This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
AhrnCityPahnder said:3 simulcast national feeds of a of Bryant Gumhole broadcast. Stock up on bottled water and canned food, I give the world about 3 more weeks.
Good call on that armageddon deal. On behalf of all Patriots fans I would like to apologize for the new levels of nausiating over-exposure the common citizenry is being subjected to with 24 hour coverage of all things Patriots on ESPN, ESPNNews, NFL Network, it's even leaking over to network television.
It's embarassing. You expect it on the NFL Network, because they have to fill up a lot of air time. But you have to think that ESPN is causing a lot of people to turn the channel when they could be talking more about Bowl season, NBA, etc.AhrnCityPahnder said:3 simulcast national feeds of a of Bryant Gumhole broadcast. Stock up on bottled water and canned food, I give the world about 3 more weeks.
Think of it this way: How old are those 72 Dolphins guys? 60s? creeping up on 70? We're not too far away from them not being around anymore. If the Pats pull this off we are going to be looking at Teddy Bruschi, Tom Brady and Troy Brown popping champagne for the rest of OUR lives.
It's NBC and CBS, and while that may be a small point about the strike I think the reason it is being simulcast on both channels isn't becasue of the hype but to keep it fair as far among the networks' broadcast rights. There are still new shows to be aired, most of them went down between Thanksgiving and last week, giving the networsk a good 3-4 episode bumper. The lack of new episodes won't start hitting for another few weeks. But no network that has a claim on the show is going to let their competition get a free game to broadcast, so they both are carrying it.
What don't people get, they have to win the SB to match the Miami record. If they with this game they don't shut up anyone.
But it will mark the first time in NFL history that a team went 16-0 through the regular season, and in doing so will most likely set several individual/team records. Even if they don't win the SB, it's still an historic achievement(s).
You can justify getting excited about this game any way you want but in the end the win is meaningless. Sports has so many records that they have lost their glamour. And I am sick of this history crap, you mean this will be part of the 5th grade history curriculum? This is a football game 90% of the world doesn't even care about it.
Now you're going to whip out some real strong arguments huh?
Who's the one reaching for justification? I don't remember football in any of my 5th grade books at all (or any grade from K-B.S.), so why bother watching it at all. The win is only meaningless to unhappy people like yourself bent on proving how aloof you are from enjoying an historic game. Within the context of American culture, sure it's a drop in the bucket. But in the context of football culture, of which we are all a part of, it's significant. It's not the end all be all, and if it was on at the same time as the Seahawks I'd watch it on the smaller no-sound TV in my set up. But since it worked out to be a national game filled with the potential of breaking several long standing records, it has significance no matter how far you try and go to prove otherwise. It has no significance to you, fine, but to the football culture it does. And bringing up silly 5th grade textbooks pretty much shows the desperate lengths you have to go to to try and prove to everyone else how insignificant you think it is.
This was my first thought too - a whole new segment of fans will now hear how bad Gumble is. I'd say he's gone after this.I am just glad it will be on! Cool to see records possibly being broken.Still have to listen to BRYANT GUMBEL though! lol
Wow, it is truly a pleasure to welcome Mercury Morris to FBG!
Thank God for Westwood One.AhrnCityPahnder said:3 simulcast national feeds of a of Bryant Gumhole broadcast. Stock up on bottled water and canned food, I give the world about 3 more weeks.
Thank you, I didn't want to go to that length but the NFL hype machine is out and people are listening.Now you're going to whip out some real strong arguments huh?
I would say wrong. First, this is not a typical game. It is an exceptionally hyped one. Just the fact that it is now being broadcast is a major story (It's been on CNBC all day and made the headline listing on page 1 of the Wall Street Journal)Second, before NFLN, there were always games on broadcast TV on a couple of Tursday nights and on Saturdays in late December. So there was a track record of people watching and ratings; NFLN simply diverted the games to their network. So there was already demand- NFLN just took away access.
