Is the NFL dead? (1 Viewer)

[RKMoney]

This boggles the mind

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;lid=tab4pos1

The Football Gods Chortled: Startup NFL Network has concluded its first slate of NFL broadcasts, and "clang" is the sports term for what happened. Four of the five NFLN Thursday games were total duds, among the season's least interesting contests, culminating in the Green Bay 9, Minnesota 7 snore-fest the Thursday before Christmas. (Minnesota recorded 104 yards of offense, while the Packers lit it up for three field goals in Brett Favre's Interim Final Semifinal appearance.) Of 20 quarters NFLN aired on Thursday nights, only one, the fourth quarter of San Francisco at Seattle, was watchable -- and even those who get NFL Network likely switched that contest off when it was a drowsy 7-3 at the end of the third. Saturday night fare wasn't much better.

That 70s Show

Fox

Their re-runs draw about the same as NFL Network, and cost $1 billion less.

Embroiled in controversy with the big cable carriers, most of which haven't put NFLN on basic cable, NFL Network had gambled that outraged football enthusiasts would deluge the cable carriers with complaints after hearing about the fabulous games they missed. Instead none of the games were worth calling anyone about, unless you had an immediate family member in the starting lineup. NFL Network managed the dubious distinction of producing the lowest-ever modern ratings for National Football League broadcasts. According to Nielsen Media Research, just 2.4 million people watched Browns-Steelers or Chiefs-Raiders on NFLN -- the kind of numbers generated by syndicated reruns of "That '70s Show." The NFL's highest-ranked in-house telecasts drew barely a third the average audience for a "Monday Night Football" telecast. "NFL Network stopped for no gain" was the headline on the Wall Street Journal's analysis of NFLN's first season.

The reason most major cable carriers won't put NFL Network on basic is the league's asking price of roughly $8 per household per year. That is Tiffany by the standards of cable, where most channels charge perhaps $1 per household per year to the carrier or give themselves away gratis, with the channel's only income being advertising. (If most cable channels weren't inexpensive or free to the carrier, there would not be 100 channels on basic.) Only a handful of cable products, prominently ESPN, have managed to charge more than a couple bucks per household per year, and ESPN broadcasts live game programming every day, not once in a blue moon as with NFLN. In the pricing fight, NFL Network argued that its handful of live games are so incredibly valuable, they justified NFLN becoming one of the most expensive video products ever to enter the American home. Then the football gods made the NFL Network games practically worthless!

Was this just bad luck -- or are the football gods trying to warn the NFL away from the excitement-reducing effect of in-house broadcasting? If NFLN actually got its asking price of $8 per household per year for basic cable, that could have brought nearly $1 billion annually in rights fees to the league. Instead NFL Network's first-year rights fees from the few carriers that put NFLN on basic cable, plus from satellite carriers and cable companies that offered NFLN on a premium sports tier, was believed to be in the area of $100 million. Meanwhile the league left on the table the roughly $400 million Comcast bid to air the Thursday and Saturday night games on its sports channel. Comcast's offer was a stunning sum -- about $50 million per game, far more than CBS, Fox or NBC pay for NFL rights and close to the breathtaking $65 million per game ESPN pays for "Monday Night Football." Instead by airing the telecasts itself, the NFL settled for around $12 million per game. Had the Thursday and Saturday games been sold to Comcast, each NFL owner would have received a check this season for roughly $10 million; instead, figuring what NFLN earned minus its cost for producing the telecasts, each NFL owner might expect a check in the zone of $2-4 million. That's a substantial difference, especially for small-market teams that are sensitive to revenue swings.

Perhaps in the future, NFLN will earn more than the league could have realized by selling the Thursday and Saturday night rights; many successful enterprises initially seemed like bad ideas. But in the first season at least, NFL Network was a huge letdown to the NFL -- plus a warning sign that there might be, in fact, a saturation point for public interest in pro football. Several influential NFL owners, prominently Pat Bowlen of Denver, have been arguing that broadcasting NFL games is a license to print money, and therefore the league should do all the telecasting and keep all proceeds. As Park Avenue (NFL headquarters) is discovering, the broadcast business is more treacherous financially than it might seem. One of the benefits to the National Football League, or any sports league, of selling game rights to ESPN or other established networks is that those networks assume the risk of market vacillations: The league receives a fixed payment regardless of whether games are exciting or popular. When the NFL airs its own games, it assumes the risk. In 2006, the NFL lost its in-house broadcasting gamble -- the first television-sector defeat by the league since the early 1960s.

