahawks

Speaking just for Quebec, big name NFL stars don't move the needle much in terms of ratings here, and neither do the big legacy teams.

But Laurent Duvernay-Tardif gave the Super Bowl a 30-50% ratings boost when he played in it, and he wasn't even scoring touchdowns or in a starring role.

So I suspect if you had Québécois player like, say, Antony Auclair playing a more visible role in the game, that is what would send the ratings through the roof.

Good game but wasn’t a marquee matchup this year.

Not sure what would be the ideal matchup for ratings here.
I think regional border following make the Bills, Seahawks, Packers and Vikings popular. Patriots, Cowboys and Steelers have a good following as well.
Then if you get star players like Mahomes involved, that moves the needle as well.

I got a glimpse at Canadian TV ratings from last weekend, courtesy of Adam Seaborn.

Interesting to see two matches played by the Canadian team at the women's world curling championships got 370k and 201k viewers, and that NCAA March Madness only got 174k.

And yet all of the marketing, promotion and attention on Canadian sports media is on NCAA (in a huge way) with almost nothing about curling.

Also, there was a shitstorm of sorts on social media targeting TSN for covering the curling and *not enough* NCAA March Madness. (I believe they have 1 TSN channel dedicated to MM but it's still enough because there are soooooooooo many important matchups that aren't being covered, and no one cares about curling WTF... :slob:)

I didn't watch either, but yes please to women's curling, especially over basketball lol.

I suppose it does make sense, to market the property with fewer viewers to try to build it up, and the one with lots of viewers doesn't need so much effort to attract more.

I sure wish they'd choose other things to build up though.

"Canada's Sports Leader" my ass.:hell:

I think there are a few factors at play here.

NCAA basketball is more of a key-in-hand product for TSN. They don't need to produce anything. They just pay the US networks and flick a switch. They don't change anything in the broadcasts except the commercial breaks.

Curling costs TSN more money to produce. This year the championships are in Prince George BC I think so pretty sure TSN needs camera crews and other technicians, plus of course the broadcast teams. Even when it's abroad if they get the live feed from the locals they still need their hosts and often some technical work too to add graphics, etc. for a Canadian audience.

Of course there is also the fact that if you think of who works at TSN they're probably all way more turned on by NCAA March Madness than women's curling. This plays into it as well.

It's still weird to have Canadians viciously bitching on Twitter and Facebook about a Canadian sports network showing a national team in world championship in one of our popular domestic sports, instead of a tournament with all of its teams in another country. (Yes, I know a number of Canadians are playing in the NCAA.)

If you sit on Twitter long enough you can find just about anyone bitching about anything. I wouldn't use it as much of an indicator of anything, really.

Such as? We're in Year One of CHL on TSN and numbers haven't been great - 53K last night for the CHL Top Prospects Game from Kitchener.

Demographics may play a factor here too.

Do we know what the average demographic is for curling compared to NCAA?

174k of a younger demographic would be worth more than twice the audience of an older demographic.
Don't know if that's the case here, but I suspect curling would skew older.

Canadian University Football, mostly. CHL is another good idea although I don't really watch hockey. CPL soccer (I know they don't have the rights), CEBL basketball, etc. Anything Canadian, basically.

Low numbers as an argument is a bit of a catch22 - were there low numbers due to ineffective promotion, or was there low effort in promotion due to low previously low numbers?

It would take a years of concerted effort to build hype around such things, but they did it with the World Juniors, which I understand is nowhere near as popular in any other country.

I know the reasons they don't, that bought-in US content is cheap and easy, etc. Doesn't mean I like it, or don't think they should do more.

Sports really is the perfect microcosm of much of Canadian society - even though we could have perfectly good things of our own, people are happier to ride the coattails of the Americans doing the same thing bigger and better. :shrug:

Then again, I still wouldn't watch anything besides football and rugby, so listening to me is probably a bad idea. I just get tired of non-stop US hype. I get tired of non-stop NHL and Jays/Raptors hype too, overall it would just be nice if there was a much more varied palette of hype.

You hit the nail on the head.

In terms of building for the future, I understand that.

But is it really true that younger audiences are more lucrative right now to advertisers than older ones? I suppose it depends on the products and services you're selling, but it seems to me that many basketball fans in Canada (assuming they're younger) are teens and university student types.

Most people I know in their 50s and 60s have more money and disposable income than people aged 16-30.

Our sports media have been trying their best to get me (and all Canadian sports fans) turned on to NCAA March Madness since I was in university over 25 years ago.

Since then they have considerably reduced their coverage (not just live games, but sportscasts especially) of the CHL.

Used to be there was a package of CHL playoff game highlights and when the Memorial Cup was on there would be pretty intensive coverage on sportscasts too.

Now out of the major networks I feel only RDS really gives decent live game, sportscast and magazine show coverage to the CHL.

The key demographic and most valuable is 18-34 for TV advertisers because most television ads are targeted to this age range.
I assume the average curling viewer is in their late 40s or older.

And there are plenty of NCAA basketball/football viewers in their 30s - it's not just university students.

And yet some people tell us younger people do not watch TV any more.