NFL Network losing money so they say. (1 Viewer)

[FavreCo]

The Philadelphia Daily News reports according to several league sources, many of the owners are beginning to sour on NFL Network chief Steve Bornstein. Forget the league's problems with expanding the network's subscriber base. The product itself stinks. Some of their on-air talent - Mike Mayock, Alex Flanagan, Solomon Wilcots, Paul Burmeister and Steve Mariucci - is very good. Others are just plain awful. Jamie Dukes? And what on Earth was Bornstein thinking when he picked Rich Eisen to be the "face" of the network? "We think it's a terrific product and we've heard that from fans," Roger Goodell insisted. Asked whether the network is losing money, Goodell said, "It's not." But a league executive told the Daily News that the network is losing about the same amount of money right now as NFL Europe was when the owners pulled the plug on that a couple of years ago. Said Goodell: "We're going to be patient. We're going to be determined and make sure it gets the broadest possible exposure, which we think is what fans want."

The programming group is full of morons. It's the same crap over and over again. Replaying a game between Minnesota and Chicago from 2007? Who cares. Of course no one is watching that crap. While flipping past I did catch this gem:

It was the highlight of the whole game. But once again, that is all they could come up with? Pathetic. Where's the pro day videos? How about some tape of the combine that we didn't get to see during the live airing. It is that time of year. Draft-time. Nope. Bears vs Vikings 2007. Two teams that were total non-factors in the 2007 season. They wonder why they are losing $?

On top of that, Dukes is an idiot.

 

[Moe Green]

Rich Eisen DOES suck.

 

[msommer]

I feel sorry them.

I really do.

They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.

Boo-hoo.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

By comparison, the MLB Network is a much better product.

 

[Phurfur]

I cancelled because the announcers left the English language at the door. I was afraid I would start speaking like they do.

ESPN isn't much better.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

By comparison, the MLB Network is a much better product.

They have done very well.

 

[One]

Jamie Dukes and Charles Davis are the worst.

I'd like to see some Pat Kirwan and **** Vermeil on NFLN.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Pretty funny they mention Eisen, I think he's great. I'm a fan of Eisen, Woodson, Faulk, Mayock, Davis and more. Jamie Dukes is the only bad guy I can think of, I even like that guy Fran and Sapp.

When NFL total access starts and I see Eisen and Woodson there I know i'm in for a good show, not sure where the hate comes from at all.

 

[Sebowski]

Sapp is the only guy that sucks on Total Access, and unfortunately he will always be on TV.

 

[H.K.]

Said Goodell: "We're going to be patient. We're going to be determined and make sure it gets the broadest possible exposure excluding certain cable companies, which we think is what fans want."

fixed

 

[The Captain]

I really don't understand all the hate. I love Eisen, Mayock, Davis, Woodson, Soto , Faulk and Sapp.

As far as replaying games, what else are they going to do during the off-season? There's not much else going on. Path to the Draft and Total Access are fantastic shows. So much better than ESPN, IMO.

I'll be truly bummed if they shut the network down. Can't wait for the draft. I'll be sitting comfortably in my Man Cave with a nice cold one and I will be completely thankful I do not have to watch one second of ESPN to see the draft take place.

 

[Statcruncher]

The Philadelphia Daily News reports according to several league sources, many of the owners are beginning to sour on NFL Network chief Steve Bornstein. Forget the league's problems with expanding the network's subscriber base. The product itself stinks. Some of their on-air talent - Mike Mayock, Alex Flanagan, Solomon Wilcots, Paul Burmeister and Steve Mariucci - is very good. Others are just plain awful. Jamie Dukes? And what on Earth was Bornstein thinking when he picked Rich Eisen to be the "face" of the network? "We think it's a terrific product and we've heard that from fans," Roger Goodell insisted. Asked whether the network is losing money, Goodell said, "It's not." But a league executive told the Daily News that the network is losing about the same amount of money right now as NFL Europe was when the owners pulled the plug on that a couple of years ago. Said Goodell: "We're going to be patient. We're going to be determined and make sure it gets the broadest possible exposure, which we think is what fans want."

The programming group is full of morons. It's the same crap over and over again. Replaying a game between Minnesota and Chicago from 2007? Who cares. Of course no one is watching that crap. While flipping past I did catch this gem:

I hate to admit I was at the inlaws house this weekend and I watched this replay. I knew there was a pretty good chance they would lose again and still watched it. My name is Statcruncher, I'm a Bears fan, and I have a problem.

 

[Banger]

They totally overplayed their hand and thinking they could repeat the ESPN model and force it on cable and satelitte is a joke. I'm a big football fan and I barely watch it. During the season I watch it a bit but they need more than a few games a year to have a realistic product.

