January 28, 2006

NFL Network To Air 8 Regular Season Games: One more network gets in the mix. Hope your cable company carries this station, because the first broadcast will be Dallas vs. Washington....on Thanksgiving!

posted by dyams to football at 07:46 PM - 43 comments

Fortunately for me I get the network, even in HD. I think this is going to be problematic though. I don't know of very many systems that carry NFL network. There are now too many networks covering the league for my taste. It should be interesting. With Dallas/Washington being first does that mean there are three games that day?

posted by chuck'n'duck at 09:00 PM on January 28, 2006

Can someone tell me if the network is the same one as NFL total access?

posted by johnwalker821 at 09:05 PM on January 28, 2006

I agree there are to many networks covering the NFL games now. But I think that the NFL is setting us up in the future to have all of the games on there own network so they can charge a premium price for the games.....knowing that the diehard fan will cough it up.....

posted by johnwalker821 at 09:09 PM on January 28, 2006

That is some serious BULL(****)!!!! Right there. As a college student who lives for football games on a weekend basis, this is not only a disappointment, its 100% outrageous. At least they're keeping the games on their regular stations. Still, this worries me some in the near future. Hopefully the greedy men and women running the NFL decide to not dig into the pockets of their viewers. They make quite a bit as is.

posted by chemwizBsquared at 10:28 PM on January 28, 2006

First off i would like to say that i have a standard digital cable package, and i only get 3-4 pro football games per week. I am a huge football fan and I'm all for any network willing to air games that the major networks aren't.

posted by Dustin81 at 10:34 PM on January 28, 2006

Before we all know it, all sports ( WELL IMPORTANT ONES ) will be on cable. First we had the NBA All star game, now its monday night football, a tradition for decades. These networks and sports leagues are nothing more than giant corperations now. I give it 5 or 10 more years before ESPN and TNT control NFL and NBA games. All we'll have left on network television is hockey, golf, and WNBA games

posted by BossHogg313 at 12:58 AM on January 29, 2006

I can't see how one station could possibly televise (live) all the NFL games that are played every week without drastically changing the schedule. But, if they find a way, and charge for it, I suppose we die hard football fans will find a way to watch them. My other favorite sport to watch is NASCAR, will that be next?

posted by maxkinsella at 05:41 AM on January 29, 2006

This is going to get out of hand. I always thought that MNF was a stretch. I can never seem to watch a whole game as they run so late. When is this going to end? They are doing the samething with College games. Its got to be all about the money..

posted by daddisamm at 07:03 AM on January 29, 2006

Anyone think about how this is going to affect us fantasy football players? Unless changes are made to how roster adjustments, etc are made then this ties you into a Thursday roster lock with any number of players being questionable that early in the week. Just sayin'.

posted by geekyguy at 07:10 AM on January 29, 2006

I have watched and loved football since watching with my dad growing up. I have 3 sons and 5 grandsons and a granddaughter.We get together weekends to watch the games when possible. If not we are on the phone to each other talking about this play or that penalty.I have already noticed this year saying or hearing "I don't get that channel". It can only get worse going down this path.And at what level do we cut off the fans who must buy groceries before cable? I was taught the most important thing in sports is sportsmanship! We will ALL lose alot!! GO BUCS.

posted by newberry at 07:21 AM on January 29, 2006

I am against this all NFL netwprk because it sounds to me that eventually since I am a Giants fan that happens to live in Missouri that I will only be able to see them play when they play St Louis or Kansas City. I will miss the games where they play Dallas or Washingtton or their other conference rivals unless it is on Monday Night football

posted by willegbert at 07:50 AM on January 29, 2006

What does sportsmanship have to do with this? It's business. When I saw the NFL Network coverage of the Super Bowl last year in Jacksonville, I figured it was only a matter of time before the league began pushing out ESPN and the broadcast networks. Taking the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game to their network is the first big shove. As my wife saw while covering the bowl last year, the network gets the best access to the players. Every team has a permanent setup where a player can walk out of the locker room and speak live to Rich Eisen and the other hosts of NFL Total Access. The network also gives the league more control of its message. If something's embarrassing to the NFL, every fan who watches their network for the news gets the NFL-sympathetic spin. The network already covers Super Bowl week better than anybody else. In 10 years, I think all nationally broadcast NFL games will be on the league's network. Unless they buy ESPN.

