This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

As you've no doubt heard, NFL ratings took a dive this season. Overall, the numbers for games on CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN fell 8 percent.

Theories abound. Perhaps the most popular is that fans was distracted by the presidential election. But while ratings rebounded somewhat in the last few weeks of the season, the numbers from the playoffs are down overall from a year ago.

So it looks an awful lot like blaming the election is more of a convenient excuse than a genuine explanation.

Make no mistake about it — the NFL's Powers That Be are looking for explanations. Is it because there are fewer superstars in the league these days? Because the league restricts players' on-field celebrations? Because almost all the teams in the biggest TV markets — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia — were bad?

Maybe it's because NFL games are regularly scheduled on Sundays, Mondays, Thursdays and sometimes Saturdays. Is it possible that it's a question of diminishing returns?

NFL ratings have trended up for decades, fueling the league's growth and its ever-expanding, multi-billion dollar TV contracts. So … yeah, the NFL is concerned.

And one target is the telecasts themselves. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has floated the idea of trimming the number of commercials and finding ways to shorten games by speeding up video reviews and the time it takes for the refs to announce penalties, among other things.

At least one owner definitely believes the ratings decline has more to do with the commercials than the election. Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti is not a fan of multiple commercial breaks that slow down the game action. He singled out the commercial breaks both before and after kickoffs.

The Ravens' website reported that Bisciotti said, "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that nobody wants to see two minutes of commercials, come back, kick the ball and then go to a minute-and-a-half of commercials. I've thought that was absurd since I was 20 years old."

It's certainly hard to argue with that.

Of course, if you cut commercials, you also cut revenue. Still, Bisciotti said that "everything is on the table, and if we have to go to ABC and NBC and say that we've got to cut some commercials out and give some money back."

The NFL is talking about giving money back? If even the mention of that doesn't give you some idea how seriously this is being taken, nothing will..

Still, is it really the length of games that's driving viewership down? Between 2008 and 2016, the average NFL game increased by about six minutes, to about 3:08. That's an increase of 3.2 percent.

Still, speeding games up seems like a good idea. If the NFL could get games down to three hours, who wouldn't be on board with that?

But I'm not sure that an extra six minutes is driving down TV ratings. If you're watching a game at home, you can can go to the kitchen, go to the bathroom, check your email, talk to your friends or maybe even your spouse.

Long games and frequent, often interminable commercial breaks work a far greater hardship on fans in the stands. It's easier to believe that they hurt attendance than that they hurt TV ratings.

Go to a college game in Rice-Eccles or LaVell Edwards Stadium and you'll see. It's enough to make fans decide sitting watching on TV is the way to go.

Scott D. Pierce covers television for The Salt Lake Tribune. Email him at spierce@sltrib.com; follow him on Twitter: @ScottDPierce.