 

[valhallan]

They might make money if they sold advertising time to other companies instead of running NFL network commercials during the breaks.

 

[Bonzai]

I watch it all the time.

 

[twitch]

I think theyre starting to suck a little. Theyve become too much like ESPN. Too much of the crap negativity stories over and over - Plaxico, TO, McJayGate, the Dallas saga, the always ridiculous Chad "OchoCinco", and whatever else the hot crap stories of the moment are. And personally, I think they just have too many former players. We obviously all love to hear the expertise and analysis shared by these guys, when theyre effectively able to do it, but I really wish theyd just pick a smaller handful of the best ones and stick with 'em. Im sure everyone's opinions vary on who those guys should be. For my money, give me more Terrell Davis and Paul Burmeister. And ALOT more Lindsey Soto and Alex Flanegan.

Theyre obviously having greater issues than just the on-air personalities and the negative stories. The big business stuff and programming choices are largely over my head. But the product Im viewing on my spare time isnt as nice as it was 2 years ago. But the network is still really young, so its bound to take some lumps as it grows.

 

[VTjkru]

NFL Network would be well served to do a "fantasy hour" block. They could do one half hour on guppy material and the other half hour on shark material. The guppy show can have your usual mainstream media chit chat about fantasy, the stuff that appeals to casual players. The second half should be real deep insight.

Id watch it!

 

[bcr8f]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. <_< Unreal.

 

[Phurfur]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

Although I cancelled NFLN, Cox Cable was charging $5 for the sports package that had NFLN.

 

[zadok]

FWIW, they have been losing money since its inception.

And for all its flaws, it still rules.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

Although I cancelled NFLN, Cox Cable was charging $5 for the sports package that had NFLN.

Exactly. Where do you get $75?

 

[HellToupee]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

if they charged Comcast .45 there would be no problem. The charge MORE than .45. Get the story straight and do some proper fact findingand the Comcast package is 5 bucks for the NFL,MLB,NHL, NBA , college sorts and Turner Classic movies

 

[Novice2]

And what on Earth was Bornstein thinking when he picked Rich Eisen to be the "face" of the network?

It's good to be rich?Haterz

 

[zanti8]

nfl net is my favorite channel . i like all the show guys except for jammie dukes . i really enjoyed the 6 nfl lost treasures last week . seeing some footage of keysar ? ( old san fran) stadium and old football i always enjoy . i wish they showed old games more . not highlites but complete games . it was awsome when they showed 2 super bowls, original broadcast form of 70s steelers before the super bowl . i wish they showed nore old games . old complete original broadcast games . they should show "monday night classics" off season on monday nights . my fav old player is jim brown but i have only seen highlights . i would enjoy some complete games with him on the browns . games from 63 when they won the title . old packer games besides the ice bowl . old afl games would be awsome too since i started watching in 1970 when the merger happened so never saw the seperate league ...i think the fantasy football is a good idea for a show . espn has really gone down in my book . they have the worst announcer in cornhieser imo . i never watch espn anymore except monday night football . i tried listening to radio and turning tv sound off while watching, but the radio is a second ahead of the tv picture and that was worse .

 

[Jason Wood]

I have it on in the background quite a bit but it's reminiscent of ESPN 20 years ago. Their original programming is replied over and over again, and the other stuff is filler. There's no way the network is making money right now. With ad rates plummeting with the economy, it's hard for any network to make money right now, much less a network that was a fringe one prior to the deep recession. For those wondering if NFL Network makes money...turn it on and watch how many of the 'ads' are house ads. As I type this, there have been five ads, EVERY ONE house stuff. Oh, and now comes a United Way commercial.

Truth is, they figured they would be able to steadily ramp original programming but that requires two things...a broader subscriber base AND better ad revenues. Now, realistically, they are at the mercy of the NFL owners willing to run this as a loss leader for a bunch of years and hope they can position for a turnaround as ad rates turn up again.

 

[cstu]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

if they charged Comcast .45 there would be no problem. The charge MORE than .45. Get the story straight and do some proper fact findingand the Comcast package is 5 bucks for the NFL,MLB,NHL, NBA , college sorts and Turner Classic movies

I've found various numbers between 70-90 cents, with 61 cents listed on the Wikipedia page. They used to charge 20 cents per subscriber in 2006. For comparison, CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC get 47, 40, and 15 cents per subscriber, respectively.

 

[zed2283]

I watch it all the time.

Same here. And Eisen is great. Everyone else is pretty good too, except that idiot Sapp.