Note: In the final NFL Network broadcast, Jersey/A at Washington, NFLN ran a dozen "house ads," or ads for itself. The spots fairly begged viewers to call their cable carriers and demand NFL Network. It's nice to know that even the mighty National Football League needs public opinion on its side. But the ads urging you to call your cable carriers and complain about not getting NFL Network were seen only by viewers who already got NFL Network! TMQ wondered if NFLN was running so many "house ads" because it hadn't been able to sell the time to regular advertising customers.

Local Affiliates Update: For the final Sunday, Park Avenue allowed both CBS and Fox to show two games, the league's first double-doubleheader. With the NBC night game, that meant five NFL contests on television on New Year's Eve, most ever for a single day. There was only one game Sunday, Jacksonville at Kansas City, pairing teams that both had to win to remain alive for the playoffs -- and despite the unprecedented five-game slate, that game was not on in the Washington, D.C., area, where TMQ lurks. There was only one other game that paired two teams with winning records, New England at Tennessee -- and that game was not shown in Washington, D.C., either. And still the league refuses to allow most of America to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket! Thanks to Fox, at least, for switching from the Atlanta-Philadelphia woofer to the fascinating second half and overtime of San Francisco at Denver.

 

[packersfan]

This story ties into this thread that I started the other day. Interesting stuff.

 

[jeter23]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

 

[Peyton Marino]

isn't the NFLN a pay channel?

 

[jeter23]

isn't the NFLN a pay channel?

Not on Directv.

 

[Peyton Marino]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

 

[Bushead]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

Both are most certainly "pay services" - I don't recall any cable co's giving away programming. I think the cost of each is close or favoring satellite slightly. They put the dish up for free in most cases.NFLN is carried on Directv's basic package whereas most cable companies refuse to put it there and thus have not come to an agreement to carry the channel.

 

[Buckna]

b] NFL Network managed the dubious distinction of producing the lowest-ever modern ratings for National Football League broadcasts. According to Nielsen Media Research, just 2.4 million people watched Browns-Steelers or Chiefs-Raiders on NFLN -- the kind of numbers generated by syndicated reruns of "That '70s Show." The NFL's highest-ranked in-house telecasts drew barely a third the average audience for a "Monday Night Football" telecast.

I'm thinking above said numbers might be slightly influenced by the fact that NFL Network is in a much smaller percentage of households? Hard to have high ratings if you can't even reach a large percentage of your audience.

 

[pacman_fl]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

I saw where the link was to, read the first 2 sentences and rolled my eyes also.

 

[Marc Levin]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

Both are most certainly "pay services" - I don't recall any cable co's giving away programming. I think the cost of each is close or favoring satellite slightly. They put the dish up for free in most cases.NFLN is carried on Directv's basic package whereas most cable companies refuse to put it there and thus have not come to an agreement to carry the channel.

Good synopsis.Also at an ESPN story regarding the NFL-N

 

[suchislife]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

Both are most certainly "pay services" - I don't recall any cable co's giving away programming. I think the cost of each is close or favoring satellite slightly. They put the dish up for free in most cases.NFLN is carried on Directv's basic package whereas most cable companies refuse to put it there and thus have not come to an agreement to carry the channel.

I have to qualify this by saying I was drinking heavily all weekend...but wasn't the NYG/WAS game on NFLN? I coulda sworn I watched it on NBC 4-NY, but it was NFLN. I remember laughing at the "15 home shopping channels but can't watch the NFL" commercials.

 

[jeter23]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

I saw where the link was to, read the first 2 sentences and rolled my eyes also.

I have always been one to defend ESPN, but this is pretty sad that they feel threatened.

 

[Borat]

I love the NFL network. I get it on Comcast cable and it's always there for me if nothing else is on. Plus, I'd rather watch a bad NFL game than 95% of whatever else is on TV.

And no, RKMoney, the NFL is not dead.

 

[RKMoney]

I love the NFL network. I get it on Comcast cable and it's always there for me if nothing else is on. Plus, I'd rather watch a bad NFL game than 95% of whatever else is on TV.And no, RKMoney, the NFL is not dead.

i dunno, you would think they are at least on their way if they start up their own network and they can't get people to care about paying to watch the games. I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

 

[RKMoney]

isn't the NFLN a pay channel?