posted by rcade at 07:51 AM on January 29, 2006

johnwalker821 this should help: NFL Total Access Here is more detail on the NFL Network 8 Games. :o)

posted by Steeler_Fan at 08:37 AM on January 29, 2006

I think the NFL will continue to allow networks to bid on football programs, regular and postseason. They make over a $Billion selling rights to broadcast. Especially now because not everyone has NFL network. But even when it's on everybody's dial, I still gotta think they will double dip and show some games on NFL network, but still sell rights to game packages to highest bidder. If they show all games on NFL Network they would make less $. The concept being that ABC,CBS,FOX,TNT etc. will be (and have been) willing to get into bidding wars for the right to televise the games. Without that competition there's only the value of the ratings and advertising to gain, and the inflated TV contracts to lose.

posted by sumokenobi at 10:37 AM on January 29, 2006

It seems to me like the networks are starting to compete less with each other on league broadcasting rights, and there's so much bouncing around that the publicity value of a move is diminished. Years ago, Fox put itself on the map with the NFC deal. Today, ABC wasn't even willing to fight to keep Monday Night Football.

posted by rcade at 10:56 AM on January 29, 2006

It'a all about the money. I'm fortunate in respect to being able to foot the bill for entertainment. I will not spend a dime on this bull. Strength comes in numbers, and if we band together we can show the networks our displeasure, they may re-think this poor decision. First the price of gas goes up for no reason other than lining the pockets of the few, and now sports entertainment jumps on the bandwagon. It may be time to turn off the game on TV and take the wife to sunday movies!

posted by mustang71 at 11:32 AM on January 29, 2006

I agree that all of the games won't end up on NFL Network. Too much money to lose for them. Thursday and Saturday primetime is a good thing for die hards. I am asuming they won't start Saturdays until we are in December after college is over and the bowls haven't started. It is a business but I fear the fan will be held hostage for the league to make more $$$$. We have seen it over the past half decade or more with Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. I wish there was away to get that without having to have the dish. Good business by DirecTV and really what got them on the map. But I miss the days where it was all "free."

posted by chuck'n'duck at 11:44 AM on January 29, 2006

Once again cooperate greed has chose to victimize the consumer, whom they claim to covet. To the average joe broadcast network has always been the least expensive, most accessible form of entertainment in our society. Because of the accessibility of sporting events many professional participants have become household names with broad recognition universally. Even to those with limited knowledge of the sport . I realize this trend of pay-per-view and premium channels is the future . But from my own point of view this piecemeal approach may just backfire. I could imagine a number of things happening : 1) Although unlikely at first, fans could just loose interest. Growing up in the 60s, 70s and 80s I was a big boxing fan and could tell anyone who would listen who the fighters and the top contenders were in all weight categories and as well as which organization they fought for. Today I can name on one hand all the current boxers I know. 2) Limiting access to games and players would limit marketability. Fans vote with their dollars. If I donít know how good the athlete is because I never get to see them play Iím sure as hell not going to buy his jersey or his shoes or anything else he endorses. And I better not see commercial advertisement on a block of time I paid for! 3) Networks will have to fill the sports vacuum left by this migration. For the first time another league might become a viable reality. Could soccer or rugby fill the slot? I know after a generation passes our youth will be interested in what they watch on a regular basis. I just know as a Dallas fan I feel betrayed. I have watched the Cowboys play every thanksgiving for as long as I can remember. The nfl network is not available here in my local market. The bastards.

posted by kosmicdebris at 12:34 PM on January 29, 2006

Perhaps this is the chance barrel jumping was waiting for. Time for a renaissance! How about it, broadcast networks?