No, but in a warped kind of way, I hope they have an inset box with some of the old Miami Dolphins getting ready to pop the cork again and then lose. Seeing the looks on their faces if NE wins would be worth it.
Uh, yeah it's the most important win. It puts the cap on 16-0, that nobody has ever done, and most said would never be done. The consumers will determine it's importance, and I bet it's the highest rated football game ever, save for Superbowls. But, you are correct in that for this season this game is meaningless. It's meaning lies in the historical context of the feat. Somebody mentioned did we see the Miami game? In 1972 the NFL wasn't nearly as popular, nor were there the outlets we have now. If this game were on ESPN, it would have stayed. The NFL owned hte rights to this game which gave them flexability. As for those that say the NFL blinked in their negotiations. They got the game to a national audience without caving to the cable companies. I'd say their objective was met? I'd guess Mad Sweeney works for a cable company. They balk at the $1/ year NFL wants to charge, but don't bat an eye that the cable companies want to charge you $10/ month, and force you to buy a package of channels to line their pockets. The devil is in the details. In looking at the case in a business class, most saw it as the cable companies trying to force an entity to take their terms, because of their marketshare, read anticompetitive practices. They're holding the NFL hostage to get their terms, to raise their profits. The flip side is the NFL trying to leverage fans to their side by having games on their network to increase it's value. Most see this as a non issue. It's their product, and it is their DUTY to maximize it's value.
Bad Christmas? So, you don't want to watch it, and you think it's overhyped? Is that your point? In your opinion, it may be. You have the option not to watch. Most football fans see the context of the all time seasonal scoring record, the seasonal TD record passing and receiving and the first 16-0 season in the history of the league, in a time where the league is engineered for this not to happen, all in a single afternoon to be a historical event. If you don't, fine, don't watch. But, don't pretend you're on a pedestal because you are such a non-fan you don't understand the historical context.
I don't work for a cable company at all and I don't either side in this is the "good guy". They are both interested only in what makes them the most money and neither give a crap about the consumers. I just think the NFL is being crappier in the way they're handling things, by calling out TW in the media and such. The fact that they folded under pressure pretty much shows that they have the weak hand in this deal and I see it as a small win for TW. I think the NFLN has a higher opinion of their product's popularity as a year round channel than it is and their asking price isn't reflective of the reality of their situation. They took games away from the consumers, period.As for your business class model, how is the same thing not both ways? How is what the NFL is trying make the cable companies do not "forcing an entity to take their terms"? TW's product is their programming, why aren't they allowed to exercise their DUTY to maximize it's value? We're talking about a niche channel, not a year round fountain of useful programming.PMENFAN said:
Im diggin' your take, A. Im with the crowd that's grown a little sick of the season long hype and over-exposure, so I can appreciate where youre coming from. But I guess I have no choice here but to hope you end up 'suffering'. Maybe if it happens, it can be repeated by some other team within a few years so it wont seem to wear on the many football fans that are dreading that scenario. But Ill say this. These New England characters have really been pretty humble for the last few years during their run having already won a couple of rings. If it does happen, Id expect a level of humility from these fellas in the coming years that would hopefully lead it to be somewhat admirable. As for a certain segment of the fan base, Im not stepping out on any ledges as to how theyll behave. I suppose Id carry the banner of fan pride with humility as well because it wouldnt seem nessecary at that point to have to further defend them in any way to any degree. The accomplishment would speak for itself. But the bridge is still yet to be crossed.Think of it this way: How old are those 72 Dolphins guys? 60s? creeping up on 70? We're not too far away from them not being around anymore. If the Pats pull this off we are going to be looking at Teddy Bruschi, Tom Brady and Troy Brown popping champagne for the rest of OUR lives.
I'll choose the route with the closest end to the path in site.
I think we all agree that both sides of this thing are greedy. Question though: If the NFL Network was being that unreasonable, isn't it odd that they were able to negotiate deals with 260 other cable companies, AT&T, Verizon, DirecTV and Dish? Comcast and TW are the only hold outs that I know of. Do you think they were offered less favorable deals than the other previously mentioned providers?