Aren't they all if you have cable / sat ?

 

[RKMoney]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

I saw where the link was to, read the first 2 sentences and rolled my eyes also.

I have always been one to defend ESPN, but this is pretty sad that they feel threatened.

This was written by TMQ who was once fired by ESPN actually. He never struck me as an ESPN shill. I think the numbers don't lie, it's sad to think the NFL can't do better than a two bit rerun show regarding ratings.

 

[Borat]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

I saw where the link was to, read the first 2 sentences and rolled my eyes also.

I have always been one to defend ESPN, but this is pretty sad that they feel threatened.

This was written by TMQ who was once fired by ESPN actually. He never struck me as an ESPN shill. I think the numbers don't lie, it's sad to think the NFL can't do better than a two bit rerun show regarding ratings.

That 70s Show was fairly popular when it aired. I would imagine its numbers in syndication probably aren't that bad.

 

[softball]

Since the NFL is not dead.

Is there something to these Thursday games being terrible contests? It's not a normal work week for the players or coaches and I would have to think that these terrible games were a product of being out of the normal routine...

 

[AB in DC]

Who said that NFLN was asking $8 per household? The reports I saw were in the $2 range at most.

TMQ, if you're reading this:

 

[Borat]

For me, the cost is included with the HBO package.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I think that the NFL Network is an absolute dismal affair.

I have no way of accessing it due to my cable company, and I will not pay for the extra Sports Channel that it would require anyway for 5 or 6 games.

It just shows that they are trying to get every last $ that they can without regard to the long-term impact on their fans or the market.

Heck on Thanksgiving Day, there wasn't even a bar open within an hour drive of me to watch it. What kind of garbage is that?

I pay enough to watch the standard games with all of the advertising $; why is that not enough?

 

[packersfan]

Also at an ESPN story regarding the NFL-N

ESPN is obviously not an unbiased party here. However, I think the gist of the article is spot on. It echoes many of the feelings I wrote about in the thread I linked to earlier in this thread. I think the NFL overplayed their hand in Year 1 and I think they lost. I doubt few people other than hardcore NFL fans missed the crappy games that were on the NFL Network this season and even many of the hardcore fans probably weren't all that bothered. How many people outside of Packers and Vikings fans, for example, felt deprived they missed out on seeing that worthless game those two teams played? The game was blacked out in Wisconsin's capitol (Madison) and I know quite a few people who weren't bummed about it. And again, Packer fans are as passionate about their team as any fans in the league. I think this article is right on the mark in a lot of ways. The NFL was greedy and made a poor move when it came to their issues with the cable companies in my opinion. I don't know if things will change for next season but right now all the power is in the hands of the cable companies (hardly blameless entities for what it's worth) when it comes to whether The NFL Network will be added to their subscriber's content. And that's not what the NFL was hoping for at this point in time.

 

[Sidewinder16]

It just shows that they are trying to get every last $ that they can without regard to the long-term impact on their fans or the market.

Seeing as the network hasn't turned a profit yet, I don't think this is exactly the case (yet, at least).Despite not being profitable, owners are still pleased with the progress of the network.

There is a long-term plan for the network, and we've only seen the first baby steps, IMO. Tagliabue was no idiot.

 

[SteveUK]

I was pretty annoyed that I couldn't see the Thanksgiving evening game but after that I was just annoyed that for games I couldn't watch I had to set my Fantasy team on the same day the league processes waivers (and no pickups after kickoff of the first game of the week!).

They need to ditch this Thursday Night experiment.

 

[Marc Levin]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

Both are most certainly "pay services" - I don't recall any cable co's giving away programming. I think the cost of each is close or favoring satellite slightly. They put the dish up for free in most cases.NFLN is carried on Directv's basic package whereas most cable companies refuse to put it there and thus have not come to an agreement to carry the channel.

I have to qualify this by saying I was drinking heavily all weekend...but wasn't the NYG/WAS game on NFLN? I coulda sworn I watched it on NBC 4-NY, but it was NFLN. I remember laughing at the "15 home shopping channels but can't watch the NFL" commercials.