posted by chicobangs at 12:49 PM on January 29, 2006

I must say that as a sports fan that pays little attention to hockey, I enjoyed the NHL on NBC presentation that I watched this Saturday. I think it may actually give more exposure to the sport. In relation to this thread, perhaps if the NFL moves to pay-per-view or premium channel status, soccer could seize the opportunity, as kosmicdebris suggested. Interest has been rising for years in the sport, with youth leagues becoming more prevalent, and it's possible that the states could finally jump in on the trend... But it still won't be bigger than American football (at least not for another generation.)

posted by RScannix at 01:07 PM on January 29, 2006

If it comes to pay preview, I'm out. I think this will backfire on the NFL. How many of us work hard to provide for our families. I can't afford my money to go for even a season without cutting something else. No I won't pay, and I won't die from not seeing the games.

posted by tonya at 01:29 PM on January 29, 2006

Well I personally would find a way to pay if I had too. Sports are a big part of my families entertainment. I am not saying I would like it but I would probably find a way. I don't think they would really do that though because as stated before no one will condone watching commercials on a premium pay channal so they would lose advertising dollars. I also don't think they would give up all the billions the networks pay for the broadcast rights. They have tasted that money and not getting it would really hurt the income of the league.

posted by skydivemom at 02:37 PM on January 29, 2006

We already have commercials on our "pay" (cable) television. Hopefully this will fail miserably, unfortunately it probably won't. When Monday Night Football was moved from ABC Sports to ESPN, the reason ABC wasn't "willing to put up a fight" as rcade stated is because both networks are owned by Disney, why fight yourself? Tagliabue and the NFL are smart, very smart. The NFL would not be doing this if they didn't see a profitable future in it. I think this is a trend that will only spiral into full on pay-per-view in the future. Sad really.

posted by stockman at 03:29 PM on January 29, 2006

If you are like me, then give up on pro football. I will not pay one penny to support a bunch of over paid steroid loaded, knife weilding, gun toting hoods, posing as a sportsman. They have been pampered throughout life because of their athletic ability,they think any thing they do will go unpunished. To hell with them! I get more pleasure watching college games than paying to kiss Tagliabue's a--.30

posted by westcoast at 04:13 PM on January 29, 2006

I forgot to mention that they remind me of prostitutes, they sell their bodies to the highest bidder.

posted by westcoast at 04:20 PM on January 29, 2006

I might not pay to see Shawn Taylor spit on someone but if he was going to shoot someone.......well maybe........nahh, I'll save my money and poke my head out the door. hooray for the national fleecing league.

posted by kosmicdebris at 04:22 PM on January 29, 2006

Comes down to one word....GREED! Forget the little man (us) that made the sport popular. NFL doesnt need us any more, NEWS FLASH!!! I dont need the NFL any more either!

posted by Sasquatch12154 at 04:40 PM on January 29, 2006

If you are like me, then give up on pro football. I will not pay one penny to support a bunch of over paid steroid loaded, knife weilding, gun toting hoods, posing as a sportsman. They have been pampered throughout life because of their athletic ability,they think any thing they do will go unpunished. To hell with them! I get more pleasure watching college games than paying to kiss Tagliabue's a--.30 So where do you think NFL players learn to take steriods, wield knifes, and tote guns? College football has a LOT more of the above than the NFL...by a magnitude of 50 at least!

posted by bdaddy at 05:45 PM on January 29, 2006

If you are like me, then give up on pro football. You gave up on it, but you're taking time to post on a pro football thread? It's like me going on a European soccer thread to post, "I don't like European soccer." My problem with the continuing trend of all these stations getting NFL games is that it becomes more and more difficult for the masses to watch the games. Pro football is extremely popular, but it seems the league wants to keep tinkering and grabbing every last penny until they screw things up. There's going to be a lot of people next Thanksgiving that won't see one of the biggest rivalrys in sports because of this, on one of the biggest football days of the year. Is that really smart?