Um, no. Their objective was to get it to a national audience via the NFL Network. If they just wanted to get it to a national audience, they could have left things how they were up until a couple of years ago--with the broadcast networks carrying the Saturday (and Thurs. night) games. btw, I totally agree with mad sweeney's take and i don't work for a cable tv company, either.PMENFAN said:
Interesting comment ... * will live on...Im diggin' your take, A. Im with the crowd that's grown a little sick of the season long hype and over-exposure, so I can appreciate where youre coming from. But I guess I have no choice here but to hope you end up 'suffering'. Maybe if it happens, it can be repeated by some other team within a few years so it wont seem to wear on the many football fans that are dreading that scenario. But Ill say this. These New England characters have really been pretty humble for the last few years during their run having already won a couple of rings. If it does happen, Id expect a level of humility from these fellas in the coming years that would hopefully lead it to be somewhat admirable. As for a certain segment of the fan base, Im not stepping out on any ledges as to how theyll behave. I suppose Id carry the banner of fan pride with humility as well because it wouldnt seem nessecary at that point to have to further defend them in any way to any degree. The accomplishment would speak for itself. But the bridge is still yet to be crossed.Think of it this way: How old are those 72 Dolphins guys? 60s? creeping up on 70? We're not too far away from them not being around anymore. If the Pats pull this off we are going to be looking at Teddy Bruschi, Tom Brady and Troy Brown popping champagne for the rest of OUR lives.
I'll choose the route with the closest end to the path in site.
I'm admittedly not up on all the deals/terms/who signed. But, first, just because a deal was done, doesn't mean it was reasonable. ANd Cablevision is a hold out as well, btw.I'd venture to guess that the Comcast/Cablevision/TW combo represents an awful lot of market share; ATT and Verizon are still new to this. And DirecTV had a multiyear exclusive, so they don't belong lumped in with the others.
TW is by far the biggest one of them, bigger than most of them put together. And I believe Comcast has a pay for play deal with NFLN, so they aren't entirely shut out. Not sure about that. I'm a DTV man myself so I never cared about the cable issue too much until the NFL tried to play holier than thou in the media now that they had their big game to use as leverage. And it backfired on them. From what I understand the money the NFL gets is on a per subscriber basis. So the company with the most subscribers (TW) would pay the most. So while the deal may be the same in verbage, in terms of net worth the TW deal is a lot more valuable. Look at it this way. TW has (just for a number) 30 million subscribers to their basic channels. The NFLN wants to be added to that basic lineup at a cost to TW of $1 per subscriber. And adding the NFLN isn't going to bring in a huge surge of new customers. So basically they want TW to start giving them $30 million for a service they are already providing to their customers. It's not going to bring in any new revenue, and if it's on basic the NFLN gets their money for every subscriber whether that subsriber wants or watches the NFLN. Not a very sound or attractive offer for TW. TW wants to put it in a sports tier where people who actually want it will pay a little extra for it, along with fans of other sports who pay for that sport and get NFLN whether they want it or not. Now TW only has to pay a fraction to NFLN of what it would cost them if they added it (at no benefit to themselves) to the programming they already provide. There is absolutely no reason for TW to succumb to their pressure, and if they did then TW would have to raise their rates to offset a sudden $30 million payoff for just adding 1 channel. Will they lose some customers to DTV? Probably, but not anywhere near $30 million worth of customers. Again that 30 mil is just a number I'm throwing out there for the example. Maybe it's because their number of customers is so muchhigher than the other companies that they find it unpalatable. I don't know. I just know that TW doesn't gain a thing by accepting NFLN's terms. If the NFL wants to sell it's product, they have to let the cable company make money too, not lose a bunch or cause them to raise rates.
Thru 2006The NFLN has demanded a fee that would place them as the 4th most expensive cable channel per subscriber
LinkNeither side is exactly looking out for the consumer, but I can see how the cable companies would have little desire to cave on this one.
I can't believe ESPN gets 3 times the next channel. That's utter madness.