Giants on the road or sold out at home must be carried locally, even though NFL-N had the broadcast.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Sidewinder,

I did not intend to imply that the NFL Network was going to be profitable. In fact, I believe they have no prayer of being so. How can they compete with full networks who can absorb the cost of cameras, electronics, vehicles and personnel, and pay for this over a wide range of activities and time. The NFL Network has to do this for 6 to 10 games? It's not possible ...

My comment was intended to show that they are missing the boat and the audience, and they are trying to squeeze the cable and satellite companies [and potential viewers] in order to fund this ridiculous endeavor.

packersfan,

I would have loved to watch the Chief's game on Thanksgiving and the Giants game this past weekend for two of the games shown on NFL Network.

I think that you are grasping at straws though if you are picking on the individual televised games. There were at least 4 dismal games on MNF this year; does that have anything to do with ESPN? I don't think so.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I maintain that we all pay ENOUGH to watch the NFL on the standard networks via the advertising $, why do they need a new model to try and make $ and why do we have to be their investors.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Sidewinder,

I did not intend to imply that the NFL Network was going to be profitable. In fact, I believe they have no prayer of being so. How can they compete with full networks who can absorb the cost of cameras, electronics, vehicles and personnel, and pay for this over a wide range of activities and time. The NFL Network has to do this for 6 to 10 games? It's not possible ...

My comment was intended to show that they are missing the boat and the audience, and they are trying to squeeze the cable and satellite companies [and potential viewers] in order to fund this ridiculous endeavor.

It's the NFL. I don't have hard numbers to back up my assumptions, but I would be suprised if the NFL was hurting for money to throw into their network. I think the owners don't have a problem with losing money over a few years because, long-term, they can see the network as an integral part of the "NFL experience" and, therefore, an eminent cash cow.

The satellite companies jumped on the boat quickly and, IMO, will fare better than the cable companies on this in the long run. Just my speculation and opinion. Anyone subscribing to DirecTV or Dish Network (going on 30 million homes, and steadily growing) gets NFL Network as a part of their standard basic channel package. No extra fees. No bump in price. The problem has been between cable and the NFL and I think the NFL will win out in the end between those two. Again, just my opinion.

Like I said before, Tagliabue is/was no idiot. He didn't fire this thing up on a whim. I believe there is a long-term (10+ years?) plan working here that has only just begun. As the NFL goes, so goes the NFL Network, and I don't see the NFL becoming irrelevant anytime soon.

 

[ericttspikes]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

 

[lions327]

I think THEY should be paying US to watch Bryant Gumbel.

 

[NEUPJ]

Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.It suxor, but it's coming.

That's absurd. Congress is already flipping out and threatening to take measures due to Sunday ticket. If this started, their anti-trust status would be revoked and they'd be screwed.

 

[JuniorNB]

Let's not downplay the fact that the NFL Network started televising their games late in the season.

That eliminates a lot of fantasy football owners who are out of the running for a playoff spot. A week or two latewr, we're into the fantasy playoffs, which means half the owners are eliminated, with more eliminated each week.

I know that for me, personally, once I'm eliminated from my fantasy football playoffs, with the exception of watching my Eagles, my game viewing goes way down until the NFL playoffs.

 

[lions327]

Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.It suxor, but it's coming.

That's absurd. Congress is already flipping out and threatening to take measures due to Sunday ticket. If this started, their anti-trust status would be revoked and they'd be screwed.

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.It suxor, but it's coming.

That's absurd. Congress is already flipping out and threatening to take measures due to Sunday ticket. If this started, their anti-trust status would be revoked and they'd be screwed.

Oh.....okay.

 

[shadow2k]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

 

[Bushead]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

Most common reasons probably are living in an apartment/condo in which you are not allowed to mount the dish or there is no where to mount the dish facing south. Trees blocking the southern sky are also a common issue.In any case, it is still the quickest way for the NFLN to get their programming to the largest potential group as probably 90% of the country could get a satellite if they chose. They only have to negotiate with 1 or 2 companies (Directv & Dish) rather than the dozens or hundreds of cable companies they have to reach agreements with.