 

[Kiddnets]

Do they show old drafts? A no brainer programming would be to replay the past 20 drafts in the days up to the real NFL draft - they don't need to show the whole thing but the 1st 2 rds with some cool highlights from the rest on key players would be great programing - as a Jet fan I get to relive Blair Thomas...passing on Marino....Favre going 1 pick ahead so they draft Browning Nagle.....on second thought maybe we skip it!

 

[texasbirdfan]

NFL Network's Access show is a must watch for me every day. I can tivo it and speed through in about 40 minutes. I prefer it to ESPN. I think Jamie Dukes has some great insight and his humor and outrageous demeanor is on purpose for a little spice- less contrived than Sapp's. It has come a long way and the 3 month regular Path to the Draft is top notch.

I suppose if you spent an hour on footballguys.com every day instead you could sift through what you want to read or hear and be happier....

 

[puckalicious]

Pretty funny they mention Eisen, I think he's great. I'm a fan of Eisen, Woodson, Faulk, Mayock, Davis and more. Jamie Dukes is the only bad guy I can think of, I even like that guy Fran and Sapp. When NFL total access starts and I see Eisen and Woodson there I know i'm in for a good show, not sure where the hate comes from at all.

I love Eisen. I probably wouldn't watch it if he wasn't there.I still don't know where NFLN gets off with charging so much to carry the games to the point that cable co's just don't carry the games. I love Total Access, but if it takes a failed NFLN to get some games back on regular TV I'm all for it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I think one of the flaws for NFLN is that they don't employ enough former coaches or front office types. Most of their analysts are former players who haven't even thought about coaching.

So you get idiots like Jamie Dukes who offer no real insight whatsover because he's never been part of the off-season planning and team building process. To me, when guys like Casserly and Lombardi share their insights, that's when my ears perk up.

You don't have to have been the greatest GM or Coach in the world to be good at TV. But honestly, for NFL print news and insight I now devoutly read National Football Post because at least it provides some good solid analysis based on experience.

If you want to use ex-players, use them during highlight shows and even player spotlight pieces.

Another thing that I don't get. If ESPN Classic can show a rodeo from 1988, why can't NFL Network simply show a game from 1988. It doesn't have to be Favre's first comeback or Adrian Peterson flies in the Windy City. Just a game...I would think they have access to it since like you know...they own the product.

 

[Bushead]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

if they charged Comcast .45 there would be no problem. The charge MORE than .45. Get the story straight and do some proper fact findingand the Comcast package is 5 bucks for the NFL,MLB,NHL, NBA , college sorts and Turner Classic movies

I've found various numbers between 70-90 cents, with 61 cents listed on the Wikipedia page. They used to charge 20 cents per subscriber in 2006. For comparison, CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC get 47, 40, and 15 cents per subscriber, respectively.

The thing I always find odd though is that there is no outrage about the way that Disney leverages providers with ESPN and/or Disney channel. As a cable/sat operator, if you want the priveledge of broadcasting ESPN @ around $3.80 you also need to buy ESPN2 @ around $1.05 and ESPN news & ESPN Classic for smaller fees. I believe that most of these channels are on a standard/basic tier. Disney uses this tactic with many of its channels - want Disney chanel @ $.95? you will be taking ABC family with it @ .75. Lifetime and A&E run about $.40 each and E! is about $.50, all often part of the Disney "package" and placed on a standard tier of channels. ESPN/Disney is far more damaging to the average consumer's wallet than NFLN could come close to.Not to get off the topic, but I guess my point is, is NFLN < ESPN2? or NFLN < ABC Family. Why do cable co's have no problem with their customers paying over a dollar for ESPN2 on a basic tier? While the NFLN is a seasonal channel to some extent, there is no denying that the live games they carry have turned out some of the highest cable ratings of all cable shows over the last 2 years. The draw of channels/sports like MLB, NHL and NBA are not even on the same planet as the NFL.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I think one of the flaws for NFLN is that they don't employ enough former coaches or front office types. Most of their analysts are former players who haven't even thought about coaching.

So you get idiots like Jamie Dukes who offer no real insight whatsover because he's never been part of the off-season planning and team building process. To me, when guys like Casserly and Lombardi share their insights, that's when my ears perk up.

You don't have to have been the greatest GM or Coach in the world to be good at TV. But honestly, for NFL print news and insight I now devoutly read National Football Post because at least it provides some good solid analysis based on experience.

If you want to use ex-players, use them during highlight shows and even player spotlight pieces.

Another thing that I don't get. If ESPN Classic can show a rodeo from 1988, why can't NFL Network simply show a game from 1988. It doesn't have to be Favre's first comeback or Adrian Peterson flies in the Windy City. Just a game...I would think they have access to it since like you know...they own the product.