posted by dyams at 06:22 PM on January 29, 2006

I am disturbed by this announcement, because I don't have DirecTV or NFL network. But I do wonder why the NFL hasn't taken even a moderate advantage of available technology, and gotten into our wallets in a much more palatable way: I have TWO suggestions, that would cost us a bit, but actually give us something in return, that we do not have now: #1. Allow fans to subscribe to THEIR team(s) games! I would NOT pay the ridiculous price for NFL Season Ticket, even if I had DTV. (You can only watch so many games, not 12-15/week for me). I would gladly pay a REASONABLE fee to be able to see every Dallas Cowboy game, just as my neighbor should be able to sign up & see his Steelers, or whatever. And wherever! I hate having to go to sports bars to see 12 of the 'Boys 16 games, here in Kansas. #2: Sell Pay-Per-View games on an A-La-Carte basis! Gotta go to Aunt Hattie's for your parent's 50th anniversary? You should be able to purchase the game YOU want to see that day! Even at HER house! NOT the Browns vs Detroit game (or Cards/Texans, whatever), that no-one cares about! I think a reasonable price range would be $3.99-5.99 per game, (a la carte), and a season pass for your team should cost no more than $59-79. So tell us, would you pay it? If not, what would you pay? (Per game, & per season). Remember now, this is not having to pay for something we always got for free. We have NEVER been able to see our chosen teams complete schedule unless we live in their home neighborhood. This would be a MAJOR improvement for the huge percentage of fans who don't cheer for their local home team. (I am SO tired of the Chiefs being rammed down my throat!). I am sure the technology is there... Your thoughts?

posted by Ol'Jim at 08:59 PM on January 29, 2006

I agree with Ol'Jim, let the fans buy a game/season ticket to the team they like. I would go for that and i am on the low end of the income scale. Nothing like having to watch the Brow...I meam Clowns play another basement team on my Cleveland based national network when the Steelers/Cinci game for the lead of the AFC north was on ...let's see... no channel I could get!!! And I live in the city where the Football HOF is. I would even like to be able to order a la carte. I like some of the west coast rivalries. I hate to say it but I would find a way to pay if I could sit at home every Sunday and watch 3 or 4 football games. I love the game

posted by steelergirl at 09:43 PM on January 29, 2006

WTF are you all talking about? PPV? Seems like the NFL and NBA and MLB are just trying to take the broadcasts in-house and then force their way onto basic cable and satellite so they can suck up more of the ad revenue.

posted by yerfatma at 06:15 AM on January 30, 2006

Pay-per-view would be the absolute best way to ensure the league goes right down the tubes (which is probably why the geniuses running the league will attempt it down the road). The average fan isn't about to pay extra money per game they want to watch. How would that attract new fans to the game? Young kids who want to watch games have to rely on their family forking over money (that could go elsewhere) so they can follow the NFL? Please. It's usually when things get to their money-grubbing worst people figure out something was a bad idea. It ain't broke, so quit trying to fix it.

posted by dyams at 07:17 AM on January 30, 2006

As long as the games being broadcast on the NFL Network are regional games, and not the national ones, AND they are still broadcast on the local station in the markets of the teams involved, there is little or no impact on the everyday fan. They would not have gotten the games any way. The concern for me is that the very first game that NFL Network is broadcasting in a NATIONAL game, one of two Thanksgiving games. I think it will prove to be a poor decision by the league to start this in this way. The viewership numbers for that game will be down, as the only homes able to receive it are in the Dallas and Washington areas and those that have access AND subscription to NFL Network. Unless and until NFL Network is on a mojority of Basic or a least second-tier menus, would you pay national advertising rates to feature your product in very limited markets? If this is about the money, and if I were an exec at the league, I would start small, simulcast games on both their traditional networks and the NFL Network, but, would the big 4 (er, 5 now that MNF is on ESPN) agree to pay the price to have to share the broadcast rights for a game? All in all, until NFL Netwok is in at least 50% of American homes, this is not a wise decision, IMO.