Also, I agree with an earlier post that the $8 is completely out of whack. I am pretty sure that it is between $2-3. While still more expensive than 90%+ of the channels, I think ESPN gets around $3 and that is precisely who the NFLN wants to compete with. That is also why they have refused to be carried on a "sports tier". They want to be right next to ESPN on the program guide on basic cable. On the same line, they want to be paid their fee for all cable subscribers not just those that sign up for a sports programming package. Right or wrong that is what is driving this issue more than the cost per subscriber (which I still think is misquoted in the article)

 

[Lutherman2112]

Also, I agree with an earlier post that the $8 is completely out of whack. I am pretty sure that it is between $2-3. While still more expensive than 90%+ of the channels, I think ESPN gets around $3 and that is precisely who the NFLN wants to compete with. That is also why they have refused to be carried on a "sports tier". They want to be right next to ESPN on the program guide on basic cable. On the same line, they want to be paid their fee for all cable subscribers not just those that sign up for a sports programming package. Right or wrong that is what is driving this issue more than the cost per subscriber (which I still think is misquoted in the article)

There is another reason that NFLN wants the cable channels to carry them on the expanded basic tier: subscriber numbers and advertising dollars. By forcing the cable companies to carry their channel on the expanded basic tier, the NFL can claim a higher number of subscribers and charge advertisers a higher rate for the entire year.If the NFLN goes into a sports tier, then you have customers subscribing for only a half a year: Aug-Jan. This would hurt the network’s advertising revenue.That said, if I could pay for the NFLNetwork, I would, and I would subscribe all year.

 

[Big Score]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

Lot of neighborhoods have covenants prohibiting the Dish. Lot of condos the same.

Lot of apartments the same.

In older well established neighborhoods, large trees interfere with the signal.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

As for me, luckily I was in an area where the NFLN allowed my Cable company to place them in a higher sports tier, instead of telling my cable company place them on basic or nothing, like they have with some cable companies.

Paid the xtra $ for pre-season & regular season, then cancelled the NFLN this past weekend. After talking with someone at my cable company, that seems to be the SOP. Lots of folks here cancelling that upper tier package now that the NFL season is over.

 

[Franknbeans]

DirecTV is a pay service though. It costs more than cable and you have to have a dish installed, no?

In my experience it does not cost more than cable

 

[JaxBill]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great. The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

I agree about the overall NFLN product. I enjoy the NFLReplay and TotalAccess. The game broadcasts could use some improvement, but that's to be expected.I think ESPN is just jealous that NFLN's Thursday night pregame >> ESPN's MNF pregame.

 

[brettdj]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

Lot of neighborhoods have covenants prohibiting the Dish. Lot of condos the same.

Lot of apartments the same.

In older well established neighborhoods, large trees interfere with the signal.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

As for me, luckily I was in an area where the NFLN allowed my Cable company to place them in a higher sports tier, instead of telling my cable company place them on basic or nothing, like they have with some cable companies.

Paid the xtra $ for pre-season & regular season, then cancelled the NFLN this past weekend. After talking with someone at my cable company, that seems to be the SOP. Lots of folks here cancelling that upper tier package now that the NFL season is over.

Neighborhood convenants prohibiting the small dish are illegal. condos and apartments are only prevented by balcony space/landlord. A new apartment building behind my house has 3 dishes attached to it.

Trees, OK. But you could cut them down or trim them.

But to get DTV or DISH you need to live in North America.

 

[BigJim®]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

No, it isn't. Aside from it being unequivocal suicide to reduce the league's viewership to the degree PPV would, *any* attempts by the NFL to make their product generally unavailable to the public could possibly result in a repeal of the league's existing antitrust exemption, which stems from the passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Even the existing NFLN-Cable impasse has caused a minor push to strip the league of its exemption. Of course, the product remains generally available so there is no way Senator Specter can get support to get this through at this time, but that would definitely change if the product became generally unavailable. While there may be a handful of teams that would not mind the lifting of the exemption, so they can negotiate lucrative broadcasting deals for their own team, there are far more small-mid market teams who benefit greatly from the NFL's existing pooling of all NFL teams into a package deal with broadcasters.

 

[RKMoney]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

I've been hearing that for the last what 10 or 15 years, if the NFL wants to really fold then go the PPV way, it will destroy them. Honestly, with so many other sports on and so many more channels I really don't see enough people willing to shell out PPV $ to watch a crappy Texans / INDY game. I can honestly say for this entire NFL season, there was not ONE "MUST SEE" game. While baseball has Yanks/Sox, the NFL with parody and so many players changing teams every year, there really isn't any rivalry that's worth paying $ to see. Jets/MIA? Meh. PIT/CLE? Meh.