I agree. I would watch any close game from years ago - especially if I don't remember the outcome. I love the commentators - especially Sapp and Deion. They are just fun to listen to, I don't care if they have insight or not.

 

[Fiddles]

big fan of nfl net

could do without dukes and sapp though

love when path to the draft has both mayock and davis on

 

[Bankerguy]

How can you not like Rich Eisen?

There are some who are annoying at times (Dukes and Deion).

Woodson is OK for TV-I just think I hate him in general.

 

[zanti8]

you could have each day = a decade re-air of a game shown twice . 1-4 am and again 1-4 pm :

something like :

monday = classic 1950 game

tues-60

wed-70

thurs-80

fri-90

sat - 00

sun early years (20-50)

have 1 hour of nfl films daily at same time am/pm

this would still allow tons of time for replay, total acces and draft path shows etc to show and be repeated plenty .

 

[Dodge]

Eisen is cool.

They're programming ideas are terrible. Maybe it's a budget thing.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I don't get all the hate for Jamie Dukes. He's one of the bets things NFLN has going for it. Doesn't matter how bad a day I'm having, once I get home and see Jamie Dukes and his big grin is on NFL Access, it just brings a smile to my face.

And Lindsay Soto is incredible in every sense of the word.

During the season, I love NFL Replay and the other realtime scoring show (can't think of the name).

They're offseason lineup does need some major work. I don't understand why they show the same replay of old games (i.e. GB-Cincy) over and over. They need to mix it up more. The only cost to the NFL in showing those old games is the editing, right? There's no reason that they shouldn't be showing 2 or 3 different old NFL games every day of the week.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I'd watch if they showed more classic games (uncut versions, without stupid running commentary) and old NFL Films specials. You can never get enough Facenda.

 

[PahtyTom]

the fact that they dont broadcast their studio shows and segments in HD is a major flaw imo...MLB network is doing it the right way

 

[Keepers]

While I am tired of Eisen, and can't stand Sapp (Dukes is getting there too although I liked him when he first started the NFL Network gig), guys like Mayock, Mooch, Woodson, Faulk, TD, etc. still make the NFL Network one of my favorite stations.

Admittadely, I mute Sapp and sometimes Dukes, but have come to terms that it doesn't matter if it is the NFL Network, ESPN, FOX, or which ever, it is inevitable that there are some characters that can't stand (suppose they must appeal to some audience, still trying to figure out the audience for Sapp though, he is vying with Michael Irving as the worst sport jock announcer I can recall).

 

[T Bell]

Maybe Obama can give them some bailout money.

 

[golfguy]

mlb network rocks

nfl is okay.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I actually enjoy it and Mayock is good. I think people are critical in general, but I like the NFL network.

 

[dpeease]

NFL Network = WIN

 

[loose circuits]

they could do a lot more things to attract viewers. More Lindsay Soto would do it for me

Wonder if Pat Kirwan and Tim Ryan will get their own show (they deserve it). Sirius NFL Radio make more money than NFLN?

 

[puckalicious]

the fact that they dont broadcast their studio shows and segments in HD is a major flaw imo...MLB network is doing it the right way

Call your cable operator.... it's in HD for me.

 

[domvin]

what else is there to watch for us fantasy geeks?

The Pro Days....showing em, is a good call

 

[benbadman]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

Although I cancelled NFLN, Cox Cable was charging $5 for the sports package that had NFLN.

Exactly. Where do you get $75?

Comcast charges $75 a month to get NFL network in HD. Or they did the past 2 seasons at least.In layman's terms, to get the basic digital cable + high def channel access + sports package... all of that together is necessary to see NFL network in HD, and that will cost you $75 a month buddy.There's no "NFL package" where the cable company will sell you Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN and NFL all in HD.... but if there was they'd keep my business in the offseason!

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I feel sorry them.I really do.They provide a sucky product, make sure not too many people can actually watch it and then they lose money.Boo-hoo.

NFLN charges 45 cents a subscriber. Cable wants $75 for package to get it yet you guys defend slimy cable companies. Unreal.

Although I cancelled NFLN, Cox Cable was charging $5 for the sports package that had NFLN.

Exactly. Where do you get $75?

Comcast charges $75 a month to get NFL network in HD. Or they did the past 2 seasons at least.In layman's terms, to get the basic digital cable + high def channel access + sports package... all of that together is necessary to see NFL network in HD, and that will cost you $75 a month buddy.There's no "NFL package" where the cable company will sell you Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN and NFL all in HD.... but if there was they'd keep my business in the offseason!

It's pretty obvious to everyone else here that you should only count the sports package in your calculation. If you don't understand why, I can't really help you.