posted by elovrich at 08:59 AM on January 30, 2006

Next on INTERVENTION Paul Tagliabue. What sort of drugs are they taking at NFL headquarters. MNF, horrible decision. The only problem is that there are enough knuckleheads ( myself included ) who have cable to dull the impact. The other problem is that the ramifications of this decision will not be felt for a number of years. However eventually the ratings for football games will be so terrible the only place that will be interested in airing them is going to be NFL network. I can't afford to take my son to a Niners game and next you'll want me to pay to watch it. Yeah right, that $25 - $?'s will get spent on another round of golf

posted by htilammi at 11:48 AM on January 30, 2006

I also agree that all the games will not be put on NFL Network. Too much money to lose. But still the Thanksgiving game was a huge blow. This stuff is traditional. Eat Thanksgiving then sit down together and watch the game. Why do they have to take that away. They just seem to stomp on the little guy that has been so loyal all these years. I have only been a constant viewer for 5 to 6 years but i have come to rely on that Sunday Afternoon Panthers game. But if they ever make me pay for it i wont do it. I'll just get the game re-cap off the internet, untill we have to pay for that.

posted by threemoney21 at 12:57 PM on January 30, 2006

King Kaufman brought up an interesting point today.

"Nobody ever went broke with a business plan that targeted people with money and ignored people without it. But I wonder if some politician, somewhere, will mount an effective argument that if the sports industry is going to gorge at the public trough, in the form of stadium subsidies and tax breaks, it has a responsibility to make its product available to the public. All of it."

posted by cl at 12:57 PM on January 30, 2006

The article says this: ''The league runs the 2-year-old NFL Network, which is in about 40 million homes. The addition of games to its lineup almost assuredly will increase that number.'' But the NFL says this: ''NFL Network is currently available to 65 million U.S. homes via satellite service such as DirecTV and the Dish Network, as well as through the nation's top cable operators including Comcast, Cox and Adelphia.'' I wonder if someone is inflating the numbers a bit?

posted by Steeler_Fan at 07:46 PM on January 30, 2006

I wonder if someone is inflating the numbers a bit? I would say it's more in the wording. The NFL number is all the subscribers who can possibly get the NFL Network, while the article's number is likely the number of subscribers who actually receive this channel.

posted by bcb2k2 at 07:56 PM on January 30, 2006

I want to point out that both of these quotes state "available". Yes NFL Network is "available" on my cable network here. For a price, in addition to what I already pay, which is more than ever, and goes up at ever-increasing intervals. To get NFL Network, "all" I have to do is pay an additonal fee per month for this one channel, or a larger fee for the "sports tier". You know, the one that includes all of the regional fox networks throughout the country, just in case I really want to watch the Florida-Florida State womens' swim teams face off. Now, what I would like to know, how many homes is the NFL Network actually in already? And I mean seperate addresses, not a count of the number of Digital cable boxes are programmed to receive it, as this would tally some homes at 2, 3 or more....

posted by elovrich at 08:12 PM on January 30, 2006

I'd doubt the NFL Network is actually received in many actual addresses. It wasn't too long ago ESPN wasn't even received by many viewers, especially those in big cities. And that, of course, is much, much more established than the NFL Network. This is just a ploy the NFL has to force other carriers to offer the station, or for those who don't subscribe yet to purchase it. And, of course, many will do just that.

posted by dyams at 07:06 AM on January 31, 2006

I know DirectTV has the NFL Network as part its basic package.

posted by willthrill72 at 03:02 PM on January 31, 2006

I live in New York. If I want to get DirectTV, I'll gain the NFL Network, but lose YES Network, which broadcasts most Yankee games. I can only hope my local cable provider decides to drop one of their worthless channels nobody generally watches and pick up NFL Network, or just add the channel. It might happen.

posted by dyams at 03:49 PM on January 31, 2006

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.