 

[PMENFAN]

ESPN trying to hurt the repuation of NFLN, not a surprise?

I saw where the link was to, read the first 2 sentences and rolled my eyes also.

I have always been one to defend ESPN, but this is pretty sad that they feel threatened.

This was written by TMQ who was once fired by ESPN actually. He never struck me as an ESPN shill. I think the numbers don't lie, it's sad to think the NFL can't do better than a two bit rerun show regarding ratings.

That two bit rerun shiw was a top rated show, that made it to syndication. Access is a huge issue. You're comparing apples to oranges, because of access. Actually, not you, but TMQ. No, he's not a shill, just somebody who is paid to write a column. A boring column on the business aspects of the NFLN vs. CAble companies is pretty boring, so he takes this angle. Reality is that national broadcasts of NFL football are generally top 5 shows, and usually #1 if the game has any significance. It's why the Network contracts pay the NFL so much, and why advertising during NFL games is one of the costiliest spots in marketing. Lots of eyes on the set. Did the NFL plan to have Time Warner and CableVision exclude them from a large share of the East and West coast? I think not. Have they overplayed their hand? We don't know, because we don't know how many viewers have been lost by the systems. Those that say the NFLN is only 8 games a year have never seen it. It's many games, with the replay. I don't have it this year. but with tape re-broadcast, I saw many games last year in their entirety. Their analysis is better than most shows on cable. It's just better.

***************

TQM picks the lowest rated games to make his point. Fair criticism? I don't think so. Here's a WSJ article that's a little more fair. They report an average audience of 3.1 million on the NFL channel, and they further go on to explain the caveat that local markets receive the game via their local network, friving the average rating down.

Great numbers? No; but the 7.8% market penetration for the first year, in markets where the product was available compare favorably to ESPN Sunday night telecast last year which had a 9.7% penetration in 2005, but that wasn't their first year. And let's be honest, the games this year were less than interesting. They break 'em out week by week, and the KC-Denver game was high. Others weren't.

You can read the whole article here. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116...mod=tff_article

Does the TMQ have a bias? I doubt it. His job is to rankle the ire of readers. If you read his column and go "eh", it's boring. You wont read again. That's what columnists do. Half truths, innuendo, and sometimes outright fabrications to make the story sound worse than it is.

 

[AB in DC]

Trees, OK. But you could cut them down or trim them.

Yeah, I'm sure my county park authority would love it if I started cutting down all their trees.

 

[PMENFAN]

I did not intend to imply that the NFL Network was going to be profitable. In fact, I believe they have no prayer of being so. How can they compete with full networks who can absorb the cost of cameras, electronics, vehicles and personnel, and pay for this over a wide range of activities and time. The NFL Network has to do this for 6 to 10 games? It's not possible ...My comment was intended to show that they are missing the boat and the audience, and they are trying to squeeze the cable and satellite companies [and potential viewers] in order to fund this ridiculous endeavor.

I have to completely disagree. This is an investment. Much like a new owner and a new franchise. They don't expect to recover the money in year one. That would be foolish, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions in investments. But, have no doubt, this was not a whim. This was researched through and through. They will make money on it. It't not just the pro games. They also had the college games, or maybe you missed that. And, this was just the first year of games. Why should you pay? You don't have to. You're free to opt out and limit yourself to the games that are available on your local networks. It's no different than the Sunday Ticket. Every game has been available to DirecTV viewers for years, at a price. It's called market economics. If it's worth the price to you, you pay it. If not, you don't. I don't think most people would be opposed to paying an extra $1 a month for NFLN. Time Warner (et al)wants to lump this with Speed, NBATV, and a mucch of other crap I don't want, and charge me $20/ month. That's what the NFL doesn't want, because at that price, I will not buy it, and the NFL knows that. Time Warner (et al) is arguing both sides of the coin. At the same time they're pretending to protect the consumers, they're trying to line their pockets with the uber profitable premium sports package.

 

[PMENFAN]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

Lot of neighborhoods have covenants prohibiting the Dish. Lot of condos the same.

Lot of apartments the same.

In older well established neighborhoods, large trees interfere with the signal.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

As for me, luckily I was in an area where the NFLN allowed my Cable company to place them in a higher sports tier, instead of telling my cable company place them on basic or nothing, like they have with some cable companies.

Paid the xtra $ for pre-season & regular season, then cancelled the NFLN this past weekend. After talking with someone at my cable company, that seems to be the SOP. Lots of folks here cancelling that upper tier package now that the NFL season is over.

Neighborhood convenants prohibiting the small dish are illegal. condos and apartments are only prevented by balcony space/landlord. A new apartment building behind my house has 3 dishes attached to it.

Trees, OK. But you could cut them down or trim them.

But to get DTV or DISH you need to live in North America.

There are other issues such as High speed internet. Can't get that w/ Dish. Comes bundled w/ Cable. Phone service? Same thing. Local channels? If you live in a major metro area your channels may be carried, but if you don't they likely aren't. Now, you can't even get distant networks anymore through the dish. Then there's the issue of pixel loss during heavy rain or snow. In NY, it snows, usually. Not this year, but usually, in the winter. It's annoying to have to keep going out and clearing the dish. For convenience and economics, cable is just a better media.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Then there's the issue of pixel loss during heavy rain or snow. In NY, it snows, usually. Not this year, but usually, in the winter. It's annoying to have to keep going out and clearing the dish. For convenience and economics, cable is just a better media.

I don't live in an area that gets a ton of snowfall (mountains of SW Virginia) but we get our fair share of precipitation. In the past 3 years that I've had satellite service my "outages" due to weather conditions haven't been any worse than the outages I had with cable service (I can remember a couple cable outages vividly because they happened during two different Survivor finales; I can still see my irate wife fuming at missing most or all of them).My dish is awfully close to vertical, so I'd have to have about a foot of snow on my roof to cover up a significant portion of my dish. I can see how that could be a bigger convenience problem for those living in more northernly climates, but I'd guess a large part of the TV viewing population doesn't have to worry about their dish being buried in snow. A lot of people live in NY, but a lot of people live in FL and TX, too.As far as economics, I know I'm still paying less for my satellite service than I did for cable for a long time. From everything I've seen, pricing is general comparable between satellite and cable, depending on what extras you "require".

 

[ShadowMaster]

Dish vs. Cable TV

Cost - Cable is less. Directv has alot of extra costs. $5/month for each extra TV is a nice chunk right up front. Directv also has equipment costs and activation contracts. Cabel does not.

Equipment - The cable company owns the DVR box and it is provided to you as part of your monthly fee. If it breaks, they give you a new one. If your DTV box goes bad, you must buy another one AND start a new 2 year commitment to have it activated.

Reliability - With most cable lines preinstalled underground these days, cable systems go down way less than DTV does. DTV looses signal on a heavy rain day here in Miami. I can't imagine living in a winter area and getting any sort of picture on a consistant basis.

Sunday Ticket

The costs for this package have exceeded the value IMO. Anything over $170 ($10/week) is too high with the bulk purchase involved. Sure you get 14 broadcasts, but you can only watch 2 of them. One at 1pm and one at 4pm. You still getting commercials and local blackouts. Your really paying for the option to channel surf, and $10/week sounds about fair for that option. $240 is way too high, and the HD option at $320 - f'in forget about that idea. For the record, I've been OFF Sunday Ticket for 2 seasons now and you know what? I live with what the networks provide.

Low NFLN ratings

A couple of factors play in here IMO.

Access - not everyone gets the NFLN right now. They put games on in an effort to increase the pressure on the cable companies to pay up and provide it, but that seems to have backfired at this time. Why?

Quality - The coaches and players have said that the Thursday game is too short to prep for after playing on Sunday. The body is not healed and rested enough. 2 less days to practice make for sloppy play. 2 days less to strategize makes for less interesting plays. It's more vanilla O and base packages due to time constraints, and the scores reflect this.

Schedule - Pro football has mostly always been a Sunday event, with a game on Monday night. In recent years, they keep creeping into Thursdays and Saturdays. I'm not talking about the traditional Thanksgiving Day stuff, but the Thrusday Night season opener, the new XMAS day stuff, and now games on 2 other nights during the week.

Personally, I'm too busy to commit 2 more nights a week to Pro Football, plus Mrs. Shadowmaster would have some issues too. Sunday and Monday night I can do..... Sunday and 3 nights per week, including the prime weekend party night of Saturday - no way. Even young single guys who love football use Saturday nights to go get some tail.